MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.-----This Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 1980 and the connected Murder Reference No. 184 of 1980, arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby he on 11-6-1980 convicted Muhammad Aslam (33), Muhammad Ashraf (25)
Akmal Din (40), Qamar Din (52), Sher Muhammad (35), Muhammad Saeed (30) and Abdul Hameed (27), appellants, under various sections of P.P.C. And sentenced them as under:-- (i)Under section 302/149, P.P.C. For the tripple murder of Muhammad Sadiq, Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh deceased: (a)He sentenced Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saeed and Akmal Din appellants to death on three counts and a fine of Rs.1,000 or one year's R.I. On each count; (b)Abdul Hameed appellant to death for murder of Muhammad Sadiq and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I. He was also sentenced to imprisonment for life on two counts for the murder of Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh and a fine of Rs.1,000 or one year's R.I. On each count; (c)Qamer Din, Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Ashraf to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000 or one year's R.I. On three counts; (ii)Under section 307, P.P.C.: All the appellants to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.500 or in default thereof to six months' R.I. For murderous assault on Khair Muhammad P.W. 14; (i.e)Under section 404, P.P.C.: Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Saeed appellants to two years' R.I. Each.
(iv)Under section 382, P.P.C.: Sher Muhammad appellant to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.500 or in default thereof to six months'
R.I.
The sentences were to run concurrently. It was directed that the fine imposed under section 302, P.P.C. When recovered be paid to the legal heirs of the three deceased and the fine awarded under section 307, P.P.C. When recovered, be paid to Khair Muhammad P.W.14.
2. Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Aslam appellants are brothers inter se. Qamar Din and Akmal Din appellant are brothers inter se and are also cousin of Muhammad Aslam appellant.
Abdul Majid and Muhammad Saeed are brothers inter se. Muhammad Latif accused since deceased was also brother of Muhammad Saeed. Abdul Latif and Muhammad Saeed are brothers of the were of Muhammad Aslam appellant.
3. The parties are also related inter se. Mst. Ghulam Khatoon is widow of Noor Muhammad deceased her sister Mst. Khadija Bibi is were of Akmal Din appellant. The other sister of the were of Noor Muhammad deceased is were of Qamar Din appellant. Abdul Karim father-in-law of Qamar Din and Akmal Din appellants is cousin of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Ashraf and Sher Din appellants.
4. The occurrence took place on 17-11-1977 at 8-15 a.m. In village Kufri at a distance of four miles from Police Station, Naushera, District Sargodha. Khair Muhammad P.W. 14 brother of Noor Muhammad deceased, lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.Y. On the same day at 10-30 a.m. Which was recorded by Arshad S.H.O./S.I. P.W.17.
5. The motive as alleged by the prosecution was that Muhammad Bakhsh deceased was having illicit relations with Mst. Jannat sister of Muhammad Aslam appellant. About 15/16 days prior to the murder, Muhammad Aslam appellant was sitting in a lane near the douse of the maternal-uncle of Muhammad Bakhsh deceased. Muhammad Bakhsh asked Muhammad Aslam to go away as the ladies had to pass that way for attending a marriage. Muhammad Aslam appellant took exception to it. This led to altercation between them which attracted Khair Muhammad P.W. 14 and Muhammad Sadiq deceased to the spot. Muhammad Bakhsh, Sadiq and Khair Muhammad gave beating to Muhammad Aslam accused. While leaving the place, Muhammad Aslam threatened them with dire consequences, hence this occurrence.
6. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that Khair Muhammad. Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh were residents of village Kufri. Khair Muhammad was posted as a teacher in Naushera High School. Noor Muhammad deceased was running a shop at Naushera. Muhammad Bukhsh deceased had to join his duty It Naushera. At the eventful time, they were going towards Naushera. Khair Muhammad was his licensed gun as Muhammad Aslam appellant had already threatened him with dire consequences poor Muhammad deceased was also holding his licensed gun with him. Sadiq and Muhammad Bakhsh were empty-handed. When they reached near graveyard of People's Colony, village Kufri, they found Muhammad Aslam, Akmal Din, Muhammad Saeed appellant armed with guns standing at a distance of one hundred yards from them. Sher Muhammad was armed with hatchet. Muhammad Latif accused since dead had a hatchet in his hand. Muhammad Ashraf, Qamar Din and Abdul Majeed appellants were armed with Dang.
