' Appellants Muhammad Manzoor son of Sai Muhammad (25), Muhammad Inayat (35), Muhammad Yar (45) sons of Ghulam Muhammad, all Jat by caste residents of village Rukk teshil Phalia district Gujrat, were tried alongwith co-accused Sai Muhammad and Ghulam Qadir by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for offences under sections 302/307/ 148/149, P.P.C. For allegedly forming an unlawful assembly while armed with deadly weapons and committing rioting with the common object of causing the death of Umar Hayat deceased and making murderous assault upon Sikandar Hayat P.W. In the prosecution of their common object. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 31-3-1982 found them guilty and sentenced them under section 302/34, P.P.C. To life imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 5,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further three years' R.I. Each. They were also to pay a sum of Rs, 5,000 each as compensation under section 544- A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default of payment of fine they were to suffer further six months' R.I. Each. All the three accused/appellants were also sentenced under section 307/34, P.P.C. To one year's R.I. Each and a fine of Rs, 1,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further six months' R.I. Each. They were directed also to pay a sum of Rs, 1,000 each as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To be paid to Sikandar Hayat P.W. In default of payment of this amount they were to undergo further one month's R.I. Each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Sai Muhammad and Ghulam Qadir accused were however, acquitted.
2. The convicts have filed the present appeal challenging their conviction and sentences.
3. The occurrence allegedly took place on 27-3-1981 at 9/10 p.m. In the area of village Rukk situated at a distance of four miles towards east from Police Station Phalia. Muhammad Inayat Head Constable on receiving an information as to the occurrence went to Civil Hospital Phalia where Umar Hayat deceased and Sikandar Hayat P.W. Were brought in injured condition, and recorded the statement Exh. P.A. Of Sikandar Hayat P.W. On 28-3-1981 at 7-30 a.m. On the basis of which F.I.R.
Exh. P.A/1 was registered at 7-40 a.m. The same day under section 308/148/149, P.P.C. Which on the death of Umar Hayat deceased was later altered to one under section 302/148/149, P.P.C.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that on the fateful night Sikandar Hayat P.W.10 accompanied by his brother Umar Hayat deceased, Muhammad Baqar P.W.11 and Mirza P.W.13, came over to one Bashir Ahmad son of Karam Din caste Jat Tarar at his Behk in village Rukk. After some time they went towards the Behk of acquitted co-accused Sai Muhammad in the same village where the appellants and the acquitted co-accused were present. The complainant party on reaching the Behk greeted the accused party, at which Muhammad Inayat appellant asked them as to why had they come. The complainant party answered that they had come there to effect a compromise between the aforesaid Bashir Ahmad and the accused party. Muhammad Inayat appellant said that who were they to effect a compromise. He raised a Lalkara instigating the others to bring the Sotas in order to teach a lesson to the complainant party for effecting the compromise. Thereupon, the appellants and the acquitted co-accused attacked the complainant party. Muhammad Manzoor appellant took the initiative and inflicted a Sota blow on the head of Umar Hayat deceased which felled him on the ground. Muhammad Yar appellant caused a Sota blow on the head of Sikandar Hayat P.W. Then Muhammad Inayat appellant hit him on the right arm. Sai Muhammad acquitted co-accused gave a Sota blow hitting the back of the complainant.
Muhammad Baqar and Mirza P.Ws. In order to save the deceased and the complainant, inflicted Sota blows on the persons of Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar. Ghulam Qadir acquitted co-accused tried to inflict a Sota blow on the person of Mirza P.W. But that missed. Umar Hayat had become unconscious. The accused went towards the village. The P.Ws. Then brought Umar Hayat to Civil Hospital Phalia. Sikandar Hayat P.W. Was also admitted in the said hospital.
' The motive for the crime was stated to be that Mst. Rasulan, a sister's daughter of the aforesaid Bashir Ahmad was residing with him alongwith her mother Mst. Fatima Bibi as the latter was a divorcee. Manzoor etc. Wanted the hand of Mst. Rasulan but said Bashir Ahmad was not agreeing over that and the complainant party had come there to effect a compromise between them.
