' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This Criminal Appeai No,97 of 1986, connected Murder Reference No,2 of 1987 and Criminal Revision No,111 of 1986 filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the five appellants of the charge under section 302/149/148, P.P.C. Arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby he, on 28-10-1986, convicted under various sections of the P.P.C. Muhammad Usman (40 years), Muhammad Nawaz (28 years), Muhammad Zaman (18 years), Abdul Razzaq (24 years), Muhammad Murad (25 years) and Lal Khan (29 years), appellants, and their co-accused Nazir Ahmad (26 years) and sentenced them as under:-- Sentences:
(1) Muhammad Murad Appellant (i) For the murder of Mst. Aisha and Mst. Quraishan to death and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof five years' R.I. On each count. He was also directed to pay Rs,10,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
' No,5, under section 302, P.P.C.
' Under section 323, P.P.C.
(ii) For causing injuries to Mst. Azra P.W. To one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I.
(2) Lal Khan Appellant No,6 under
(i) For causing death to section 302, P.P.C. Muhammad Yar to death and a fine of Rs,5,000, or in default thereof three years' R.I. He was also directed to pay Rs,5,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
' Under section 323, P.P.C. (ii) For causing injuries to Abdul Shakoor P.W. To one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I.
(3) Muhammad Usman Appellant No,1 (i) For causing injuries to under section 323, P.P.C.Muhammad Amin P.W. To one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000, or in default thereof to further R.I.
For six months.
(4) Under section 324, P.P.C.
(5) Muhammad Nawaz Appellant No,2
(i) For causing grievous under section 325, P.P.C. Injuries to Abdul Aziz P.W. To five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,3,000 or Under section 323, P.P.C. In default thereof two years' R.I.
(ii) For causing injuries to Mst. Aisha P.W. To one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I.
(5) Muhammad Zaman Appellant No,3 (i) For causing grievous under section 325, P.P.C. Injuries to Abdul Aziz P.W. To five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof two, years' R.I.
' Under section 323, P.P.C. (ii) For causing simple injuries to Mst. Azra Bibi, Abdul Qadir and Mst.
Quraishan P.Ws. To one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. On each count.
(6) For causing injuries to Abdul R azzaq Appellant No,4 under section 323, P.P.C.
(i) Abdul Shakoor P.W. And Muhammad Yar deceased to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. On each count.
(ii) For causing injuries to Abdul Aziz P.W. To two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default thereof one year's R.I.
(iii) Nazir Ahmad. Co-accused. No appeal under section 323, P.P.C.
(i) For causing injuries to Muhammad Amin and Mst. Azra and sentenced to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. On each count.
' All the sentences were to run concurrently. We propose to dispose of the above matters through this single judgment.
3. The occurrence took place on 21-10-1985 at 1-00 p.m. At Dera of Maulvi Ilam Din in village Dunga Bishnoyan at a distance of three and a half kilometres from village Donga Bonga. F.1.R. Exh.P.S. Was lodged by Abdul Shakoor P.W.8, on the same day at 2-30 p.m. And was recorded by Abdul Aziz S.I.
(P.W.12). The background of the occurrence allegedly was that Mst. Aisha deceased was married to Muhammad Murad appellant about 7/8 years before the occurrence. About 20/22 days before the occurrence she after having quarrelled with her husband came to the house of her parents in Village Dcra Ilam Din. Muhammad Murad tried to take her hack to his house but Mst. Aisha did not agree. On this Muhammad Murad appellant became annoyed, hence this occurrence.
4. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that at the eventful time, Abdul Shakoor complainant, Abdul Qadir and Abdul Aziz were present in their house. Mst. Aisha was suffering from fever and she was sleeping on a cot lying outside the house. On hearing the noise, they were attracted to the spot and saw Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Zaman and Nazir carrying Dangs, Muhammad Murad, Abdul Razzaq and Lal Khan armed with hatchets and Usman armed with a gun, were dragging Mst. Aisha. They (witnesses) intervened to get her released but the accused threatened them. On the alarm raised by the aforesaid witnesses, Muhammad Yar deceased, Muhammad Amin P.W., Mst. Azra P.W. And Mst. Quraishan deceased, who were working in the nearby fields, came there and tried to rescue Mst. Aisha. On this, Muhammad Usman appellant raised Lalkara and fired ineffective shots from his gun. Lal Khan appellant gave hatchet blow on the head of Muhammad Yar deceased. Abdul Razzaq appellant and Nazir Ahmad, co-accused, also caused injuries with hatchet and Dang respectively to Muhammad Yar deceased. Muhammad Murad appellant gave hatchet blows to Mst. Quraishan deceased and to Mst. Aisha deceased.
