1985 PLP 1450 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This judgment shall dispose of. (i) Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1980 filed by Ghulam Rasool and Shamsuddin, against their conviction: (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 139/1980 filed by Sultan, for the enhancement of sentences of the four convicts (who are appellants in the other connected appeals); (iii) Criminal Appeal No. 140/80 filed by Ghulam Jilani against his conviction; and (iv) Criminal Appeal No. 141/80 filed by Muhammad Latif against his conviction, as they arise out of the same case.

2. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Jilani, Shamas Din and Ghulam Rasul were tried for the murder of Faqir Muhammad and for causing injuries to Muhammad Amin P.W.

11. Muhammad Latif and Ghulam Jilani accused used hatchets while Shamas Din and Ghulam Rasul were armed with Sotis. The deceased and the injured P.W. received injuries with sharp as well as blunt weapons.

3. The motive for the crime was that nearly a fortnight prior to the occurrence, which took place on 21st of July, 1975. Muhammad Latif accused was given a beating by the deceased. He and his co‑accused wanted to take revenge of that beating and thus, in furtherance of the common intention of all of them, they waylaid and attacked the complainant side, killing one and injuring the other.

4. The weapons recovered during the investigation could not be connected with the offence in question and the prosecution, therefore, relied only on the ocular account of the incident. The learned trial Court relied on the ocular testimony of Muhammad Amin P.W.11; the injured witness and Sultan complainant, a cousin of the deceased. It convicted all the four accused for the offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. Muhammad Latif and Ghulam Jilani, who, were armed with hatchets, were awarded the sentence of death while Shamas Din and Ghulam Rasul, who were armed with Sotis, were sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the four accused were also convicted and sentenced under section 307/34, P.P.C. for causing injuries to Muhammad Amin P.W.11. Sentence of fine was also awarded against all of them.

5. The convicts appealed against the judgment of the learned trial Court, while the complainant filed a revision petition for the enhancement of sentences awarded to Shamas Din and Ghulam Rasul. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, while dismissing the appeal of Shamas Din and Ghulam Rasul, partly allowed the appeal of Muhammad Latif and Ghulam Jilani reducing their sentences from death to that imprisonment for life.

6. All the four convicts filed petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing their appeals. Sultan complainant also filed a petition (Criminal Petition No. 25‑R‑80) for the enhancement of the sentences of the four convicts.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for Sultan (petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 25‑R‑80) leave was granted in that petition to consider why the sentences of the four convicts should not be enhanced. Leave was granted in the remaining petitions filed by the convicts only because leave had been granted to the complainant. This give rise to the above‑noted four appeals.

8. All these appeals were taken up together at the very beginning of the hearing, learned counsel for Sultan complainant (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 139/80) submitted that the parties had compromised the matter between themselves and he has instructions not to press the appeal. This (No. 139/80) appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

9. As regards the remaining 3 appeals their learned counsel pressed the appeals only half‑heartedly and more or less conceded that the appellants had no case on merits. It was only prayed that in view of the fact that the parties had compromised the matter between themselves and that as a result thereof Sultan complainant has not pressed his appeal against the convicts, they (i.e. the appellants in the remaining appeals) may be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.

10. We have considered the prayer and feel that in the circumstances of this case grant of such a relief would be justified. All the 3 appeals (Criminal Appeals Nos. 138/80, 140/80 and 141/80) are, therefore, dismissed on merits, except that the appellants in these appeals are granted the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. M. B. A.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.