1. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge of the High Court whereby his conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C. Was altered to that under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. And the life imprisonment was converted into ten years' R.I.
2. The sentence of fine and compensation was maintained. Sentence under section 324, P.P.C. Was altered from two years to one year R.I. And the sentence of fine was also maintained. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C. Was also given to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner alongwith his brother and father had gone to the house of the complainant for reconciliation of matrimonial dispute which had arisen between his brother and the 'latter's wife who was the daughter of the complainant. It seems that the dispute could not be resolved and hot words were exchanged due to which the petitioner and his partymen left the house. However, the petitioner went out hurriedly in utter rage and after taking a soda water bottle broke it and used it as a weapon to assault the deceased who was son of the complainant aged about 15-16 years.
3. Considering the evidence and the facts on record the learned Judge in Chambers observed as follows:-- record. There was no enmity between the parties. Muhammad Rafique (acquitted co-accused) was the husband of Mst. Khalida Parveen, who got divorce from him after the present occurrence by filing a suit for dissolution of marriage. The appellant alongwith this acquitted co-accused had gone to the house of P.W.2 for reconciliation. P.W.3 had two children from her wedlock with Muhammad Rafique (acquitted co-accused). In the Baithak of the complainant party, a quarrel arose and thereafter the appellant went outside and the acquitted co-accused also followed him.
4. The deceased was young man of 18/19 years who went out and the appellant after striking a soda- water bottle with an electric pole broke the same and inflicted one injury on. The upper part of the right thigh of the deceased (non-vital part). The left femoral artery was cut which resulted in his death. P.W.1 was also given simple injury by the appellant on his back as stated by P.W.8 Dr. Ahmed Ishaque. There was no previous enmity between the parties. There was no premeditation. It was a sudden flare up which resulted in going out of the appellant alongwith the acquitted co-accused from the Baithak and thereafter it is apparent from the circumstances appearing in the case and the evidence on record that the appellant apprehended that he might not be harmed by the deceased, so he broke a soda-water bottle by striking against an electric pole and inflicted only one injury on the appellant on the non-vital part. The appellant had no intention to kill him and even he could not have knowledge that in consequence of the injury caused by him, the deceased shall die."
5. In these circumstances, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is justified. No illegality or infirmity has been shown in the impugned judgment. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave.