' Farman Ali (40), Abdur Razzaq (25), Abbas Ali (20), Akbar Ali (25) and Muhammad Sadiq (50) were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, district Sialkot, alongwith Muhammad Sharif
(80) and Faiz Ahmad (80), for having murdered Hamid Ullah and for having launched murderous assault on P.W. Sabir Ali Zahid on 31-3-1985, at 7/8 00 p.m. In front of the house of Farman Ali in village Ratta Diwan, at a distance of 7 miles from Police Station Zafarwal.
' Learned trial Judge, vide judgment, dated 9-6-1987 convicted Abbas Ali under Section 302, P.P.C., Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Sadiq under section 307, P.P.C., Farman All and Akbar Ali under section 324, P.P.C., and awarded the sentences as follows:-- ' Abbas Ali to suffer imprisonment for life plus to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000 in default whereof suffer R.I.
For 2 years. Whole of the fine, on realization, has been directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
' Abdur Razzaq and to undergo R.I. For 6 years each plus to pay a fine of Rs, Muhammad Sadiq 1,000 each, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. For one year each. The fine on recovery, has been directed to be paid as compensation to Sabir Ali Zahid complainant.
' Farman Ali and to undergo R.I. For 3 years each. Akbar Ali Muhammad Sharif and Faiz Ahmad were acquitted vide same judgment.
2. The convicts have filed appeal.
3. FIR Ex. PJ/1 was registered by Muhammad Yunas Moharrir Head Constable P.W.7 at 5-00 p.m. On 1-4-1985, on receipt of statement Ex. PJ of Sabir Ali Zahid P.W.6, recorded by Muhammad Ashraf, S.H.O. P.W.13, at Civil Hospital, Sialkot at 3-00 p.m. On the same day.
' According to F.I.R. The complainant was serving in the Air Force and had come to the village on vacation. 3-4 years prior to the occurrence, Asghar Ali son of Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) had abducted sister-in-law ( of the complainant, for which a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered and the accused were challaned. The said Asghar Ali and his father Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) used to pressurize the complainant party for a compromise, to which they did not concede. Muhammad Sharif got a case of theft registered against Hamid Ullah (deceased) which was cancelled by the Police, after investigation. Thereafter, Hassan Muhammad son of Qaisar Khan brother of Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) got a case registered against Hamid Ullah and his brothers under section 506, P.P.C. The said case was also got cancelled by the Police after investigation. The accused party, however, continued pressurising the complainant party for a compromise.
' On the day of occurrence, the complainant was returning home alongwith his brother Hamid Ullah (deceased) and P.Ws. Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq, after watching T.V. Programme from the house of Sardar, a co-villager. When they reached in front of the haveli of Faiz Ahmad Lambardar (acquitted accused), Faiz Ahmad armed with a sota, Muhammad Sharif empty- handed, Abbas All armed with a Drat, Abdur Razzaq and Farman Ali armed with khanjers and Akbar All and Muhammad Sadiq armed with chhuris came out of ambush. Abbas Ali gave a Drat blow on the head of Hamid Ullah, on the lalkara raised by Faiz Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif that they be taught a lesson for not effecting compromise. Abdur Razzaq gave a khanjer blow on the right flank of Hamid Ullah. Muhammad Sadiq gave a chhuri blow on the left shoulder of Hamid Ullah. He fell down, whereafter he was given sota blow by Faiz Ahmad on the left wrist. The complainant in order to save his brother snatched the sota from Faiz Ahmad. When Muhammad Sharif tried to catch him, he inflicted on him (Muhammad Sharif) a sota blow. Farman All then gave a khanjer blow on the left armpit of the complainant. Abdur Razzaq proceeded to give khanjer blow to the complainant. However, the complainant receded, as a result of which he (Abdur Razzaq) fell down and got injured with his own khanjer. Akbar Ali then gave a chhuri blow on the back of the complainant.
' The occurrenc was witnessed by Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq P.Ws. They, however, did not dare intervene because of fear. In the meantime other villagers came to the spot. The accused then ran away.
4. Dilawar Hussain brother of the complainant removed the complainant and Hamid Ullah in injured condition to Civil Hospital Sankhatra, from where they were taken to Civil Hospital Narowal, wherefrom they were shifted to Civil Hospital, Sialkot.
