Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 3007 1971 SLD 3007 = 1971 PCRLJ 15
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 1969, decided on 23rd September 1970.
Presented By: Muhammad Afzal Khan, J
Manzoor Hussain Sail for Appellant. Major Mufti Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Akbar for the State.

ALI-Convict-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302, 304

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)  302 read with S. 304, Part 1 Murder - Grave and sudden provocation - Sentence- Accuse confessing to have caused death of his wife and her paramour being deprived of power of self-control on finding them in compromising position-Accused, held, rightly convicted under S. 30A Part I-Sentence, however, reduced to period of imprisonment already undergone (over 11 months). The State v. Akbar P L D 1961 Lah. 24 rel.   JUDGMENT Ali (30) and five other persons were tried by the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur at Jhang, for the murder of :- (a) Mst. Jindo (wife of Ali), and (b) Ahmad;(her paramour), on the night between 11th and 12th October 1967, at about 9-00 p.m., in the Abadi of Chak No. 250/J. B., District Jhang. A number of witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. Ali, in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C., urged that he committed the murders out of Ghairat under grave and sudden provocation. The co-accused, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution witnesses. Accepting the statement made by Ali, he convicted Ali under section 304, Part 1, P. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The co-accused were, however, acquitted. 2. Ali filed Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 1969, questioning his conviction and sentence. It was pleaded that since there was no corroboration, the learned Sessions Judge should not have accepted and acted upon the statement made by him (Ali). It was finally urged that the sentence awarded was very severe. 3. By order dated the 19th December 1969, the appeal was admitted in order to examine the question of sentence alone. 4. I have heard Mr. Manzur Hussain Sial, learned counsel for the appellant, and Messrs Muhammad Akhtar and Nazar Muhammad Mufti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5. Ali, in his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C., at first, denied the prosecution version. At the end he made the following statement :- "I had two wives. My brother Ahmad came tome when I was sitting in my house where my wife Mst. Bakhi lived. He demanded sonic money froth me. He had to go to his fields. He had…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register