1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side in a murder case with a view to seek enhancement of sentence from imprisonment for life to death.
2. ' Learned counsel while pressing this petition read out the following part of the impugned judgment:- "The occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was lodged in about one hour's time. It was prompt F.I.R. All the accused were named therein. The eye-witnesses were also named in the F.I.R.
3. Which contained detailed facts of the occurrence. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the two eye-witnesses. Resultantly we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the appellants under section 148 and section 302/149, P.P.C. Is accordingly maintained. On a perusal of the evidence we find that medical officer admitted in cross- examination that injury No,13 by fire-arm could alone also cause death of Sher Khan deceased though in that case it would not have been instantaneous death. The deceased received a large number of incised wounds, including injuries Nos.1 to 7 which alongwith injury No,13 were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is, therefore, not clear as to which of the accused caused the fatal injuries; Secondly, Alam Sher accused was son of Manzoor Hussain deceased for whose murder Sher Khan deceased was being prosecuted alongwith three other accused. Sher Khan deceased had been allowed bail in the said case. The four appellants are aged from 23 to 27 years. They apparently acted under the influence of their elders, i.e, the two acquitted accused namely Mapal and Khan. In view of these circumstances and relying on (1985 SCMR 479) Mukhtar Hussain v. The State and (1985 SCMR 1415) Liaquat Shah and others v. The State, we reduce their sentences from death to imprisonment for life."
4. ' Learned counsel has criticised only reason for reduction of sentence, namely, that "it was not clear as to which of the accused was responsible for the fatal injuries". According to him some further analysis could have led to the discovery as to who had caused the fatal injury. Be that as it may these is no tangible answer to the second reason for lesser sentence mentioned in the afore quoted part of the impugned judgment. There are other features also of this case which would militate against the enhancement of the sentence now by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.