This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No.350 of 1985 and Criminal Revision No.724 of 1985, all arising out of an occurrence taking place on 25-3-1983 at about 6 p.m. In the area of village Christian Town, Chak Jhumra, as a result of which Inayat Masih son of Barkat Masih was killed and Rehmat Masih P.W. Was injured. The matter was reported to the police by Barkat Masih and case: F.I.R. No.78 was registered at Police Station Chak Jhumra on the same day under section 302/34, P.P.C. Against Younis Masih and Inayat Masih appellants and Sohail Masih acquitted accused.
2. During the course of investigation of the said case; on 27-4-1983 Inayat Masih son of Khewan gave a counter-version of the occurrence, as a consequence of which Barkat Masih complainant, besides five others, namely, Inayat Masih (deceased), Karamat Masih, Siddiq Masih, Rehmat Masih and Allah Ditta were arraigned as accused for offences under sections 325 and 148/149, P.P.C. On the completion of investigation, two separate challans were, therefore, submitted and two cross- cases were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Faisalabad.
3. In the main murder case, he, vide his judgment, dated 30-5-1985, convicting Younis Masih appellant under section 304, Part 1, P.P.C., sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to further undergo two years' R.I. He also convicted him under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years' R.I. Both the substantive sentences of the convict were directed to run concurrently. He convicted Inayat Masih appellant under section 323, P.P.C. And sentenced him to six months' R.I. He, however, acquitted Sohail Rahi on benefit of doubt.
4. In the cross-case, by a separate judgment of the same date he convicted Barkat Masih, Karamat Masih, Rehmat Masih and Inayat Masih (deceased) under section 323, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to six months' R.I. He, however, acquitted Siddiq Masih and Allah Ditta co-accused on benefit of doubt. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, where the convicts in both the cases have come up in appeal to this Court, Barkat Masih complainant, who is now reported to have died, filed a revision petition against the acquittal of Younis Masih, Inayat Masih and Sohail Rahi.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, after addressing argument at some length, has eventually requested that the conviction of the appellants may be maintained but their sentences may be reduced to a reasonable level. According to the learned counsel for Younis Masih appellant the sentence of his client was excessive, particularly when he suffered eight injuries with blunt weapon and had given fatal blow to Inayat Masih (deceased) and caused simple injury to Rehmat Masih P.W. With a Chhuri in the exercise of his right of his self---defence.
6. The record shows that Younis Masih appellant had suffered eight simple injuries with blunt weapon, while Inayat Masih appellant had received six simple injuries with blunt weapon at the hands of complainant party. Besides, Inayat Masih son of Khewan received four injuries, two of them being grievous, Danial suffered one injury. Akbar Masih sustained one injury and Charles eight injuries at the hands of complainant party. There is some controversy between the parties to the effect that a separate occurrence took place between the complainant party and these four persons and for that reason they were not arraigned as accused alongwith Younis Masih, Inayat Masih and Sohail Masih, though they belong to the same party, while, according to the accused party in the main murder case, all the aforesaid persons suffered injuries in the same occurrence.
Even if there were two separate occurrences, Younis Masih and Inayat Masih appellants suffered a number of injuries at the hands of complainant party and they had a right to defent themselves.
However, Younis Masih appellant seems to have exceeded his right of self-defence by giving Chhuri blow on the left chest of Inayat Masih (deceased), causing his instantaneous death. He also caused a simple injury with the same weapon to Rehmat Masih P.W. In these circumstances, where his conviction under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Is maintained, his sentence is reduced from imprisonment for life to seven years' R.I. His sentence of fine and imprisonment in lieu thereof, as awarded to him by the trial Court, shall remain intact. The fine, if realised, shall be paid to the heirs of Inayat Masih (deceased) by way of compensation. He shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
7. However, the conviction of Inayat Masih appellant under section 323, P.P.C. Is maintained but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Only to this extent the Criminal Appeal 354 of 1985 is accepted. As a result of the Criminal Revision No.724 of 1988 is dismissed.
8. As regards Criminal Appeal No.350 of 1985, where the sentence of Karamat Masih and Rehmat Masih alias Kaka Masih under section 323, P.P.C. Is maintained, their sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by them.
9. Since Younis Masih appellant is on bail, the learned District Magistrate, Faisalabad, to whom a copy of this judgment should be remitted immediately, shall cause his arrest and send him to the prison for serving out his remaining sentence.