' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition by complainant is directed against the judgment dated 21-8- 2001 of the Lahore High Court through which he wants enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Sharif which has been converted from death to life imprisonment and also to challenge acquittal of Kalu, a co-accused.
2. According to the F.I.R., Hurmat, Kalu and Muhammad Sharif, three accused persons opened fire from roof tops on the dispute of soling of the road in which Ahmed Khan, deceased was done to death due to shot of Muhammad Sharif.
3. The trial Court after recording evidence acquitted Hurmat who is father of Muhammad Sharif.
Muhammad Sharif and Kalu were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And Muhammad Sharif was sentenced to death whereas Kalu was awarded life imprisonment. In appeal filed by them, the High Court acquitted Kalu and converted death sentence of Muhammad Sharif to life imprisonment.
4. The case of Kalu and Muhammad Sharif has been adequately dealt with by the learned Judges of the High Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced below in extenso in order to avoid repetition of the reasons given by them:- "13. We will first take up the case of Kalu Khan. He was alleged to have tired ineffectively at the 'deceased. He was injured in the incident (according to him at the hands of Noor Muhammad and had shot gun injuries on his face and back of chest (Exh. DG). He obviously was fired at by two different persons from different directions otherwise he would not receive injuries on opposite sides of his body. No explanation was ever given by the. Prosecution as to how Kalu Khan was injured.
There was complete suppression of its role by the prosecution in this contest. Though this factor alone is not sufficient to throw out the entire prosecution case yet serious doubts do arise about the correctness of the prosecution version and credibility of complainant and witnesses. Kalu Khan had given his own version of the incident which, at least to his extent, merits preference over the prosecution case. Kalu Khan appeared to have been caught in cross-firing between two parties and had not played any part in the incident. He was convicted without any justification by the trial Court.
14. An overall assessm ent of the record leads to the inference that as is customary in cases of free fights, the prosecution has not come forward with a true account of the incident. It has attempted to throw entire blame on the other side. It was claimed by the complainant that the accused came to the roof-tops of their house and started name-calling them when the deceased climbed to the roof-top of his own house in order to restrain the accused from doing that and was fired at by the three accused-shot fired by Muhammad Sharif, accused, statingly, was effective. Examination of site-plan would show that the accused while standing on their roof-tops could not have hit any person present in the house of the deceased. There was no reason for the deceased to have gone to the roof-top of his house in order to call upon his enemies to desist from using abusive language. Then the story does not explain the injuries on the person of Kalu Khan. There apparently was a fight between two parties over usual rural trivia. Both the parties had fired at each other in the course of which deceased was hit. Though Kalu Khan claimed that the deceased was hit at the hands of Fateh Muhammad and Exh.DD depicts the same position but that evidence was not brought on record in accordance with and cannot be considered in these proceedings. Since it was daytime occurrence, was witnessed by naturally present witnesses, we accept the prosecution case qua involvement of Muhammad Sharif in the commission of offence and also believe the prosecution with respect to role ascribed to Muhammad Sharif. His conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is maintained.
' The incident in this case was free fight but evidence on record does not indicate as to which of the parties initiated the trouble. In such a situation awarding of maximum penalty to the convict would be unwarranted. As a consequence, sentence awarded to Muhammad Sharif-appellant-convict is modified to rigorous imprisonment for life with benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellant shall pay compensation amounting to Rs,50,000 to legal heirs of deceased. In the event of default, the convict shall further undergo six months' imprisonment. Kalu Khan is acquitted of the charge."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the reasons given for the acquittal of Kalu and conversion of sentence of death of Muhammad Sharif to life imprisonment suffer from any legal infirmity.
6. The judgment impugned is neither perverse nor shocking rather the same is based on correct and elaborate appraisal of evidence which is in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior Courts for safe administration of criminal justice.
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.