1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---The accused/respondents were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for the murder of Hafeez Ullah, in furtherance of their common intention, and found them guilty. On conviction each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,50,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 years' R.I. Each. They were, however, given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' The convicts appealed while complainant filed revision petition for enhancement in their sentence. The learned High Court dismissed both of them. Rafi Ullah complainant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing his revision petition for enhancement.
3. The accused/respondents have also filed a petition from jail against dismissal of their appeal by the High Court.
4. ' Rafi Ullah in his statement made before the police on 18-12-1987 at about 10-30 p.m., which is incorporated in the F.I.R. Exh.PB, alleged that at the time of occurrence he was present with his brother Hafeez Ullah deceased in the courtyard of their house. At about 8-30 p.m. Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Ashfaq, the acquitted accused, called out Hafeez Ullah at which he went out of the house. Simultaneously he heard some hue and cry from outside as such he came out and saw Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Ashfaq and Arshad all the three accused.
5. Muhmmad Arshad had caught hold of the deceased and the other two accused gave him stab blows. Iftikhar All son of Muhammad Khan and Asghar All son of Muhammad Ashraf were also attracted to the spot and were stated to have witnessed the occurrence. The injured wanted to run back for safety but he fell down near the door of the house. Regarding motive it was stated that a few days before the occurrence Muhammad Nawaz accused had outraged the modesty of Mst.
6. Hajiran Bibi wife of his relative in her house for which the deceased had reprimanded him. The injured was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
7. ' On completion of the investigation the accused were put on trial. Prosecution relied on the ocular evidence furnished by Rafi Ullah complainant (P.W.8), which was corroborated by the statement of Iftikhar Ahmad (P.W. 9). Reliance was also placed on the recovery of weapon of offence, recovery of blood-stained clothes of Muhammad Ashfaq respondent and the medical evidence, for corroboration. The prosecution case against the accused was found proved beyond reasonable doubt. They were therefore convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The learned trial Judge did not impose the normal sentence of death upon the accused as against them the evidence of motive alleged by the prosecution, was not satisfactory as the material witness of the motive, namely, Mst. Hajiran Bibi was withheld by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge appraised the entire evidence, in the light of the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties, in para. 9 of his judgment observed as follows:- "Rafiullah (P.W.8) has deposed about the motive besides giving the ocular account of the occurrence. According to him, the motive behind the occurrence was that few days before the occurrence, Muhammad Nawaz accused had entered the house of his relative Ghulam Shabbir and attempted to molest his wife Mst. Hajran Bibi and that Hafeezullah deceased had reprimanded Muhammad Nawaz accused for that. In cross-examination he disclosed that he was not present at the time when Hafeezullah deceased reprimanded Muhammad Nawaz accused. He further disclosed that at the time of registration of the case, he knew that this incident had taken place 6-7 days earlier, therefore, he mentioned it, as a few days, in the F.I.R. This witness has not been questioned as to how he came to know about this incident. Therefore, it may be presumed that being a brother of Hafeezullah deceased, this witness deposed on the basis of his knowledge. He denied the suggestion that as a matter of fact, Hafeezullah deceased had visited the house of Ghulam Shabbir in his absence and he was seen by Ishaq accused in an objectionable position with Mst. Hajran Bibi and that Ishfaq accused floated this rumour. He also denied that on the return of Ghulam Shabbir, a quarrel took place between him and Hafeezullah deceased in front of their door which culminated into the murder of Hafeezullah deceased, and that in order to save the honour of the family from further disruption amongst cousins, the actual culprit was substituted by the present accused. This suggestion on the face of it, appears to be ridiculous. Had Hafeezullah deceased been found by Ishaq accused in an objectionable position who later on was held responsible for spreading the rumour, it would have been motive for the deceased to cause harm to Ishfaq accused. It is not believable that the deceased picked up a quarrel with Ghulam Shabbir which culminated into the murder of Hafeezullah deceased. The evidence of Rafiullah on the point of motive, cannot be regarded as evidence under Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.
8. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon."
9. ' The learned High Court confirmed the above and dismissed appeal and revision against the judgment of the trial Court.
10. ' It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after discarding the defence plea there was left no mitigating circumstances to warrant lesser penalty on facts and circumstances of the case specially it being a premeditated and broad daylight cold-blooded murder.
11. Both the Courts below have found prosecution evidence regarding the motive insufficient as neither Mst. Hajran Bibi nor her husband Ghulam Shabbir was produced in support thereof.
12. Assessm ent of quantum of sentence falls within the domain of the trial Court, the appellate and revisional Court. On the question of quantum of sentence this Court would not interfere unless the principle of law is involved in it. In the instant case no such question is involved. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed.