2019 PLP 32 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD SHERAZ KIANI, J.

The supra titled appeals have been directed against the judgment passed by Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur dated 27.05.2017, whereby, accused, Jahanzaib was convicted and awarded ten years simple imprisonment under section 302(c), A.P.C., he was also ordered to pay rupees five lac compensation amount to the legal heirs of deceased, Ameen, in default of payment of the amount, he will further undergo six months simple imprisonment, one year simple imprisonment along with five thousand as fine in offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Act in default of payment of fine, further undergo three months simple imprisonment, while accused, Shoaib was also convicted and awarded ten years simple imprisonment under section 302(c), A.P.C. along with compensation of rupees five lac, in default of which he will further undergo six months simple imprisonment and one year simple imprisonment along with five thousand rupees fine in offence under section 15(2), Arms Act, in default of which, he further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, whereas accused, Idrees, Abbas and Jameel were awarded one/one year simple imprisonment each along with rupees one lac each as Daman under section 337-F(iii), A.P.C. in default, they shall remain in jail till the payment of Daman, accused, Jameel was also awarded sentence of one year simple imprisonment along with fine of rupees five thousand, failing which undergo three months simple imprisonment under section 13/20/65 Arms Act, while, accused Siddique was awarded two years' simple imprisonment along with one lac as Daman in offence under section 337-F(iv), in default of which he shall remain in jail, one year simple imprisonment and fine of rupees five thousand as fine under section 13/20/65 of Arms Act, in default of which, he shall undergo three months' S.I, while accused, Qurban was awarded one year simple imprisonment and fine of five thousand in offence under section 13/20/65 of Arms Act, in default of which he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment, accused, Tanvir Hussain was also awarded one year simple imprisonment and fine of rupees five thousand under section 15(2) of Arms Act, in default of which he shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

2. Precise facts forming background of the instant appeals are that a case under illat No.66/09 was registered at Police Station City Mirpur on the complaint of Muhammad Bashir on 30.03.2009 in offences under sections 302/324, 147, 148, 149, A.P.C. It is alleged that on the fateful day, a procession led by Ch. Allah Ditta against the upraising Project of Mangla Dam started from Kharik and when the procession reached nearby Khambal Chowk, Jahanzaib son of Qurban and Majeed, armed with 30-bore pistols and other accused-persons Tanveer son of Ayub, Qurban son of Adalat, Idrees and Shoaib sons of Sajawal, Jameel son of Javaid, Abbas son of Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Alam also armed with 30-bore pistols arrived there and raised objection about leading the procession. Majeed, Tanveer and Qurban, accused persons, were riding in the Jeep of Jahanzaib, accused, whereas other accused-persons were on motorcycles. All the accused-persons started firing from the front side with the intention of murder. Jahanzaib, accused fired a shot with 30-bore pistol upon Ameen whereas Muhammad Yousaf, Saqib, Arif who were in the Jeep of Ameen alighted from the Jeep to rescue him, but the fire hit Ameen upon his chest, who fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Majeed, accused fired a straight shot upon Muhammad Yousaf which hit him upon his right shoulder and left thigh. Tanveer, accused, fired a straight shot upon Muhammad Rasheed which hit him on right side of his abdomen, whereas Shoaib, accused, also fired second shot which hit Muhammad Rasheed on his left thigh. Idrees, accused, fired a straight shot, which hit Saqib upon his left thigh. Qurban, accused, fired shot which hit Ajaib on right side of his bladder. Jameel, Abbas and Siddique, accused-persons also fired straight shots upon Arif, which hit him upon his right shin, left thigh and right heel. On account of firing, the aforesaid persons after sustaining severe injuries fell down and Muhammad Ameen, Muhammad Rasheed and Muhammad Yousaf injured, later succumbed to injuries, whereupon accused fled away from the spot by firing shots. The occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by Ch. Allah Ditta, Ch. Maroof son of Raj Muhammad, Qadeer son of Nazir and many other persons present at the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a dispute of land between accused Jahanzaib and Muhammad Amin.

3. On this report, a case under Sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 337, A.P.C., 13/20/65, AO and 15(2), Arms Act, 2016, was registered against the aforesaid accused-persons. After the apprehension of the accused-persons, the investigating agency started investigation and on completion of investigation, challan was presented under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 08.05.2009.

4. On 09.06.2009, the convict-appellants and accused-respondents were examined under section 242, Cr.P.C, wherein they pleaded not guilty and opted for the trial of the case. One of the accused, Abdul Majeed who was absconder, arrested by the police, as such to his extent supplementary challan was presented on 19.09.2009, thereafter he was also examined under section 242, Cr.P.C. on 04.08.2012. Later on accused Shoaib and Tanveer were also arrested and supplementary challan was presented on 12.01.2017 and their statements were recorded under section 265/D, Cr.P.C. on 19.01.2017, wherein they also pleaded not guilty, upon which the learned trial Court directed the prosecution to produce evidence. The prosecution produced witnesses namely Abdul Qadeer, Muhammad Bashir, Arif Hussain, Saqib Amin, Asif Iqbal, Muhammad Nazir, Muneer Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz Patwari Halqa Khanpur, Dr. Javed Azam, Dr. Hamid Mallak, Manawar Hussain IHC, Muhammad Latif, Head-constable, Shoukat Ali, constable No.151, Ikhlaq Hussain Sub-inspector, Muhammad Riaz constable No.224, Muhammad Naseer SHO, Muhammad Akram Sub-Inspector, Nadeem Arif Inspector, Zulqarnain DSP, Muneer Ahmed Inspector, Asif Hussain APP, Dr. Aftab Ahmed Mir, Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Bandy.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, an opportunity was provided to the convict-appellants and accused-respondents under section 342, Cr.P.C. on 31.03.2017 to furnish their explanation about the evidence and all the circumstances appearing against them. Wherein they expressed their denial from the accusation and refused to have any enmity with the deceased. They have also stated that the evidence produced by the prosecution is false. The convict appellants failed to produce witnesses in defence or statement on Oath except convict, Muhammad Jahanzaib, who recorded his statement on Oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur after completion of trial and hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide its judgment dated 27.05.2017 convicted the accused-respondents in the terms given in para No.1 of this judgment, hence these appeals. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment, Convict-appellants have filed appeals for setting aside the judgment. Legal heirs of the deceased, Amin and Rasheed have also filed appeals for enhancement of sentence. As all the appeals arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur, therefore, these are being heard together and decided through this common judgment.

7. Mr. Abdul Hameed, the learned counsel for convict-appellants, Muhammad Jahanzaib and others raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by one Saqib Amin (son of deceased Amin) is hopelessly time barred as the same has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, the same may be dismissed. He further submitted that for enhancement of sentence only a revision petition lies, as such, the appeal is also incompetent, while the appeal filed by the complainant, Muhammad Bashir is also not competent because he is not legal heir, thus both the appeals may be dismissed. The learned counsel contended that the FIR has been lodged after the delay of almost three hours and no explanation has been given for such delay. Five challans were presented, initially, eye-witnesses namely Saqib Amin, Arif and Ajaib were not cited in the calendar of challan, however, later on they were added, out of which Arif and Ajaib did not appear before the trial Court for recording their statement. P.W. Allah Ditta who is also eye-witness of the occurrence also not appeared before the Court, hence these witnesses were abandoned by the prosecution. The learned counsel further maintained that the witnesses produced by the prosecution also negated the version taken by the prosecution. Another application was also filed by one Abbas son of the deceased, Amin, who narrated a different story to that of one as described by the complainant, Bashir, however, the same was not taken up. The learned counsel argued that in the instant case three persons died during the incident, however, to the extent of deceased namely Yousaf and Rasheed no trial was conducted and no witness was produced from their side by the prosecution, even the legal heirs of the deceased, Yousaf have pardoned all the accused, which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution story. According to the estimation of the learned counsel nine fires were alleged by the prosecution, but only four empties were recovered from the place of occurrence and the allegation against the convict, Jahanzaib is that he shot a fire at Amin, resultantly he died. Crime weapons were recovered from all the accused-persons, however, the empties match with the weapons recovered from convict, Qurban, Siddique and Idrees. Convict-appellant, Jahanzaib also recorded statement on Oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and submitted that he has not murdered the deceased, Amin, he was not involved in any conspiracy and this portion of his statement/Oath was not challenged/ rebutted by the prosecution, as such the same seems to be admitted one. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the allegation against all the accused-persons is that they fired from the front side, however, according to MLR, the fire hits the deceased from the backside, which cast serious doubt upon the prosecution story. The site plan has also been made on the direction of complainant and no other witness was associated at that time. The learned counsel further contended that forgery has been made in the postmortem report because according to postmortem report the cause of death was shown as due to massive bleeding and the note written at the column of opinion of the doctor, as due to firearm injury which was written later on and this fact has also been admitted by concerned doctor. The exit wound shown in the postmortem report cannot be made with the alleged weapon used in the occurrence. It is also on the record that deceased Rasheed and Amin remained alive for about two hours, obviously they have recorded some statement, which has not been brought on record. There is huge contradiction between the postmortem report and injury sheet. The learned counsel zealously argued that the place of occurrence is a thickly populated area, but no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. The convict-appellants have been roped in this case due to political rivalry, because complainant and convict belong to different political parties. The complainant is an interested person and he has wrongly implicated the convict-appellants in the present case, because Abbas, who is also son of the deceased Amin was also present at the place of occurrence, but he has not made any report to police, which also casts serious doubt upon the prosecution story and the benefit of the same must be given to the convict-appellants. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the appeals filed on behalf of the convicts, they may be acquitted of the charges and the appeals filed by the complainant and others for enhancement of sentences may be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred the following authorities:-- PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 102, 1984 SCMR 930, PLD 1994 SC 178, PLD 1999 Lah. 56, 2000 SCR 122, 2002 YLR 1964, PLD 2006 SC (AJ&K) 43, 2007 MLD 100, 2010 MLD 1830, 2008 SCR 1, 2011 SCMR 323, 2012 PCr.LJ 147, 2012 PCr.LJ 1139, 2012 YLR 2513, 2013 SCR 642, 2013 PCr.LJ 345, 2013 PCr.LJ 886, 2013 YLR 1418 and 2014 YLR 325

8. Raja Inamullah Khan, Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant, legal heirs of deceased Rasheed and injured Arif argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt against the convict-appellants and the acquitted respondent, but the learned trial Court fell in grave error while awarding lesser punishment. He further argued that time and place of occurrence is not doubtful, the presence of the convict-respondents at the place of occurrence is also not doubtful. No evidence whatsoever has been produced by convict-appellants in defence. Prosecution has successfully proved its case by producing cogent and convincing evidence except P.W. Allah Ditta, who was living abroad. The offence under section 324, A.P.C. fully attracted against the convict-appellants Jameel, Abbas and Siddique, but the learned trial Court illegally and wrongly convicted the accused under section 337, A.P.C., while not awarding punishment under sections 324, 149 and 34, A.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that the claim of the accused-respondents was that due to the firing of complainant-party the deceased were murdered and the burden of proof was shifted on the shoulder of accused, but they miserably failed to prove the same. The learned trial Court also failed to consider the fact that the accused, Shoaib and Tanveer remained absconder after commission of the offence, thus being fugitive from law, they are not entitled for any leniency as given by the trial Court. Both the aforesaid accused-persons were alleged to have fired on the deceased Rasheed, upon which he died and this allegation has not been rebutted by the accused, as such the same is admitted one, thus the case of accused, Shoaib falls within the ambit of section 302(b), A.P.C., but the learned trial Court illegally and wrongly awarded sentence under section 302(c), A.P.C. The learned counsel maintained that mere on the basis of relationship the statement of witnesses cannot be discarded. The learned counsel while replying to the argument raised by, the learned counsel for the convict-appellants that exit wound did not match the crime weapon submitted that the doctor is not an expert and this opinion can be given by a Firearm expert. Postmortem report of the deceased and the medical report of the injured had fully corroborated the ocular testimony. He argued that it is well settled principle of law that in a murder case, normal sentence is death and while awarding the death sentence, the Court has not to record any reason, but in case the Court wants to award lesser sentence it has to furnish reasons for such leniency. It is proved that the convict-appellants had common intention to commit the crime, then, it is immaterial that what part has been played by whom; because the law pertaining to vicarious liabilities is, that those who stand together must fall together, thus sections 34/149, A.P.C. are fully attracted in this case. The learned counsel submitted that he does not want to press the appeal to the extent of complainant, Muhammad Bashir. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the appeal filed on behalf of legal heirs deceased, Rasheed and injured Arif, the sentences awarded to the convict-appellants may be enhanced and order of acquittal recorded in favour of accused Abdul Majeed may also be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred the following authorities;- 2001 PCr.LJ 524, PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 211, 2009 SCR 71, 2005 PCr.LJ 1384, 2012 SCMR 1422, 2007 PCr.LJ 902, 2008 YLR 580, PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 27, PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 130 and 2008 YLR 316.

