1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This appeal through special leave calls in question judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7-11-1974, where--by a criminal appeal arising out of a murder case was dismissed.
2. Thirteen accused, namely, Waris, Wali Muhammad, Mehr Muhammad, Umar Khan, Noor Muhammad, Khan Muhammad, Muhammad Rafique, Nazar, Amir Khan, Khan Gul, Mahya, Abdul Haq and Noor Hussain (out of whom the first ten are the appellants herein) were tried together for rioting, murder of Sardar Ghulam Muhammad and for causing injuries to Muhammad Afzal, Khizer Hayat, Ghulam Muhammad and Sher Muhammad P. Ws. Muhammad Hussain, the fourteenth accused, it is mentioned in the record of this' case, was Qrdered by the High Court in a different proceeding, to be tried separately. The result of that trial is not known to any of the learned counsel.
3. Muhammad Afzal and Khizer Hayat P. Ws. Are brothers inter se and are the landlords; while the majority from amongst the accused party are their tenants. The deceased was the Manager of the complainant party, while Sher Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad P. Ws. Are their party-men.
4. There was estrangement between the parties on account of dispute relating to the payment of landlords' share by the accused party. The District Magistrate had taken proceedings under section 144, Cr. P. C. With the object that the accused party would not lift away the produce without separating the landlords' share. The prosecution case was that the basic dispute between the parties continued, while the accused pleaded that despite their efforts to give the Batai to landlords, they would not accept it; the further suggestion being that the landlords were interested in ousting the tenants, particularly Wali Muhammad appellant.
5. Apart from the dispute of Batai, the landlords had instituted proceedings for demarcating that part of their, land which was not under tenancy and cultivation, so that they could effectively prevent the accused party from grazing their cattle over that land without their permission. Although the demarcation had been affected a short time before the present occurrence, the complainant party was still pursuing these proceedings in order to further affectuate their purpose of preventing illegal grazing on their land. According, to the prosecution, the landlords wanted to have another demarcation for the same purpose when the occurrence took place on 15-8-1971 at 10-00 a.m.
6. The landlords alongwith their companions were proceeding towards Pindi Gheb in connection with the demarcation proceedings when the accused party waylaid them and commenced the attack with various weapons. Wali Muhammad bad a revolver; Amir Khan a rifle and Khan Gul was armed with a gun. Mahya had a hatchet, while all the other accused carried sofas. From amongst the complainant party, Ghulam Muhammad deceased was carrying a licensed rifle and a bag containing cartridges; but the P. Ws. Were empty-handed. Muhammad Hussain, accused, assaulted the. Deceased and snatched the weapon from him. Simultaneously Amir Khan, appellant, fired his rifle at the deceased which hit him in the hip. Khan Gul fired his gun hitting the deceased on his right side. The deceased fell down, Wali Muhammad, appellant fired his revolver, but the bullet, instead of hitting anyone from the complainant party, accidentally hit Amir Khan, appellant. Abt3ul Haq, acquitted-accused, then gave two soti blows on the abdomen of the deceased. The accused, who were armed with sobs and a hatchet caused injuries to the P. Ws.
7. Except Sher Muhammad who, it is stated, was not then present, but was injured subsequently.
8. Muhammad Afzal, Kbizar Hay4t and Ghulam Muhammad P. Ws. Bed away to their desa and shut themselves into a kotha.. The accused party having chased them up to the dera, found Sher Muhammad P.W in the courtyard. He was asked to prevail upon the injured P. Ws. To open the door from inside. On his inability to do so, he was also belaboured and then was physically lifted away and was released two days after the occurrence.
9. After the accused had dispersed, Muhammad Afzal P. W. Proceeded to the Police Station-at a distance of nine miles-and lodged the F. I. R. At 4-50 p.m. Prior thereto, however; Amir, appellant, had also lodged an F. I. R. At 3-00 p.m. At the same Police Station, containing the version of the accused with regard to the same occurrence. The same version was pleaded in defence at the trial. Before reproducing the same from the statement of Amir Khan, appellant, it is necessary to note that the landlords were not ordinarily residing in their dera in village Naka Ghulam Shah, where the land in question is situate. They lived 25 miles away in their village, named, Taman.
