1. ' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD J.--- Respondents No,1 to 6 and 8 namely Ghulam Hussain, Haji Muhammad Akrarn, Dildar, Muhammad Afzal alias Aslam, Muhammad Aslam, Dilbar and Muhammad Illyas were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment dated 24-3-2005. Ghulam Hussain, Haji Muhammad Akram, Illyas Muhammad Aslam and Dildar each were sentenced to death under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. For causing death of Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Afzal deceased. Ghulam Hussain, Illyas and Dildar respondents were also convicted under section 324 P.P.C. For causing injuries and each were directed to pay compensation to various sums or in default thereof to further suffer S.I. As ordered in the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Muhammad Afzal alias Aslam was convicted under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. For causing injuries to Akram P.W. And was sentenced to one year's R.1. And to pay compensation to the tune of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to further suffer six months' S.I., whereas; Dilbar respondent was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Akram P.W. And was sentenced to five years' R.I. And to pay compensation of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to suffer six months' S.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended in his favour and to Muhammad Afzal respondent.
2. Record of the case and the proceedings were submitted by the leaned trial Court to the learned Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench at Bahawalpur for confirmation of the sentence of death passed against the above said respondents which was registered as Murder Reference No,16 of 2005. Above said respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No,108 of 2005 challenging their conviction and sentences awarded to them each by the learned trial Court. The learned Division Bench of the High Court seized of the matter vide judgment dated 23-2-06 impugned herein did not confirm the sentence of death awarded to the above said respondents and answered the same in negative, however; maintained the conviction of some of the respondents and modified the sentences as mentioned in the impugned judgment, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.A. Zafar, Sardar Ahmed Khan learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents Nos.1 and 8 and Ms. Yasmeen Sehgal for the State have been heard. The impugned judgment and record of the case have been gone through carefully and minutely with their assistance.
4. Undisputedly it is the case of two versions; one of the prosecution and the other put forth by the defence. It is evident from the record that Muhammad Aslam respondent received four injuries caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas; Muhammad Akram and respondent also received four injuries, out of which three were caused by sharp edged weapon and one with the blunt weapon.
2. Ghulam Hussain respondent also suffered injuries with sharp edged weapon on his buttock and Amir Ali (minor) too suffered three injuries, two caused with sharp edged weapon. Both the parties admittedly are butchers by profession and are related to each other, doing their business at the place of occurrence for the last 5 to 10 years, Having scanned and reappraised the entire evidence in view of the medical evidence and the role assigned to each of the accused persons, the learned High Court has come to a definite conclusion that it was a case of free fight between both the parties who caused injuries to each other, hence in view of the conclusions so arrived at by the learned High Court, the case of each of the accused persons was scrutinized with reference to the incriminating material adduced at the trial and thus having examined and reappraised the entire evidence available against each of the accused persons in the over all facts and circumstances of the case, did not confirm the sentence of death awarded to the above said respondents.
3. ' Sentence of death passed against Ghulam Hussain respondent was reduced to imprisonment for life as he had also suffered sharp edged weapon injury on his buttock which was suppressed by the prosecution and the sentence of compensation was reduced from Rs, two lac to Rs, one lac or in default thereof to suffer six months' S.I. However, his conviction under section 324, P.P.C. And fine was maintained which was directed to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the leaned High Court.
4. ' Haji Muhammad Akram respondent had allegedly caused one injury on the back side of the left hand of Muhammad Akbar deceased and also on the head of the said deceased which did not prove fatal as per medical evidence and the injuries suffered on the person of Haji Muhammad Akram respondent were suppressed by the prosecution, hence his conviction was converted from section 302(b), P.P.C. To section 302(c), P.P.C. And the sentence already undergone by him was treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. However, the sentence of compensation and the one ordered to be suffered in default thereof was maintained.
5. ' Illyas respondent according to the case of prosecution had caused one injury on the person of the deceased, which proved fatal, hence his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Was maintained but the sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life in the circumstances of the case.
6. His conviction and sentence under section 324 P.P.C. And the fine of Rs,50,000 for causing injuries to Muhammad Arshad P.W. Was maintained in toto. However, both the sentences under section 302(b), P.P.C. And under section 324, P.P.C. Was ordered to run concurrently.
7. ' As per case of the prosecution, Muhammad Aslam alias Sarfaraz had caused one injury with Chhuri on the forehead of Muhammad Akbar but according to the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination (P.W.6) he did not find any injury caused with sharp edged weapon on the forehead of Muhammad Akbar deceased, whereas; the said respondent also received four injuries on his person including the one caused with blunt weapon and three injuries with sharp edged weapon who was examined by Dr. Muhammad Muslim (P.W.12) on the date of occurrence.
8. The prosecution undisputedly did not disclose the injuries found on the person of Ghulam Hussain respondent, as such; conviction of Ghulam Hussain respondent was converted from section 302(b) to that under section 302(c), P.P.C. And the period of confinement in Jail was found to have exceeded more than four years was treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, he was ordered to be released forthwith from custody if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.
10. ' Dilaar respondent had allegedly caused a Chhuri blow on the left side of the head of Muhammad Akbar deceased, but as per medical evidence no such injury was found on the person of the deceased, therefore, he was acquitted of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. He was also acquitted of the charge under section 324, P.P.C. For the reason that he had allegedly caused a Chhuri blow on the head of the complainant Muhammad Arshad, but as per medical evidence of P.
11. W.12 who examined the complainant no injury caused with sharp-edged weapon on the said part of the person of injured P.W. Was found. Accordingly, he was ordered to be released from custody if not detained in any other case.
12. ' As per prosecution case Muhammad Afzal alias Aslam respondent had allegedly caused injury with a Soti (Lathee) on the person of deceased, but the same was found to be simple abrasion.
13. Hence in this view of the matter, he was acquitted of the charge under section 302 P.P.C. However, his conviction under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. For causing injury to Akram P.W. Was maintained and the period of his custody in jail was treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
14. ' Dilbar respondent was also acquitted of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. In the circumstances of the case in view of the incriminating material as regards his liability is concerned.
15. However, his conviction under section 324, P.P.C. Was maintained who was sentenced to five years'
16. R.I. By the learned trial Court with compensation of Rs,20,000 was found to have remained in jail custody for a period of more than four years, hence the same was treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any misreading of evidence or any material piece of evidence having the effect of varying the impugned judgment as having not been appraised in its true perspective nor we have been able to find out that the occurrence had not taken place as a result of free fight between the A parties, hence the impugned judgment in our considered opinion is unexceptionable which does not suffer from any impropriety, infirmity legal or factual, so as to call for any interference by this Court. As no case for leave to appeal has been made out, consequently this criminal petition is dismisse.
17. Leave declined.