Muhammad Nawaz appellant gave Dang blow to Mst. Aisha. Lal Khan appellant gave hatchet blow to Abdul Shakoor complainant (P.W.8). Abdul Razzaq appellant also gave him injuries with the wrong side of the hatchet. Muhammad Zaman appellant also gave Dang blows to Abdul Aziz P.W.
Abdul Razzaq appellant inflicted hatchet blow to Abdul Aziz P.W.1. Nazir Ahmad (co-accused) gave Sota blow to Muhammad Amin. Muhammad Usman appellant gave injuries to Muhammad Amin with the butt of his gun. Muhammad Nawaz injured Abdul Qadir. Muhammad Zaman caused Dang blow on the person of Mst. Azra. Muhammad Murad appellant inflicted hatchet blow to Mst. Azra.
Nazir Ahmad inflicted Sota blow on Mst. Azra. The alarm raised on the spot also attracted Muhammad Qasim, Jan Muhammad and Waryam, neighbours, to the place of occurrence. Mst.
Aisha, Mst. Quraishan and Muhammad Yar succumbed to the injuries on the spot. After causing the death of three persons and injuries to seven persons, the appellants made good their escape taking their weapons with diem.
5. Dr. Muhammad Amjad Abid P.W.4 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased and also medically examined the injured witnesses and the injured accused. On 21-10-1985, he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A cut with sharp-edged weapon about 17 c.m. x 5 c.m. On the left temporal region whose direction was oblique. It had cut the meninges and brain matter. This injury is dangerous to life and was ante-mortem.
(2) Area about 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. Echymosed on the tip of the right shoulder. The injury was with blunt weapon, simple in nature and ante-mortem.
(3) Area about 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. Echymosed on the back of the chest. Direction is horizontal. The injury is simple in nature with blunt weapon and ante-mortem.
' In his opinion, the death was due to injury No,1, which fractured the skull of the left temporal region and had also caused extra-dural haemorrhage and irreversible damage to the brain tissues. The injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This injury was caused with sharp-edged weapon and the other injuries were caused with blunt weapon. On the same day, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Aisha and found the following injuries on her person:--
(1) A wound about 10 c.m. x 5 c.m., oblique in direction cutting the contents of the right side of the neck, the major vessels and the mandible. The injury was grievous and was dangerous to life with sharp-edged weapon and ante-mortem.
(2) A wound about 6 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. Cutting the skull and brain tissues on the right temporal region, oblique in direction, below the right eye upto the right mandible. The injury was grievous in nature and was dangerous to life caused by a sharp-edged weapon and the injury was ante- mortem.
(3) A cut wound 12 c.m. x 5 c.m. Cutting the head of humers, oblique in direction on the right shoulder. The injury was grievous in nature and was caused by a sharp-edged weapon and was ante-mortem.
(4) A scratch about 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the back of the chest. This injury was simple in nature and caused by a blunt weapon and was ante-mortem.
(5) A scratch about 5 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. On the back of the lower chest. The injury was simple in nature caused by blunt weapon and was ante-mortem.
(6) An area echymosed 15 c.m. x 4 c.m. )n the back of the chest 10 c.m. x from the tip of the right shoulder. The injury was simple in nature and was ante-mortem.
' In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No,1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.1 to 3 were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the remaining with blunt weapon.
' On the same day, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst.
Quraishan and found the following injuries on her person:--
(1) A cut wound about 10 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the top of the head slightly on the left direction whose direction was oblique. Brain matter had come out. Bone cut. The injury was grievous and was dangerous to life, caused by a sharp-edged weapon and was ante-mortem.
(2) An incised wound about 3 c.m. x 1.1/2 c.m. Skin deep on the back, vertical in direction, simple in nature caused by sharp weapon.
(3) An area echymosed 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. The back of the chest. The injury is simple and caused with blunt weapon and is ante-mortem.
(4) An area echymosed 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left wrist joint. Injury is simple with blunt weapon, ante-mortem.
' In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No,1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt weapon.
