KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This judgment will dispose of two Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing Nos. 426 and 461 of 1980,
2. The facts of this case are given in detail in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10-1 I-1977 and of the High Court dated 17-3-1979 and it is not necessary to recapitulate the same over again, as it will be sufficient for our purpose to mention, that the former convicted and sentenced the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 426 of 1980 under various sections of the P. P. C.
And various sentences mentioned in his order, which was maintained by the High Court while dismissing their appeal. The petitioners have filed Criminal Petition No. 426 of 1980 for special leave to appeal against the same in this Court challenging this conviction and sentence.
3. The case against the petitioners was that on 20-7-1975, they attacked Muhammad Siddiq and killed him and also caused injuries to P. W. Muhammad Ali brother of the deceased aforesaid. It was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that it was not a premeditated murder, and that the occurrence took place abruptly when a buffalo trespassed into the field of the complainant party whereupon the accused tried to take back that buffalo which led to abuses on both sides and then a sudden fight in which Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Ali received injuries from the hands of the petitioners. It was further held that in these circumstances the case fell under section 304, Part I, P. P. C. Qua the death of the deceased and under section 323 for causing other injuries to him and to the injured P. W.
4. The prosecution case consists of (a) the motive ; (b) the ocular evidence and (c) the medical evidence.
5. As regards the motive it was held that it cropped up suddenly on the spot. As regards the ocular evidence it was held that the P. Ws. Had not explained the injury on the person of Sardar accused petitioner, and in the circumstances the plea of the accused that he received that injury in that sudden fight seemed to be true that the buffalo of the petitioners had trespassed into the field of the complainant party and it was the incident which became the cause of fight, especially when there was no history of any previous enmity. These findings were endorsed by the High Court.
6. The learned counsel Dr. Khalid Ranjba for the accused petitioner has argued that after having doubted the veracity of the prosecution case which screened their own role and did not explain the injury on Sardar accused, it was not justified to convict the petitioners on tainted evidence of this type without any independent corroboration which according to him does not exist in this case. He further argued that in the circumstances the petitioners were justified in acting in self defence when their buffalo was impounded by the complainant party, and as such committed no offence.
These points have been taken note of and fully discussed by the Courts below who rightly ruled out the plea of self-defence in a case of sudden fight. In the overall analysis, in our view, the case pertains merely to appreciation of evidence and does not involve violation of any principle of law in that respect so as to call for any interference by this Court. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
7. Taking up Criminal Petition No. 461 of 1980, it has been filed by a brother of the deceased to challenge the acquittal of the accused from a char under section 302, P. P. C. It was argued by Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, learned counsel for the petitioner in this case, that the injury on Sardar accused was self-inflicted for which no blame can be put on the prosecution so as to doubt the veracity of its version and to hold that the prosecution witnesses have withheld and tried to hide the part played by them. The plea has beer noticed and rejected by the two Courts below after duly taking into consideration the nature dimension and direction and the seat of the injury. In these circumstances we find nothing to take exception to the finding recorded and the view taken by the High Court on this aspect of the case.
8. The result is that this petition also has no merit and is dismissed.
9. Criminal Petitions Nos. 426 and 461 of 1980 both stand dismissed.