9. Khalid Rasheed Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the appellant Saqib Amin, while answering to the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants that the appeal is barred by time, he submitted that under section 25(2), IPL the time required to file an appeal before this Court is six months, as such the appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. He further contended that for enhancement of sentence an appeal is competent not a revision petition. Adverting to the merits of the case, the learned counsel contended that this is a case of direct evidence and not that of only circumstantial evidence. It was a broad daylight occurrence in which all the accused-persons were nominated with their overt acts, they were armed with lethal weapons and being involved in a triple murder case and three injured eye-witnesses were also mentioned in the FIR, thus being case of heinous nature the accused are liable to be convicted with death sentence as Qisas. The learned counsel argued that all the convict-appellants and acquitted-respondent were members of unlawful assembly and having common object and intention. The learned counsel maintained that time, place, manner and presence of eye-witnesses were admitted and this fact has been admitted by the accused-persons in their statements. Medical evidence in shape of MLR and postmortem reports fully support the prosecution version and being case of direct evidence, deserves at least normal penalty as death, but the learned trial Court while passing the judgment fell in grave error while awarding lesser punishment. The offence under section 324, A.P.C. to the extent of convict, Siddique and Jameel has also been proved, but the learned trial Court without considering the same awarded sentence in offence under section 337, A.P.C. Nowhere the accused have denied the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence, hence witnesses are natural in their deposition. The learned trial Court also held in the judgment that the prosecution has fully proved its case, but wrongly and illegally awarded lesser and insufficient punishment. According to the learned counsel defence plea has also been taken by the accused-party, but they miserably failed to prove their case. Convict-appellants Shoaib and Tanveer remained absconder for a considerable period of eight years, therefore, long abscondence itself is sufficient proof to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel while replying to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants that complainant party was also armed with deadly weapons and the deceased were done to death with their own firing, he submitted that if the complainant party was equipped with weapons, there must be injuries on the accused-party. The premeditation and preplanning of the accused-party was established. Medical evidence also corroborated the other evidence. The learned counsel further contended that only two legal heirs of deceased Yousaf have pardoned the accused Abdul Majeed, while there are nine legal heirs, therefore, the compromise was illegal and against the law. The witnesses who recorded their statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. in support of defence, then it was necessary for the defence to produce them before the Court, but nothing has been done, statements before the police of no use of them. The learned counsel vehemently argued that due to thickly populated area most of the crime empties were misplaced and it was natural because the place of occurrence was not cordoned of by the police soon after the occurrence. Although fires were shot from the front side, but it is quite natural that victim persons change their position to save their lives. Applications were also filed on behalf of the defence side for registration of the case, but they failed to produce evidence in support of their version. According to the learned counsel vicarious liability has also been proved. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the appeal, the impugned judgment may be modified and convict-appellant and accused-respondent may be awarded death sentence as Qisas. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred the following authorities;- PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 27, 2001 PCr.LJ 524, 1996 MLD 1681, 1996 PCr.LJ 1522, 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1264, 2009 SCR 71, 1983 PCr.LJ 898, 2003 SCMR 647, 2015 SCR 465, 2017 PCr.LJ 731, 1999 PCr.LJ 391, 2005 YLR 584, 1999 PCr.LJ 1245, 2001 PCr.LJ 268, PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 102, 1995 PCr.LJ 1793, 2001 PCr.LJ 827, 2001 SCMR 424 and PLD 2001 SC 107.

10. Muhammad Siddique, convict-respondent also appeared before the Court and submitted his written statement, wherein he stated that the allegation levelled against him in the FIR that he injured Muhammad Arif with 30-bore pistol is false and fabricated. He was not present at the place of occurrence and this version has also been taken by him during his examination under section 242, Cr.P.C. and now he also ready to give his statement on Oath that he was not present at the place of the occurrence at the relevant time. He further stated that he has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him and also paid the Daman. He is a poor person due to which he has not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment. It is prayed in the written arguments that by setting aside the impugned judgment to his extent, he may be acquitted of the charge.

11. The learned Addl.A.G, supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased and prayed for enhancement of sentence. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General referred the following authorities,- 2008 PCr.LJ 1279, 2005 PCr.LJ 1991, 1998 MLD 109, 2014 PCr.LJ 891, 2006 SCMR 167, 2005 PCr.LJ 617 and 2005 YLR 2203.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care.