' On the same day, he examined Mst. Zikran Bibi (neither P.W. Nor D.W.) and found one lacerated wound on the top of the head 6 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Skin deep whose direction was oblique and was 15 c.m. From the right pinna of the right ear. He kept this injury under observation and advised X-ray.
The injury was caused by blunt weapon.
' On the same day, he examined Lal Khan accused/appellant and found the following injures on his person:--
(1) A wound about 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the left side of the temple, bled profusely. Clear cut margins.
Skin deep. Direction was oblique. I kept the injury under observation and advised X-ray of the skull.
(2) There were two scratches 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. And 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the left forearm. The injury was simple and was caused by blunt weapon.
' The injuries were simple in nature. Injury No,1 was caused with sharp-edged weapon and injury No,2 with blunt weapon.
' On the same day, he examined Abdul Aziz P.W. And found six injuries on his person, which are as under:--
(1) A bleeding wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the right temporal region whose direction was oblique, was bleeding profusely, whose margins were clearly cut.
(2) A wound about 9 c.m. x c.m. On the right temporal region, bone deep. I kept it under observation and advised X-Ray of the skull vide X-ray report No,1308-1314 for D.H.Q. Hospital, Bahawalnagar.
According to the X-ray report, there is no fracture of the vault of skull so the injury was declared simple caused by a sharp weapon.
(3) A wound about 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the back of the right hand. The hand was swollen and was tender. I kept it under observation and advised X-ray of the right hand. Vide X-ray report No,1308- 1314 dated 27-10-1985 from the D.H.Q. Hospital, Bahawalnagar, there was a fracture of the distall end of 4th and 5th metacorple hones of the right hand. So, this injury was declared as grievous and caused by blunt weapon.
(4) Scratch 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the tip of the right shoulder. This injury was declared as simple caused by blunt weapon.
(5) An area about from the tip of the fingers of the left hand upto the left elbow joint was swollen and was tender. I kept it under observation and advised X-ray. There was a fracture of the shaft of the left ulna according to the Report No,1308-1314 dated 27-10-1985 from D.H.Q. Hospital, Bahawalnagar, so the injury was declared as grievous in nature caused by blunt weapon.
(6) Swelling about 10 c.m. x 5 c.m. On the left leg at the calf region. The injury was simple and caused by blunt weapon.
' In his opinion, out of the six injuries, two injuries were grievous and the rest were simple. The grievous injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon and the remaining with blunt weapon.
' On the same day, he examined Mst. Azra Bibi P.W. And found twelve injuries including one grievous injury on her person. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon.
' On the same day, he examined Abdul Shakoor P.W. And found four simple injuries caused by blunt weapon on his person.
' On the same day, he examined Muhammad Amin P.W. And found five simple injuries caused with blunt weapon on his person.
' On the same day, he examined Abdul Qadir P.W. And found two simple injuries caused with blunt weapon on his person:-- ' On 22-10-1985, he examined Elahi Bakhsh and found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) A wound about 6 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Skin deep on the front of the head in the middle portion. The direction was oblique. Injury was simple, caused with blunt weapon.
(2) Swelling 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the left arm on the outer side. That was circular in shape. The injury was simple caused with blunt weapon.
' These injuries were simple in nature and caused with blunt weapon.
' On 28-10-1985, he examined Abdul Razzaq appellant and found no injury on his person.
' On the same day, he examined Muhammad Zaman appellant and found four simple injuries caused with blunt weapon, on his person.
' On the same day, he examined Muhammad Murad appellant and found five simple injuries caused by blunt weapon, on his person.
6. The appellants except Lal Khan were arrested on 27-10-1985. Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Murad appellants were arrested by Abdul Aziz S.I. (P.W.12). Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Usman were arrested by Munawar Hussian A.S.I. (P.W.6). Abdul Razzaq and Muhammad Zaman were arrested by Muhammad Abdullah A.S.I. (P.W.7). Lal Khan was arrested by Abdul Aziz S.I. (P.W.12) on 30-10-1985.
7. On 2-11-1985, Muhammad Zaman, Muhammad Murad, Lal Khan, Abdul Razzaq, Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Nawaz accused got recovered gun P.13, blood-stained Dang P.W.24, blood-stained hatchet P.21, blood-stained hatched P.20, blood-stained hatchet P.18, blood-stained Dang P.19 and bloodstained Dang P.25, which were taken into possession vide memoranda Exh.P.X. Exh.P.DD., Exh.P.BB., Exh.P.AA., Exh.P.Y., Exh.P.Z. And Exh.P.EE. Respectively attested by Abdul Qadir P.W.11 and Khan (not produced).
