SARDAR MUHAMMAD, J.--Iftikhar Ahmad (P.W.10) made statement (Exh.P.B.) before Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I. (P.W.18) at 2-30 p.m. On 16-12-1976, in Civil Hospital, Sammundari, on the basis of which formal F . I . R . (Exh . P. B . /1) was registered at Police Station Sammundari, on the same day at 2-45 p.m.
Iftikhar Ahmad, who was a student of Degree College, Sammundari, has briefly stated in EXh.P.B.
That on the day of occurrence he was sitting in the ground of the college along with his class- fellow Sajjad Ahmad (deceased), when Tariq Ali, their co-villager, who was a student of 1st Year, approached them and complained that Rustam Ali, Muhammad Anwar, Zahur' Ahmad and Manzur Ahmad, students of the college, had cut filthy joke with him. He was dejected. After some time all the four persons named above while wandering came to that side. The complainant has stated that he along with Sajjad Ahmad and Muhammad Nawaz reprimanded Zahur Ahmad etc. As a result of which some hot words were exchanged. However, they were separated by Ijaz and Sarfraz, residents of Chak No. 443/G.B., wherafter Zahoor Ahmad etc. Went away while they remained sitting in the same plot. It is further stated that on the same day at about 1 P.M., Muhammad Anwar, Zahur Ahmad and Manzur Ahmed, armed with knives while Rustam Ali armed with a Soti came there. Muhammad Anwar caused injuries to the complainant, Zahur Ahmad gave injuries to Sajjad, Manzur Ahmad caused injuries to Muhammad Nawaz, as a result of which the complainant received injuries on his chest, left arm and left thigh, Muhammad Nawaz received injuries on his left flank, Sajjad Ahmad (deceased) received injuries on 'his back and left arm. Rustam Ali is also stated to have given Soti blows to Sajjad Ahmad. Ijaz Ahmad and Sarfraz, who were present there saved them by beseaching the assailants. All the injured were removed to Civil Hospital, Sammundari wherefrom Sajjad was shifted to Lyallpur, on the advice of the doctor as his condition was precarious. Sajjad died in the hospital at Lyallpur on 20-12-1976. The case was earlier registered under section 307/34, P.P.C. And after the death of Sajjad Ahmad offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was also added.
On receipt of Ruqa (Exh.P.Z.) from the M.O. And on an application moved by Muhammad Nawaz A .
S. I . , dying declaration of Sajjad Ahmad was recorded by Haji Muhammad Siddique, M.I.C. (P.W.13) on 17-12-1976, which has been tendered in evidence as Exh.P.Q.
2. Manzur and Anwar appellants were arrested or. 21-12-1976, Zahur appellant was arrested on 22- 12-1976 while Rustam appellant was arrested on 23-12-1976. During investigation on 27-12-1976, Rustam led to the recovery of Soti (P.14) (not blood stained), which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K. On the same day, Anwar, Zahur and Manzur led to the recovery of blood-stained knives (P.15, P.16 and P.17), which were taken into possession vide memos. Exhs. P.L., P.M. And P.N.
Respectively. All the memos. Were attested by .Ghulam Haider (P.W.9), Muhammad Nawaz, A.S.I.
(P.W.18) and Muhammad Hussain P.W. (given up). The blood-stained knives were sent to the offices of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist. Positive reports of their being stained with human blood were received, which have also been tendered in evidence.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 15-9-1979, convicted Zahur Ahmad appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000, in default whereof to undergo further R.I. For a period of three years. Manzur, Anwar and Rustam Ali appellants have been convicted under section 326/34, P.P.C. And each one of them has been sentenced to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.5,000, in default whereof to undergo two years'
R.I. Each. All the four appellants have also been convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C., on two counts, and have been sentenced to one year's R.I. Each, on each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Half of the total amount of fine, on realization, has been ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
4. The four appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 1064 of 1979. Criminal Revision No. 933 of 1979, filed by the father of the deceased against Zahur Ahmad appellant for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death has also been admitted to a regular hearing and notice has been issued to him to show cause as to why the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him by the learned trial Judge be not enhanced to sentence of death. Notice has also been issued in Criminal Revision No. 269 of 1980, filed by the father of the deceased, praying setting aside of the acquittal of Rustam, Anwar and Manzur appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. As all the three matters arise out of the one judgment, they are being disposed of by the ensuing judgment.
5. At the trial the prosecution in all produced 18 witnesses. Iftikhar Ahmad (P.W.10), complaisant, Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.11) and Sarfraz (P.W.12) have furnished the eye-witness account. Ijaz Ahmad, the fourth eye-witness, was given up. The dying declaration of the deceased (Exh.P.Q.) has also been tendered in evidence. Iftikhar Ahmad, complainant, at the trial corroborated his statement (Exh.P.B.), which he had made before the A.S.I. On the basis of which the case was registered. The other two eye-witnesses have also corroborated him with the exception that Sarfraz (P.W.12) is not a witness of the complainant made by Tariq Ali to the complainant and the deceased about the appellants having cut filthy jokes with him. They have briefly stated that on the day of occurrence at about 1 p.m. The three appellants, Zahur Ahmad. Anwar and Manzur Ahmad armed with knives, Rustam Ali. Armed with a Soti came where the complainant, deceased and the P.Ws. Were sitting. They attacked them with their respective weapons. It has been specifically stated that Zahur Ahmad gave knife blows on the back and left arm of the deceased, Rustam had given Soti blows on his left shoulder. It has also been stated that Anwar had caused injuries to Iftikhar complainant while Manzur appellant had caused injuries with knife to Muhammad Nawaz P.W. The eye-witness account also finds corroboration from the statement of the deceased (Exh.P.Q.), recorded by the Magistrate as a dying declaration. The eye-witness account further finds support from the evidence of recovery of blood-stained knives at the stance of Zahur Ahmad, Anwar and Manzur Ahmad. The medical evidence also corroborates the eye-witness account.
