' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order shall dispose of Criminal Petitions Nos.787, 791, 797 and 803-L of 2001 as all these petitions emanate from the same judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 26-10-2001 passed in Criminal Appeals Nos.433 and 459 of 1998 and Criminal Revision No, 215 of 1998.
2. One Saif Ullah and his three sons, namely, Sajid Ullah, Abdullah and Inam Ullah were accused of committing the murder of one Amin Ullah. As per the prosecution, Amin Ullah deceased had three sisters, namely, Mst. Asia, Mst. Salma and Mst. Adeena. Mst. Asia was the wife of Ghulam Sarwar complainant of the present case while Mst. Salma was married to a brother of the said complainant, namely, Iqbal P.W. (given up). The third sister, namely Mst. Adeena was married toInam Ullah accused about six months prior to the present occurrence but Amin Ullah deceased was not happy about this marriage of Mst. Adeena with Inam Ullah accused and had suffered the same because of the desire of his mother, namely, Mst. Balqees (P.W.10). It had been further alleged by the prosecution that the relations between Mst. Adeena and Inam Ullah accused became strained and Amin Ullah deceased was keen on dissolution of the said marriage but Inam Ullah accused was adamant on not divorcing Mst. Adeena. It had been further claimed by the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i,e, on 21-9-1997, Amin Ullah deceased had invited all his three sisters to lunch; that in the evening Inam Ullah accused and his father Saif Ullah accused went to the house of Amin Ullah deceased to bring Mst. Adeena back to their house where an altercation took place between Amin Ullah deceased on one side and Inam Ullah and Saif Ullah accused on the other side in the presence of Ghulam Sarwar complainant who had also gone to the house of the deceased to fetch his wife; that Amin Ullah deceased insulted Inam Ullah and Saif Ullah accused; that Saif Ullah accused went away and told his other sons, namely Sajid Ullah and Abdullah accused about the said insult; that at about 8-15 p.m. Amin Ullah deceased and his mother Mst. Balqees Bibi (P. W.10) were going to the housed of Iqbal P.W. (given up) and just as they had reached near the house of Allah Nawaz who is also a brother of Ghulam Sarwar complainant, Sajid Ullah and Abdullah accused armed with Chhuris and Saif Ullah accused empty handed reached there and mounted an assault on Amin Ullah deceased; that the two blows inflicted by Sajid Ullah convict landed on the chest of the deceased while the two blows dealt by Abdullah accused hit the right upper arm of the deceased who fell down injured and further that the said deceased was rushed to the Civil Hospital of Darya Khan but died before any medical aid could be offered to him.
3. As a result of the trial conducted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Bhakkar, Inam Ullah and Saif Ullah accused were acquitted of the charge levelled against them through a judgment dated 17-4-1998 of the said learned trial Judge while Sajid Ullah and Abdullah accused were found guilty of the charge under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And each one of them was directed to suffer imprisonment for life on the said charge. On the matter being brought to the Honourable High Court, the conviction and punishment recorded against Sajid Ullah convict was maintained but the conviction recorded against Abdullah was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The acquittal of Inam Ullah and Saif Ullah accused was maintained by the High Court and the complainant's petition seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to Sajid Ullah and Abdullah was dismissed.
4. Criminal Petition No,787-L of 2001 filed by Ghulam Sarwar complainant prays for enhancement of above-mentioned punishment awarded to Sajid Ullah convict who has approached this Court through Criminal Petition No,791-L of 2001 impugning his conviction and the punishment awarded to him. Criminal Petitions Nos.797 and 803-L of 2001 again filed by the complainant question the acquittal recorded in favor of Abdullah, Inam Ullah and Saif Ullah accused.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions and have also examined the available record in the light of the submissions made by them.
6. The ocular testimony in the present case was offered by Ghulam Sarwar (P.W.9) and Mst.
Balqees Bibi (P.W.10). The occurrence in question had taken place in front of the house of Ghulam Sarwar complainant. Mst. Balqees (P.W.10) is the mother-in-law of the said complainant. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned High Court that the presence of both these witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was natural and believable, was not open to any exception. It had also been noticed by the High Court that neither of these two eye-witnesses had any reason or motive to falsely implicate Sajid Ullah convict in the occurrence in question and further that because of the close relationship of the parties there was no possibility of the said convict's involvement as a result of any mistaken identity. This conclusion reached by the Honourable High Court can also not be said to be ill-founded. In the opinion of the High Court the ocular testimony vis-a-vis Sajid convict was corroborated even by the medical evidence which Opinion is supported by the evidence available on record.
7. In this view of the matter, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against Sajid Ullah convict and maintained by the learned High Court does not warrant interference by this Court.
'Consequently Criminal Petition No,791-L of 2001 filed by Sajid Ullah convict questioning his conviction and punishment is dismissed and .
8. Sajid Ullah accused was a young lad of about 19/20 years of age whose father, as per the prosecution itself, had been insulted by Amin Ullah deceased. It was because of his young age and because of the insult offered to his father that the said convict had been found worthy of lesser penalty. The discretion thus, exercised by the High Court could not be said to be arbitrary or whimsical. Therefore, Criminal Petition No,787-L of 2001 seeking enhancement of the punishment awarded to Sajid Ullah is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. .
9. Abdullah respondent had been acquitted by the High Court essentially on the ground that the medical evidence did not support the eye-witness account to the extent of the injuries ascribed to him. He was burdened with two Chhuri blows on the right upper arm of Amin Ullah deceased.
According to the medical evidence, the deceased had only one muscle deep injury on his right upper arm and the second injury attributed to Abdullah accused did not exist on the said part of the body of the deceased. The learned High Court was of the view that a minor injury found on the arm of the deceased could well have been caused by Sajid Ullah accused and the possibility of Abdullah accused having been dragged into the case on account of being a brother of Sajid Ullah accused could not be ruled out. The benefit of doubt thus extended to Abdullah accused by the Honourable High Court is not exceptionable. Resultantly Criminal Petition No, 797-L of 2001 is also dismissed and .
10. Saif Ullah accused is the father of the other three accused persons including Sajid convict. He was empty-handed at the time of occurrence and had not caused any injury during the occurrence in question. The role attributed to Inam Ullah accused in the crime in question was that it was at his instance that his father and his two brothers had committed the crime in question. He was not even present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. No evidence worth any credit was led to establish that it was at his instance that Amin Ullah deceased had been murdered. In the circumstances, the acquittal recorded in favor of both these accused persons by the learned trial Judge as maintained by the Honourable High Court did not admit of any interference.
Therefore, Criminal Petition No,803-L of 2001 is also dismissed. .