' On the same day, Muhammad Usman appellant got recovered gun P.13 alongwith licence P.14 and one Bandolier P.15 containing two empties P.16/1-2, which were taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.X. Attested by the same witnesses.
8. The Serologist report Exh.P.RR. Reveals that all the aforesaid weapons recovered from the appellants and Muhammad Nazir co-accused were stained with human blood.
9. To prove its case, the prosecution produced twelve witnesses. Abdul Shakoor P.W.8, Abdul Aziz P.W.9, Mst. Azra Bibi P.W.10 and Abdul Qadir P.W.11 have given the ocular account of the occurrence.
They claimed to have seen the appellants and Nazir Ahmad co-accused causing injuries with their respective weapons to the three deceased and the injured witnesses at the time of occurrence.
They stated that Mst. Aisha was sleeping on a cot near the house when the appellants and Nazir Ahmad duly armed came there, dragging her to some distance and when the deceased and the injured witnesses tried to rescue her, they (the appellants) caused the death of three deceased and injuries to the injured witnesses with their respective weapons. 1 hey have supported the prosecution version of the occurrence in all material particulars. Abdul Shakoor P.W.8 deposed about the background of the occurrence. Abdul Qadir P.W.11 and Abdul Aziz P.W.12 have supported the recovery of the weapons from the appellants.
' It may be noted here that the recoveries of the incriminating articles from the appellants have not been believed and acted upon by the trial Court for the reasons given in the judgment.
' Dr. Muhammad Amjad Abid P.W.4 has proved the post-mortem reports and medico-legal reports pertaining to the injuries of the injured P.Ws., the appellants, Elahi Bakhsh and Mst. Zikran Bibi. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
10. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances. The appellants other than Muhammad Zaman, Muhammad Murad and Lal Khan denied their presence and participation in the occurrence. Muhammad Murad, Muhammad Zaman and Lal Khan, the injured accused/appellants have raised the plea of grave and sudden provocation and self-defence.
' Muhammad Murad appellant, in reply to question No,10, stated that:- "The complainant party came to the Killa of Lal Khan where Lal Khan alongwith me, Zaman, our mother Mst. Zikran and Mst. Aisha were working with us. We always kept a watch over Mst. Aisha because she had illicit connections with Elahi Bakhsh. The complainant alongwith Elahi Bakhsh came armed in the Killa and wanted to take away Mst. Aisha by force from us which we did not allow and they attacked us and thus I was injured."
' In reply to question No,11, he stated that:- "The complainant party attacked us for the abovesaid reasons and we i.e, Muhammad Zaman, Lal Khan, Mst. Zikran and myself retaliated in self-defence with the implements with which we were working. This caused us a grave and sudden provocation and we lost our self-control because we were being beaten and my wife Mst. Aisha deceased was being taken away against the principles of Shariah. There was no other previous enmity between us and the complainant party. We definitely hated and disliked Elahi Bakhsh. No other accused was present there. Their presence has been shown for widening the net. We were not prepared for this fight. It was a surprise and sudden attack and we also retaliated sudenly. I cannot say who gave us the blows and whom did we give the blows because the blows were being exchanged rapidly. Mst. Quraishan and Mst. Azra had arrived when the fight had started and they suffered injuries due to their intervention. The non- injured P.Ws. Never came to the place of occurrence.
' In reply to question No,12, he stated that:-- "The prosecution has given a false story of the occurrence which took place between 10-30/1-00 a.m. The complainant had suppressed the presence and the injuries of Elahi Bakhsh. It was at our noise and insistence that the police interrogated Elahi Bakhsh. We had given our true version to the police and that is why they did not arrest any of the accused persons for a number of days but later on, on account of pressure and having joined hands with the complainant party, we have been falsely involved in this case."
' Lal Khan and Muhammad Zaman adopted the version of the occurrence told by Muhammad Murad appellant. They did not produce any evidence in defence and also did not give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges against them.
11. Believing the prosecution and the ocular evidence and disbelieving the defence plea of grave and sudden provocation and of self-defence raised by the three injured appellants, the trial Court has convicted the appellants for their independent liability, as stated above. The trial Court relied on Abdul Rehman v. Gadhi Khan and 3 others 1972 SCMR 676 to hold that it was a case of free fight and each of the participants was responsible for his own act.
