' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 9-4-1995, leave to appeal was granted to the appellants with the following order:- "The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-7-1994 whereby a learned Division I3ench of the High Court while disposing of murder reference and the appeal filed by the petitioners confirmed the death sentence awarded to them by the trial Court.
' The incident in the case took place on 8-6-1989 at about 8-15 a.m. In 'Chara Mandi' near Railway Gate, Kokay Road, Kamonke. According to the F.I.R. In the case the petitioner Muhammad Riaz aged about 18 years, armed with 'Chhuri' and his father Ghulam Rasool aged 65 years also armed with 'Chhuri' alongwith Mst. Seema, the mother and wife respectively of the petitioners, empty-handed came to the 'Chara Mandi' on the fateful day where the deceased accompanied by the first informant and Lal Din had gone for fetching some fodder for buffaloes. The petitioner on seeing the deceased exhorted that the deceased should not be spared. Muhammad Riaz petitioner allegedly stabbed the deceased on the abdomen while Ghulam Rasool supplemented it. Both the accused, thereafter, inflicted number of injuries with their respective weapons to the deceased. The motive for the offence was stated to be the imprisonment of one Razzak at the instance of the deceased.
The petitioners were arrested on 9-6-1989. Petitioner Muhammad Riaz was also found to have suffered an injury on his hand and he was, accordingly, referred for medical examination to the doctor who conducted his medical examination on the same day. Muhammad Riaz on the same day, led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri from his house which was found lying in the tin box. 9 injuries were found on the person of the deceased which were all caused by a sharp-edged weapon. After completion of the usual investigation the petitioners alongwith Mst. Seema were put to trial before the Sessions Judge who convicted the petitioners but acquitted Mst. Seema in the case. The complainant in the case preferred a revision application against acquittal of Mst. Seema while murder reference was made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the petitioners and the petitioners also preferred an appeal before the High Court against their conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court. All three matters were heard together. The learned High Court confirmed the death sentences awarded to the petitioners but dismissed the criminal revision application filed against the acquittal of Mst. Seema, who in the meantime had died. The murder reference was, accordingly, disposed of.
' In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that recovery in the case was made only from Muhammad Riaz petitioner while no recovery was effected from Ghulam Rasool. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there being serious enmity between the parties, the conviction of the petitioners on capital charge and award of death sentence without corroboration was not sustainable in law. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel that in any case the award of death sentence to both the petitioners namely Muhammad Riaz and his father Ghulam Rasool in the case not justified as recovery was only effected from one Muhammad Riaz who was of tender age of about 18 years and at the time of offence was accompanying his father, who according to prosecution evidence raised 'Lalkara' before doing away the deceased.
' After going through the prosecution evidence, we find that the evidence of Munir Ahmed found full corroboration from the evidence of Lal Din who was an independent witness and had no axe of his own to grind against the petitioners. Therefore, in so far as the ocular testimony in the case is concerned the two Courts below rightly believed the same and to that extent no interference is called for with the judgment of the Courts below. However, on the question of sentence, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in the case for the reason that firstly, no recovery was made from Ghulam Rasool and recovery was only effected from Muhammad Riaz, the son of co- accused/petitioner Ghulam Rasool. Secondly, Muhammad Riaz being a boy of tender age of 18 years and accompanying his father, an inference may arise that at the time of commission of offence, he acted under the influence of his father, who according to the prosecution evidence had raised Lalkara, before Muhammad Riaz attacked the deceased. In these circumstances, we grant leave to appeal in the above case to consider whether award of death sentences to the two petitioners in the case was justified or no?" (Emphasis supplied).
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The record has also been perused by us. It is evident from the above order that the petition of Muhammad Riaz and Ghulam Rasul, his father has been dismissed by this Court by upholding their conviction. Leave was, however, granted only on a limited question of their sentence. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants had drawn our attention to the statement of Muhammad Riaz which showed that at the time when his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded, he was 16 and a half years old. Ghulam Rasul, the appellant was allegedly armed with a Chuuri and with it he caused an injury to the deceased, Muhammad Bashir. As pointed out above, the appellants are son and father. This being the position, possibility could not be ruled out that the former might have acted and inflicted injuries to Muhammad Bashir deceased under the influence of his father, Ghulam Rasul. This itself may be a good ground for awarding lesser sentence to the son, Riaz in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
3. In the result, we convert the sentence of death of the appellants to imprisonment for life on the ground that firstly, Muhammad Riaz was of tender age at the time of commission of the offence and secondly, he appeared to have acted under the influence of his father. It is in the evidence that Ghulam Rasul gave Lalkara to finish the deceased. The alleged Chhuri having been used by Ghulam Rasul had not been recovered from him. To ensure the safe administration of justice, the sentence of death of both the appellants is not confirmed. With the above observation, this appeal is partly allowed.