1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Eleven persons were tried for the offences of rioting, attempted murder and murdera Ilegedly committed by them near Railway Station, Bhera, at peshiwela on 2nd June 1967. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 28th November 1968,, convicted Hayat (22) son of Khanun ; Lala (27) son of Alaf ; Hayat (26) son of SaeeD; and Bashir (16) son of Lala son of Alaf under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of their co-villager Lala son of Ahla. Out of them, Hayat son of Khanun has been sentenced to death while others have been sentenced to transportation for life. The afore-said four persons and seven others, namely: Nathu (31) son of Lala ; Bashir (26) son of Lala son of Mehr.; Bashir (21) son of SaeeD Saru (34) son of Lala ; SaeeD (57) son of Taja Salehon (25) son of SaeeD ; and Khanun (51) son of Mehr, have been convicted under section 148, P. P. C. And sentenced to to years' R.
1. Each. All the eleven have also been convicted under section 325/149, P. P. C. And sentenced to five years' R. 1.
2. Each in respect of injuries to Bahadur P. W. Similarly all of them have been convicted under section 323/149, P. P. C. And sentenced to one year R. I. Each in respect of injuries to Qadir P. W. The sentences of imprisonment under all the heads have been ordered to run concurrently. All the convicts have appealed and the reference Cr. P. C. For the confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Hayat son of Khanun appellant is also before us. Both the matters are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the statement of informant, Qadir (P. W, 11)~ an injured eye- witness who is also the first is as follows :- Natu, Saru, Lala son of Alaf. Bashir son of Lala son of Mehr, Bashir son of SaeeD and Hayat son of SaeeD appellants alongwith four other persons were being tried for an offence under sec--tion 325, P. P. C. In the Court of Naib-Tehsildar, Bhera. Lala deceased, Bah' (P. W. 13), Bashir (P. W. 14), Qadir P.
3. W. And Yara (now produced), a brother of Qadir P. W. Appeared as prosecution witnesses in the above came on 2nd June 1967. When they came to the railway station for returning to their village, they found all the appellants there. Apprehending danger they went to the dera of Allah Ditta (P.
4. W- 12), with the idea of avoiding an encounter with the appellants, by travelling in another train. At peshiwela when they were again coming for catching the next train and were passing through a cattle-fair ground near the railway station, all the appellants attacked them. Excepting Khanun appellant who was armed with a barchhi, the others were carrying dangs. Hayat son of Khanun gave a blow on the head of the deceased while Lala son of Alaf, Hayat son of SaeeD and Bashir son of Lala son of Alaf caused injuries to him on various other parts of the body. Khanun appellant caused a spear blow on the shoulder of Babadur P. W. The other appellants also caused injuries to this P. W. With their respective weapons. All the appellants caused injuries to Qadir P. W. Forty-four injuries in all were caused to the complainant-party including the deceased.
5. The occurrence was witnessed by the aforesaid Qadir, Bahadur, Bashir and Allah Ditta P. Ws. Allah Ditta had accom--panied the complainant-party from his well. Yara who had gone aside to urinate before the attack started, escaped injuries. He and one Bati also witnessed the occurrence but they were not produced at the trial.
6. The motive for this attack is to-fold. Firstly, that the appellants nursed a grudge against the complainant-party for the prosecution in the case under section 325, P. P. C. And secondly, that Yara aforesaid had developed illicit connection with Mst. Fatima, the daughter of Khanun appellant.
7. Hayat son of Khanun, Bashir, Saru and Natu sons of Lala are closely related to each other in one group; while Salehon, Hayat, Bashir appellants sons of SaeeD appellant are closely related to Bashir appellant son of Lala appellant in another group. The to groups are inter-related by marriage, in that Mst. Fatima aforesaid, the daughter of Khanun appellant, is the wife of Hayat son of SaeeD appellant. Mst. Rosh, a daughter of SaeeD appellant is stated to have been betrothed to Saru son of Lala appellant. A sister of Lala son of Alaf appellant is married to SaeeD appellant. Mst. Mari, a niece of SaeeD appellant, is married to a nephew of Khanun appellant. It may be mentioned that the deceased and Qadir and Bahadur P. Ws. Also, are closely related to each other.