6. The appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charges. They have pleaded that they have been involved in the case due to enmity and suspicion. Except appellant Anwar, who had produced in defence certificates Exhs. D . B . And D . G . , no other appellant has produced any defence evidence.
7. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record.
The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to substantiate that the occurrence was the result of melee and that the appellants were picked up by the complainant due to enmity and suspicion. No previous enmity with any of the P.Ws. Worth the name has been suggested. The question of wrong identification and suspicion does not arise as the appellants and the P.Ws. Were students of the same institution. Although it is admitted that Muhammad Nawsz (P.W.11) was a student of Imamia College, Sahiwal, at the time of occurrence, but it is not denied that he had migrated only two months prior to the occurrence from Government College Sammundari. He has given good explanation for his presence on the day of occurrence. We do not find any reason to disbelieve his statement.
The P.Ws. Have specifically denied the suggestion that the occurrence was initiated at their stance.
Had the occurrence been the result of melee or as a result of attack launched by the complainant and P.Ws. As suggested by the defence counsel, some one from the appellants or some other students of the college would also have received injuries. It is a matter of record that none of the appellants was found injured. It is not the case of the appellants that besides the P.Ws. And the deceased some one else was also injured. The evidence of the recovery of weapons of offence has not been shaken. None of the P.Ws. Is closely related with each other. In fact there are two sets of witnesses in this case. One set belongs to one Chak while the other belongs to other Chak. On the other hand, all the appellants belong to the same village. They could have common interest.
The motive for the occurrence that Tariq Ali son of Muhammad Din, a student of 1st Year, had complained to the deceased and the complainant, that the appellants had cut indecent jokes with him and that they had reprimanded the appellants, whereafter a quarrel had ensued, seems to be quite logical, for the reason that Tariq Ali belongs to the village of the deceased and the complainant. It was but natural for Tariq Ali to have complained to the deceased and the complainant for any ill-treatment on the part of the appellants. The conduct of the complainant and the deceased to have asked the appellants as to why they had misbehaved with Tariq Ali is also natural. Tariq Ali has himself appeared as a witness (P.W.15) and has corroborated the complainant that the occurrence was the result of a quarrel that ensued between the appellants on the one hand and the deceased and the complainant on the other hand, for the reason that the complainant and the deceased had reprimanded the appellants for cutting indecent jokes with Tariq Ali P . W .
After having gone through the record and having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, no doubt is left in our mind that the appellants had participated in the occurrence, wherein Sajjad Ahmad lost his life while Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws, received injuries.
8. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner (father of the deceased) in Criminal Revision No. 933 of 1979 seeking enhancement of sentence of Zahur-Ahmad appellant from life imprisonment to death. Zahur Ahmad was 18 years of age at the time of trial, which was held in September, 1979. The occurrence had taken place in December, 1976, which means that he was about 15,1 years of age at the time of occurrence. As observed by the learned trial Court while considering the question of quantum of sentence, Zahur Ahmad was a raw youth at the time of commission of crime. He was a student of Second Year. There was no previous enmity between the deceased and Zahur Ahmad. The occurrence was not the result of any previous enmity. The other factor is that seven years have passed since the occurrence took place.
We do not feel convinced that any case for enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death has been made out in the above enumerated circumstances. However, we feel that the sentence of fine, half of which on recovery, has been directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, is not commensurate, in view of the fact that the deceased was a young man of 19 years and was a student of IInd Year. We, therefore, enhance the sentence of fine from Rs.5,000 to Rs.20,000 under section 302, P.P. C. Whole of which, on recovery, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The learned Collector, Faisalabad, shall be directed to take steps for effecting the recovery of the fine.
9. We have also considered the contentions raised in Criminal Revision No. 269 of 1980. As observed above, the occurrence was not the result of any previous enmity. It was an affair between the students and there is no evidence to assume that Rustam, Manzur and Anwar appellants had common intention with Zahur Ahmad appellant for committing the murder of Sajjad Ahmad. No case for retrial has been made out: particularly in view of the fact that seven years have already passed since the occurrence took place. We have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court and we do not And 'any good reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at therein regarding the criminal liabilities of Rustam, Manzur and Anwar appellants. In the circumstances, Criminal Revision No. 269 of 1980, is dismissed.
10. As observed above, the participation of the appellants in the occurrence stands proved.
Therefore, their appeal is dismissed. However, the sentence of imprisonment of Rustam, Anwar and Manzur appellants under sections 326/34 and 324/34, P.P.C. Is reduced to that of already undergone. But the sentence of fine imposed on each one of them under section 326/34, P.P.C. Is maintained. They shall be caused to be arrested to undergo the sentence in default of payment of fine in case they do not pay the amount of fine. In case of non-payment of fine by these three appellants, the learned Collector, Faisalabad, shall take steps for recovery of the same. On recovery of deposit, as the case may be, whole of the amount of fine shall be paid as compensation in equal share to the injured P.Ws.