Muhammad Aslam appellant raised Lalkara and fired a shot at Khair Muhammad and others which hit nobody. On this, Khair Muhammad complainant, and his companions left the Pucca road and lay down in the nearby field. Khair Muhammad fired shot in his self-defence. Akmal Din, Muhammad Saeed and Sher Muhammad appellants departed from their co-accused and came on the back side of the complainant party and from there they started firing. Feeling that they had been surrounded and circle around them was being narrowed by the accused party. Khair Muhammad and his companions ran towards north-west, taking shelter behind wall of the graveyard. Ultimately they reached the land of one Sher Muhammad. By that time the appellants and Abdul Latif deceased /accused had reached near them Muhammad Aslam and Akmal Din appellants fired simultaneously at Muhammad Bakhsh deceased hitting him on his belly and chin.
Muhammad Latif accused gave two blows to Muhammad Bakhsh on his head and forehead. Sher Muhammad appellant gave hatchet blow to Muhammad Sadiq on his head who fell down on the ground. Abdul Majid appellant then picked up a big stone and hit Muhammad Sadiq on his head.
Muhammad Saeed appellant fired shot hitting Noor Muhammad on his right flank. Qamar Din gave a Lathi blow to Noor Muhammad deceased on his head. At this stage Muhammad Ashraf, Sher Muhammad, Qamar Din appellants attacked Khair Muhammad P.W.14 who in defence fired a shot which hit Muhammad Ashraf appellant Qamar Din gave Lathi blow on the head of Khair Muhammad P.W.14 who in defence fired a shot which hit Muhammad Ashraf appellant. Qamar Din gave Lathi blow on the head of Khair Muhammad P.W.
14. Sher Muhammad appellant snatched away gun from Khair Muhammad complainant. Noor Muhammad deceased fired in his self- defence which killed Muhammad Latif accused on the spot. The firing and the alarm raised by the parties attracted Sher Muhammad P.W.
15. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.16 and Sher Muhammad son of Mian Muhammad (not produced) to the spot. They also saw the occurrence. The appellant then ran away taking with them also the gun of Noor Muhammad deceased. Leaving the dead bodies at the place of occurrence Khair Muhammad left for the Police Station to lodge report.
7. On 17-11-1977 at 12-45 p.m. Dr. Asad-ud-Din P.W.1 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sadiq. He found following injuries on his person:- "(1)An incised wound 1" x --" x bone deep on the left upper corner, of forehead, situated transversely.
(2)A lacerated wound 2" x --" x skull deep situated on the left parietal eminence and 5" above the ear pinna.
(3)An abrasion 1/8" x 1/8" situated on the back of left pinna of ear.
(4)An abrasion 2" x 1/8" situated on the dorsum of left forearm and 3" below the left elbow."
On the same day at 1-40 p.m. He conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Bakhsh. He found following injuries:- (1)A burst of gun shot having seven wounds of entrance with tattoo marks situated on the left groin.
(2)Three gun shot wound of exit situated on the abdomen, near each other on the left upper and little aspect of umbilicus. They were as follows:- (i)-- x -- situated 2--" from the umbilicus.
(ii)-- " x -- situated 2-- " from the umbilicus and -- " lateral to the injury No.1.
(i.e)-- x -- and 3 -- " lateral to umbilicus.
(3)An incised wound 2" x --" x bone deep situated on the left upper corner of the forehead.
(4)A gun shot wound of entrance -- " x -- " in the middle of chin with wound of exit -- " x -- " and -- above the wound ofentrance.
(5)An abrasion 1" x 3/4" situated on the lefter acromion.
