' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 1-6-1999, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No,401 of 1994, Criminal Appeal No,23 of 1994 and Murder Reference No,28 of 1994.
2. On the statement (Exh.P.E.) of the petitioner P.W.6, a formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.E./1), dated 20-4-1992, under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondents for the murder of his brother Hamayun. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, by judgment, dated 20-12-1993 convicted and sentenced the respondent No,1 Matti Ullah to death and respondent No,2 Zaki Ullah to imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. However, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 namely Abdul Aziz alias Bhola and Shujjah were acquitted. Therefore, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No,23 of 1994 against their conviction and sentence. On the other hand, the petitioner/ complainant also filed Criminal Revision No,401 of 1994 for enhancement of sentence of Zaki Ullah and against the acquittal of co-accused Abdul Aziz alias Bhola and Shujjah. The trial Court also made a Murder Reference No,28 of 1994 for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence of respondent Mati Ullah.
3. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment, dated 1-6-1999, maintained the conviction of the respondent Mati Ullah and dismissed the appeal to his extent.
However, the High Court converted his death sentence into imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 to the heirs of the deceased failing which he was to undergo S.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in his favor. The respondent Zaki Ullah was acquitted of the charge. The Criminal Revision of the petitioner was also dismissed and Murder Reference was answered in the negative. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court was not justified in reducing the death sentence of respondent Mati Ullah into life imprisonment and in acquitting the respondent Zaki Ullah co-accused in the presence of sufficient reliable evidence produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel, however, did not press the petition seriously to the extent of the remaining co-accused Abdul Aziz and Shujjah. The learned counsel submitted that there were no mitigating circumstances so as to warrant a lesser penalty upon the respondent Mati Ullah. A fire- arm injury on the ankle of the deceased was specifically attributed to the acquitted co-accused Zaki Ullah. There was no evidence on record to show any false implication of the respondent Zaki Ullah. It was contended that the mere fact that Hamayun Javed had talked something against the mother of the respondent Mati Ullah could not constitute a sufficient ground for awarding him a lesser penalty of imprisonment for life.
6. We have lieard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. We find that the High Court had adopted a safer course in A converting the death sentence of the respondent Mati Ullah into imprisonment for life. The deceased had admittedly used derogatory language against the, mother of the said convict which was humiliating and provocative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the extreme penalty of death on Mati Ullah was not called for. Only one fire shot was attributed to him. The respondents Nos.3 and 4 had already been acquitted by the trial Court. The High Court had A taken the correct view that the possibility of false implication of Zaki Ullah could not be ruled out. The injuries on the person of the deceased appeared to have been caused by the same kind of weapon which could be caused by one person only. The High Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt in favor of Zaki Ullah and acquitted him. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. Even otherwise this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
7. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.