' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 28-11-89 to consider the plea for lesser sentence.
2. The ing Order reads as follows: "'Learned counsel'" for the petitioner states that the High Court rejected the plea for lesser sentence on the assumption that the age of the petitioner when he committed the offence was 18 years.
However, this age seems to have been taken from the date given by the petitioner when his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 30-11-1986. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the incident took place on 25-6-84, some two and half years before the date of which the statement of the accused/petitioner was recorded. Therefore, on the date of the incident, he was only a lad of about 15 years.
The question whether the petitioner was entitled to some leniency in view of his tender age at the time of the incident requires consideration".
3. The facts of the case are that P.W.1 Fazal Hussain complainant lodged the First Information Report stating therein that his brother Inayat deceased was an employee in the Pakistan Army and he was posted at Karachi. He had come on two months' leave. On the third of Ramazan at 7. a.m.
He was reciting Holy Qur'an while sitting on a cot in the courtyard of his house. The complainant alongwith Sadiq Husain (P.W.4) was cutting fodder at the fodder cutting machine in the courtyard.
Muhammad Hanif, appellant armed with a 12 bore gun and Nadir co-accused with a carbine entered the courtyard. Hanif appellant fired a shot which hit on the back chest of the deceased who fell down while the shot fired by Nadir missed due to the fall of the deceased. Inayat expired at the spot. On the report of fire many people of the village collected and the two culprits made good their escape.
4. The appellant and Nadir, the acquitted accused were tried under section 302/452/34, P.P.C. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. The prosecution produced 13 witnesses. The appellant was convicted under S.302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death and fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default to undergo one year R.I. He was further directed to pay a sum of Rs,5,000 as compensation under S.544-A, Cr.P.C. The appellant was also convicted under section 452, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. And fine of Rs,2,000 or three months' R.I. The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently in case the sentence of death was converted into imprisonment for life. The co- accused was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.
5. The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The learned High Court by means of judgment dated 28-11-1989 confirmed his death sentence and dismissed the appeal. As regards the lesser sentence, the High Court has observed as follows:-- "Argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at the end, that, in view of the age of appellant, the extreme penalty of death, may not be imposed. However, we are not impressed with the argument. The appellant was aged 18 years at the time of occurrence and there seems to be no evidence that the dispute of the deceased was with some elder of the appellant's family over the intended construction on the shamlat land and the appellant acted under his influence to mount the assault. The murder was committed in broad daylight over a minor affair and there is no extenuating circumstance in favour of the appellant".
6. In this case, the date of incident is 25-6-1984. The date of judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge is 17-2-1987. The judgment of the High Court is dated 28-11-1989. The statement of the accused was recorded on 30-11-1986. He had given his age as 18/19 years therefore at the time of occurrence he was aged about 16 years. In the meantime, the Presidential Order of Amnesty also intervened on 7-12-1988. He is a young offender. Therefore, keeping in view the above fact, the sentence of death is reduced to that of life imprisonment. The other sentences would remain operative. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is granted to the appellant.
7. With the above modification in sentence under section 302, P.P.C. The appeal is dismissed.
Sentence reduced.