' Statement of the complainant was recorded by the S.H.O. In the hospital. Before recording the statement, the S.H.O. Had obtained opinion of the doctor on application Ex. PL about his (complainant's) fitness to make a statement. He had also submitted application Ex. PM to the doctor regarding fitness of the deceased to make a statement but the doctor opined that he was not fit to make a statement. In fact, Hamid Ullah (deceased) was unconscious at that time.
' The case originally was registered under section 307/324/148/149 P.P.C. Section 302, P.P.C. Was added on 7-4-1985 after expiry of Hamid Ullah.
4. Muhammad Ashraf, S.H.O. P.W. 13 after despatching statement Ex. PJ to the Police Station for registration of case, went to the spot and collected bloodstained earth from there vide memo Ex.
PC and recorded statements of the witnesses.
' On being informed on 7-4-1985 about the expiry of Hamid Ullah in General Hospital, Lahore he came to Lahore and found the dead body lying in the mortuary at Mayo Hospital. He prepared inquest report Ex. P.O. And sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.
' The S.H.O. Had submitted an application on 3-4-1985 for soliciting opinion of the doctor also but on that also the doctor had opined that Hamid Ullah was not fit to make a statement.
' All the accused were arrested by him on 15-4-1985.
' On 24-4-1985 Farman Ali got recovered khanjer P. 3 from his cattle-shed, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.F.
' Khanjer P.2 got recovered by Abdur Razzaq on the same day from his cattle-shed, was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PE.
' Drat P. 1 got recovered by Abbas Ali on the same day from his cattle-shed, was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.D.
' On the same day, chhuri P. 4 got recovered by Muhammad Sadiq from his cattle-shed was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.G.
' Chhuri P. 5 got recovered by Akbar Ali from his cattle-shed, was taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.H.
' All the memos were attested by Bashir Ahmad Ansari P.W.5, given up P.W. Nazir Hussain Ansar and S.H.O. P.W.13 Muhammad Ashraf. The challan was submitted to Court after completion of necessary investigation.
6. Statements of thirteen P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
Ex. P.S. Report from the office of the Chemical Examiner and Ex. P.S./1 report from the office of the Serologist, were also tendered in evidence.
6. Statements of all the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr. P C. All of them made statements on oath also under section 340(2), Cr. P C. In addition to that they also examined in defence Muhammad Ashiq D.W.8, Khurshid Ali D.W.9 and Dr. Muhammad Afzal D.W.10.
7. Dr. Muhammad Jamil who had medically examined Hamid Ullah (deceased) whilst alive at 9-20 p.m. On 31-3-1985, appeared as P.W.1. He had noted following injuries on his person:--
(1) An incised wound 16 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep starting from forehead running backwards up to the vertex. Fresh bleeding was coming from the wound. Frontal bone was cut into two pieces through the whole length of the wound. Meninges and brain matter was coming out of wound from its central part.
(2) A stab wound 4 x 1/2 x 5 cm. Deep oblique in direction on the left hypochonrial region of abdomen.
(3) An abrasion 14 cm. Oblique in direction on the outer side of left arm extending above and below the elbow joint.
4. A stab wound 4 x 1 x 2 cm. On the upper part of back of chest near neck on left side.
' General condition of the patient was serious. He was in semi-unconscious state. Injury No, 1 was declared grievous while injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were kept under observation. The rest were declared simple. The duration of injuries was opined to be within two hours.
9. On the same day the same doctor, had noted following injuries on Sabir All Zahid P.W.6:--
(1) A stab wound 3 x 1 x 4 cm. Oblique in direction on the left side of the chest in the mid axillary line at the level of 10th intercostal space. Fresh blood was coming out of the wound. The corresponding tears on Kameez and Bunian were present.
(2) A stab wound 6 x 3 x 1 cm. On the back of chest and upper part of inter scapular region. A corresponding tear on Kameez was present.
' Nature of both the injuries was kept under observation. Probable duration of the injuries was opined to be two hours.
' Both the patients were referred to the Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Narowal.
During cross-examination he stated that he had not felt the necessity of informing the Police as he had referred the patients to the Tehsil ' Headquarters Hospital.
