1. RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 19th of April 1989 at 6-30 p.m., a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was registered on the statement of Intizar Hussain, the petitioner against Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Zahid and Muhammad Riaz for the murder of Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Dilshad with Police Station Pull Chak 111/Janubi, District Sargodha. Intizar Hussain's father had built his Dera in Killa No.23, Square No.27 in Chak No.45/Janubi where he used to keep his cattle. Iftikhar Ahmad and Dilshad, the real brothers of Intizar Hussain had also been living together at the aforesaid Dera.
2. They were present at the Dera on the day of occurrence. Intizar Hussain was watering his cattle.
3. Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Dilshad were sitting on a cot. Abdul Qadeer and Abdul Hameed were working in a, nearby field. At around 4-30 p.m., Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Zahid while armed with .12-bore gun and pistol respectively alongwith Muhammad Riaz who was holding a hatchet came at the Dera and shouted that the complainant party would not be allowed to live alive. Muhammad Sarwar fired which hit the belly of Iftikhar Ahmad. Muhammad Sarwar fired another shot which injured his left hand. Muhammad Zahid fired and injured the chest of Muhammad Dilshad. Muhammad Riaz gave hatchet blows to Iftikhar Ahmad. Muhammad Zahid also fired and wounded Iftikhar Ahmad. Both the victims died on the spot. Intizar Hussain, Abdul Qadeer and Abdul Hameed witnessed the occurrence. Motive was that father of the complainant had purchased 4-1/2 acres of agricultural land over which he had sown wheat. The accused party had damaged the crop whereupon the complainant traded abuses with them. In consequence, the accused committed the aforesaid murders. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced Muhammad Akbar P.W.1, Muhammad Yaseen P.W.2, Intizar Hussain P.W.3, Abdul Qadeer P.W.4, Amir-ud-Din P.W.5, Dr. Malik Aslam Khan P.W.6, Haq Nawaz P.W.7, Dr. Irfan Farid P.W.8, Muhammad Aslam P.W.9, Abdus Sattar P.W.10 and Muhammad Amir P.W.11. The allegations were denied by the accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Their plea was that they had been involved in the case on account of enmity. No evidence, however, in defence was produced by them. Learned Trial Judge vide his judgment dated 30-7-1991 convicted and sentenced the accused under section 302/34, P.P.C. To death on two counts plus fine of Rs.50,000 each or in default to suffer two years' R.I. Each. It was ordered that they would pay Rs.50,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer six months' S.I. Each. The Court, however, acquitted Muhammad Riaz by giving him benefit of doubt. On appeal and reference, a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismisied appeal of the respondents. Their sentence of death was, nevertheless, converted into imprisonment for life on the ground that prosecution could not prove the immediate cause of murder. It was also held to have been shrouded in mystery. It was further observed that on account of extreme youth, the respondents were not liable to be sentenced to death. This petition for leave to appeal has been instituted to call in question the quantum of sentence awarded by the High Court.
4. Learned counsel submits that there was no justification to have given lesser punishment to the respondents inasmuch as they were guilty of premeditated murders. It is added that in view of motive, the respondents had committed the double murder. We have heard the learned counsel and have read the record with his assistance. Learned High Court while awarding lesser punishment observed:-- "We have given our serious thought to this aspect of the case whether the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the Trial Court needs consideration or not. We find that the immediate cause of murder is shrouded in mystery. Considering it as a mitigating circumstance coupled with the fact that the appellants are in their extreme youth, we refrain from confirming their death sentences and reduce the same to imprisonment for life, on both counts. The sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence of fine with all consequences is maintained. The appellants are extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is disposed of accordingly and the death sentence awarded to the appellants is not confirmed."
5. It is evident that the High Court has not confirmed the death sentence of the respondents by giving good reasons. To begin with, extreme youth of the convicts was taken into account and secondly, the immediate cause for murder was held to be shrouded in mystery. The record shows that both the respondents were in teens at the time of commission of the crimes. The requirements of section 367, Cr.P.C. Have been complied with by the High Court in not confirming the death sentences in lieu of plausible reasons. We agree with the sentence having been given by the High - Court to the respondents which would surely meet the ends of justice. The impugned judgment is based on the principles having been enunciated by this Court for safe administration of criminal justice. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed.