1. JAVID IQBAL J.-- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mohammad Nawaz petitioner and is directed against the judgment dated 20 May, 1981 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby conviction of Mohammad Hussain and Sher Mohammad respondents was altered from one under section 307 PPC to that under section 324, P.P.C., and their sentence was reduced from five years' R.I. Each to one year's R.I. Each. Hence this petition for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondents.
2. The respondents alongwith eight others were tried under section 148/307/149, P.P.C. By Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali, who vide his judgment dated 27 August, 1980 convicted the two respondents under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to five years' R.I., whereas the other co- accused were acquitted of the charges. The occurrence took place on 19 March, 1972 at 5 p.m. And the report was lodged about 21 hours thereafter. The prosecution version is that Mohammad Nawaz complainant-petitioner alongwith Mohammad Nawaz son of Allah Bakhsh was returning home when they were attacked by the respondents who were armed with guns. They sustained injuries due to the shots fired by the respondents. The motive for the offence was that the respondents had a suspicion that Mohammad Nawaz complainant-petitioner had illicit relations with the sister of Mohammad Hussain respondent. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore have accepted the prosecution version completely but the learned Single Judge has advanced cogent reasons in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment for altering the conviction and reducing the sentence of the respondents. The reasons are that the injuries sustained in this case although by fire-arm were simple in nature, the fire was not repeated, the respondents had suspected that the complainant-petitioner was carrying on illicit relationship with the sister of Mohammad Hussain respondent, there was nothing on the record to show that there was any other background of enmity between the parties and that the respondents had faced the agony of prolonged trial for over 61 years. In that view of the matter in our view it is not a fit case for interference.
3. The petition is accordingly dismissed.