Anwar-ul-Haq Vs The State & another

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT

MINGORA BENCH

(Judicial Department) J.Cr.A No. 223-M/2024 Anwar-ul-Haq son of Muhammad Haq................(Appellant)

V/S

State & another...............................................(Respondents) Present:- Mr. Shah Faisal Khan, AHC, for appellant/accused.

Mr. Haq Nawaz Khan, Addl: A.G, for State. Mr. Mahboob-ur-Rashid, AHC, for respondent/ complainant.

Date of hearing: 23.6.2026

JUDGMENT

SALAH-UD-DIN, J.- Through the instant jail criminal appeal, the appellant namely Anwar- ul-Haq has called in question the judgment of his conviction and sentence dated 30.7.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Gender Based Violence Court, Dir Lower, rendered in case FIR No. 94 dated 09.5.2022, U/Ss 302, 311, 337-A (ii) PPC, R/W section 37 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010 and section 15-AA registered at P.S Timergara, District Dir Lower, whereby on conclusion of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as follows: - i. He is convicted under section 302(b) of PPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

Ta'zir for committing murder of deceased Ms. Maryam Bibi;

ii. The convict shall also be liable to pay compensation under section 544-A Cr.PC to the tune of Rs.500,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand) to the legal heirs of deceased. The compensation shall be recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue. In case of default, he shall further suffer S.I. for six (06) months.

iii. He is also convicted under section 337-A(ii) PPC for causing injury to Ms. Hajira Bibi and sentenced to imprisonment for one-year and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as "Arsh" to the injured.

16.Benefit of 382(b) Cr.PC is extended to the accused. The sentences shall run concurrently. As the convict is already in custody and present before the Court today. He is accordingly committed to jail to serve his sentence, in accordance with law.

2.Arguments of learned counsel for parties, as well as learned Astt: A.G appearing on behalf of State were heard in considerable detail and requisitioned record perused with their able assistance.

3.As per the prosecution story, the complainant, namely Rehman-ul-Haq, reported the matter to the local police at the Emergency Ward of DHQ Hospital, Timergara, stating therein that the deceased, namely Mst. Maryam Bibi, was his sister. She had been married to Anwar-ul-Haq (the appellant herein) about 30 years back, and out of the said wedlock, the Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

couple was blessed with eight children.

According to the complainant, the relationship between the spouses had remained strained for about one-month prior to the occurrence. On the day of occurrence, the complainant was present at his house when, in the meantime, he received information that his brother-in-law, i.e., the appellant, during a heated altercation with his wife, had committed the murder of his sister by firing at her with a pistol. His niece, Mst. Hajra Bibi, also sustained an injury on her forehead allegedly caused by the butt of the pistol. The injured Mst. Maryam Bibi was immediately shifted to the hospital; however, she succumbed to her injuries and passed away. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by the deceased's mother-in-law, Mst. Bacha Sultan, Mst. Hajra Bibi (the injured PW), and other inmates of the house. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be strained domestic relations between the deceased and the appellant. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant/brother, the police prepared a Murasila (Ex. PA/1), which culminated in registration of the instant FIR Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

(Ex. PW-7/1) against the appellant at the police station concerned.

4.At the very outset, it may be observed that, in the present case, there is only one accused in our judicial sight, i.e. the appellant, and this fact must remain in perspective while appraising the prosecution evidence. It is equally undisputed that, apart from the sole ocular account furnished by the injured prosecution witness, Mst. Hajra Bibi, examined as PW-13, the prosecution has not been able to bring on record any other direct evidence connecting the appellant with the occurrence. The prosecution case, therefore, substantially rests upon the testimony of the said injured witness, corroborated by the medical evidence relating to the deceased as well as the injured witness, besides the recoveries of certain incriminating articles effected during the course of investigation, including the recovery of alleged weapon of offence, i.e., a .30-bore pistol.

5.In her turn, the injured

prosecution witness, namely Mst. Hajra Bibi, Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

appeared in the witness-box as PW-13. In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that on the fateful day, she, along with her parents, was present in their house. At about 10:30 a.m., an altercation ensued between her parents. She further stated that her father, i.e., the appellant herein, had developed suspicion regarding the character of her mother, in terms of she being lady of easy virtue. At the relevant time, her mother was present in the kitchen preparing breakfast, when, in the meanwhile, her father, duly armed with a pistol, entered the kitchen.

The witness attempted to snatch the pistol from him, whereupon he struck her with its butt, as a result whereof, she fell to the ground. Thereafter, her father fired two shots at her mother, causing firearm injuries to her neck and shoulder. She, along with other inmates of the house, shifted her injured mother to the hospital; however, she succumbed to her injuries and died. PW-13 was subjected to cross-examination at substantial length; however, despite a searching and taxing cross-examination, she Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

remained consistent on all material particulars of the occurrence. The tenor of her cross- examination reveals that the mode and manner of the occurrence, the place of the incident, i.e., the house of the complainant-party and the presence of injured/eyewitness, as well as the motive attributed to the appellant, were all put to her and, to a considerable extent, stood confirmed from her testimony. She also furnished a plausible explanation during cross- examination regarding the non-mentioning of the names of other inmates of the house. Her presence at the place of occurrence cannot reasonably be doubted or viewed with suspicion. Being the real daughter of the deceased, as well as the appellant, her presence in the joint residential house at the relevant time was quite natural. More importantly, she herself sustained an injury during the occurrence, thereby providing independent assurance of her presence at the spot. Even otherwise, if the defence case was that the appellant had not been present at the place of occurrence, there was little reason for Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

learned defence counsel to specifically confront this witness regarding her own presence at the spot and the motive attributed to the appellant. The witness was not only the real daughter of the deceased but had also sustained a visible injury on her person. These circumstances render the possibility of her substitution in place of the real culprit next to impossible. Being herself a victim of the occurrence and having sustained an injury during the same incident, her presence at the place of occurrence, i.e., the house of the appellant, cannot be doubted merely on the basis of conjecture or suspicion. No dishonest improvement of any material nature is discernible in her testimony, nor does her account, when examined as a whole, appear unnatural, concocted or inherently improbable. Her testimony, therefore, has remained substantially unimpeached despite the searching cross-examination conducted by learned defence counsel. It is true that there is no universally recognized rule that an injured witness would invariably disclose the whole Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

truth. At the same time, the testimony of an injured witness cannot be discarded merely because such witness may have an interest in securing the conviction of the accused. The evidence of an injured witness is required to be assessed with a judicious and independent mind, keeping in view the attending circumstances of the case. Where such testimony is found to be straightforward, natural, confidence-inspiring and free from material contradictions, it can safely be relied upon against the accused without insisting upon unnecessary corroboration. In the present case, there appears to be no plausible reason for PW-13 to falsely implicate the appellant or to substitute him for the real culprit, particularly when she is his own daughter and had herself sustained injury in the same occurrence. Her relationship with the appellant, therefore, rather than furnishing a reason to discard her testimony, lends considerable assurance to the spontaneity and naturalness of her account. In case titled “Aurangzeb v/s State”, the Hon’ble apex Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

Court rendered reasons about presence of the eyewitnesses on the spot qua their natural narrations of the occurrence in terms of specific role of nominated accused [1]. Same rational was also earlier followed by the Hon’ble apex Court in Muhammad Waris’s case by holding that “sufficient explanation has been offered by the eyewitness about their presence at the venue of crime and witnessing of the subject occurrence” [2].

6.Since the alleged occurrence of murder of the deceased lady has taken place inside the premises of house of the appellant, therefore, under Article 122 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, it was for him to have come forward with a reasonable explanation about the death of his wife, who was supposed to be a vulnerable member of the society.

Admittedly, the deceased has met an unnatural death in the house of appellant/husband, but he had failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the same. He has not even made any effort to explain the situation “Aurangzeb v/s State” reported as 2020 SCMR 612.

