Hizbullah Vs The State & another

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

Cr. R No. 312-P/2023

Hizbullah Vs The State & another

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 02.10.2025

Petitioner by: Mr. Ijaz Muhammad, Advocate.

The State by: Mr. Asad Jan Durrani, AAG.

Respondent by: Mian Arshad Jan, Advocate.

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.- Through this criminal revision, the petitioner Hizbullah, has challenged the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Nowshera dated 04.12.2023 seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent/ accused in case FIR No. 574 dated 08.10.2020 registered under sections 302 PPC read with section 15-

AA, at Police Station Akora Khattak, District Nowshera.

2.Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Hizbullah, while present in the casualty ward of QHAMC, Nowshera, alongwith the deceased, who was then injured, namely Mufti Ghulam Hussain, reported the matter to the local police stating that upon receiving information that Ghulam Hussain was lying injured at the place of occurrence, he reached the spot and found him injured, having been fired upon by unknown persons, as a result whereof he sustained injuries to his head and left hand. Consequently, the case was registered against unknown accused. It is pertinent to mention that subsequently the injured succumbed to his injuries; therefore, Section 302 PPC was added to the case. It is interesting to note that on 08.10.2020, one Mst. “A” appeared before the Court of competent jurisdiction, recorded her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C., and charged her own father/respondent, namely Naushad Khan, with

having caused the murder of the deceased Mufti Ghulam Hussain

3.After facing a full dressed trial, the respondent/accused was convicted under section 302(c) PPC to seven years simple imprisonment and under section 15 AA to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default whereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B CrPC was also extended to the respondent/accused.

4.Arguments heard and available

record gone through.

5.There are tragedies which wound individuals, and there are tragedies which wound the conscience of a community. The present occurrence belongs to the latter category. It is not confined to the loss of a human life; rather, it unsettles the very moral foundation upon which relationships of reverence and trust are constructed. The deceased was not an ordinary citizen. He was a religious teacher, one who, by virtue of his

vocation, occupies a station of moral ascendancy and spiritual guidance. The girl, on the other hand, was his student. Between a teacher and a pupil, particularly within the sacred precincts of religious instruction, there exists a bond not merely academic but spiritual, nurtured by confidence, protected by honour, and sanctified by faith. It is this elevated perception that persuades parents to entrust their children to such institutions, believing that those who impart divine knowledge will themselves be the embodiment of moral rectitude. Measured against these settled expectations, the attending circumstances of the present case are profoundly disturbing. The deceased, who was affiliated with the well-known religious seminary, was found in a state wholly inconsistent with the dignity and decorum ordinarily attached to his revered office, bereft of clothing at the place of occurrence at the time of firing, and in the same condition when removed and shifted to the hospital. This Court places the observation not with any intent to sensationalize the matter, but to underscore the gravity of the surrounding

circumstances which have shaken public confidence. Such an incident does not remain confined within the walls of a single house. Its reverberations travel far beyond, unsettling the collective trust of parents who send their children for religious education with the belief that the guardians of such institutions stand nearest to moral and spiritual excellence. When the very pedestal upon which confidence is built appears fractured, doubt inevitably seeps into the hearts of those who once trusted without hesitation. The consequences, therefore, are twofold. On one hand, the honour and dignity of a family stand imperiled; on the other, the societal fabric, woven with threads of faith, reverence, and trust, suffers a tear that cannot easily be mended. The family concerned may endure the weight of this stigma for years to come, but equally, the wider community must grapple with the unsettling question whether the sanctity once presumed in such relationships can continue to command unquestioned confidence.

Thus, this Court observes with controlled yet profound concern that the incident is not merely

a factual episode requiring adjudication; it is a somber reminder of how fragile public trust can be when those entrusted with moral

guardianship are found amidst circumstances so deeply inconsistent with the ideals they are meant to uphold. The confidence which parents repose in those entrusted with the moral and religious upbringing of their children, this Court deems it imperative to first ascertain whether the deceased had, in fact, entered into an illicit and impermissible relationship with the victim, his own student, or whether his association, if any, stood within lawful and legitimate bounds. The present case carries a backdrop of such gravity that, if left unresolved, it risks unsettling public confidence at large. If it is ultimately found that the deceased himself was culpable, his conduct would serve as a solemn caution to parents to exercise heightened vigilance when entrusting the custody and moral guidance of their children to others.

6.At the outset, it must be

unequivocally stated that this Court does not, under any circumstances, subscribe to the notion

that religious teachings or religious institutions, as a class, are unworthy of trust. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of such institutions have played, and continue to play, a crucial role in nurturing moral discipline, imparting religious education, and shaping the character of the younger generation, thereby contributing positively to a pious, orderly, and principled society. However, it would be a denial of reality to ignore that, regrettably, there exist certain individuals whose personal misconduct has cast an undeserved shadow upon these sacred institutions and whose actions undermine the noble objectives they are meant to serve. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to examine the individual character of the deceased, the circumstances in which his death occurred, and the nature and extent of his involvement with the girl, so that his case may be assessed on its own peculiar facts. Such an individualized appraisal is essential not only to do justice in the present matter but also to ensure that no unwarranted stigma or adverse repercussion is allowed to fall upon religious

seminaries and those who serve therein with integrity and devotion. The misconduct of a few cannot, and must not, be allowed to define the character of the many. While the Court approaches these issues with due caution and sensitivity, it is nonetheless duty-bound to determine where the fault truly lies; whether it was the deceased, allegedly discovered unclothed in the basement of the house of the respondent, whose conduct precipitated the tragic events, or whether criminal liability rests squarely upon the respondent, who caused the death of the deceased upon finding him in such a compromising situation with his daughter.

Only upon a dispassionate and meticulous evaluation of these aspects can justice be rendered, free from prejudice, presumption, or generalized condemnation. In order to properly appreciate the essential and determinative aspects of the present case, this Court finds itself under a solemn obligation to examine the attending circumstances in their entirety, particularly as they relate to a person, who was serving as a teacher in a religious seminary, an

institution widely recognized for its scholarly teachers, disciplined students, and its acknowledged contribution to society.

Simultaneously, it is incumbent upon this Court to assess the individual conduct of the deceased, so as to determine whether he had indulged in an act which is neither permissible nor capable of justification under law or morality, and further to examine whether, in reaction to such conduct, the respondent acted in a manner that could be regarded as falling within any legally tolerable bounds.

7.To comprehend the manner in

which this unfortunate incident unfolded, it is essential to note that the deceased, in an injured condition, was found lying on a service road, from where he was picked up by the complainant and rushed to the hospital. The matter was reported, the injury sheet was prepared, and the injured was referred for medical examination. However, despite these measures, he could not survive and breathed his last on the same day, whereupon Section 302 PPC was added to the case. Upon receipt of the

FIR, the investigating officer visited the place where the injured had been found and, on the initial pointation of the complainant, prepared the site plan. It is pertinent to mention that on the same night, the investigating officer also entered the house of the respondent, inspected the basement, prepared its site plan, collected 03 empties of .30 bore, and recovered blood- stained earth as well as the clothes allegedly left behind by the deceased after undressing himself for the purpose of engaging in an illicit act with Mst. “A”. On that very night, the respondent was arrested, who voluntarily handed over the weapon of offence, which was taken into possession, and consequently Section 15-AA was added. The recovered empties and the pistol were subsequently sent to the firearms expert, whose report confirmed that the empties had been fired from the recovered weapon. During the course of investigation, the victim Mst. “A”, recorded her statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigating officer and thereafter her statement under Section 164 CrPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate. In her

statement, she narrated the circumstances leading to the occurrence, explained the nature of her relationship with the deceased, and categorically stated that on the night of the incident both of them were present in the basement, had undressed themselves, and were engaged in hugging and kissing when the respondent started firing at the deceased, as a result of the firearm injuries, the deceased ran out of the house and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. It is also pertinent to mention that in the same statement she expressed apprehension regarding her safety in her parents’ house and requested that she be sent to a Women Crisis Centre, which request was allowed by the learned Court in order to safeguard her life.

After completion of the investigation, the respondent was sent up for trial and, upon conclusion thereof, was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. It is against that judgment of conviction and sentence that the present criminal revision has been preferred.

Although no appeal against conviction has been preferred by the respondent, the present criminal

revision has been instituted by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The scope of this Court is therefore, confined to determining whether the sentence imposed is commensurate with the proved facts and circumstances of the case, and whether the learned trial Court was legally justified in awarding a lesser punishment instead of the sentence of death. For this purpose, this Court is required to examine the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court and to ascertain the evidentiary material that weighed with it while arriving at such a conclusion. The Court must further assess whether the mitigating circumstances relied upon were legally sustainable and sufficient to justify deviation from the maximum penalty prescribed by law, particularly in a case where the respondent was apprehended without delay, the weapon of offence was recovered from his possession, and the occurrence admittedly took place within his own house.

