MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---This appeal by Hazrat Jamal complainant/appellant, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 28-1-1986 whereby sentence of death awarded to the respondent by the trial Court in a murder case was reduced to imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution version, in brief, is that on the night of 23-7-1982 Hazrat Jamal complainant, his wife Mst. Gul Shaida and his son Jan Muhammad deceased were on way to the house of Said Ghulam PW to offer Eid greetings. On the way they came across Fazal Rabbi, respondent, who flashed torch light on them. Jan Muhammad deceased took exception to this resulting in exchange of hot words and abuses between them. After staying in the house of Said Ghulam for half an hour, the complainant, the deceased and Mst. Gul Shaida started back for their house. Said Ghulam also accompanied them. When they reached near the village Mosque, the respondent came out from the verandah of a shop and fired his topak twice hitting the deceased as a result 9f which he fell down and died soon after.
3. While considering the question of sentence, the learned Judges of the Peshawar High Court observed as under: "Though the prosecution has failed to bring forth the nature of hot words exchanged between the parties but the steps taken by the accused is indicative of the fact that filthy abuses must have been hurled at him which had provoked him to the extent of committing murder. As the time between the earlier incident and the occurrence is short and the passion had not cooled down, we are of the view that a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is nothing on the record to show that filthy abuses were hurled on the respondent by the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence clearly leads to the conclusion that it was a cold blooded murder, and, therefore, in the absence of any mitigating circumstance there was no justification 'to award lesser penalty. He further submits that the precedent cases relied upon by the learned Judges of the High Court are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. '
5. In a similar situation, in Kausar All's case 1990 SCMR 1132 this Court declined leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence with the observation: "Even those who were sentenced to death have as a result of general amnesty benefited, and they are now required to undergo life imprisonment. In this background, for such an occurrence which had taken place in 1982, it would look incongruous to consider the re-imposition of death sentence on those not so dealt with".
In that case the petition for leave to appeal had arisen from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-2-1988. In the present case the occurrence took place in the year 1982 and the sentence of death awarded by the learned trial Court was altered by the High Court to that of imprisonment for life on 28-1-1986. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to enhance the sentence of the respondent. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.