(6)An incised wound 1--" x --" x skull deep situated in the riddle of top of head and in between the two pinnae of ear."
On the internal examination, he detected three pellets and two boards. The stomach contained semi-digested food.
8. On the same day at 2-20 p.m., he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Noor Muhammad. He found following injuries: (1)A contused wound --" x 1/8" x scalp deep situated on the left parietal eminence and 4" above the pinna of left ear. There was bleeding from both the ears.
(2)A burst wound of entrance 1" x --" situated on the lateral aspect of right chest 2--" below the right axilla. It had got big tattoo mark 4" x 3" around the wound.
(3)9 wounds of exit were situated on the back of left chest which were near to each other.
9. On internal examination one pellet and three hardboard pieces were recovered from the chest.
The stomach contained semi-digest, food. In his opinion the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as result of the rupture of both the lungs. Injury No. 2 was sufficient cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was immediate, Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt weapon and injuries Nos. 2 and by a fire-arm.
On the same day, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Latif accused. He found following injury:-- "A burst wound of entrance 1-- " x 1-- " situated on the epigastrium with tattoo marks on the edges of wound. There was one wound of exit on the back on right lumbar region --" x --" Three-- pellets were recovered from the wound of exit. The burst had also caused fracture of second lumbar vertebra. The injury of vertebra was detected same as stated in column of injury.
On the same day at 4 p.m. He examined Khair Muhammad P.W.14 and found following injury on his person:- "Contused wound 1" x --" situated on the vertex. It is parallel with the superior sagittal plan and three inches of the nasion. This injury was simple and inflicted with blunt weapon."
The injury was simple in nature and was caused by blunt weapon within 7 to 9 hours of the examination.
On the same day, he examined Muhammad Ashraf appellant and found following injuries on, his person:- (1)Two wounds of gunshot entrance 3/4" x --" and 3/4" x -- which were -- apart from each other with tattoo marks situated on the lateral aspect of right forearm and 4" below the right elbow.
There was one wound of exit -- x --" situated on the back of right upper arm and 2--" above the right elbow.
(2)One wound of entrance 3/4" x --" with tattoo marks situated in the centre of left palm. There was one wound of exit --" x -- situated on the level of lower end of left radius. There was another wound of entrance with tattoo marks situated on the dorsal surface of digit between little and ring finger of left hand.
(3)One wound of entrance with tattoo marks measuring --" x --" situated on the lower border of front of right chest and 2-- " lateral to the lower end of sternum, with tearing of front of shirt, Wasket and Buniyan due to burst of gunshot. There was tearing of Shalwar due to burst of gunshot. All the injuries were kept under observation and advised for X-Rays. The probable duration of injuries was between 7 and 10 hours. Exh.P.F. Is the correct carbon copy of my medico-legal report which is in my hand and signed by me. Exh.P.F./1 is the sketch of injuries which is in my hand and signed by me.
The injuries were caused by a fire-arm. In cross-examination he stated that Muhammad Ashraf when brought to the hospital was in a serious condition due to the injuries. His dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Doctor at 4 p.m. The doctor had declared him fit to make statement.
10. Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Ashraf, Qamar Din, Sher Muhammad and Abdul Majeed appellants were arrested on 19-11-1977 by Arshad Mahmood S.I. P.W.17. Muhammad Saeed appellant was arrested on 5-12-1977 by Akbar Hussain A.S.I. P.W.5. Akmal Din appellant was arrested on 7-12-1977 by Akbar Hussain A.S.I. P.W.5.
On 17-11-1971 Arshad Mahmood S.I. P.W.17 inspected the spot. He took into possession of 9 crime empties P.25/1 to 9 from the place of occurrence, vide memo. Exh.P.W. Attested by Sher Muhammad P.W.6 and Muhammad Aslam (not produced). On the same day in the presence of the same witnesses, he took into possession a blood-stained stone P.24, vide memo. P.V.