8.In order to meaningfully appreciate the essential aspects of the controversy, it is

necessary to evaluate whether the learned trial Court, despite the aforesaid incriminating circumstances, exercised its sentencing discretion in accordance with settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, or whether such discretion was exercised in a manner warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. In order to assess the approach adopted by the learned trial Court and to determine the extent of the involvement of the respondent as well as the intention attributable to him, this Court considers it necessary to revisit the essential and determinative aspects of the case. There is no dispute that the respondent stood singly charged, nor it is controverted that he was apprehended from his own house, from where the weapon of offence was also recovered. Equally undisputed is the fact that it was his own daughter who appeared before the Court and disclosed the circumstances in which the unfortunate incident occurred, including the manner in which the deceased was led inside the house and the events that culminated in the firing. In this backdrop, this Court is required to examine

whether the cumulative effect of the arrest of the respondent from the place of occurrence, the positive forensic report connecting the weapon of offence with the crime, and the statement of his daughter implicating him and explaining the sequence of events, was sufficient to establish the requisite mens-rea for the offence charged.

It is, therefore, imperative to reappraise the evidence available on record, not for the purpose of unsettling the finding of guilt, which has attained finality, but to ascertain whether the sentence awarded reflects a proper and lawful exercise of judicial discretion. Such reappraisal is essential to enable this Court to determine whether the punishment imposed is

proportionate to the proved facts and circumstances of the case and in consonance with settled principles governing sentencing, or whether the nature of the offence and the attending circumstances warranted the imposition of a different sentence under law. In order to appreciate the essential aspects of the case, this Court deems it necessary to consider the attending circumstances in their proper

perspective and to re-examine the approach adopted by the learned trial Court, particularly with regard to the involvement of the respondent and the manner in which the deceased entered the house during the late hours of the night. The complainant, while reporting the matter, categorically stated that he had found the deceased lying in an injured condition; however, he did not nominate any accused in the First Information Report, as he was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and the deceased, owing to his critical condition, was initially unable to disclose the circumstances of the incident.

Therefore, this Court is required to examine as to how the complainant subsequently came to know the involvement of the respondent and how the investigating officer proceeded to the house of the respondent despite the fact that the incident was initially reported against unknown persons. In this regard, one significant aspect of the case is the alleged recovery of a written chit, which, according to the prosecution, was penned by the deceased while in an injured state. In that writing, the deceased disclosed that he had a

relationship with a girl from the said house, claimed a marital bond with Mst. “A” and stated that he had entered the house for that purpose, whereupon he undressed himself and left behind his clothes and mobile phone inside the house. It was on the basis of this disclosure that suspicion shifted towards the respondent.

Initially, the investigating officer prepared the site plan of the place where the injured was found lying, on the pointation of the complainant. Thereafter, he entered the house of the respondent, prepared a separate site plan of the basement, collected blood through cotton, recovered 03 empties of .30 bore, and found the respondent present inside the house. The respondent was arrested on the spot and he handed over the weapon of offence, which was later confirmed through forensic examination to have been used in the commission of the crime.

When these circumstances are examined cumulatively, no reasonable doubt remains that the unfortunate incident initially occurred inside the house of the respondent, where the deceased sustained the fatal firearm injuries. The

deceased thereafter managed to rush out of the basement, reached the service road where he was later found lying injured, and was subsequently shifted to the hospital. The complainant, examined as PW-4, reiterated these facts by explaining how he discovered the deceased in an injured condition, shifted him to the hospital, and how the deceased, while struggling with his injuries, asked for a pen and reduced into writing the details regarding the place of occurrence and the belongings left inside the house. Although the complainant is admittedly not an eyewitness to the actual occurrence, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case, particularly when the chain of circumstantial and corroborative evidence firmly connects the respondent with the offence therefore, the duty of this Court is to examine whether the connected evidence brought on record was sufficient to establish the culpability of the respondent to such an extent that interference in sentencing is warranted, and whether the punishment awarded by the learned trial Court

