1990 PLP 1196 (SCMR)

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑In an encounter at 8‑30 p.m. on 16‑5‑1984 Muhammad Boota lost his life. The respondents were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad who found them guilty under section 302/149, P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and for other minor offences and awarded consequential sentences, vide order dated 27‑4‑198.1. On their appeal, the learned Lahore High Court re‑examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that it was a case of sudden fight without premeditation and each accused was liable for his individual act. Liaqat and Nasrullah respondents No.3 and 1 respectively were found guilty under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years each with a fine of Rs.5,000 each. Other respondents were found guilty and sentenced for their individual role. This is vide order dated 15‑8‑1987. Nephew of the deceased, the informant, seeks leave to appeal. The contention of the learned counsel fur the petitioner is that the learned High Court erred in law in holdings that the case was one of sudden fight without premeditation. The contention is without force. Not only the able seasoned learned counsel who appeared for the complainant‑petitioner conceded that "it appears to be a case of sudden fight and without premeditation in which each accused would be responsible for his own acts", but the learned High Court also recorded its own finding to the following effect: . _ "Going through the evidence of the prosecution and the defence as set up by the appellants, I am convinced that the occurrence took place all of a sudden without premeditation. Both the sides were armed and caused injuries to each other. Immediate motive for causing the death of Boota deceased has not. been proved. 1n such circumstances, I hold that it is a free fight in which each individual would be responsible for his own acts." On the side of the accused‑respondents Faryad was examined by Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Gil (P.W.8) and found "one stab wound 6‑1/2 c.m. x 1‑1/2 c.m. (depth not probed) on the right patoral region above the nipple" .The patient was pulseless, cold and clammy, condition of injured was serious. Nothing has been pointed out from the evidence to show that the finding of the learned single Judge complained against is either unreasonable or does not follow from the evidence. Reappraisal of evidence is not the normal function of this Court. The finding is well‑based and was conceded to follow from the evidence before the learned High Court by an experienced counsel. In the above circumstances, no case is made out for interference. The petition is, therefore dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑1234/S. Petition dismissed.