1990 PLP 1132 (SCMR)

Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P. 21‑R of 1988). Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in Cr. P. 36‑R of 1988). Raja A. Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for State (in Cr. P. 21‑R of 1988). Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (in Cr. P.21‑R of 1988) and the State (in Cr.P. 36‑R of 1986). Date of hearing: 5th March, 1990. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑Two Petitions have been filed, one (Cr. P. 36‑R of 1988) by the convicts, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑2‑1988 whereby the conviction of all the three accused/petitioners was altered to section 302/34 P.P.C. (two counts) and 307/34 P.P.C. (on three counts). Gulzar Ahmad's sentence of death was confirmed and maintained, that of Nasim Akhtar was altered to imprisonment for life and that of Muhammad Sabir's imprisonment for life was upheld. The complainant on the other hand by a separate Petition(Cr. P. 21‑R of 1988), seeks leave to appeal, for enhancement of sentence of those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment and further for setting aside of the acquittal of Muhammad Ayub and Javed Mehmood.

2. The parties happened to be related and occurrence took place on 6th of May, 1982 in which Zulfiqar Ali and Abdul Sattar died from the complainant side and five others received injuries. Two of the accused charged of the offence also had received injuries. The motives for the occurrence were reported to be more than one.

3. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the convicts contended that the entire judgment of the High Court gives the impression that the prosecution witnesses have been taken to be inimical and unreliable and corroboration has been considered necessary. However, in determining as to what the corroborative factors were, the High Court has taken the number of injuries for determining as to who was the aggressor and who was the victim and also the number of the accused participating in the occurrence. What is contended is that corroboration qua each individual accused was not obtained and besides simply the number of injuries are no good criteria for determining the aggressor and the victim.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and examining the judgment of the High Court we find that the question whether the required corroboration, was forthcoming in the case, requires fuller examination for which leave to appeal is granted to the convicts (Cr. P. 36‑R of 1988).

5. As regards the complainant's petition (Cr.P.21‑R/88), we find that even those who were sentenced to death have as a result of general amnesty benefited and they are now required to undergo life imprisonment. In this background, for such an occurrence which had taken place in 1982, it would look incongruous to consider the re-imposition of death sentence on those not so dealt with.

6. As regards the acquittal of the two respondents in the Petition of the complainant (Cr. P. 21‑R of 1988), we find that the discretion exercised by the High Court does not require interference because it proceeds on grounds which are recognized as proper and plausible. Hence leave to appeal is refused in the complainant's Petition (Cr. P. 21‑R of 1988). N.H.Q./K‑145/S Order accordingly.