1. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1037 of 2002 filed by Imran Lal, Riaz Nadir, Bahadur, Azam, appellants who were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide judgment, dated 23-5-2002 as under:- Imran, Riaz and Lal: Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,25,000 in default S.I. For one year under section 302(b), P.P.C. The compensation of Rs,1,00,000 was also ordered to be paid to legal heirs of the deceased, in default one year's S.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended in favour of the appellants.
2. ' Two years' R.I. Each on four counts under section 337-A(I), P.P.C. Daman was also directed to be paid , five years' R.I. Each on two counts for causing injuries to Rajab Ali under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. And to pay Arsh to Rajab Ali injured P.W., one year's R.I. Each under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Liaqat Ali and to pay "Daman", three years' R.I. Each under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C.
3. For causing injuries to Liaqat Ali and Rajab Ali and also "Daman" on two counts, two years' R.I. Each on two counts under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Noor Akbar and Liaqat Ali.
4. Bahadur and Azam: Two years' R.I. Each under section 337-A (ii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Noor Akbar, Muhammad Jinah, Liaqat Ali and Rajab Ali injured P.Ws. On four counts and "Daman", five years' R.I. Each under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Rajab Ali and to pay "Arsh", one year's R.I. Each under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Noor Akbar and Liaqat Ali and "Daman" on two counts each, three years' R.I. Each under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Liaqat Ali and Rajab Ali injured P.Ws. And "Daman" on two counts, two years' R.I. On two counts under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C. The various terms of imprisonment awarded to the accused was ordered to run concurrently.
5. Nadir: Two years' R.I. With "Daman" under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. And ten years' R.I. And to pay "Arsh" under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
6. Criminal Appeal No,1161 of 2002 filed by Noor Akbar against Bahadar etc. And Criminal Revision No,670 of 2002 filed by. Noor Akbar against Imran etc. Shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
7. ' Brief facts of the case are that at 5/6 p.m. On 7-6-2000 Noor Akbar complainant along with his brother Bashir Ahmad were working in their fields when'Lal, armed with Lathi, Riaz armed with Lathi, Imran armed with Lathi, Nadir armed with hatchet, Bahadur armed with Lathi and Azam armed with Lathi came there by raising "Lalkara" to teach a lesson to Noor Akbar and Bashir for obtaining stay order and simultaneously accused Lal, Riaz and Imran gave Lathi blows on the head, mouth and various parts of body of Bashir and he fell down. To save Bashir, Noor Akbar stepped forward but Bahadur and Azam gave him Lathi blows. On hue and cry, Muhammad Jinah, Rajab Ali and Liaqat Ali, who were grazing the cattle nearby attracted but they too were given hatchet and Lathi blows by Nadir, Lal and Imran. According to complainant, Riaz accused gave Lathi blow to Rajab Ali. All the injured were removed to hospital.
8. ' The motive alleged was that the complainant and accused had a dispute over land, which was in possession of the complainant party and they had got the stay order, so the accused had a grudge of all this and in furtherance of their, common intention the accused attacked upon the complainant party.
9. ' Investigation of the case was taken over by Abdul Majeed S.-I. P.W.15; he after registration of the formal F.I.R. Went to the place of occurrence, took' into possession blood-stained earth vide memo.
10. Exh.P.O. Bashir Ahmad expired in the hospital, his injury statement is Exh.P.E., inquest report is Exh.P.F., on 15-6-2000 the investigator arrested Lal, Nadir and Azam accused, Bahadur accused was arrested on 20-6-2000, Lal accused on 25-6-2000 got recovered Lathi P.3, which was taken into possession, on the same day, Nadir got recovered hatchet P.4, secured vide memo. Exh.P.R., similarly, on the same day Bahaudar and Azam led to the recovery of Lathis, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.S. And Exh.P.T. Respectively and it was on 26-6-2000 that Riaz accused was arrested, the said accused while in custody got recovered Lathi P.7, which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.U., thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken over by Talat Mehmood S.-I./S.H.O. P.W.16, who on 19-8-2000 arrested Allah Ditta and Mst. Sakina both accused of abetment, submitted incomplete challan and then on 9-9-2000 Imran was arrested and he got recovered Sota P.8, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.V. After carrying out all the formal investigations eight accused were sent to face the trial.
11. ' At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 16 witnesses in all thereafter, the learned D.D.A. Tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.BB., Exh.P.BB./1, Exh.P.CC.
12. And Exh.P.DD. Report of Serologist Exh.P.CC./1 and closed the case of prosecution, then, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded false implication. After conclusion of the trial, Allah Ditta and Mst. Sakina were acquitted while the remaining six accused were convicted and sentence as stated above.
13. ' Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants submits that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its legal possession over the land, which was the cause of annoyance rather during cross-examination, according to learned counsel, it is established that the appellants are the legal owner of the said land as the land was "Dakheel Kari". Further submits that the prosecution produced no documentary evidence in the shape of stay order.
14. ' Adds that there is an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R., that injuries on the persons of three appellants were suppressed by the prosecution and according to learned counsel in fact it is a case of two versions and if both the versions are put in juxtaposition, the version introduced by the defence seems to be more plausible and convincing one. It is submitted that it is a case of right of self-defence and the appellants did not exceed that right rather three persons from the side of the appellants were also injured. Concluding his submission, learned counsel submits that if submissions made by him do not find favour with the Court then in the alternate it is submitted that it was a case of free fight and every accused had to be convicted and sentenced according to the role played by him.
15. ' Learned counsel for the complainant submits that both the parties are closely related to each other inasmuch as wife of the complainant is real sister of Allah Ditta acquitted accused; stay was in favour of the complainant, on the statement of the appellant the suit was withdrawn by the complainant from the Civil Court, all the accused had gathered to take forcible possession, the complainant was empty-handed at the time of occurrence, the appellants were aggressors, the ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence and the number of injuries on the persons from the side the complainant suggest that all the accused participated in the occurrence and shared common intention.
16. ' Learned counsel for the State adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.
17. ' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with the able assistance. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 5/6 p.m. On 7-6-2000 within the revenue estate of Chak No,215, which is at a distance of four miles from Police Station Mochiwala District Jhang while the matter was reported to the police by Noor Akbar complainant through written complaint Exh.P.N. At Mochiwala Hospital at 9-50 p.m. The same night and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.N./1 was recorded by Nafees Ahmad S.-I.
18. ' In all, eight accused were tried, Allah Ditta and Mst. Sakina accused of abetment were acquitted by the trial Court, appeal against their acquittal though was filed but no notice was issued to them, notice was issued only to Bahaudar, Nadir and Azam respondents. Imran, Lal and Riaz were sentenced to imprisonment for life, they were also sentenced under other penal sections of the P.P.C., their sentences were ordered to run consecutively, the deceased is Bashir Ahmad, injured are. Noor Akbar P.W.7 Muhammad Jinah P.W.8, Liaqat P.W.9 while Rajab Ali P.W. Did not appear.
19. ' From the side of the appellants, Nadir Khan, Imran and Lal Khan were injured and the prosecution suppressed their injuries not only before the police but also before the trial Court. We may, mention here that Imran, Lal, Riaz, Bahaudar and Nadir appellants are real brothers inter se while Azam is their maternal-nephew. Only one young chap aged 12/13 years was left in the family of appellants.
20. The father and mother of five accused were also roped in as being abettors.
21. The appellants have not denied the motive. There is however, unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. So the possibility of due deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out. There is no denying the fact that there are injuries on the persons from the accused side. Nadir Khan accused received four injuries including three on head. Imran and Lal had also one injury but the fact remains that there were 45 injuries on the persons from the complainant party inasmuch as Bashir Ahmad deceased according to post-mortem examination had 11 injuries on his person while Jinah P.W.8 received eight injuries, except injury No,2, rest were with blunt weapon. Rajab Ali P.W.
22. (not produced) received eight injuries with blunt weapon. Similarly, Liaqat Ali P.W.9 received 11 injuries, two amongst them were with sharp-edged weapon while remaining were with blunt weapon.
23. ' The above illustration with regard to number of injuries on the persons from the side of the complainant tends to show that it was not a case of right of self-defence, so we are of the view that it were Imran, Lal and Riaz who committed the murder of Bashir deceased as also caused injuries on the persons of Muhammad Jinah, Liaqat Ali, Noor Akbar P.Ws. And Rajab Ali P.W. But not produced, hence the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment is maintained. However, since the injuries on three persons from the side of the accused party were suppressed, we direct that the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial Court under different penal sections of the P.P.C. Shall run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Instead of consecutively as ordered by the trial Court. The sentence of fine of Rs,25,000 is also set aside. The sentence in default of payment of compensation is reduced from one year to six months' S.I.
24. ' With this modification in the sentence, Criminal Appeal No,1037 of 2002 is disposed of.
25. ' Nadir, Bahadur and Azam appellants did not touch the deceased, so the notices issued to them in Criminal Appeal No,1161 of 2002 filed by the complainant against their acquittal from the charges under section 302(b) read with sections 148 and 149, P.P.C. Are withdrawn. The conviction and sentence recorded against them by the trial Court vide impugned judgment for causing injuries on the persons of the injured P.Ws. Is thus, maintained in toto. The sentences shall however, run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. This disposes of Criminal Appeal No,1161 of 2002.
26. ' For what has been stated above, Criminal Revision No,670 of 2002 filed by the complainant is dismissed.