' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Leave to appeal against Lahore High Court dated 7-12-1999 was granted subject to condonation of delay of 149 days. According to the learned counsel for the appellant there was some misconception on the part of the Copying Branch of the High Court, who had wrongly recorded the date of application for copy as 20-4-2000 instead of 20-12-1999, which has now been clarified vide letter issued by Assistant Registrar (Copy), Lahore High Court on behalf of the Registrar. We are satisfied that the criminal petition for leave to appeal was filed within time as such the question of enlargement of time would hardly arise. We therefore, proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
2. Leave to appeal against High Court order upholding the conviction of respondent No,1-Iftikhar Ahmad was granted to consider the question whether the High Court was justified in altering the death sentence of the respondent to imprisonment for life on the premise that possibility of respondent-Iftikhar Ahmad and co-accused Abdul Qayyum having caused injuries to the deceased, after sudden flare-up could not be ruled out and the order was based on conjectures rather than any substantial evidence on the record.
3. The respondent along with co-accused Abdul Qayyum, Abdul Ghaffar and Manzoor Ahmad was tried on the charge of committing Qati-i-and of maternal nephew of appellant Muhammad Inayat, wrongly described as Inayat Ali in the memo. Of appeal, in furtherance of a common intention by causing him chhurri blows.
4. As per the averments of the F.I.R. Ex.PJ, lodged by the appellant on 14-5-1992 at about 9.30 p.m., he along with deceased Akbar Ali, Muhammad Alam and Muhammad Ashraf was present at the tea shop of Muhammad Saleem-P.W.11. At the close of T.V programmer 'Neelam Ghar' Muhammad Akbar went out when he came across the respondent as well as his aforesaid companions, all armed with chhuries. First of all, Abdul Ghaffar raised a lalkara proclaiming to teach a lesson to deceased-Akbar Ali for opposition in the election. Appellant along with Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Alam, Muhammad Ashraf and Shaukat Ali went out of the shop and noticed Akbar Ali fleeing towards the lane. After he had covered a little distance, he was surrounded by all the assailants. First of all Abdul Qayyum inflicted a chhurri blow at the left hip of Akbar Ali where after respondent-Iftikhar Ahmad inflicted three successive blows by means of his chhurri at his chest.
Abdul Ghaffar struck two chhurri blows one at the forehead and other on left side chest of the deceased. Thereafter Manzoor Ahmad dealt three chhurri blows, two on his left side chest and third on left side flank. Meanwhile, Muhammad Saleem P.W.11 approached Akbar Ali in order to rescue him when Abdul Qayyum dealt chhurri blow on left hip of Muhammad Saleem. On receipt of successive stab wounds, Akbar Ali fell on the ground while the appellant along with his companions made their escape good. Akbar Ali while injured was removed to Civil Hospital Kasur but he succumbed to injuries on the way.
5. Motive for the occurrence, as given out in the F.I.R. Appears to be that co-accused Abdul Ghaffar had contested last local council elections against Akhtar Ali, brother of deceased-Akbar Ali and lost. Akbar Ali had taken active part in the election campaign of his brother whereupon Abdul Ghaffar and his party men had issued threats of dire consequences to Akhtar Ali as well as Akbar Ali. Two reports were accordingly lodged at the Police Station. As per the F.I.R., it was on account of defeat in the election that the assailants committed Qatl-i-Amd of deceased-Akbar Ali.
6. After registration of F.I.R., Ziaul Islam Hashmi-S.H.O., Police Station 'A' Division Kasur arrested respondent-Iftikhar Ahmad and Abdul Ghaffar on 23-5-1999 and secured blood stained clothes from the person of co-accused-Abdul Qayyum. On 26-5-1992 Abdul Ghaffar as well as Iftikhar Ahmad voluntarily led to the production of blood-stained chhuries from their respective houses, which were sealed and secured. On conclusion of investigation, respondent along with co-accused persons, was brought, to trial. It may be observed that co-accused-Abdul Qayyum and Manzoor Ahmad were charged by the prosecution of abetting the commission of Qatl-i-Amd and murderous assault on Muhammad Saleem P.W.11.
7. In their respective statements under section 342, Cr.P.C., the respondent as well as his co- accused, denied the allegations and alleged false implication at the behest of Ghulam Sabir MPA.