On 3-12-1977 Abdul Majid appellant led to the recovery of blood---stained Lathi P.15 which was taken into possession vide memo. P.K. Attested by Sher Muhammad P.W.6 and Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I. P.W.4. On the same day Qamar Din appellant got recovered blood-stained Lathi P.16, vide memo P.L. Attested by the same witnesses. Sher Muhammad appellant got recovered blood- stained hatchet P.17 which was taken into possession, vide memo. P.M. Attested by the same witnesses. On the same day Muhammad Saeed got recovered gun P.18, vide memo.
P.N. Attested by the same witnesses. On 19-11-1977 at the time of his arrest, Muhammad Aslam appellant was carrying gun P.19 and two cartridges, P.20/1-2 which were taken into possession, vide memo. P.O. Attested by Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I. P.W.4, Akbar Hussain A.S.I, P.W.5 and Noor Din P.W.12.
Muhammad Aslam on 13-12-1977 also led to the recovery of two guns P.21 and P.22 which were taken into possession, vide memo. P.Q. Attested by Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I. P.W.4, Muhammad Akram P.W.7 and Muhammad Aslam (not produced). On 14-12-1977 Akmal Din led to the recovery of gun P.23 from his house, vide memo. P.R. Attested by P.W.8 Saleh Muhammad and Noor Muhammad (not produced). Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I. P.W.4. The Serologist's report Exh.P.KK reveals that stone P.2 removed from the place of occurrence, hatchet P.17 recovered from Sher Muhammad, Lathis recovered from Abdul Majeed and Qamar Din were stained with human blood.
The Forensic Science Laboratory report Exh.P.LL shows that one empty each was fired from guns recovered from Akmal Din and Muhammad Aslam and two empties were fired from the gun recovered from Muhammad Saeed appellant.
11. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Khair Muhammad P.W.14, Sher Muhammad P.W.15 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W.16 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen the appellants variously armed launching attack and Muhammad Sadiq, Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Bakhsh, and Khair Muhammad and thereby causing the death of the three deceased and injuries to Khair Muhammad complainant.
Muhammad Khan P.W.10, Noor Muhammad P.W.13 and Khair Muhammad P.W.14, have deposed about the motive. Muhammad Iqbal A.S.I., P.W. 4, Akbar Hussain P.W.5, Sher Muhammad P.W.6, Muhammad Akram P.W.7, Saleh Muhammad P.W.8, and Noor Din P.W.12 have deposed about the recovery of nine crime empties P.25/1 to 9 from the place of occurrence and the recoveries of weapons of offence from Abdul Majeed, Qamar Din, Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Aslam appellants. Dr. Asad-ud-Din P.W.1 had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of four deceased (including body of Muhammad Latif accused). He also medically examined Khair Muhammad P.W.14, and Muhammad Ashraf appellant. He has proved the post- mortem examination reports of three deceased and, the medico-legal report of Khair Muhammad P.W.14 and Muhammad Ashraf appellant. Akbar Hussain A.S.I., P.W.5 and Arshad Mahmood S.I., P.W.17 had arrested the appellants, Arshad Mahmood S.I. Had prepared the memorandum of the recoveries. Muhammad Khan P.W.10 stated that about 14 days before the present occurrence Noor Muhammad father of Muhammad Bakhsh deceased had told him that Muhammad Aslam appellant had been beaten by Muhammad Bakhsh, Khair Muhammad P.W. And Sadiq deceased and asked him to accompany him to the house of Muhammad Aslam for reconciliation. The witness stated that he alongwith Noor Muhammad went to the witness stated that he alongwith Noor Muhammad went to the house of Muhammad Aslam appellant but he did not agree to compromise with Khair Muhammad P.W. He, however, promised 10 reconcile with Muhammad Bakhsh deceased. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
12. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication. The appellant other than Muhammad Ashraf did not admit participation in the occurrence. Muhammad Ashraf while admitting his presence at the time of occurrence stated that:- "During the days of occurrence I was on leave. I had to report to my unit at Abbottabad on the evening on 17-11-1977. I started from my house at about 8-30 a.m. My brother Muhammad Aslam and his brother-in-law Latif, my co-accused, since dead started with me to see me of. I had to catch the bus from the road for Rawalpindi. When we reached near the graveyard, Khair Muhammad P.W., his son Muhammad Shafiq, Muhammad Bakhsh deceased, Noor Muhammad deceased and Sadiq deceased attacked us. I was injured at the hands of Khair Muhammad and Muhammad Shafiq. I was carried to the hospital at Naushera. Where the police got my dying declaration recorded which is Exh.D.B. The other accused were not present at the spot. My co- accused Muhammad Aslam fired in self-defence."
