' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Respondent No, 1 namely Muhammad Akhtar was booked and tried in case FIR No, 457 registered at Police Station Saddar, Kamoki, District Gujranwala on 10.09.2007 in respect of offences under sections 302, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(iv) and 34, P.P.C. And vide judgment dated 13:07.2009 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala he was convicted, for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And was sentenced to death besides having been convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 324, 337-F(i) and 337-F(iv), P.P.C. On appeal the Lahore High Court, Lahore had converted the respondent's conviction for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Into one under section 302(c), P.P.C. And his sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years while maintaining his other convictions and sentences. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 27.03.2014.
2. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case only to consider as to whether the High Court was justified in conversion of the respondent s conviction for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. To that under section 302(c), P.P.C. With a reduced sentence or not. W. Have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
3. According to the prosecution respondent No, 1 namely Muhammad Akhtar had launched aggression against the complainant party and with the use of a pair of scissors he had caused multiple injuries not only to Muhammad Ramzan deceased but also to Muhammad Asif complainant (PW9) besides injuring one Mudassir. Upon an analysis of the evidence available on the record the High Court had concluded that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were natural witnesses who had no reason to falsely implicate respondent No, 1 in a case of this nature; the case in hand was a case of a single accused and his substitution for the real culprit was not possible; the medical evidence had provided full support to the ocular account; and the version of the incident advanced by respondent No, 1 could not be established by him through any independent evidence and the same was even otherwise unbelievable. After concluding as above the High Court had proceeded to hold that in the absence of any previous enmity between the parties, the place of occurrence being close to the baithak of respondent No, 1, the said respondent being a tailor master by profession and use of an unconventional weapon like a pair of scissors by the respondent indicated that the occurrence in this case was a sudden occurrence developing without any premeditation and., thus, the High Court had found that respondent was liable to be convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 302(c), P.P.C. On the charge of murder of Muhammad Ramzan deceased. We have, however, noticed that the High Court had failed to consider that an offence under section 302(c), P.P.C. Is made out only in 'those cases where Exceptions to the erstwhile provisions of section 300, A P.P.C. Stand attracted and a reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1996 SC 274), Azmat Ullah v. The State (2014 SCM R 1178) and Zahid Rehman v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 77).
The High Court had concluded that the case in hand was a case of a sudden fight without any premeditation but it had not been considered by the High Court that the remaining . Ingredients of Exception 4 to the erstwhile section 300, P.P.C. Did not stand attracted to the case in hand. For facility of reference Exception 4 is reproduced herewith: "Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
' Explanation.-- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault."
In order to attract the provisions of Exception 4 to the erstwhile section 300, P.P.C. It had not only to be established that the case was one of a sudden fight taking place without any premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel but it was also required as a necessary ingredient that the offender must not have taken undue advantage or must not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the present case even if the occurrence had taken place without any premeditation and a sudden fight had developed at the spot in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel still respondent No, 1 was entirely unjustified in giving multiple blows with a pair of scissors not only to Muhammad Ramzan deceased but also to Muhammad Asif complainant (PW9) and to one Mudassir. It is obvious that the reaction of respondent No, 1 was way beyond normality and in the circumstances of the case he had acted in a cruel and unusual manner besides taking undue advantage of the situation by causing multiple injuries with a sharp-edged weapon on the vital parts of the bodies of three unarmed persons one of whom succumbed to his injuries and died. We are, thus, convinced that such response of respondent No, 1 in the given circumstances of the present case took the case out of the purview of Exception 4 to the erstwhile section 300, P.P.C. In this view of the matter we hold that the High Court was not legally justified in converting the conviction of respondent No, 1 from one under section 302(b), P.P.C. To that under section 302(c), P.P.C. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside to the extent of the above mentioned aspect of the case and the conviction of respondent No, 1 recorded by the trial court for the offence under section, 302(b), P.P.C. Is restored. As regards the sentence of respondent No, 1 on the said charge we note that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been established and the occurrence in this case was indeed an occurrence taking place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation and, thus, the sentence of death passed by the trial court against respondent No, 1 on the charge of murder was not justified.
Respondent No, 1 is, therefore, sentenced for the offence under section 302(b), P.P.C.. To imprisonment for life. He shall also pay a sum of Rs, 50,000/- to the heirs of Muhammad Ramzan deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be extended to the respondent. All his other convictions and sentences recorded by the High Court shall remain intact and all his sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently to each other. This appeal is disposed of in these terms.