1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 8-11-1993, whereby, the learned High Court while maintaining the conviction of the respondent No,1 under section 302, P.P.C. Did not confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial Court and altered the same to life imprisonment with benefit of provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. ' Respondent No, 1 was tried for committing murder of one Fazal-urRehman on 12-3-1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. He was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death. On appeal the learned Judges of the High Court while maintaining the conviction of respondent No,1 altered the death sentence to life imprisonment on the following consideration:-- "14. Coming to the question of quantum of sentence, we are impressed with the submission of the learned counsel that the murder in question was not the result only of a blood fued between the parties but the same also involved the honour of the appellant party because of the appellant's sister being involved at the route of the trouble that had commenced between the two sides. We have also taken note of the trouble that had commenced between the to sides. We have also taken note of the fact that the appellant had neither repeated the fire at Fazal-ur-Rehman deceased nor, having injured the deceased, he had taken any steps to launch any assault on Sher Afzal complainant who was also the one who had attacked the appellant in the occurrence which is the motive for the present murder."
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there were no mitigating circumstances in the case for reducing death sentence awarded by the trial Court and as such alteration of the sentence of respondent No,1 from death to life imprisonment by the High Court is not sustainable in law. The contention requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider, whether the circumstances taken into consideration by the High Court in reducing death sentence of respondent No,1 amounted to mitigating circumstances in the case.