8. The injured were removed to the hospital where Lala died on -5th June 1967. The F. I. R. (Exh. P L) was lodged by Qadir (P. W. 11) at Bhera Police Station at 4 p.m. On the day ofoccurrence. The Police Station is about a mile from the place of occurrence and is near the hospital. Rana Abdul Rahman, S. I. (P. W. 16) went to the hospital for recording the statement of Lala but the latter was unfit to make a statement. Blood-stained earth was taken into possession from the place of occurrence indicated by the eye-witnesses. Excepting Khanun appellant, the other appeared before the Sub- Inspector on 7th June 1967. They were arrested. They all produced lathis (Exhs. P. 3 to P. 12) which were taken into possession by the Sub-Inspector, vide memos. (Exhs. p Q to P/AA). Khanun appellant was arrested by Ata Ullah Khan, S. I. (P. W. 7) on 7th July 1967. On 9th July 1967 this appellant led to the recovery of barchhi (Exh. P J). There is no direct or indirect evidence that the weapons recovered from the appellants were used in the occurrence. They were not blood- stained.
3. At the trial the above account of occurrence was sub--stantially supported by Qadir, Allah Ditta, Bahadur and Bashir eye-witnesses. The medical evidence is contained in the statement of Dr. Rashid Ahmad (P. W. 1) who examined Qadir P. W. On 2nd June 1967 at 5 p.m. And found ten injuries on his person. One of them is on the head and another on the chest. All others are on non-vital parts of the body. All these injuries were simple and were caused by blunt weapon within six hours of the examination. The dimensions are indicative of the fact that they were caused by lathis. Lala when alive was examined on the same day at 5-45 p. m. Ten injuries were found on his person.
9. Excepting one which is on the head, all other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. After his death the post-mortem examination was conducted on 5th June 1967, at 7-15 a.m. By the same doctor who observed the same injuries which were already noted in the earlier examination. Injury No. 10 which proved to be fatal is described as follows :- "A contusion mark 3' x 1" on the left temple and lower part of left parietal region with old dried blood in left ear. There was a depressed fracture of skull (in to pieces) in an area of 3" x 2" on the left parietal bone and upper part of left temporal bone 3-- above the left ear reaching up to middle line on the right side."
10. Injury No. 1 on right upper arm and injury No. 8 on the right leg were found to be grievous because of bone fractures. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the dimensions noted by the doctor indicate that the blunt weapons could be lathis. Death was due to fracture of the skull leading to cerebral haemorrhage and compression on account of injury No. 10, which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the opinion of the doctor, the dead body was of a poorly built person of about 45 years age. The doctor also examined Bahadur P. W.
11. At 6-45 p.m.' on the day of occurrence and found 23 injuries on his person, including the one consisting of to contu--sions. Excepting the first four injuries which are on the head, all others are on either the arms or the legs. The dimensions of injury No. 3 on the head and injury No. 23 on the cheek are so small that they do not appear to have been caused by direct blows. Injury No. 15 which is a punctured wound and is on the left upper arm was caused by a sharp-edged weapon; while all others were caused by blunt weapon. From the dimensions and nature of the injuries, it is apparent that injury No. 15 may have been caused by a weapon like a barchhi and the others with lathis. Injury No. 19 which is on the palm of the left hand was found to be grievous because of fracture of third metacarpal bone. The doctor's statement creates an impression that the assailants tried to avoid inflicting injuries on the vial parts of the bodies of their victims and the overwhelming number of blows was given on the legs and the arms.
12. The plea of the appellants at the trial was that of denial and false implication due to enmity.
13. Khanun and his son Hayat appellants pleaded that 'they were the enemies, of the other appellants because Khanun was cited as a prosecution witness against them in the 325, P. P. C. Case. Khanun also pleaded that he was inimical towards SaeeD appellant because his cousin's son Mutalli was murdered by the said appellant and others. He also stated that Bashir P. W. Was his enemy because a cousin of the grandfather of this witness was murdered in 1933 and Khanun appellant and his brother Lala were challaned for that murder but were acquitted.
14. The learned trial Judge believed all the eye-witnesses and based the conviction on the ocular, account of the occurrence given by them. He, however, found that though all the appellants had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly yet the object of this assembly was neither to murder Lala deceased nor to commit a murderous assault on Bahadur and Qadir P. Ws. According to him the common object of the assembly was "to use violence by giving chestisement." Therefore, excepting the first four appellants all others were absolved of any vicarious liability in respect of death of Lala. Similarly, all the appellants were acquitted of the charge under section 3117/149, P. P.
15. C. In respect of injuries to the to P. Ws. With regard to the death of Lala, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that his assailants had formed a common intention to murder. Him at the spur of the moment; independently of the intention and knowledge of their co-accused. He, therefore, convicted the four appellants who were alleged to have caused injuries to Lala deceased, under section 302/34, P. P. C. He also convicted all the appellants under section 3251149, and section 323/149, P. P. C. For causing injuries to the to P. Ws. He did not consider it necessary to record a conviction under section 324/ 149, P. P. C. Because according to him, it was a "minor offence" as compared to an offence under section 325/149, P. P. C. All have also been found guilty under section 148, P. P. C.
4. Qadir and Bahadur P. Ws. Appeared as witnesses in the previous case in a Court at Bhera and are also injured. Therefore, their presence at the spot cannot be doubted it is in the statement of Ch. Shahbaz Khan, Naib-Tehsildar (P. W. 8) that Bashir P. W. Sra appeared before him as prosecution witness in the previous case on the day of occurrence. Thus his having accompanied the complainant-party at the the of occurrence is neither unusual nor improbable. With regard to Allah Ditta P. W. However, the learned counsel for the appellants very vehemently contended that there is no reason for the presence of this witness at the spot. The witness has stated that he accompanied the complainant-party --from his dera because he also wanted to go to the railway station for making some purchases. In cross-examination it was elicited from him that he wanted to purchase cotton seeds from the shops which are near the railway station. He however, could not make the purchases because of the occurrence. According to the learned counsel, this part of the statement of the witness should not be believed because Qadir P. W. Omitted to state in the F. I. R.
16. And before the committing Magistrate that the witness had accompanied them for making purchases. It is a matter of detail as to why Allah Ditta had gone with the complainant-party towards the railway station. Therefore, the omission pointed out by the learned counsel is not very material. In any case, Allah Ditta P. W. Himself was not confronted with any such omission. So it cannot be said that the aforesaid purpose mentioned in the state--ment of Allah Ditta P. W. Is only an afterthought. The learned counsel also contended- that the fact that the complainant-party went to the dera of Allah Ditta and he served them with meals 'and the further fact that Allah Ditta admitted his friendship with Yara, would make his presence at the spot doubtful. These facts, in our mind, tend to show that the relationship of Allah Ditta with the complainant-party is such that he, after having learnt about the apprehensions of the complainant-party would, in all probability, have accompanied them to the railway station. Considering all these circumstances, we are of the view that Allah Ditta P. W. Was also present at the the of occurrence.
17. There is no doubt about the fact that the complainant-party was attacked near the railway station.
18. It is a day-light occurrence and the attack was fairly sustained. There can be no question of any mistake in identity of the assailants. Subject to the consideration of the question of exaggeration in the number of the accused persons, raised by the learned counsel, there is no reason to imagine that the assailants were any other group or party than that of the appellants. There is no scope for substitution in this case.
5. The learned counsel relying on an admission made by Qadir P. W. In his cross-examination, contended that all the male members of the to families of the accused party have been involved ; therefore, the chance for false implication cannot be excluded in this case. We have read the evidence with sufficient care and caution and while doing so have kept in mind the above contention of the learned counsel. Apart from the general statement contained in the contention of the learned counsel, we have not been able to find any material in favour of any of the appellants so as to make his participation in the occurrence doubtful, according to judicial standards.
6. Admittedly, the relations between the complainant-party and the appellants were strained for a considerable the due to the pendency of the previous criminal case between the parties. The occurrence in that case, according to the F: I.. R. (Exh. P R/1), took place in May 1966. The present occurrence took place after about a year. The parties belong to the same village and there is no indication in the evidence to warrant a supposition that any reconciliation took place. Therefore, the motive for an attack is clearly established. The fact that the complainant-party was aggrieved due to the previous occurrence, therefore the motive to attack was with them, would have been relevant for consideration if the accused party would have suffered any injuries. But that is not the case here. When the relations; are strained between to groups in the same village for a considerable the and criminal litigation is going on between them, it is not unlikely that the same party may repeat the attack on the other. This supposition is strengthened by the fact, elicited in the cross-examination of Qadir P W. That for about three years before the occurrence, the parties had been inimical to each other and that they were also bound down to keep the peace. However, in this case to more circumstances intervened before the occurrence.
