1968 SCMR 18 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This is a petition by Fazal Din and others challenging the acquittal of the respondents of a murder charge, by order of the High Court of West Pakistan. The High Court had altered the convictions of the respondents from those under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to conviction under section 325, P. P. C. and the sentences awarded to the respondents for the latter offence were 5 years' rigorous imprisonment each. The compensation awarded to the heirs of the deceased, by the trial Judge, was reduced from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 1,500 at the same time. The High Court took the view that there was no motive on the part of the respondent to murder the deceased and that the circumstances were more consistent with a sudden quarrel, arising between the parties, on a chance encounter, in the course of which both the parties received injuries with blunt weapons. After hearing Mr. Muhammad Anwar Buttar for the petitioners, we see no good ground for differing from the conclusions reached by the High Court on the evidence in this case. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Buttar tried to suggest that the respondents had a motive for killing the deceased as Muhammad Ali, deceased, had caused injuries to Boota, a relative of the respondents, some 5 or 6 years ago. It is not even brought out in the evidence as to what was the nature of the offence alleged against Muhammad The second incident pressed into service in this connection was that Muhammad Ali had given evidence in an Arms Act case against Muhammad Sadiq, brother-in-law of Rahmat, respondent. That case was registered on the 21st February 1963, and the occurrence herein took place on the 17th December 1963. Both the incidents could have hardly furnished any adequate motive for the respondents to make a murderous assault on him, so long after those incidents. The immediate cause for the encounter between the parties was provided by the trespass of a donkey belonging to Rahmat, respondent, into the standing crop of Muhammad Shafi, P. W., two days prior to the occurrence. That was too trivial an incident to lead to the inference that the respondents would deliberately try to murder Muhammad Ali who had not given any cause for offence in the donkey affair. It was Muhammad Shafi who had reprimanded the respondents for letting their animal stray into his fields. The circumstance that although a hatchet was allegedly avail-able to the respondents, but was not used in the fight, is a pointer A towards the absence of any desire, to cause the death of the deceased, on the part of the respondents. The deceased had suffered three injuries two of which were grievous in character and one simple in character. Unfortunately the grievous injuries were located in the head region and caused death. The doctor opined that the injuries, collectively considered, had caused death but they were not individually fatal. There was no clear evidence as to which of the accused persons were responsible for the fatal injuries to the deceased. The benefit or this doubt had to go to all the accused persons and at the most, as they were armed with lathis, they could have been held guilty of an offence under section 325, P. P. C., read with section 34, P. P. C. This is, in fact, what the High Court has found and we can find no fault with that order in the circumstances of this case. We are not impressed by the argument that even if there was a sudden fight, the offence committed by those who caused fats injuries to the deceased, must necessarily fall within the purview of section 304, Part I, P. P. C. There was apparently no pre-concerted plan to attack the deceased in the present case, and the fight was a confused and sudden affair in which parties exchanged blows with blunt weapons. It is significant that the injuries of the accused were not explained by the P. Ws. The learned counsel then contended before us that the compensation, awarded to the heirs of the deceased, could not have been reduced by the High Court without hearing those, heirs. The learned counsel was however, unable to point to any provision of law which necessitated such a procedure. The compensation had been fixed by the trial Court, without hearing those heirs and when this offence was reduced from one under section 302, P. P. C. to that under section 325, P. P. C., there was obvious justification for the High Court to reduce the compensation awarded also. The compensation was a penalty imposed on the accused as part of their punishment and was therefore, open to review by the High Court. No case has been made out for grant of special leave to appeal and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.