M. HAYAT JUNEGO, J.-Bostan Khan son of Sultan Khan aged 30 years, Sardar Khan son of Sultan Khan aged 45 years, Muhammad Latif son of Ghulam Rasool aged 26 years, Ghulam Rasool son of Noor Alam, aged 65 years, Muhammad Rafiq son of Ghulam Rasool aged 32 years, Atta Muhammad son of Jaffar Khan , aged 35 years, Hidayat Ali son of Jaffar Khan aged 25 years, Muhammad Khan son of Noor Hussain aged 35 years and Saif Ali son of Hassan Muhammad aged 25 years, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum for offences under sections 148, 302, 149 and 307/149, P. P. C. For committing murder of deceased Abdur Rahman murderous assault on P.
Ws. Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Zaman, Sultan Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz and for committing riot--ing on 28th October 1967, after sun rise - near Dhoke Chaniala within the area of village Domeli, District Jhelum. By his judgment dated 8th October 1968, the learned Sessions Judge found them guilty of the offences for which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them as under: -- Appellants Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Bostan Khan and Sardar Khan to death under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. Appellants Nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely, Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Rafiq to transportation for life under section 302/149, P. P. C. Appellants Nos. 1 to 5, namely, Bostan Khan, Sardar Khan, Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Rafiq to R. I.
For five years under section 307/149, P. P. C. And to R. I. For one year each under sec--tion 148, P. P. C.
And the remaining four appellants, namely, Atta Muhammad Hidayat Ali, Muhammad Khan and Saif Ali to R. I. For three years each under section 307/34, P. P. C.
The sentences of Mohammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Rafiq were ordered to run concurrently. They have now come up in appeal and there is also before us a reference under section 374, Cr. P. C. For confirmation of the death sentences passed on Bostan Khan and Sardar Khan.
2. Alter the appeal was filed in this Court the State preferred Cr. Revision No. 214 of 1969, praying that the sentences imposed on Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Rafiq be enhanced from transportation for life to death and the sentences of R. I. For five years each imposed on Bostan Kran, Sardar Khan, Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Rafiq be enhanced to transportation for life under section 307/149, P. P. C.
3. Ahmed Khan son of deceased Abdur Rehman also preferred a revision petition (being Cr.
Revision No. 1055/1968) praying that the sentences of transportation for life under section 302/149, P. P. C. Awarded to Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Rafiq be enhanced to death.
By this judgment we propose to dispose of all the four con--nected matters mentioned above. We may, however, mention that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant. No. 4, namely, Ghulam Rasool died in Jail and we are concerned only with the case of the remaining eight appellants.
4. The prosecution case in brief was that Khasra No. 307, situated in Dhoke Chaniala belonged to deceased Abdur Rehman, while the accused party were cultivating "Taramira crop in Khasra No.
310. On 26th October 1967, Atta Muhammad and Bostan Khan appellants damaged the Taramira crop belonging to the complainant-party by bringing their herd of goats and sheep for grazing in Khasra No. 307. Abdur Rehman expressed his annoyance to Atta Muhammad who had accompanied the said herd. There was an altercation between Abdur Rehman and Atta Muhammad appellant and thereafter, Atta Muhammad left the herd in the field. On 28th October 1967, after sun rise -P. Ws. Ahmad Khan and his brother Muhammad Zaman were digging out the land in Khasra No. 307. It was a local holiday in the school where P. W. Ahmad Khan was employed as a teacher. His father, deceased Abdur Rehman was sowing wheat seeds near the Northern part of Khasra No. 307, when the five appellants, namely, Bostan Khan, Sardar Khan, Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool (now dead) and Muhammad Rafiq came there and attacked deceased Abdur Rehman. Muhammad Rafiq carried a lath! And the remaining four were armed with hatchets.
Bostan Khan struck a hatchet blow on the head of Abdur Rehman with the blunt side and then Sardar Khan also gave a blow with the blunt side of the hatchet on the head of the deceased.
Thereafter, Muhammad Latif gave a blow with the blunt side of his hatchet on the back of the neck of deceased Abdur Rehman, who fell down and was given few more blows by the other appellants.
