' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.--- By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos.144 and 145 of 1996 as they have arisen out of common judgment and involve identical questions of law and facts.
2. Brief facts are that on 19-8-1990 at 4-45 p.m. a case under sections 302/452/324/336/307/148/149, ' P.P.C. Was registered with Police Station, Makhdoom Rashid, District Multan on the statement of Zafrullah against Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta, Lal Din, Muhammad Ramzan, Ahmad Yar son of Wali Dad, Mumtaz Hussain and Shaukat Ali for the murder of Usman Ghani and causing injuries to Rafiq Ahmad alias Muhammad Rafiq, Nasrullah, Zafrullah, Muhammad Aslam and Khalid. Motive was that on 18-8-1990 at evening time, Zafrullah P.W.8 had an altercation with Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta on some money matter, the respectables of the area intervened and patched up but Ahmad Yar threatened him of dire consequences. On next morning i,e, 19-8-1990, Abdul Ghaffar Dogar, Chairman got the matter patched up but Ahmad Yar nourished grudge, as such, the present incident took place. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was put in the trial Court. They were charged to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein all of them except Mumtaz pleaded innocence. They attributed their involvement due to relationship with Mumtaz Hussain whereas Shaukat Ali stated that he was working under Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta at a brick kiln as Munshi and he has been implicated being his employee. Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta stated that he has been assigned the main role being the headman/elder of the brotherhood of the remaining accused except Shaukat Ali.
Mumtaz accused took the plea of self-defence and produced Mst. Gulzar Mai D.W.1, Muhammad Hanif D.W.2 and Malik Abdul Ghaffar Dogar D.W.3. The trial Court, on assessment of the evidence on record, held the accused criminally liable for their individual acts and convicted and sentenced them as under:--- "I, therefore, hold all the accused guilty of offence under section 148, P.P.C. For forming themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons and committing rioting and sentence each of them to undergo 1 year R.I. Each under the same. I also convict each of them under section 452, P.P.C. For trespassing into the poultry farm of the complainant party and sentence each of them to undergo 5 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For one year each. I also convict accused Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta under section 302, P.P.C. For committing the murder of deceased Usman Ghani by causing his death and sentence him to death subject to confirmation by the Honourable High Court and fine of Rs,50,000 in default thereof to further suffer R.I. For three years. He be hanged by neck till he is dead. The amount of fine, if realized, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation in equal shares. The record of the proceedings be submitted to the Honourable High Court for confirmation of his death sentence. Copy of judgment be supplied to the accused free of costs on application. He has been informed that he can file appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Honourable High Court within seven days. I also convict accused Mumtaz Hussain under section 324, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt with sharp-edged weapon to Rafiq Ahmad P.W. And sentence him to undergo two years' R.I. Under the same and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default whereof to undergo further R.I. For six months. I also convict accused Muhammad Ramzan under section 324, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt with sharp-edged weapon to P.W. Nasrullah and sentence him to undergo two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. For six months. I also convict accused Ahmad Yar son of Wali Dad under section 324, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt to P.W. Zafrullah with fire-arm and sentence him to undergo two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to undergo further six months' R.I. I also convict accused Lal Din under section 324, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt with fire-arm to P.W. Muhammad Aslam and sentence him to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For six months. He is also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt with blunt weapon to P.W. Khalid and sentence him to undergo six months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. For three months. I also convict accused Shaukat Ali under section 324, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt to Muhammad Aslam P.W. With fire-arm and sentence him to undergo R.I. For 2 years and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For six months. I also convict him under section 323, P.P.C. For causing simple hurt with blunt weapon to P.W. Muhammad Khalid and sentence him to undergo six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof to further undergo R.I. For three months. However all their sentences shall run concurrently? They shall be given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Inasmuch as the period of their detention as under-trial shall be counted towards their sentences. The amount of fine, if realized shall be paid to the respective injured persons."
' Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta, Lal Din, Muhammad Ramzan, Ahmad Yar son of Wali Dad and Mumtaz Hussain challenged their conviction and sentences before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan through Criminal Appeal No,331 of 1991, Shaukat Ali convict filed separate Criminal Appeal No,361 of 1991 against his conviction and sentence whereas the complainant filed Criminal Revision No,161 of 1992 and a learned Division Bench of the High Court vide its common judgment, dated 29-10-1995 acquitted all the accused from the charge under section 148, P.P.C. And keeping in view the fact that the deceased had no previous quarrel with Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta appellant in Criminal Appeal No,145 of 1996, converted his sentence from death to life imprisonment. Conviction and sentences of Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta, Ahmad Yar son of Wali Dad, Lal Din and Shaukat were maintained. Vide the same judgment, the conviction and sentences of Mumtaz and Ramzan were set aside and they were acquitted. The convicts challenged their conviction and sentences before this Court through Criminal Petition No,14-L of 1996 and Zafrullah filed Criminal Petition No,6-L of 1996. Leave in both the petitions was granted on 1-4-1996 to reappraise the evidence in the light of contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In the instant case a young boy namely Usman Ghani aged about 15/16 years was killed while Rafiq Ahmad, Nasrullah, Khalid, Zafrullah P.W.8 and Muhammad Aslam P.W.9 were injured.
Testimony of the injured eye-witnesses P.W.8 and P.W.9 whose presence at the spot is proved by the stamp of injuries on them, is supported by other eye-witness Nazir Ahmad P.W.10, who had no animus with the accused and there is no contradiction in their evidence which is supported by medical evidence of the deceased and the injured P. Ws. The recovery of the respective weapons of offence at their pointation and the reports of the Serologist and Forensic Science Laboratory fully established the guilt of the convict appellants. Mumtaz the acquitted accused took the plea of self- defence but it was not believed by the trial Court, however, the learned High Court on different consideration that Mumtaz and Ramzan were attributed injuries to Muhammad Khalid, Muhammad Rafiq and Nasrullah who were not produced by the prosecution for evidence and their injuries through them were not proved acquitted them by giving benefit of doubt. The learned High Court on proper appreciation of the evidence has altered the sentence of Ahmad Yar son of Allah Ditta from death to life imprisonment and maintained the conviction and sentences of the other convict/appellants. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, the same is upheld. As far Criminal Appeal No, 144 of 1996 is concerned, since both the Courts on proper appreciation and appraisal of evidence have recorded the conviction and suitably sentenced the convicts and have acquitted. The other accused, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same These appeals are accordingly dismissed.