' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Criminal Petition No,984/L of 2002 has been filed by convict Faisal Mehmood calling in question his conviction/sentence whereas Criminal Petition No,27-L of 2003 has been filed by complainant Lal Khan for the enhancement of sentence of convict Faisal Mehmood from life imprisonment to capital sentence of death.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that convict Faisal Mehmood has been found guilty for committing the murder of Muhammad Sajjad by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat vide order, dated 26th April, 2001 and has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Concluding para. From the judgment reads as under thus:-- "Keeping in view my above comments, the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the present accused. I, therefore, in the circumstances of the case hold the accused guilty for the Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Sajjad and convict and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. As Tazir along with compensation amount of Rs,2,00,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. In default of payment of compensation amount, he shall further undergo R.I. For 4 years. Anyhow benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is granted to the accused. The accused is present in the Court in custody. He be sent back to jail for undergoing the sentence imposed upon him. Bail bonds are cancelled. Case property be dealt with in accordance with law and last-worn clothes be returned to the legal heirs of deceased after the expiry of period of appeal, or revision, if any.
3. Against the aforesaid order convict/petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No,657 of 2000 whereas complainant also filed Criminal Revision No,363 of 2000 for enhancement of sentence. Both the matters were disposed of by the learned High Court by means of common judgment dated 13th November, 2002 whereby conviction/sentence awarded to the petitioner was maintained and Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by convict/petitioner and complainant respectively have been dismissed. As such instant petitions have been filed.
4. Learned counsel in Criminal Petition No,27 of 2003 contended that prosecution has established its case beyond any doubt against the petitioner as such he was entitled for normal penalty of death but learned Additional Sessions Judge/trial Court without assigning any reason has awarded him lesser punishment. It was further contended by him that even the learned High Court had not attended to this aspect of the case in view of the settled principle of law namely that if a person has been found guilty for the commission of murder, he deserves no leniency and is liable to normal penalty of death.
5. Learned counsel in Criminal Petition No,984 of 2002 contended on behalf of convict/petitioner that prosecution has failed to bring on record sufficient incriminating evidence against the convict to establish guilt against him. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution suffers from material contradictions, improvements etc. On account of which intrinsic value of the evidence has damaged badly, therefore, learned High Court was not justified in maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment and under the circumstances of the case the convict/ petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the charge.
' After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record we are inclined to grant leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge and High Court were justified in holding that the convict/petitioner Faisal Mehmood is entitled for the lesser punishment of life imprisonment and whether prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case to prove the guilt on the basis of trustworthy confidence inspiring evidence.