JUDGMENT

Young, C J - Karamat Hussain was charged with the murder of his brother-in-law Fazal. The learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, found him guilty and sentenced him to transportation for life. Karamat Hussain from the very beginning admitted having killed Fazal; but his defence has been throughout that he acted in defence of his sister and himself. The sister of Karamat Hussain was married to Fazal. According to the prosecution evidence, this Fazal appears to have been a brute and a dangerous man who had been suspected of murders and who was a village bully and who had threatened every one. He was a man of powerful physique. He again according to the evidence of the prosecution brutally ill-treated his wife, the sister of Karamat Hussain. On the night when Fazal was killed, Fazal had again been beating this unfortunate woman. She rushed out of her kothri to where her brother was sleeping and pleaded with him to protect her. She was followed by Fazal. Karamat Hussain then asked his brother-in-law why he was continuing beating his wife and asked him to stop. According to the evidence of Hukam Dad, the witness, on whom the Judge mainly relies, Fazal said that he would beat his wife and would not spare her. Thereupon Karamat Hussain seized a hatchet and hit the deceased on the head and killed him. It is also in evidence that immediately after this was done Karamat Hussain said that if he had not killed his brother-in-law, his brother-in-law would have killed him. This brother-in-law, according to the evidence, could easily have killed Karamat and he was certainly a man of such a temperament that he might have done it.

2. It appears to us that the above is a true statement of what occurred. Under these circumstances, we have to consider what offence, if any, has been committed. We think that the accused Karamat Hussain had a perfect right to defend his sister from the brutal treatment she was getting from her husband. The whole episode of that night may be treated as one. There was the fact that the woman was getting a terrible beating, that she rushed out and asked her brother for protection, that she was followed by her husband who said he was going to continue the beating and therefore we think the right arose to Karamat Hussain to defend his sister. In addition, there is some evidence that the axe with which Fazal was killed was originally in the hand of Fazal, deceased. The woman herself gave evidence and she definitely said so. The learned Judge however doubts this evidence perhaps not unnaturally. No doubt the woman would be inclined to help her brother. On the other hand however her evidence possibly may be true. Karamat Hussain himself at once stated that he had taken the axe from the hand of the deceased. In any event, whether this be true or not, we think that the right of private defence of his sister arose and it is difficult to say by how much that right has been exceeded. It is very possible, as suggested by all the evidence, that if Karamat Hussain had not killed or seriously disabled Fazal he himself would have been in great danger of being killed. Taking into consideration the brutal character of Fazal and the right of Karamat Hussain to interfere, we think it can be said that Karamat Hussain had reasonable apprehension for his own life. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to say that Karamat Hussain has committed any offence. We therefore hold that Karamat Hussain acted in the right of self-defence not only of his sister but of himself and it would be very difficult to hold that under the circumstances of this particular case he exceeded that right. We accept this appeal and set aside the sentence of transportation for life and acquit the accused.