10. Dr. Abdul Mansoor Khokhar, who had performed autopsy of the deceased, on 8-4-1985 at 11-00 a.m. In the Mayo, Hospital, appeared as P.W.
12. He had noted following injuries on the body of the deceased:--
(1) Stitched wound on scalp anteroposteriorly, 12 cm long with 13 intact stitches.
(2) 3.5 cm. Long horizontal stitched wound with two stitches intact 20 cm below left nipple and 12 cm left to middle.
(3) Scapped abrasion 12 cm. Long, on lateral aspect of left elbow joint.
(4) 2.5 cm long horizontal stitched wound with 2 stitches intact, 10 cm from left ear lobe and 10 cm.
From left acromial prominence, on posterior aspect of neck.
' On exploration, he had noted haematoma under the scalp wound. Serous fluid was coming out of the fracture of skull. Fracture of skull extended anteriorly to left frontal bone, near the segital suture.
There was cutting of tissues under wound No, 4.
' Death was opined to have occurred due to fracture of skull leading, to intra cranial haemorrhage and brain damage.
' Probale duration between the injuries and death was opined to be ten days while the time between death and post-mortem was opined to be between one and two days.
' During cross-examination he stated that injury on skull of the deceased could have been caused by comparatively a heavy weapon. He denied the suggestion that death had occurred due to negligence in medical treatment.
11. Sabir Ali Zahid complainant while repeating the facts given by him in the F.I.R. Did not mention the fact of having snatched the sota from Faiz Ahmad nor gave any explanation of the injuries suffered by Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Sharif accused.
' While naming the eye-witnesses, instead of mentioning the name of Muhammad Rafiq P.W.
Whom he had mentioned in the F.I.R., he stated that Bashir and Nazir had witnessed the occurrence.
' During cross-examination he admitted that prior to the occurrence the deceased had undergone sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him for the murder of Faqir Muhammad patwari and that Faiz Ahmad accused was a witness in that case. He expressed inability to say if Ghulam Nabi had got a case registered against his brother Hamid Ullah and others and that Faiz Ahmad accused was a witness in that case. While admitting that there was another route also leading from the house of Sardar where they had gone to watch T.V. Programme, to his house, he clarified that the same was longer than the one, they had adopted. He admitted that Abdur Razaq accused had got a case registered against them regarding the same occurrence but explained that the same had been cancelled after investigation. He denied the suggestion that he along with the deceased and seven others had launched attack on Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Sharif accused while armed with blunt as well as sharp-edged weapons and that Muhammad Sharif and Abdur Razzaq had caused them injuries in self-defence.
11. Both Bashir Ahmad P.W.9 and Muhammad Rafiq P.W.10 corroborated the statement made by Sabir Ali Zahid, in so far as it pertained to the actual occurrence, During cross-examination both of them denied any special relationship with the complainant party. They also denied that they were inimical to the accused party. The suggestions put to them about the registration of some cases between them and the relatives of the accused, were also denied by them. Bashir Ahrnad P.W. Had expressed lack of knowledge about his father having been challaned in a case registered at the instance of Nazar Khan, brother of Faiz Ahmad. (F.I.R. Of that case was given in defence, according to which the said case was registered in 1949). Both the witnesses denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the occurrence and that the deceased along with the complainant and seven others had launched attack armed with deadly weapons on Abdur Razzaq, Muhammad Sharif and Abbas Ali and that while Abbas Ali had run away, Muhammad Sharif and Abdur Razzaq had caused injuries to the deceased and the complainant in self-defence and had suffered injuries also at the hands of the complainant party.
12. Bashir Ahmad son of Ilam Din while appearing as P.W.5 claimed to have witnessed the recoveries of daggers at the instance of Abdur Razzaq and Farman Ali, that of chhuris at the instance of Muhammad Sadiq and Akbar Ali and of having attested the relevant recovery memos.
During cross-examination he expressed inability to pick out the weapons, distinctly, recovered from the different accused. He claimed that he had joined the proceedings when he had gone to the Police Station to meet the accused, as they belonged to his village.
