1. HAMOUDUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition has been filed by a private complainant to challenge the reduction of the sentence of the respondent No. 1, by the Lahore High Court, from death to transportation. The said respondent was charged for the murder of one, Riaz Hussain' and the attempted murder of one, Muhammad Waris, on the 15th of November 1968, a little after sunrise, in the area of village Sheikh Chuhar, Police Station Sadar, Jhang.
2. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, convicted of both offences and sentenced to death under section 30 2 and to three years' R. I. Under section 307, P. P. C. Together with a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. On appeal and reference, the High Court upheld the convictions but reduced the sentence under section 302, P. P. C. From death to transportation for life on the ground that the conduct of the respondent was "much different from the conduct of a person who pre-plans a cold-blooded murder and executes it by firing on unarmed victims".
4. For coming to this conclusion the High Court has given five reasons. The first is that before firing shots the respondent pleaded with the complainant and his companions not to use his watercourse but the latter, even though they had no right to use the said watercourse, adopted a defiant attitude and abused the respondent in a challenging mood. Even then the respondent at first only threatened thorn with dire consequences with his gun. It was thereafter, when the complainant-party refused to desist and insisted "that since they had started the irrigation they would not stop the same", that the respondent opened fire.
5. It is admitted that the land, over which the watercourse flowed, belonged to one, Saeed Shah, and was cultivated by the brother of the respondent, Fazal Shah. The complainant-party were, therefore, clearly the aggressors. They should have desisted when the respondent threatened them with dire conse--quences. By not doing so they also contributed towards the incident and provoked the said respondent to open fire. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the High Court acted perversely or contrary to principles in reducing the sentence. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere on the ground of sentence only. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.