Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.--For the murder of Mst. Iqbal Bibi, Muqqayad alias Yamaha and Qayyum alias Quma and for causing hurt to Muhammad Amjad, Muhammad Suleman and Latif in Mauza Zahoora situated within the area of Police Station Kotli Said Amir District Sialkot at about 10.10 a.m. on 15.06.2004 the appellants namely Majeed alias Pappu, Muhammad Asif and Ghulam Abbas were tried in case FIR No, 102 registered at the said Police Station at about 10.35 a.m. on the same day in respect of offences under Sections 302/324/148/149, PPC. After a full-dressed trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot convicted the appellants on two counts of an offence under Section 302(c), PPC read with Section 34, PPC vide judgment dated 21.07.2006 and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for twenty-five years each on each count. The appellants were also convicted for an offence under Section 311, PPC read with Section 34;. PPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each. They were further convicted for an offence under Section 337-F(i), PPC read with Section 34, PPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each on six counts. The appellants were also directed to pay Daman of Rs, 20,000/- in equal shares of 1/3rd each for each injury which amount was to be paid to the injured victim namely Amjad. The learned trial Court had also convicted the appellants for an offence under Section 337-F(i), PPC read with Section 34, PPC for the injury caused by them to one Suleman and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year each on two counts and they were also ordered to pay Daman of Rs, 20,000/- to the said injured victim in equal shares of 1/3rd each. The appellants were additionally convicted for an offence under Section 337F(i) read' Lead with Section 34, PPC for causing an injury to one Muhammad Latif and they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay Rs, 20,000/- by way of Daman to the said injured victim in equal shares of 1/3rd each. The sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to them. The learned trial Court had also ordered the appellants to pay a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- to the heirs of each deceased in equal amount and in case of default of payment thereof the appellants were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on two counts each. The appellants challenged their convictions and sentences before the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Criminal Appeal No, 1533 of 2006 which was 'heard and dismissed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of the said Court vide judgment dated 02.07.2010. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 23.05.2012.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Prosecutor- General, Punjab appearing for the State and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. After having remained unable to convince us on the merits of the appellants case the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the peculiar circumstances of the case a sentence of rigorous, imprisonment for twenty-five years, passed against each of the appellants in respect of two counts of an offence under Section 302(c), P-PC is excessive and this Court may consider reducing the said sentences of imprisonment in the interests of justice. As against that the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State has submitted that as long the convictions of the appellants are not disturbed he has nothing much to say in the matter of sentence as the same lies within the discretion of the Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that according to the prosecution the appellants and their co-accused had aggressed against the complainant party whereas the appellants had consistently maintained before the learned trial Court that it was the complainant party which had aggressed against the accused party and, that the appellants had acted in exercise of their right of private defence. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial. Court shows that at least at four different places in the said judgment the learned trial Court had categorically observed that the version of the incident advanced by the complainant party was not acceptable and that the version of the incident put forth by the appellants was nearer the truth and the same fitted into the circumstances of the case. With this conclusion the learned trial Court had proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants on the basis that they had a right of private defence available to them which right they had exceeded.
The then Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Lahore had concurred with that conclusion of the learned trial Court. While assessing and evaluating the evidence available on the record we have found that the parties to this case resided close to each other, there was no serious background of enmity between the parties, the incident in issue had developed at the spot in different phases and ultimately the situation at the spot had degenerated into firing from both sides. The version of the incident advanced by the appellants has already been accepted by the learned Courts below vis-a-vis aggression by the complainant party which, according to the learned Courts below, had a motive to go after the accused party and take revenge for a previous incident and registration of a criminal case in that regard. In these circumstances we have found that the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants in respect of two counts of an offence under Section 302(c), PPC are excessive, if not oppressive, and, therefore a suitable reduction in the appellants' sentences on those counts of the charge is called for in the interests of justice.
4. For what has been discussed above this appeal is dismissed to the extent of the convictions of the appellants recorded and upheld by the learned Courts below but the same is partly allowed to the extent of the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants in respect of two counts of an offence under Section 302 (c), PPC which sentences are reduced from rigorous imprisonment for twenty-five, years each to rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years each. All the remaining sentences passed by the learned Courts below against the appellants are upheld and maintained. The benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. already stands extended to the appellants and it has already been ordered that all their sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently to each other. With the above reduction in the appellants' sentences this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.