5. Muhammad Nawaz S.I. (P.W.12) investigated the case. He recorded the statements of Muhammad Baqar and Mirza P.Ws. He inspected the spot and collected the blood-stained earth which he took into possession vide memo. Exh. P.R. On having received the information as to the death of Umar Hayat deceased in Mayo Hospital Lahore, he rushed to Mayo Hospital Lahore whereat he prepared an inquest report Exh. P.C. And injury statement Exh. P.C./1 in respect of the dead body of Umar Hayat and then sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He got prepared site plan as to the place of occurrence from a Patwari.
' He arrested the appellants and the acquitted co-accused on 1-4-1981. Muhammad Manzoor appellant while in Police custody led to the recovery of Sota P.4 from his house on 3-4-1981 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.N. Muhammad Yar appellant got recovered Sota P.5 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.O. Similarly Muhammad Inayat led to the recovery of Sota P.6 from his house. It was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.Q.
6. Dr. Nazir Ahmad (P.W.5) on 28-3-1981 at 6-40 a.m. Medically examined Umar Hayat deceased while he was alive and found the following injury on his person.
' A contused wound 4 c.m. x 1 1/2 c.m. x bone deep over the top of the head antero posterior in direction. Bleeding from the right ear was present. The injured was unconscious.
' The injury was grievous and dangerous to life and was caused with a blunt weapon within the duration of 6 to 12 hours.
' He found the following injuries on the person of Sikandar Hayat P.W. Whom he examined on the same day at 7-15 a.m.
(1) A contused wound 11 c.m. x # c.m. x bone deep over the left side of head.
(2) A contusion mark 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the outer side of left elbow.
(3) A contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the right shoulder blade.
' The injuries were simple caused with a blunt weapon within the duration of 6 to 12 hours.
' On the same day at 8 a.m. He examined Muhammad Inayat appellant and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A contused wound 1 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. Over the top of the head.
(2) A contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the back of left shoulder.
(3) A contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the left side of back.
' The injuries were simple caused with a blunt weapon within the duration of 6 to 12 hours.
' Similarly, on the same day at 7-45 he examined Muhammad Yar appellant and found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) A contused wound 11 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. Over the outer side of right elbow.
(2) An abrasion 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the outer side of left knee.
(3) A contusion mark 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the back of left shoulder.
' The injuries were simple caused with a blunt weapon within the duration of 6 to 12 hours.
' During the cross-examination this doctor admitted having medically examined Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Anar D.Ws. According to him Sher Muhammad was found to have a contusion 10 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the back; a contusion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. Outer side of right upper arm. Muhammad Anar sustained a contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. Over the back of right hand with swollen area 3 c.m. x 21 c.m. Over the right hand. The injured also complained of pain over the back. All the injuries were simple caused with a blunt weapon within the duration of 6 to 12 hours.
7. Dr. Sabir All (P.W.3) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Umar Hayat deceased on 30-3-1981 at 10-30 a.m. And found the following injury on his person:-
(1) A lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the mid parietal region of the head just to the left placed antero posterially.
' The under-scalp on the left and right parieto temporal region was found bruised. There was a fissured fracture of the left parietal bone, extending into the left temporal bone. There was sutural fracture of right front parietal suture extending into right temporal bone; fracture of both middle cranial fossae. There was extra dural haemorrhage on both the sides. There was haemorrhage in the base of the brain.
' In his opinion the injury was ante-mortem caused with a blunt weapon which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was haemorrhage in the cranial cavity. The probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was 1 to 2 days and that between death and post-mortem was 19 hours.
' In support of its case the prosecution relied on the following pieces of evidence;
(i) the ocular testimony furnished by Sikandar Hayat (P.W.10), Muhammad Baqar (P.W.11) and Mirza (P.W.13);
(ii) the evidence of motive given by Sikandar Hayat and Baqar P.Ws.
(iii) the incriminating recoveries attested by Jalal P.W.9 besides the Investigating Officer.
