F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Sargodha on 2-7-1984, at 6-30 a.m. By Hafeezur Rehman Moharrir Head Constable P.W.1, on the statement of Khalid Mahmood P.W.4, under sections 307/148/149, P.P.C., for an occurrence said to have taken place on 1-7-1984 at 6-00 p.m. At the Behak of Sufi Muhammad Iqbal in Chak No. 91-A, S.B. At a distance of 6 kilometers from the Police Station (offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added on 16-7-1984, on the expiry of Sufi Muhammad Iqbal).
2. According to F.I.R., the complainant along with his parents was residing at the Dera in their land.
He was present at the Dera along with his father Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Yaqub P.W. At 6-00 p.m. Sarfraz alias Shafu, Muhammad Riaz. Umar Hayat, Muhammad Iqbal son of Zil Muhammad and Maula Baksh armed with hatchets, accompanied by Gul Muhammad armed with a Sota came there on a tonga. On the Lalkara raised by Gul Muhammad, Muhammad Iqbal son of Zil Muhammad gave a hatchet blow on the head of Sufi Muhammad Iqbal father of the complainant. He fell down. Sarfraz and Maula Bakhsh gave him one injury each on the chest and shoulder. When Muhammad Yaqub P.W. Tried to intervene, Umar Hayat gave him a hatchet blow on the forehead. He fell down. Thereafter, Umer Hayat and Muhammad Riaz gave him hatchet blows on the hand, arm, chest and back. The complainant who was beseeching the accused, was given an injury by Muhammad Riaz on the left hand. Gul Muhammad gave him two blows with his Sota, on the head and left shoulder. Muhammad Hassan and Haq Nawaz who were passing nearby, came to the spot, hearing noise witnessed the occurrence and saved the complainants from the accused.
3. Motive for the occurrence was a dispute between the parties on the demarcation of agricultural land 2 days before the occurrence, Muhammad Iqbal accused had quarrelled with Muhammad Iqbal father of the complainant about the demarcation of land. They were separated by Muhammad Arif. Muhammad Iqbal accused while leaving, had threatened that he will take revenge.
4. After the occurrence, all the injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Sargodha by Raja Rabnawaz on a car.
5. The complainant while lodging the F.I.R. Explained the delay by stating that he could not report the occurrence earlier as it had gone very late in the night, in obtaining medico-legal certificates.
Towards the end of the F.I.R. It is stated that during fight, Sarfraz and Muhammad Riaz accused had also suffered injuries.
6. After registration of the case, the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Ashraf, S.I. P.W.15.
First of all, he went to the hospital. He solicited opinion from the doctor vide Ruqqa Exh.P.K. About the fitness of Muhammad Iqbal (deceased) to make a statement. The doctor vide Exh.P.K./1 opined that he was not fit to make a statement. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Muhammad Yaqub P.W. After obtaining opinion Exh.P.W./1 from the doctor that he was fit to make a statement.
Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot.
7. Khalid Mahmud complainant produced before him blood-stained Dopatta P.3 and Saffa P.4, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. Blood-stained earth was also taken into possession vide different memos. From the places where Muhammad Yaqub P.W. And Muhammad Iqbal (deceased) were injured. He also took into the custody a mare and Tonga.
8. Gul Muhammad was arrested by him on 7-7-1984. On 13-7-1984 Gul Muhammad led to the recovery of Danda P.1.
9. Muhammad Iqbal injured, who had been removed to General Hospital, Lahore on 2-7-1984, expired there on 15-7-1984. The Sub---Inspector on receipt of information visited General Hospital, Lahore on 16-7-1984 and after preparing inquest report Exh.P.B., sent the dead body for post- mortem examination.
10. Sarfraz, Riaz and Maula Bakhsh were arrested by the Sub---Inspector on 24-7-1984. Prior to the death of Sufi Muhammad Iqbal, they were on interim pre-arrest bail. On 28-7-1984 Sarfraz led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.6 from his residential Kotha. Riaz led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.7 from his Kotha at the cattleshed, while Maula Bakhsh led to the recovery of hatchet P.5 from his Dera. The hatchets were taken into possession vide memos. Exh.P.R. P.s. And P.Q. Respectively.
