' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This petition is directed against a judgment dated 19-9-2002 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No,435 and Murder Reference No,198 of 1997 whereby while maintaining the conviction and punishments recorded against the private respondents by the learned trial Judge, the Honourable High Court had converted the sentences of death awarded to Allah Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and GhulamRasool respondents into sentences of imprisonment for life. Mutalli petitioner-complainant through this petition prays for restoration of the sentences of death awarded to the said respondents by the learned trial Judge.
2. Eleven persons were accused for having caused the murders of Mumraiz Ahmad and Mst. Bevi alias Nusrat and for causing injuries onthe persons of Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Riaz. Six of the said accused persons were blessed with a clean acquittal by the learned trial Judge. The seventh accused, namely, Muhammad Azam was found guilty only under section 324, P.P.C. And was punished with 10 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,10,000 or two years' R.I. In default of payment of the said fine while the eighth accused, namely, Muhammad Inayat had died during the pendency of the trial. The remaining three accused persons, namely, Allah Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and GhulamRasool were, however, convicted under section 302(b) of the P.P.C.
And each one of them was punished inter alia with death. On an appeal filed before the High Court by the said four convicts the conviction recorded against all four of them, as above-described, was maintained. However, the sentences of death awarded to Allah Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and GhulamRasool were not confirmed by the High Court and each one of them were directed to suffer a sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. The reasons which had weighed with the Honourable Court in awarding lesser penalty to Allah Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and GhulamRasool convicts are reproduced hereunder:-- "A perusal of the complaint Exh.P.A.Would show that a very wide net has been cast by the complainant. Almost the entire family including womenfolk were involved in the occurrence. Two fire-arm injuries were alleged to have been caused upon the person of Mumraiz Ahmad deceased.
One that hit him on his forehead was attributed to Allah Yar accused while the second injury was attributed to Muhammad Iqbal which hit on his left shoulder. Similarly, two fatal fire-arm injures were sustained by Mst. Bevi, one which hit her in the abdomen was attributed to GhulamRasool.
Similarly, Muhammad Iqbal was alleged to have been cuased fire-arm injury upon Muhammad Akram which hit him on the right thigh, Mukhtar Ahmad is alleged to have injured Muhammad Ashraf which hit him on his left wrist and left hand. Muhammad Azam is alleged to have fired at Muhammad Riaz which hit on his right shin etc. As noted hereinbefore Mukhtar Ahmad who was specifically attributed one of the two fatal fire-arm injuries to Mst. Bevi which hit her in the abdomen and who was also accused of having fired at Muhammad Ashraf which hit him on his left wrist and left hand has been acquitted of the charge, as he was not found to be present at the time of occurrence. Similarly, apart from the appellants the other accused, namely, Mukhtar Ahmad, Yara, Iqbal son of Inayat, Shera, Mst. NaziranBibi and Mst. ShahnazBibi have been acquitted of the charge. Although Allah Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and GhulamRasool appellants have beenconvicted and sentenced to death besides the direction to pay compensation, there do exist extenuating circumstances whereby they are entitled to a lesser sentence. In view of the fact that each of the eye-witness has rendered a similar statement as regards the role of each individual accused and such specific role having been not believed by the trial Court in respect of some of the accused would also create such mitigatingCircumstances in favour of the convicted accused which persuade us to award them a lesser sentence."
3. The learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate that the discretion exercised by the Honourable High Court in finding the three death convicts worthy of lesser penalty was arbitrary or whimsical.
4. In the circumstances, no exception could be taken conversion of the sentences of death awarded to the said convicts into punishment of imprisonment for life for each one of them.
5. So far as Muhammad Azam respondent is concerned, he had already been awarded the maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years envisaged by section 324 of the P.P.C. Which punishment obviously does not admit of any enhancement.
6. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.