' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.----This petition by the convict Noor Muhammad alias Noora submitted through Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23-10-1991 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction under sections 302, 307 and 460, P.P.C. Was dismissed and death sentence awarded to him by the trial Court confirmed.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on the night between 24th and 25th December, 1986, Noor Muhammad deceased, his wife Mst. Jannat Bibi and his daughter Mst. Razia Bibi were sleeping in the veranda adjacent to the cattle-shed when at about 12-00 hours (mid-night) Mst.
Jannat Bibi and Mst. Razia Bibi were aroused by a noise. They switched on the light and saw that the petitioner armed with a hatchet' and his co-accused Sher Muhammad wrapped in a `Louie', were standing near the court of the deceased. The deceased tried to get up when the petitioner gave two hatchet blows on his head. Petitioner also gave injuries to Mst.Jannat Bibi with the wrong side of the hatchet. On the alarm raised by Mst. Jannat Bibi, petitioner and his co-accused ran away but Mst. Razia Bibi caught hold of the petitioner in a 'Japha' from behind and Mst. Jannat Bibi snatched the hatchet from him with which she gave 2/3 blows to him (the petitioner). In the ensuing struggle, the petitioner fell down and his hatchet struck his head. A number of persons from the neighbourhood, Iqbal, Noor Elahi and Naik, arrived at the spot.
3. At the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including Mst. Jannat Bibi P.W.4 and Mst.
Razia Bibi P.W.5 who furnished the ocular testimony: ' Petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And later in his statement on oath under section 340 (2), Cr.P.C. Denied that the incident had occurred in the manner stated by the eye- witnesses. He stated that the deceased had suspicion that he (the petitioner) had illicit relations with Mst. Razia Bibi P.W. On the night of occurrence, he came from Lahore where he was working in a hotel and was proceeding to his house when the deceased met him and took him inside his house and asked him to stop passing near his house. This was followed by exchange of abuses.
The deceased then picked up a hatchet lying nearby and gave him 2/3 blows with it. Petitioner apprehending that the deceased would kill him picked up another hatchet lying there and gave two blows with that hatchet to the deceased in self-defence. Petitioner further stated that Mst.
Jannat Bibi intervened in the fight and received injuries.
4. Learned trial Judge believing the eye-witness account of the occurrence given by Mst. Jannat Bibi and Mst. Razia Bibi P.Ws. Which, it was found, was corroborated by the recovery and medical evidence and repelling the defence version as false held the petitioner and his co-accused guilty of the offence under section 460, P.P.C. For which they were sentenced to 10 years' R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,15,000 each. Petitioner was also found guilty of the offences under section 302/307, P.P.C., was awarded death sentence for committing murder of the deceased Noor Muhammad and was sentenced to 7 years' R.I. For murderous assault on Mst. Jannat Bibi P.W.
5. On appeal filed by the convicts and the reference sent by the trial Court, the learned Judges of the High Court reappraised the prosecution evidence and the defence plea and held that the convicts were the neighbours of the deceased; Mst. Jannat Bibi and Mst. Razia Bibi were the inmates of the house where the occurrence admittedly took place, and, therefore, they were the natural witnesses of the occurrence and that they had no grudge or ill-will against the petitioner; Mst. Jannat Bibi also had injuries on her person and so had the petitioner which circumstance supports the prosecution version and that the plea taken by the petitioner was not plausible and had no basis in evidence. Conviction of the petitioner and the sentences imposed on him for the aforementioned offences were accordingly upheld by the High Court and his death sentence was confirmed with the observation "there is no extenuating circumstances whatever". His co-accused Sher Muhammad was, however, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. This was vide the impugned judgment.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has not been able to point out any misreading of evidence or any other infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and that of the trial Court. We find that both the learned Courts have duly appreciated the evidence on record and believed the ocular testimony of the two ladies and rejected the defence version for good reasons. No legitimate exception can, therefore, be taken to the conviction of the petitioner.
' During the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel submitted that the death sentence of the petitioner has already been converted into life imprisonment and, therefore, the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Be allowed to him. In our view, the relief claimed by the learned counsel is not countenanced by the relevant provision which reads as under:- "382-B. Where a Court decides to pass a sentence of imprisonment on an accused for an offence, it shall take into consideration the period, if any, during which such accused was detained in custody for such offence."
A bare reading of section 382-B shows that the benefit provided therein can only be granted where a Court decides to pass a sentence of imprisonment. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the death sentence of the petitioner was converted into life imprisonment not by any decision of the Court but as a result of general amnesty announced by the executive authorities in the year 1988. That being so, we hold that the benefit provided under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is not in terms available to the petitioner. Refer PLD 1991 SC 1145 wherein it was held that the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. "cannot be claimed outside the judgment and independently of it from the Supreme Court".
7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no good' ground for interference by this Court. Leave is accordingly refused and the petition is dismissed.