IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
 
 
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 03.04.2010 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Criminal Appeal 
No. 294-J of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 29 of 2010) 
 
 
Muhammad Qasim 
…Appellant 
 
 
 
 
 
versus 
 
The State  
 
 
  
…Respondent 
 
 
For the appellant: 
Mr. Ansar Nawaz Mirza, ASC 
 
For the State:  
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Jaffar, 
Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
27.09.2018 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: Muhammad Qasim appellant 
and another had allegedly murdered two persons namely Meer 
Muhammad and Mst. Qaim Khatoon, a sister-in-law of the 
appellant, at about 06.00 P.M. on 27.07.2008 in an open filed in 
village Bakhsanabad in the area of Police Station Bhong, District 
Rahim Yar Khan in the backdrop of a motive based upon a 
suspicion of illicit relations between the two deceased. With the 
said allegations the appellant and his co-accused were booked in 
case FIR No. 118 registered at the above mentioned Police Station 
during the same evening and after a regular trial the appellant’s 
co-accused was acquitted by the trial court whereas the appellant 
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2017 
 
2 
was convicted on two counts of an offence under section 302(b), 
PPC and was sentenced to death on each count and to pay 
compensation. The appellant challenged his convictions and 
sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was 
dismissed to the extent of his convictions on both the counts of the 
charge under section 302(b), PPC but the same was partly allowed 
to the extent of his sentences of death which were reduced by the 
High Court to imprisonment for life on each count. Hence, the 
present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 18.09.2017.  
 
2. 
Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to 
reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned 
counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.  
 
3. 
The case in hand is a case of double murder committed in 
broad daylight and an FIR in respect of the same had been lodged 
with sufficient promptitude wherein the appellant had been 
nominated as the principal perpetrator of the murders in issue. 
The ocular account of the alleged occurrence had been furnished 
before the trial court by Naseer Ahmed complainant (PW1) and 
Nazir Ahmed (PW2) who were both sons of Meer Muhammad 
deceased. The said eyewitnesses had advanced a reasonable 
explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence at the 
relevant time and had made consistent statements before the trial 
court which statements had inspired confidence of both the courts 
below. In the circumstances of the case it was unlikely for the said 
sons of the deceased to substitute their father’s killer. The medical 
evidence had provided sufficient support to the ocular account 
furnished by the above mentioned eyewitnesses. The motive set up 
by the prosecution was based upon a suspicion of illicit relations 
between the two deceased and that backdrop had been admitted 
by the appellant also through his statement recorded under 
section 342, Cr.P.C. During the investigation four crime-empties 
had been secured from the place of occurrence which had 
subsequently been found to be wedded with a pistol recovered from 
the appellant’s custody. In his statement recorded under section 
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2017 
 
3 
342, Cr.P.C. the appellant had admitted killing both the deceased 
and had maintained that he had committed the said murders 
under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation and on 
account of Ghairat after finding the two deceased in a 
compromising position in the relevant field. The circumstances of 
this case go a long way in supporting the said stance of the 
appellant inasmuch as according to the FIR as well as the 
statements of the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution there 
was an on-going suspicion regarding illicit relations between the 
two deceased; the place of occurrence was a field belonging to the 
appellant’s family; and there was no habitat situated anywhere 
close to the said field. It was alleged by the prosecution that at the 
relevant time Mst. Qaim Khatoon deceased had been dragged to 
the place of occurrence so as to give the incident a colour of the 
two deceased having been found in a compromising position but 
the circumstances of the case did not support that theory. It has 
already been mentioned above that according to the site-plan of 
the place of occurrence there was no habitat situated anywhere 
close to the place of occurrence and no dragging marks either on 
the ground or on the body of the said deceased had been found 
during the post-mortem examination. The High Court had noticed 
in the impugned judgment passed by it that the parents of the 
female deceased had not pursued the case against the present 
appellant which hinted at a possibility of the appellant’s version 
being true. The High Court had further observed that there was no 
conventional enmity between the parties and, thus, the only reason 
why the appellant could have committed the murders in issue was 
nothing but his having seen the two deceased together in an 
amorous pursuit.  
 
4. 
The discussion made above leads us to an inescapable 
conclusion that the case in hand was indeed a case of grave and 
sudden provocation which could possibly attract the provisions of 
section 302(c), PPC as declared by this Court in the case of Zahid 
Rehman v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 77). The leaned Deputy 
Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State has, however, 
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2017 
 
4 
pointed out that in terms of the first proviso to section 302(c), PPC 
the case in hand was a case of murders committed in the name or 
on the pretext of honour and, thus, it was to be treated as a case 
attracting the provisions of sections 302(a) or 302(b), PPC and not 
those of section 302(c), PPC. We have attended to this aspect of the 
matter with care and have found that the words “in the name or on 
the pretext of honour” used in the first proviso to section 302(c), 
PPC are not without any significance or meaning. The said words 
indicate that a murder committed “in the name or on the pretext of 
honour” has to be a calculated murder committed with 
premeditation in the background of honour whereas the words 
used in the context of grave and sudden provocation in Exception 
1 to the erstwhile section 300, PPC were “deprived of the power of 
self-control”. Such words used in Exception 1 to the erstwhile 
section 300, PPC catered for a situation which was not 
premeditated and had developed suddenly leading to grave 
provocation depriving a person of the power of self-control. Such 
different phraseology used by the legislature in these distinct 
provisions clearly indicates catering for different situations and, 
therefore, the words “in the name or on the pretext of honour” 
ought not to be mixed or confused with grave and sudden 
provocation leading to depriving of the power of self-control. This 
distinction between honour and grave and sudden provocation was 
clearly recognized by this Court in the case of Muhammad Ameer v. 
The State (PLD 2006 SC 283) and the same is manifestly attracted 
to the facts of the present case as well. It has already been found 
by us above that the case in hand was a case of grave and sudden 
provocation and honour only provided a backdrop to the same.  
 
5. 
For what has been discussed above this appeal is partly 
allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellant are set 
aside and they are substituted by his conviction on two counts of 
an offence under section 302(c), PPC with a sentence of rigorous 
imprisonment for twenty (20) years on each count and to pay a 
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) to the 
heirs of each deceased by way of compensation under section    
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2017 
 
5 
544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple 
imprisonment for six months on each count. The sentences of 
imprisonment passed against the appellant shall run concurrently 
to each other and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be 
extended to him. This appeal is disposed of in these terms.  
  
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad 
27.09.2018 
Approved for reporting. 
  
Arif 