10. The statement of Amir Khan at the trial which, also contained the counter version at the trial of the cross-case registered at his instance, reads as follows :- "My nephew Wali Muhammad, co-accused, is a tenant of Sardars of Taman who desired to forcibly dispossess him. On the day of occurrence, myself, Wali Muhammad and Mehr Muhammad, co--- accused, and some 40/,'0 persons of my village were engaged in levelling and reporting the land in possession of Wali Muhammad when S. Ghulam Muhammad, deceased, armed with a rifle, Khizar Hayat P. W., armed with . Rifle, Muhammad Afzal P. W., armed with a revolver, Ghulam Muhammad P. W., armed with a gun and Sher Muhammad, empty-handed, appeared from a mound and threatened ,us to vacate the land, immediately. I went forward to plead to them that the land would be vacated under a process of Court and we should not be disturbed that day because we had incurred heavy expenditure but to no use. Ghulam Muhammad, (eased, then opened fire but fortunately none was hit. Muhammad Afzal P. W. Fired at me with revolver as a result of which I was hit and fell down. P. Ws. Khizar Hayat and Ghulam Muhammad had also fired their respective weapons. My companions in order to defend themselves surrounded the P. Ws. And the deceased and hurled stones at them in order to defend themselves and me. Thus the deceased and the. P: Ws. Sustained injuries. None of my co---accused besides Wali Muhammad and Mehr Muhammad was present there. I have in fact enmity with Waris and Mahya Khan co-accused. "
11. During the investigation two crime 1 empties were picked up from the spot, but as admitted by the Investigating Officer, they were not shown as case property/crime empties in the present case.
12. Instead that recovery alongwith other related material, including that of Expert's opinion as well as included in the prosecution evidence in the cross-case against the complainant-party in this case.
13. Unfortunately, the Expert's evidence and other material in their behalf, except for the recovery of two crime empties from the spot, were not brought on the record of this case.
14. All the accused in this case were arrested on 19-8-1971. A shot-gun was recovered from Khan Gul, but no attempt was made by the prosecu--petition to connect it with the occurrence. Apart from that, Amir Khan, appellant had, while lodging his F. I. R., which has been proved on the record of this case, produced before the Police two '303 rifles, one '12 bore gun and a revolver together with some empty and live cartridges which, according to him, were left by the complainant-party at the spot after their attack was repelled by the accused and they had fled away.
15. Dr. Shafique Ahmed performed the autopsy on the dead body of Ghulam Muhammad and found the following injuries:-
(1) A lacerated wound 1 -- ' x -- ' scalp deep on the left mastaid extending upwards to the upper lateral part of the left ear forming a gap in an area of 5/8' x 5/8' in the pinna.
(2) A contused wound -- ' x 1/6' bone deep on the right tomple 2' above the right ear.
(3) A contused wound 1/6' x 1/12' scalp deep on the right middle of skull 1' above Injury No. 2.
(4) A circular wound 3/8' x 3/8" x 5' on the upper lateral right thigh 6 -- ' below the upper and of iliac crest.
16. On internal examination, apart from the fracture of the skull, the doctor found that the first, second, third, fourth and fifth ribs of the right side were fractured, but there was no external injury above these fractures. Both the lungs as also the right pleura were crushed and congested. The doctor was questioned at length during the investigation about the nature of Injuries Nos. 1 and 4 as also the cause of the fracture of the ribs. At the trial, after re-analysis of the particulars of the injuries his opinion was that Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 might or might not have been caused by a fire-arm. They could also be the result of a pointed blunt weapon which could also be a stone. The fracture of the ribs, according to the doctor, could be caused with a blunt weapon, which might not have made an external impression. This doctor also examined Muhammad Afzal, Khizar Hayat and Ghulam Muhammad P. Ws. And found six, sight and five injuries, respectively, on their persons. All were caused with blunt weapons. The particulars of these injuries show that many of them might have been caused with blunt weapon like a sot!. The others could have been caused by stones.
