KHALILUR REHMAN.---Muhammad Afzal son of Ghulam Muhammad aged 24 years, Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Iqbal aged 22 years, both residents of Nasirabad, Baghbanpura, Lahore and Riaz Ahmad son of M. Bin Yamin, resident of Nishtar Town Baghbanpura, Lahore, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on indictment under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.
P. C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Ashiq and causing injuries to Muhammad Aslam P.
W.
13. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 23rd December 1974 acquitted Riaz Ahmad accused of all the charges while Muhammad Afzal and Ghulam Abbas were convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. And sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further one year's R. I. Each. They were also convicted and sentenced to three pears' R.I. Each under section 307/34, P. P. C. The sentences were to run concurrently. The fine, if realised, was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. Muhammad Afzal has filed Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1975 against his conviction and sentences, through Mr. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate whereas Ghulam Abbas has preferred a separate appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 750 of 1975 through Mr. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate. The appeals were earlier heard by our learned brother Muhammad Munir Faruqui, J. Who by his order dated 15th July 1976, noticed that nine out of thirteen incised wounds suffered by Muhammad Ashiq (deceased) were located in the chest region causing extensive damage to all the vital organs underneath and that out of four incised wounds suffered by Muhammad Aslam, P. W., three were grievous involving left flank and the lumber region. He was of the view that question of sentence awarded to the two appellants might call for reconsideration in the event of the dismissal of the appeals of the appellants against their conviction and therefore, exercising suo motu revisional powers, ordered the issuance of notices to the two appellants for the enhancement of their sentence. This matter was registered as Criminal Revision No. 836 of 1976. By this judgment, we propose to dispose of these three matters, together.
2. Nawab Khan P. W. 16, the then S. H. O. Police Station, Baghbanpura, Lahore, recorded the statement (Exh. P. A.) of Muhammad Saleem P. W. 11 in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore at 9-30 p.m. With regard to the occurrence. This statement later on formed the basis of formal F. I. R. Exh. P. A./1, prepared by Muhammad Nawaz A. S. I. At about 10-15 p.m. According to the F. I. R. The prosecution case in brief is that Muhammad Saleem complainant P. W. 11 and injured P. W. Muhammad Aslam who are brothers inter se, had land in Nasirabad. On 14th November 1970, they were irrigating their vegetable fields. The two appellants and the acquitted accused Riaz Ahmad began to uproot radish. Muhammad Aslam P. W. Reprimanded them, at which they left the fields threatening of a severe consequence. The same day in the evening while the complainant was purchasing gandaries from a hawker, the three accused surprised him there. Muhammad Afzal appellant caught hold of the complainant from the neck collar of his shirt while the remaining two dealt him with fists and kick blows. Muhammad Aslam injured P. W. Arrived there. He injured Muhammad Afzal appellant hitting his head against his forehead. Shaheen and Sher Bhatti, etc., people of the Mohallah, intervened and separated the parties. The three accused went away threatening again that they would avenge the earlier incident. On the day of occurrence, i.e. 16th November 1970 when Muhammad Saleem complainant was present in his house after breaking the fast at sunset, he was informed by Khuda Bakhsh P. W. That Muhammad Aslam P. W. And Muhammad Ashiq deceased had been severely injured at the hands of the three accused. The complainant ran to the spot and saw that the three accused persons were running towards G. T. Road while his brother Muhammad Aslam P. W. And Muhammad Ashiq were lying on the road side in injured condition.
Some people had collected there, in the meantime. Muhammad Aslam injured P. W. Told the complainant that he and Muhammad Ashiq had been injured by the two appellants and their co- accused Riaz Ahmad. The complainant hired a taxi and brought his injured brother to Mayo Hospital. The other injured person namely Muhammad Ashiq deceased was also taken to the hospital by another person named Abdur Rehman Arain. Muhammad Ashiq however, succumbed to his injuries on the way.
