' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the learned Courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the involvement of respondents No 1 and 2 in the incident in issue had been found by the High Court to have been established but the High Court had differed with the learned Trial Court on the question of premeditation on the part of the accused party. It had been concluded by the High Court that the incident in issue was a result of a sudden fight developing at the spur of the moment without any premeditation and attracting one of the exceptions to the erstwhile section 300, PPC which exceptions now attract the provisions of section 302(c), PPC as declared by this Court in the case of Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274). No weapon had been recovered from the custody of respondents No, 1 and 2 during the investigation and the Postmortem Examination Report pertaining to the dead-body of Irshad Ali deceased did not depict impressions of fingers on the neck of the deceased so as to confirm the allegation of strangulation.
In these peculiar circumstances of the case we have not felt persuaded to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court vis-a-vis appraisal of the evidence and drawing legitimate conclusions from the same. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
High Court Upheld.