Umer Hayat was arrested on 30-8-1984. He led to the recovery of hatchet P.2 on 10-9-1984 from the Chhapper of his. Dera which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C.
Muhammad Iqbal accused could not be arrested in spite of warrants of arrest. Proceedings under section 87/88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken against him and he was declared proclaimed offender. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was put to Court.
Muhammad Iqbal remained absconder throughout.
(It may be noted here that Muhammad Iqbal (deceased) has been named in the judicial record as Sufi Muhammad Iqbal. Reference to him, hereafter shall be made as Sufi Iqbal).
11. At the trial prosecution in all examined fifteen witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargohda, who held the trial, vide judgment, dated 16-6-1985 convicted Sarfraz (26), Muhammad Riaz (24), Umar Hayat (18-19) real brothers Gul Muhammad (65) their paternal-uncle and Maula Bakhsh (25) son of Gul Muhammad, under sections 302/149, P.P.C., 324/ 149, P.P.C. And 148-149, P.P.C.
And awarded sentences as under:- U/s. 302/149, P.P.C.--All to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 9 months each.
U/s. 324/149, P.P.C.--to undergo R.I. For three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 4 months each.
U/s. 148/149, P.P.C.--All the five to undergo R.I. For 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For 3 months each.
Half of the fine, on realization, has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Rs.3,000 each out of the remaining half, have been ordered to be paid as compensation to Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Yaqub injured P.Ws.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
The convicts have filed appeal.
12. Dr. Muhammad Shafquat Malik, who had medically examined Sufi Iqbal (deceased) during lifetime, Khalid complainant and Muhammad Yaqub P.W. On 1-7-1984 at 10-00 p.m. Appeared as P.W.
5. He noted following injuries on the person of Sufi Iqbal:-
(i) Incised wound 10-1/2 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. On the left side of skull, the skin, muscle, bone are cut and brain matter coming out from the wound. 7 c.m. From the left ear.
(ii) Incised wound 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the right side of front of chest 3 c.m. From the right nipple.
(iii) Contused swelling 9 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the back of left shoulder.
General condition.
In shock No pulse, B.P. Nil, Pupil dilated, right more dilated. Respiration shallow.
Injury No. 1 was declared grievous and dangerous to life. Injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were simple. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and injury No. 3 by blunt weapons.
Khalid Mahmud P.W. Was found to have suffered the following injuries:-
(1) Contused swelling 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left side of skull. 7 c.m. From left ear.
(2) Contused swelling 7 c.m. x 11 c.m. On the middle finger of left hand.
(3) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the right thumb of right foot.
Injury No. 2 was kept under observation. All the injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon.
Muhammad Yaqub P.W. Was found to have suffered the following injuries:-
(1) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1/6 c.m. Skin deep on the left side of forehead, with swelling 2 c.m. x 1/6 c.m. Around the wound.
(2) Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. From injury No. 1 lower side.
(3) Contusion 16 c.m. x 6 c.m. On the left upper arm lateral side.
(4) Abrasion 3/4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. On the left elbow joint.
(5) Contused swelling 13 c.m x 4 c.m. On the left index finger including base of left index finger.
(6) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the palmer aspect of left index finger.
(7) Contused swelling 8 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the left lateral chest.
(8) Contusion 9 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. On the left lateral chest 2 c.m. From injury No. 7.
(9) Contused swelling 17 c.m. x 9 c.m. On the back of left chest on costal margin.
Except injury No. 6, which was opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon, all other injuries were opined to be the result of blunt weapon.
Duration of injuries of all the three injured was to be within 3 hours.
13. On the same day, the same doctor had examined Sarfraz accused, and noted following injuries on his person:-
(1) Lacerated wound 8 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of skull close to midlines, 13 c.m.