“Muhammad Waris v/s The State” reported as 2008 SCMR 784.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

during the course of investigation or trial in the instant case. Prosecution has been able to discharge the initial burden and shifting of onus to the appellant for explaining the circumstances surrounded unnatural death of the deceased and his failure in said respect justifies raising of a presumption against him under Article 122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Said Article being relevant for the present controversy, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -

122.Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him Illustrations;

(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

(b)A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

The Hon’ble apex Court in its

recent judgment rendered in the case of Waris Masih v/s State, rendered in Jail Petition No.

787 of 2018 decided on 21.01.2026, in respect of applicability of Article 122 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, had expounded the following proposition of law, more Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

particularly, when an offence of murder of a wife has allegedly been committed by a husband/accused inside the premises of his own house:-

“5. In instances of domestic violence, particularly in the event of homicidal death of a wife in the home of her husband, the latter is significantly responsible for providing a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances that led to the tragedy within the scope of Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (“the Order”). The conduct of an accused before, during and after a crime is also relevant under Article 22 of the Order. In the same vein, Article 129 of the Order authorizes the Court to infer adverse inferences from failure of party to submit evidence that it is capable of submitting. It is stated that the Court may assume that evidence that could be produced but is not would be unfavorable to the individual who withholds it if it were produced. The principle concerning facts peculiarly within knowledge of accused is not unique to our jurisdiction rather it is followed universally. As-per well recognized legal encyclopedia of American law i.e. Corpus Juris Secundum, § 571, Volume 224A, the accused has the burden of proof as to a negative averment in the indictment, or a fact relied on as justification or excuse, where the subject matter thereof lies peculiarly within his knowledge. Similarly, section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contains similar provisions.

6.We are conscious of the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence 6. that the burden of proving the commission of an offence rests squarely upon the prosecution, which must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard Article 117 of the Order embodies the settled rule. Consequently, in cases of homicide, it is the sole responsibility of the prosecution to prove not only that a murder has been committed but also who committed the said offence, through legally admissible and credible evidence. Where the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the benefit of such doubt must, as a matter of right, be extended to the accused being a cornerstone of criminal justice and a fundamental safeguard against wrongful conviction.

7.It is worth mentioning that where a wife is found dead inside the 7. matrimonial home, the first and foundational question for determination is the nature of the death, namely, whether it was natural or unnatural. Once the prosecution Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

succeeds in establishing that the death was unnatural, the next question is whether the death was the result of suicide or homicide. Upon a finding that the death was homicide in nature, the focus of investigation necessarily turns to the circumstances surrounding the occurrence, particularly the place of occurrence. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the concepts of burden of proof and onus of proof, which though related, operate in distinct legal spheres. The burden of proof refers to the obligation to establish the entire case and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, a burden which, in criminal proceedings, always rests upon the prosecution and never shifts. The onus of proof, on the other hand, pertains to the responsibility of proving a particular fact or issue, which may, depending upon the circumstances of the case, shift during the course of trial.”

Further ahead, in the ibid

judgment, it was also held by their Lordships with a high degree of confidence that in eventuality when a death of wife occurs in the residential premises of an accused person, then he was duty-bound to offer some explanation about the injuries or other form of violence sustained by a deceased/wife.

Relevant part of observations of the august Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: -

10.In the event of a homicidal death of a wife within the residence, and the victim was the accused’s wife who resided with him, the accused was obligated to provide an explanation for the injuries that the deceased sustained while residing in the same domicile house with him, as the deceased was discovered with multiple injuries and the cause of death was physical assault. The legal repercussions of this omission served as an additional link in the chain of circumstances in the absence of such an explanation.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

11.The rationale for treating the husband as a primary suspect in cases where a wife suffers a homicidal death within the matrimonial home is not only rooted in presumption of guilt, but also in the social, legal and moral position traditionally ascribed to the cement within the family unit. The family has long been recognized across civilization and legal systems as the basic unit of society, and within this unit, the husband has historically been regarded as the head, manager and protector of the household. Classical legal and moral traditions, both religious and secular, have consistently placed upon the male head of the family a heightened duty of care, supervision, and protection towards his spouse and dependents. The Islamic jurisprudence articulates this responsibility with particular clarity. Verse 34 of Surah An-Nisa of the Holy Qur’an states that, “Men are caretakers of women.” The term qawwam in Arabic denotes one who bears responsibility, manages affairs and ensures protection and maintenance. In this sense, the husband is not merely a spouse, but a guardian of the family structure, entrusted with safeguarding its member.

Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Pakistan in its earlier judgment, delivered in the case of Raja Khurram Ali has held that the Article 122 came into play only when the prosecution had discharged its legal burden to prove guilt of an accused by producing sufficient evidence, except the facts, which were especially in the knowledge of nominated accused, leading to inescapable conclusion that the offence was committed by him. Thereafter, evidential burden was upon the accused to produce enough evidence to Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

create doubt in case of the prosecution [3].

Similarly, in the case of Muhammad Hanif Abbasi, same ratio-decidendi was earlier followed by Hon’ble apex Cour in terms that the Article 122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, envisages that if a particular fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him [4]. Said proposition of law was further clarified by Hon’ble apex Court in its celebrated verdict, rendered in the case of Saeed Ahmad to the effect that with regard to vulnerable members of society, such as children, women and infirm, who were living with the accused or were last seen in his company the accused ought to offer some explanation of what happened to them. If instead he remains silent or offers a false explanation he casts a shadow upon himself.

Article 122 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order too stipulates that if a particular fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the “Raja Khurram Ali & 02 other v/s TAYYABA BIBI and another” reported as

PLD 2020 S.C 146

“Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v/s Jehangir Khan Tareen & others” reported as

PLD 2018 S.C 114.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

burden of proving that fact is upon him [5]. A similar view has also been expressed by Hon’ble apex Court in case titled “Abdul Majeed v/s State” reported as 2011 SCMR In view of the ratio-decidendi

laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid judgments, it is evident that neither during investigation, nor at the trial, nor even before this Court, has the appellant disputed the place of occurrence, i.e. the matrimonial home jointly occupied by him and the deceased. In such circumstances, the facts being especially within his knowledge, the provisions of Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are clearly attracted to the case of the appellant- husband.

7.No doubt, there were certain

minor contradictions in the statements of the PWs, mostly official witnesses, in respect of arrival of police party to the spot and non- mentioning of the names of other inmates of “Saeed Ahmad v/s State” reported as 2015 SCMR 710. Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

the house and the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and that of police station concerned, however, it is equally important to note that these witnesses have been examined in Court after more than one-year of the tragic incident of murder of deceased and occurring of such minor contradictions as mentioned earlier were quite natural. When witnesses were examined after lapse of considerable time, a photographic narration of the occurrence cannot be expected from them.

Reference can be made to the case of “Khadim Hussain v/s State”, wherein the aforesaid rational of law has explicitly been explained qua creeping of minor contradiction with passage of time [6]. Reliance can also be placed on the case of “Muhammad Ilyas v/s State” whereby it was held by the Hon’ble apex Court that “contradictions which are not grave in nature can be ignored safely, as minor contradictions creep in with passage of time”

8.Learned counsel for the appellant was also critical of the fact that the sole “Khadim Hussain v/s State” reported as PLD 2010 Supreme Court 669.

“Muhammad Ilyas v/s State” reported as 2011 SCMR 460. Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

eyewitness of ocular-account was closely related to the deceased, being her real daughter.

However, mere relationship between witness and the deceased would not be sufficient to damage her evidence altogether. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of “Abdur Rauf Vs.

State & another” has held that “relationship by itself is no ground to discard or discredit testimony of an eye-witnesses unless he is shown to be partisan and interested witness” [8]. It is an intrinsic value of a statement of a prosecution witness which is to be taken into account and not his/her relationship. It is not a rule of thumb that an interested or related witness will always tell lie and independent witness truth, rather testimony of a witness in each case is required to be adjudged in light of its own facts and circumstances. If it is established on record that a witness had a motive to implicate an accused person falsely in criminal a case, then in such eventuality independent corroboration may be sought from other evidence. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest any previous “Abdur Rauf Vs. State and another” reported as 2003 SCMR 522.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

blood feud or other bitterness of serious nature between the parties, except the one referred to above i.e. strained relations of the spouses, hence, this eye-witness had no motive for false implication of the present appellant, more particularly when she is her real daughter.

