1990 PLP 340 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 6‑12‑19771 in Criminal Appeal No.412 of 1970). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.304, Part 11/34 & 324/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Not possible to ascribe any blame to either of the accused persons for causing fatal blow on deceased or of causing simple and grievous injuries to prosecution witnesses in absence of any specific attribution as to role played by each‑‑‑Since rule of vicarious liability could not be invoked in the case, accused were given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Nemo for Appellants (in both Appeals). Muhammad Aslam Uns for the State. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1989. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑In terms of the leave granting order we have examined the record of the case. The trial Court held that both the parties had prepared themselves for a fight and have fought in which case it was a free fight. Nonetheless, without apportioning their culpability in the killing of the deceased and of causing injuries to Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.4) and Shera (P.W.5), the trial Court convicted Sadiq, Wasawa and Ratallun under section 304, Part 11 read with section 34, P.P.C. and section 324 read with section 34, P.P.C. The High Court on appeal upheld the convictions and sentences recorded by the trial Court. It may here be mentioned that the deceased suffered one incised injury of considerable dimension while Ghulam Sarwar had six injuries which were caused by blunt and sharp weapons out of which only one injury was grievous. Similarly Sher suffered three injuries with a blunt weapon of which one was grievous. On the side of the appellants Wasawa suffered 10 injuries both with sharp as well as blunt weapons; one injury out of those suffered by him was grievous and Ratallun suffered nine injuries out of which one was grievous. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to ascribe any blame to either of the appellants for causing the fatal blow on the deceased or of causing simple and grievous injuries to the prosecution witnesses in the absence of any specific attribution as to the role played by each. As the rule of vicarious liability cannot be invoked in such a case, we would give benefit of doubt to the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1978 and acquit the appellants. They are on bail and their bail bonds shall stand discharged. No one appeared to prosecute Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1978 in which it was prayed for the enhancement of the sentence. Accordingly, we would recall the order granting leave and dismiss the petition. M.A.K./S‑443/S Appeal accepted.