' It may be noted here that in the Abdul Rchman's case, after holding that the deceased of that case had died in a free fight, the trial Court had convicted the accused causing the death of the deceased under section 302, P.P.C. And the other accused for their independent part played in the occurrence.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the motive alleged by the prosecution, is not believable inasmuch as Abdul Aziz P.W.9, the father of Mst. Aisha, did not know the real cause of the quarrel between his daughter Mst. Aisha and her husband; that the.Charpai on which Mst.
Aisha was sleeping at the time of occurrence was not taken into possession; that Mst. Aisha was not treated by any doctor with regard to her disease and as such, it cannot be said with certainty that Mst. Aisha was really suffering from fever and was lying on a Charpai near the place of occurrence; that the prosecution has suppressed the presence of Elahi Bakhsh in the F.I.R.; that the prosecution has suppressed the injuries of the accused/appellants; that no marks of dragging were found on the person of Mst. Aisha; that Mst. Aisha was wearing bangles but the same were not broken. Had she been dragged then the bangles would have certainly broken and its broken pieces would have been recovered from the place where she was dragged; that the eye-witnesses are closely related to each other; that the recoveries of the weapons from the appellants have been disbelieved by the trial Court and there is no other corroboration of the statements of the eye-witnesses; that Muhammad Amin, who was allegedly injured by Muhammad Usman appellant was not produced; that the fact that Elahi Bakhsh was injured during the occurrence and his presence was suppressed in the F.I.R. Lends support to the defence version.
12-A. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State have opposed the learned counsel for the appellants. They were of the view that it was a premeditated attack opened by the appellants and not a case of free tight and, as such, all the appellants were also vicariously liable for the three murders and the grievous and simple injuries to the P.Ws.
13. We have anxiously attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have reviewed the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, statements of the accused/appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the circumstances appearing in the case. According to the prosecution, Mst. Aisha wife of Muhammad Murad appellant, after having quarrelled with her husband had come to the house of her parents and was sleeping on a cot outside the house when the appellants and Nazir Ahmad co-accused duly armed came there to take her forcibly back to the house of his in-laws. On her hue and cry, Mst. Quraishan, Mst. Azra, Muhammad Yar, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Qadir and others were attracted to the spot. They tried to save her when the appellants, killed three deceased and injured the other witnesses. On the other hand, the defence case is that at the eventful time, Muhammad Murad, Muhammad Zaman and Lal Khan appellants, their mother Mst. Zikran and Mst. Aisha deceased were present in the land of Lal Khan when Abdul Shakoor P.W.8, the uncle of Mst. Aisha, accompanied by Elahi Bakhsh, paramour of Mst. Aisha, duly armed came there. They wanted to take away Mst. Aisha by force with them. Muhammad Murad and his companions resisted whereon Elahi Bakhsh and Abdul Shakoor attacked them and injured Muhammad Murad, on which Muhammad Murad and his companions lost self-control and retaliated. In the meantime, Mst. Quraishan and Mst. Azra arrived on the place of occurrence when the fight had already begun and they suffered injuries during the fight. It is, thus, a case of two versions. We propose to consider the prosecution case first in order to come to an independent opinion with regard to the truth or falsity of the prosecution case and the evidence produced by it. We find that the F.I.R. Was lodged within two hours of the occurrence. There is nothing in evidence to show that it was not a genuine document or it was not recorded at the time and place, as it purports. It contains the names of the accused/appellants, the weapons carried by them, the part played by each of the accused/appellants and the manner in which the occurrence took place.
14. Abdul Shakoor P.W.8, Abdul Aziz P.W.9, Mst. Azra Bibi P.W.10 and Abdul Qadir P.W.11, the four eye- witnesses, are related to the three deceased and also related inter se. Muhammad Murad appellant was married to the daughter of Abdul Aziz P.W.9. They had no motive to involve the appellants falsely in the case and, as such, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses.