Likewise, same rational of law was earlier expounded by the Hon’ble apex Court in Amal Sherin’s case by holding that “mere relationship of a witness with deceased would not discredit his/her testimony” [9]. Refence can also be made to case titled “Khalid v/s State” [ 10].

In light of ratio-decidendi

expounded in the aforesaid judgments of various Courts, the ocular-account furnished by PW-13, cannot be discarded on the sole ground of her close relationship with the deceased, as well as the appellant, when otherwise she appears to be a truthful witness.

9.The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution lends substantial corroboration to the ocular account furnished by the injured “Amal Sherin & another v/s State” reported as PLD 2004 Supreme Court 371.

“Khalid v/s State” reported as 2024 SCMR 1474.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

prosecution witness, Mst. Hajra Bibi (PW-13).

Lady Dr. Kalsoom Rahim appeared in the witness-box as PW-1. According to the post- mortem report (Ex. PW-1/2), the following injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased:-

1.On examination due one entry wound of 1-2 cm on right side of neck approximately 8cm below right ear. There was sharing phenomena seen around bullet mark (Gun powder sign.) Two small lacerations were seen on each side of bullet mark.

2.One large irregular wound just at right side of the nose (seems to be the exit wound, it was bleeding actually). Fracture :- right maxillary bone was fractured (irregular fracture).

3.One more entry wound noticed on left scapula, which was bleeding actually, however no exit wound was found on the rest of the body.

4.Full body examined, no bruise, no other violence mark seen.

5.Urine for pregnancy test taken. Adv.

CT brain Ct chest Urine pregnancy test.

Post mortem started at 12.00 PM and completed at 12.30 PM. I was accompanied by leady head constable Rahmat Jehan No.1235.

Remarks by medical officer/ opinion:- In my opinion, the death of the victim is occurred due to Fire Arm injury to the major vessels located in neck and heavy blood loss due to vessels rupture.

Probable time that elapsed:-

(a)Between injury and death Nil.

(b)Between death and post mortem:-1---1-1/2 hours probably.”

Similarly, the injured prosecution witness, namely Mst. Hajra Bibi (PW-13), was medically examined by the doctor concerned, who noted the injury sustained by her during Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

the occurrence and furnished the following medical opinion regarding the nature and cause of the said injury:-

A young girl 15-year-old well orientated in time / place / person.

History of fight with father being hit on forehead with pistol.

1.On examination an approximate 3cm laceration with bone exposed (frontal bone).

2.2 stiches taken to stop bleedings. No other injury on the body.

No History of un-consciousness.

Nature of injury:- Shajja-e-Mudhiha.

The medical evidence adduced by

the prosecution lends substantial corroboration to the ocular account, particularly with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as the injured prosecution witness, Mst.

Hajra Bibi (PW-13). PW-1, Lady Dr. Kalsoom Rahim, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, appeared before the learned trial Court and duly affirmed the contents of the post-mortem report. Her testimony established that the deceased had sustained firearm injuries on vital parts of her body, which resulted into her death. Likewise, the injury sustained by PW-13 during the same occurrence was medically examined and found consistent with her account of having Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

been assaulted by the appellant, during rescue attempt of her deceased mother. The nature, seat and extent of the injuries found on both the deceased and the injured witness materially correspond with the ocular account furnished by PW-13. The medical findings thus provide independent corroboration to the occurrence as narrated by the injured eyewitness and lend further assurance to her presence at the scene. The medical evidence, when read in conjunction with the ocular account, leaves no material discrepancy regarding the factum of firearm injuries sustained by the deceased and the consequent cause of her death. The learned trial Court, therefore, rightly appreciated the medical evidence as a strong corroborative circumstance supporting the prosecution case and, when considered alongside the confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, rightly relied upon the same while recording the conviction of the appellant.

