SHEIKH ZUBAIR, J.- This is a revision against judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura dated 20.7.1993 for enhancement of sentences of respondents No. 1 and 2 and also with respect to the acquittal of respondents No. 3 and 4.
2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of this revision petition are that on 30.9.90 at about 2.30 p.m. The petitioner along with his two brothers namely, Javaid Hussain deceased and Sana Ullah injured P.W. Was present in the field when respondents while armed with guns came out of the charri crop. Hayat respondent No. 3 raised a lalkara that they had come to teach a lesson for causing injuries to Muhammad Yar. On this Mushtaq respondent No. 1 fired at Javaid Hussain which hit him on his right chest. Thereafter Allah Ditta respondent No. 2 fired at Javaid Hussain which hit him on his right arm, as a result of which Javaid Hussain fell on the ground, then Amir respondent No. 4 fired which hit Sana Ullah P.W. On his left shoulder. Javaid Hussain died at the spot. On the statement of the petitioner F.I.R. No. 471/90, dated 30.9.1990, under Sections 302.307/34 PPC was registered at 3.35 p.m at Police Station Khanqah Dogran District Sheikhupura.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is demanding two reliefs in this revision petition which are different in nature, those cannot be granted to the petitioner. Against respondents No. 1 and 2 he is seeking enhancement of their sentences whereas with respect to respondents No.3 and 4 he is praying that their acquittal order be set aside. Learned counsel verbally conceded this position and submitted that he will argue the case with respect to respondents No. 1 and 2 for their enhancement of sentences and with respect to acquittal of respondents No.3 and 4, he will i.e a separate revision petition at a later stage.
The learned counsel for the petition contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while awarding lessor sentences to respondents No. 1 and 2 did not give any reason for the same which is requirement of law. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have committed gruesome murder of Javaid Hussain deceased for the motive mentioned in the F.I.R, itself, so they deserve no leniency in the imposition of sentences. He further contended that notice be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 why their sentences should not be enhanced to death.
4. I have heard the learned counsel at length and have perused the record critically of this case.
5. The medical evidence reveals that the deceased received two firearm injuries on his person and the doctor who appeared as P.W. 12 could not give any opinion which injury by itself was fatal, on the contrary, he has opined that both these injuries accumulatively led to the death of the deceased. The motive is that the deceased was acquitted of the charge, thus the present offence was committed by the respondents. The order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be terms as without jurisdiction or perverse because in view of the medical evidence referred to above the injuries ascribed to respondents No. 1 and 2 were not individually fatal, hence the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction by not imposing death sentence on them.
The learned trial judge after giving careful consideration to all the material placed before him has awarded sentence of imprisonment for life to respondents No. 1 and 2 and this sentence needs no enhancement. This petition is dismissed in limine.