' Their evidence cannot and should not be rejected on account of their relationship with the deceased or their relations with each other. By the fact of injuries on the person of the aforesaid four eye-witnesses, their presence at the time of occurrence is established. The occurrence took place in the light of the day. The appellants were previously known to them. Muhammad Murad was son-in-law of Abdul Aziz P.W.9 and the other appellants are either brothers or first cousins of Muhammad Murad. So, there was no difficulty in the identification of the appellants. Since all the four eye-witnesses were injured during the occurrence, so they were in a position to identify their own assailants. Since Dangs and hatchets were used by the appellants while inflicting the injuries to the three deceased and the eye-witnesses, therefore, they were very close rather face to face at the time of infliction of injuries. Hence there could be no doubt with regard to the identification of the persons causing injuries to the deceased and the eyewitnesses. All the eye-witnesses have made consistent statements. The evidence given by them does not suffer from material contradictions, major discrepancies or dishonest improvements. The large number of the deceased and the injured witnesses and the total number of injuries found on their persons commensurate with the offenders named by them and also with the number and nature of the weapons used by them. Lal Din accused/appellant was medically examined on the next day of the occurrence. Mst. Zikran, mother of Muhammad Murad appellant, was also medically examined. In the F.I.R. The fact that they had received injuries during the occurrence was not suppressed.
Muhammad Zaman and Muhammad Murad, appellants, did not appear before the police immediatley after the occurrence nor did they get themselves medically xamined even privately on the day of the occurrence or on the following day of the occurrence. They were arrested on 27- 10-1985 and were medically examined on 28-10-1985. Therefore, the possibility of their having not sustained those injuries at the time of occurrence and having suffered at some other place and on other occasion cannot be excluded. The medical opinion that the injuries were caused within seven days does not necessarily mean that the injuries were received by the appellants at the time of the occurrence, more particularly when except unadmitted suggestions given to the witnesses and the bald statements made by Muhammad Zaman and Muhammad Murad under section 342, Cr.P.C.
With regard to their having suffered injuries during the occurrence, there is no legal evidence that they had received the injuries in the occurrence. They could appear in their defence and give evidence on oath that they had received injuries during the occurrence, but unfortunately, they did not care and dare to make statement on oath. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution or the witnesses were guilty of suppressing the injuries of the injured appellants. For all these reasons, it is not possible for us to exclude the statements of the eyewitnesses from consideration or to reject or discard the evidence given by them.
16. 15 . Adverting to the defence version, we find that neither the same is established by direct or indirect evidence nor there is any reasonable possibility of its being true. The reasons are that Muhammad Murad, Muhammad Zaman and I Lal Khan appellants had not disclosed this version of the occurrence to the Investigating Officer immediately after their arrest. They being the injured persons were the best witnesses of their injuries and, as such, they could prove the same by giving evidence on oath. Mst. Zikran, whose presence and the factum of her having received injuries during the occurrence, is stated in the F.I.R. Is the mother of Muhammad Murad, Muhammad Zaman and Muhammad Nawaz appellants. She could easily be produced in proof of the defence version, but she was withheld. The number of the deceased, the injured witnesses and the harm done to them is much more than the number of the injured persons and the injuries received by the appellants' party. Had the complainant party opened the attack and come prepared to take away Mst. Aisha forcibly then the damage on their side would have been much more excessive.
The defence version that the real uncle of Mst. Aisha would have joined the paramour of her niece in taking her away from her husband does not appeal to reason. Furthermore, had Elahi Bakhsh come alongwith the complainant to the place of occurrence, then he would have been the first target and he could not escape alive. The appellants, who were furious enough to kill three persons including two innocent ladies, would not have spared Elahi Bakhsh and the paramour of the wife of one of them. In this view of the matter, we are convinced that the occurrence did not take place in the manner and circumstances narrated by the three appellants, and they have neither established the defence version nor is there any reasonable possibility of its being true.
We feel that it was a case of premeditated assault on the three deceased G and the injured witnesses and not a case of free light. Since the persons responsible for the death of the three deceased have been sentenced to death, so we do not feel inclined to direct the retrial of the appellants acquitted of the H charge under section 302/149/148, P.P.C. After about five years of the occurrence. This brings us to the question of sentence. We have considered the sentences of the appellants with utmost care on our part. We do not see any mitigating circumstance in favour of Muhammad Murad and Lal Khan appellants for lesser penalty. Muhammad Murad appellant has killed two innocent ladies, who could not do any harm to him. Lal Khan appellant has also killed Muhammad Yar, who had simply tried to intervene. The sentences awarded to the other appellants under sections 323 and 325, P.P.C. Are not harsh or excessive.
17. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being sound basis to uphold the convictions and sentences of the appellants, the appeal is dismissed and the sentences of DEATH awarded to Muhammad Murad and Lal Khan appellants are CONFIRMED. The connected revision also fails.