It may be noted that Muhammad Aslam appellant has not pleaded the right of self-defence. He has not even admitted his presence at the time of occurrence.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the eye-witnesses are related, interested and partisan; that the eye--witnesses are not truthful as they have not properly explained the injuries of Muhammad Ashraf appellant; that the three deceased and Khair Muhammad P.W.14 were the aggressor and that Muhammad Aslam had injured them in exercise of the right of his self-defence and that there is a reasonable possibility of the correctness of the version of the occurrence given by Muhammad Ashraf appellant. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court. He maintained that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the appellants through reliable evidence.
14. We have carefully attended to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have appreciated the entire evidence in accordance with the guidelines given by the superior Courts for appreciation of evidence in such like cases. On our independent assessment of the prosecution evidence attending circumstances, statements made by the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the documents tendered by them we find that it is a case of prompt F.I.R. The occurrence took place on 17-11-1977 at 8-15 a.m. And the F.I.R. Was recorded 2 hours and 15 minutes thereafter. The names of the appellants, the weapons carried by them, the part played by them the manner of the occurrence and the names of the eye-witnesses are mentioned therein. There is nothing to show that the F.I. R. Was not recorded at the time and place as it purports to be. So, this genuine document can safely be used to corroborate the statement of its maker namely Khair Muhammad P.W.14.
15. Adverting to the crucial piece of evidence, i.e. Ocular account of the occurrence given by Khair Muhammad P.W.14, Sher Muhammad P.W.15 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W.16. We find that by the facts of injuries on his person, the presence of Khair Muhammad P.W.14 on the spot at the time of occurrence is very much established. Sher Muhammad P.W.15 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W.16 have also given plausible cause of their presence at the rime of occurrence. Their names are also mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I.R. There is no reason to doubt that they in fact saw the occurrence. Since the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and the appellants were previously known to the eye-witnesses, therefore, they were in a position to identify the culprits. No foundation for the substitution of the appellant in place of the real culprits has been laid down by the defence. The number of the injuries suffered by the three deceased and Khair Muhammad P.W.14, commensurate with the numbers of the persons named by the three eye-witnesses.
Muhammad Khan P.W.l0, Noor Muhammad P.W.13 and Khair Muhammad P. W .14 have deposed about the alleged motive. We do not see any legal infirmity in their statements. They have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. Their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of relationship with the deceased. In view of the alleged motive which has been believed by us, the appellants were expected to join in attack. The statements given by the three eye-witnesses are in consonance with the probabilities and materially fit in with rest of the evidence. Sher Muhammad P.W.15 and Ghulam Muhammad P.W.16 are remotely related to both the parties. They had no animus against the appellants. The complainant as well as the eye-witness have not suppressed the death of Muhammad Latif co-accused and injuries top Muhammad Ashraf appellant. In the F.I.R. It has been explained that Noor Muhammad deceased had fired at Muhammad Latif deceased-accused in self-defence and that Khair Muhammad complainant had fired at Muhammad Ashraf appellant in his self-defence. Similar explanation has been given in their statements before the Court. The statements of the three eye-witnesses do not suffer from infirmities such as material contradiction, major discrepancies and dishonest improvements. So we hold that the three eye-witnesses are absolutely dependable and they can be relied upon without corroboration. If the rule of prudence still requires independent corroboration of the statements of the eye-witnesses, the same is available against the appellants other than Muhammad Ashraf in the shape of prompt F.I.R. Motive and recoveries of guns and blood-stained hatchet and Dangs. Out of the 9 crime empties recovered from the spot, 4 were fired from the guns recovered from Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saeed and Akmal Din, Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.I.