From right ear.
(2) Contusion 7 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. On the top of right shoulder.
(3) Contusion 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left upper part.
(4) Contusion 13 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the lateral side of right upper arm on the lateral side.
Injury No. 1 was kept under observation. The rest were declared simple. The injuries were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon.
On the same day, at the same time, he had examined Umar Hayat accused and had noted following injuries on his person:-
(1) Contusion swelling 9 c.m. x 8 c.m. On the right forearm upper part lateral side.
(2) Abrasion 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the middle part of lateral side of right upper arm.
(3) Contused swelling 9 c.m. x 5-1/2 c.m. On lateral side of right upper arm.
All the injuries, which were opined to be the result of blunt weapon were declared simple.
He had also examined Muhammad Riaz accused at the same time and on the same day, and noted the following injuries on his person:-
(1) Lacerated wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. With swelling 5 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the left side of skull, 9 c.m.
Above left ear.
(2) Lacerated wound 1/2 c.m. On the back of left forearm upper part.
(3) Contused swelling 9 c.m. x 6 c.m. On the back of left forearm upper part.
(4) Contusion on the left of ring finger 2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m.
All the injuries were declared simple and were opined to have been caused by blunt weapon.
The duration of injuries of all the three accused was opined to be within four hours.
During cross-examination the doctor expressed the opinion that possibility of injury No. 3 on the person of Sufi Iqbal as a result of a fall could not be excluded. He denied the suggestion that injury No. 6 on the person of Muhammad Yaqub P.W. Could have been self-suffered or could have been suffered through a friendly hand.
He stated that he had expressed the opinion Ex. PK/I that Muhammad Iqbal (deceased) injured was not fit to make a statement.
14. Autopsy on the dead body of Sufi Iqbal was performed by Dr. Zaheer Anjum. He had noted following injuries on his body:--
(1) Surgical stitched wound 14 c.m. Alongwtih 14 stitched intact on left parietal region of head.
(2) Healed wound 7 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. On right upper chest superomedial to right nipple.
(3) Abrasion 4 c.m. x .25 c.m. At the back of left hip.
On exploration of cranial cavity under injury No. 1, hematoma was present under scalp over the vault. A piece of skull bone measuring 8 c.m. x 5 c.m. Was missing from left parietal region through which damaged brain matter was bulging out. There was an opening in the membranes over left parietal area through which brain matter was bulging out. Pus was present on surface of left cerebral hemisphere. Left hemisphere was damaged and lysed. Intra cerebral haemorhage was present m right occipital lobe. On exploration of thorax all the internal organs were found to be healthy.
The doctor opined that injury No. I was caused by surgical intervention which corresponded to the original injury No. 1, in medico--legal report No. 1169/84, issued by the Medical Officer, Sargodha, on 1-7-84. He opined that this was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
During cross-examination, he stated that the deceased had never remained under his treatment.
He expressed the opinion that the piece of bone which was found missing was probably removed during the course of operation. He added that as he was not present at the time of operation, he could not say, who operated upon the deceased and that as to with what medical facilities?
15. The ocular account was deposed to by Khalid Mahmud P.W.4 and Muhammad Yaqub P.W. 13.
The other two witnesses named in the F.I.R. To have witnessed the occurrence, were given up as having been won over.
Khalid Mahmud complainant, at the trial, re-narrated the facts given by him in the First Information Report. He, however, made an improvement stating that he had picked up a Sota from the spot and had given injuries with the same to Umar Hayat and Sarfraz accused to save his father. He also added that Muhammad Riaz had given blows to Muhammad Yaqoob from the right as well as the wrong side of the hatchet. He also claimed to have attested the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.2 at the instance of Umar Hayat accused.
In cross-examination, he admitted that Haq Nawaz P.W. Was son of his father's paternal-aunt while Muhammad Hussain P.W. Was maternal-- uncle of his mother.