14. Muhammad Ashraf, S.H.O. Who had recorded the F.I.R., arrested the accused and taken into possession the arms said to have been recovered at the instance of Farman Ali, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Sadiq, Akbar Ali and Abbas Ali, appeared as P.W.13 and deposed those facts. During cross-examination he stated that he had received information about the occurrence while being at Zafarwal bus stand. He admitted that case F.I.R. No, 40 had been registered about this occurrence on the complaint of Abdur Razzaq. He gave out that according to his investigation the accused named in F.I.R. No, 40 were guilty. In answer to another question he stated that there was another route from the house of Sardar to the house of the complainant and that route was shorter, than the one on which the occurrence had taken place. He stated that the accused in their own version had supported the story mentioned in F.I.R. No, 40 that the complainant party had committed aggression. On re-examination by the A.DA. He admitted that it was not mentioned in the report under section 173, Cr. P.C. That the complainant party had committed aggression. He stated that Rana MA. Rashid, D.S.P. Who hail also investigated the case, did not declare any of the parties to be aggressor.
15. The appellants during their statements under section 342, Cr. P.C. While admitting the history of the cases and the results thereof, mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. Denied the prosecution version of the occurrence. The recoveries of weapons were also denied. Abdur Razzaq while explaining the manner in which the occurrence had taken place stated as follows:-- "As a matter of fact occurrence had not taken place as narrated by the prosecution. The fact is that one month prior to the occurrence, one Ghulam Nabi resident of Thekrian P.S. Lessar Kalan had come to the house of Chiragh Din Ansari in my village with a chit regarding news of accident of Muhammad Aslam son of Chiragh Din resident of the village. Abdul Ghani son of Ahmad Din, Abdul Hameed alias Hameed Ullah deceased etc. Treated the news as false and gave him severe beating. A criminal case was registered against them at P.S. Zafarwal, which Faiz Ahmad my father and co-accused was an eye-witness. Hameed Ullah deceased and others had persuaded my father Faiz Ahmad co-accused from not giving evidence in that case, but my father did not agree to their proposal. Hameed Ullah deceased and others thus threatened that they will teach us lesson for not agreeing to their proposal. Thus, on 31-3-1985 at about 7/8 p.m. I alongwith my uncle Muhammad Sharif co-accused were sitting outside of the outer gate of our house in moonlight.
Meanwhile my brother Abbas Ali co-accused came there running and informed us that Hameed Ullah deceased and his companions while armed with weapons had approached us. My brother Abbas Ali himself went inside the house while informing us about the assailants. In the meantime Dilawar Hussain, Bashir Ahmad, armed with hatchets, Muhammad Ashraf armed with dagger, Hameed Ullah, Sabir Hussain, Abdul Majeed, Labha Khan, Rehmat Ali, Abdul Ghani armed with sotas came there. I and my uncle Muhammad Sharif immediately took hold of sotas etc. Hameed Ullah deceased raised lalkara that we should be killed and he would take care of it. Dilawar then delivered hatchet blow which hit my uncle on his nose and face. Bashir Ahmad delivered second hatchet blow which hit right eye of my uncle who fell down. I tried to rescue him. In the meanwhile Muhammad Ashraf s/o. Khurshid Ahmad delivered me khanjar blow which hit on my back. Abdul Hameed, Sabir Hussain, Abdul Majeed, Labha Khan, Rehmat Ali and Abdul Ghani then started delivering blows to me and my uncle while he was lying. During this scuffle Hameed Ullah deceased and others also suffered injuries. I too suffered injuries on my chest, right elbow and shoulder and right knee. Many persons were attracted on the spot. The said assailants then fled away. Khurshid Ali son of Nazar Khan, Ashiq Ali son of Ismail had intervened and got us rescued from the assailants. Abbas All my brother and co-accused had taken me and my uncle Muhammad Sharif to the hospital Zafarwal and in this manner the said persons belonging to the complainant party had committed aggression. I got F.I.R. No, 40 at P.S. Zafarwal registered in this respect."
16. Except Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) the appellants as well as Faiz Ahmad (acquitted accused) denied their presence and participation in the occurrence.
' Muhammad Ashiq D.W.8 and Khurshid Ali D.W.9 supported the version given by Abdul Razzaq appellant. During cross-examination they denied the suggestion that they had made false statements.
