' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2003, P.S.L.A. No.16 of 2003 and Criminal Revision No.97 of 2003 directed against the judgment, dated 31-1- 2003 passcd by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, T.T. Singh, whereby he convicted the appellants as under:- ' Under section 302(b), P.P.C. He convicted Muhammad Arshad to undergo life imprisonment with compensation of Rs.80,000 or in default six months' R.I. He was also convicted under section 337- A(ii), P.P.C. To undergo two years' R.I. With Tawaan amounting to Rs.5,000 payable to injured P.W.
' Under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. He convicted Liaqat Ali and sentenced him to undergo two years' R.I.
With an Arsh Rs.15000 payable to Maqbool Ahmad P.W. He convicted Muhammad Tahir under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. And sentenced him to pay Damman of Rs.5,000, payable to Muhammad Ramzan P.W. And under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to two years' R.I.
With Arsh Rs.5000, payable to Muhammad Akram P.W. He was also convicted under section 337- L(ii), P.P.C. And was sentenced to pay Damman Rs.3,000 to Muhammad Ramzan.
' Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the instant case as narrated by Muhammad Ramzan complainant in the F.I.R. Are that on the day of occurrence i.e. 3-6-2001 at about 8-30 a.m. Muhammad Bashir the maternal uncle of the complainant had summoned the complainant party for consultation. The complainant along with Muhammad Akram, Maqbool and Ghulam Muhammad went there. Muhammad Arshad armed with bala (Rafter), Akhtar, Liaqat Ali, Tahir, Tariq, Muhammad Munshi, Ali Muhammad and Shafqat Ali armed with dandas came there. Muhammad Arshad accused raised lalkara that Ghulam Muhammad be avenged for arranging rishta of Mst. Nasira forcibly and also inflicted injuries on the head of Ghulam Muhammad who well down on the ground. Muhammad Akram and Maqbool Ahmed tried to save him but all the accused started inflicting injuries to them with their respective weapons and they injured all of them. Ghulam Muhammad succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital.
3. The police after getting information about the occurrence completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter Sadiq Ali Inspector along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot. He prepared inquest report Exh.P.H.A. Injury statement Exh.P.F. He collected the blood stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.L. Last worn clothes were received by him vide memo. Exh.P.K. All the accused were arrested and recoveries were made from them by Munir Ahmad S.-I. Who had died before the trial.
Ultimately investigation was completed by Sadiq Ali Inspector and Dilshad Ali DSP and all the accused were challaned.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 12 witnesses including Doctor, Investigating Officers, eye-witnesses and other relevant persons. After tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner about blood-stained cotton Exh. P.W. And Serologist Exh.P.X. And report of Chemical Examiner regarding rafter Exh.P.Y. And report of Serologist Exh.P.Z., learned ADA closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the every aspect of the case and hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that from the side of the appellant four persons including Farhat Parveen who is not involved in this case were injured and their injuries were suppressed, that later on during the trial dishonest improvement was made to make the case of the prosecution in line with medical evidence. Learned counsel submits that version of the appellants has been given in question No.15 of the statement of accused Liaqat Ali recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. If both the versions are put in a juxta position then version of the appellants seems to be more plausible and convincing one and that version of the appellant was also supported by the Investigating Officer P.W.11. He further submits that on the same evidence Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Tariq and Ali Muhammad accused were acquitted while Muhammad Munshi accused died during the trial, that only Muhammad Arshad was awarded life imprisonment who was attributed fatal blow on the head of Ghulam Muhammad deceased while Arshad and Tahir were convicted under section 337-A(1), P.P.C. Along with Damman. Shafqat Ali was convicted under section 337-L:(ii);P.P.C. To pay Daman Rs.5,000 and he has been released.
That Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Tariq are on bail while Muhammad Arshad is behind the bars.
Learned counsel submits that allegation against Arshad appellant was that he gave an injury on the back of the head of the deceased, but according to postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Muhammad Arif P.W.3 the injury was on the top of the head of the deceased so there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Learned counsel submits that motive was found false by the police during the course of investigation, that a cross-case was also filed by the appellant party but in that case the complainant party was acquitted in which it was ordered to be heard along with the instant appeal filed by Muhammad Arshad appellant etc. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has observed that the instant occurrence was not a premeditated murder but a case of being sudden flare up.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that time of occurrence has not been denied by the appellant party, that as far as motive is concerned it has been admitted by the appellants that there was a family dispute between the parties, that the occurrence took place in the house of Muhammad Bashir. Learned counsel submits that Arshad appellant is the person who was attributed solitary and fatal injury op the head of the deceased, Ghulam Muhammad and there are three injured P.Ws. Who have also supported the prosecution case, that the medical examination from the appellant side took place three days after the occurrence, that during the investigation those could not be established so the appellant party filed a complaint. Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence, that it was a premeditated murder, that the appellants had admitted the place of occurrence and the occurrence itself. They submit that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants and that there is no question of false implication.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The time, date and place of occurrence have not been denied. In the instant case Ghulam Muhammad is deceased and fatal injuries are attributed to Muhammad Arshad appellant who has been awarded life imprisonment. Three persons from the side of the complainant were injured and they also appeared before the learned trial Court. Eight accused were named in the F.I.R., four of them namely Muhammad Arshad, Liaqat Ali, Muhammad Tahir and Shafqat Ali were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court while Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Tariq and Ali Muhammad were acquitted by the learned trial Court. One Muhammad Munshi co-accused died during the trial. The moot point in this case is that four persons from the side of the appellants including the three accused Muhammad Tahir, Liaqat Ali and Shafqat Ali were also injured while Mst. Farhat Parveen who is not an accused in this case was also injured. In all there are 8 injuries on the side of the appellant party while there were 12 injuries on the side of the complainant party. The injuries of these four persons were not explained in the F.I.R. The occurrence had taken place in the house of Muhammad Bashir who was not produced by the prosecution although, he was cited in the calender of witnesses. The presumption is that had he been produced before the learned trial Court he would not have supported the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the orders passed by a D.B. Of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2003 .Titled as Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Akhtar and others which was an appeal against the acquittal of accused Muhammad Akhtar etc and the same was dismissed. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that D.B. Of this Court in the said order had observed that occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment and it was not a premeditated occurrence and every individual who had participated, is responsible for his own individual act. In the instant occurrence Muhammad Arshad, Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Tahir have been sentenced under section 337-A(ii)/ 377-A(i) and 337-L(ii) to undergo maximum sentence of 2 years R.I. Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Tahir appellants were also injured so their sentence which they have already undergone, is treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
As far as Muhammad Arshad appellant is' concerned, he was attributed fatal injury on the head of the deceased Ghulam Muhammad. The injury was not repeated. Moreover, it has been constantly held by a D.B. Of this Court and trial Court that it was not a premeditated occurrence. Even the injuries on the side of the appellants B were not explained by the complainant in the F.I.R. So in my view this is not a case under section 302-B, P.P.C. But under section 302(c), P.P.C. In this view of the matter, the sentence of Muhammad Arshad appellant is reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As far as compensation is concerned, that is set aside because in such like cases no fine or compensation can be granted. Reliance is placed on PLD 1982 SC 294 titled as Meraj Begum v. Ijaz Anwar etc. With this modification this appeal stands disposed of. The Criminal Revision and P.S.L.A. Are dismissed.