Answering a question during cross-examination, he stated that he could not contradict the suggestion that Umar Hayat and his brothers did not own any land. He admitted that Maula Bakhsh accused owned no land. He added that Gul Muhammad owned land but he could not give extent of the ownership. He expressed inability to give the field Nos. And the square Nos. Of the land belonging to the accused in respect of which they had a demarcation dispute with them. He also expressed inability to give killa Nos. And square Nos. Of the land of the accused adjoining their land.
However, he added that the land in respect of which they had a dispute of demarcation, belonged to Sarfraz accused and his uncle Ata Muhammad. Simultaneously, he added that he could not contradict the suggestion that Ata Muhammad uncle of the accused did not own land in the village.
He admitted that Muhammad Riaz appellant used to ply tonga during the days of occurrence and Sarfraz had opened a shop in Chak No. 91-A/SB. He expressed ignorance that Riaz (another) and his father Sher Muhammad (a relation of Muhammad Yaqoob P .W.) had quarrelled with Riaz accused during a Kabaddi match 4-5 months before the occurrence, and Sher Muhammad was given beating by Riaz accused. He denied the suggestion that he along with his deceased father accompanied by Yaqub P.W., Ahmad and Riaz sons of said Sher Muhammad had attacked Riaz accused on the day of occurrence when he was coming to his village from Sargodha, to avenge the insult of Sher Muhammad and that Sarfraz and Umar Hayat had also reached the spot, hearing the noise, armed with Dangs and that Iqbal (deceased) had suffered injuries during fight, at the hands of someone from the complainant side, inadvertently due to darkness.
Muhammad Yaqub P.W.13 corroborated the statement made by P.WA The only addition made by him that he had picked up a Danda from the place of occurrence and had given one or two blows each to Riaz and Sarfraz accused, was not found recorded in his statement Ex. D.A. Like Khalid P.W., he denied the suggestion about the incident of Kabaddi match and the fact of their having attacked Riaz while passing near the place of occurrence and the deceased having suffered injuries at the hands of someone from the complainant side, due to darkness.
Muhammad Mumtaz P.W. 3 deposed about having witnessed the recovery of Danda from Gul Muhammad appellant. His statement has been corroborated in this regard by Muhammad Ashraf S.I. P.W.
15. Umar Hayat P.W. 12 deposed about the recovery of hatchets from Sarfraz, Riaz and Maula Bakhsh appellants. His statement in this regard has been corroborated by Muhammad Ashraf S.I.
P.W. 15.
Muhammad Sarwar P.W. 3 deposed about having witnessed the recovery of hatchet at the instance of Umar Hayat appellant. His statement in this regard has been corroborated by Khalid Mahmud P.W. 4 and Muhammad Ashraf S.I. P.W. 15.
16. Positive reports about the packets of blood-stained earth, collected from the spot anti the hatchets said to have been .Recovered from Maula Bakhsh, Sarfraz and Muhammad Riaz from the office of the Chemical Examiner and that of the Serologist about the same having been stained with human blood were also tendered in evidence.
17. Muhammad Riaz appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. While denying the prosecution case, stated as follows in answer to the question, `have you anything else to say? How do you explain injuries on your persons?:-- "I am innocent. 4/5 months before the present occurrence myself and Riaz son of Sher Muhammad were playing Kabaddi in the village when Riaz s/o Sher Muhammad aforementioned came for a point and he was overpowered by me but Sher Muhammad father of Riaz disputed my win and alleged that his son had been thrown on the ground by foul, and also gave a dang blow to me.
After that myself and Sarfraz accused gave beating to Sher Muhammad aforementioned to avenge the above beating of Sher Muhammad on the day of occurrence long after sunset i.e. Iqbal deceased, Yaqub P.W. Ahmad and Riaz sons of Sher Muhammad and Khalid Mahmood attacked me when I was coming to the village from Sargodha Town after purchasing articles for my shop by my Tonga. They waylaid and started giving beating to me. Sarfraz and Umar Hayat accused also came to the spot from a nearby dera to rescue myself and in that melee the deceased and the P.Ws also got injuries. The complainant party twisted the facts with the connivance of the police and got this false case registered against us. Many persons were produced during the investigation in support of the above version but the police under the influence of the complainant did not pay heed to it"
He also denied of having led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P. 7.
