1989SCMR711 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners closely related to the deceased Muhammad Siddiq, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 3‑6‑1985 whereby their Criminal Revision Petition seeking enhancement in the sentence was dismissed. 2.In an occurrence which took lace as far back as 1‑1964, Muhammad Siddiq died of injuries received by spear. Nawab Muhammad Ali and Meraj of the complainant party also received injuries. The respondents were tried and the respondent No.2 was sentenced by the trial Court under section 304, Part I to seven years R.I. and under section 324, P.P.C. to one year R.I. The respondent No.3 was sentenced under section 307, P.P.C. for 3 years R.I. and respondent No.4 was sentenced under section 325 to one year R.I. The learned Judge in High Court dismissed the petition for enhancement observing as follows:‑ "In view of the long delay in the disposal of this petition and the fact that Nek Muhammad, one of the accused, has died, and rest of the accused have already served out their sentences and been released, I would not like to disturb the position, for even assuming that I were to hold that intrinsically the judgment of the learned trial Judge is incorrect, I would not like to order a retrial after so many years. Taking all circumstances into consideration, I would dismiss this petition."

3. Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to glaring legal errors on the basis of which the trial Court recorded the conviction and sentence in the manner indicated. For example the following observation of the learned trial Court:‑ "When origin and causes of fight could nit be clearly given the only presumption possible is that offence of homicide fell under Exception 4 of section 300, P.P.C. which would be punishable under section 304, Part L" Similarly, the following observation was made by the learned Sessions Judge:‑ "The rest not being charged for simple injuries are acquitted of the charge of attempted murder when independent injury cannot be traced to any individual person."

4. The learned counsel also contended that even for the offences held proved, the sentence awarded is not justified on the facts of the case and a more serious view of the involvement of the respondents in the crime should have been taken and reflected in awarding the sentence.

5. We find that the learned Judges in the High Court while issuing notice to the respondents on 12‑12‑1968 and while finally dismissing the revision petition on 3‑6‑1985 were fully aware of the mistakes pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. What weighed was the inordinate delay in disposal of the matter and the fact that the respondents had already suffered the sentence that was awarded to them. The matter has come up before us after 22 years of the ,fj occurrence and in spite of the defects pointed out and noted by us, we consider that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in the High Court does not call for our interference. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, after such lapse of time. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused. MA.K./H‑60/S Leave refused.