1989 PLP 1396 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the High Court, of a criminal revision filed by the respondents' side as a result of which the conviction of respondent No. 1 was altered from 302 to 304, Part I, P.P.C. and the sentence of death awarded to him was altered to 10 years' R.I. His conviction under section 307, P.P.C. was maintained but the sentence was reduced from 8 years to 5 years' R.I. The case against the other respondents is not being pressed, therefore, for the purpose of this petition the facts and particulars about them need not be stated. Learned counsel has contended that it was a clear case of murder and the conviction and sentence accordingly should have been upheld by the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court while discussing the evidence led by the prosecution made the following observation:‑ "In our view these are material improvements and indicate firstly that the eye‑witnesses suppressed certain facts at the initial stage secondly that the narration of the occurrence and description of various injuries were not correctly given by them during investigation of the case. It is in evidence that Sardar Muhammad accused was empty‑handed. If the accused had come to commit the murder of Muhammad Siddique and to launch murderous assault on the witnesses then Sarder Muhammad accused must also have taken some weapon in his hand. We get an impression that there was some quarrel between the parties in the street which all of a sudden took an ugly turn in which Muhammad Siddique deceased and his son Liaquat P.W. on one side and Feroze Din accused and his brother Muhammad Hussain accused on the other side took part." .. The presence of blood at various places also supports the view that the parties were running about when the occurrence took place all of a sudden and they caused injuries to each other." ."We find that the prosecution story that there were two different occurrences, first that of abuses and the second when Muhammad Siddique deceased and the witnesses received injuries was not correct and true but it all happened during one occurrence all of a sudden." We heard the learned counsel on the aforequoted views and findings by the High Court and with regard to what actually happened; regardless of, the two parallel versions of the two sides who obviously were involved m such a case that they would not concede each other's case. He failed to satisfy us that this case is not covered by the principles laid down by this Court in the well‑known case Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others' (P L D 1962 S C 502). If they are attracted then the conviction of respondent No.1 under section 304, Part I by application of Exception 4 to section 300 P.P.C. was proper. The sentence of 10 1A years R.1. awarded to respondent No. 1 for the said offence is neither illegal nor inappropriate. The sentence of 5 years R.I. awarded by the High Court under section 307, P.P.C. which could have been altered to 308, P.P.C. is also not inappropriate. No justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same accordingly is refused. M.A.K./S‑280/S Leave refused