1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. ;99 of 196'7, dated the 25th November 1968. By this judgment the appeal was dismissed.
2. Appellants Muhammad Amin and Atta Muhammad were tried for the murder of Luqman on the 7th September 1966 about sunset tune in the area of Wadhi and each of them was sentenced to transportation for life under section 302 read with section 34, P. P. C. This judgment was challenged before the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore and a Division Bench of the High Court upheld tile conviction of the appellants.
3. Special leave was granted in this case to consider two questions. Firstly, as to what offence was committed by the appellants on the facts found in the present case. Secondly, whether in principle, it can be said that where no injury caused, is by itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence cannot come one under section 302, P. P. C. Even though death has in fact resulted.
4. The prosecution case is that on the 7th September 1966, a little before sunset, the deceased along with his brother Imam, was returning to their house along the canal bank after cutting grass. 'File appellants were waiting in ambush and when tile deceased crossed the syphon, they came out of a sugarcane held armed with sticks and assaulted tile deceased causing as many as 13 injuries mostly on the arms and the back. Imam raised a cry on which Muhammad Hayat and Khan came to the spot. They rescued the deceased. The appellants ran away. The deceased was removed to his village and when his condition became deteriorated he was carried on a cot towards Shahpur Sadar Police Station. On the way he breathed his last. His dead body was taken to the Thana. It., Exh.
5. P. E., was lodged by Imam on the 8th September 1966, at 4-00 a.m.
6. P. W. 6 Muhammad Shah Sub-Inspector prepared the Injury sheet and the inquest report and despatched the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also visited the spot.
7. The appellants appeared before him on the 11th September 1966. Mohammad Amin produced stick, Exh. P. 1, which was taken into possession ride Memo. P. C. The stick wrrs not blood-stained.
8. The prosecution case is supported by Imam P. W. And Muhammad Hayat. Imam P. W. Stated that he, along with the deceased, went out to the field in order to cut grass. After cutting the grass they were returning to their house with bundles of the grass. They crossed the syphon and when they were going along with the western bank of the canal the accused emerged out from the sugarcane held and assaulted the deceased causing him certain injuries. Imam raised an alarm which attracted Muhammad Hayat and Khan to the spot. The deceased was rescued by them.
9. Muhammad Hayat supported the evidence of P. W. Imam.
10. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellants has urged only one point in support of the appeal. According to the learned counsel, the appellants had no intention to kill the deceased as there was no sufficient motive. He contended that none of the injuries caused to the deceased was individually sufficient to cause death of the deceased and, therefore, the offence gin falls under section 304, Part 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the appellants should not have been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the cases of Yara and another v. Emperor (AIR 1929 Lah. 456), Mohan Singh and others v. Emperor (AIR 1934 Lah. 486) and Emperor v. Chandan Singh and others (I L R 40 All. 103). In the first mentioned case, where death was due to fracture of five ribs but no injury was fatal in itself and all the injuries had been caused by the blunt weapons; it was held as under :- "It was not possible to attribute any particular injury to any individual assailant. Nor could it be said that any particular injury was the direct cause of death. The common intent of the assailants could not be held to have been to cause such injury as they knew was likely to result in death. The accused could not, therefore, be safely convicted of murder. They were guilty of grievous hurt."
11. In the second case five persons took part in beating one T and another F which resulted in F sustaining grievous hurt, and T dying five days afterwards. There was no evidence of motive for the beat--ing. Medical evidence showed that Thad severe injuries on the head and one injury fracturing the ulna bone, the rest of the injuries being simple, and that F had one grievous and rest all simple. On this fact, it was held that the conviction under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing death of T was wrong. Proper conviction was under section 325, P. P. C. As regards both T and F with conviction under section 147. In the third mentioned case, three persons attacked a fourth with lathis and death caused through a fracture of skull of the person so attacked. There was, however, no evidence to show that the common intention of the assailants was to cause death or which of them actually struck the blow which fractured the skull of the deceased. On this fact, it was held that the offence of which the assailants were guilty was that of causing grievous hurt and not that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
12. Malik Mohammad Akbar, learned counsel for the State, has relied on two decisions of the Lahore High Court in the cases of Muhammad Sharif v. The State (PLD 1958 Lah. 408), and Ata Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1960 Lah. 111). In the first mentioned case, the accused by a single blow delivered with a piece of wood on the head of his victim broke his skull into 15 pieces thus causing his death. In these circumstances, it was held that the offence fell under section 302, P. P. C.
13. In the second case, it was held that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was given with the intention of causing death, the conviction must be for an offence of murder in spite of the fact that the injury was caused on a part of the body where injuries intended to cause death are not ordinarily caused.
14. In the present case, the deceased was caused as many as 13 injuries. Out of them, one was an abrasion and the others were contusion. Six of the ribs had been fractured. According to the evidence of the doctor, none of these injuries were individually sufficient to cause death but death was caused due to the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries. There is no doubt that the appellants had given merciless beating to the deceased They were lying in ambush and they had premeditated the attack on the deceased. In our opinion, in these circumstances, the appellants might not have intended to kill the deceased but assaulted the deceased with the intention of causing such bodily injury as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Their case clearly falls within clause thirdly, of section 300, P. P. C. And the learned Judges of the High Court were perfectly justified in convicting the appellants under section 302, P. P. C. In our opinion, the offence falls under section 302, P. P. C. And even though no individual injury has caused the death of the deceased. The very fact that the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries was to cause death, the appellants are guilty under section 302, P. P. C. Thus there is no force in the appeal which is dismissed.