1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been directed against the judgment, dated 13-8-2001 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, through which the Criminal Appeal No,98 of 1996 filed by the petitioner, and Murder Reference No,188 of 1996 sent by the trial Court to the High Court under section 374, Cr.P.C. And also criminal revision filed by the complainant for payment of compensation were disposed of.
2. ' The petitioner was charged for committing the murder of Dr. Saeed Ahmed, Incharge Rural Health Centre, Tamman, District Chakwal. The occurrence took place at 6-15 p.m. On 7-7-1995 within the premises of Centre and the case was registered at 7 p.m. On the same day through F.I.R.Exh.PG/1, on the basis of statement Exh.PG made by Hafiz Saleheen, Chowkidar of the Rural Health Centre before Guizar Ahmed, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Tamman.
3. 'The Investigating Officer on completion of the investigation, challaned the petitioner to face the trial for the charge of committing murder of Dr. Saeed Ahmed before Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang. The prosecution in addition to the two eye-witnesses namely, Hafiz Saleheen (complainant) and Muhammad Iqbal, also produced Ahmed Khan as witness of the recovery of Churri and Dr. Rahim who conducted autopsy on the dead body and the police officials who remained associated with the investigation. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. While admitting the occurrence, pleaded that he under grave and sudden provocation caused injuries to the deceased. The learned trial Judge having found the petitioner guilty Of the charge sentenced him to death under section 302(a), P.P.C. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence and murder reference sent by the trial Court under section 374, Cr.P.C. Were disposed of by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawlapindi Bench, vide impugned judgment. Whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court was maintained. The Criminal Revision No,57 of 1996 filed by Mst. Sharfan Bano was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs,25,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C, and in default thereof he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
4. ' The relevant facts in the background as contained in the 'F.I.R. Are that Khalid Mehmood petitioner was employed in the Rural Health Centre, Tamman, Distinct Chakwal as Ambulance driver whereas Hafiz. Saleheen was serving as Chowkidar in the Centre and Doctor Saeed Ahmed, Medical Officer (deceased) was incharge of the Centre. Prior to the occurrence the petitioner while proceeding on leave parked the ambulance in the garrage and left the Centre without handing over the keys of the garage and the vehicle to any one in the Health Centre. The deceased, thus sent a message to the petitioner for delivery of the keys and in consequence thereto the petitioner while coming to the Health Centre at 6-15 p.m. On 7-7-1995 inquired about Doctor Saeed Ahmed from Hafiz Saleheen, Chowkidar who alongwith Muhammad Iqbal was present in the courtyard of the Health Centre. The petitioner was told by Hafiz Saleheen that doctor Saeed Ahmed was at his residence which was situated in the same premises. The petitioner went to see doctor Saeed Ahmed at his residence and after a short while, the petitioner and doctor Saeed Ahmed while talking loudly, came in the courtyard of the Health Centre. Dr. Saeed Ahmed was demanding the, keys of the vehicle and garrage from the petitioner whereas petitioner was saying that the keys were already given by him to one Khalid, a clerk in the District Health Office, Chakwal. During the course of this conversation they exchanged hot words and Khalid Mahmood suddenly caught hold of doctor Saeed Ahmed and Hafiz Saleheen made an attempt to overpower the petitioner but he while taking out Chhuri from his Dub, caused successive blows to Doctor Saeed Ahmed on the sensitive part of his body. Dr. Saeed Ahmed on sustaining the injuries succumbed to the same at the spot. The accused was arrested, on the same day and he while in police custody led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri used by him as weapon of offence. The following injuries were found on the person of deceased in the postmortem examination:-- "(1) An incised wound .2 c.m. X 1 c.m. On left frontal chest 4 c.m. From midline, 3 c.m. Blow left nipple.
(2) An incised wound 3 1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left lateral chest 6 c.m. Left from injury No, 1.
(3) An incised wound 1 c.m. x 5 c.m. On left laternal chest 5 c.m. Below injury No,2.
(4) An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left lumber region laternal side .22 c.m. Below from left axilla.
(5) An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left lumber region 3 c.m. Behind injury No,4".
5. ' Injuries Nos.1 and 2, as per opinion of the doctor, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. ' The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has pleaded as under:--- "On 7-7-1995 at 6-00 p.m. I reached Rural Health Centre, Tamman, where I found Dr. Saeed Ahmed walking in the courtyard of Rural Health Centre, Tamman. Prosecution witnesses Aehsan Ahmed Farooqi, Hafiz Sohaleen and Muhammad Iqbal were not present. Dr. Saeed Ahmed deceased on seeing me started abusing me. He abused me by saying that you are a son of bitch and son of a bad character mother. And he also asked as to why you took the keys with you and why you remained absent after 5-7-1995. I requested Dr. Saeed Ahmed not to use such type of language. I also became provoked by the abusing of Dr. Saeed Ahmed. Dr. Saeed Ahmed wanted to beat me.
7. During this time Dr. Saeed Ahmed took out a knife from his pocket and threatened to kill me and he will also take cut my intestine. Both of us grappled with each other. The knife fell down from the hands of Dr. Saeed -Ahmed. I in order to save myself picked up the knife from the ground and gave knife blows to Dr. Saeed Ahmed in self-defence under sudden provocation. Due to knife blows Dr. Saeed Ahmed fell down and died."