Upon conclusion of the trial, trial Court convicted all the accused under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced respondents Iftikahr Ahmad and Abdul Ghaffar to death and fine of Rs,5,000 and compensation of Rs,50,000 each. Co-accused Manzoor Ahmad was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs,5,000 and compensation of Rs,50,000 while co-accused Abdul Ghaffar was sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs,1,000 and compensation of Rs,5,000. Abdul Ghaffar was also convicted under section 337-F, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for six months' S.I. And to pay a sum of Rs,1,000 to the injured victim by way of Daman.
8. Convicts appealed against their conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court whereas appellant also filed a criminal revisin for enhancement of sentence of convicts Manzoor Ahmad and Abdul Qayyum. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, Abdul Ghaffar died a natural death whereas Manzoor Ahmad secured acquittal as a result of compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased.
Appellant in this appeal has assailed the reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment as against respondent Iftikhar Ahmad whereas it is not clear from the record whether Abdul Ghaffar further challenged his conviction and sentence after dismissal of his appeal by High Court.
9. We have heard Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the appellant, Rana Muhammad Arshad, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondent Iftikahr Ahmad and Mr. G.N. Gohar, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the State at great length and with their assistance examined the record with utmost care and caution.
10. Ocular evidence directly connecting the respondent with the act of inflicting three vital Chhurri blows resulting in injuries Nos. 9, 10 and 11 on the person of the deceased is furnished by appellant Muhammad Inayat P.W.10 and injured Muhammad Saleem P.W.11. Their evidence on the issue of active role in the commission of the crime leading to fatal injuries on vital parts of the body of the deceased being natural, straight forward and consistent with the medical evidence as well as in accord with the facts and circumstances of the case has been rightly believed by the trial Court and endorsed by the High Court in appeal with justification. In view of limited question, on which leave to appeal was granted, we are not called upon to examine the merits of the evidence, more particularly, when the conviction and sentence has not been challenged by respondent Iftikhar Ahmad himself. We have end devoured our level best to discern from the evidence and even to read between the lines whether this was a case of sudden flare-up at the spur of moment culminating in the death of deceased Akbar Ali but have been unable to find out any circumstances to arrive at such conclusion. Learned counsel for respondent Iftikhar Ahmad, when called upon to point out the circumstances leading to the conclusion that this was not a case of premeditated and pre-planned intentional act of killing on the part of the respondent, was unable to point out any piece of evidence. On the contrary, he attempted to identify minor deviations in the evidence of the two witnesses whose evidence has been justifiably and legitimately believed by two Courts below, including the High Court.
11. Learned counsel attempted to urge that the motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was not directed against respondent Iftikhar Ahmad and it was directly attributed to Abdul Ghaffar, therefore, the respondent could not be held guilty for the commission of the offence of Qatl-i-Amd. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel. Motive set up in the F.I.R. And established at the trial is not the sole ground for conviction of the respondent as well as his companions nor has it been considered as a factor relevant to the alteration and mitigation of sentence from death to life imprisonment. At any rate, respondent has not assailed his conviction and sentence in this appeal, therefore, the submission is totally uncalled for.
12. In our considered view, evidence on record clearly proves beyond doubt the act of participation of the respondent in the commission of the crime and strong basis for finding of guilty against him without there being any mitigating circumstances for the alteration of sentence as done by the High Court in the present case. On deeper examination of the evidence and analysis of the impugned judgment, we are inclined to observe that the reasons assigned for mitigation of sentence are not supported by the material on record and are based on conjectures and surmises and mere speculations which can hardly be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are, therefore, legally entitled to interfere with the exercise of discretion by High Court, which is otherwise sparingly disturbed. In the facts and ground realities of the case, we are constrained to upset the view taken by the High Court in the larger interest of justice and supremacy of law and restore the capital punishment as awarded by the trial Court.
13. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored to the extent of respondent Iftikahr Ahmad.
Non-bailable warrants of arrest shall be issued for his arrest, who has since been released after serving out the sentence of life imprisonment, including the remissions granted by jail authorities.
Compliance shall be reported to this Court as quickly as possible and monthly report submitted for our perusal in chambers.