13. The learned counsel for the convict-appellants, Muhammad Jahanzaib and others raised a preliminary objection that the appeal filed by Saqib Amin (son of deceased Amin) is hopelessly time barred as the same has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, the same may be dismissed. He further submitted that for enhancement of sentence only a revision petition lies, as such, the appeal is also incompetent, while the appeal filed by the complainant, Muhammad Bashir is also not competent because he is not legal heir, thus both the appeals may be dismissed. In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that under subsection (4) of section 5 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir constitution of Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court Act, 2017, the time. period provided for filing an appeal against the final judgment of District Criminal Court is sixty days. Subsection (4) of the Act, 2017 is usefully reproduced as under;- "(4). The Shariat Appellate Bench shall exercise the appellate jurisdiction against the final judgment of the District Criminal Court and limitation for preferring an appeal shall be sixty days." In view of above provision of law, the period provided for filing an appeal before this Court is sixty days. Now the question arises whether the appeals filed by both the legal heirs of deceased are within time or not? The appeal on behalf of legal heirs of deceased, Muhammad Amin was filed on 28.07.2017 against the judgment passed on 27.05.2017. The application for obtaining the copies of the same was moved on 31.05.2017, while the date of delivery of the copies was mentioned as 07.06.2017, therefore, after excluding the period required for preparation of copies of judgment, the appeal has been filed within the period of limitation. So far as the second appeal filed on behalf of legal heirs of deceased, Muhammad Rasheed is concerned; the same was filed on 06.07.2017 against the judgment passed on 27.05.2017, therefore, the same has also been filed within time. So far as the objection that the appeal filed on behalf of the complainant is also not competent because he is not legal heir of the deceased, in this regard, the learned counsel for the legal heirs of deceased, Muhammad Rasheed has already conceded this point and submitted that he does not want to press the appeal to the extent of complainant, thus the objection raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants about limitation as well as maintainability are hereby repelled. As far as the second objection of the learned counsel that for enhancement of sentences only a revision petition is competent, as such both the appeals are also not maintainable. In this regard, it is relevant to note here that there is no bar to file an appeal seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to an accused. Our this view finds support from a case reported as 1992 SCR 154, wherein it was held as under;- "There is no bar to state to file an appeal seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to an accused. Irrespective of the fact as to an appeal can be treated as a revision, the power of enhancement of a sentence can be exercised by the Shariat Court even on an appeal filed by the State. Even otherwise, the Shariat Court can treat an appeal as revision and vice-versa." So this contention is also repelled.

14. In the present case, according to prosecution story, it was alleged that on 30.03.2009, a procession led by Ch. Allah Ditta against the upraising Project of Mangla Dam started from Kharik and when the procession reached nearby Khambal Chowk, accused Jahanzaib son of Qurban and Majeed, armed with 30-bore pistols and other accused-persons Tanveer son of Ayub, Qurban son of Adalat, Idrees and Shoaib sons of Sajawal, Jameel son of Javaid, Abbas son of Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Siddique son of Muhammad Alam also armed with 30-bore pistols arrived there and raised objection on the leadership of procession. Majeed, Tanveer and Quran, accused persons, were on the Jeep of Jahanzaib, accused, whereas other accused-persons were on motorcycles. All the accused-persons started firing from the front side with the intention of murder. Jahanzaib, accused fired a shot with 30-bore pistol upon Ameen whereas Muhammad Yousaf, Saqib, Arif who were riding in the Jeep of Ameen alighted from the Jeep to rescue him, but the fire hit Ameen upon his chest, who fell down on the ground. Thereafter, Majeed, accused fired a straight shot upon Muhammad Yousaf which hit him upon his right shoulder and left thigh. Tanveer, accused, fired a straight shot upon Muhammad Rasheed which hit him on right side of his abdomen, whereas Shoaib, accused, also fired second shot which hit Muhammad Rasheed on his left thigh. Idrees, accused, fired a straight shot, which hit Saqib upon his left thigh. Qurban, accused, fired shot which hit Ajaib on right side of his bladder. Jameel, Abbas and Siddique, accused-persons also fired straight shots upon Arif, which hit him upon his right shin, left thigh and right heel. On account of firing, the aforesaid persons after sustaining severe injuries fell down whereupon accused fled away from the spot by firing shots. The occurrence was witnessed by Ch. Allah Ditta, Ch. Maroof son of Raj Muhammad, Qadeer son of Nazir and many other persons present at the place of occurrence. The motive was also alleged by the prosecution that there was a land/way dispute between accused Jahanzaib and Muhammad Amin.

15. To prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty three witnesses namely Abdul Qadeer, Muhammad Bashir, Arif Hussain, Saqib Amin, Asif Iqbal, Muhammad Nazir, Muneer Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz Patwari Halq Khanpur, Dr. Javed Azam, Dr. Hamad Mallak, Manawar Hussain IHC, Muhammad Latif Head-constable, Shoukat Ali constable No.151, Ikhlaq Hussain Sub-inspector, Muhammad Riaz constable No.224, Muhammad Naseer SHO, Muhammad Akram Sub-inspector, Nadeem Arif Inspector, Zulqarnain DSP, Muneer Ahmed Inspector, Asif Hussain APP, Dr. Aftab Ahmed Mir and Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Bandy.

16. It may be stated here that this is a triple murder case in which three innocent persons namely Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Rasheed and Muhammad Yousaf were murdered. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the evidence of eye-witnesses, recovery of crime weapons and MLRs including the postmortem reports. These witnesses have also recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. During the examination under section 242, Cr.P.C, convict-appellants namely Jahanzaib, Jameel, Qurban, Muhammad Idrees and Abbas son of Bashir have taken a same stance, while convict-appellants namely Abdul Majeed, Tanveer and Shoaib have denied the allegation levelled against them, whereas convict, Siddique taken a plea of alibi and submitted that at the time of occurrence he was present at his home, however, he failed to produce any witness nor recorded his statement on Oath. It is pertinent to note here that all the accused-persons except Muhammad Siddique have not disputed their presence at the place of occurrence. During their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. they have also taken the same stance. The accused-persons have also admitted the presence of deceased and witnesses namely Allah Ditta, Ajaib, Amir, Maroof and Saqib Amin. It also reveals from the record that during the cross-examination of the witnesses, the defence has taken different stance such as due to firing of Saqib, Maroof, Amar and Allah Ditta the deceaseds and others were injured during the occurrence, secondly fires were shot from both sides and due to negligence of treatment, the injured died, however, they failed to prove their stances. It is important to note here that as the convict-appellants and accused-respondent also belong to a political party and the occurrence took place during a procession of hundreds of people and it was very easy for them to produce evidence in defence from such a huge crowd present at the time of occurrence, but they failed to produce even a single witness, which may reduce their guilt.