Sarfraz and Umar Hayat while denying the prosecution case and the recoveries alleged to have been effected at their instance, owned the statement made by Muhammad Riaz appellant.
Gul Muhammad and Maula Bakhsh while denying the prosecution case, took up the plea that they have been falsely involved in this case.
None of the accused/appellants produced any defence.
18. Criticising the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive; that the F.I.R. Was registered after preliminary investigation and consultation; that the complainants failed to give explanation of the injuries suffered by three of the accused during the occurrence, while lodging the F.I.R. And that the explanation offered by them at the trial, was also done in a slipshod manner; that the story put forth by Riaz appellant and owned by Sarfraz and Umar Hayat appellants, is more probable, near the truth and worth acting upon.
18. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the F.I.R. In this case was registered after consultations and deliberations does not possess any material. Although the complainant could have lodged the first information report earlier, and admittedly the first information report has been lodged with a delay, but if the F.I.R. Had been lodged after consultations and deliberations, or after preliminary investigation by the police, the complainant would not have failed to give more effective explanation in the F.I.R. About the injuries suffered by all the three accused because they had got themselves examined in the same hospital and by the time the F.I.R. Was recorded on the next morning, they must have come to know that the accused/appellants had been medically examined by the doctor. The police also, if had conducted any preliminary investigation, would have easily collected the medico-legal certificates of the accused and asked the complainant to give explanation for that. In the circumstances, I do not find any weight in the argument of learned counsel for appellants that the F.I.R. In this case was lodged after deliberations and consultations.
The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Seems to have occurred because of serious condition of Sufi Iqbal father of the complainant who was removed to Lahore the same day, i.e. The day, the F.I.R. Was registered.
19. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive, seems to possess substance. In that Nasar Abbas Patwari, Circle Chak No. 91-A/SB, while appearing as P.W. 11 although stated on re-examination that the deceased had inherited some land from his father-in-law but he had categorically stated that Umar Hayat, Riaz, Sarfraz their brother Muhammad Iqbal absconder and their father Zil Muhammad did not own land in the entire area of Chak No. 91-A/SB. He did not say anything if Gul Muhammad or Maula Bakhsh appellants owned any land in the village? He was not re-examined on this point. No doubt, Khalid Mahmud P.W. 4 during cross-examination stated that Gul Muhammad appellant owned some land but he was also not able to satisfy as to which were the field Nos. About the demarcation (Watt bandi) of which there was a dispute between them and the accused party In fact, he was not in a position to give the field Nos. Or the square Nos. Of both the parties i.e. Themselves and the accused. He also did not know as to how much land was owned by Gul Muhammad appellant. He had admitted that the other accused did not own any land. In the light of the above discussion, it can be safely observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive.
20. The story put forth by the three appellants i.e. Riaz, Sarfraz and Umar Hayat about the initiation of attack does not possess weight nor does it inspire confidence, firstly for the reason that Sher Muhammad with whom the accused/appellants claimed that they had some previous animosity, was not related or connected in any manner with the complainant or the deceased. Although he is related to Muhammad Yaqub P.W. But Muhammad Yaqub P.W. Himself had no relationship with the complainant and the deceased, except of some friendly connections. It does not seem reasonable to believe that merely on account of some friendly connection, the complainant or the deceased or for that matter the other family members, he would have allowed Yaqub to lay in ambush in their dera and join them in launching attack on Riaz appellant. Moreover, if it had been the scheme and preparation of Yaqub P.W. To avenge the insult of Sher Muhammad, someone from Sher Muhammad's family would also have been present there and had anyone of them been present there, some of them must have suffered injuries, or at least would have been named as a P.W. In the F.I.R. Above all, if that was the case, how should deceased have suffered sharp-edged weapon injuries?, because according to the appellants only two of them were armed and that also with Sotas. If someone from the complainant party was armed with a sharp-edged weapon, as suggested by the appellants, then they would have caused injuries with sharp-edged weapons to Riaz or the other two appellants. There could have been no difficulty for them to cause injuries to Riaz appellant because the other two had arrived late.
