' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- This appeal after leave of Court is filed by Muhammad Ashraf against the judgment dated 25-11-2004 of Lahore High Court, whereby, on conviction under section 302(c), P.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for fourteen years with Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Earlier, the appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac), by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment, dated 26-6-2002.
2. The F.I.R. Exh.P.K./1 was lodged by Ghulam Mustafa, complainant, stating that 4/5 days prior to the present occurrence the police party had raided the house of Muhammad Ashraf, appellant. That the latter had suspected that the raid was initiated at the information of Ghulam Dastagir, a brother of the complainant. That, on the next day Muhammad Ashraf abused Ghulam Dastagir.
3. On the day of occurrence at 8-30 a.m. Ghulam Dastagir (deceased), Ghulam Murtaza and one Abdul Ghafoor went to the house of Muhammad Ashraf, appellant to complain about his behaviour. The deceased asked them as to why they had abused him without his fault and assured his innocence. Altercation started between the parties. Ashraf, appellant went inside his house and returned duly armed with a Chhuri but due to intervention of elders, they were separated. While the complainant party was returning home Aslam, the father of appellant raised a Lalkara whereupon Ashraf inflicted a Chhuri blow which hit on the right knee of the deceased. Ghulam Dastagir drew out his pistol and fired at Ashraf accused hitting him on his left leg near thigh'. Ghulam Dastagir fell down whereupon Ashraf inflicted further Chhuri blow on abdomen resulting into the death of Ghulam Dastagir while he was being shifted to the hospital.
4. During trial the prosecution proved its case. The appellant accused admitted the occurrence but took a plea that Ghulam Dastagir etcetra had launched an attack on the house of Muhammad Ashraf, appellant and had even fired at the appellant. That in order to save his life, the appellant inflicted Chhuri blow on the deceased.
5. Both the Courts were of unanimous view that the occurrence had taken place. So far as the trial Court is concerned, it accepted the version of the prosecution and rejected that of the accused.
While, on the other hand, the learned High Court accepted the defence 'version of accused acting in the exercise of right of private defence but at the same time it came to the conclusion that it was an exceeded right of self-defence.
6. We have thoroughly scanned the prosecution evidence from which it appears that occurrence had taken place near the house of the appellant. That the altercation had changed into an open fight. The exercise of the right of private defence is a matter, involving certain factual implications directly related to human conduct. The moment it accrues, the quantum of fear in the mind of the accused and his reaction under such fear, are such matters that cannot be weighed in golden scales. It varies from man to man and also is directly related to the circumstances of each case. No doubt, in the instant case, the deceased had effectively fired from his pistol at the appellant but the nature of injuries already inflicted on the deceased were such that the appellant could either have done without killing or could have averted the danger by snatching the pistol from the deceased who had already fallen down. The High Court in our view, has rightly observed that it is a case of exercising exceeded right of private defence.
7. While agreeing with the High Court, we observe that, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the sentence of imprisonment of fourteen years, if reduced, would equally serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appeal is partially accepted qua the quantum of sentence. The imprisonment for fourteen years is reduced to imprisonment for ten years while the compensation amount of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) is kept intact. The appellant shall have the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C.