' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.---Three petitioners, Abdul Majid alias Jaidu and two others have made this petition for leave to appeal against judgment, dated the 14th June, 1995, passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, in respect of a murder case in which the petitioners were convicted, under section 302/34, P.P.C. For causing the death of one Muhammad Rafique. An Additional Sessions Judge of Sahiwal, who convicted them, sentenced all of them to death. They were also directed to pay a fine of Rs,20,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for non-payment thereof. The petitioners filed appeal before the learned Division Bench while complainant in the murder case, Muhammad Tufail made revision petition for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The learned Division Bench confirmed the death sentence of Muhammad Ismail but reduced the capital punishment awarded to the other petitioners, Abdul Majid and Siddique, to imprisonment for life. Order relating to compensation was maintained. Thus, the appeal was partly accepted and the revision petition of the complainant was dismissed. The complainant has made petition i,e, Crl.
P.S.LA. No, 337/L/9" for leave to appeal against the order of the learned Division Bench whereby his revision petition has been dismissed. This order shall dispose of his petition for leave as well.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused in the murder case, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, and assaulted Muhammad Rafique on 11th September, 1989 when Muhammad Ismail appellant was armed with hatchet while the other petitioners had Kassis. With these weapons, they caused injuries to Muhammad Rafique which resulted in his death. Motive for the present occurrence is stated to be previous criminal litigation between the parties.
3. In this case, ocular account of the occurrence was furnished by Muhammad Tufail complainant (P.W.10) and Shahid Javaid (P.W. 11). Muhammad Tufail and Shahid Javaid are brother and son of the deceased respectively. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that since they were closely related to the deceased and there was background of enmity between the parties, their evidence could not be relied upon without corroboration.
4. We find that the medical evidence renders strong support to the ocular testimony. The medical evidence is in the shape of statement of Dr. Maqbool Ahmad (P.W. 8) who performed post-mortem on the dead body of Muhammad Rafique. He found the following injuries on his dead body cut and brain matter was coming out of the wound on the left side of head 5 c.m. Above the left ear.
(2) Incised wound 9 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone underneath completely cut and brain matter was coming out of the wound on the back of head in its middle.
(3) Incised wound 17 c.m. x 2 c.m. Bone underneath completely cut on the left side of face from the left eye brow towards the left ear. The left ear lobule was completely cut.
(4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone underneath was completely cut on the left side of head just posterior to the left ear.
(5) Incised wound 8.05 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of face.
(6) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of face just close to injury No, 5.
(7) Incised wound 13.05 c.m. x 1 c.m. Ntsal and maxillar bones were completely fractured on the left side of face.
(8) Incised wound 8 c.m. x 2.05 c.m. x bone deep and the bone underneath was fractured in between the left side of neck and left shoulder.
(9) Incised wound 12.05 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone underneath was fractured 2.05 c.m. Below injury No, 8.
(10) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep on the top of left shoulder.
(11) Incised wound 7 cm x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the outer aspect and upper 1/3 of left arm.
(12) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone underneath was fractured on the front and base of right thumb."
5. .Such large number of injuries could not be caused by one person. Thus, the ocular testimony to the effect that the said injuries were inflicted by three petitioners stand corroborated by medical evidence. Learned Trial Court as well as the learned High Court were, therefore, justified in placing reliance thereon. .
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners was also not satisfied with the sentences awarded to the petitioners. Reasons given by the learned Division Bench for making the aforesaid order with regard to penalties awarded to the petitioners was that out of the three petitioners, who are real brothers, ' Muhammad Ismail is the eldest, who nursed strong grudge against the accessed. According to the learned Judges in the High Court, the other two petitioners, being younger to him, would have participated in the occurrence under the influence of their elder brother. . Their death sentences were, therefore, not confirmed and instead they were awarded imprisonment for life. Since the three petitioners had killed Muhammad Rafique in furtherance of their common intention, Abdul Majid and Muhammad Siddique could not be awarded, under section 302/34, P.P.C., any punishment lesser than that of I E imprisonment for life. We, therefore, find nothing wrong with the order of the learned Division Bench in respect of the sentences.
7. The amount of compensation ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased does not appear to be ridiculously inadequate. It was discretionary with the learned Trial Court to fix the amount of compensation and discre tion exercised by it was not taken exception to by the learned Division Bench. In the circumstances of the present case, we too are not inclined to interfere in this regard.
8. Resultantly, leave is refused in the instant petition, as well as in the connected petition, namely, Crl. P.S.LA. No, 337/L of 1995, to appeal against D the judgment of the learned Division Bench. Both