1989 PLP 4379 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioners Shujja Uddin Qureshi for State ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, J.‑‑Petitioners alongwith six others were tried by Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials NO.X, Gujranwala, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 427, 148/149, P.P.C. for committing murder of Inayat Beg and Izhar Beg and for attempting at the life of Nawaz Beg son of Muhammad Beg and Nawaz Beg son of Sharif Beg after committing mischief by damaging a bus in which the complainant party was travelling on 13‑2‑1987 at 5 p.m. near dera of Baba Totu on Tanda‑Sagher Road. On the conclusion of the trial, vide his judgment dated 21‑1‑1988, Altaf Beg petitioner and Ikram Beg co -appellant were sentenced to death and the other five petitioners, namely, Anwar Beg, Bashir Beg, Sardar Beg, Maqsood Beg and Azeem Beg were sentenced to imprisonment for life besides a fine of Rs.20,000 each under Section 302/149 P.P.C. on each of the two counts. They were also convicted under section 307/149 P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to 10 years' R.I. on each of the two counts besides a fine of Rs.5000 each. Under section 427 P.P.C. and under section 148 P.P.C. they were convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. each on each count. However, five co‑accused of the petitioners were acquitted.

2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that Anwar Beg, Bashir Beg and Sardar Beg petitioners were attributed simple injuries with blunt weapon to Muhammad Nawaz son of Sharif Beg and Azeem Beg petitioner was assigned a role of bursting the tyre of the bus in which the complainant party was travelling by using fire arm besides being the main accused. So far as the motive is concerned, while Maqsood Beg petitioner was attributed a fire arm injury on the thigh of Muhammad Nawaz (injured) son of Muhammad Beg which injury was in fact non‑existent because, according to the doctor who conducted his medico- legal examination, there was no fire arm injury on the thigh of the injured rather it was a lacerated wound (injury No.5) caused by a blunt weapon. According to the learned counsel, the fatal injury of Inayat Beg (deceased) was attributed to Altaf Beg petitioner but rest of the petitioners were assigned a much lesser role and they are entitled to be released on bail till the decision of their appeal.

3. The application has been opposed on the ground of vicarious liability.

4. The complainant party was travelling in a bus and it was intercepted by another bus in which the petitioners and their co‑accused armed with deadly weapons were travelling and it was being driven by Azeem Beg petitioner. Therefore, the principle of vicarious liability as embodied in section 149 P.P.C. was apparently attracted to this case and none of the petitioners excepting Maqsood Beg whose case is on different footing, is entitled to the suspension of sentence. According to the statement of doctor Hamayon Javaid (PW.7), injury No.5 located on the upper thigh of Muhammad Nawaz (PW) son of Muhammad Beg was a lacerated wound caused by a blunt weapon, while according to eye witness account it was a fire arm injury caused by a shot fired from .12 bore gun by Maqsood Beg petitioner. In other words, the injury attributed to Maqsood Beg petitioner was virtually non‑existent on the person of Muhammad Nawaz (injured) son of Muhammad Beg. Therefore, without prejudice to the ultimate decision of the appeal, the sentence of Maqsood Beg petitioner (appellant) is suspended and he is granted bail if he furnishes bail bonds in sum of Rs.50,000 with. one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Magistrate Ist Class, Gujrat. The application of other petitioners is rejected.

5. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges, if requested for. S.A./A‑751/L Order accordingly.