1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--Criminal Petition No.438 of 1982 has been filed by Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Akbar, Nadar s/o Lal and Inayat s/o Sardar convict-petitioners against their conviction as well as sentence, whereas Criminal Petition No.442 of 1982 has been filed by Muhammad Latif complainant-petitioner for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the four convict-petitioners in Criminal Petition No.438 of 1982 as well as against acquittal of eight of their co-accused. Since these petitions are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 19th October, 1982, these are being taken up together.
2. Briefly the facts are that 15 persons including the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.438 of 1982 plus one Asghar son of Muhammad (who died before the trial was held) were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Gujrat who vide his judgment dated 4th July, 1981, out of the remaining 14 accused persons, acquitted Hakam A.I and Akbar son of Taja, but convicted Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Akbar petitioners in Criminal Petition No.438 of 1982 under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to death plus fine, whereas the remaining ten detailed as respondents in Cr.P. 442 of 1982 were also convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. But each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine. In appeal before the Lahore High Court Lahore a Division Bench of that Court vide its judgment dated 19th October 1982 while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Akbar petitioners in Criminal Petition No.438 of 1982 reduced their sentence from that of death to imprisonment for life, but so far as the respondents detailed in Criminal Petition No.442 of 1982 were concerned, while maintaining the conviction as well as sentence only of Inayat son of Sardar Khan and Nadar son of Lal, acquitted rest of the respondents in the aforesaid criminal petition. However, the fine imposed on the convicts was enhanced.
3. There is a background of extreme enmity between the parties as many criminal cases were pending in the Courts or with the police for investigation. The prosecution case is that Mohammad Aslam one of the co-accused who was sarpanch of the accused-Gujar party had fraudulently invited Bahadar Khan deceased for negotiation for a compromise. In fact he had entered into a conspiracy with the other cc-accused including the convicts and they all were sitting in an embush to attack the deceased. The occurrence took place at 12 noon on 9th July 1979 when the deceased alongwith Ghulam Haider his brother (since dead), Muhammad Latif P.W.4 and Muhammad Khan P.W.12 went to the Chaubara of Mohammad Aslam co-accused for negotiating a compromise. When they reached near the said Chaubara, the members of the accused party armed with Sotas and raising Lalkaras attacked the deceased and the eye-witnesses. The FIR was lodged by Bahadar Khan deceased who was still alive on the same day at 1-30 p.m. The members of the accused party were arrested between 10 July 1979 and 11th January, 1980. Recoveries in this case are not of any consequence at all as they do not connect the members of the accused party with the commission of the crime. According to the medical evidence the deceased had many injuries on his person and besides him three of the eye-witnesses had also been injured.
4. Muhammad Latif P.W. Had 9 contusions caused with blunt weapon and Muhammad Khan P.W. Had 3 contusions caused with blunt weapon. Ghulam Haider (since dead) had 4 contusions caused with blunt weapon.
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.438 of 1982 that although the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court Lahore did not treat the statement of Bahadar Khan deceased as dying declaration yet the learned Judges of the Division Bench took it into consideration while assessing the value of the ocular testimony in the instant case. It was also argued that the eye-witnesses in the instant case were highly interested and their testimony was uncorroborated. Even though they were injured in the course of the occurrence, support of their testimony should have not, been sought from the so called dying declaration of the deceased which had not been treated as such. It was further submitted that in any case the statements of the eye-witnesses which were highly interested were full of material discrepancies and contradictions and that these should have not been relied upon for bringing home the guilt of the petitioners in this case. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.442 of 1982 submitted that the presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot could not be disputed as they had received injuries in the course of the occurrence. The number of the injuries on the person of the deceased disclosed that it was not the job only of four accused persons who had been convicted but of all the members of the accused party and that in this respect the judgment of the trial Court was quite proper and should have not been interfered with.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and grant leave in both the petitions in order to determine as to whether or not the evidence in the instant case has been properly appraised in accordance with the well-established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. Bailable warrants to issue in the sum of Rs.25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Gujrat against the respondents NOS.1 to 12 in Criminal Petition No.422 of 1982. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.