ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-8-1984.
2. The three petitioners, namely, Muhammad Sharif, Khurshid Ahmad and Abdul Majid, along with six acquitted accused, were charged under sections 302/307/447/149 and 148, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Pir Muhammad and injuring Muhammad Boota, Chuhar Din and Mst.
Sughra Bibi. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16-5-1980 Chahwela in Mauza Rum, Police Station Head Marala, District Sialkot, the report of which was made by Kaka at 12-15 p.m. The same day. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That the three petitioners along with Abdul Rashid, acquitted accused, came the place of occurrence and asked Barkat and his son Liaqat, acquitted co- accused, to start ploughing the land in dispute. The complainant party resented this. Thereafter the petitioners who were armed with Chhuris and Dangs attacked the complainant party causing number of injuries to Pir Muhammad, Muhammad Boota, Mst. Sughra Bibi and Chuhar Din. Pir Muhammad died on the spot as a result of as many as five incised wounds on his person.
Muhammad Boota P.W. Had received, besides other wounds, two stab wounds. Chuhar Din P. W.
Had received stab wounds on his person and Mst. Sughra Bibi had also received stab wounds.
Abdul Majid, one of the accused, was also examined by the doctor and found to have, besides other wounds, two stab wounds on his person. After the arrest of the accused and the completion of the investigation, the accuse were put to trial, where the prosecution in support of its case produce a number of witnesses. The petitioners and the acquitted accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge as lair down by the prosecution. Abdul Majid petitioner admitted the occurrence but he raised the plea of right of private defence of property as well as of person. The learned trial Court, however, relying on the prosecution evidence, vide its judgment dated 19-12-1981, convicted the three petitioners under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default thereof to undergeo further two years' R.I. The petitioners were also convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. On three counts for causing simple injuries to Muhammad Boota, Mst. Sughra Bibi and Chuhar Din P.Ws. And sentenced each of them to one year's R.I. And a fine o Rs.1,000 or in default to one year's further R.I. In the event o. Realization of fines from the convicts, half the amount was ordered t~ be paid to the heirs of Pir Muhammad deceased as compensation. The petitioners were, however, acquitted of the charge under sections 44' and 307 read with section 149 and section 148, P.P.C. The rest of the accused were acquitted.
3. The above judgment was made a subject-matter of two appeal: by the petitioners against their conviction and sentence and a revision filed by the complainant. All the three matters were taken by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which vide its judgment dated 2-8-1984 upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner: and dismissed their appeals. The criminal revision filed by the complainant was also dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently challenged the orders of the Courts below and his main grievance is that both the Courts have failed to take into consideration the plea of self defence raised by Abdul Majid petitioner. He referred us to the injury statement of Abdul Majid petitioner who was examined by the doctor on 16-5-1980, i.e., the day of the occurrence, and was found to have as many as two stab wounds, five contusions and two bruises on his person. He further invited our attention to the statements of Abdur Rashid, Revenue Patwari who appeared as P.W.19, and Muhammad Sadiq son of Hasan Muhammad, who appeared as D.W. 3, to establish that the land in dispute had been purchased by Abdul Majid petitioner and was in his possession through tenants, and thus submitted that it was the complainant party who were the aggressors and as a result of their attack, Abdul Majid petitioner sustained injuries. He further submitted that the right of the private defence of person and property of the petitioners stand established on record which extended to the voluntary causing death of the aggressors. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the record and we think that the points raised need examination. Leave to appeal is granted.