Taking into account all these facts, I feel no hesitation in observing that the story put forth by the three appellants in this connection is without any foundation and not worth acting upon.
21. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that Riaz appellant had taken this plea at the very outset during investigation, also does not advance the case of the appellants in this regard because the plea not only does not possess any semblance of truth but even otherwise is not probable for the reasons enumerated above.
22. However, the evidence on record, including the medical evidence, does go to prove that a fight had taken place on that day, at the dera of the deceased, wherein apart from the deceased, the complainant and Muhammad Yaqub P.W. The three appellants had also suffered injuries. The statement of Khalid P.W. 4 corroborated by Muhammad Yaqub P.W., who is an independent witness and whose presence at the spot cannot be denied for his having been found injured, the five appellants accompanied by Muhammad Iqbal (absconder) had taken part in the fight, cannot be thrown away in spite of the fact that the motive set up by the prosecution has not been found true and in spite of the fact that the complainant had not given detailed explanation about the injuries of the accused/appellants in the F.I.R. It is in view of this situation that inferences have to be drawn from the evidence to come to a just conclusion. In this connection, I derive strength and guidance from the observations of the Supreme Court in Syed Ali Bepari's case PLD 1962 SC 502.
23. It is on record that Riaz appellant used to ply tonga during those days. A tonga was also taken into possession from the spot. What can be inferred, is, that the parties fell on something on the day of occurrence, may be even on account of the passage of tonga, and started fighting with each other, and in that very fight every body acted of his own with whatever he was armed or whatever he could lay hand upon. In this fight the appellants suffered 11 injuries while the complainant party suffered 15 injuries including 3 injuries to the deceased. No doubt, one person lost life on the side of the complainant as a result of sharp-edged weapon injury on the head, but one of the appellants, i.e. Sarfraz was also found to have suffered a lacerated wound 8 c.m. x 1 c.m.
Into bone deep on the right side of skull, close the midline. In these circumstances, nobody can be burdened for the act of the other, as the occurrence cannot be termed to be the result of common intention.
24. Analysing the part played by each of the accused and the damage done by him, in this light of the matter, the fatal injury to the deceased, appears to have been caused by Muhammad Iqbal (absconder), for which the appellants cannot be held liable. Their conviction under section 302/149, P.P.C. Is, therefore, set aside. As the appellants have not been held liable for having formed unlawful assembly, their conviction under section 148/149, P.P.C. Is also set aside.
25. Sarfraz and Maula Bakhsh appellants had caused one injury each to the deceased. These two injuries were not the cause of death. Each of them is held guilty under section 324, P.P.C. For having caused simple injuries to the deceased. Both of them are sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For six months each. The fine, if recovered from both of them on these counts, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
26. Umar Hayat and Muhammad Riaz appellants had caused injuries to Muhammad Yaqub P.W.
Each of them is held guilty under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years plus a fine of Rs.3,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For six months each. Half of the fine if realised, shall be paid as compensation to Muhammad Yaqub P.W.
27. Gul Muhammad and Riaz appellants had caused injuries to Khalid Mahmud P.W.
4. Each of them is convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. For having caused simple injuries to Khalid P.W. They are sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 each in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For six months each. Half of the fine on realization, from both of them, shall be paid as compensation to Khalid Mahmud P.W.
28. The sentences of imprisonment awarded to Muhammad Riaz appellant for convictions for having caused injuries to Muhammad Yaqub and Khalid Mahmud P.Ws. Shall run concurrently. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.