1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The four convicts seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 31st of October, 1981 whereby their conviction and sentence under sections 302/34, P.P.C, 324/34, P.P.C. And 323/34, P.P.C. (two counts) were maintained as also the sentence awarded and the sentence of death awarded to Amir was confirmed giving all the convicts other than Amir the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. On the 3rd of November, 1975 at about 9 a.m. Zulfiqar (P.W.9), a brother of the deceased Boots, was keeping a watch over his field measuring about half an Acre over which sugar cane had been cultivated. He saw that Amir and Abdu Saleh, the two petitioners, were removing sugar canes from the fields. He asked them to desist from it. There was an exchange of souses between them which attracted Boots deceased also there. The two petitioners retreated and threatened that they will take revenge for insulting them. They went to their Dera at a short distance from there and returned; Amir armed with a Barchhi and the three others with Sotas. Amir gave a Barchhi blow on the abdomen of Boota and when Sadiq P.W.7 advanced to protect his son, he was also given a spear blow. The other petitioners inflicted Sota blows. Mst. Zainab, sister of the deceased P.W.10, was also attracted to the spot and she also received injury at their hands. The injured were removed to Pattoki where Dr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi P.W.8 informed the S.H.O. About the arrival of the injured and for immediate action. Naveed Iqbal P.W.13 and A.S.I. Of Police Station Pattoki reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Muhammad Sadiq P.W.7 and sent it to Police stahoi, Sarai Mughal for registration of a case as the area where the occurrence had taken place fell within the jurisdiction of that Police Station and not of P.S. Pattoki.
3. Dr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi examined Boota at 2-30 p.m. The same day and found one stab wound 3/4 x 1/4 x depth unlimited at right side of abdomen. There were three others abrasions and one laceration on his person. Sadiq P. W . 7 the father of the deceased, had one incised wound on the right groin and bruises, abrasions and swelling numbering about eight on his person. All the injuries were simple. Mst. Zainab had two lacerated wounds and two abrasions on her person which were also found simple. Zulfiqar had three bruises and an abrasion all simple.
4. During the investigation, the blood-stained spear was recovered at the instance of Amir and Sotas from others. Barchhi was found to be stained with human blood.
5. The petitioners denied the occurrence and their participation in it and alleged false implication.
6. Mr. Waheeduddin Virk, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking Leave to Appeal, contended that it was an ordinary routine dispute over a petty matter and neither from the origin of the dispute nor the injuries caused could the inference be drawn that the petitioners had the common intention or any one of them intended in fact to cause death. The sugar cane itself, according to the learned counsel, was used as a stick for causing these simple injuries and Barchhi blow was also not given with any strength or direction to give that impression. In any case, the Barchhi blow was not repeated and only one injury was caused to Boots deceased. It was, according to the learned counsel, only skin deep.
7. The first description of the injuries caused to Boota is to be found in the statement of Dr. Muhammad Latif Qureshi who reported about it in the following words:- ---1.Stab wound of the size of 3/4 x 1/4 x depth is unlimited situated at right side of abdomen, 1---- -on right of umbilicus, about 1" blow the umbilicus.
8. He was having difficulty in respiration. He was vomiting and he was dehydrated. Abdomen around the injury was tense and tender, signs of peritonitus were appearing. He was in State of shock. His condition was serious."
9. This does not indicate that the injury was not fatal or had been caused half-heartedly without there being the intention to kill the man. What was aggravated the conduct of the petitioners is that on an objection being taken to their trespass and damage of the property of the complainant they chose to be the aggressors and after augmenting their strength and improving their weapons, they made a concerted attack on unarmed people and injured all those who came before them sparing none not even the lady. Barchhi is a weapon of offence dangerous by all standards and visibly so. If one of a group comes out armed with it and proceeds to attack with it then all those who join him in its errand must share the common intention attributable to him. The injury; caused by Amir not only appeared to be dangerous and fatal but in', fact proved fatal. The normal consequence of causing such an injury must follow so far as Amir is concerned, the other only sharing the common intention. Neither the conviction nor the sentence requires any further examination. Leave to appeal is refused.