1985 PLP 495 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑‑ This order will dispose of Criminal Petition No.109 of 1984 and Criminal `Petition No.11‑R of 1984, as both the petitions are directed against ‑ one and the same judgment of the Lahore High Court. The relevant facts are that Muzammal Din (petitioner in Criminal Petition No.11‑R of 1984) lodged an F.I.R. on 1‑11‑1977 against Nur Hussain son of Nawab and his three sons, namely, Muhammad Ramzan, Hayat Mohammad and Noor Khan (petitioners in Criminal Petition No.109 of 1984) at Police Station Pindigheb alleging that the aforesaid four persons had caused deaths of Ahmad Din and his son Imam Din with sticks in a fight which took place on 1‑11‑1977 at Maghrabwela. Nur Hussain and his sons Muhammad Ramzan, Hayat Muhammad and Noor Khan were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock who, vide his order dated 5‑10‑1980, convicted all four of them under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced all of them to death and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default five years' rigorous imprisonment each. They were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 for injuring Mst. Sunehran Begum and in default to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted under section 323/34, P.P.C. for causing simple injuries to Muzammal Din P.,W. The aforesaid four convicts preferred an appeal before the Lahore High Court (Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 1980) which was taken up alongwith the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence (Murder Reference No.238 of 1980). Both these matters were disposed of together by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide its judgment and order dated 4‑2‑1984. The conviction of the aforesaid four convicts under sections 302/34, P.P.C., 307/34, P.P.C. and 323/34, P.P.C. was maintained but the sentence of death imposed upon them was reduced to life imprisonment. The convicted person have now preferred this petition in this Court for leave to appeal (Cr.P.S.L.A. No.109 of 1984) to challenge their conviction, while Muzammal Din, complainant, has also filed a petition for leave to appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence (Cr.P.S.L.A. No.11‑R of 1984). Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present order. The case of the prosecution is that Muzammal Din, who is also the son of Ahmad Din deceased and the brother of the deceased Imam Din, reported to the police that he and his father were at their threshing floor at about Nimashanwela (which is situated at their Dhok) where their Moth was lying. Muhammad Ramzan accused armed with a Khoonda, Nur Hussain, Nluhammad Hayat and Noor Khan armed with Sotis came there from the village side. Muhammad Ramzan accused gave a Lalkara to Ahmad Din that he had come to take revenge for the abuses given by him to his father Nur Hussain and attacked Ahmad Din with his Khoonda on his head. Ahmad Din raised an alarm on which the other deceased Imam Din and Mst. Sunehran Begum wife of Ahmad Din arrived at the spot. The remaining three accused gave blows to Ahmad Din, beating him mercilessly. They also gave Soti and Khoonda blows to Imam Din. Muzammal Din petitioner and his mother Mst. Sunehran, who had tried to intervene and rescue their dear ones were also given a number of blows by the accused party. The two deceased were taken to Dhok in the injured condition where they died The motive for the attack by the accused is stated to be that a day prior to the occurrence some camels of Nur Hussain accused were allowed to enter the field of Ahmad Din and had damaged the Gowara crop of the complainant party. Ahmad Din had turned out the camels and protested to Nur Hussain for having sent his camels to their ‑field. This resulted in exchange of abuses and infuriated the complainant party. The High Court had accepted the version deposed to by the prosecution witnesses which included Muzammai Din, P.W.7, who was injured in the incident and, therefore, maintained the conviction of all the four accused. However, they were of the opinion that the motive alleged by the prosecution for the attack was not established because the Khasra Girdawari did not show that 'Gowara' crop, which had allegedly been damaged by the camels of Nur Hussain on the previous, had been sown in the field in question. The immediate cause for the attack, thus, being shrouded in mystery, the accused were entitled to the benefit of lesser sentence. We have heard Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for Nur Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan, Hayat Muhammad and Noor Khan, petitioners (in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.109 of 1984), as well as Sh. Zamir Hussain, learned counsel for the complainant, Muzammal Din (in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.11‑R of 1984) at some length and have also perused the record. After hearing both the learned counsel and examining the record we are satisfied that the learned Judges in the High Court have correctly appreciated the situation and no ground exists for interfering with their judgment and order. Both the petitions, accordingly, fail and are dismissed hereby. M . Z . M . Petitions dismissed.