17. Dr. Shams-ud-Din, when appearing from the prosecution side as P. W. 18, deposed about the injuries on Sher Muhammad only, though he had also examined Amir Khan, accused, for the bullet injury on his chest, for which his evidence was led in defence. About Sher Muhammad, the doctor stated that he was examined on 17th August, 1971. Five injuries are noted in his medico-legal examination, three of which are insignificant visible marks of injuries on the face, two on the nose and on the left eye-brew. They could be the result of fist blows. Sher Muhammad also had complained of pain in his left thigh and right arm. The duration of injuries, according to the doctor, coincided with the time of occurrence. The witness was not cross-examined with regard to the injuries on Sher Muhammad, presumably because, according to the defence, he was amongst the complainant-party as an assailant in the cross case and would have suffered these injuries on .
18. Account of stones throwing in self defence by the accused. With regard to the bullet injury on Amir Khan, accused, this doctor, after examining the injured on 15-8-1971, gave the following description of the wound :- "A fire-arm wound of inlet 2/8' x 2/8" at the left side of chest, 3' below left nipple and 3' from medial line, margins were inverted contused and not blackened. There were corresponding cuts on the worn blood- stained shirt and jacket.".
19. This injury, the duration of which coincided with the time of occurrence, was kept under observation and ultimately found as simple.
20. At the trial, the four injured eye-witnesses gave the ocular account. The complainant Muhammad.
21. Afzal, Khizar Hayat P. W. And several other persons deposed about the details of the estrangement between the parties which constituted the motive. The eye-witnesses fully supported the prosecution case. Except Wali Muhammad, Amir Khan and Mehr Muhammad, appellants, all the other accused denied their presence at the spot. The defence plea at the trial has already been noted in the state--ment of Amir Khan, appellant Two witnesses were examined in defence: one, as already noted, was Dr. Shames-ud-Din, and the other was Ch. Ghulam Akbar, P. S., who had supervised the investigation and had also partly investigated the case. He deposed that according to his recollec--petition, the place of occurrence was situated in a sandy land, which had been partly ploughed. He also deposed that according to his personal knowledge, which he gathered during the investigation, the place of occurrence was in the land which was under cultivation of accused, Wali Muhammad. He asserted under cross-examination that he had visited the spot on the day of occurrence in the afternoon. He admitted that although the case was .Registered under section 302, P. P. C., he had opined that the accused should be challaned under section 304, P. P. C.
22. It is stated at the Bar that the Police had submitted the challari inter alia, for an offence under section 304, P. P. C. The learned Committing Magistrate also, while sending the case for trial, charged the accused with the offences including one under section 304, P. P. ,C. At the trial, however, at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, the charge under section 304, P. P. C. Was converted into that under section 302, P. P. C.
23. The learned trial Judge, relying on the ocular testimony, as it stood supported, by the medical evidence and the evidence of motive, convicted the ten appellants and gave benefit of doubt for Mahya, Abdul Haque and Noor Hussain, accused. For the murder of Ghulam Muhammad, Amir Khan and Khan Gul were held vicariously liable under section 302 read, with 34, P. P. C. And were awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. Warts, Nur Muhammad, Mehr Muhammad, Muhammad Rafique, Nazar, Umar Khan, and Khan-Muhammad, appellants, were convicted under sections 323, 342, 147 and 149, P. P. C. And sentenced to one. Year's R. I. Each on each count. Wali Muhammad, appellant, was convicted under sections 323, 342 and 148 -read with 149, P.-f. C. And awarded on each Court one, year's R. I. And two years' R. I. Under section 148, P P. C. All the se9tences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial of the cross-case against the complainant party ended in acquittal because the learned trial Judge extended the benefit o doubt to the accused therein, who are the four injured eye-witnesses in the present case.
24. On appeal, a learned Single Judge in the High Court was of the view that the appellants had failed to substantiate their plea of self-defence. The ocular evidence furnished by the injured P. Ws. Was relied upon and the motive, as alleged by the P. Ws., was accepted as the cause which led to the attack by the appellants on the complainant party. Thus their appeal was rejected in its entirety.
25. The High Court, it appears, did not devote proper attention to the bullet injury suffered by Amir Khan, appellant, during the occurrence, the circumstance which was the main element in the defence version; nor to the question raised by the Police itself, after the investigation, that the case fell under sections 304 and not 302, P. P. C. .
26. Leave to appeal was granted on 18-11-1975 to consider the following points :-
(i) That the prosecution version that Amir Khan was accidentally hit by the bullet fired by his partisan Wali Muhammad is extravegently fanciful, particularly when the situs of injury was on the left of the chest. This was consistent with the hypothesis that he received the bullet injury as he was going forward to plead with the landlord not to create trouble.