It is also alleged that after receiving the first blow deceased Abdur Rehman, picked up a kulhari and struck a blow thereof on Bostan Khan, appellant. P. W. Ahmad Khan had a soti (stick) and he gave a blow with it to Ghulam Rasool appellant. After sometime Muhammad Khan, Atta Muhammad, Hidayat Ali and Saif Ali, appellants, who were all armed with sotis also came to the scene of occurrence, while P. Ws. Sultan and Nawaz came to the scene on hearing alarm. It is alleged that Muhammad Khan, Atta Muhammad, Hidayat Ali and Saif Ali gave beating to P. Ws.
Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Zaman, Sultan and Nawaz.
5. Abdur Rehman died at the spot shortly afterwards, and P. W. 8 Ahmed Khan left for Police Station Domeli at a distance of 16 miles from the scene of occurrence, where he lodged the First Information Report Exh. P. Y. At 3 p.m. On the same day. It was recorded by S. I. P. Murid Ahmed Shah, P. W.
15. An investigation ensued, in the course of which, appellants were arrested. Of them, Bostan Khan pro--duced a kulhari Exh. P/ 5, from his house, Ghulam Rasool produced a kulhari, Exh. P/6, Muhammad Latif produced kulhari Exh. P/7, Atta Muhammad produced a sots, Exh. P/8, Hidayat Ali produced a sotf Exh. P/9, Muhammad Khan pro--duced a sot! Exh. P;10, and Saif Ali produced a sot!
Exh, P/11 in the presence of S. I. P. Murid Ahmad Shah and Mashir Ali Bahadur, P. W.
14. All these weapons except the one produced by Ghulam Rasool were either ,not stained with blood or the blood thereon had disintegrated and its origin could not be ascertained. The learned counsel for the State has, therefore, rightly, conceded that he could not place any reli--ance thereon. As Ghulam Rasool has since died his case is not before us. The entire evidence against the remaining 8 appellants consists of the ocular evidence corroborated by the injuries on the person of the some of the accused/appellants and we shall refer to this evidence in the later part of the judgment.
6. On 29th October 1967, Dr. Ali Jawad Hussain, Medical Officer, District Headquarter Hospital, Jhelum conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Abdur Rehman deceased and found the following injuries on his person
(1) A lacerated wound 2J' x J" scalp deep on the right side of the head.
(2) A lacerated wound 3/4" x I" x scalp. Deep on the top of the head.
(3) A lacerated wound 1" x J" scalp deep on the left side of the head.'
(4) A bruise 3" x 1" on the right side of the back of chest.
(5) A bruise 2" x I" on the back of the right shoulder.
(6) A bruise 1" x J- on the back of the neck. ,
(7) A bruise 3" x J" on the back of the shoulder.
(8) A bruise 3" x I" on the back of the right side of chest."
According to the doctor all the injuries were caused by some blunt weapon and injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
7. On 28th October ]967, Dr. -Sharif Khan Rhatti Assis--tant Medical Officer, In`charge Civil Dispensary, Dimeli examined the .Injured prosecution witness and found the following injuries on his person :- "P. W. Ahmed Khan.-
(1) A contused wound with swelling around it. It is 3" x 2/8" muscle deep over the right parietal bone 2" above the middle of right eye-brew.
(2) A contusion I" x " over the left parietal bone 3" above, the left ear.
(3) A lacerated wound 3/4"_ x J" over the inner side of left forearm at its upper one-third end. It is skin deep.
(4) A bruise 6" x 6/8" over the right scapula.
(5) A bruise 5" x 6/8" over the back side of chest 1" below the lower angle of right scapula.
(6) A bruise 3J" x 1" over the back 2" inner side of injury No. 5.
(7) A bruise 31" x 1" over the back on the 12th thorax vertebra and extends upwards.
(8) A scratch 3J" x 1/8" over the outer side of right scapula.
(9) Three marks of bruises 4" x I" x 3.J" x I" and 3J" x I" over the outer side of right thigh. These bruises are in area of 6" x 5" and swelling round it."
All the injuries were simple and were caused by a blunt weapon.
The remaining three witnesses were examined by the same doctor k on the next day, i.e. On 29th October 1967 and he found the following injuries on their person :-- "Muhammad Zaman.-
(1) A contused wound 2" x I" muscle deep over the left side of a parietal bone 3J" above the left ear.
