Abdur Rehman's, Ghulam Muhammad and Abdul Sattar appellants were convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his judgment dated 30-4-1983 under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. Each. Two- third of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to Abdul Razzak and Abdul Hameed (P.Ws. 1 and 2), the injured witnesses. They have filed separate appeals, which are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. The occurrence took place at 8-00 a.m. On 11-4-1981 in the street of Abbasnagar at a distance of one mile from Police Station Shahdara. Abdur Razzak complainant (P.W.1) made statement (Exh.P.A.) to Muhammad Ishaq, A.S.I. (P.W.11) on the same day at 9-00 a.m. On its basis formal F.I.R.
(Exh.PA./1) was registered in the police station at 9-20 p.m.
3. According to the F.I.R. Ghulam Muhammad appellant was a neighbour to the complainant family.
Their children while playing quarrelled in the evening and were separated by the complainant. Mst.
Mukhtaran were of Ghulam Muhammad started abusing him and the abuse was returned. In the meantime Abdul Sattar, Mst. Mukhtaran and Abdul Malik absconder also reached and started abusing. They were separated by the parties.
4. The version proceeds that at about 8-00 p.m. Abdul Malik absconder armed with a pistol and the appellants armed with Sotas assaulted the complainant family in their house after abusing. When the complainant went out of his house, Abdul Malik fired at him but missed, Ghulam Muhammad and Abdur Rehman's appellants injured him with Sotas. His alarm attracted Muhammad Ramzan (deceased), Abdul Hameed (P.W.2) and Khadim Hussain (P.W.3). On seeing them Ghulam Muhammad appellant raised the Lalkara prompting Abdul Malik to fire the shot hitting Ramzan in the thigh and he fell down. Abdul Sattar appellant gave Sota blows to Abdul Hamid P.W. The residents of the Mohallah reached and rescued them from the appellants and the absconder accused. An electric bulb was on and in the light of the same the appellants and the absconder accused had been identified.
5. The appellants at the close of the trial asserted innocence, ascribed the murder of Ramzan to some unknown culprits and their involvement to enmity. They did not make statements on oath nor produced any evidence in defence.
6. Dr. Tahir Amin (P.W.12) medically examined Abdur Razzak and Abdul Hameed P.Ws. On 12-4-1981 at about 1-00 a.m. The former was having four blunt weapon simple injuries and the latter two blunt weapon simple injuries. One of the injuries to each of the two was in the head.
7. At the trial Abdur Razzak, Abdul Hameed, Khadim Hussain (P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3) gave the ocular account of the occurrence. The former stated about the motive as well.
8. Dr. Sabir Ali (P.W.9) performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ramzan (deceased) who had a fire-arm wound of entry as well as exit on the right thigh, which had resulted in death. The injuries to Abdur Razzak and Abdul Hameed have been stated by Dr. Tahir Amin (P.W.12). The case was investigated by Malik Muhammad Munir, S.H.O. (P.W.13). After appreciating, the same, the learned trial Judge concluded that the murder of the deceased seemed to be the individual act of Abdul Malik absconder and that the appellants were responsible for causing injuries to Abdur Razzak and Abdul Hameed P.Ws. In furtherance of their common intention, had no privity with the absconder to commit murder and thus recorded conviction under section 307/34, P.P.C. With the sentence as indicated above.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the witnesses were not believable but after hearing him and the counsel for the State and going through the record I think that the appellants must thank their stars, in that, they were not convicted for the offence of murder and there is no revision against their acquittal on the murder charge. Sisters of Abdur Razzak were married to Ramzan (deceased) and Abdul Hameed P.W. While going through the statements of the eye- witnesses there does not seem to be any previous enmity or ill-will between the parties. The houses of the parties are also close by. Khadim Hussain (P.W.3), is not related to the eye-witnesses or the deceased and is entirely an independent and disinterested witness. The occurrence took place at the house of the complainant. The parties were the residents of the same locality and they having come in close contact in the occurrence, the identification was not something difficult. There is, therefore, no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
10. However, there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries to the two P.Ws. Being simple, the conviction under section 323/34, P.P.C. Could only have been recorded. I am inclined to agree with him.
11. The result is that the appeals against conviction fail and are hereby dismissed but the conviction is altered to one under section 323/34, P.P.C. The appellants have been behind the bars for more than four months. Hence the sentence already undergone and a fine of Rs.1,000 to each of them or in default thereof four months' R.I. Would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The fine would be deposited in the learned lower Court within one month of today otherwise the appellants would be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. Two-third of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to Abdur Razzak complainant and one-third to Abdul Hameed, the injured P.Ws. As compensation. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.