2001 PLP 63 (SCMR)

RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.

On 21-12-1989 at 2-00 p.m. a case under section 302/307/326/34, P.P.C. was registered with Police Station Meclodganj, District Bahawalnagar against Muhammad Shah Din and Khuda Bakhsh for the murder of Muhammad Amir and causing injuries to Haji Ghulam Hassan, Muhammad Sultan, Muhammad Ismail, Mst. Meher-un- Nisa and Hakim Ali. The trial Court vide its judgment, dated 17-10-1992 convicted Muhammad Shah Din and Khuda Bakhsh under section 302/34, P.P.C. Shah Din was sentenced to death while Khuda Bakhsh was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Shah Din was ordered to pay fine of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) while Khuda Bakhsh was ordered to pay fine of Rs.30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) or in default to undergo R.I. for one year each. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. both were directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) each to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Amir or in default to undergo R.I. for six months each. They were also convicted under section 307/34, (Part II), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs.15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand) each for five times or in default to undergo R.I. for one year each. They were ordered to pay compensation of Rs.30,000 (rupees thirty thousand) each to all the five injured. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was given to them. On appeal and reference, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide its judgment, dated 5-3-1998 maintained the conviction of Muhammad Shah Din. However, his sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life. Khuda Bakhsh was-acquitted of the charge for lack of evidence. This is a petition for leave to appeal by the complainant against the impugned judgment.

2. Learned counsel has raised the following pleas:-- (a) Whether the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court was justified in accepting the plea of self-defence when none of the respondents/accused partymen were injured."? (b) Whether the High Court rightly discarded the testimony of the eye witnesses wherein the case of the prosecution stood fully proved to the hilt? (c) Whether the appreciation of evidence by the High Court was based on sound judicial principles? (d) Whether the reasonings arrived at by the High Court in passing an order of acquittal was based on equitable considerations? (e) Whether the computation of death sentence to life imprisonment by the learned Divisions Bench was based on sound judicial principles? (f) Whether the High Court has erred in law to reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment?

3. To consider the above points, leave to appeal is granted to reappriase evidence to ensure fair administration of justice. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount returnable to the District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar shall also issue to the respondents. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-65/S Leave granted.