3. Nawab Khan, S. H. O. Sent the statement Exh. P. A. To the Police Station through Muhammad Sharif Constable for formal registration of the case. He prepared inquest report Exh. P. E. 1 of the deceased and injury statement Exh. P. F. 1 of Muhammad Aslam injured P. W. He proceeded to the spot for further investigation. Haq Nawaz Head Constable who had already reached the place of occurrence, produced before him Ghulam Abbas appellant who had been apprehended by him while proceeding to the place of occurrence. He also produced chhuri P. 6 which Ghulam Abbas appellant was carrying at the time of his apprehension. The chhuri was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. G. At the time of his arrest, Ghulam Abbas appellant was found injured. His injury statement Exh. P. N. Was also prepared. He got blood-stained Shalwar P. 7 and Banyan P. 8 removed from the person of Ghulam Abbas appellant and took them into possession vide memo.
Exh. P. H. He took into possession blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence vide memo. Exh.
P. J. He also found a piece of iron bar P. 9 at the spot which was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh. P. K. A piece of cloth P. 10 was also found there which was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh. P. L. He found a tractor on the spot which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. M. He got prepared site-plans Exh. P. C. And Exh. P. C./I from Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Draftsman P. W. 15.
4. On 24th November 1970, he arrested Riaz Ahmad acquitted accused. At his instance, he recovered hockey P.4 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E. On the same day, viz. 24-11-1970, knife P. 5 was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Afzal appellant from inside a doll in his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. F. Muhammad Afzal appellant had been earlier arrested by Muhammad Ashraf A. S. I. P. W. 4 on 17th November 1970.
5. Dr. Nusrat Ullah Chaudhry conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ashiq deceased on 17th November 1970 at 4-30 p.m. He found the following injuries on his person
(1) Stab wound 1" x 1/8" left side chest in front at 5 o'clock position 21" away from nipple, muscles of chest, both intercostal space left lung, diaphragm, peritoneum and stomach were cut.
(2) Stab wound 1"x 1/8" left side chest, cut axillary line at the level of 5th intercostal space, muscle, pleura, lung pericardium, heart, Diaphragm were cut and finally there was nick----- x 1 ----- x 1/10- -- in left lobe of liver.
(3) Incised wound 3/4" x 3/8" muscles deep left side of chest 3/4" above Injury No. 2.
(4) Incised wound ----- x 1/8" muscles deep left side chest at posterior axillary line at the level of 5th cut.
(5) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/8" muscle deep 1" above Injury No. 4.
(6) Incised wound 3/4" X 1/8" muscle deep left side chest lat aspect lower part.
(7) Incised wound 1--- x ----- x muscle deep right side chest in front 1--- below the nipple.
(8) Incised wound ----- x 1/8" x muscle deep right side chest lateral , aspect upper part.
(9) Incised wound ----- x 1/8' right side chest post axillary line lower part.
(10) Incised wound 1----- x 1/8--- muscle deep left shoulder post aspect out end of the wound tapus.
(11) Incised wound 4----- X 1----- left upper arm elbow and forearm post aspect muscle were cut.
Joint was open ulna abraded and superficial cut was present at the lower humerus.
(12) Incised wound 3" X 1" left forearm. Post aspect in the middle upper end of the wound tapirs.
(13) Incised wound 2--- x ----- right upper arm medial aspect. All muscles of ant-group, blood vessels were cut. Stab had made a wound as exit 1/4" x 1/8" at the lateral aspect of upper arm.
(14) Abrasion 1" x 3/4" left supra scapular region.
In his opinion the death occurred due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The remaining injuries accelerated the process of death. Injuries Nos. 1 to 13 were caused by a sharp-edged pointed weapon while Injury No. 14 was caused with a blunt weapon. All the injuries were ante- mortem. The probable time between the injuries and death was few minutes and between death and post-mortem 21 hours.
Dr. Bashir Ghauri medically examined Muhammad Aslam P. W. On 16th November 1970 at 8-00 p.m.
And found the following injuries on his person
(1) Incised wound on left forearm 1" x 1/8".
(2) Incised wound 1----- x 3/4' depth not probed.
(3) Incised wound 1----- x 1--- in the left flank.
(4) Incised wound on the left lumber region, 1--- x -----. There was a corresponding cut over the shirt: All these injuries were caused with sharp-edged pointed weapon. Injury No. 3 was declared simple whereas the remaining injuries were all grievous in nature.
