Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHER NAWAZ KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Jawaid Nawaz Khan GandapurAzhar Yousaf Khan
P L D 1999 Peshawar 24
P L D 1999 Peshawar 24
Before Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J
SHER NAWAZ KHAN‑‑‑Appellant
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 1998, decided on 4th November, 1998.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Grave and sudden provocation‑‑‑Accused murdered his wife and another person with whom accused had seen her in a compromising position‑‑‑Both the deceased were killed mercilessly with a "Bailcha"‑‑‑Trial Court had sentenced accused to imprisonment for 10 years for each murder and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provocation, however, grave could not give a person an unfettered licence to kill or that the same be treated as an excuse to murder as many people as he liked‑‑‑No illegality or material irregularity having been committed by 'Trial Court, conviction and sentence were upheld.
Azhar Yousaf Khan for Appellant.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellant heard at length. Record of the case, placed on file, perused carefully.
2. After having gone through the contents of the F.I.R. recorded at the instance of the appellant/accused, the statements of the P.Ws. recorded on oath and the judgment of the trial Court, I am of the view that the appellant, charged for having committed double murder including his wife, vide F.I.R. No.24, dated 29‑5‑1997 registered at Police Station, Mor Kahu, Tehsil Mor Kahu, District Chitral, has already been dealt with great leniency by the Sessions Judge/Zaila Qazi, Chitral (Mr. Ziauddin Siddiqi). The Sessions Judge has sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years for committing the murder of his wife and for another 10 years for having committed the murder of Sultan. Additionally, he has been sentenced to pay total fine of Rs.50,000. However, he has also been given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
3. A detailed scrutiny of the record would reveal that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the Sessions Judge in awarding the sentence which has been impugned before this Court. Beside this the perusal of the record would further show that the retaliation of the appellant/accused was in no way proportionate to the provocation because he had himself, while recording the F.I.R., mentioned:‑‑
4. Later on, however, the appellant changed his stance and stated that he had lost his cool because he saw his wife in a "compromising position" with deceased Sultan and accordingly killed both of them on the spot with a "Bailcha".
This, to my mind, is a definite improvement in the stand taken by the appellant/accused for having killed two persons mercilessly with a "Bailcha". It tray be observed here that provocation, however, grave cannot give a person an unfettered licence to kill or that the same be treated as an excuse to murder as many people as he likes.
6. In the circumstances I am of the view that this appeal is not only, without any substance but i~ also frivolous and accordingly dismissed in limine.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./234/P Appeal dismissed