17. It is worthwhile to mention here that the prosecution case is that, Muhammad Amin, deceased was done to death due to firearm injury caused by convict-appellant Jahanzaib, while Muhammad Rasheed, deceased died due to the fire of convict-appellant Shoaib, whereas the allegation of murder of deceased, Muhammad Yousaf was against accused-respondent, Abdul Majeed. The learned counsel for the appellant, Saqib Amin laid much stress on the point that due to previous enmity, the convict-appellant, Jahanzaib murdered his father and later on another stance was taken that during the procession/march due to dispute over leadership, the convict launched a murderous attack. Admittedly, it transpires from the record that the allegation levelled against convict-appellant Jahanzaib that he fired a shot upon the deceased Muhammad Amin is proved. The weapon of offence was also recovered from him, although crime empties which were recovered from the place of occurrence did not match the weapon recovered from Jahanzaib, but it does not necessarily means that he had not fired from his pistol, because as discussed above a huge procession/demonstration was held and the police have not cordoned off the place in time, therefore, it was the possibility that the crime empties might have disappeared/lost, because only four of them were recovered. Only one fire hit the deceased, Muhammad Amin and according to medical report the same was entering from the back and exit from the front side. The learned counsel for the convict-appellant submitted that according to prosecution story the fires were shot from the front side, but the medical/postmortem shows that the entry wounds were from the back side of the deceased, which casts serious doubt upon the prosecution story and the benefit of the same must be given to the convict, in this regard, it is important to note here that when in a huge crowed firing is started, it is quite natural that the people tend to change their positions and obviously when the accused-persons started firing, the injured-party might have changed their position in order to save their lives, thus the contention is hereby repelled. The deceased, Muhammad Rasheed also received a single shot which hit him on the waist area and the same attributed to convict-appellant Shoaib, which is also affirmed from the statement of doctor.

18. To prove the guilt against the convict-appellants, the prosecution examined P.Ws. who have supported the version taken by the prosecution. At the very outset, We will analyze the statements of important prosecution witnesses who are stated to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W, Muhammad Bashir, complainant (eye-witness) recorded his statement before the trial Court wherein he supported his version taken in the initial report. He also confirmed the role of firing against the accused-persons and the injuries received by the injured and deceased during the occurrence. In cross-examination he deposed that he got permission from legal heirs of all of the deceased to lodge the case on their behalf. He also denied the allegation that Abbas son of Muhammad Yousaf deceased has levelled an allegation of murder against the sons of Muhammad Amin. He also affirms that the fires hit the injured/deceased from the front side. He further stated that he along with Saqib Amin rescued Muhammad Amin to Hospital wherein the police also reached there, thereafter he submitted a written application as Ex. PA for registration of the case, wherein he put his signature as Ex.PA/1. He further stated that in his presence the Patwari prepared the site plan and on 17.04.2009, he handed over the clothing of injured Muhammad Arif and that of Muhammad Amin deceased to police.

19. P.W.Abdul Qadeer, who is also stated to be the eye-witness of the occurrence, narrated the same story as explained by the complainant. He further stated that accused, Jahanzaib, Majeed, Tanveer, Shoaib, Idrees, Qurban, Jameel, Abbas, Siddique were armed with 30-bore pistol. This witness also described the exact role of firing against the each accused-person as disclosed by the complainant. Recovery of blood stained clay of deceased and injured, recovery of crime empties, recovery of crime weapon 30-bore pistol and Jeep No.655/IDN from convict, Jahanzaib, identification of dead-body of deceased, site plan, recovery of weapon of offence from accused Siddique, Qurban, Idrees, Abbas and recovery of blood stained clothing of injured Arif and Saqib were made in his presence. In cross-examination, he also confirmed the enmity between accused Jahanzaib and Amin deceased. He further stated that he also rescued the injured, Saqib and his father Muhammad Amin to hospital. Accused, Abdul Majeed is close relative of Muhammad Yousaf (deceased), however there displeasure was prevailing between them. He was also unaware about the institution of any writ petition on behalf of Abbas, son of deceased, Muhammad Yousaf. This witness also affirms that convict, Jahanzaib and deceased, Muhammad Amin belongs to different political parties. The legal heirs of the deceased, Muhammad Yousaf also protested while laying the dead-body. In his presence, the recovery memos Ex.PC, Ex.PD, Ex.PF, Ex. PG, Ex. PH, Ex.PJ. Ex.PK Ex. PL Ex. PM, Ex.PN, Ex. PO, Ex. PQ, Ex. PR, Ex. PS Ex. PT, Ex. PJJ Ex. PKK were prepared wherein he put his signatures and also identifies the same. P.W., Arif Hussain who is stated to be the eye-witness of the occurrence also narrated the same story as stated by the complainant. He also described the role of firing that the fires of accused Tanveer and Shoaib hit the deceased Muhammad Rasheed.

20. P.W. Saqib Amin son of deceased Muhammad Amin also appeared in the witness box and stated the same role of causing injuries against the accused-persons as taken in the FIR. He further stated that the motive behind the occurrence was a dispute of way between his father and accused Jahanzaib. In his presence the recovery of crime weapon of 30-bore pistol on the pointation of accused, Shoaib as Ex.PJJ, 30-bore pistol from accused, Tanveer as Ex.PKK recovery. In cross-examination, he deposed that with the firing of accused-persons the victim were injured and died. P.Ws. Asif Iqbal and Nazir also supported the prosecution version. In cross-examination, P.W. Nazir denied the defence version that the deceased, Muhammad Amin was also firing due to which two persons died and also negated the version of defence about the protest of Abbas son of Yousaf. P.W. Muneer Hussain also supported the version of the prosecution. He further stated that in his presence recovery of blood stained clay, blood stained clothing, crime weapon of accused Jahanzaib and Jameel.

