1995 PLP 1085 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 307‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Finding of the three Courts below was not challenged on merits and only reduction in sentence was prayed for‑‑‑Accused who was awarded 4 years' R.I. had already been leniently dealt v. in specially when it had been proved that he entered the house of the complainant and had effectively fired at hint‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 15th January, 1994. FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J‑‑‑Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of Single Judge, of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 7‑11‑1993 in Cr. Revision No. 87 of 1987. In the report lodged by Muhammad Anwar on 1‑11‑1985 it was alleged that at about 7‑30 p.m. he was lying on a cot in his house and his father Abbas Khan and his wife Mst. Khatoon Bibi and the children were also present when Muhammad Nawaz petitioner, Ghulam Muhammad and Lal the acquitted accused, armed with fire‑arms entered the house. After raising Lalkara Nawaz fired a shot at him hitting him on his upper left arm while the other 2 accused persons fired shots in the air and decamped from the spot. The accused were tried by the Magistrate with enhanced power under section 30, Cr.P.C. at Chakwal who acquitted Ghulam Muhammad and Lal and found the accused/petitioner guilty of an offence under section 307, P.P.C. Vide order dated 24‑3‑1987 the petitioner was sentenced to 4 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to further 6 months' R.I. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed on 9‑7‑1987. The petitioner further challenged his conviction through Criminal Revision No. 87 before the learned High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 7‑11‑1993 against which leave to appeal is prayed for. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, who did not challenge the finding of the three Courts blow as far as the effective firing attributed to the petitioner is concerned, it was contended that the sentence imposed at the petitioner is harsh and that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. On going through the record we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner as far as the sentence imposed on the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has already been leniently dealt with specially when it has been proved that he entered the house of the complainant and has effectively fired at him. No case is made out for grant of leave to appeal. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑2232/S Leave refused.