This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Addi--tional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby, he on 6th November, 1969, while acquitting Haji Noor Muhammad, Khadim and Sadiq co- accused, convic--ted Nazir Ahmad aged 28 years and Ashiq aged 25 years, appellants under section 304, Part II and 323, P. P. C. Respectively. Nazir was sentenced to five years' R.
1. For causing the death of Fateh Muhammad on grave and sudden provocation. Ashiq was sentenced to three months' R. I. For causing simple injuries to Allah Wasaya (P. W. 6) and Ghulam Farid (P. W, 7).
2. The occurrence took place at Degarwela on 16th December,1968 at Chah Fatehwala of Mauza Adamwahin of Police Station Lodhran. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is seven miles. The F. I. R. Was recorded by Sheikh Sanaullah S.-1.On 17th December, 1.968 at 5 a. m. At Police Station Lodhran.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that Fateh Muhammad deceased was an owner of 100 bighas of land in the revenue estate of village Adamwahin. He cultivated it alongwith his sons Ghulam Farid and Allah Wasaya. In the adjacent land, Haji Noor Muhawmad had installed a tube-well and cultivated the land with the help of his four sons. On 16th; December.1968, Fateh Muhammad agreed to purchase the water of tube-well from Hajf Noor Muhammad for 12 hours and paid Rs. 50.
The water was to flow at 3 p. m. Allah Wasaya P. W contacted Nazir Ahmad appellant at 3p.m and requested that the water be diverted to his field but Nazir refuse to divert the water and demanded Rs. 60 more. AllahWasaya then requested him to supply water for one hour only but Nazir did not agree. Allah Wasaya told Nazir that he would not allow the passage of the water through the water course which falls in his land. Thereafter, Allah Wasaya with his brother Ghulam Farid (P. W. 7) went his field and started clearing the bushes. Ghulam Farid cut the water-- course and sopped the flow of the water of the tube-well. At this juncture appellants and the acquitted co-accused came there. Nazir was armed with a gun. Ashiq and Khadim were armed with dangs. Sadiq had a Kassi in his hand and Haji Noor was empty-handed. Ashiq gave a dang blow on the head of Allah Wasaya; Ghulam Farid went forward and Ashiq gave another dang blow on his head and Sadiq gave a Kassi blow on the wrist of Allah Wasaya from its wrong side. In the meantime, Fateh Muhammad deceased arrived there. He abused Haji Noor Muhammad accused, father of the appellants, and threw a hand full of the dust awards him by way of sending laanat. Thereupon, Nazir appellant gave a butt blow on the head of Fateh Muhammad, who fell down and died.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced as many as 11 witnesses. Allah Wasaya (P. W. 6), Ghulam Farid (P. W. 7), Mst. Allah Bachai (P. W. 8), Sardar (P. W. 9) and Abdul Razzaq (P. W. 10) are the eyewitnesses.
The trial Judge has disbelieved Mst. Allah Bachai, Sardar and Abdul Razzaq and has partly believed Allah Wasaya and Ghulam Farid, the injured witnesses. He has acquitted the three co-accused and convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction and has only requested for reduction in the sentences.
5. 1 have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record rich care. I find that the learned trial Court has fully applied its mind to the legal and factual aspects of the matter, has given sound and cogent reasons in the support of his conclusion and, as such, has rightly convicted the appellants under sections 304 (II) and 323, P. P.C On the question of sentence awarded to Nazir appellant, I find that the learned trial Court in para. 21 of his judgment has observed that on Account of the abuses of the deceased, Nazir appellant lost self-control and acted under grave and sudden provocation. The prosecution case is that When the deceased threw a hand full of dust towards Haji Noor Muhammad, father of the appellants, by way of sending laanat, it was then that the appellant Nazir gave one blow with the butt of his gun.
Nazir appellant was arrested in December, 1968 and convicted on 6th November, 1969. He remained in jail throughout the trial and was allowed bail by this Court on 25th November, 1969. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail after a lapse of 12 years. The agony of the protracted trial, the period of his detention as an under-trial prisoner and the sentence served out by him, all are sufficient, to meet the ends of justice. Bail Bonds are discharged.
6. Resultantly, the convictions of the appellants are maintained but their sentences are reduced to one already undergone. The appeal is dis--posed of accordingly.