' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-When the case was called out on the 2nd as also on the 3rd June, 1980, no one appeared to press the petition. We, therefore, decided to hear the matter as a Jail Appeal with the help of the learned State counsel.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that 16 persons (including the 4 appellants) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat for the murder of Ghulam Rasul and muderous assault on Ghulam Qadir, P. W. 4, and Muhammad Hussain, P. W.
5. All of them were, however, acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 3/2-5-68.
3. The State filed an Appeal (No, 862/1968) in the High Court against the acquittal of only 5 out of 16 accused, i.e, the four appellants before us and Shah Muhammad co-accused. The State appeal was rejected qua Shah Muhammad but it was accepted against four appellants namely Shera.
They were convicted by the High Court of offences under sections 302/34 and 325/34, P. P. C. Under section 302/34 each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 2,300. In default of payment of fine, each of them was to undergo further 1 years' R. I. The fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. Under section 325/34 they were sentenced to 3 years' R. I. Each and a fine of Rs, 1,000 each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo another one year R. I. The fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the injured persons as compensation. The four appellants have now come up in appeal to this Court.
4. The facts of the case briefly are that on 23-1-66 Ghulam Rasul, deceased, his brother Ghulam Qadir, P. W. 4 and their maternal uncle Muhammad Hussain P. W. 5 had come for cutting some Sheesham trees from their field in Khasra No, 15/3, Mst. Rabia Bibi, sister of deceased was also present with them. After cutting !a few trees, Ghulam Rasul told his companion to go and bring bullocks from the dera for carrying away the trees cut by them. The latter went to the Dera and brought the bullocks. Mst. Rasulan, P. W. 2 another sister of the deceased also came along with them to the field. While they were still at some distance, they saw that all the 16 accused (including the four appellants herein) were present there. Out of them the 4 appellants and Shah Muhammad, co-accused, were armed with Balhams while the rest were armed with sticks. They attacked Ghulam Rasul who ran towards his Dera to save himself. But he was chased and overtaken. He was then given injuries by the accused including the 4 appellants with their respective weapons. Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Hussain, P. Ws. Tried to intervene and rescue Ghulam Rasul but they too were attacked and given severe beating by those of the accused who were armed with sticks. The appellants, in the meanwhile, held Mst. Rasulan and Mst. Rabia Bibi.
After the attack, the assailants left the place.
5. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be a dispute over the possession of agricultural land including Khasra No, 15/3 which arose out of Consolidation proceedings relating to their lands. As a result of these proceedings the land of the complainant party bad gone over to the appellant party and the latter were very keen to take possession of the said land. According to the prosecution the complainant party had obtained a stay order with respect to their possession of the said land.
6. The injured persons were taken to the hospital at Kharian. But Ghulam Rasul succumbed to his injuries and died. Mst. Rasulan lodged the F. I. R. At P. S. Phalia which was recorded by Niaz Ahmad, Head Constable. After recording the F. I. R. The Head Constable went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the injuried persons namely Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Hussain, P. Ws. The dead body was sent to the mortuary. The Investigation was then taken over by another Police Officer who took into possession five cut sheesham trees from the field. He also arrested the accused and recovered Balhams from the four appellants and Shah Muhammad, co-accused. He also recovered sticks from some of the other accused.
7. Dr. Ghulam Ahmad who conducted autopsy, found as many as 18 injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which 4 were punctured wounds while the remaining were contusions and abrasions of considerable dimension.
8. On the medical examination, Ghulam Qadir, P. W. 4 was found to have as many as 17 injuries on his person many of which were obviously caused by sticks. Muhammad Hussain, P. W. Was found to have 8 injuries on his person which too were obviously caused by stick blows.
9. At the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of four eyewitnesses namely Mst. Rasulan, P.
W. 2, the sister of deceased, Mst. Rabia Bibi, P. W. 3, another sister of the deceased, Ghulam Qadir, P.
W. 4 brother of the deceased and Muhammad Hussain, P. W. 5 the maternal uncle of the deceased; the evidence of motive; the evidence of recoveries of spears and sticks from the accused and the medical evidence.
10. The accused admitted the motive part of the prosecution story but stated that the land was in their possession and it is the complainant party which wanted to take the possession of this land.
They, however, did not admit their presence at the spot at the time of incident.
11. The learned trial Court had disbelieved the eye-witnesses on the ground that the testimony was discrepant and contained contradictions. But on going through the statements we are inclined to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements of the eye-witnesses are minor and unimportant and are not such as to detract from their veracity. Moreover, two of them namely Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Hussain bear the hallmark of their presence at the spot in the shape of numerous injuries on their persons.
12. As far as the motive is concerned we find that there is sufficient material on the record to show that although symbolic possession might have been given by the patwari to the accused party but it had, in fact, remained with the complainant party. Therefore, it is the accused party which had the motive to take forcible possession of the land. We are inclined to believe the eye-witnesses. The recovery of balhams from each of the appellants also corroborates their testimony which is further supported by the presence of injuries caused with balhams on the body of the deceased.
' In view of the above discussion we find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the four appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the High. Court was justified in convicting them. As such this appeal is dismissed.