1994 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 28th November, 1992. This is a revision petition questioning the acquittal of Khurshid son of Jalal (since died), Sarwar son of Ali Muhammad and Abdul Rehman son of Charagh Din under section 302/34, P.P.C. and for enhancement of the sentence of Abdul Jabbar son of Allah Bukhsh. The revision to the extent of enhancement of sentence of Abdul Jabbar was dismissed vide order, dated 16-12-1987. However, notice was issued to the remaining respondents against their acquittal under section 302, P.P.C. It is stated that pending revision petition Khurshid son of Jalal died, and therefore, there are only two respondents in the revision petition namely Sarwar and Abdul Rehman. The respondents with Abdul Jabbar convict were tried for the charge under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who vide his judgment, dated 9-1-1986 convicted Abdul Jabbar under section 302, P.P.C. and awarded him life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo two years' R.I. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and was sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's R.I. The fine if recovered was ordered to be paid to Muhammad Mansha P.W. as compensation. -Khurshid, Sarwar and Abdul Rehman were acquitted of the charge of murder. However, they were convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and awarded sentence to two years' R.I. each with a fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default to undergo R.I. for one year each.

2. The prosecution case in brief as contained in F.I.R. Exh.P.L. lodged by Muhammad Siddique P.W.8 complainant is that on' 15-11-1982 at 2 p.m complainant was present at his tube-well in his fields Situated at a distance of seven acres from the Village Abadi when he saw Akhtar son of Barkat Ali alongwith Parwasat going on a bicycle. Abdul armed with dagger, Abdul Ghaffar armed with hatchet, Mushtaq armed with gun, Allah Rakha armed with hatchet, Abdul Rashid armed with dagger, Ghulam Muhammad armed with hatchet, Abdul Rehman with Sota, Bashir, Nazir, Khurshid, Murids of Allah Rakha armed with Sotas appeared at the scene and in furtherance of their common object attacked Mansha etc. The accused caused injuries to the injured with their respective weapons and decamped from the place of occurrence. The motive as stated was the criminal litigation between the parties. The case was registered against Akhtar etc. at the instance of Allah Rakha acquitted accused in May, 1982 and thereafter a case was registered against son of Allah Rakha in which Muhammad Akhtar was a witness. The deceased and injured are related inter se. Din Muhammad was the maternal cousin of Muhammad Siddique complainant whereas Akhtar, Mansha, Younas and Yousaf P.Ws. are real brothers and also related to Muhammad Siddique complainant. Sher Muhammad P.W. is brother of deceased and Liaqat Ali is, son of Sher Muhammad. Liaqat and Ghafoor P.Ws. are brothers and related to Sher Muhammad. Parwasat Ali is also related to Akhtar. After the occurrence, all the injured came to the police station and from there they were sent to the hospital for medical examination.

3. Doctor Sultan Ahmad P.W.5 medically examined Din Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person: (1) An incised wound 10 c.m. x 6 c.m. abdominal cavity depth. Omentem and intestines were found out of the wound. There was corresponding cut on the wound: (2) Contused wound 1 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the front surface of upper part of the right leg. Injury No.l was grievous and caused with sharp-edged weapon and injury No.2 was declared simple with blunt weapon. Din Muhammad ultimately died in the hospital and his post-mortem was conducted by Doctor Muhammad Akhtar P.W.14 on 6-11-1982. P.W.2 also medically examined Muhammad Akhtar and found 14 simple injuries on his person. Four simple injuries each were found on the person of Muhammad Siddique son of Fateh Muhammad and Parwasat Ali. The same Doctor medically examined Abdul Ghafoor and Mansha and found four simple injuries on the person of Abdul Ghafoor and 15 injuries on the person of Mansha.

4. The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor Sultan Ahmad who conducted the medical examination of the injured. On the death of Din Muhammad injured Doctor Akhtar Hussain P.W.14 conducted the post-mortem examination. Muhammad Younas P.W.7 and Liaqat Ali P.W.10 are the recovery witnesses. Muhammad Siddique complainant P.W.8, Muhammad Akhtar P.W.9 and Abdul Ghafoor P.W.11 furnished the ocular account. Ghulam Rasool S.I. and Ghulam Abbas, S.H.O. P.W.13 are the Investigating Officers of the case.

5. The accused denied the charge and pleaded false implication. Muhammad Siddique, Akhtar and Abdul Ghafoor, all the three eye-witnesses are injured witnesses. Parwasat Ali and Muhammad Mansha are deceased in the case. Allah Rakha and Fazal are real brothers. Abdul Jabbar, Rashid, Abdul Ghaffar and Mushtaq are sons of Allah Rakha. Abdul Rehman is maternal-cousin of Allah Rakha. Ghulam Muhammad is also related to Allah Rakha. Sarwar and Khurshid are Murids of Allah Rakha.

6. The learned trial Court after a detailed discussion concluded that the presence of the injured witnesses at the spot and the participation of the respondents in the occurrence is beyond any doubt. However, the immediate cause of occurrence being not known section 149, P.P.C. was not applied.

7. The ill-will between the parties because of the criminal litigation could aggravate the situation but the same cannot be the root cause of the occurrence. It seems that something immediately before the occurrence happened which caused trouble and as a result thereof this fateful incident. What happened immediately before the occurrence and what prompted the accused was not brought on the record. A close scrutiny of the evidence on the record and looking at the circumstances of the case, it appears that Akhtar and Parwasat Ali injured were caused injuries at first :.stance and thereafter the accused had gone to field where the other witnesses namely Mansha, Ghafoor, Din Muhammad and complainant were attacked. The injured witnesses received injuries at the hands of the accused in two groups, one after the other and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common object and design to cause injuries to the P.Ws., rather it transpires that the accused with no premeditation suddenly attacked the P.Ws. for some unknown reason. The circumstances of the case indicate that respondents with their acquitted accused acted in their individual capacity in the occurrence nod sharing common object to make it a case of vicarious liability to take an exception to the findings of the learned trial Court. Both Sarwar and Abdul Rehman respondents were found guilty under section 307, A P.P.C. for causing injuries to the P.Ws. and they were sentenced accordingly. The conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents in the circumstances of the case does not call for any interference and resultantly the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1675/L Order accordingly.