(ii) Ch. Ghulam Akbar, S. P. Who supervised the investigation and inspected the spot on the 18th March had unequivocally stated as D. W. That the incident had taken place in the land in possession of the tenants and which had been freshly ploughed, and that be directed that the petitioners (appellants) be challaned under section 304, P. P. C. This clearly negatived the prosecution that the deceased and his companions were embushed near Chara Pani when they were proceeding to Pindingheb.
(iii) That it was prosecution's own case, that the tenants had refused to pay the batai for Rabi, 1971, which was a clear motive for the landlords to amount the attack on the intransigent tenants.
(iv) Amir Khan petitioner No. 9 at the time of making his report in the counter case, produced two rifles, one .12 bore gun and revolver which he and his companions had allegedly wrested from the accused in the cross-case. This indicated that they had come heavily armed, but that the Courts had not adverted to this aspect of the matter at all. This has led to miscarriage of justice.
(v) It was submitted by the Investigating Officer in his cross-examina--petition that he did not secure the release of Sher Muhammad P. W. Who was allegedly abducted from the dhok by the petitioners (appellants) and the acquitted accused. When granting leave, it was observed: "We are satisfied that there are certain features in the case, which have been either overlooked, or not adequately dealt with by the High Court and the trial Court and which require examination."
27. Learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated all the points noted in the leave granting order and has argued that the defence pleas merited acceptance. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, stressed that all the eye-witnesses being injured were unlikely to substitute their assailants; the motive was with the accused party; the site pointed out by the prosecution was where the occurrence took place-the Superintendent of Police's personal knowledge in rebuttal was irrelevant; the production of the fire-arms by Amir, accused, showed that they belonged to them; and that the eye-witnesses of the cross-case were not examined in defence in this case so as to establish plea of self-defence.
28. The learned Courts below, it appears, remained oblivious of some basic features of the case and some item of evidence have been ignored o misread. It is true that no eye-witness of defence version was examined in defence, but the star witnesses in that category are accused in this case.
29. They could not be examined in their own defence. However, their statements under section 342, Cr.
30. P. C. Are not lacking in the relevant context. They can and should be taken into consideration for examining the worth of the defence plea. And if from the material on record it can be established that the defence version is reasonably possible then the accused can be given due benefit on the basis of the rule laid down in Safdar A.I's case PLD1953FC93 All the prosecution eye-witnesses are not only interested but inimical to the accused. They were accused in the cross-case under section 307, P. P. C. If the defences version in this case is true and if any of the eye-witnesses conceded it directly or indirectly, he would suffer the adverse consequence in the cross-case in which. The charge was serious that Amir Khan, P. W., therein (accused in this case), had suffered a bullet injury in his chest at the hands of his adversaries. But this consideration vie-a-vie the situation in which the P. Ws. Are, would apply with little variation to the accused party also. None of the parties was likely to own its own fault and at the same time seek adversaries' convic--petition. Both have thus not come out with the true story. It is out of such mixed versions containing falsehood that the Courts below should not have felt hesitant to discover the reality to the nearest possible certainty.
31. The eye-witnesses have told lies on some of the main points. They are: the cause of the occurrence, the place of occurrence; the bullet injury one Amir Khan, appellant, and the role of Sher Muhammad P. W. The defence has also introduced falsehood by disowning soti blows to the eye- witnesses; the fire-arm injuries to the deceased and the denial of participation in the fight of the accused.
32. As already pointed out, it is unlikely that the injured eye-witnesses would not have named their real assailants. The injuries on their persons do show that their number would be more than three. Thus all the assail--ants being amongst the appellants they have not accepted the truth. The nature of injuries on the deceased is such they would have been caused by fire arm. In particular, the depth of one negatives the defence assertion of use of stone as a missile. The eye-witnesses would not have made a mistake. The doctor gave a self destructive opinion in this behalf. Thus the accused told lies on the point. Fire-arm was used from their side also. Similarly the length of some of the injuries on the eye-witnesses is clearly indicative of soti blows. The accused falsely denied it.