19. Khanun appellant was a witness for the prosecution in the earlier case. Qadir P. W. Stated that an application was made by Yara, the complainant in that case, to the effect that Khanun had been won, over by the other accused persons and, therefore, he was given up. This shows that the group of Khanun appellant had started siding with the other appellants before this occur--re2ce.
20. According to the learned trial Judge, the reason for this change was that after the estrangement between the to groups of the accused persons of the murder of the Mutalli. Malli, a brother of said Mutalli, was married to Mst. Mahri, the .Niece of SaeeD appellant and that said mutalli was a nephew of Khanun appellant in third degree. This according to the learned Judge, was sufficient for Khanun appellant to have changed sides. We have, however, noticed another circumstance also which must have impelled Khanun to have sided with the other appellants. Qadir P. W. Stated at the trial that Yara, his brother, had developed illicit relations with Mst. Fatima, the daughter' of Khanun appellant. Incidentally, this circumstance is also mentioned in the F. I. R. With a little difference; in that the said illicit connection developed after the occurrence in the previous 'case. Nothing useful to the defence was brought out, in this behalf in the cross-examination of this witness. His statement is supported, by Allah Ditta P. W. In his cross-examination. It is to the effect that Yara, who is a friend of the witness, had told him of the above mentioned illicit connection about six months before the occur--rence ; and that Yara had told this thing to him out of fun and as a loose talk. It is not possible to give a definite finding that Yara had in fact, developed an illicit' connection with Mst. Fatima. But .The evidence shows, at least, this much that Yara had started giving it out, for reasons best known to him, that he had an illicit connection with Mst. Fatima. Mst. Fatima is the wife of Hayat son of SaeeD appellant. Therefore, both the groups of the appellants must have been further annoyed with the complainant-party, and this the, because of the conduct of Yara, the question related to Hays their family honour. Thus both the groups of the accused party had a strong motive to attack the complainant-party, particularly --Yara, his brothers and close relations. The fact, that Yara was not injured in this occurrence has been sufficiently explained by he prosecution; in that he had parted company before the occurrence and had gone aside for urinating and when the attack started he, out of fear, kept himself concealed behind the reeds. The three other members of the complainant-party, i. e. Qadir and Bahadur P. Ws. And Lala deceased, who was closely related to them, were, of course, given a thorough beating resulting, as stated above, in 44 injuries.
21. Six out of the eleven appellants, whose names have already been mentioned in paragraph No. 2 above, were the accused persons in the previous case. Therefore, there can be no doubt about their presence in the party of the assailants. Out of the remaining five, Khanun and his son Hayat appellants, as explained above, had direct motive. Though Khanun had been given up as won over witness in the previous case, yet his having attended the Court along with the other accused, who are alleged to have won him over to them, is not improbable. And if the accused party had thought, in common concert, to attack the complainant-party, the participation in the attack of Hayat son of Khanun appellant also gets explained. No doubt SaeeD appellant is an old man of 57 years. But the fact that Mst. Fatima aforesaid is his daughter---in-law, in the absence of any other circumstance to show that he did not participate; would indicate that he had an equally strong motive to join in the attack. As explained above, it was a question of the honour of the whole family.
22. Therefore, Salehon son of SaeeD appellant was equally interested. The only remaining appellant. i. e. Bashir son of Lala son of Alaf had also to-fold interest in the attack. Firstly, Lala his father was being prosecuted in the previous case by the complainant --party ; and secondly, Mst. Fatima is the daughter-in-law of his maternal aunt. (The sister of Lala is married to SaeeD appellant). Apart from the above considerations, the fact that the appellants party was able to cause 44 injuries to the complainant-party also supports the prosecution version that the number of the assailants must be fairly large. It is particularly so because the number of the complainant-party, if Yara is excluded, was five.