6. The prosecution at the trial relied on the following pieces of evidence :-
(i) the evidence of three fold motive, i.e. The incident of 14th November 1970 when the three accused allegedly uprooted the radish from the field of the complainant party ; secondly the quarrel of the evening of the same day when Muhammad Saleem P. W. Was purchasing gandharis from a hawker and finally the quarrel which took place on the 15th November 1970 when the three accused were playing cards in the fields of the complainant party ;
(ii) the ocular testimony of Muhammad Saleem P. W. 11, Khuda Bakhsh P. W. 12, Muhammad Aslam P. W. 13 and Yasin P. W. 14 ;
(iii) the evidence of recovery of knife P. 5 from Muhammad Afzal appellant, chhuri P. 6 and blood- stained shalwar P. 7 and banyan P. 8 from the person of Ghulam Abbas appellant and hockey P. 4 from Riaz Ahmad (acquitted accused) ; and
(iv) the medical evidence.
7. The appellants and the acquitted accused took up the following positions at the trial Ghulam Abbas appellant, about the evening incident of 14th November 1970 in which Muhammad Aslam P. W. Had given takkar blow to Muhammad Afzal appellant on the forehead, stated that Muhammad Aslam P. W. And Muhammad Afzal appellant were quarrelling with each other and he separated them. He denied the incident which was introduced by Muhammad Aslam P. W. In his evidence at the trial regarding the playing of cards on 15th November 1970. He denied the main occurrence and the recovery of chhuri P. 6 at his instance. He also denied that shalwar P. 7 and banyan P. 8 belonged to him and were got removed from his person. He stated that as he had separated Muhammad Aslam P. W. And Muhammad Afzal appellant, he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. He explained the injuries on his person thus :- "I was studying at my house. The children were playing with the toys of kanas. I snatched those toys and received injuries on my hand. The police tortured me and caused me blunt weapon injuries."
Muhammad Afzal appellant denied the incident of 14th November 1970 in which, allegedly, the three accused began to uproot the radish from the fields of the complainant party. Lie also denied the evening incident of the same day. He however, admitted that there had been a quarrel on 15th November 1970 over the playing of cards in the fields of the complainant party. He denied the main incident as well as the recovery of knife P.
5. In an answer to the question as to why the witnesses had deposed against them, he stated:- "I had a quarrel with Aslam P. W. Earlier to this occurrence over the playing of cards and for that reason I have been implicated falsely. Witnesses are interested and related to the deceased."
8. Riaz Ahmad acquitted accused denied the main allegations but admitted that there had been a quarrel over the playing of cards on 15th November 1970. He also denied the recovery of hockey P.
4. He deposed that he had been involved in this case on account of enmity and that the witnesses were interested and related to the deceased.
9. The learned trial Judge has accepted the evidence of motive. The accused wanted to take revenge of the three incidents from Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Aslam P. Ws. He is of the view that the witnesses deposing about the incident of 14th November 1970, were not cross- examined in regard to it. There was no reason to disbelieve Muhammad Aslam P. W. 13 and the complainant Muhammad Saleem P. W.
11. Two of the accused persons namely Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal appellant had admitted the incident of 15th November 1970. The criticism of the defence that Muhammad Saleem P. W. I 1 did not make mention of the third incident over the playing of cards in the F. I. R. According to the learned trial Judge therefore, is not of any significance. The finding of the learned trial Judge about the motive was not seriously questioned by any of the learned counsel for the appellants appearing before us. We there--fore, concur, with this finding of the learned trial Judge and this part of the case will not detain us any further.
10. The learned trial Judge has also accepted the ocular version of the main occurrence. According to him, the presence of Muhammad Aslam P. W. 13 who was allegedly injured in this occurrence is established beyond any shadow of doubt. He accepted that Muhammad Saleem P. W. 11 although had not seen the main occurrence, reached the spot just after the incident and was present when Muhammad Aslam P. W. Was medically examined. He has accepted the presence of Khuda Bakhsh and rejected the defence criticism that on account of his relationship with Muhammad Ashiq deceased coupled with the fact that he was a chance witness, reliance could not be placed on his evidence. According to the learned trial Judge the fact that this witness could not identify the accused even at the trial, was not of much importance as the witness had a weak eye-sight and was aged 70 years. He placed reliance on the testimony of Yasin P. W. 14 and non-mention of the name of this witness in the F. I. R., in the circumstances of this case, was not of any importance. F. I.
