1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court; whereby while affirming the finding that the appellants were guilty for double murder reduced their main sentences from death to imprisonment of fine. The appellants having served substansive sentences of imprisonment, it was stated, have since been released from jail. The proceedings for recovery of the fine, according to the learned counsel, are however pending. The real purpose, learned counsel further stated, was to avoid payment of fine imposed. According to learned counsel for the appellants they are unable to pay the fine.
2. ' Thus in substance the appeal is not being pressed for reversal of finding of guilty but to avoid payment of fine. The relevant part of the High Court judgment dealing with reduction of sentences and enhancement of fine as also the payment thereof, when recovered, as compensation to the heirs of the deceased reads as follows:-- "This leaves us to examine the quantum of sentence. Mohammad Shafique Anjum said that when he came to the spot the attack was on. He saw the accused grappling with the deceased. Similarly, Iftikhar Alam did not say as to what transpired before the deceased were attacked. It is difficult to believe that the accused party attacked without any rhyme or reason. Something must have happened which provoked the attack. There is no evidence with regard to the immediate cause and the explanation for that could be twofold. First, either the prosecution did not know what led to the fight, or the prosecution was not prepared to disclose the true facts about this aspect of the case. In either way, its benefit must go to the appellants and thus we decline to confirm the death sentence of both the appellants; the same is commuted to life imprisonment.
3. "The fine imposed by the trial Court was inadequate. We therefore gave notice to the learned counsel to show cause why it be not enhanced. Notice was duly accepted.
4. "It has come in evidence that Riasat Ali appellant was running a Spare Parts Shop. It is a paying business. He is, therefore, ordered to pay a fine of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) to the legal heirs of Khushnood Alam deceased.
5. "Daulat All was running a tea shop. His fine is enhanced to Rs,10,000 (ten thousand) to be paid to the legal heirs of Muhammad Anwar Iqbal deceased.
6. "The concerned is directed to take immediate for realization and payment of thg amount of fine."
7. (Underlining is ours ).
8. Leave to appeal was granted with a view to examine: whether, the re-appraisal of the testimony of Muhammad Shafique Anjum eye witness and acceptance thereof as reliable after the same had been rejected by the trial Court, was in accord with the principles of appreciation of evidence in Criminal cases.
9. Learned counsel has submitted elaborate arguments in writing also. Nowhere it has been taken even as a bare plea that the High Court has no power to accept testimony of a witness as reliable which the trial Court did not believe or brought under doubt. Otherwise too even if it would have been raised it .Cannot be accepted as tenable plea. Learned counsel, however, gave various reasons for this Court to set aside the finding of the High Court regarding the reliability of the said witness. All the points raised by him relate to the reappraisal of the evidence. The points are not such which go to the root of the matter. No principle is said to have been violated except that he should have been held to be a chance witness. It would suffice to say that even if a chance witness, his explanation regarding what he wanted to do at Railway Office being acceptable the so called stigma of being a chance witness loses significance. The argument of the learned counsel that the Railway Office was closed, therefore, the witness should have been declared as having perjured himself is also without much force. The witness had gone to the Railway Station to get a seat reserved for Karachi. There i$ nothing to show that this was impossible to achieve. The other argument in the same connection that he did not proceed to Karachi also is not such a point which could throw any serious doubt on his testimony because after this occurrence ordinarily it might not have been possible for him to go away.
10. Be that as it may, there is yet another witness; namely Iftikhar Alam PW-7. His conduct is natural.
11. The points advanced against acceptance of his testimony are also very weak. He reported what he had seen to his own father, another eye-witness who supported him. There was no such enmity between the parties so as to imply that this witness or his father would falsely implicate the appellants. The criticism that his statement to his father was not relevant or admissible is also not valid because the timing and locale of the occurrence is such that it must have made various links in the same chain of res gestae and thus the evidence was admissible.
12. ' In the light of what is stated above there was justification for the High Court to have affirmed the finding of guilty. Coming to the question of sentences, after having obtained an advantage of considerable worth and extent relating to the saving of two lives from gallows, to disown the reason for which the sentence was reduced, is simply impermissible. The fine of Rs,50,000 and Rs,10,000 for two lives which was to be paid as compensation is also not at all on the higher side. The further argument that the motive having remained shrouded in mystery should be taken as a point going in favour of the appellants undoubtedly was worth consideration and the High Court having given advantage to the appellants on this score, no further benefit can be given to them on this basis, in so far as the sentence is concerned. Nor of course it will have an affect on the finding of guilty which has already been affirmed. The other circumstance that the appellants cannot pay the fine is not much relevant at this stage. The High Court has already properly taken into account this aspect of the matter. The supposition that the appellants are entitled neither to pay the fine on account of assumed poverty nor to suffer rigorous imprisonment in lieu thereof has no force either.
13. It can even now be ordered by the High Court to extend beyond six months; and, can extend to about six years' R.I. None of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has force.
14. ' The last argument of the learned counsel that the sentence in lieu of the enhanced fine (which as already noted can even now be determined by the High Court) should be ordered to have been suffered as undergone is not possible under the law. The sentences already suffered by the appellants are substantive and thus in lieu of the fine would be in addition thereto. They could not be imposed so as to run concurrently. This appeal, accordingly, is dismissed.