23. There is yet another circumstance to be noticed. Though Qadir and Bahadur P. Ws. Are interested against the appellants party, and Bashir P. W. By avoiding straight answers in respect of an enmity qua appellants suggested to him in cross-examination, has made his veracity doubtful, yet the fact remains that the fourth witness, i. e., Allah Ditta, has no direct enmity with the appellants party nor was be, in any way, interested against them. His friendship with Yara does not appear to be of a type which would impel him to falsely implicate any of the appellants. The statement made by this witness is, to our mind, an independent piece of evidence against the appellants and if any corroboration is needed for the statements of Qadir and Bahadur P. Ws. His state--ment provides that corroboration also. Therefore, considering all the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that all the eleven appellants did participate in the attack and caused the injuries to the complainant-party,
7. Before considering the question of the offence/offences committed by the appellants, it is necessary to notice some other arguments advanced by the learned counsel. According to him, it was improbable that the appellants would have selected a place near the railway station to attack the complainant-party. In this connection, he also argued that it was not possible for the appellants to have known that the complainant-party had gone to the dera of Allah Ditta P. W. It is not necessary for the. Prosecution to find out and produce the evidence as to how the appellants party kept a watch over the complainant-party. It is not difficult to imagine that soon after the complainant-party returned from the railway station the appellants, who appeared to have already decided to attack, must have tracked their movements. And as the cattle fair ground, is about 100 yards from the railway station and they were to pass through' that ground, therefore it was very appropriate place of vantage for an attack on them by the appellants.
24. It was also contended that the F. I. R. Was lodged after consultations and some investigation by the police in connection with the identity of the assailants. No doubt a suggestion was made to some of the witnesses that one Atta Muhammad, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, was instrumental in getting the case registered against the appellants, hut the same has been categori--cally denied.
25. The admission in this behalf made by Rana Abdul Rahman (P. W. 16) in cross-examination to the; effect that Atta Muhammad S. I. Met him once in connection with this case on 6th June 1967 (four days after the registration of the case), does not show that the case was registered with his help and at his instance. Moreover, the occurrence being of digerwela the F. I. R. Was lodged with fair amount of promptitude at 4 p.m. At the police station which is at a distance of one mile from the place of occur--rence. The digerwela the in those days may be at about 3 p.m. And it was within one hour that the F. I. R. Was lodged. There-- fore, there is no question of any pre-consultation in respect of the identity of the assailants in so far as the F. I. R. Is concerned.
26. The learned counsel also pointed out a discrepancy in the statements made by Qadir P. W. On the one hand and the other P. Ws. On the other ; in that according to one version Qadir P. W. Went to the Police Station from the place of occurrence and the other injured were taken to the hospital, while according to the other version all three of them were first taken to the hospital. And, in this connection, he has further pointed out that according to the doctor, Qadir P. W. Was examined first of all, therefore, he could not have gone to the Police Station for lodging the F. I. R. It is in evidence that the Police Station is closed to the hospital. Qadir P. W. Was examined by the doctor at 5 p.m.
27. While the F. I. R. Had already been lodged. At 4 p.m. This circumstance supports the statement of Qadir that he had gone to the Police station for lodging the F. I. R. Before going to the hospital. In our view, hare is nothing improbable or unusual about the version given by Qadir P. W. And it is, in no way, contradicted by the other P. Ws. It is not impossible to imagine that while all the injured were being taken to the hospital, Qadir P. W., who was not as seriously injured as the others, may have gone to the nearby Police Station without having been noticed by others who must be anxious to take Lala, who was badly injured, to the hospital for medical attendance. The fact that Lala was examined at 5-45 p.m. Is not the negation of the above supposition because the medico-legal examination can even take place after initial aid and attention is given to an injured person.
28. Some criticism was made on the statement of Allah Ditta P. W. To show that he did not know the appellants personally, therefore, on that account he should be considered as a false witness. No doubt some questions were asked from him .On this aspect of the case. But he stood the test in a lengthy cross--examination and it does not appear from the statement that, either, he did not know the appellants or, he was unable to identify them. In answer to a Court question he explained that he had been seeing the accused persons at mela mavaishian at Bhera and that he knew them. He further explained that he had seen the appellants at the shrine of Haji Sheikh Ahmad near Midh Pargana (at number of occasions) where he used to take his bullocks for the races.