21. According to the postmortem report of Muhammad Rasheed (deceased), the remarks written by the medical officer are as under;- "in my opinion cause of death is massive bleeding, shock and ultimate death." and according to postmortem report of Muhammad Amin (deceased), the remarks are in the following words;- "In my opinion death due to massive bleeding, Pnumohemo-thorax secondary to firearm. injury." So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants that tampering has been made in the postmortem report of deceased Muhammad Rasheed and the same has also been affirmed by the concerned doctor. In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that, although there appears a writing difference but it does not adversely affect the postmortem report, because according to oral as well as documentary evidence, the cause of death of Muhammad Rasheed (deceased) is due to injuries caused by deadly weapon which hit him on the waist/buttock.

22. P.W. Dr.Muhammad Azam also appeared before the trial Court and recorded his statement and affirms the reports such as postmortem of Rasheed (deceased) as Ex. PDD, injury sheet of Muhammad Ameen as Ex.PDD/2, Postmortem report of Muhammad Amin as Ex.PEE, death report of Rasheed (deceased) as Ex.PEE/3, medical report of Saqib Ameen as Ex.PFF, Medical report of Ajaib as Ex.PGG, injury sheet of Ajaib as Ex.PGG/2, injury sheet of Saqib Amin as Ex.PGG/6, medical report of Arif as Ex.PHH as were prepared by him and he also affirms his signatures upon the aforesaid documents. It is important to note here that during cross-examination, questions were put to the doctor/P.W. about the kinds of weapons caused injuries on the victims, however, due to lack of knowledge about the kinds of weapon, he failed to answer properly, but the same could not be considered against the prosecution case because, the doctor is not a firearm expert. It is only a Firearms Expert who can tell that what kind of weapon can cause what size of injury not a medical doctor.

23. So far as the case to the extent of deceased Yousaf is concerned, it was alleged that the said deceased died due to the firing of accused-respondent, Abdul Majeed, however, during the trial of the case, the legal heirs of the deceased, Yousaf have compromised and have pardoned the accused, Abdul Majeed in the name of Allah Almighty. However, it has been noted that only widow and son of the deceased have recorded their statement in continuation of compromise, because at the time of compromise, the remaining legal heirs of deceased were minors and it was specifically mentioned by the widow of deceased that, she being guardian of the minors also compromised with the accused, Abdul Majeed on behalf of the minors.

24. As far as the case with regard to convict-appellants Jameel, Abbas, and Idrees is concerned, in this regard, the allegations against the aforesaid persons are that they were also armed with deadly weapons and they also caused injuries to complainant party, however, the learned trial Court convicted them only for causing injuries under section 337/F(iii), A.P.C. We advert towards their role and injuries attributed to them. The allegation levelled against Jameel and Abbas is that they fired on Arif which hit him on his right shin, left thigh and against convict, Idrees fired a shot which hit Saqib upon his left thigh, resultantly they were injured. The learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur while passing the judgment held that as the injuries attributed to the aforesaid accused-persons are not serious in nature, therefore, offence under section 324, A.P.C. is not attracted against them, as such they were sentenced under section 337/F (iii,iv). In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that whoever with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person with the knowledge that in the ordinary course of nature death could be caused, is said to commit qatl-i-amd. Section 300 of APC is very much clear in this regard, which is reproduced as under:-- Section

300. Qatl-i-amd.

Whoever, with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person, by doing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, causes the death of such person, is said to commit qatl-i-amd." Obviously, if the victim luckily survives, it would be an attempt to murder. According to medical report, the concerned doctor, written the nature of injuries attributed towards the aforesaid convict-accused as grievous and dangerous. Any person when with a lethal weapon intend to cause dangerous injuries in the ordinary course of nature it can cause death of the victim. In such circumstances, if the victim luckily survives, it is definitely an offence of attempt to murder. Section 324, A.P.C., consisted of two parts i.e commission of an act with intention or knowledge to commit qatl-e-Amd, and in the second part there was effect of the act done, where the intention of accused qua commission of an act was evident, the provision of section 324, A.P.C. would at once be applicable. Furthermore, this section was the effect for which the offender would be liable to punishment in addition to the hurt caused, therefore, in this view of the matter, the aforesaid accused-persons are liable to be sentenced under section 324, A.P.C., but the learned trial Court fell in grave error while awarding punishment only for the hurt they caused. Recovery of crime weapons on the pointation of aforesaid convict-respondents corroborated with medical report, wherein the injuries were declared as grievous and dangerous, thus the case against the convict-respondents Jameel, Abbas and Idrees is fully proved to the extent of offence under section 324, A.P.C. However, to the extent of convict-appellants, Qurban, Tanveer and Siddique, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, which is maintained.

25. So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellant, Jahanzaib that initially the prosecution cited some independent witnesses, who were later on excluded from the list and according to the estimation of the learned counsel, those witnesses were helpful for the defence. In this regard, it is pertinent to note here that as per stance of the convict, Jahanzaib that he was leading his party workers in the protest/procession, therefore, if his version was true or false implication in the case, he could have produced any of the witness in defence which was left by the prosecution, but the convict-accused did not produce a single witness in support of their version from such a big crowd present at the time of occurrence. If the allegations were not true and they were falsely implicated in the case, they could have negated the prosecution story through such evidence. When there are eye-witnesses including the injured P.Ws. substantiate and support the prosecution version and not a single witness produced by the defence in rebuttal, the stance of the convict accused does not remain plausible.

