' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The convict-petitioner Muhammad Khalid and three others were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, in case F.I.R. No, 508 dated 22-10-1999, under sections 109, 302/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Samundri, District Faisalabad, for the murder of Muhammad Ishfaq brother of complainant Shoukat Ali P.W.7. By judgment dated 28-2- 2002, the convict-petitioner was sentenced to death with a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to undergo S.I for six months. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased. The other co-accused Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Anees were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs,50,000 each and in default whereof to under go S.I for six months. They were further directed to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in their favour. The accused Nazar Muhammad was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.
2. The petitioner and his co-convicts filed Criminal Appeals Nos.72-J and 544 of 2002 against their conviction and sentences. The trial Court also made a Murder Reference No,167 of 2002 for confirmation of death sentence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the complainant also filed Criminal Revision No,475 of 2002 for enhancement of sentences of co-accused and against acquittal of Nazar - Muhammad. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 24-1-2007, dismissed the criminal appeal of the petitioner as well as the criminal revision of the complainant. However, the co-accused Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Anees were acquitted of the charge. The murder reference was answered in affirmative and death sentence of the convict Muhammad Khalid was confirmed. Hence these petitions one by the petitioner and the other by the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had exercised his right of self- defence and it was the carbine of deceased Muhammad Ishfaq which was picked up by him during scuffle and then fired at the deceased hitting him on the vital part of his body. Therefore, the death sentence was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab, as well the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the impugned judgment needed to be reversed in that the petitioner and his acquitted co-accused Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Anees were liable to be sentenced to death as the prosecution case stood proved against them.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned D.P.-G., Punjab and have also gone through the available evidence with their assistance. The petitioner was allegedly armed with .12 bore carbine and the other co-accused with .30 bore pistols. The medical evidence clearly shows that only pellet injuries were found on the body of the deceased. As to the plea of self-defence of the convict-petitioner Muhammad Khalid, suffice it to say that the High. Court and the trial Court believed the ocular version of Shoukat Ali P.W.7 complainant and Muhammad Saleem P.W.8 as confidence inspiring. The occurrence took place in the broad daylight in the house of one Riasat Ali. The plea taken by the petitioner was neither proved by him nor any evidence or circumstance supported his plea. The prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the petitioner to that hilt. No extenuating circumstances were shown to exist for reduction of death sentence of the petitioner. However, the sentence of fine to the petitioner is not permissible under section 302, P.P.C. Which is hereby set aside. Otherwise, we do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are dismissed except to the extent of sentence of tine of the petitioner and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.