SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 31-5-1981 of the Lahore High Court. They arise in the following circumstances.
2. Suleman, petitioner in Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 325 of 1981, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of Nisar Ahmad and was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000. On appeal the High Court upheld his conviction and sentence of fine but reduced his sentence of death to imprisonment for life. Qamar Din, brother of the deceased, has filed Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 303 of 1981 for the restoration of the sentence of death.
3. The deceased was employed at an Atta depot in Jalalpur Jattan. Three days prior to the occurrence Sideman obtained Atta worth Rs.10 on credit from him. On 1-10-1974 at about 4 p. m.
The deceased and his brother Qamar Din were present near the bus-stand in Jalalpur Jattan when Suleman came there. The deceased asked Suleman for payment of the money. This led to a scuffle between them. During the course of the scuffle Suleman took out a Chhuri from the fold of his trousers and struck the deceased twice in the abdomen. The deceased died at the spot. The occurrence was reported by Qamar Din at Police Station Jalalpur Jattan on the same day at 4-45 p.m.
4. At the trial Suleman did not deny that he had caused the death of the deceased. He admitted that just before the occurrence he had a quarrel with the deceased over payment of the money but stated that the deceased who was much stronger than he started belabouring him after felling him on the ground. When he tried to rescue himself the deceased struck him with a Chhuri on the wrist. In order to protect himself he also took out a knife and gave some blows to the deceased. He then went to Police Station Jalalpur Jattan to report the incident. The police officer present at the police station not only declined to record his statement but instead falsely involved him in the case.
5.After the occurrence Suleman was found to be bearing four simple injuries on his person. Two were simple abrasions on the left forearm and bridge of the nose; one was a bruise over the right cheek and the fourth was a spindle shape incided wound 1" x --" x muscle deep situated on the outer side of front of the left forearm, 2)" above left wrist.
6.The only question for consideration before us is whether Suleman had attacked the deceased in order to protect his own life. He did not lead any evidence in his defence to substantiate his version.
The learned Judges in the High Court and the trial Court rejected his plea of self-defence and we see no justification for interfering with their findings in this regard. It is difficult to believe that a stronger person who had felled him on the ground and was attacking him with a Chhuri would let Suleman to take out a knife from his trousers and give him an opportunity to attack him. In the circumstances we are satisfied that he was rightly convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
7.Admittedly, the occurrence was a sudden affair and it was at the spur of the moment that Suleman attacked the deceased with the Chhuri. We are, therefore, not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the High Court in reducing his sentence of death to imprisonment for life. We direct that in computing his sentence he should be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8.With the above observations, both the petitions are dismissed.