1. MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Criminal Petition No.201-L of 1996 filed by petitioner Mukhtar Ahmad and the connected Jail Petition No.82 of 1996 preferred by respondent No.1 Muhammad Iqbal, seek leave to appeal against a common judgment delivered by Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1992 filed by Muhammad Iqbal respondent No. l and Criminal Revision No.90 of 1992 filed by petitioner Mukhtar Ahmed.
2. Respondent No, l Muhammad Iqbal was tried in Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad for having committed murder of Niamat Ali on 6-5-1990 at sunset the in area of Chak No. 26-JB, During the trial the prosecution examined inter alia petitioner Mukhtar Ahmad P. W .7 , who was complainant and Talehmand P.W.8, In his statement under section 342 of Cr.P.C., the respondent No. l denied the prosecution allegations, but did not examine himself as witness and did not lead defence. At conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted respondent No. l for the offence punishable under section 302 of P.P.C. And awarded him death penalty and fine of Rs.10,000 or to suffer R.I. For to years.
3. Respondent No. l challenged his conviction and sentence in Lahore High Court under Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1992, while the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.90 of 1992 for enhancement of the fine and for ordering compensation to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. Under the impugned judgment dated 7-2-1996, a learned Division Bench of the High Court maintained conviction of the respondent No. l but altered the sentence from death penalty to imprisonment for life. The amount of fine was ordered to be paid to legal heirs of the deceased without its enhancement.
4. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned Advocate-on-Record argued that the amount of fine of Rs.10,000 in a murder case was to less and that it should have been enhanced. He also argued that there was no justification to alter the sentence from death to imprisonment for life.
5. Under the impugned judgment it has been observed that motive for the offence has not been explained and it has remained shrouded in mystery. Learned Judges in the High Court have not reproduced the arguments addressed to them on behalf of respondent No. 1, who has filed his petition for leave to appeal from jail. The only evidence against the respondent No. l was ocular coming from P.W.7 Mukhtar Ahmed and P W.8 Talehmand and about recovery of gun with a licence. .
6. In the circumstances. Leave to appeal is granted in both the petitions to appraise the prosecution evidence with a view to determine whether it is sufficient for conviction of the respondent No.1 on a capital charge and to determine whether the learned Judges in the High Court erred in altering substantive sentence and in not enhancing the sentence of fine