10.The prosecution has also

produced compelling circumstantial evidence, Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

which lends further assurance to its case.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer secured blood-stained earth and crime empty from the place of occurrence i.e. the house of the appellant. The blood-stained garments of the deceased were taken into possession. There was also a recovery of weapon of offence i.e. a .30-bore pistol, on the pointation of the appellant. The first FSL report dated 10.5.2022, Ex. PW- 14/11 would reveal that the crime empty marked as “C” is that of 30-bore.

Subsequently, another FSL report, Ex. PW- 14/27 was placed on file, wherein it was opined that the 30-bore crime empty duly marked as “C” was fired from 30-bore pistol bearing No. 31139809 in question, recovered at the instance of the appellant. This scientific evidence unmistakably connects the appellant with the weapon used in the commission of the offence and furnishes independent corroboration to the prosecution case.

Consequently, the recoveries effected during the investigation, coupled with the positive forensic reports, are in complete harmony with Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

the unimpeached ocular account furnished by PW-13, Mst. Hajra Bibi and the medical evidence, thereby forming an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances pointing irresistibly towards the guilt of the appellant.

11.As a result of the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence, this Court has reached the conclusion that the appellant has rightly been found guilty of the offence, with which he was charged. However, while considering the question of sentence, an important circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the complainant, who produced a copy of FIR No.

279 dated 11.06.2022, registered U/S 302 PPC at Police Station Secretariate, Islamabad, against the present appellant in respect of the alleged murder of one Noor-ul-Haq, who, according to the learned counsel, was none other than the appellant's brother-in-law ()بہنوئی.

Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the appellant had developed a suspicion that his wife, i.e. the deceased Mst. Maryam Bibi, was maintaining illicit relations with the said Noor-ul-Haq and that, after long 63 days of the Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

murder of his wife, the appellant allegedly proceeded to Islamabad and committed the murder of Noor-ul-Haq, on the same premise.

At this juncture, learned counsel was confronted with the question as to whether, in view of the circumstances so brought on record, the appellant's case could attract the mitigating consideration of “sustained provocation”, warranting any reduction in the sentence. In response, learned counsel for the complainant attempted to explain that the alleged second occurrence could, at best, be treated as a circumstance constituting the motive behind the commission of both murders, albeit occurring at different places and on different dates. He, however, vehemently maintained that, having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence committed by the appellant, he did not deserve any concession or leniency in the matter of sentence, rather his barbarous act of double murder would call for a capital punishment i.e.

death sentence.

12.It is by now well settled that although sustained or continuous provocation may not, in every case, satisfy the strict legal Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

test of “grave and sudden provocation,” it may nevertheless constitute a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the quantum of sentence. Superior Courts have consistently recognized that where an occurrence is preceded by prolonged humiliation, persistent misconduct, serious indignities, or other circumstances generating a continuous sense of resentment, anguish or emotional turmoil in the accused’s mind, such circumstances may legitimately be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate sentence U/S 302, PPC. In an appropriate case, therefore, the existence of such mitigating circumstances may persuade the Court to depart from the normal sentence contemplated U/S 302(b), PPC, and to consider whether the case falls within the scope of section 302(c), PPC, subject, of course, to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The question whether the accused was subjected to sudden or sustained provocation is essentially a question of fact, to be determined on the basis of the entire background of the occurrence, the conduct of the parties, the circumstances Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

immediately preceding the incident, and the nature and intensity of the provocation allegedly suffered by the accused. The Court is thus required to examine the surrounding circumstances as a whole rather than isolating any single circumstance from the factual matrix of the case. The existence of the two FIRs registered against the appellant in two different jurisdictions is a circumstance of considerable significance. The second FIR, having been registered after long 63 days of the tragic murder of his own wife, alleges that the appellant proceeded to the far-flung area of Islamabad and committed the murder of one Noor-ul-Haq, who was none other than his brother-in-law. When this circumstance is viewed in the backdrop of the appellant's alleged suspicion regarding the character of his deceased wife and the motive attributed to him, it reflects a continuing state of anger, resentment and emotional turmoil. The long intervals in time between the two alleged occurrences, coupled with the alleged common thread of suspicion and animosity, provides a compelling circumstance for examining the case from the Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

perspective of sustained and continuous provocation. The present case, therefore, presents a peculiar factual matrix in which the element of sustained provocation assumes considerable significance while determining the appropriate sentence.

13.The question that arises for

consideration is why the appellant did not immediately express his anger or resentment upon allegedly coming to know of the illicit relationship between his deceased wife, Mst.

Maryam Bibi, and Noor-ul-Haq, the latter being his brother-in-law, and instead remained silent for long 63 days before causing his death.

Such conduct, prima facie, suggests that the appellant had not acted under a sudden impulse but had adopted a course of sustained provocation. The record further shows that the appellant was the father of seven children, comprising four sons and three daughters. Being responsible for a large family, he was naturally conscious of their welfare and future. This circumstance may explain why after the murder of his wife, he did not immediately retaliate against his wife or Noor-ul-Haq but Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

remained silent for some time and subsequently acted against them. It is also significant that Noor- ul-Haq was not a stranger to the appellant; rather, he was his brother-in-law, being the husband of his sister. Thus, during the intervening period, the appellant might have made efforts to persuade or warn Noor-ul-Haq to desist from the alleged relationship. Upon such efforts proving unsuccessful, he may have ultimately resolved to take their lives. Viewed in this backdrop, the intervening period of long 63 days, the appellant's familial responsibilities, and his prior acquaintance with the second deceased collectively lend support to the inference that the killing of his wife and Noor-ul-Haq was preceded by a period of reflection and sustained provocation, rather than being the immediate product of a sudden and uncontrollable loss of self-control.

14.It is also a matter of record that the appellant, in his statement recorded U/S 342, Cr.P.C., did not take the plea that his deceased wife, Mst. Maryam Bibi, was maintaining illicit relations with Noor-ul-Haq, the second deceased and his brother-in-law. Although, the said motive was not specifically pleaded by the Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

appellant, however, the Court is not precluded from examining the entire material available on record and drawing its own independent inference from the circumstances appearing therein. The omission on the part of the appellant to specifically disclose such a sensitive circumstance in his statement U/S 342, Cr.P.C., cannot, by itself, render the circumstance altogether irrelevant, particularly where it relates to a matter of family honour and dignity in the prevailing social and cultural milieu. It is, therefore, quite plausible that, being conscious of the familial implications and the stigma attached to such an allegation, the appellant may have deliberately refrained from disclosing the same. The said circumstance, however, has to be assessed in conjunction with the other evidence on record and cannot, by itself, constitute the sole basis for drawing an adverse or favourable inference. This issue has elaborately been discussed and dilated upon by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled “Syed Ali Bepari v/s Nibaran Mollah & others” reported as PLD 1962 Supreme Court 502, wherein it was held that the parties Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

do not generally come out with true story.

Incompleteness of tale should not deter Court from drawing proper inferences from evidence and circumstances.”

15.The issue of “sustained

provocation” is not alien to jurisdiction of superior Courts. For instance, in case titled “Manzoor Hussain & another v/s State” reported as 1988 S C M R 1502, the same rational was earlier expounded by their Lordships of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the following words:- “One of the motives put forward by the prosecution and admitted by the accused was the chopping off of the nose of their grand-mother by deceased. By chopping off the nose of that lady by the deceased, not that a grievous injury was inflicted on that lady, but this act of the deceased undoubtedly brought infamy and dishonour to the whole family of the accused. Such an injury which in our society is always taken as a disgrace, can hardly be tolerated and forgotten by a family which consists of young people. The number of injuries inflicted by the two accused persons on the dead body of deceased speaks volumes of anger, vendetta and provocation the accused party was nursing against the deceased, lapse of time notwithstanding. Though it cannot be said that the accused persons had committed this gruesome murder under the impulse of sudden provocation but it can at least be said that they were led to commit the murder under continuing provocation. This furnished an extenuating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

