SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner, Abbas A.I, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Abdul Rehman deceased and was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000. On appeal and reference the High Court upheld his conviction and the sentence of fine but reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. It also directed that in addition to the fine he should also pay a further amount of Rs.5,000 by way of compensation to the family of the deceased. He has filed a petition through jail (Jail Petition No. 83 of 1982) against his conviction and sentences.
Muhammad Tufail, brother of the deceased, has filed a petition (Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 310 of 1982) for the restoration of the sentence of death. This judgment will dispose of both these matters.
2. The deceased and his brother Muhammad Tufail had purchased some land in Chak No. 266/R.B.
From one Ghulam Sadiq and his co-sharers. They also entered into an agreement to purchase some more land from the said vendors. The agreement to sell, led to some dispute between the parties. Upon this the deceased and Muhammad Tufail filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. In this litigation Daulat Khan, father of the petitioner, was acting as special attorney of Ghulam Sadiq and his co-sharers.
3. According to the prosecution a few days prior to the occurrence an old Keekar tree fell in the land purchased by the deceased and his brother. On the day of occurrence, that is, 25-5-1975, at about 7-30 a.m., the deceased and his brother started lopping off the tree. Daulat Khan who lived in a nearby house raised an objection. This led to an exchange of abuses between the deceased and- Daulat Khan. Daulat Khan went to his house and came back with the petitioner who was armed with a gun. The petitioner shouted at the deceased that he would teach him a lesson for insulting his father. Immediately thereafter he fired at the deceased who was hit in the chest, shoulder and chin. The petitioner then ran away. The deceased died at the spot.
4. At the trial the petitioner admitted that he had fired at and killed the deceased. His version was that he was informed at his house by someone that his father was being given a beating by the deceased and Muhammad Tufail. He took out his gun and ran towards the spot. He found that his father was lying on his back while the deceased sitting on his chest and holding him by the throat.
His father was crying for help. He shouted at the deceased to let off his father. On this the deceased asked Muhammad Tufail that he too be taught a lesson. The deceased then came towards him. On this he fired at the deceased. Had he not fired, he alleged, the deceased and his brother would have killed him and his father. He produced his father and two other witnesses in support of his version.
5. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court accepted the defence version. We have gone through the record and find no reason at all to take a different view of the evidence. It will be noticed that Daulat Khan was found to be bearing injuries on his buttocks. The doctor who examined him stated that these could be self-suffered. If the deceased had in fact felled Daulat Khan on the ground and was holding him by the throat there would have been some scratches on the upper part of his back or some marks of violence on his throat; thus, his injuries would not have been entirely confined to the buttocks. However that may be, after a review of the entire evidence we are satisfied that the plea of self-defence was an afterthought. He was therefore rightly convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
6. We also find no merit in the petition for enhancement of sentence. It was the case of the prosecution itself that just prior to the occurrence the deceased had abused the respondent's father. It was not the case of the prosecution that it was a premeditated murder. It appears from the evidence that the petitioner was attracted to the spot by the abuses hurled by the deceased at his father. In the circumstances we do not think it is a fit case for interfering with the discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of sentence.
7. For the reasons stated above we would dismiss both the petitions.