16. Dr, Muhammad Afzal D.W.10 deposed about having medically examined Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) on 31-3-1985 and of having noted following injuries on his person:--
(1) An incised wound measuring 10 1/2 cm. x 1 cm. Extending from inner corner of right eye going downwards and leftwards across the nose and ending about 2 cm. Above Jaw left end of the lip.
The underlying nosal bone was cut and visible in the wound.
(2) A scrubbed incised wound 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. Going up from the junction of inner 1/3rd and outer 2/3rd of the eye-brow.
(3)Swelling 4 cm. x 4 cm. Below right eye.
(4) Multiple small abrasion in the back of the right hand. The hand on the back is swollen.
(5) Abrasion 6 cm. x 1 cm. With swelling underneath on the outer aspect of right upper ear.
(6) An abrasion 6 cm. x 2 cm. Across the verticle column of lower portion of the back with complaint of pain in the area.
' He had declared injury No, 1 as grievous and had also advised X-Ray of the same. The other injuries were declared by him to be simple. He stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 in his opinion had been caused by a blunt weapon. He also stated about having examined Abdur Razzaq appellant, on the same day and of having found following injuries on his person:--
(1) An incised wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. Bone deep lying 4 cm. Left to midline. Corresponding cut on the Qameez and Bunian present and the clothes were sent to the police.
(2)Complaint of pain right scapular region.
(3)Abrasion back of right of forearm, just below elbow.
(4)Complaint of pain below right nipple.
(5 )Contusion 3 cm. x 3 cm. Below right knee on front of the right leg. X-Ray was advised for injury No, 1 according to which no bone injury found, so the injury No, 1 was declared as simple.
' He expressed the opinion that injury No, l had been caused by a sharp edged weapon while the rest had been caused by a blunt weapon. He declared all the injuries to be simple.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants after having gone through the evidence criticised the impugned judgment and contended that the defence version put forth by Abdur Razzaq appellant was more probable and nearer the truth as against the prosecution version; that the learned trial Judge's observations that P.Ws.9 and 10 were independent witnesses, was not correct as they were inimical to the appellants.
' Learned counsel contended that failure of the eye-witnesses to explain injuries of Abdur Razzaq appellant and Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) is evidence of the fact that they had hidden something and not come up with clean hands. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of recoveries of weapon was not worth reliance as it was impossible to believe that the weapons would have been found stained with blood after so many days. Learned counsel also pointed out certain discrepancies in the statements of the S.H.O. And P.W5 about the manner of recoveries of weapons.
' In the alternative, learned counsel argued that even if the view formed by the trial Judge about the occurrence having taken place suddenly is upheld, Abbas Ali appellant cannot be burdened with the responsibility of having committed the murder and that at the best he can, in that case, be held liable for having committed the offence under section 304 Part-I, P.P.C. Learned counsel contended that since appellants other than Abbas Ali, have undergone quite a big portion of the sentences awarded to them, they be let off with the sentences already undergone, even if their convictions are maintained.
19. Learned counsel for the State defended the judgment of the trial Court.
20. Although the appellants did not deny the history of the cases mentioned by the complainant as motive for the occurrence, yet that by itself is no proof of the fact that the registration of those cases and the results thereof would have led the accused party to plan attack and sit in ambush in order to finish the complainant party. In that, the case said to have been registered for the abduction of sister-in-law of the complainant, had ended in acquittal and the cancellation of the other cases, according to the evidence had resulted as the complainant party (the accused party in this case) had accepted the offer of oath of the accused in those cases. The cancellation of those cases as a result of acceptance of oath could not have been a source of big annoyance to the accused party. In the circumstances the conclusion arrived at by learned trial Judge that the prosecution had failed to prove motive for the occurrence, in my view, does not call for any interference.
21. The version of the occurrence put forth by Abdur Razzaq appellant although apparently gets some strength in view of the medical evidence of sufferance of injuries by him and Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused), yet in spite of that the version does not appear to bear resemblance of truth nor probable even. The reasons for that are that had nine persons armed with deadly weapons like hatchets, dagger and sotas, launched premeditated and deliberate tack on Abdur Razzaq appellant and Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused),the result of the occurrence would not have been as it was. In that, except one injury to Muhammad Sharif on the nose, all other injuries to both of them were found to be simple. Most of the injuries on both of them were also noted to be abrasions and swellings. On the other hand, Abdur Razzaq appellant and Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) could not have succeeded in taking the of one from the side of the complainant and causing grievous injuries to the plainant. It is worth noticing that according to Abdur Razzaq appellant they were armed with sotas, while most of the injuries on the deceased and the plainant were found to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon.