33. The eye-witnesses did not tell the whole truth about the motive at the trial. The defence version was that the landlords wanted to oust the tenants, particularly Wali Mohammed appellant. Why deny it ? Thin flowed from their own complaints about Bata! And illegal grazing. If they could, they would have got rid of such tenants who were troublesome for them. That is why they sought demarcation of their pasture land to operate it as a squeeze or the tenants. Muhammad Afzal P. W.
34. Admitted his earlier statement/complaint that some tenants including Wali Muhammad,. Amir Khan and Khan Gull were not giving the Batal. Thus the real dispute was the continuance of Wali Muhammad and others as tenants. The landlord wanted to oust them. They had used the legal proceedings under section 144, Cr. P. C. And revenue demarcation, but without any success: Thus they were likely to use threat of force and/or force to achieve their object. Ghulam Mohammed P.
35. W. Servant of the landlords, had in some weaker moment in an earlier statement. With which he was duly confronted, admitted that the real dispute was o the possession of land. Thus the tenants, it appears, had succeeded on the ground notwithstanding landlords' success on paper. The latter and not the former would have the real grievance. There was no likelihood of thetenants going any further from the existing position of advantage by ambushin the landlords for killing them, knowing fully well their strength and connection with an ex-Central Minister and a Provincial Government of repute. Nor I seems likely that the landlords party who, according to the defence, consisted of five men, even if armed, would have launched an open attack on a solid body of tenants who, as pleaded, numbered over forty. The truth, it appears, is in another very strong probability-a chance encounter which led to sudden quarrel and a sudden fight in which the P. Ws. Being badly out-- numbered by the accused party, also suffered badly.
36. The witnesses deliberately tried to conceal the truth about the place of occurrence. They might be going to Pindigheb. It is a fair possibility. But to say that they were nowhere near the place where Wali Mohammed and his helpers, it is claimed by the defence, were working on the land under his tenancy, is false. The Patwari P. W. Who to some extent only tried to remain independent, stated that the place of occurrence is in Khasra No. 800, the cultivated part whereof was under tenancy of Wali Mohammed. This Patwari had prepared the site plan in the cross-case chow and shown there in the place where the deceased 'walked' and 'sat' and the blood was collected therefrom. The eye- witnesses, on the other hand, insisted that the occurrence took place in a Banjar known as Chara Pani in a Kea, where the accused were lying in ambush, but the Patwari contradicted them. And Mohammed Afzal P. W. Indeed was unable to answer question about the place called Chara cannot even its distance from the spot-he had not seen it either. It is an admitted position that no empty was picked from the place of occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution. Instead the Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination that he wrote notes in the original plan (Exh.
37. DD) in the cross-ease. They support the defence version about the place of occurrence. They copy (Exh. D E) of the memo. Of blood-stained earth recovery in the cross-case also served this purpose.
38. Not only this, he also admitted that two crime empties were picked up from the spot as shown by the defence. The Superintendent of Police who had partly investigated the case also found circumstantial evidence at the spot-the land of Wali Muhammad had been ploughed. Even Ghulam Muhammad P. W. Admitted that Wali Mohammad's plaughed land was near what he called the "spot." It was, therefore, not at all unsafe to hold that the place of occurrence is at or near the ploughed land under the tenancy of Wali Mohammed and not in a Banjar land, near Chara Panl, as asserted by the eye-witnesses. The blood need not have been found in fresh furrows. The incident, according to Mohammad Afzal P. W. Lasted for half an hour. The injured must have moved around and blood must have fallen more at places of retreat than where the injury was caused. It will not make much difference any way. Having found so, it would not necessarily mean that the eye--witnesses came to the spot where Wali Mohammad and his helpers were working, with a design to, attack them. It is improbable. Their purposes, as stated in a part of defence statement would be to ask Wali Mohammad to give up the land-as there was no more cordial relationship of landlords and tenants. In this situation and in the background already discussed, the parties would not stand silent. They must have altercated-the seeds of which are also contained in the admission of Amir Khan, accused, who stated that he went forward " to plead with the landlord' party. It must have involved altercation, each party has concealed it so as to deprive the other of the extenuating benefit, it could give against a charge of naked aggression.
39. The bullet injury to Amir Khan, appellant, is on front of his chest. The prosecution case itself is that the accused had 'surrounded' the eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence. Even if it might not be within the range. Of blackening and tattooing. Wall Mohammad was not likely to make a mistake of hitting his own companion, that too in the chest. There is no circumstantial support for this version.
