1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 25-9-1988.
2. ' Muhammad Irshad and fifteen others wcrc tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for the double murder of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Rafiquc and for causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses. The trial Judge, by judgment dated 9-12-1985, found them guilty. They were sentenced as under:--
(i) under section 302 All the sixteen to imprisonment for life and read with 149, P.P.C. Fine of Rs, 2,000 each, or in default one year R.I.
(ii) under section 307 All to three years, R.I. And fine or Rs, 1,000 read with 149, P.P.C. Or in default six months R.I. Each.
(iii) under section 148, One year R.I. Each.
3. P.P.C.
4. ' The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They were also given the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
5. ' On appeal, the I ligh Court altered the conviction from 302 to 304, Part I; 307 to 325/323, P.P.C. And sentenced the accused/appellants as under:--
(i) Sikandar, Nadir, Ten years, R.I. Each and fine of Rs, 10,000 Sher Muhammad or in default one year R.I. Each, under and Muhammad section 304(1), P.P.C.
6. Irshad (petitioner), Nazir.
(ii) All the sixteen Three years R.I. Each with fine of Rs,10,000 accused/appellants. Each under section 325/149, P.P.C.
(iii) Ditto One year R.I. Each and fine of Rs, 200 each or in default 15 days each, under section 323/149, P.P.C.
(iv) Ditto One year R.I. Each under section 148, P.P.C.
(v) The incident in which the accused were involved took place on 1-7-1984 at 10-30 a.m. In Chak No, 97-CB Tehsil and District Faisalabad. Report was lodged by Hakam Ali, uncle of Mohammad Sharif and Muhammad Rafique deceased.
7. ' In the local councils election, the first informant and his partymen supported Rashid Khan against Sikandar Khan who was being supported by the accused party. Sikandar Khan won the election.
8. They celebrated their victory by dancing in front of the house of Mohammad Sharif (deceased) who gave beating to those who had danced in front of his house.
9. ' Sikandar Khan sent a message to Mohammad Sharif that he would be taught lesson for opposing him in the election. Muhammad Sharif did not take it seriously. He went to the house of Hasan Mohammad to verify that. At that time Sikandar and other accused were present in front of the house of Hasan Mohammad. All of them caught hold of Mohammad Sharif, took him into the Baithak of Hasan Mohammad and there gave him beating.
10. ' Complainant Hakam Ali and Khuda Bakhsh who were following Mohammad Sharif tried to rescue him. They were also beaten.
11. ' At 5 o'clock in that evening the matter was reported to the respectables of the locality. On their intervention Mohammad Sharif was set free. From there Mohammad Sharif was taken by Hakim Ali, Khuda Bakhsh and Ghulam Mohammad to Jaranwala for treatment.
12. ' Mohammad Rafique came to know of the incident. He followed the complainant party in his truck.
13. The complainant party wanted to see Ayub Khan through whom they had to arrange for the medical aid. He was not available. Mohammad Sharif and the complainant hired a taxi and left for the village of Ayub Khan. Mohammad Rafique followed them in his truck. When the party reached near the Baithak of Ilasan Muhammad, the accused who were armed with different type of weapons stopped the car and the truck. Mohammad Sharif was dragged out of the car.
14. Mohammad Rafique was pulled out from the truck. The taxi driver managed to escape.
15. ' The attack was opened by Sikandar who hit Mohammad Sharif with hatchet on his neck. Sharif fell down. Sultan inflicted a hatchet blow on the right side of head of Mohammad Sharif.
16. ' Nazir accused gave a hatchet blow to Rafiq deceased on the right side of head. Shera fired five, six shots hitting him on his legs. Rafiq fell down. Then Irshad gave a Lathi blow on the left leg of Mohammad Rafiq. Thereafter all the accused started inflicting injuries to Mohammad Sharif and Mohammad Rafiq.
17. ' The complainant party in order to save from further damage the two injured Mohammad Sharif and Mohammad Rafiq who by that time were lying unconscious caused injuries to Habib, Nadir and Akhtar accused.
18. ' On the hue and cry Sharaf Din and Ramzan came to the spot and saw the occurrence. They even helped to rescue the injured.
19. ' Muhammad Sharif and his brother Muhammad Rafiq succumbed to the injuries at the spot. When it was all over two persons were found dead from the side of the complainant and Taj Mohammad, Ghulam Mohammad, Sultan, Riaz Mohammad, Khuda Baksh and Hakim Ali were injured.
20. ' This was the prosecution case in nutshell. Hakim All PW 7, Taj PW 8, Sultan PW 9 and Ghulam Mohammad PW 10 were examined as eye-witnesses. The rest of the evidence consists of the recovery of crime weapons; post-mortem reports of the deceased and medico-legal reports of the injured.
21. ' The accused denied the prosecution allegations. However, Habibullah, Akhtar Ali and Nadir admitted the occurrence but not the way the prosecution alleged. Their story was that they caused injuries alongwith other villagers in exercise of right of self-defence.
22. ' Dr. Zaeem Aslam, DSP Safdar Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Advocate, Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Rafiq, Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Ghani were examined in defence.
23. ' Before the High Court it was contended that the accused had no motive to launch the attack and that it was Muhammad Sharif deceased who attacked Habibullah, Akhtar Ali and Nadir as a result of which they were injured and they acted in self-defence.
24. ' As too many persons were injured from the complainant side, the defence version was that those injuries had been caused by the villagers who came to the spot on hearing the noise as to what was going on.
25. ' The learned Judge who dealt with the appeal discussed in detail the prosecution evidence as well as the defence.
26. ' The defence version was not accepted. It was accordingly held that the encounter was sudden. It flared up in a fight. Unfortunately it resulted in the death of two persons and injuries to quite a few.
27. The learned Judge was, therefore, of the view that conviction under section 302 read with 149, P.P.C.
28. Was not legally maintainable and that, "the accused were liable for the individual acts in the occurrence." That was the reason that the conviction and sentence was altered.
29. The learned Advocate-on-Record who appeared in support of this petition repeated the same contentions which had been raised before the High Court and were repelled. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and in order to be sure that the impugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity, we considered the contentions of the Advocate-on-Record afresh and also examined the prosecution case in juxtaposition with the defence version.
30. ' We don't agree with the learned counsel that the prosecution failed to prove its case; hence the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. We don't think even the conviction and sentence needs further alteration.
31. ' No case is made out for leave to appeal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.