' The other important aspect in this regard is that Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused) was 80 years old. It is doubtful, rather unbelievable that Abdur Razzaq appellant with the help of such an old man, could have succeeded in doing that much damage to the two members of a party, which comprised nine persons, fully armed with deadly weapons and planned intention.
22. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant party could have taken the other route to go to their house and that they appeared to have followed that route with ulterior motive, also does not strengthen the defence version of the occurrence as it was explained during cross-examination by the complainant that they were going by a shorter route.
23. The motive for the occurrence set up by the prosecution had been ruled out in the earlier part of the judgment. The version put forth by the defence also stands discarded. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge about the occurrence having erupted suddenly on the two parties having come across each other, appears to bear force.
The statement of the complainant about the infliction of particular injuries by the appellants to him and the deceased, is fully corroborated by P.Ws.9 and 10. Both of them were not related to the complainants. In fact, they belonged to a different caste (the complainant party are Rajputs while the P.Ws. Are Ansaris). The attempt made during the cross-examination to prove that both the eye- witnesses had inimical background against the accused party, proved futile. In that, even if it is admitted that father of P.W.9 had been challaned in some hurt case at the instance of a brother of Faiz Ahmad (acquitted accused) in 1949, it cannot be granted that P.W.9 who was 22/23 years old at the time of occurrence, would have come up as a witness on that account. In fact he on being asked did not even know about such a thing having happened.
22. The argument of the learned counsel that the complainant had not mentioned the name of Muhammad Rafiq P.W. As an eye-witness of the occurrence, at the trial, was thoroughly considered by the trial Judge and he discarded that argument by sound reasons. The fact of the matter is that the name of Muhammad Rafiq is mentioned in the F.I.R: as an eye-witness and he had appeared during investigation also. His statement had been recorded and his name was included in the calendar of witnesses.
23. So far as the evidence of recoveries of weapons is concerned, I feel, there is weight in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the same is not worth reliance. In that, Muhammad Sharif (acquitted accused), according to the witnesses of recoveries, had led to the recovery of chhuri, which he was not alleged to be holding. No evidence was led that the said chhuri had been wielded by some other accused at the time of occurrence. There are other discrepancies also which go to negate the credibility of the prosecution evidence in that regard.
The evidence of the recoveries is, therefore, excluded from consideration.
26. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence of recoveries has been excluded, the case against the appellants regarding their participation in the occurrence, stands proved by the other evidence, which has been discussed thread-bare.
27. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that Abbas Ali appellant could not have been held liable for having committed culpable homicide, amounting to murder, in my view does not bear any force. He was armed with a dangerous weapon and had chosen the most vital part of the body, i,e, head. The damage found to have resulted due to the blow given by him, clearly showed his intention of taking the life of the deceased. His conviction and sentences under section 302, P.P.C. Are, therefore, maintained. He shall, however, be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
28. Since learned trial Judge had held the occurrence to be the result of a free fight on the parties having come across each other, by chance and had also held that each of the accused in that case could only be burdened with the part played by him, and I have also not found any sufficient reason to disagree with that, the conviction of Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Sadiq appellants under section 307, P.P.C. In my view cannot be maintained. They were found to have caused one simple injury each to the deceased. Their conviction under section 307, P.P.C. Is, therefore, altered to section 324, P.P.C. They are in jail for the las, two years and ten months since after their arrest on 15- 12-1988. The period of detention includes 8 months R.I. Also. I think, the sentences already undergone, in the circumstances, will meet the ends of justice. .
29. Farman Ali and Akbar Ali, who stand convicted under section 324, P.P.C., had remained in jail during the trial for about nine months. Before their being released on bail, they had undergone about one month's R.I. The sentences, including the period of detention during the trial, in my view, in their case, will also meet the ends of justice. Their sentences are, therefore, reduced to that of already undergone.
' Farman Ali, Akbar Ali, Abdur Razzaq and Muhammad Sadiq appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
' The appeal stands dismissed with above alterations in the convictions and sentences.