(2) - A contused wound 1" x 1 /3" x over the left parietal bone 1" back to the injury No. 1.
(3) A contused wound I" x I' on the left parietal bone 32" above the left eye-brew.
(4) A cut wound 3" x I" muscle deep over the back of right parietal bone 3J" over the right ear.
(5) A skin deep abrasion over the left scapular region. It is 4" x 1/6".
(6) A skin deep scratch 2" x 1/6" about 3" below the injury No. 5.
(7) A rectangular bruise 3" x 2" over the top of left shoulder and contusion of 1/3" x 1/3" at its centre."
Injury No: 4 was caused by a sharp cutting weapon and the remaining six with blunt weapon. All the 7 injuries were simple in nature.
P. W. Muhammad Nawaz.-
(1) Contused wound 1/3" x 1/6" skin deep over the back of right middle finger's mail at back of it.
(2) A contusion 1/3" x 1/3" over the outer angle of left eye-brew. It is skin deep.
(3) Two marks of contusion J" x I" and 1/3" x 1/3" in area of 2" x 1 F over the back at the level of the first lumber and 12th thoracic vertebra at the centre of body."
Alt the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon.
P. W. Sultan Muhammad.-
(1) A contused wound 2" x J" muscle deep over the left uarietal bone 4" above the left ear.
(2) A cut wound 2" x . " x J" over the outer side of right elbow-joint.
(3) A contused wound" x J" skin deep over the back of middle right fore-arm.
(4) Swelling of right ring finger but no mark of injury seen.
(5) A bruise 21" x 1" over the back of right side 4" below the right scapula.
(6) A scratch 4" x 1/6` skin deep 5" below the right scapula.
(7) A bruise 6" x 2' below the both scapula 2" above the injury No. 6.
(8) A bruise 6" x 3" over the- left scapular region and its. Lateral aspect.
(9) Complains of pain in left shoulder-joint but no marks of external injury."
All the injuries were simple in nature. Injury No. 2 was caused by sharp weapon and the rest with blunt weapon.
The medical evidence, therefore, shows that on the complainant--party there were in all 36 injuries of which only two were caused by a sharp weapon whereas as many as 34 injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.
8. It would be appropriate at this stage to consider the injuries on the appellant's side as well. On 29th October 1967, Dr. Ali Jawad Hussain, examined appellant Atta Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person :- "Atta Muhammad.-
(1) An incised wound 2J" x 1" muscle deep on the hack of right side of the chest.
(2) An incised wound 2" x 3/4", muscle deep on the back of right loin.
(3) An incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" skin deep on the right shoulder.
(4) A lacerated wound I" x 1/8" skin deep on the back of the head.
(5). An abrasion 1" x J" on the left shoulder.
(6) An abrasion J" x I" on the left fore-arm."
Of these as many as three injuries were caused by some sharp-edged weapon and the rest by a blunt weapon. All the six injuries were however, simple in nature.
On the same day Dr. Sharif Khan Bhatti examined the re--maining appellants and- found the following injuries on their person :-- "Muhammad Latif.-
(1) A rectangular bruise 2J" x 2" over the left parietal bone with contusion of I" x J' in its centre with swelling around it, 3." Above the left ear.r
(2) A contusion 1" x I" with swelling round it in area 2" x 2" over the right parietal bone 5" above the right eye-brew.
(3) A contused wound I" x J" over the left side of bridge of nose with swelling of nose and blood is coming from the left nostril.
(4) A contusion 1".x J" over the outer tide of right elbow-joint and swelling.Of elbow-joint is present.
(5) 3 marks of rectangular bruises 2J" x 2" each in area of 8" x 4" over the left shoulder-joint with swelling of the area.
(6) A bruise 5" x 1" in transverse position over the back bet--ween the both scapula.
(7) A contusion I" x J" at the level of upper end of scapula over the vertebral column and around it a rectangular bruise of 21" x 11".
(8) The swelling of right thigh but no marks of any external injury is visible. '
(9) An abrasion 6" x 1/2-- over the back of left fore-arm.
(10) Contusion J' x I" over the back middle of left index finger."
All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were simple in nature.
"Ghulam Rasool.-
(1) A cut wound with averted edges 1J"x I" muscle deep 3/4" below the left angle of mouth.
