1987 PLP 793 (SCMR)

Raashid Aziz, Advocate‑General and M. Akhtar, Assistant Advocate‑General for the State (in Cr. P. S. L. A. No. 51‑R of 1983). Nemo for Petitioner (in Jail P. S. L. A. No. 66‑R of 1983). Nemo for the State (in Jail P.S.L.A. No. 66‑R of 1983). Date of hearing: 9th February, 1987. SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ Soeni, Yara, Baqri, Kharri, Bati, Manzoor, Rehma and Saee were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat for offences falling under sections 302, 323, 324, read with sections 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of one Dadu, causing simple hurt with blunt and sharp‑edged weapons to four persons, namely, Lala, Ghulam Rasool, Shera and Haider, and rioting. Alongwith then eight other persons were also tried but they were acquitted. For the offence under section 302 they were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fines of Rs.1,000 each. They were also directed to undergo various terms of imprisonment for offences falling under sections 324, 323 and

148. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. They filed two separate appeals in the High Court but these were dismissed and their convictions and sentences were upheld.

2. Soeni and Yara have filed a petition for special leave to appeal (Crl. P. S. L. A. No. 51‑R of 1983) to challenge their convictions and sentences. Similarly, Baqri and Kharri have submitted a petition through jail (Jail Petition No. 66‑R of 1983) against their convictions and sentences. The jail petition is out of limitation by 492 days.

3. A year prior to the occurrence Dadu deceased, Lala (P.W.11) Shera (P.W.12), Ghulam Rasool (P.W.13) and Haider (P.W.14) had beaten up Manzoor and Bati, two to the accused convicted by the Courts below in this case. As a result of that incident a criminal case was registered which was still pending at the time of the occurrence. It had led to feelings of serious animosity between the parties with the result that the local police had to initiate proceedings under section 107, read with section 151, of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them.

4. The story of the prosecution at the trial was that on 15‑8‑1970 Dadu deceased, Shera (P.W.12), Ghulam Rasool (P.W.13) and Haider (P. W.14) were sitting in front of thsir Dera in village Khumb Kalan and playing a board game. Lala (P.W.11) was engaged in weeding out grass from a nearby sugarcane field. Suddenly all the petitioners alongwith those who were convicted by the High Court and those who were acquitted by the trial Court came there. Bati was armed with a spear. Manzoor and Baqri were carrying hatchets while the others had Sotas with them. They attacked the deceased, Lala (P.W.11), Shera (P.W.12), Ghulam Rasool (P.W.13) and Haider (P.W.14) with their respective weapons. Dadu died at the spot. The occurrence was reported on the same day by Lala (P.W.11) to A.S.I. Jamil Akhtar Ghauri whom he met on the way to the police station.

5. The petitioners and their co‑accused pleaded not guilty and denied that they were responsible for killing the deceased or injuring his companions. The defence story was that while playing the board game the members of the complainant party had fought among themselves. Later, they involved the petitioners and their co‑accused falsely in this case on account of the previous enmity.

6. The case against the petitioners rests upon ocular testimony alone which was provided by Lala (P. W.11), Shera (P. W.12), Ghulam Rasool (P.W.13) and Haider (P.W.14). The presence of these witnesses at the time of the occurrence could not be doubted as they were found to be bearing injuries on their persons immediately after the occurrence. The trial Court as well as the High Court accepted their testimony. After going through the record we are of the view that these witnesses have given a substantially true account of the occurrence. All the four petitioners were, therefore, rightly convicted by the trial Court and the High Court was justified in maintaining their convictions and sentences. It may also be noticed that Baqri and Kharri have since been released after serving out their sentences. There is also no good reason for condoning the delay in the appeal preferred through jail. We would accordingly dismiss both the petitions. S. Q. /S‑13/S Petitions dismissed.