R. Was lodged by Muhammad Saleem P. W. In the hospital who had not seen the main occurrence and therefore, it could not be concluded from this fact alone that he was not present or that he had not seen the occurrence.
11. The learned trial Court rejected the recovery of hockey P. 4 from Riaz Ahmad co-accused. The recovery witnesses, namely, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Rafiq P. Ws. Are, admittedly, stock witnesses. The witnesses of the spot have changed version regarding the weapon of offence used by Riaz Ahmad co-accused. It has also rejected the recovery of knife P. 5 from Muhammad Afzal appellant for the main reason that the witnesses of recovery are the same as in the case of Riaz Ahmad. It has, however, accepted the recovery of chhuri P. 6 from Ghulam Abbas appellant. The recovery memo. Exh. P. G. Was attested by Haq Nawaz P. W. 2 and Yasin P. W. 14.
12. For reasons recorded in paragraph No. 17 of his judgment the trial Judge acquitted Riaz Ahmad accused giving him the benefit of doubt. Since, the case of Riaz Ahmad accused is not before us, we need not go into the reasons of his acquittal. However, with regard to Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Afzal appellants, he found that it was established beyond any doubt that they committed the murder of Muhammad Ashiq deceased and caused injuries to Muhammad Aslam P. W.
It appears that during the course of arguments before the trial Court, plea of self-defence was raised by the learned counsel appearing for Muhammad Afzal appellant. It was argued that the injuries on the person of Muhammad Afzal appellant were not explained by the prosecution and therefore, it should be presumed that the injuries were caused to him by no other person than the deceased or injured person Muhammad Aslam. It was contended that accused were encircled by injured P. W. Muhammad Aslam and his companions and therefore, they were justified in injuring Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Aslam. In this view of the matter, we questioned the learned counsel appearing for the appellants whether they intend to raise the plea of self-defence. They stated that they will not be raising the plea of self-defence and their main case is that the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects and it has failed to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants therefore, are entitled to acquittal.
13. Mr. Dilawar Mahmood, learned counsel appearing for Muhammad Afzal appellant argued that it was a case of mistaken identity, the actual assailants were not identified in the darkness. He sought strength from the circumstance that the prosecution own case being that Muhammad Ashiq deceased was attacked under mistake for Muhammad Aslam P. W. Or Muhammad Saleem P. W. By the assailants on account of the darkness, for the same reasons it cannot be accepted that the witnesses have identified the assailants. He then argued that, in any case the case of Muhammad Afzal appellant is at par with that of Riaz Ahmad acquitted accused as in his case also the same set of witnesses of the spot were produced; the recovery has not been believed and the same motive had been alleged against him. He criticised that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Yasin P. W. As he has not been mentioned in the F. I. R. Khuda Bakhsh P. W. Is a chance witness. He having admitted that he suffered from weak eye sight, even if his presence is accepted, it cannot be said that he had identified the assailants. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Saleem P. Ws. Being inimical towards the appellants, their testimony should not be accepted without independent corroboration. In the case of Muhammad Afzal appellant there being no corroboration, the recovery having been disbelieved, the conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of these two witnesses.
14. Mr. Afzal Siddiqi, counsel for Ghulam Abbas appellant adopted the same line of argument as that of Mr. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate, regarding the main occurrence. He however, added that the arrest of Ghulam Abbas appellant and the recoveries of blood-stained chhuri P. 6, blood- stained shalwar P. 7 and banyan P. 8 are highly doubtful. He pointed out some discrepancies in the statements of Haq Nawaz P. W. 2 and Nawaz Khan P. W. 16, the then S. H. O. Haq Nawaz P. W. Stated that he had detained Ghulam Abbas appellant and on the arrival of Nawab Khan S. H. O., produced him before the latter. He argued that if he had already been detained by the Police Official, there was no occasion to produce him before the S. H. O. According to him it was quite illogical that a person after committing a crime would hold blood-stained chhuri in his hand while passing on the main road.
15. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel carefully and with their help gone through the evidence and the record of the case. As noticed earlier, the prosecution has been able to establish the evidence of motive for the crime. The details of the main occurrence have been given by Muhammad Aslam P. W. Who was also injured in the attack. According to him he and Muhammad Ashiq deceased were coming to the house of the former on a tractor. At Daroghawala Chowk they met Khuda Bakhsh Lambardar who had come to hire the tractor for ploughing his fields. He also accompanied them. When they took the turn on the road at Nasirbad, Muhammad Ashiq deceased got down to urinate. The three accused appeared. They took Muhammad Ashiq deceased to be Saleem. The witness drove the tractor ahead. He on hearing the cries of Muhammad Ashiq deceased, parked the tractor and came back along with Khuda Bakhsh P. W.
They saw the three accused giving blows to Muhammad Ashiq with knife and chhuri. Khuda Bakhsh P. W. Stood at the gate of the mill. The witness went forward and caught hold of Ghulam Abbas appellant from the shirt. It was torn piece of the shirt came into his hand. Muhammad Ashiq deceased fell own on receiving injuries and the accused then attacked the witness and inflicted injuries on his person. Khuda Bakhsh P. W. Ran towards the house of Muhammad Aslam P. W. Where he informed Muhammad Saleem com--plainant about the incident.
The sequence in which the occurrence took place indicates that it must ve taken some time. The house of Yasin P. W. 14 is close to the place of occurrence. Therefore, his presence at the spot would not be unnatural. He was not questioned in the cross-examination if he had told Muhammad Saleem P. W. About the occurrence. F. I. R. Was lodged by Muhammad Saleem P.W. If the name of Yasin P. W. Is not mentioned in the F. I. R., it would be of little importance in the circumstances of this case. He is also the recovery witness of certain articles which were taken into possession from the spot and from the person of Ghulam Abbas appellant. It. Has not even been suggested that he was examined by the police with an inordinate delay. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that he had any motive to falsely implicate the appellants. The presence of Muhammad Aslam injured p. W. Has not even been questioned. He was injured in the occurrence. The argument that on account of darkness, the assailants could not be identified cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that the appellants were known to this witness. In the darkness there could be some confusion at the time of launching of the attack but when the assailants are face to face with the victim, it would be difficult to presume that the victim could not identify them. In fact Muhammad Ashiq deceased has sacrificed his life over the life of Muhammad Aslam or his brother Muhammad Saleem-may it be on account of the mistake on the part of the assailant. Why should then Muhammad Aslam P. W. Substitute the appellants for the real culprits. We are therefore, of the firm view that the learned trial Judge was justified in relying on the testimony of Muhammad Aslam and Yasin P. Ws. Khuda Bakhsh P. W. Has given reasons for his presence at the place of occurrence.
However, if we accept that he having suffered from weak eye-sight could not identify the assailants, the conviction can be sustained on the testimony of the remaining two eye-witnesses.
In the case of Ghulam Abbas appellant, ocular version is corroborated further by the fact that he was arrested immediately after the occurrence, wearing blood-stained shalwar and banyan which were got removed from his person. The recovery of blood-stained chhuri P. 6 from him is, also, estab--lished beyond doubt. The recovery memo is attested by Yasin P. W. Who is an independent witness.
16. The argument of Mr. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate that the case of Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal appellant is not distinguishable, has not impressed us. Riaz Ahmad was acquitted having been given benefit of doubt and not that the eye-witnesses have been totally disbelieved. Courts have always applied rule of extreme caution in criminal trials. In the case of Muhammad Hussain Shah v. State (PLD 1977 SC 548), the Supreme Court approved the view of this Court when the rule of caution was thus applied :- "Although all the five accused respondents can be convicted on the basis of the above-mentioned prosecution evidence yet as an abundant caution we have decided to convict only, those who admittedly received injuries during the occurrence. Accordingly, we convict Muhammad Hussain Shah, Taj Shah alias Bille Shah, and Barkat Ali Shah, accused respondents ----------------------- ----."
