' SH. RIAZ AHMED, CJ.---Criminal Petitions 617, .618 and 629-L of 2001 are directed against the judgment, dated 1-8-2001, whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court maintained the conviction and sentences of petitioners-convicts, Ghazanfar Abbas, Munir Ahmad and Manzoor Hussain under 'Tazir' and burdened both Ghazanfar Abbas and Munir Ahmad to pay an amount of Rs,50,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of three deceased namely Hamid Masood, Mushtaq Ahmad and Abdur Razzaq. Manzoor Hussain was also directed to pay an amount of Rs,25,000 towards compensation to be paid to legal heirs of Abdur Razzaq deceased. Death sentence of Ghazanfar Abbas and Munir Ahmad was confirmed. Criminal Appeal 232 of 1996 and Criminal Revision 123 of 1996 preferred by complainant were dismissed in terms of judgment impugned herein.
2. Pursuant to a criminal case vide F.I.R. No,48, dated 24th of September, 1992 registered with Police Station Khanewal Kohna on charges under sections 148/302/149/324 read with sections 109, Pakistan Penal Code, Ghazanfar Abbas, Munir Ahmad, Ghulam Shabbir, Manzoor Hussain, Muhammad Ashraf and Saeed Ahmad had faced their trial before a Special Court for Speedy.
Trials at Multan and vide. Order, dated 21-9-1993 the learned trial Judge discharged co-accused namely Muzafar Abbas and Mst. Razia Begum of the charge and on 22-9-1993 convicted petitioners on the charge under sections 302/337-A(iii)/34/337-A(i) and sentenced Ghazanfar Abbas and Munir Ahmad to death and Manzoor Hussain to imprisonment for life.
3. It may be stated that petitioners and their co-accused Saeed Ahmed had assailed their conviction and sentences before the Supreme Appellate Court at Lahore, but after the promulgation of Special Courts for Speedy Trials Repeal Ordinance LII of 1994, the appeal of the convicts named above was transferred to Lahore High Court Bench at Multan and subsequently was transmitted at the Principal Seat. After about three years, complainant had filed Criminal Revision 123 of 1996 seeking enhancement of sentence of Manzoor Hussain and Muhammad Saeed and also challenged the acquittal of Ghulam Shabbir through Criminal Appeal 232 of 1996. Thus, all the matters were consolidated and a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court by means of judgment impugned dated 1-8-2001 as indicated above, maintained the conviction and sentences under 'Tazir'.
4. Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court has vehemently contended that petitioner Ghazanfar Abbas was less than 18 years at the time of occurrence but no steps whatsoever were taken by petitioner Ghazanfar Abbas to substantiate this plea during his trial and in course of hearing of the appeal in the Lahore High Court, Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court had produced copy of his matriculate certificate to show that petitioner was a minor and thus he was not amenable to Qisas' within the meaning of section 308; Pakistan Penal Code, and as such, could not have been sentenced to death.
5. Conversely, learned counsel representing the complainant has drawn the attention of this Court to birth certificate issued by Municipal Committee, Khanewal which indicates date of birth of Ghazanfar Abbas as 27-8-1973 and the calculation reveals that he was not a minor at the time of the commission of offence.
6. Essentially, controversy raised in both these petitions revolves around the age of Ghazanfar Abbas, therefore, to ensure the safe administration of justice and to consider the question of the minority of Ghazanfar Abbas, we grant leave to appeal in both these cases. Order accordingly.
7. On behalf of the complainant, a separate petition has also been filed seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents by the trial Court :affirmed in appeal by High Court. Grievance made out by learned counsel is that specific role had been attributed to respondent in this case which has not been touched or considered by Courts below which amounts to non-reading of evidence and has caused miscarriage of justice. Considering the case from all angles, therefore, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case. Order accordingly. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount returnable to the District and Sessions Judge concerned be issued against the acquitted accused.
8. As regards petition seeking enhancement of sentence, we do not find any merit therein and dismiss the same accordingly.