(iv) the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Sabir Ali (P.W.3) and Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar (P.W.5).
9. The appellant Muhammad Manzoor when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. At the trial denied the allegations and pleaded self-defence. He stated:- "On the night between 27 and 28-3-1981 at about 10 p.m. Umar Hayat deceased, Sikandar, Atta Muhammad, Moonda, Talib, Nazar and Jahana along with 2-3 more persons armed with sticks came to our Dera. Umar Hayat deceased raised Lalkara that he would not spare me because I was going to marry Rasulan against his wishes, whereupon Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar along with Anar son of Nazar and Sher Muhammad intervened to rescue me. The deceased and his companions started causing injuries to us. I entreated them to spare me but they did not restrain from it. I had the apprehension that I would be killed. I picked up a small stick lying there for grazing, my cattle and in order to save myself and in my self-defence gave a single blow which incidently landed on the head of Umar Hayat. We then ran away towards the village to save our lives. Umar Hayat wanted to marry his brother Sikandar P.W. With said Rasulan who is niece of the husband of sister of Umar Hayat. The father of Rasulan, Ghulam Rasul and his uncle also wanted Rasulan to marry with me and at the instigation of their sister and failing in their attempt to get the hand of Rasulan they trespassed into my Dera with the intention to remove me from their way and to kill me. Mirza and Baqar P.Ws. Were never present there. They had become witnesses due to their close relationship with Umar Hayat deceased and due to enmity as a result of strained relations of Umar Hayat with us. I had complained to the Police Inspector when he visited the spot about the occurrence and produced evidence to this effect. My father Sai Muhammad accused was not present there nor Ghulam Qadir accused was present there."
' The other appellants namely Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Inayat adopted the statement of Muhammad Manzoor appellant. As to the injuries on their persons they stated that they were given beating by Umar Hayat deceased and the P.Ws.
' Muhammad Manzoor appellant produced Muhammad Anar D.W. 1 and Shera P.W. 2 in his defence.
Muhammad Anar D.W. 1 more or less stated the same story which Muhammad Manzoor appellant had put in his defence. He supported the defence version by stating:- "Umar Hayat deceased gave a stick blow. He intended to inflict the blow to Manzoor accused. I placed my hand and warded off the stick blow on the back of my right hand. Sikandar gave stick blow on my back. Umar Hayat gave stick blow on the head of Inayat accused. 4-5 unidentified persons further caused the injuries with sticks. Umar Hayat was given stick blow by Manzoor accused, it was a small stick. I gave two stick blows to Sikandar in self-defence. Umar fell down, we got time and ran away. The deceased party wanted to kill Manzoor accused."
' D.W.2 Shera more or less stated the same. The acquitted co-accused refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence by stating that they were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
8. It will be advantageous to mention here the relationship of the P.Ws. The accused and the D.Ws.
Inter se. Sikandar Hayat P.W. Is the real brother of Umar Hayat deceased whereas Muhammad Baqar and Mirza P.Ws. Are the first cousins of the deceased. Sai Muhammad acquitted accused is the father of Manzoor appellant. Muhammad Yar and Inayat appellants are real brothers and their sister is married with Sai Muhammad co-accused. Ghulam Qadir co-accused is the nephew of Muhammad Yar and Inayat appellants who are also uncles of D.W.1 and D.W.2.
9. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment observed that the occurrence was admitted in a way by the accused party except Sai Muhammad and Ghulam Qadir whose plea was that they were not present at the place of occurrence. Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar (appellants) were present. Manzoor (appellant) admitted his presence but as to the occurrence with a different impact. He believed in the presence of the prosecution witnesses, motive, relied upon the recoveries as to the blood-stained earth, recoveries of three sticks from Manzoor, Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar appellants and sought further support from the medical evidence. As to the discrepancies he observed that such discrepancies were bound to occur in the statements of natural witnesses because of lapse of time. As to the fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased the learned Judge opined that since they had gone to effect a compromise so the relatives usually accompanied. Sakindar P.W. Was injured, there was no doubt as to his presence at the place of occurrence. There appeared no major discrepancy within the statements of Baqar and Mirza P.Ws. They were unanimous as to the time of occurrence, place of occurrence, weapons used by the accused the injuries and the manner in which those were inflicted also as to the two accused. As to the plea of self-defence specifically raised by Manzoor appellant the learned Judge observed, "The circumstances in the present case are entirely different. Manzoor accused is not injured, he has not suffered any injury, even a scratch on his person. The injuries on the person of two of the accused Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar are simple in nature caused with blunt weapons. These were not caused with any sharp-edged weapon or on any vital part. Sher Muhammad D.W.1 suffered two contusions one is on his back and the other is on his right upper arm. Muhammad Anar D.W.2 had suffered a contusion on his back of right hand and the second injury was that he was complaining of pain only. These injuries on the persons of two D.Ws. Were not on any vital part. Muhammad Inayat accused has suffered three injuries. There was a contused wound on the top of the head, shoulder and back. These were simple injuries. Muhammad Yar accused has suffered on the outer side of his left knee, there was a contusion mark on his left shoulder. The perusal of these injuries would show that these were simple in nature and nobody could except that by suffering such injuries the death would be caused, therefore, the right of self- defence was not available to the accused.
' The complainant party was not carrying any sticks with them. The sticks were picked up from the place of occurrence. Umar Hayat had suffered a grievous injury on his head, his condition was precarious. He fell down and became unconscious at the spot and such an injury could not be given by Manzoor accused, an uninjured person, to Umar Hayat to save the life of his companions, Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar accused. The two D.Ws. Or even the accused party had not brought any complaint against their assailants. In these circumstances the plea taken by the accused Manzoor that he had acted in self-defence is not established and no weight can be attached to it." The learned Sessions Judge held Manzoor appellant as having, given the fatal blow to the deceased, but since he did not repeat his blow therefore, that was treated as a mitigating circumstance, so as to award lesser punishment. Muhammad Inayat and Muhammad Yar appellants were regarded as sharing the common intention with Manzoor appellant as to the injuries to the deceased and Sikander Hayat P.W.
' Mr. Shahid Hamid the learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Bahader Ali, Advocate has contended that the complainant party was the aggressor, assaulted first, the appellants had good reason to apprehend a grievous injury or worse at the hands of the complainant party. In the circumstances of the case the appellants had a complete right of self-defence of body which extended to the causing of death of the deceased. In no case the right of self-defence was exceded. The incident took place at the Behk of the appellants. The complainant party came from its own village Phiray to Rukk after covering six miles.The incident took place between 9 and 10 p.m., without an invitation and without prior intimation. P.W.10 complainant Sikandar stated that they had not sent any message to the accused that they were coming for the compromise. P.W.11 stated that the accused had not sent any message to them. The alleged Razinama was to be between Bashir and Manzoor appellants. Bashir was not produced as a witness. The difference if at all was between Bashir and the appellants who were blood relatives, that was none of the business of the complainant party. The complainant came down to Rukk alongwith the sticks with the intention to use those. In cross-examination P.W.10 stated that he stated before the police that Mirza snatched the stick from Qadir and Baqar snatched the stick from Sai. He was confronted with his statement to the police where it was not so recorded. "P.W.11 was confronted with his statement before the police wherein he had stated that he and Mirza P.W. Carried small sticks to scare the dogs. Mirza P.W.13 was confronted with his statement before the police wherein he stated that Baqar and he had already sticks with them again confronted that we had not stated before the police that he snatched the stick from Qadir and Baqar snatched the stick from Sai Muhammad, so the witnesses improved upon their evidence at the place of occurrence. It has been next submitted that the ratio of the injuries is 4 to 10. There were three different versions by the witnesses as to their contacting of Bashir and the appellants etc. The F.I.R. Was lodged after a delay of 7 to 8 hours without any explanation. The learned counsel has relied upon Abdul Rashid and 2 others v. The State 1972 P Cr. L J 796 in which it was held that the right of private defence was available to the accused since they had injuries with blunt and sharp-edged weapons on their persons, some of which were on heads, indicating that the accused apprehended grievous hurt or even death at the hands of their assailants. One person from the complainant party suffered death as a result of only one blow caused with a blunt weapon on his head. The accused were acquitted as their case was covered by section 100, P.P.C. In the alternative the learned counsel has maintained that the case comes to be covered by Exception IV to section 300, P.P.C.