(2) A contused wound muscle deep bone below visible 1" x J' over the right side of head 2" above the inner and of right eye-brew and a swelling of 2" circumference around it.
(3) A contused wound with swelling- around it. It is 2" x I" skin deep over the right parietal bone 4" above the right ear.
(4) A bruise 2" x 1 I" rectangular in shape and two contu--sions in it over the upper border of left scapula.
(5) Two marks of bruise 2" x lJ" and 2" x li" half inch apart from each other over the outer aspect of left scapula and a swelling around it.
(6) A bruise 2J" x J" over the top of left shoulder joint with severe swelling of the joint and restricted movements, complains of severe pain in it.
(7) A rectangular bruise 11" x lJ" with contusion of J" x J" centrally over the back J" lateral to the vertebra column at the level of 4th thoracic vertebra on the right side.
(8) A bruise J"x J" over the back lJ" left to injury No. 7.
(9) A contusion J" x J" over the middle outer aspect of left side upper arm.
(10) Two marks of contusions 1/8" x 1/8" over the middle back of left index and middle finger.".
Of these injury No. 1 was caused by sharp-edged weapon and the remaining by blunt weapon.
However, all the injuries were simple in nature.
"Bostan Khan.-
(1) A bruise 4" x 1" over the right outer side of chest 4" below the armpit with severe swelling and pain.
(2) A cut wound with everted edges 2J" x J' muscle deep over the middle and back of left fore-arm.
(3) A cut wound with everted edges over the palmer side of right palm. It extends f above the right wrist to the middle of palm. It is 2j" x j" x ? ".
Of these injuries, injury No. 1 was grievous in nature as it had resulted in the fracture of 5th and 6th rib of the injured. The remaining two injuries were caused by sharp-cutting weapon.
On 2nd November 1967, the same doctor examined Saif Ali and found the following injuries on his person :- "Salf Ali.-
(1) A contused wound 6/8" x 3/8" flooded with pus over the left parietal bone 4" above left ear. It is muscle deep.
(2) A contusion I" x J" over the palmer side of left ring finger. The crust over the wound is formed."
All the injuries were simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. The duration of the injuries was 4 to 7 days, which coincided with the time of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
9. It will be seen from the above that appellant's party had also received as many as 31 injuries on their persons. Of these one was grievous and as many as 6 of these were caused by sharp weapon.
10. The version of the injured appellants as expressed through appellant Bostan Khan was that he had purchased a piece of land from one Saif Ali, a relation .Of P. W. Sultan Muhammad. Sultan Muhammad had brought a pre-emp--tion suit against him and secured a decree but had not got a warrant of possession and did not get the actual physical possession of the land. On 26th October 1967, Sultan Muhammad tried to take forcible possession of the land and wanted to plough it, which was resisted by Bostan Khan. On 28th October 1967, the defence alleged, that Muhammad Latif, Ghulam Rasool, Atta Muhammad and Bostan Khan went to sow in their land at Chaniala when deceased Abdur Rehman, Sultan Muhammad, Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Ashraf, Lal Khan and Muhammad ' Iqba) ' armed with stick and hatchets, challenged them by saying that they had come to avenge the insult of Sultan Muhammad. They attacked the appellant's party in their own land (Khasra No. 310) and the other side also retaliated in self- defence.In other words the defence of the appellants was that the incident had taken place in their land, namely. Khasra No. 310, where they were attacked by the complainant-party and they had caused some injuries to complainant-party in self-defence. Four out of the 9 appellants, namely, Sardar Khan, Mohd. Rafiq, Hidayat Ali and Muhammad Khan, who had no injuries on their person, denied their participation in this incident, and attributed that they were falsely involved on account of election disputes as Sardar Khan was the Chairman of the Union Council and District Council, Jhelum and the elder of the brotherhood of the other accused. According to the defence all these four appellants were falsely involved on account of party politics and election disputes between the parties.
11. There was no cross-case filed by the appellant's side, but the learned counsel for the appellants, Ch. Nazir Ahmed has referred us to Exh. D/F, an application dated 31st October 1967, made by appellant Sardar Khan to the D. I.-G. Police, Rawalpindi, stating his side of the case and complaining that the incharge of 'the police station did not record his report nor did he take any action in respect of his complaint. A similar application Exh. D/G was made to the Superin--tendent of Police, Jhelum. Two witnesses were also examined in defence. They were D. W. 1 Bashir Ahmad and D. W . 2 Muhammad Anwar, both employee of P.