40. In the situation as explained by Ghulam Mohammad, eye-witness, the prosecution version in this behalf looks absurd. According to him, Amir Khan was injured when he was 8/9 paces away from the deceased, who was facing South. Amir Khan was . Also facing South and Wali Mohammad facing the deceased at a distance of 5/6 karams. The deceased had already been injured by the fire shots when Wali Mohammad discharged his weapon as if it was on a sitting duck-Still it hit his own companion in the chest than standing at 14, 15 karams (if on opposite side) and 4/5 karams (if on the same side, but), with back exposed towards him. The prosecution version on the point is too bizarre to be accepted. Amir Khan it appears, was hit by an adversary fire shot in the fight which must have started suddenly after the altercation.
41. The story of Sher Muhammad P. W. Is another pack of improbabilities. If the appellants had, armed as they were, chased the P. Ws: up to their Dhok, there was no reason for them to ask Sher Mohammad to request his masters to open the door from inside. It was an easy task for them to take every body out and kill him. This opportunity they had also at the first place of occurrence where the complainant party having been surrounded as at the mercy of the accused party. The lifting away of Sher Muhammad and his release two days later without any intervention by any body, it seems, together with the Dhok incident. Was an embroidery added to aggravate the conduct of the accused.
42. The weapons (rifles, gun and revolvers) produced by Amir Khan accused, at the Police Station more than an hour before the lodging of F. I. R. By the complainant party, has presented sufficiently puzzling phenomenon. If they were with the complainant party, why did not they use them to defend their companions. If they were with the accused party, why did not they use the same when it was a case of ambush and how is it that without the help of the Police they confidently coined the story involving the fire-arms. They would have rather concealed at least some of them if they belonged to them. On the other hand, if according to the P. W. The accused were so large in number that they not only surrounded them, but also disarmed Ghulam Mohammad of his rifle immediately on first contact then they could disarm the other P. Ws. Also if they were carrying weapons. This is certain that the chest injury on Amir Khan was by an adversary's fire arm. It could not be Ghulam Mohammad's rifle, because it was snatched in the first flush moreover the injury is small -- ' x' x --which might have been caused by a shot smaller than that of a '303 rifle which was with the deceased. After careful consideration of this element as also another similar element of puzzling character-namely fractured ribs of-deceased without external injury showing any soti blow, it can be safely concluded that both the parties might have concealed the truth about these elements and because they do not make any difference in a case of sudden fight, therefore, no more research is called for in these lines.
43. As a result of the above discussion, keeping in view the irrefutable realities established by support of independent circumstance, it can be safe held that it was a case of sudden fight on a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, in which neither party took undue advantage of the other. The element of premeditation is also missing. Although the parties, it seems, had some sort of weapons. The accused having also some sorts (when working in large numbers) do not seem to have come prepared with the knowledge that they would be estopped from ploughing by the landlords. It was a chance encounter. When the landlords party passed the way by chance, they asked the tenants not to plough the land any further. It led to the subsequent events. The maximum culpable responsibility, would be, by virtue oft application of Exception IV to section 300, P. P. C. And the offence would be under section 304, Part I, P. P. C. Therefore, Amir Khan and Khan Gulf appellants are acquitted of the charge of murder and instead such of them is convicted under section 304, Part 1, P. P. C. And sentenced to seven years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default whereof to suffer R. I. For three and a half years. The fine when recovered would the paid as compensation to the heirs of Ghulam Mohammad, deceased.
44. The remaining accused in view of the findings on the origin of the occurrence, are given benefit of doubt regarding charges under section 147/148, P. P. C. The story of Sher Mohammad P. W. Has been found to be an emb--roidery and not established beyond reasonable doubt. The offence under sec--petition 342, P. P. C. Is thus not proved. Therefore, all the appellants are acquitted of these. Offences. Regarding those who have been convicted for offence under section 323, P. P. C.
45. Suffice it to observe that in view of the finding one suddenness of the occurrence and also the contributory conduct therein of the complainant side, it Would meet the ends of justice if they are awarded sentence of fine only. They shall pay Rs. 500 each as fine, and in default thereof to suffer two months' R.
1. Each. The appeal thus is partly accepted.