13. The learned counsel for the State has in reply submitted that had there been the case of aggression by the complainant party, the appellants would have gone to the police with their version or in the alternative filed a private complaint with their version. It is an afterthought. No case of self-defence has been made out. D.W.1 had stated that Manzoor appellant was hit on the back. The appellants have been rightly convicted. They have already been dealt with leniently.
14. As to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that three different versions have been effected by the P.Ws. No doubt the difference is there as to the preliminaries, such a state at the most reflects upon the presence of the witnesses. In the present case the presence of the P.Ws.
Cannot be doubted for the reason that the complainant was himself injured and the duration of the injuries co-related with the timing of the incident. In defence raised specifically by Manzoor and the D.Ws. Though Baqar and Mirza were not shown as present where other persons were mentioned as having participated alongwith the deceased and the complainant, yet their presence stood proved by the admission of Inayat and Yar Muhammad appellants made in the statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. That they were given beating by Umar Hayat deceased and the P.Ws. The delay in the F.I.R. Cannot be much taken into account because the occurrence was admitted though with different version by the appellants.
15. In a murder case where some of the persons on both the sides are injured one way or the other and both the parties came out with different versions as to the occurrence, then in the absence of some independent evidence, it is very difficult to come to the truth of the matter, since the tendency to viberate the facts one sided cannot be ruled out. The present case presents the same difficulty.
16. Now an attempt is being made to analyse the case of the prosecution in juxtaposition to that of the defence with reference to the plea of self-defence specifically raised. The motive alleged takes its rise from the desiring of the hand of Mst. Rasoolan. It is in evidence of the two prosecution witnesses deposing as to the motive that after Bashir Ahmad had not agreed to the proposal made by Sai Muhammad co-accused for marriage of his son with Mst. Rasoolan, Manzoor appellant had given a threat that he would abduct Mst. Rasoolan. It looks probable with this background that the deceased alongwith the P.Ws. Being interested in some way went to the house of Sai Muhammad either to reprimand or deter Manzoor appellant from taking to his evil design rather than for the alleged compromise. The villagers when they set off towards the night time they usually take their sticks along with them. So, the probability is there that the complainant party took alongwith them their sticks. At least the confrontation of Baqar and Mirza P.Ws. With their statements to the police that they had the sticks with them belies that they picked up the sticks from the place of occurrence with which they caused injuries to Inayat and Muhammad Yar appellants. The rule of appreciation is that where upon a witness is contradicted with his previous statement, he is not to be believed on that point. Manzoor appellant in his plea of self-defence and the D.Ws. Mentioned the names of persons accompanying the deceased but did not name Baqar and Mirza P.Ws. So their account in that behalf stood belied by the statements of Inayat and Muhammad Yar appellants when they said that they were given beating by Umar Hayat deceased and the P.Ws. The prosecution deliberately suppressed the injuries caused to both the D.Ws. Whose injuries as to their duration bore a close relation with the time of occurrence and were expressed by the doctors as not self-suffered. The ratio of the injuries as pointed out by the learned counsel between the complainant party and that of the accused is 4 to 10.
17. The learned Sessions Judge wrongly received the case of the prosecution as verbatim true and weighed the self-defence plea under a mistaken view of the law when he said that the perusal of the injuries would show that those were simple in nature and no body could expect that by suffering such injuries the death would be caused. Section 100, P.P.C. contemplates not only the assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence but also that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault as is obvious from the description enumerated secondly to section 100, P.P.C. When the sticks, clubs, etc. Are used the apprehension of grievous hurt is very often there, the nature of injuries already received or absence of an injury is not determinative, but the apprehension as mentioned above in the course of an assault where a forceful blow landing on a volunerable part can be given at any time.