29. Lastly, it was urged that none of the persons who were present at the railway station was produced to support the prosecution case. No doubt the eye-witnesses had admitted the presence of some other persons at or near the railway station. But it is not necessary that those persons should have witnessed the occurrence, which took place in the ground about half a Furlong away. If those persons were there in connection with the arrival of any train, it was unlikely that they would have either noticed this occurrence or would have been interested in rushing to the spot instead of pursuing their own business at the railway station. Therefore, the non-production by the prosecution of those persons is not at all fatal to the case.
8. We agree with the learned trial Judge that the appellants, after having armed themselves with deadly weapons, committed the offence of rioting. Therefore, they have been rightly convicted under section 148, P. P. C. In this behalf, the sentence of to year's R. I. Each is appropriate.
30. We also agree with the assessm ent of the entire prosecution case by the learned trial Judge for finding out the purpose of the unlawful assembly, in that it was only : that the appellants wanted to give a beating to the complainant-party which, of course, included the causing of the grevious and simple hurt. In the prosecution of the common object, grevious as well as simple injuries were caused to the to P. Ws. Therefore, the conviction of all the appellants under section 325/149 and section 323/149, P. P. C. Is fully justified. The sentences awarded to them under the above to counts are not, in any way, on the side of severity. Therefore, we maintain these convictions as well as the sentences, We, however, do not agree with the learned trial judge that the four appellants who caused injuries to Lala deceased are guilty under section 302/34, P. P. C. Only one injury was caused on the head of the deceased by Hayat son of Khanun appellant. He did not repeat any blow on the deceased. The other blows given to him by the remaining three appellants, out of this set of four, are on non-vital parts of the body. At the same the, the result of beating given to the deceased shows that his assailants consciously avoided given blows to him on any vital part, except that Hayat son of Khanun appellant caused him an injury on the head. These circumstances would militate against any supposition that all or any of these persons intended to cause the death of Lala. The fact that Hayat son of Khanun appellant did not repeat the blow on the deceased and the further fact that after that one blow on the head of the deceased the remaining three appellants caused him injuries on legs and arms, would show that those three appel--lants did not share the intention of Hayat appellant, if he had any, in respect of the nature of the injury caused by him. There--fore, those three appellants cannot be held liable for the at of Hayat appellant if it was beyond the purpose and scope of the unlawful assembly.
31. With regard to Hayat appellant, we have carefully examined the question whether his at falls under section 300, P. P. C. The injury, its location, the damage caused by it, the physical condition of the deceased and the entire conduct of this appellant, considered together show that his case does not fall under any o the clauses of section 300, P. P. C. He, however, while causing the blow which resulted in the head injury to the deceased must have known that the said blow was likely to cause death of course, any intention to cause death or any intention to cause such bodily injury likely to cause death. Consequently, he has com--mitted the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder which falls under Part II of section 304, P. P: C. We, accordingly, set aside his conviction under section 302/34, P. P: C. And instead convict him under section 304, Part II, P. P. C. And sentence him to ten year's R. I. His appeal, in this behalf, therefore is accepted and the death sentence awarded to him is not confirmed. His conviction and sentences awarded to him under other counts are maintained. All the sentences will run concurrently.
32. We have already held that the other three appellants, namely, Lala son of Alaf, his son Bashir and Hayat son of SaeeD, who also caused injuries to Lala deceased, did not share the intention or knowledge of Hayat son of Khanun appellant in so far as the death of Lala is concerned. They caused grievous and simple injuries to Lala deceased which at, of course, was in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by all the eleven appellants. Therefore, they are guilty under section 325/149, P. P. C. In respect of the injuries (including grievous) caused to Lala deceased. Their conviction under section 302/34, P. P. C. Is set aside and they are instead convicted, on this count, under section 325/149, P. P. C. They have already been awarded five year's R. I. Each under section 325/149, P. P. C. For causing injuries to Babadur P. W. They are awarded five year's R. I. Each under this count also. We are conscious that on the above reasoning the remaining seven appellants could also be convicted State under section 325/ 149., P. P. C. For injuries caused to Lala deceased. They have been acquitted in respect of death of and injuries to Muha Lala, and there being no appeal or revision against the acquittal we do not consider it necessary to examine this question any Alta further.
33. The sentences of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants under all the counts will run concurrently.
34. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is partly accepted and the death sentence awarded to Hayat son of Khanun appellant is not confirmed.