ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The petitioner's brother Ashfaq Ahmad was killed during an incident which took place at 7-30 a.m.. On the 11th of April, 1975, on the Pacca road in the area of village Chak Qadah, at a dis--tance of l I miles from Police Station Dhuman, in the Jhelum District. The matter was reported at the police station by the petitioner at 10-15 a.m. Same day. According to him, he and his deceased brother were going to the cattle fair at Addah Pir Phulahi along with their goals, when the respon--dent Muhammad Akram suddenly appeared from behind a Jhund tree. Armed with a chhuri, and stabbed the deceased on the front side of his chest, causing an injury 6' deep.
On seeing this assault, the petitioner gave a few blows with his stick to the accused, but stick broke down. And thereupon the petitioner tried to snatch away the chhurri from the hand of the accused, and during this scuffle knife injuries were caused on of the petitioner as well as the accused. The incident attracted Mir Zaman (P. W. 10) and one Israr Muhammad, but the accused managed to escape from the spot.
2. The motive for the assault was stated to be the grievance entertain-- ed by the accused person owing to a beating given by the deceased to the sister of the accused. Mst. Manzoor Begum by name, when her goats had trespassed into the wheat field of the deceased. An altercation had then taken place between the accused and the deceased as Mst. Manzoor Begum had complained to the accused that she had been caught by the deceased with an evil intention. This incident occurred four or five days before the present murder
3. On being arrested on the next day, the respondent led for the ,recovery of the blood-stained chhurri as well as his blood-stained clothes, on alt ofwhich human blood was found to be present by the Serologist. He is gave an alternative version to the effect that, in fact, he had been attacked by the deceased and his brother, and he had reacted only in self-defense.
4. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the defence version, convicted the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code by his judg--ment dated the 22nd of March, 1977, and sentenced him to death, besides a fine of Rs.1,000. However, in appeal and confirmation proceedings a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court did not confirm the death sentence, and instead altered the respondent's conviction to one under Part I of section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and directed that he undergo six years' rigorous imprisonment, beside paying a fine of Rs.1,000. In determining the quantum of sentence, the learned Judges took note of the fact, under section 382 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the respon--dent had been under detention for nearly four years. In accepting the res--pondent's appeal in these terms, the learned Judges expressed the opinion, after analysing the evidence, that it was not a case of the respondent lying in ambush for the deceased, but rather a case of a sudden tight upon a sudden quarrel without any premeditation, and as only a single blow was dealt by the respondent, the case fell within the ambit of Exception IV to section 300 of the P. P. C.
5. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this judgment of the High Court dated the 22nd of April, 1979, on the ground that the learned Judges in the High Court have erred in coming to the conclusion that the offence committed, by the respondent was not murder. It is submitted on his behalf that the accused person had accepted the motive, namely, the beating of his sister by the deceased four or five days prior to this incident, and it was also clear that he was carrying a chhurri on his person when he launched the attack on the deceased, and, accordingly, it could not be said that there was no element of premeditation on his part. The leaped counsel contends that there was no material at all on the record for thinking that there was sudden quarrel between the parties followed by a sudden fight. As the ocular evidence was to the contrary. 1t appears to the learned counsel that, in the circumstance, the trial Judge was right in holding that this was a premeditated murder, and, accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court should be restored.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, and examining the evidence recorded at the trial, as well as the reasons given by the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court, we Are of the view that the conclusions recorded by them are sustainable on the record, and, accordingly, it is not all a fit case for our interference in the matter.
7. It was conceded in the evidence that the deceased and the petitioner had suddenly decided on the morning of the incident to the cattle fair along with their goats, and it is, therefore, difficult to hold that the respondent dent knew of their intention in advance and had made plans to ambush the deceased on his way to the cattle fair. It also appears that at the particular place where the assault was launched the trees did not offer any shelter to the assailant, and the road being frequented by those who were proceeding to the cattle fair, the respondent could not possibly successfully hide himself behind a hand tree. In the circumstances, the learned Judges appear to us to be right in saying that if, indeed, the respondent had made a plan t ambush the deceased, he could not have possibly selected the place and the time at which the incident took place. It was, accordingly, more reason-' able to hold that as both the parties were proceeding in the same direction A they came into contact with each other and something flared up between them owing to the previous incident, which was only four or five days old.
8. Another factor which supports such a conclusion is that if the attach was premeditated, then it was more likely that the respondent would have escaped after giving a stab wound on the chest of the deceased; and the fact that he got involved in a scuffle with the brother of the deceased, and suffered several incised injuries, besides marks of teeth-bite on his left thumb, shows that he could not have acted in a preplanned manner. In other words, there is material on the record to support the view of evidence taken by the High Court, and it is well established that, in such a situation, this Court will not interfere to reverse findings of fact which could be arrived at on the record.
9. The submission that the possession of the chhurri would (show that the petitioner had planned the attack in advance, does not, in our view, suffice to negative the findings recorded by the High Court. He may have been carrying the chhurri not to launch a premeditated attack on the de-- ceased, but merely as a defensive measure in case the opposite-party tried to do any harm to him;
10. For the foregoing reasons, we consider that it is a case in which the benefit of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code could legitimately be extended to the respondent. On this view of the matter, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.