1993 PLP 133 (SCMR)

M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J: ‑‑Bashir, Walayat, Mukhtar, Khadim Hussain alias Khadu accused/petitioners and Nazir the acquitted accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala for committing the murder of Riasat Ali. Nazir was acquitted while the accused/petitioners were convi9ted under section 302 read with section 148/149, P.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000 each. Appeal filed by the accused/petitioners was dismissed by the learned High Court per judgment, dated the 23rd April, 1983.

2. By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the impugned judgment on the grounds that principle of safe dispensation of criminal justice has not been observed by the Courts below in convicting the accused/petitioners and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and fine as stated above; and that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence according to the established principles of appraisal of evidence.

3. According to Muhammad Ali complainant, on 13‑11‑1976 he alongwith his brother Riasat Ali deceased were returning to their village when near Chah Saniarianwala Nazir and Bashir, armed with hatchets, Walayat and Mukhtar, armed with knives and Khadim Hussain, armed with Dang, came out from the sugarcane crop; attacked. Riasat Ali and wounded him and brought him down to the ground and inflicted more blows when he had fallen. The occurrence was witnessed by Maula Dad, Muhammad Din and Sube Khan P.W.9. The reason for the attack, stated by him, was that two days prior to the occurrence, Ghulam Rasul Mochi was thrashing the paddy crop of the accused/petitioners; the deceased Riasat Ali abused him and asked him to thrash his crops first; that the accused/petitioners who were present nearby, took exception to it, and, hence the present occurrence.

4. In nutshell the prosecution case rests on the testimony of Sube Khan, P.W.9 who supporting the prosecution case, stated that when he was at some distance from Chah Saniarianwala, he saw Muhammad Ali, P.W. and Riasat Ali deceased coming; that Nazir and Bashir, armed with hatchets, Mukhtar and Walayat, armed with knives and Khadim Hussain alias Khadu, armed with Dang attacked the deceased and wounded him and thereafter they escaped alongwith their weapons.

5. Dr. Shahnawaz P.W.3 examined Riasat Ali and found as many as 16 incised and contused wounds on various parts of his body, out of which injury No.16 was grievous while the rest were simple. Riasat Ali, later on, succumbed to injuries.

6. Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad P.W.13 conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Riasat Ali deceased and confirmed the injuries earlier found by Dr. Shahnawaz on the body of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to severe haemorrhage and shock due to injury No.16. All other injuries contributed to the shock. Injury No,16 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with this evidence, could not make any strong criticism of the same but he contended that benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. should have been allowed to the accused/petitioners by the learned trial Court as they remained in. the lock‑up for sufficient period. Notice was issued to the Advocate‑General and Mr. S.M. Zubair, Assistant Advocate‑General appeared. He has not opposed the plea of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioners for considering the period of their detention in the lock‑up during the trial. We convert this petition into appeal. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. is extended to the accused/petitioners. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./B‑204/S Order accordingly.