It is apparent from the nature of injuries that there were more than one assailant. The motive has been believed. The participation of Muhammad Afzal appellant therefore, in the occurrence gets corroboration from the medical evidence.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Muhammad Aslam P. W. Being an interested witness, his evidence should not be accepted unless corroborated by some independent source, has also not impressed us. Apart from the fact, as discussed above, that there are certain corroborative circumstances, the rule that in every case there should be an independent corroboration to the testimony of an interested witness, cannot be accepted as of universal application. It is again a rule of caution and to be applied in the circumstances of each case. The point has often been raised in past and considered.In Niaz v. State (PLD 1960 SC 387) the Supreme Court while examining this rule, observed :- "Whenever interested persons claiming to be eye-witnesses of an occurrence charge persons against whom they have some motive for false implication, with the commission of the offence the first question to be considered is whether in fact they saw the occurrence and were in a position to identify the culprits. If there be no reason to doubt that they in fact witnessed the occurrence and were in a position to identify the ofenders, the further question arises as to whether they can be relied upon for convicting the accused without corroboration. In cases where such interested witnesses charge one person only with the commission of the offence, or where the number of persons whom they name does not exceed that which appears from independent evi--dence or from circumstances not open to doubt to be the true number of culprits, their evidence may, in the absence of anything making it unsafe to do so, be accepted without corroboration, for substitution is a thing of rare occurrence and cannot be assumed and he who sets up the plea of substitution has to lay the foundation for it."
In Shihab Din v. The State (PLD 1964 SC 177), Cornelius, the then Chief Justice, observed :- "The mere relationship of witnesses does not necessarily render a wit--ness's account of the occurrence doubtful provided his presence on the sport is proved beyond doubt. In so far as there were injuries on the bodies of two witnesses and the number of persons accused was not out of proportion to nature of their enterprise and the results they produced the witnesses in the circumstances were entitled to be believed."
This view has been approved in a recent case of Roshan v. State (PLD 1977 SC 577). We are therefore, of the view that no exception can be taken to the conviction of the appellants. The prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the two appellants. Finding no force in their appeals, we dismiss the same.
17. Now we come to the question of enhancement of the sentences awarded to the two appellants.
As observed above, our learned brother Muhammad Munir Faruqui, J. By his order dated 15-7-1976, in the exercise of his suo motu revisional powers, ordered the issuance of notice to the two appellants for the enhancement of their sentences. The rule applicable in such cases is that the High Court only will enhance a sentence of transportation for life passed by a Sessions Judge when this Court is of the opinion that the sentence of death is the only possible sentence that should have been passed in the case. Although the duty of a Sessions Judge under section 367(5), Cr. P. C.
Is to pass sentence of death in the cases of conviction of murder under section 302, P. P. C. Unless there are reasons for not passing such sentence, this Court however, will not enhance the sentence only because the sentence of death should have been passed in the case. Reference can be made to some old decisions on the point, i.e., Local Government v. Sitria Arjuna Mahar (AIR 1933 Nag. 307) and Mi She Yi v. Emperor (AIR 1924 Rang. 179). In the instant case learned trial Judge has given some reasons for awarding lesser sentence. The reasons given are not arbitrary and perverse.
There are cases where lesser sentences were awarded on consideration such as that the accused persons were of young age or that the fatal injuries were not attributed to a particular accused.
There is yet another circumstance that can be taken into consideration in this regard. The occurrence took place in the year 1970. The trial concluded in the year 1974. Taking in view the time that has elapsed since the trial, we do not think it proper, acting in revision, to enhance the sentence of the two appel--lants. We therefore, also dismiss Criminal Revision No. 836 of 1976.
18. The result of the above discussion is that we dismiss both the appeals, i,e. Criminal Appeals Nos.
46 of 1975 and 750 of 1975 filed b Muhammad Afzal and Ghulam Abbas appellants, respectively and maintain their conviction and sentences. The suo motu revision (Criminal Revision No. 836 of 1976), also stands dismissed.