P.W.4, Sher Muhammad P.W.6 and Muhammad Akram P.W.7 have stated about the recoveries of guns, blood-stained hatchet and Dangs from Sher Muhammad, Qamar Din and Abdul Majeed appellants. The Forensic Science Laboratory report is in positive. The Serologist report reveals that the Dangs and the hatchet were stained with human, blood. The recovery witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses, as they had no ill-will against the appellants to make false statement against them. We do not see any legal infirmity in their statements. We are convinced that the three eye-witnesses have spoken the truth and have rightly been believed by the trial Court.
16. Now we proceed to consider the statements made by the appellants at the time of trial. The appellants other than Muhammad Ashraf have not admitted their participation in the occurrence.
While raising the plea of self-defence, Muhammad Ashraf appellant vaguely stated that at the fateful time, Muhammad Aslam appellant and Muhammad Latif deceased--accused were accompanying him to see him of and when they reached near the graveyard, Khair Muhammad complainant, his son Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Bakhsh deceased launched attack upon them. Khair Muhammad and Muhammad Shafiq injured him. The other co-accused were not present at the spot, and that Muhammad Aslam had fired in self-defence. It may be noted that Muhammad Aslam appellant, who is the brother of this appellant, has not supported him in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. As he had not stated he was accompanying Muhammad Ashraf at the time of occurrence or he had fired any shot in self-defence. The version of the occurrence given by Muhammad Ashraf has neither been established by direct or indirect evidence nor the same is spelt out from the prosecution evidence or attending circumstances and as such, there is no reasonable possibility of its being true.
17. Despite the aforesaid observation, we feel induced to give benefit of doubt to Muhammad Ashraf appellant as a matter of abundant caution. There are reasons to doubt that he was sharing the common object of the unlawful assembly. Although he was allegedly holding a Dang in his hands ye did not caused any injury to the tree deceased or to the P.Ws. He did not instigate his co- accused to do away with the three deceased or to cause injuries to Khair Muhammad P.W. No doubt, he received injuries during the occurrence which only proves his presence; on the spot but if we convict him simply because he was injured during the occurrence, this may tantamount to laying down a rule as if being injured is an offence.
18. This brings us to the question of sentence of the appellants other than Muhammad Ashraf. We find that there are extenuating circumstances in favour of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saeed, Akmal Din and Abdul Majid appellants for lesser penalty, in that, one person namely, Muhammad Latif on the side of the appellants lost his life; that Muhammad Ashraf appellant also received fire- arm injuries during the occurrence; that the family honour of the appellants who are closely related inter se, was also involved because Muhammad Bakhsh deceased was having illicit relations with the sister of Muhammad Aslam appellant and that 15 days before the occurrence, Muhammad Bakhsh deceased, Muhammad Sadiq deceased and Khair Muhammad P.W. Had given beating ,,to Muhammad Aslam appellant.
19. The upshot of the above discussion is that while giving him the benefit of doubt, Muhammad Ashraf is acquitted of the charge. The sentences of death of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saeed and Akmal Din on three counts and the death sentence awarded to Abdul Majid on one count, are altered to imprisonment for life on three counts and one count respectively. The sentences of fine or imprisonment in default thereof awarded to them under section 302/149, P.P.C.
Are maintained. The sentence of imprisonment for life of Abdul Majid appellant on two counts and the fine or imprisonment in default thereof is maintained. The convictions and sentences of all the appellants under section 307/149, P.P.C. Are also maintained. The conviction and sentence of Muhammad Aslam under section 404 P.P.C. Is also maintained. The convictions and sentences of Akamal Din and Sher Muhammad under various sections of Pakistan Penal Code are maintained and the appeal to their extent is dismissed in toto. All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The fine if recovered be paid as directed by the trial Court.