' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Appellants and three others were proceeded against in terms of the case registered vide F.I.R. No,310 of 1995 dated 21-11-1995 under sections 302/324/37-A(ii)/ 337- A(v)/337-F(i)/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Sukheki District Hafizabad. The three co-accused namely Dost Muhammad, Zafar and Asghar Ali remained fugitive to law but the appellants were tried which trial culminated in their conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., 337-A(v), 337-F(i) and 337-A(ii) and they were sentenced in terms as follows:-- "Under section 302, P.P.C. Life imprisonment each Under section 337-A (V), P.P.C., 10 years' R.I. Each Under section 337-A(II), ' P.P.C., 5 years' R.I. Each Under sections 148, 337-F (i), P.P.C., one years' R.I.
Each ' With a fine of Rs,10,000 each to the L.Rs, of deceased or in default six months' S.I. Each.
' All the sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr P.C."
2. The learned High Court maintained the conviction and sentences recorded but came to the conclusion that "Since it was a free fight between the parties, individual roles played by the accused had to be kept into consideration while recording conviction or while awarding sentence to the convicts".
3. The prosecution story briefly stated (in F.I.R. Registered on the statement of Muhammad Sarwar) is that on 17-11-1995 at about 11 a.m., his son Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.7), Umer Hayat (deceased) and Muhammad Azam (P.W.6) were going to their fields for cutting fodder and when reached `dhari' of one Mian Khan, Dost Muhammad armed with sota (PO), Asghar (PO), Nasrullah (appellant), Zafar (PO) and Aslam Khan (appellant) armed with hatchets who were sitting in ambush, attacked them. Dost Muhammad raised lalkara that they would teach a lesson for being witnesses in the murder case of Mian Khan. Asghar gave hatchet blow on the head of Umer Hayat.
Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.7) attempted to shield Umer Hayat and he too was given hatchet blows by Dost Muhammad, Nasrullah Khan, Zafar and Aslam. Muhammad Azam (P.W.6) was also injured by them.
4. During trial besides the complainant who appeared as P.W.8, Muhammad Nawaz P.W.7 and Muhammad Azam P.W.6 furnished the ocular account which was corroborated by the medical evidence (P.W.9 Dr. Khalid Farooq). The accused when examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution story and attributed false implication to criminal litigation.
5. While reappraising the evidence, we find that admittedly both the appellants did not cause any injury to Umer Hayat deceased. There is A nothing in evidence to indicate that appellants were accused in the murder case which forms motive part of the prosecution story. There is a specific finding by the learned High Court that it was a case of free fight between the parties and individual role played by each accused had to be kept in view. It is also in evidence that 4 persons from accused side were injured. These injuries were suppressed in the F.I.R. Keeping the afore-referred circumstances in mind and the fact that those who were attributed injuries on the person of the deceased remained fugitive to law, we are of the view that the sentences awarded are rather excessive and not in accord with the canons of safe administration of justice. Consequently, we partly allow the appeal, set aside the conviction recorded under section 302(b), P.P.C. And while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under sections 337-A (V), 337-A(II) and 337-F(I) and under section 148, the sentences awarded are reduced to what they have already undergone.
However the compensation awarded and sentence in lieu thereof shall remain intact.