ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This order will dispose of (i) Crl. PSLA No.121/84 filed by Muhammad Hussain for enhancement of the sentence of Mansha accused from imprisonment for life to death and (ii) Jail Petition No.40-R/84 filed by Mansha petitioner against his conviction and sentence, as both the petitions are directed against the same judgment of the High Court dated 11-3-1983 whereby the appeal of the accused was dismissed in a case under section 302 PPC but his sentence was reduced from death to 'imprisonment for life and the fine was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P.S.L.A. 121/84 has adverted our attention to paragraph No.1l of the impugned judgment wherein the High Court after holding that the guilt has been fully brought home to Mansha accused maintained his conviction. He then adverted our attention to paragraph No. 12 wherein reasons for reducing the convict's sentence from death to imprisonment for life have been recorded which read as follows:- "We however, feel that in view of the circumstances of this case as alleged by the prosecution itself the appellant merits to be awarded the lesser sentence. According to the prosecution the deceased had beaten the appellant's dog with a stick few days before the occurrence. Nothing is said by the P.Ws as to what happened immediately before the occurrence. As such, according to the expression which has lately come in vogue, "genesis of the incident is shrouded in mystery", it is evident that something must have had happened shortly before the occurrence which led to the murder of Muhammad Ayyub deceased. In this view of the matter while maintaining the appellant's conviction, we reduce his sentence from the death to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default to undergo three years R.I. The fine, if realised, shall be paid to the father of the deceased as compensation."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the circumstances of this case wherein the murder was committed on a very trivial matter and the eye-witnesses had seen the entire occurrence from its inception, it cannot be said that something had transpired before the occurrence which had not come to the notice of the witnesses and that the grounds recorded by the learned High Court reducing the sentence are not tenable.
4. We feel that the contentions need further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to the complainant petitioner in Crl. PSLA No.121/84.
5. As leave has been granted to the complainant to consider the question of sentence of Mansha accused, leave is also granted in Jail Petition No.40-R/84, to press his case for acquittal.