1. DORAB PATEL J.--- Sardar Ali the father of the petitioner was murdered on the 18th of March, 1973, and the first respondent was convicted for this murder and sentenced to death by the Sessions Court. The first respondent` filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court against his conviction and sentence which was heard with the reference from the Sessions Court. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed the first respondent's appeals against his conviction but rejected the reference and reduced the sentence to life imprisonment, therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition for the enhancement of the sentence against the first respondent.
2. In rejecting the refer, the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court observed: "Thus, keeping in view the tender age of the appellant, the deceased being instrumental in the abduction of the sister of the appellant by Bunyad Husain (son-in-law of the deceased) and then the deceased standing in the way of her restoration, the appellant deserves lesser penalty.
3. Accordingly while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Sardar Ali, we alter his sentence of death to that of life imprisonment."
4. It is clear from these observations that the first respondent had sought the benefit of the lesser penalty on account of the motive for the crime and on account of his youth, and the High Court treated the motive as a mitigating circumstance but it was also of the view that the youth of the first respondent justified the lesser penalty.
5. The first respondent's plea about the motive appears to have been that he bad murdered the deceased because the deceased was instrumental in his sister's abduction for the benefit of Bunyad Hussain. Now as Bunyad Huaaain was married to the deceased---s daughter, learned counsel's submission was that this motive was absurd because it meant that the deceased had abducted another girl for the benefit of his own son-in-law. The submission assumes that the daughter of the deceased was alive and we have not been referred to any evidence in support of this submission. It is, however not necessary to go further into this aspect of the case because as we pointed out the benefit of the lesser penalty was given to the first respondent because of his youth.
6. Mr. Muhammad Hussain then submitted that there was no evidence to show that the first respondent was a minor at the date of the murder. But the first respondent appears to have proved his school leaving certificate according to which he was leas than 17 years old at the ditto of the murder. The school leaving certificate must have been produced by the first respondent with his statement in the Sessions Court and it was a piece of evidence in support of his plea of youth.
7. Learned counsel wanted us to reject this evidence because of the statement of the first respondent in the committal Court in which his age was shown as 22 years. This statement is not before us and normally the committal Court does not make any enquiry into the age of the accused when it is recording his statement. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is supported by the only evidence which was on the record. In these circumstances, even though the murder was of a brutal nature, it cannot possibly be contended that the sentence passed by the High Court is illegal.
8. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.