falls short of the penalty prescribed under law. It is not disputed that these circumstances were considered by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. However, since enhancement of sentence has been sought by the complainant, this Court must further assess whether the act of the respondent was committed with such motive and intention that it inexorably attracts the normal penalty prescribed for the offence, or whether the mitigating circumstances identified by the learned trial Court were sufficient to justify the lesser sentence awarded. The unfortunate incident occurred during the dark hours of the night, when the respondent awoke upon sensing the presence of someone in the basement of his house. Upon peeping inside, he found the deceased in a naked condition with Mst. “A”, his daughter. The respondent thereupon fired at the deceased, who sustained firearm injuries, managed to rush out of the house, and was later found by the complainant and shifted to the hospital, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries. An essential aspect requiring

determination is what led the deceased to enter the house at such an hour and the nature of his relationship with the household, particularly with the girl with whom he was found in the basement. In order to appreciate this relationship, this Court considers it imperative to examine the statement of Mst. “A”, who appeared before the Court and was examined as PW-3. She narrated the circumstances in which the unfortunate incident occurred and categorically stated that, being a student of the deceased, she had developed a relationship with him. She further confirmed that on the night of the occurrence, both of them were present in the basement, undressed, and were engaged in hugging and kissing when the respondent entered and opened fire at the deceased. After receiving the firearm injuries, the deceased fled from the house and later succumbed thereto.

The statement of this witness carries significant evidentiary value, as she stands in a dual position: on the one hand, she is the daughter of the respondent, and on the other, she openly admitted her illicit relationship with the

deceased. During cross-examination, she reaffirmed the presence of the deceased, in an undressed state, in the basement alongwith her, confirmed their activities at the time of the firing, and also explained the manner in which the respondent fired at the deceased. Her testimony, therefore, remained consistent on material particulars and withstood the test of cross-examination. When this evidence is considered in its proper perspective, no ambiguity remains that prior to the occurrence, the respondent had no intimacy or prior hostility with the deceased, rather, it was the deceased who, by exploiting his position as a teacher and by virtue of his illicit relationship with the daughter of the respondent, gained access to the house and emboldened himself to enter it during the late hours of the night to engage in an act which is neither permissible under law nor tolerable in social or moral norms. It was this conduct which precipitated the unfortunate chain of events. In such circumstances, this Court is required to carefully determine where the blame truly lies and to assess the

repercussions of the conduct of the deceased in the context of the reaction of the respondent.

This evaluation is essential to ascertain whether the act of the respondent attracts the normal penalty prescribed for the offence, or whether the attending circumstances disclose mitigating factors sufficient to justify the lesser sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The scribe, examined as PW-10, confirmed his presence at the hospital when the deceased was brought in an injured condition. He stated that at that time the deceased was unable to speak, and it was the complainant who reported the occurrence, whereafter the injury sheet was prepared and the injured was referred for medical examination.

During cross-examination, an attempt was made to suggest that the report had not been lodged in the manner alleged; however, the defence failed to create any material dent in the prosecution case on that score. The more significant controversy relates to the alleged writing said to have been made by the deceased while injured, wherein he disclosed that he had contracted marriage with the girl and that his clothes and

mobile phone were lying inside the house. The complainant sought to rely upon this alleged writing to suggest that the deceased had lawfully entered the house to meet his wife and that the respondent, being unaware of such relationship, fired upon him under a misapprehension.

However, when PW-10 was specifically questioned regarding this alleged writing, he categorically denied that any such document was written or handed over in his presence.

According to him, although he was present when the report was lodged, no such written declaration was made by the deceased before him. This denial strikes at the very origin of the alleged chit and renders its evidentiary value highly doubtful. Furthermore, Mst. “A”, examined as PW-3, did not support the assertion of any Nikah or lawful marriage with the deceased. On the contrary, she explained that being his student, she gradually developed a relationship with him; that on the night of occurrence he visited the house; and that both were found undressed in the basement and engaged in intimate conduct when the

respondent entered and fired at the deceased. At no stage did she affirm the existence of any lawful matrimonial bond between them. When the statement of the complainant is read in juxtaposition with that of PW-3, it becomes evident that while the complainant attempted to project a narrative of lawful marriage on the basis of the alleged writing, the principal witness to the relationship herself declined to acknowledge any such Nikah. No documentary proof of marriage was produced; no witness to any solemnization was examined; and even the investigating officer did not collect any material substantiating such claim. The prosecution evidence, therefore, does not establish the existence of a lawful matrimonial relationship.

In these circumstances, the only credible and direct evidence regarding the relationship is that of PW-3, which establishes that the association between the two was illicit in nature and not sanctified by marriage. Their presence, in an undressed condition, in the basement of the house of the respondent during late hours of the night stands admitted.

9.The unfortunate incident

undeniably culminated in the tragic death of the deceased. Yet, the surrounding circumstances show that it was the deceased who, by entering the house at night and engaging in an illicit act with the daughter of the respondent, precipitated the occurrence. The respondent, upon witnessing a naked man with his equally undressed daughter inside his own house, reacted in a sudden and intense loss of self- control. The firing, therefore, cannot be viewed in isolation from the grave and immediate provocation which confronted him at that moment. These circumstances are material for determining not the factum of firing, which stands proved, but the degree of culpability and the appropriate measure of sentence in the peculiar facts of the case. This Court is not persuaded to accept the contention that the prosecution failed to prove its case. On the contrary, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution has successfully established the involvement of the respondent in the tragic incident. Blood was recovered from inside the

room; the clothes of the deceased alongwith his mobile phone was taken into possession from within the house; 03 empties of .30 bore were recovered from the spot; and upon arrest, the respondent handed over the pistol claimed to be the weapon of offence. The forensic report confirmed that the recovered empties had been fired from the said weapon. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, leave no manner of doubt that the deceased met his death at the hands of the respondent. Having reached the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case and that the deceased was done to death by none other than the respondent, the next and more crucial question for determination is whether the respondent deserved the normal penalty prescribed by law, or whether the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court meets the ends of justice.

10.The core issue is to examine what considerations prevailed with the learned trial Court when, despite proof of guilt, it opted to take a lenient view and convicted the respondent under Section 302-C, PPC, instead of awarding

the sentence of death. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argued that once the involvement of the respondent stood proved;

once the deceased was fired upon and killed;

once blood was recovered from the house; and once a positive forensic report was received, the learned trial Court was not justified in awarding a lesser sentence. According to learned counsel, even if the extreme penalty of death was not to be imposed, the respondent ought at least to have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. In order to appreciate these submissions, it is essential to examine the most significant aspects of the case. On one hand, the occurrence admittedly took place inside the house of the respondent; on the other, it stands established that the deceased was found naked with the daughter of the respondent, who was also undressed, during the late hours of the night, no lawful or legally recognized relationship between them could be proved, the presence of the deceased in such a compromising position, within the sanctity of the home of the respondent, is a circumstance of grave and

exceptional nature. This Court is conscious of the argument that the deceased could possibly have been overpowered instead of being fired at, and that the respondent, in an ideal situation, ought not to have taken the law into his own hands. However, the law does not require courts to judge human conduct in moments of extreme emotional upheaval by applying standards of detached calmness. The social milieu in which the respondent lived, the time of occurrence, and the shocking manner in which he found a naked man with his undressed daughter, both actively engaged in an act which no prudent man would tolerate, much less a father, are factors which cannot be ignored. Viewed in this backdrop, the act of the respondent cannot be equated with a cold-blooded or premeditated murder, rather, it was the conduct of the deceased which became the immediate and dominant cause of the unfortunate incident. Learned counsel argued that, had the respondent exercised less restraint, he could have inflicted harm upon both, yet he selectively fired only at the deceased. According to the petitioner, this very restraint, in their

submission, deprived the respondent of the concession extended by the trial court, and in the circumstances, if the normal penalty of death was not imposed, the respondent ought at least to have been sentenced to life imprisonment. In order to properly appreciate these submissions, this Court must consider the circumstances prevailing at the time of the incident, the relationship between the respondent and his daughter, and the relationship between the respondent and the deceased. Only by examining these factors in their proper context can this Court understand the rationale of the learned trial court and evaluate whether the sentence awarded was appropriate and just under the peculiar facts of the case. In institutions devoted to religion and moral formation, the authority of a teacher is neither casual nor limited to the classroom; it carries spiritual weight and commands profound respect. More particularly, where a male teacher stands in a position of guidance over young female students, who are yet in their tender and impressionable years, that authority assumes a

delicate and heightened character. At such an age, students do not measure conduct with the maturity of experience; they repose trust, they follow direction, and they are naturally susceptible to influence. The relationship is marked not by parity, but by dependence and confidence. It was this very imbalance of authority and vulnerability which brought the young girl into proximity with the deceased.

