CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---We intend to decide the above captioned petitions by one consolidated order having common questions of law and fact arising out of the same judgment of the learned High Court.
2. Petitioners Falik Sher, Jaffar (in Jail Petition No,192 of 2003), Zulfiqar (in Jail Petition No,254 of 2003) and Ali Sher respondent No,1 (in Criminal Petition 513-L of 2003) were tried and convicted vide judgment, dated 12-7-1994 by the Judge Special Court for Speedy Trials, Multan, under section 302(c) read with section 34, P.P.C. Sentenced to 10 years' R.I. Each oneach count for the murder of Muhammad Yousaf and Mst. Rani. Petitioners were also convicted under section 302(a), P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. For Qatl-e-Amd of Rehmat Ali, Niamat Ali and Khadim Hussain and sentenced to death on each count with compensation of Rs,1,50,000 each to be paid to the legal heirs of Rehmat Ali, Niamat Ali and Khadim Hussain, and in default to suffer six months' S.I. On each count. Their co-accused Noora was acquitted. The sentences of the petitioners were maintained by the learned High Court vide judgment, dated 29-4-2003 whereas the sentence of respondent No,1 Ali Sher was converted into life imprisonment on three counts by the learned High Court. The petitioners have filed aforesaid jail petitions against the judgment of the learned High Court whereas the complainant has filed Criminal Petition No,153-L of 2003 for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Ali Sher co-convict/respondent No, 1 .
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the medical evidence is in contradiction with the ocular account as injuries on the person of deceased caused with blunt weapon have not been explained by the prosecution. That location and nature of the injuries are not in conformity with the ocular account. The occurrence took place at 11 a.m. And the prosecution malafidely shown the same at 1-30 a.m. Only to cover up the delay in lodging the F.I.R. In view of statement of P.W.11, Wiryam, who stated that deceased after taking the meals at 6. a.m. Had gone to the Dhari. F.I.R.
Was also lodged after deliberation and has no sanctity in the eyes of law. It was a case of two versions. The learned Courts below erred in law to accept the version of the prosecution and to reject the version of the defence without any justification or sustainable reasons. In support of his contention, he relied upon Ata Muhammad and another v. The State 1995 SCM R 599 and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1970 SCM R 220. He summed up his arguments by contending that learned trial Court had convicted the petitioner on personal knowledge as is evident from paragraphs 13 to 16 of the judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of the petitioners and further urges that learned High Court erred in law to reduce the sentence of Ali Sher respondent.
5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. All the contentions raised before us were also raised before the Courts below which were rejected by both the Courts concurrently after judicial application of mind as is evident from the paragraphs 8 to 15 of the impugned judgment of the learned High Court. However, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we have also reexamined the evidence on record with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties and do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Courts below against the petitioners. The High Court was justified to reduce the sentence of Ali Sher respondent in Criminal Petition No,153-L of 2003 in view of the fact that he was attributed an injury on the buttocks of Yousaf, but as far as other deceased persons are concerned, he was not attributed any specific role. It is a, settled law that this Court does not interfere in the findings recorded by the Courts below while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. See Syed Mushtaq Ahmad v. Siddiqueullah and others PLD 1975 SC 160 and Farid v.
Aslam and others PLD 1977 SC 4.
6. For what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned High Court in this regard are reasonable and have not been arrived at in disregard of any accepted principle regarding appreciation of evidence. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the Courts below. These petitions are dismissed and leave refused. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and law. It is a settled law that each and every case is to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances.
Even otherwise all the petitions are time-barred which are dismissed on merits as well as barred by time.