26. It may be observed here that the evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be brushed aside until some gross contradictions come on the record. In the instant case, the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants are minor in nature which can be ignored. The main argument which has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-production of some witnesses who were initially cited in the calendar of challan, but later they were excluded and abandoned; It is settled principle of law that the discretion lies with the prosecution to examine the witnesses of its own choice and the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine each and every witness who have been cited or not. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the convicts that the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses namely Abdul Qadeer, Nazir, Arif and Saqib under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded after a delay which is fatal for the prosecution case. But all of these witnesses were nominated in the FIR, and it is also established principle of law that any witness who is nominated in the FIR, any delay in recording his statement by the police does not affect the prosecution case or makes it doubtful. Reliance can be placed on the case reported as 2017 PCr.LJ 731, wherein it was held as under,- "It may be stated here that it is settled principle of law that the discretion lies with the prosecution to examine the witnesses of its own choice and the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine each and every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses. Even otherwise, the witnesses who have been forgiven or not examined are not the material witnesses." So the argument is hereby repelled.

27. So far as the stances of prosecution counsel to the extent of vicarious liability is concerned, in this regard it is to be observed here that to determine under sections 34 and 149, A.P.C. as to whether accused were members of an unlawful assembly, and whether the offence had been committed in furtherance of common intention or object. If accused appeared to have the knowledge and preplanning that the offence would be committed in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly, then every member of the said assembly, would be responsible for the act committed by anyone of them. The main ingredients of section 34, A.P.C. were that a criminal act must be done by several persons, that criminal acts must be done in furtherance of common intention of all and that there must be participation of all persons in furthering the common intention. Common intention generally, involve element of common motive, preplanned preparation and actual pursue of such plan. In the present case, occurrence took place at Khambal Chowk and in the procession and the presence of huge crowd is admitted and previous enmity with the accused-persons and any such preplanning is not proved. Furthermore, the procession was led by one Allah Ditta who did not appear before the trial Court for recording his statement. Moreover, prior to the main incident the deceased, Muhammad Amin was also found armed with 30-bore pistol and this fact has also been admitted by his son Saqib Amin during his cross-examination, therefore, in such state-of-affairs the prosecution has failed to prove its case with regard to the allegations that all the accused-persons are vicariously liable for the offence of murder.

28. On the point of recoveries, it was contended that recoveries of crime empties were not made and only few were made from the place of occurrence which does not match the crime weapon used by the convict, Jahanzaib. A careful perusal of the evidence reveals that it is to be determined as to whether on account of no recoveries or there being defective recoveries, the whole prosecution case is to be disbelieved and discarded. The correct legal position with regard to the recoveries even if found defective would be that the main case if otherwise being not based on convincing quality evidence would of course, be a circumstance having important bearing on the ultimate fate of the case. However, if the case otherwise is proved on the basis of convincing evidence mere defective recoveries or no recoveries would not be sufficient to destroy the prosecution case. The conviction could still be recorded if other evidence is found to be of convincing quality and of a nature on which reliance could safely be placed. Our this view find support from the case reported as 1983 PCr.LJ 898, wherein it was held as under;- "After careful perusal of the evidence we find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. These recoveries under law cannot be used in evidence against the appellant. But it is to be determined as to whether on account of no recoveries or there being defective recoveries the whole prosecution case is to be disbelieved and discarded. The correct position with regard to the recoveries found defective would be that the main case if otherwise being not of convincing quality would of course be a circumstance having important bearing on the ultimate fate of the case. If however, the case otherwise is proved on the basis of convincing evidence mere defective recoveries would still be recorded if other evidence is found to be convincing quality and of a nature on which reliance could safely be placed." Furthermore, in this case the place of occurrence was a thickly populated and commercial area which is occupied and used by general public and that was not cordoned off by the police, and all the empties were not recovered, so not to match any empty with the weapon of offence recovered from accused Jahanzaib is not fatal for prosecution to cast doubt upon the allegation.

29. It is also settled principle of law that when defence plea is raised by an accused, the burden to prove the same lies on his shoulders. In the instant case, when the plea raised by the accused is examined in juxtaposition to the case of prosecution seems to be untrue. Reference can be made from a case reported as "Abdul Wahid v. The State "(2003 SCMR 668), wherein it was held that initial burden to prove the guilt against the accused lies upon the prosecution, but when a specific plea has been raised by the accused in defence then both are to be considered in juxtaposition and the one which is nearer to the truth is to be given weight.

30. So far as the point with regard to the interested and related witnesses is concerned, in this regard, it is pertinent to note here that mere relationship is no ground for discarding evidence of the witnesses unless and until their enmity with accused is established and the evidence is given on account of such enmity. In a case titled "Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another" PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 27 it was held as under:-- "The relationship is no ground for discarding evidence of the witnesses unless and until their enmity with the accused is established." So, it is well established principle of law that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the basis of relationship with a party, unless he is so inimical that he has a motive for falsely implicating the accused-persons, however, where a witness is inimical, even then his evidence should be appreciated with due care and diligence. In the present case, it is broad day light murders case and the fatal injuries are specifically attributed towards the convict-accused.

31. Before discussing the available confirmatory evidence, it would be expedient to determine as to what corroboration means "Corroboration" of the statement of interested witnesses does not mean that the statement of the witnesses is false or untrue. What it really means is that to accept it as wholly true it is desirable that it should have a confirmatory support. In fact when it is said that the statement of witnesses need corroboration to support it, this finding proceeds on the basis that version of P.Ws. is prima facie correct but by way of precaution it needs corroboration to attain clarity. In the instant case, weapons of offences were also recovered from the convict-accused appellants on their pointation during investigation which are also corroborative piece of evidence in view of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. And once ocular evidence is reliable and convincing, then recovery of weapons of offence, shall be considered as additional supportive evidence and mere non-availability of any further such evidence (recovery of fired empty) does not vitiate or diminish the evidentiary value of direct ocular account.

