1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18th March 1986 whereby conviction of Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar respondents was set aside under section 302/34, P.P.C. And they were only convicted under section 323, P.P.C. For causing simple injuries to the deceased and the conviction of Manzoor respondent was maintained under section 302, P.P.C. But his sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment plus fine. The present petition is for enhancement of the sentence of Manzoor respondent and against the setting aside of the conviction of Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the aforesaid three respondents alongwith Anwar and Khan were tried for offences under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. But the trial Court acquitting Anwar and Khan convicted the three respondents under section 302/34, P.P.C. And Manzoor respondent was sentenced to death plus fine whereas Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar respondents were sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine each. On appeal of the convicts the High Court passed the impugned judgment as stated above.
3. ' The deceased in this case is Jaimal. The occurrence took place on 17th March, 1981 at Peshiwela within the area of Police Station Bahlak. F.I.R. Was lodged by Mansha petitioner son, of the deceased on the following day at 2-30 p.m. The aforementioned respondents were arrested on 20th March, 1981. From Manzoor, Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar respondents Sotas were recovered. The Sotas belonging to Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar respondents were blood stained. The eye-witnesses are the petitioner and Inayat Ali nephew of the deceased. According to the medical evidence the deceased had eight contusions, four contused wounds and two abrasions on different parts of the body including back of neck and chest. All injuries were caused with blunt weapon. The injury which proved fatal had broken the neck. The motive was that one year before the occurrence bullocks belonging to Muhammad Tufail PW were stolen. He suspected Anwar and Khan acquitted co- accused. The deceased helped him and got a case registered against the aforesaid two acquitted co-accused. The prosecution version is that the deceased was waylaid by the accused party who were armed with Sotas by emerging from the wheat crop while the deceased was going to offer Fateha. Anwar and Khan acquitted co-accused raised Lalkara that the deceased should not be spared whereupon Manzoor respondent gave a Sota blow on the back of neck of the deceased who fell down. Thereafter Manzoor, Muhammad Tufail as well as Sarwar respondents inflicted Sotas blows to him on different parts of his body. They ran away after the occurrence which was witnessed by the eye-witnesses. The findings of the High Court are that there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan to murder the deceased and that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment. The motive as set up by the prosecution was too remote and weak, and immediate cause of the occurrence could not be ascertained. It was therefore held that each of the respondents was liable for his own act. The fatal injury to the deceased was attributed to Manzoor respondent whereas only simple injuries were attributed to Muhammad Tufail and Sarwar respondents. It was in this background that the High Court had proceeded to alter the convictions and sentences awarded to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that the motive should have been relied upon and that the respondents had waylaid the deceased in accordance with a pre-plan in order to murder him. But in the light of the record we do not find any substance in this argument. No case is made out for interference. Therefore this petition is dismissed.