1. A. At Rawalpindi, who stated that Muhammad Rafique was present on his duty on that date from 8 a.m. To 4-30 p.m. This alibi of the appellant Muhammad Rafiq, has however, not been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge.
12. The prosecution case against the appellants rests mainly on the ocular evidence of P. W. 8, Ahmad Khan son of Abdur kehman deceased, P. W. 9 Muhammad Zaman son of Abdur Rehman P.
W. 10 Sultan Muhammad brother of the deceased and P. W. 11 Muhammad Nawaz, a close relation of the deceased. They have all deposed to the prosecution case as narrated in para. 4 of this judgment. All these wit--nesses are, however, closely related inter se and with deceased Abdur Rehman. While giving evidence in Court it appeared obvious that they were minimising their own part in the incident and the part played by the appellants' side. They attributed the sharp hatchet injuries on Bostan Khan to deceased Abdur Rehman obviously with a view to see that none of them was to blame for this particular injury. The medical evidence, however, showed that after receiving either of the two injuries on his head, deceased Abdur Rehman could not have walked all the way up to the centre of the field, picked up the hatchet and given an effective blow with its sharp side to appellant Bostan Khan before falling down on the ground. In his over-anxiety to implicate the accused in this case, P. W. Ahmad Khan went as far as to say that Bostan Khan was the first cousin of his mother and that Ghulam Rasool appellant was the real paternal uncle of his mother. In cross-examination however, realizing the falsity of this assertion he went even as far as to say that he did not know the name of his maternal grand-mother, although he knew the name of the Phupi of his mother. He also stated that he did not know the name of the mother of his maternal grand-- father. He further stated that he did not know the village in which the mother's parents of his maternal grand-father used to live. This left no room for doubt that the witness is out to perjure himself in order to show that he was closely related to the appellant's side so as to convince the Court that he could not give false evidence against them. The same witness admitted in examination-in-chief itself that appellant Sardar Khan had contested twice as a candidate for the B. D. Election and on both occasions he had voted against him but in spite of it Sardar Khan was now the Chairman of the Union Council. It appears that there are two political factions in the village and Sardar Khan was head of the rival faction. The rule of prudence should demand that no implicit reliance should be placed on the evidence of these partisan witnesses unless their evidence is substantially corrobo--rated by some independent evidence. If the witnesses could deliberately speak lies to implicate the appellants in this case on a charge of murder, there is no guarantee that they would not rope in one or two innocent people for the same purpose. It is also very difficult to believe that Sardar Khan would start the fight by giving a hatchet injury on the head of deceased Abdur Rehman and remain in the thick of fight all along but yet have no injuries, not even a scratch, on his person. The same reasoning would apply to appellants Muhammad Rafiq, Hidayat Ali and Muhammad Khan. We, therefore, consider that the participation of these four appellants in this incident is highly doubtful and they are entitled to the bene--fit of doubt. The participation of the five remaining appellant is borne out by the presence of injuries on their person. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel appearing on their behalf has contended that they have acted in exercise of the right of private defence but we are not inclined to agree with him. The scene of occurrence was situated in Khasra No. 307 which admittedly belonged to the complainant-party. There was no apparent motive as to why the complainant-party should have acted as the aggressors in this case. The version of the defence is also falsified by the fact that no report of the incident was made by them. It was only after three days on 31st October 1967, that they made an application to the D. I.-G. Police and S. P. This was done at a belated stage obviously as by that time they must have been told and must have realized that it was necessary to create some evidence in defence. The version of the appellants, besides being belated does not appear to be reasonably possible in the circumstances of the case specially in view of the fact that the incident had taken place in Khasra No. 307. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan stated that the two khasras namely, 30V and 310 being adjacent to each other it was possible that the parties may have gone from one to the other thereby making it difficult to determine as to where the incident started. We, however, see no reasons to doubt the evidence on record which clearly shows that the dead body of deceased Abdur Rehman was lying in Khasra No. 307, where the incident is alleged to have started. The version of the appellant's besides being belated does not appear to be reasonably possible. We, accordingly, hold that this is not a case where appellants were acting in exercise of the right of private defence.