32. The learned counsel for the convict-appellants stressed upon the point that prosecution has failed to produce material witnesses and the presumption is that had these witnesses been produced, they would not have supported the prosecution story. In this regard, as it has already been observed that if any witness is given up by the prosecution then defence is at liberty to summon such witness in support of its case, therefore, the objection of the learned counsel for the convict-appellants is not worth consideration because prosecution is not bound to examine all the witnesses, thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the convict-appellant is hereby repelled. Moreover, prosecution witnesses were put to lengthy searching cross-examination but nothing favorable to defence came out from their mouth. Minor discrepancies could not mar the prosecution case.

33. Now the important question arises about the quantum of sentence. Whether this is the case in which the sentence of Qisas is justified or some other sentence will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The question of sentence requires utmost care. The same must be weighed in the golden scale and should be properly balanced to deter rest of society from the commission of such crime without being unnecessary harsh. In the present case two motives were alleged by the prosecution, firstly it was alleged that there is a dispute between convict-appellant Jahanzaib and Muhammad Amin deceased over a passage/way and secondly it was held that during the procession/ demonstration, a dispute arose over leadership, hence suddenly, the convict-appellants who were armed with deadly weapons started firing, resulting into the death of the deceased and caused injuries to P.Ws. Now the question emerges whether the prosecution has proved the motives as alleged by the prosecution. As far as the first motive is about the passage/way is concerned, we have gone through the record with great care and found that the prosecution failed to bring on record any documentary evidence in this regard. The complainant also failed to explain from where the dispute exists about the passage. Even Saqib Amin, the son of the deceased Muhammad Amin failed to bring on record any evidence in this regard. Furthermore, as far as second motive alleged by the prosecution regarding dispute over leadership during procession is concerned, in this regard, we have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution and found that the prosecution has also failed to explain their stance that the occurrence was a direct result of such alleged motive.

34. It is worthwhile to mention here that motive alleged by the prosecution remained obscure and has not been positively proved. The motive though not a sine qua non for bringing the offence of murder at home but it has importance regarding the quantum of sentence. It is well settled principle of law that where the motive for the offence is shrouded in mystery then the extreme penalty of death is not warranted. This view finds support from a case reported as "Muhammad Ali v. The State" (1988 PCr.LJ 307), wherein it was held as under:- "In view of the above discussion, we hold Muhammad Ali appellant alone guilty of the murder of the deceased. Since the motive for the crime is shrouded in mystery, the extreme penalty of death, in our opinion, is not warranted. We, therefore, reduce his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. However, the sentence of fine and the order directing him to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. are maintained. With this reduction in the sentence, the appeal of Muhammad Ali appellant is dismissed. He shall be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., while computing the period of his sentence."

35. Now the question emerges that the punishment awarded to the convict-appellants is whether in accordance with law or not? It is well entrenched principle of criminal administration of justice that "the question of sentence demands the utmost care on the part of the Courts dealing with the life and the liberties of the people. The sentence must be weighed in golden scales as it was, properly balanced, to punish the offender in proportion to the character and extent of his guilt, to be deterrent for him and for the rest of the society. If the Court is satisfied that there are mitigating circumstances, then it would be justified in imposing the lesser penalty provided by law. In other words, the nature of the proof has nothing to do with the character of the punishment. Furthermore, it would be considered whether the learned trial Court has rightly awarded the convict-appellant sentence under section 302(c), A.P.C. instead of 302(a), A.P.C., wherein it is provided that "whoever commits qatl-i-amd shall subject to the provisions of this chapter be punished with death as qisas while keeping in view the overall circumstances of case, the offence committed by the convict, Jahanzeb and Shoaib, in our opinion, come in the category of murder punishable under section 302(c), A.P.C. as well, as the motive of the offence is not proved and manner of occurrence in such a huge crowed is also shrouded in mystery. Section 302(c), A.P.C. has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the case reported as PLD 1996 SC 274, it was held as under: "The new section 302 itself divides Qatl-i-amd, for purpose of punishment into three categories:- (1) Qatl-i-Amd which is punishable with death as Qisas, (2) Qatl-i-Amd punishable with death or life imprisonment as Ta'zir and (3) Qatl-i-Amd punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, where according to the Injunction of Islam the punishment of Qisas is not applicable Section 302 of the A.P.C., therefore, itself contemplates plainly clearly a category of cases which are within the definition of Qatl-i-Amd but for which the punishment can, under the Islamic Law, be one other than death or life imprisonment. As to what are the cases falling under clause (c) of section 302, the law-maker has left it to the Courts to decide on a case to case basis."

36. Although the allegations of murder against convict-accused Shoaib and Jahanzaib are proved, but the manner of occurrence and alleged motives are shrouded in mystery, these facts in our opinion brings the case of the above convict-accused within the ambit of 302(c), A.P.C. and it was rightly held so by the learned trial Court, but under the said provision of law the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the convict, in our opinion, is not proportionate to the gravity of offence which is liable to be enhanced. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the sentence of imprisonment of fourteen years each to the convict-appellants, Jahanzaib and Shoib will serve the ends of justice. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants has no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the present case, as every criminal case has its own facts and circumstances, therefore, need not to be discussed. Nutshell of the above discussions is that, We partly accept the appeals filed by the legal heirs of deceased, Muhammad Amin and Rasheed and enhance the sentence of ten years imprisonment awarded to convict-appellants Jahanzaib and Shoaib to fourteen years R.I. each under section 302(c), A.P.C., however, the other sentences shall remain intact. The offence under section 324, A.P.C. against convict-appellants, Idrees, Abbas and Jameel has also been proved, therefore, by partly accepting the appeals, the aforesaid accused-persons are also awarded punishment of five years rigorous imprisonment each under section 324, A.P.C. The judgment to the extent of accused-convicts, Tanveer, Qurban and Siddique shall be maintained. The other appeals filed by the convict-appellants stands dismissed. The convict-appellants, who are on bail and liable to serve the punishment according to this judgment shall be arrested forthwith. With the above modification, the appeals stands disposed of accordingly. JK/31/HC(AJ&K) Order accordingly.