18. In the circumstances of the present case the guidance is being sought from the following decision.
' Sardar Ali v. The Crown PLD 1953 FC 93 in which it has been observed that the principles laid down in Woolmington's case are applicable with full force in Pakistan in spite of the provisions of section 105 of the Evidence Act.
"....In a criminal case, it is the duty of the Court to review the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and the defence, if, after an examination of the whole evidence, the Court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that suck a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace, but as of right, because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
' Muhammad Aslam alias Aslam v. The Crown PLD 1953 FC 115, the question answered in this case was as to the correct mode of treatment of a circumstantial plea in self-defence raised in a murder case having regard to the onus of proof resting on the prosecution to establish its case and the burden lying upon the accused to prove his special pleading. It was observed:- "The essential consideration underlying the conclusion is that the accused person cannot be regarded as having acted in the ordinary case, (to which category the present case belongs) with more than one intention. Either he must be deemed to have acted with the intention to save himself, or with a criminal intention such as constitutes murder. For the determination of this question it is necessary that the Court should take into account fully all the facts and circumstances appearing on the entire record, including such portion of the evidence led for the defence as the Court finds worthy of belief, for even though such evidence may be insufficient to establish the special pleading, it cannot be without effect in relation to the opposing evidence led for the prosecution, since ex hypothesi, it relates to the same incident. The effect, in such a case, may be to create the state of reasonable doubt indicated above, of which the Court is bound to give the benefit to the accused."
' Shamir alias Shamla v. The State P L 9 1958 SC 242, in this case it was held that despite the facts that no evidence had been led by the accused to prove the plea of self-defence, yet, if the plea received support to the extent of being reasonably possible from the circumstances proved by the prosecution evidence the accused was entitled to acquittal; Muhammad Abdullah v. Muhammad Safdar and another 1973 SCMR 26, in this case the versions under section 302 and section 100, P.P.C. As to the right of private defence, both were found as unreliable and in that situation the august Court observed, "In our opinion, in a case of this nature, where neither the prosecution nor the defence come out with the true version and the Court is called upon to sift the evidence in order to discover as to what portion of it can be accepted and what has to be rejected, it is always a delicate and a difficult task. If the discrepancies are of such a serious nature that no reliance can be placed on the prosecution story at all then the benefit of that will necessarily have to go to the accused. Unless there is some independent and reliable evidence bringing home the guilt to one or the other of the accused persons, the prosecution cannot succeed."
' The State v. Khair-ur-Rehman PLD 1960 (W.P) Pesh. 50, in this case it has been held that when a witness tells a lie on an important point which has a material bearing on the culpability of an accused, his evidence does not deserve credence. In order to be believed, a witness must come to Court with clean hands, and if he is found to have suppressed a material fact which goes in favour of the accused, his evidence must be rejected. Further, it is held that if an accused is found to have been injured in a fight with the deceased, it will be permissible to presume that it was the deceased who injured him, unless there is clear evidence or circumstance to the contrary, and if it is doubtful as to which of them attacked first, the benefit of doubt will go to the accused.
18. Now in the case in hand the odds weigh against the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case as clear cut. The injuries were suffered by the persons on both the sides, the place of occurrence was the Behk of the appellant Manzoor, the deceased and his companions had come down of their own to that place, they had to pave a course, each party put its own version. In the absence of independent and reliable evidence, yet it cannot be said with certainty that who attacked first and who reacted in defence. The probability that, that might be true, that Manzoor appellant acted either in the defence of the injured on his side or in his own defence in view of his own plea or statement of the D.Ws. Who were injured during the occurrence cannot be excluded also positively. One blow only having been given by him on the head of the deceased with a stick does not appear as out of the context of the probability of having acted in the self-defence.
19. So, in view of the aforesaid mess of facts, circumstances and probabilities, the benefit of doubt is being afforded to the appellants in the light of the above-said decisions. In the result, this appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentences of the appellants on all counts are set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.