1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah son of Syed Inayat Hussain Shah, resident of Jaithoke District Sialkot has filed this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-4-1987 whereby respondent No, 2 Shaukat Ali was acquitted and Akbar respondent's death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life.
2. ' Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the Additional Sessions Jude, Sialkot on the basis of report lodged by Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah regarding the murder of his nephew Amirul Hasan. They were sentenced to death.
3. ' The occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 16-3-1983 at 8.45 p.m. In Mauza Jaithoke, at a distance of one mile from Police Station, Samberial. Report was recorded by Muhammad Yousaf Shah A.S.I.
4. Akbar Shah was alleged to be armed with dagger; Shaukat Ali with Sota. Both of them came running from their house and chased Amirul Hasan deceased. Shaukat Ali inflicted a Sota blow on the back of Amirul Hasan while Akbar Ali gave him a dagger blow which also injured the deceased on his back.
5. ' Motive was that deceased Amirul Hasan was Ahle Tashih whereas the respondents were Ahle Hadith. They had discussion on some religious proposition which developed into exchange of abuses, fist blows. This happened on the same day about four hours prior to the occurrence.
6. ' According to the prosecution the respondents made some objectionable remarks relating to Sahaba-e-Karaam. Both the parties were separated and they left for their houses but the respondents wanted to take revenge of the remarks uttered by Amirul Hasan.
7. The High Court after appreciating the entire evidence held that the offence committed by Akbar Ali was murder but keeping in view the background of the case and a fight over the derogatory remarks made by the deceased to the Ashaba-e-Karaam, High Court was of the view that there was an element of provocation though not sudden and grave which instigated Akbar to attack. The death sentence was accordingly not confirmed. Instead he was given life imprisonment.
8. Dealing with the case of Shaukat Ali respondent the High Court was of the view that his participation was doubtful because the injury attributed to him could be the result of fall on the ground. He was, therefore, given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
9. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the acquittal of Shaukat All and also argued for enhancement of sentence of Akbar Ali on the ground that the former had been wrongly acquitted and the latter was not entitled to the concession in the quantum of sentence because there was no grave and sudden provocation.
10. ' We are unable to agree with that. On the other hand we find that the judgment given by the High Court in the light of the evidence brought on record rightly meets the ends of justice. The same, therefore, calls for no interference.
11. ' Dismissed.