13. The next question that has to be considered is as to what offences if any these five appellants are guilty of. The tally of injuries on both sides, the weapons used and the number of persons injured on each side clearly shows that neither side was taken by surprise in this case but they were fully prepared for a trial of strength. There appears to have been a pitched battle between the two parties wherein hatchet and lathis were freely used by several persons on each side. It is not a case of one party being taken any surprise. Under these circumstances neither party could claim the right of private defence and each member of the party would be liable for his own acts. Section 149, P. P. C. Will, howl ever, no longer apply to the facts of the case as we have held that the number of the persons who initially participat--ed in this assault was not necessarily five but could be less on account of the acquittal of Rafiq and Sardar Khan. The effect of our findings is that as Sardar Khan and Mohd. Rafiq may not have been present in the fight; none of the remaining three appellants could be held constructively liable under section 302/149, P. P. C. On this around the convic--tions of all the appellants Nos. 1 to 5 under section 1413, P. P. C. Have also to be set aside.
14. According to the evidence in Court as well as in the First Information Report, appellant Bostan Khan had given one hatchet blow on the head of deceased Abdur Rehman. The medical evidence showed that both of these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Acting on the principle that every person is presumed to intend the ordinary and natural consequences of his act is can be safely presumed that the intention of appellant Bostan Khan was to commit murder of deceased Abdur Rehman. The offence would not necessarily fall under section 304, P, P. C. Simply because it was a case of fight. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that appellant Bostan Khan was guilty of the murder of deceased Abdur Rehman and we alter his conviction from one under: section 302/149, P. P. C. To one under section 302, P. P. C. As, however, the incident was not one-sided and Bostan Khan himself had sustained serious injuries, we reduce his sentence from death to that of transportation for life.
15. Ghulam Rasool as already stated died during the pendency of this appeal and his case need not be considered.
16. According to the evidence Bostan Khan and Muhammad Latif have caused several injuries to P.
Ws. Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Zaman, Sultan Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz. In view of the nature of the injuries mentioned above, however, it could not be safe to presume that their intention was to commit murder. Accordingly, we alter their convictions from section 307/ 149, P. P.
C. To one under section 324, P. P. C. And reduce their sentences on this count from R. I. For five years to R. I. For three years. In case of Bostan Khan this sentence shall run concurrently wnii the sentence of transportation for life under section 302, P. P. C.
17. Similarly, Atta Muhammad and Saif Ali, who are alleged to have arrived at the scene of incident after the murder of deceased Abdur Rehman and are alleged to have given injuries to witnesses with sotis would be guilty under section 323, P. P. C. Their sentence of three years' R. I. Is reduced to R. I. For one year each under the latter section.
18. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the appeals filed by appellants Sardar Khan, Muhammad Rafiq, Hidayat Ali and Muhammad Khan are allowed in their entirety as their participation in this incident has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Of them two, namely, Hidayat Ali and Muhammad Khan are on bail and they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellants Sardar Khan and Muhammad Rafiq are in jail, they shall be released forthwith unless they are required in any other case.
19. The convictions of appellant Bostan Khan under section 302 read with section 149, P. P. C. Is altered to one under section 302, P. P. C. And the sentence of death awarded to him is reduced to one of transportation for life.
20. The convictions of Bostan Khan and Muhammad Latif under section 307/ 149, P. P. C. Are altered to one under section 324, P. P. C. And sentence of R.
1. For five years on this count reduced to one of R. I. For three years each.
21. The conviction of Atta Muhammad and Saif Ali under section 307 read with section 34, P. P. C. Is altered to one under section 323, P. P. C. And their sentences reduced to R. I. For one year each. They are on bail and must surrender to serve out the unexpired portions of their sentences.
22. The convictions of all the appellants under section 148, P. P. C. Are set aside. With these modifications appeal filed by Bostan Khan, Muhammad Latif, Atta Muhammad and Saif All stands dismissed.
23. In view of what is stated above Revision Petitions Nos. 214 of 1969 and 1056 of 1968 filed by the State and Ahmad Khan respectively are both dismissed.
24. The reference for the confirmation of death sentences is rejected.