The closeness that developed cannot be examined in abstraction from the moral and institutional framework within which it arose.

When a person entrusted with guidance oversteps the invisible boundaries of propriety, the consequences are seldom confined to the immediate individuals; they ripple outward, striking at the very foundation of familial honour and communal trust. The tragedy that followed must therefore be approached with a measured and sensitive understanding of human frailty. On one side stood a father bound by deep emotional attachment, shattered by shock, and overwhelmed by the sudden storm of perceived dishonor. On the other stood the

deceased, an adult occupying a position of trust and moral ascendancy, whose conduct carried a correspondingly greater responsibility in setting the unfortunate events into motion. While the sanctity of life remains inviolable in law, the genesis of this occurrence cannot be divorced from the misuse of authority and breach of trust that ignited passions beyond restraint. Even if, in the ultimate moment, the daughter was spared, such restraint cannot be selectively or simplistically applied to the case of the petitioner. The circumstances confronting him were not abstract or ordinary; on one hand, he stood as a father emotionally bound, instinctively protective, and deeply attached to the honour and safety of his child. On the other hand, he was suddenly confronted with the presence of a stranger in the company of his daughter, a situation wholly unexpected and profoundly disturbing within the social and moral framework to which he belonged. The law does not demand of a parent, placed in such an extraordinary and emotionally charged situation, a standard of detached and clinical

reasoning. Human conduct, particularly when shaped by parental instinct, cultural values, and sudden shock, cannot be weighed in isolation from the circumstances that provoked it. The sparing of the daughter, therefore, does not negate the intensity of the provocation faced by the petitioner; rather, it underscores the internal conflict and emotional turmoil that governed his actions at that critical moment. In these circumstances, the emotional upheaval, shock, and anguish experienced by the respondent are undeniable, and they must weigh heavily in assessing the nature and extent of his response.

In examining the conduct of the respondent, it is imperative to recall that the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation, as elucidated in “Ali Muhammad v. Ali Ali Muhammad” (PLD 1996 SC 274) and reaffirmed in “Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh” (2005 CRILJ 3340). In Ali Muhammad’s case the doctrine of sudden provocation is not to be examined in isolation or upon any rigid or abstract notion of reasonableness. Its true application rests upon the recognition that human reaction is deeply

conditioned by the customs, traditions, social norms, and cultural values of the milieu to which the accused belongs. What may appear measured or tolerable in one social setting may, in another, strike at the very core of personal honour, familial sanctity, or moral conscience, thereby igniting a sudden loss of self-control.

The law, therefore, does not impose a uniform standard divorced from social reality; rather, it tests provocation upon the touchstone of how a reasonable person, situated within the same cultural and social framework as the accused, would be expected to react. The absence of any universal yardstick of reasonableness is not a deficiency in the doctrine but its strength, for it acknowledges the diversity of human conduct shaped by social values and lived experiences. It is this contextual appreciation which negates premeditated malice and distinguishes an act committed in the heat of passion from one born of calculated intent. In Budhi Singh’s case, the august Court therein reiterated that for the exception to apply, three essential elements must co-exist: first, the existence of a grave and

sudden provocation; second, a consequent loss of self-control; and third, a retaliatory act committed before there was sufficient time for passion to cool and reason to resume its dominion. It was further emphasized that the sufficiency of provocation cannot be measured upon any abstract or universal yardstick; rather, it must be tested from the standpoint of a reasonable person placed in the circumstances of the accused, bearing in mind his social background, customs, and values. When the facts of the present case are examined through the settled prism of the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation, the guiding principles laid down in Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and Budhi Singh’s case lend decisive doctrinal clarity. This Court concurs with the learned trial Court in its reasoning. The circumstances fully justify the leniency extended, reflecting a careful and balanced appreciation of both the guilt proven and the human factors involved the shock the moral outrage, the father daughter bond, the nature of the intrusion. Consequently, while the finding of guilt recorded by the

learned trial Court does not warrant any interference, we find no legal infirmity or perversity in the exercise of sentencing discretion whereby the respondent was convicted under Section 302-C, PPC. The sentence awarded cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to law, nor does it call for enhancement in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Resultantly, the instant revision is hereby dismissed.

Announced

JUDGE

JUDGE

*Muhammad Fiaz* *D.B* Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sahibzada Asadullah, J Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel, J