1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 12-7-2002 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No,419 of 2001 filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment dated 10-2-2001 was dismissed.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that F.I.R. No,552 was got recorded on 4-11-1998 by one Muhammad Afzal (P.W.4) at Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot, under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of his brother Muhammad Amjad. It was the case of the complainant that he alongwith his brotner Muhammad Amjad were living in Pakka Garha in separate houses. The petitioner, who was running a private school, was also putting up in a house adjacent to that of Muhammad Amjad. A day earlier to the occurrence i.e, 3-11-1998 at about 6-00/7-00 p.m. There was a dispute between Muhammad Amjad and the petitioner qua throwing of rubbish in front of the shop of the former.
3. Abuses were exchanged between the parties. However, the matter was patched up due to intervention of the people of the locality. The complainant also stated that the petitioner extended threats of killing Muhammad Amjad, whereupon he reported the matter to Tar-iq Mehmood, a Councillor.
4. ' On 4-11-1998 at about 11-00 a.m. While the complainant alongwith others was standing in front of the shop of Muhammad Amjad deceased, the petitioner armed with a .30 bore pistol came there and raised Lalkara to get aside as he wanted to teach a lesson to the deceased for his disgrace on the preceding night. He fired at Amjad hitting him at his chest, stomach and right flank and thereafter succeeded in fleeing from the place of incident. Muhammad Amjad in an injured condition was removed to the Civil Hospital, Sialkot, where he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner was arrested on 17-11-1998 and incriminating weapon was also recovered from him. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 12 witnesses. The ocular account was stated by Muhammad Afzal (P.W.1), brother of the deceased Amjad, and Areesh Amjad (P.W.2). Malik Muhammad Nadeem, Ex-S.H.O., Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot, was also examined as a Court witness asC.W.1. When the petitioner was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., he admitted the commission of murder but took up the plea that few days prior to the present occurrence deceased Amjad delivered derogatory remarks in respect of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.). He also stated that in this regard he took Fatwa from the Ulemas and accordingly committed this offence.
5. ' The learned trial Court, after evaluating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that there was no grave and sudden provocation as alleged by the petitioner as the alleged utterances were delivered two weeks prior to the present incident. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge convicted the present petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also directed to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., failing which he was ordered to suffer further one year's S.1.
6. ' The petitioner filed the aforesaid criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 12-7-2002 dismissed the same by maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
7. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the entire evidence brought on record with his assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioner as well as deceased Amjad were living in the same area quite adjacent to each other. Though the motive as set up by the prosecution was not proved on record but similarly the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding the utterances allegedly attributed to the deceased. Although he had stated that the deceased repeated the same but none came forward to substantiate the same. The prosecution has A succeeded in establishing the case against the petitioner to the hilt. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given weighty reasons for maintaining the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court. It' would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge, which is in the following terms:- "11. The incident in this case has been admitted. Therefore, certain aspects of the prosecution case are not required to be scrutinised by this Court. Though the prosecution alleged that dispute between the parties erupted on account of disposal of garbage yet the accused took the stand that incident had taken place on account of disrespectful utterance made by deceased with regard to the life of Holy Prophet (PBUH) and that he was provoked and then the offence was committed by him in that background. The motive, as concluded by the trial Court could not be established by the prosecution. There was no dispute between the parties. Previous enmity did not exist between the parties either. Therefore, the background in which the occurrence took place appears to be somewhat different than the one claimed by the prosecution. The appellant had also taken a specific stand but his 'stand is not supported by any other witness. Nobody had come forward to testify in support of the defence plea that the deceased had made any disrespectful utterance qua the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The Imam of the village and other persons who were approached by the appellant had also not come forward to support his case. The deceased is alleged to have uttered the words about two weeks prior to the actual incident and it is claim of the appellant that deceased was called upon to offer Tauba and on his failure to repent, appellant was provoked and he then fired at him. This stand of the appellant shows that when any disrespectful words were spoken by the deceased, the accused was not provoked nor he had acted under any impulse at that moment. He waited for about two weeks and then had reacted. The accused in the circumstances cannot claim that offence was committed by him on account of sudden and grave provocation. The trial Court had also concluded that it was not a case of sudden provocation. This view appears to be correct view of the record. The accused had taken life of a person on notional thinking and he was rightly convicted for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. The sentence awarded to him under the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be appropriate sentence. A lenient view in the matter of sentence was taken by the trial Court on account of the fact that motive could not be established by the prosecution."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court.
9. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and .