' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,741 of 2003 filed by Rashid Ahmad and Muhammad Majeed appellants who were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide his judgment dated 29-3-2003 to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. Each with further direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation or in default six months' S.I. Each with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that on 15-4-1999 at about 11-30 a.m.
He along with his brother Muhammad Arshad were taking earth of Ch. Akbar Ali which was brought by him on tractor trolley and the soil was shifted through donkeys by the complainant, his brother Muhathmad Arshad, Muhammad Ashiq, Taj Din, Siddique Masih from Chowk Qatal Garhi to his house. In Chowk Hakim Rasheed had a sanitary store and Hikmat shop. The wind was blowing so the dust of soil gone to the shop of accused due to wind. On which hot words were exchanged by the brother of complainant Muhammad Arshad. They proceeded to the house of Ali Akbar along with the soil on the donkeys. After putting the soil at the house of Ali Akbar, they came back to the Chowk, there Hakeem Rasheed armed with "Suwa", Zafar armed with iron pipe, Jahangir armed with bottle and Kaka came in furtherance of their common intention. Kaka, accused raised Lalkara that Arshad be taught a lesson for insulting and he caught hold of the collar of Muhammad Arshad and pressed his throat. Hakeem Rashid inflicted two "Suwa" blows, which hit on his right shoulder and left ribs. Jahangir gave a pipe blow hitting on his head, Zafar gave a kick blow on the testicles of Muhammad Arshad. Muhammad Arshad after receiving the injuries fell on the ground and died at the spot. The complainant along with Muhammad Ashiq, Taj Din and Siddique Masih witnessed the occurrence and separated both the parties. Hakeem Rasheed, Jahangir, Zafar and Kaka feeling insult over quarrel with Arshad in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Muhammad Arshad. Muhammad Hayat, S.-I./S.H.O. P.W.8 conducted investigation of this case. He prepared the injury statement Exh.P.W.8/1 and inquest report Exh.P.W.8/2. He took blood-stained earth from the spot and prepared recovery memo. Exh.P.W.6/2. On 24-4-1999 he arrested Rasheed accused. On his pointation he got recovered "Suwa" Exh.P.4 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.8/5. After completion of investigation he challaned the accused to face trial before the learned trial Court.
3. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 8 witnesses. Learned S.S.P. After tendering reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.A. And Exh.P.B. And that of Serologist Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.a. Closed the case of prosecution. Statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded in which they denied the occurrence. The accused in defence produced Dr. Saleem-ur- Rehman as D.W.1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that two co-accused namely Muzaffar and Jahangir have been acquitted by the learned trial Court; that the role as set out in the F.I.R. Against the appellants is contradictory with the medical evidence, that only Lalkara is attributed to Majeed alias Kaka appellant; that during the occurrence Hakim Rashid Ahmad and Majeed alias Kaka appellant sustained injuries which have been suppressed by the prosecution; that no injury.Is attributed to Majeed alias Kaka that Rashid appellant had acted in order to defend himself.
5. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that it is a case of prompt F.I.R.; that eye- witnesses are natural; that medical evidence has proved that it was Rasheed appellant who had caused injuries with Suwa on the person of the deceased and that the accused/appellants admitted their involvement in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant who has filed criminal revision for enhancement of sentence submits that the prosecution has proved the motive; that recovery of Suwa has been effected from Rashid appellant and both the learned counsel supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. The occurrence took place on 15-4-1999, at 11-30 a.m. The matter was reported to the police on the same day. The complainant is Salamat Ali and deceased is Muhammad Arshad. There are four accused including two appellants. Two accused namely Muzaffar and Jahangir have been acquitted by the learned trial. Court and no appeal against their acquittal, has been filed by the complainant. The allegation against them was that Jahangir caused injuries with iron pipe on the head of the deceased while Muzaffar gave kick blow on the testicles of the deceased. These injuries were not found in the post-mortem report. As far as appellants are concerned, they are father and son. It is established on record that there was no previous enmity between the parties. The occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment. Both the appellants Rashid and Majeed alias Kaka were injured during the occurrence. They were medically examined by Dr. Saleem-ur-Rehman D. W.1 who had conducted post-mortem of the deceased. He had found 'three injuries on the person of Rashid appellant and four injuries on the person of Majeed appellant. The weapon used in the occurrence is Suwa and iron pipe and not Khanjar or Chhuri. There was no fire-arm with the accused/appellants. Majeed alias Kaka was attributed Lalkara. The prosecution had suppressed the injuries received by the appellants. As far as Majeed alias Kaka is concerned, no injury is attributed to him. While granting him benefit of doubt he is acquitted from the charge. He is in jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. As far as Rashid appellant is concerned, he has taken the plea of right of self- defence. He has also received 3 injuries during the occurrence. He was convicted and sentenced under section 302(b), P.P.C. He has exceeded the right of self-defence as he had caused three injuries on the person of the deceased so his conviction is converted from section 302(b), P.P.C. To section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo 14 years' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
However, the compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Granted by the trial Court is maintained, in default six months S.I. With the said modification in the conviction and sentence of the appellant, this appeal stands disposed of.