' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,327 of 2005 filed by Abu Bakar and Abdul Shakoor, appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment dated 29-1-2005 as under:-- ' Under section 302-B/34, P.P.C. To undergo imprisonment for life and a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default six months' S.I. Each.
' Under section 324, P.P.C. 10 years' R.I. Each on two counts and a fine of Rs,15,000 each on two counts and in default six months' S.I. Each.
' Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C., three years' R.I. As Tazir and Damans Rs,10,000 each.
' Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. Three years' R.I. And Daman Rs,10,000 each.
Under section 449, P.P.C. Ten years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,50,000 each and in default six months' S.I.
Each.
However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-7-2002 at about 7-30 p.m. Mst. Parveen Bano deceased rang a telephone to Muhammad Asghar complainant and asked him to come her house in order to discuss some important affairs. Mst. Parveen Bano deceased was Phuphizad of Muhammad Asghar complainant and her husband used to live abroad in order to earn his livelihood, at about 9-00 p.m. Complainant Muhammad Asghar reached to the house of Mst. Parveen I3ano deceased and when entered into the house of Mst. Parveen Bano deceased he saw that altercation was taking place between accused Abdul Shakoor, Abu Bakar and Mst. Parveen Bano and her two daughters namely, Iqra and Anum and they grappled with each other. On seeing the complainant accused Abu Bakar raised Lalkara that no one should be escaped to his co-accused Abdul Shakoor. Abu Bakar accused step forward and complainant Muhammad Asghar tried to catch hold him, he ran away by pushing complainant to the ground, meanwhile, accused Abdul Shakoor took Mst. Parveen Bano to the ground in the kitchen and Abdul Shakoor gave Chhuri blow on the person of Parveen Bano, which hit her jaw near the throat. Mst. Iqra step forward and accused Abdul Shakoor inflicted Chhuri blows on her chest and left arm. Meanwhile, Mst. Anum step forward, accused Abdul Shakoor also inflicted Chhuri blows, which hit her on the right side of abdomen and right flank, both the girls frightened. Complainant wanted to help them but Abdul Shakoor took pistol 30 bore from his Shalwar and aimed at him by saying that if he will come forward he would be done to death. On the hue and cry of complainant Muhammad Ilyas Shahid and Ahmad attracted to the place of occurrence and on seeing them both the accused fled away from the spot along with Chhuri and pistol .30 bore.
' Motive behind the occurrence was that accused Abdul Shakoor and Abu Bakar are real nephews of Muhammad Ayub, who is husband of Mst. Parveen Bano deceased. The accused used to come in the house of Mst. Parveen Bano. She forbade Abdul Shakoor and Abu Bakar to come her home due to her grown up daughters. The accused nourished grudge and with their connivance murdered Mst. Parveen Bano and injured Mst. Anum and Mst. Iqra.
3. Muhammad Iqbal, S.-I. P.W.12 visited the place of occurrence, took blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence on cotton, recorded the statements of the P. Ws. And on 29-7-2002 he arrested accused Abdul Shakoor and on 2-8-2002 he arrested accused Abu Bakar. On the same day, Abdul Shakoor accused while in police custody led to the recovery of Chhuri P.4 and glove P.5, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.S.
4. At the trial prosecution in order to prove its case produced 13 witnesses in all, thereafter, learned S.P.P. Tendered in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner regarding Chhuri cotton and vaginal swa bs as Exh. P. U. , Exh. P. V . And Exh. P. W . Respectively, reports of Serologist regarding Chhuri and cotton Exh.P.U./1 and Exh.P.V./1 and closed the prosecution case, then, the statements of the appellants were recorded in which they pleaded innocence.
5. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, learned counsel for the appellants submits that occurrence in this case took place in dark hours of night, that complainant was not present at the spot, that there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., which was lodged after due deliberation and consultation, that both the appellants are real brother inter se, that they were maternal-nephew of husband of Mst. Parveen Bano deceased, who was out of country in order to earn his livelihood, that no recovery was effected from Abu Bakar appellant and even no injury was attributed to him, that though Mst. Anum received the injury but she was discharged from the hospital on the same day and did not report the matter till the lodging of the F.I.R. By complainant Muhammad Asghar. He further submits that according to Dr. Rohina Qyum P.W.1, who conducted medical examination on both the injured P.Ws., their Aunti Kalsoom accompanied both the injured to the hospital but she even did not report the matter to the police, that injured Mst.
Parveen remained in the hospital for two days btit the doctor did not report the matter to the police because the case was doubtful, that later on, P.W.9 and P.W.13 were summoned from their houses and they were made complainant as well as P.W. In this case. He lastly submits that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Creates serious doubt to the veracity of prosecution case and prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed Revision Petition No,822 of 2005 for the enhancement of sentence, submits that reasons given by the learned trial Court for lesser sentence are not in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court and apex Court and in this regard he has relied upon 2002 YLR 3816, 1998 SCM R 862 and 2002 SCM R 294. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that section 34, P.P.C. Is applicable in this case because both the appellants are jointly liable to the act committed by Abdul Shakoor, that one person had lost his life and two were seriously injured, that ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence. They support the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. Heard. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 27-2-2002 at about 9-00 p.m. In the area of Block No,6, Saman Abad, Faisalabad, which is at a distance of three kilometres away from Police Station Factory Area and the formal F.I.R. Was lodged on 29-7-2002 by Muhammad Asghar complainant. The reasons given for lodging the F.I.R. With such a delay that deceased was in precarious condition besides two injured P.Ws. So firstly they were taken to hospital in order to save their lives and this explanation given by the complainant is plausible in the circumstances of the case. The deceased in this case is Mst. Parveen Bano and there are two injured P.Ws., namely, Mst.
Iqra and Mst. Anum daughters of Mst. Parveen Bano. Prosecution produced three eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Asghar complainant (P.W.9) Mst. Iqra injured (P.W.10) and Muhammad Ahmad nephew of the Mst. Parveen Bibi (P.W.13). Abdul Shakoor appellant was arrested in this case on 29-7-2002 and blood-stained Chhuri was recovered on his pointation on 2-8-2002. Abu Bakar appellant was arrested in this case on 2-8-2002. Dr. Rohina Qayum P.W.1, who had medically examined all the three injured P.Ws. On the same day, found all the injuries fresh and caused by sharp-edged weapon. Ocular account in this case is fully corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri from Abdul Shakoor appellant. The star-witness in this case is Mst. Iqra, who while appearing before the learned trial Court had fully supported the prosecution case. Both the appellants are also closely related to Mst. Iqra because they were maternal-nephew of father of Mst. Iqra, who was out of country at that time in order to earn his livelihood. Abdul Shakoor appellant was less than 18 years of age at the time of B occurrence, he was going to be tried under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance but said Ordinance was set aside by this Court and later on, said judgment of this Court was also set aside by the apex Court and this has not been denied by either of the party that he was Juvenile Offender at the time of occurrence so learned trial Court was right in not awarding death penalty to him. However, as the prosecution has proved its case against Abdul Shakoor appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, so this appeal to his extent is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against him is maintained in toto.
8. Now I take up the case of Abu Bakar appellant. Though he was present at the spot but except raising "Lalkar" neither any injury nor any overt act was attributed to him so possibility of his false implication being real brother of Abdul Shakoor appellant cannot be ruled out. Resultantly, this appeal to his extent is accepted. The conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court is set aside. He is in jail and he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
' As far as Criminal Revision No,822 of 2005 filed by Muhammad Asghar petitioner against Abdul Shakoor etc. Respondents are concerned, that is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above.