This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby, he on 7th October, 1969 convicted Ghulam Qadir and five others appellants under section 304, Part II/149, P. P. C. For causing the death of Ahmad Yar deceased on 4 July, 1968 at 4 or 5 p. m.
In the area of Chak No. 17/M. R. Of Police Station, Makhdoom Rashid.
2. The prosecution case is that Ghulam Qadir appellant suspected that Fazal Haque P. W. 15 bad illicit relations with his sister Mst. Fatima. For that the six appellants conspired to abduct a lady of the family of Fazal Haque. It is alleged that at fateful time Mst. Fatima P. W. 14, wife of Ahmad Yar, deceased was cutting grass in the field, the appellants with a hatchet and sticks attempted to abduct her. She raised alarm which attracted Ahmad Yar, deceased, Karim Bakhsh P. W. 12 Mohammad Yar P. W. 13 (brother of the deceased) and Fazal Haque P. W. 15 to the spot. Some of them also came armed with sticks. A fight ensued between the parties. On the side of the complainant, one lost his life and three received injuries. On the other side, four persons received injuries. The appellants, however, succeeded in forcibly taking away Mst. Fatima. They took her to a Bhaini of Ghulam Muhammad and confined her in a room. Mst. Fatima, however, escaped through a window and returned to the place of occurrence.
3. Investigation.-I, Abdul Majid Khan P. W. 17, reached the spot and recovered blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh. P. K. He arrest--ed the accused persons on 9th July, 1968. Ghulam Qadir appellant produced hatchet P. I which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P B. The other five appellants produced sotas P. 2 to P. 6 which were taken into possession vide memo Exh. P. C. To Exh.
P. G. The weapons of offence were however, not stained with blood. He recorded the statement of Ahmad Yar deceased on 6th July, 1968 Exh. PDD.th
4. Medical.---Dr. Abdul Wahid Khan P. W. 19 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ahmad Yar on 9th July 1968 at 6 p. m. And found as many as 5 injuries on his person, all caused with blunt weapon. In his opinion, the death was due to injury No. 1 leading to the brain, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. Dr. Zafar-ul-Haque P. W. 12, examined Ghulam Farid appellant and found four blunt weapon injuries on his person, simple in nature. On the same day, be examined Allah Ditta appellant and found five injuries on his person, all caused with blunt weapon and simple in nature. He also examined on the same day Illahi Bakhsh appellant and found seven injuries on his person caused with blunt weapon, simple in nature. On the same day he also examined Bashir Ahmad appellant and found one injury on his person simple in nature caused with blunt weapon.
6. Dr. Khawar Abbas P. W. 16, examined Fazal Haque P. W, 15 on 5th July, 1968 and found seven injuries on his person, all simple in nature. Out of these injuries two were caused with sharp-edged weapon while the others with blunt weapon. The Doctor also examined on the same day Ahmad Yar son of Hassan Bakhsh and found six injuries on the person all simple in nature. Of these, one injury was caused with sharp--edged weapon. The same doctor also examined Muhammad Yar P.
W. On the same day and found nine injuries on his person, all caused with blunt weapon, and simple in nature. The doctor also examined Mst. Fatima P. W. 14 and found 10 injuries on her person caused with blunt weapon, simple in nature.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. Ghulam Qadir and Khan Muhammad appellants, who are not injured, stated that they were not present on the spot and were involved on account of enmity. The remaining four appellants stated that 4 or 5 cattle of the complainant party damaged their crops, when Bashir and Illahi Bakhsh appellants rounded up the cattle with a view to take them to the cattle pond. Ahmad Yar deceased, Muhammad Yar and Fazal Haque attacked them with sticks. Farid and Allah Ditta appellants also came to the rescue of the accused and as such there was a fight between the parties. The appellants pleaded the right of self-defence.
8. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses, out of whom Karim Bakhsh P. W. 12 Muhammad Yar P. W. 13, Mst. Fatima P. W. 14, Fazal Haque P. W. 15 and Qadir Bakhsh P. W. 16 are the eye-witnesses. They have supported the prosecu--tion case on all material counts. They have been cross-examined but nothing useful has come out. Some of the witnesses are injured and as such their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants have acted in the right of their self-defence and there is a possibility of the same being true. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has stated that the prosecution has proved a case of free fight against the appellants.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased and injured witnesses received injuries at the hands of the appellants and none else. I further find that the learned trial Court has appreciated the case in accordance with the rules laid down for the safe administration of criminal justice and has come to a right conclusion. On the question of sentence I find that Muhammad Yar and Karim Bakhsh prosecution witnesses have placed on record affidavits duly sworn by them that they have compromised with the appel--lants. They further stated that the parties are inter related. I further find that in the fight the four appellants also received injuries. The occurrence took place on 4th July, 1968, the appellants remained in jail throughout the trial and were convicted on 7th October, 1969. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the sentence already served out by the appellants is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. I order accord--ingly. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.