1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The two petitioners were tried, along-with seven others by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, for the murder of one Ghulam Rasul of Chak No. 158/RB in the jurisdiction of Police Station Chak Jhumra, and for causing injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life on the charge of murder besides a fine of Rs. 3,000 in each case, and were also awarded other sentences on the remaining counts. However, these convictions and sentences were set aside by the Lahore High Court on the 30th of January, 1973 on the ground that the entire evidence had not been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who had convicted the petitioners and their co-accused. As a result, a retrial was ordered.
2. At this trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted only four persons namely, the two petitioners and their co-accused Ashraf and Bashir. All of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life on the main charge, besides smaller sentences on the other counts. In appeal, a learned Judge of the High Court has, by this order dated the 27th of January 1976, acquitted Ashraf and Bashir but maintained the convictions and sentences recorded against the two petitioners except with the modification that for the charge of murder their sentence will be transportation for life instead of imprisonment for life, for the season that at the time the offence was committed, the appropriate sentence was transportation for life.
3. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal.
4. The incident took place on the 26th of September, 1967 in the area of Chak No. 158/RB at 4-00 p.m.
5. At a distance of five miles from the police station. The first information report was made by Muhammad Siddique (P. W. 8) at 6-00 p.m. The same day. During the incident, Ghulam Rasul lost his life, whereas Muhammad Siddique (P. W. 81, Rehmat A.I (P. W. 11) and another Muhammad Siddique (P. W. 12) received injuries. Besides the injured witnesses, the incident was said to have been witnessed by Sardar Muhammad, (P. W. 13) and one Asghar A.I, who was not produced at the trial.
6. There was bad blood between the parties, and at the relevant time criminal case was already pending between them before a Magistrate at Lyallpur. The complainant party had gone to Lyallpur to appear in the case but the petitioners and their co-accused did not turn up. At the close of the day the complainant party were returning to their Chak by train, an when they got down at the Railway Station, Sayanwala, and were proceeding towards their village, they were attacked by the petitioners and their companion3. The two petitioners were armed with hatchets whereas the others were carrying Dangs. The assailants were all riding on horses. The fatal blow on the head of Ghulam Rasul was .Given by the petitioner Aslam and both of them caused injuries to the other members of the complainant-party.
7. Medical evidence showed that the deceased received 23 injuries, Muhammad Siddique (P. W. 8) three injuries, Rehmat A.I (P. W. 11) fourteen injuries and the other Muhammad Siddique (P. W. 12) had received eleven injuries, which had been caused both by blunt and sharp-edged weapons.
8. The two petitioners were also found to have been injured. There were seven simple injuries on the person of Aslam and eight on Nisar.
9. At the trial, while pleading not guilty, the petitioners admitted the pendency of criminal litigation between the parties, and also the fact that both the petitioners returned to their village by train, and disembarked at the same railway station. The petitioners, however, asserted that they were attacked by the complainant party, and retaliated by way of self-defence.
10. The Courts below have rejected the defence version, but have also observed that in view of the partisan nature of the evidence corroboration would be needed. As a matter of abundant caution the High Court has, therefore, maintained the convictions recorded only against the two petitioners and acquitted their companions.
11. Leave to appeal is sought mainly on the ground that the High Court has in fact disbelieved the ocular account given by the prosecution witnesses, and in these circumstances the petitioners could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the admissions made by them at the trial giving their own version of the incident. It is next submitted that the petitioners had already served a considerable period of their sentences when their retrial was ordered, and it is necessary that proper credit should be given to them of the imprisonment they have already undergone and the remissions earned in that connection.
12. It will be seen the second contention has no bearing on the merits of the case before us. It is obviously for the relevant jail authorities to make the proper calculations in the light of the relevant rules.
13. As to the merits of the case, we find that the High Court has already acted with great caution in acquitting the two companions of the petitioners. Admittedly an incident did take place between the parties when they were returning from Lyallpur. Besides, the deceased Ghulam Rasul, three of the prosecution witnesses were injured. The two petitioners had also sustained simple injuries, thus placing beyond doubt the factum of their participation is the incident. The Courts below rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners that they were attacked first by the complainant party.
14. The nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioners, and the fact that they. Were on horseback, made their assertion impossible to believe. We see no reason whatsoever to differ from the appreciation of evidence by the High Court in this behalf. As a result, we are of the view that the petitioners have been rightly convicted and sentenced.
15. The petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.