1989SCMR628 (PLP)

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 20 -6‑1987.

2. Sardar Ali and his brother Abdus Sattar alias Sain, residents of Chak No.208/R.B., Police Station Saddar, Tehsil and District Faisalabad, along with Muhammad Tufail, were charged under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. for committing the murder of Muhammad Ismail and injuries‑to the P.Ws. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who, vide his judgment dated 27‑11‑1984, convicted Sardar Ali petitioner under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to two years' R.1. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to two years' R.I. Abdus Sattar was also convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to two years' R.I. Half of the fine on recovery was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Ismail while the remaining half equally distributed among the injured P.Ws. as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Tufail was, however, acquitted of the delict by giving him the benefit of doubt.

3. The two convicts, namely, Sardar Ali and Abdus Sattar filed appeal against their conviction and sentence in the High Court whereas Muhammad Boota complainant filed a revision petition for enhancement of the sentence fo Abdus Sattar to death and also for enhancement of the compensation to be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured P.Ws. In the High Court, the learned Judges after considering the case in depth upheld the conviction and sentence of Sardar Ali petitioner but acquitted Abdus Sattar of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not question the conviction of the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. but vehemently submitted for reduction in his sentence. He contended that on the fateful day about four hours prior to the occurrence Mst. Rashida (P.W.10) and Mst. Bakhshi (P.W.11) were sprinkling foul water of the pit in the street when Sardar Ali petitioner, his mother Mst. Bavi and Mst. Jhando, wife of Muhammad Tufail (acquitted accused) came there and tried to stop them from throwing water in the street. This led to an exchange of abuses between them. Though they were separated but then Sardar Ali petitioner left the place extending threats to the female‑folk of the complainant that he would teach them a lesson for throwing water in the street and also for abusing them. This was, he submitted, the only motive as there was no previous enmity between the parties. Furthermore, since the women‑folk of the petitioner's side were abused by the complainant, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a lesser punishment.

5. W have considered the above arguments in the light of the case of the prosecution and we do not find any merit in the above submissions in (hat Muhammad Ismail deceased was not a party in the earlier dispute and at the 1A crucial time too he simply asked the petitioner not to abuse his women‑folk but the petitioner instead gave him a stab blow and also inflicted injuries on Mst.1 Rashida and Mst. Bakhshi. Thus, there does not exist any extenuating circumstance to impose lesser punishment on the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. MA.K./S‑230/S Petition dismissed.