1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-Leave to appeal is sought againstthe judgment dated 6-2-2002 of the Lahore High Court Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No,41-3 of 1995 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the murder reference sent by the trial Court was answered in the affirmative by confirming his death sentence.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that F.I.R. No,55 of 1993 was got recorded on 29-3-1993 at 5-05 p.m. At Police Station, 18-Hazari, District Jhang, under section 302/34, P.P.C. For an occurrence stated to have taken place at 4-00 p.m. On the same day. It was case of the complainant that the petitioner alongwith his two acquitted co-accused having .32 bore pistol caused fire-arm injury to Dilmeer on the front side of his chest, whereafter he inflicted another injury on the right side of his chest which proved fatal resulting into his instantaneous death.
3. " After usual investigation challan was submitted in the Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, through his judgment dated 14-2-1995 acquitted the co-accused of the charge and convicted the petitioner under section 302, P.P.C. Sentencing him to death with an order to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased to the tune of Rs,50,000 and in default whereof, he was to suffer six months S.I.
4. ' The petitioner filed aforesaid Jail appeal assailing his conviction and sentence and a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has dismissed the above appeal by confirming his death sentence through the judgment dated 6-2-2002, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' After arguing the case for some time learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he would not challenge the merits of the case and prayed for reduction in the sentence of the petitioner.
6. We have considered the contention raised above and noticed that it was an act of callousness on the part of petitioner to kill Dilmeer simply for refusing to give Rishta as desired by the petitioner. As far as age of the petitioner is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to hold otherwise., The learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, while refusing to award lesser sentence to the petitioner, has dealt with this point in the following terms:-- "8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first mitigating circumstance in favour of the convict was that he was below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. To prove this assertion, no school leaving certificate or a birth certificate was produced for getting the convict examined for the purpose of determination of his age. According to certificate " ..." the age of the convict was 21/22 years. So it cannot be a mitigating circumstance. Next is that the appellant acted under the influence of his brother (since acquitted) Mazhar Abbas but it has come on record that Mazhar was the younger brother of the appellant."
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to advance any plausible reason for reducing the sentence of the petitioner.
8. ' In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to differ with the impugned judgment which is just and proper. The instant petition being without any force is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.