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the deceased by using abusive and derogatory language called the petitioner as son of bitch and a bad character mother and in retaliation under grave and sudden provocation while picking up the knife belonging to deceased with which he made an attempt to cause damage to the petitioner and which fell on the ground during the grappling, the petitioner caused injuries to the deceased. The learned counsel contended that while putting the defence version in juxtaposition with the prosecution case, the same would appear to be more plausible and appealable to mind which was seeking ample support from the prosecution evidence and the attending circumstances. The learned counsel concluded that in the given circumstances, it would not be a deliberate act of committing the murder punishable under section 302(a) or (b), P.P.C. And would hardly fall within the purview of section 302(c), P.P.C. The learned counsel next submitted that prosecution evidence was not of the standard to bring the case within the ambit of section 302(a), P.P.C., therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner under section 302, (a), P.P.C. Was not sustainable. The learned counsel, however, conceded that if a case does not fulfil the requirements of section 302(a), P.P.C. The offender can be awarded sentence of death as Tazir under section 302(b), P.P.C. The High Court confirmed the sentence of death awarded to the petitioner with following observations:-- ' "According to him, the deceased had not only hurled filthy abuses to him, but also offered incivilities, which became intolerable for him. He dissuaded the doctor not to behave that way round, but he did not desist from so doing. Doctor took out a knife from his pocket and launched an attack upon, him. He resisted and the knife fell down. He picked upon the very knife and then inflicted injuries on his person in exercise of right of self-defence. We have with full care and devotion considered this aspect of the matter. The deceased was serving as a doctor in the Rural Health Centre. He was an educated personality and it is not expected of a doctor to depict this type of attitude with his subordinate. The whole fault devolves upon the appellant. He had taken away keys of the vehicle (ambulance) and garrage with him and then absented himself from duty for a number of days. Ambulance is required in the hospitals round the clock. This must have created maximum inconvenience not only to the hospital authorities but also to the public. Doctor was justified to send him a message calling upon him to deliver back the keys. The possibility that doctor admonished him for cross-negotiation on his part, cannot be ruled out and the same should not have been taken by the appellant in a bad sense. There is not atom's weight of evidence that the doctor either hurled filthy abuses to the appellant or attacked him with a knife, which he was retaining in his pocket. Doctor did not enjoy such reputation. Had he been a man of this type, then the Investigating Officer must have taken notice of it and commented upon his reputation and behavior in his final report. Theory of launching an attack by the doctor with knife is not well-founded. It is neither natural nor rings true. If the appellant was successful in picking up the knife, then he could have easily deterred the doctor not to make an advance towards him and would have run away or tried to save the situation. There was no justification with him to deal so many injuries with Chhurri on his person. The story of appellant is a pack of lies, highly unnatural, improbable, absurd, ridiculous and fantastic one. The appellant to avoid legal consequences of heinous crime committed by him invented a fictitious tale of occurrence, but tailed to substantiate it in any manner. We discard the defence version being wholly untrue and fallacious."
9. ' We anxiously, with the help of learned counsel have gone through the evidence in detail and also considered the contentions raised by him in support of this petition. We have not been able to find out any exception to the view of the matter taken by the learned trial Judge and the Appellate Court. The occurrence is admitted which was seen by the entirely independent and disinterested witnesses. The petitioner pleaded that the injuries were caused by him to the deceased with knife whereas upon arrest on the same day, he got recovered blood-stained Chhurri of the size of 9 inches and as per report of the Chemical Examiner, it was stained with human blood. The size of injuries on the person of deceased would also indicate that the same were not caused by an ordinary knife.
10. Muhammad Iqbal having friendly relations with Hafiz Saleheen had gone to the Centre to see him whereas Hafiz Saleheen was on duty in the Centre, therefore, they both were natural witnesses and their presence at the spot was not deniable nor it was mere by chance and further the defence has not challenged their presence at the spot. The witnesses were entirely independent and disinterested and their statements were found corroborated inter se and also by the confirmatory evidence in the form of recovery of Chhurri and medical evidence. The petitioner while taking away the keys of ambulance with him definitely caused inconvenience to the doctor who being incharge of the Centre was justified in reprimanding the petitioner for his negligence and the petitioner in retaliation while behaving desperately took the life of the doctor. This is notable that there was no grudge or enmity of the petitioner with the deceased or any other motive or reason to commit his murder except the altercation taken place with the deceased before the occurrence. We may observe that mere feeling of insult due to the reprimand by the deceased, was not an excuse to go to the extent of taking his life. The circumstances under which the incident took place would show that petitioner as a result of the altercation with the doctor was revengeful and consequently with the intention to kill caused successive injuries on the sensitive part of the body of deceased in a highly brutal manner and done him to death at the spot. The reprimand by the doctor to the petitioner for his negligence may be an element of provocation of a smaller decree but it would not provide any justification to commit murder and plead mitigation for lesser penalty.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons, we having found no ground either for acquittal of petitioner or for lesser penalty are not inclined to grant leave in this petition and consequently, while maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court, dismiss this petition. Leave is refused.