1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 19- 10-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No,942 of 1998 filed by respondent No,1 was partly allowed by converting his sentence of imprisonment for life recorded under section 302(b), P.P.C. To 14 years' R.I. Under section 306(a) read with section 308, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that Amanat Ali (P.W.5) reported to the police that on the day of occurrence i.e, 21-6-1997 in the morning he alongwith his brother Allah Ditta went to their fields for ploughing the land which was situated at a distance of one acre from the place of occurrence. After some time his Phuphi Zad sister-in-law Noor Begum and Muhammad Akhtar came there, they brought with them breakfast. At 7-45 a.m. Accused Khadim Hussain armed with pistol, Nazim Ali armed with .12 bore gun, Inayat armed with Sota, Nazar Hussain armed with Sota, Mehdi Khan armed with Sota and Mst. Amina Bibi also armed with Sota came there on a tractor which was driven by Nazim Ali respondent and the other accused were on foot. Soon after their arrival they started ploughing the land which was being ploughed by the complainant Amanat Ali and his brother. They also raised a Lalkara that no one should come near them as the land which was being ploughed by them by the respondent belonged to them. Upon this Allah Ditta, brother of the complainant Amanat Ali, stood in front of the tractor and asked the accused that the land belonged to him, therefore, they should not plough it. On this Nazim Ali respondent alighted from the tractor and fired at Allah. Ditta with his .12 bore gun which hit. Allah Ditta on his right thigh.
3. Inayat gave a Sota blow to him hitting on his left arm, Nazar Hussain gave a Sota blow on the right arm of the complainant. When Mst. Noor Begum (P.W.6) came to his rescue, Mst. Amina Bibi accused gave Sota blow to her on her left arm. Mehdi Khan accused gave a Sota blow on the back of Mst. Noor Begum. Khadim Hussain accused raised Lalkaras by pointing his pistol and uttering that no one should come near otherwise he would be done to death. Allah Ditta succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
4. ' The challan was submitted in the Court after fulfilling all the legal formalities. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, through his judgment dated 29-10-1998 acquitted Khadim Hussain, Nazar Hussain and Mehdi Khan of the charge and convicted Nazim Ali, respondent, under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life and directed him to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the heirs of deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default of its payment to undergo further R.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended to him. Muhammad Inayat and Mst. Amina Bibi accused were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the trial Court.
5. ' Respondent Nazim Ali and Mst. Aamina Bibi filed Criminal Appeal No,942 of 1998 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, against their convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through his judgment dated 19-10-2001, impugned herein, reduced the sentence of convict Mst. Amina. Bibi to the period already undergone by her; whereas the conviction of Nazim Ali respondent was converted from section 302(b) to section. 306 read with section 308, P.P.C. And his sentence was reduced to 14 years' R.I.As Tazir'. Hence, this petition'for leave to appeal for enhancement of sentence of respondent No,1 Nazim Ali.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned High Court refused to enhance the sentence of respondent Nazim Ali. Relying upon his school leaving certificate and the medical certificate in order to bring his case within the purview of section 306(a), P.P.C. Without realising that both the documents had not been proved on record and secondly even if it is presumed that both the documents can be relied upon, still the respondent was not entitled to 14 years R.I. In view of the judgment of this Court reported as Anar Gul v. The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P.
7. And another (1999 SCM R 2203).
8. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the relevant provisions of the law i.e, section 306(a) read with section 308, P.P.C. As well as the judgments of this Court in the cases of Muhammad Afzal alias Seema v. The State (1999 SCM R 2283) and Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State (2000 SCM R 1758). There is no cavil with the proposition .That if an accused is minor at the time of commission of offence, then he will not be liable to Qisas in terms of proviso to clause (a) of section 306, P.P.C., therefore, the question for determination before the High Court was, as to whether respondent was minor or otherwise at the time of commission of offence. In this behalf, it is to be noted that in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The respondent's age was recorded as 17 years, meaning thereby, that at the time when he committed the offence, he was 16 years of age. In addition to it the respondent, in order to prove that he was minor at the relevant time, brought two documents on record. Ordinarily there should not be any objection on the admissibility of both the documents because the same have been prepared by the Headmaster of the school and the doctor in their usual discharge of duty. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that these documents were not liable to be taken into consideration, still in view of the discrepancy on the question of age of the respondent i.e, recorded in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And as per the documents brought on record, benefit will go to the accused. In forming this view, we are supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarfraz alias Sappi. And 2 other v. The State (2000 SCM R 1758). No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. ' Thus for the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed and leave declined.