Likewise, in case titled “Maqsood Ahmad v/s State” reported as 1995 SCMR 359, the following observations were recorded held by the Hon’ble apex Court:- “High Court had rejected the prosecution version in toto and relying on the accused's version of having acted under grave and sudden provocation without premeditation at the time of occurrence, had sentenced him to imprisonment for life under S. 304, Part 1, P.P.C. Sentence awarded to accused was found to be on much higher side in the light of evidence available on record and the same was reduced to seven years' R.I. accordingly.”

In the case of “Karamat Ali Shah v/s State” reported as 1976 SCMR 138, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

“First Information Report lodged within five hours. Incident witnessed by no less than four witnesses present at spot in connection with a marriage ceremony in deceased's family. Two of such witnesses’ independent persons having no reason to falsely implicate accused. Ocular evidence corroborated by surrender of accused with crime pistol and matching of empties with pistol. Accused not disputing Incident but pleading commission of offence on account of "ghairat". Accused, however, mentioning story of provocation due to "ghairat" for first time in Sessions Court-Evidence falsifying accused's relationship with woman allegedly in liaison with deceased and accused refusing to produce any evidence in defence or to prove such relationship. Accused's statement regarding provocative circumstances, rightly refused to be accepted by High Court in entirety. High Court, however, rightly felt that circumstances existed giving some Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

provocation to accused, though such provocation was neither grave nor sudden and case not covered by Exception I to S. 300. Sufficient reason existed, in circumstances, for commutation of death sentence to imprisonment for life.”

In case titled “Mukhtar Ahmad

v/s State” reported as 1975 SCMR 51, it was held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that grievance culminating in commission of murder nursed by accused for some time.

Provocation though grave yet not sudden. Case not covered by Exception I to S. 300, PPC.

In view of the ratio-decidendi

enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforementioned judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the element of sustained and continuous provocation, which stands established from the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance to warrant reduction of the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant.

16.Thus, on all counts, these minor weaknesses and lacunas in the evidence of prosecution, as discussed hereinabove, may Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

not be taken as a justification for out-right acquittal of appellant, but such weaknesses may be considered for reduction of sentence, as held by the Hon’ble apex Court in case titled “Mst. Bevi v/s Ghulam Shabbir and another” reported as “1980 SCMR 859”, whereby it was observed: -

“It has been held in some cases that the principle underlying the concept of benefit of doubt can in addition to the consideration of question of guilt or otherwise, be pressed also in matter of sentence. As a definite motive was asserted against the respondent and the same has failed, keeping in view all the circumstances of this case, it would not be necessary to impose the capita' punishment. Therefore, while finding him guilty; under section 302, P. P. C. he is sentenced to transportation for life should be awarded as compensation.”

A similar rational has also been expounded by the Hon’ble apex Court in case titled “Mir Muhammad alias Miro v/s State” reported as 2009 SCMR 1188. Further reliance may also be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble apex Court rendered in case titled “Muhammad Ayaz Khan v/s Murtaza and other” reported as 2008 SCMR 984, as well as in case titled “Kamran Ullah v/s State & another” reported as 2020 SCMR 1214.

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din

17.In view of the above discussion and exposition of law, the instant jail criminal appeal is partially allowed to the extent that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to appellant namely Anwar-ul-Haq U/S 302 (b) PPC is reduced to ten (10) years imprisonment within the meaning of section 302 (c) PPC.

Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C is also extended to the appellant, whereas rest of the impugned order/judgment dated 30.7.2024 shall remain intact, including the material concession in terms that all the awarded sentences of the appellant shall run concurrently. The impugned judgment/order of learned trial Court shall stand modified to the above extent.

Announcement Dt. 23.6.2026 -Sd-

JUDGE

-Sd-

JUDGE

Nawab (D.B) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Salah-ud-Din