1. ' Muhammad Sadiq and Sarfraz respondents in this case were tried by Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. For having caused the murder of Allah Bakhsh, deceased.
2. ' Vide judgment, dated 6th of March, 1975, the learned Sessions Judge, found both the respondents guilty on the charge under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Accordingly, both Muhammad Sadiq and , Sarfraz were convicted. Sarfraz was sentenced to undergo 2-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another term of one year.
3. Muhammad Sadiq was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 1-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to undergo six months' R.I. Further.
4. ' While examining this case in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, this Court considered that the sentences awarded in this case were inadequate and, therefore, only on the question of inadequacy of sentence, suo motu notice was issued to both Sarfraz and Muhammad Sadiq to show cause as to why their sentences should not be enhanced. In response to the said notice, Muhammad Sadiq and Sarfraz have appeared while the complainant has also engaged his counsel.
5. ' With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the record in this case and I have also heard them at length.
6. ' The prosecution case in brief is that Khan Muhammad, complainant, P.W.7 alongwith his parents, brothers and sisters was living at his Dera called Cheekianwala at a distance of 5/6 furlongs towards the north of village Bola, 2-1/2 Killas of land belonging to them was situated towards the West of the village where they had sown fodder. On the morning of the fateful day i,e. 1st of April, 1973, Khan Muhammad alongwith his brother Allah Bakhsh deceased, after cutting the fodder, had loaded the same on his horse. Allah Bakhsh pulled the reins of the horse and was followed by Khan Muhammad. When they reached near the Dera of Muhammad Sadiq, respondent, he alongwith his son Sarfraz suddenly emerged from the wheat field. Muhammad Sadiq, respondent, was armed with a Lathi and Sarfraz with a hatchet. Both Sarfraz and Muhammad Sadiq then launched an attack on Allah Bakhsh, deceased. Sarfraz allegedly inflicted three hatchet blows on the head of Allah Bakhsh, deceased while Muhammad Sadiq respondent hit him with his Lathi. Hue and cry raised by the complainant side attracted given up Shera and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8, who reached the scene of occurrence and on their sight, both the respondents ran away. Allah Bakhsh succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
7. ' The motive for the commission of crime as stated was that Muhammad Khan son of Sohrab had betrothed his daughter Alam Khatoon to Allah Bakhsh, deceased, which was resented to by Sarfraz because he wanted to marry with the said woman but failed to do so. It was further alleged that Khan Muhammad, P.W.7 belaboured both Sarfraz and Muhammad Sadiq with a Soti, a year before the occurrence but then a compromise took place and on account of the said grudge, Allah Bakhsh was murdered.
8. ' The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had changed the venue of the occurrence and per admission of one of the witnesses, the bloodstained earth was collected from the Dera of the accused. Although, specifically, the plea of sudden and grave provocation was not taken but the learned Sessions Judge acted upon the suggestion made to the eye-witnesses. In cross- examination, it was suggested that Allah Bakhsh, deceased, was killed while having been found in an objectionable position with Sultan Bibi, the daughter of Sadiq respondent. Although it was denied but the suggestion was given that Sadiq respondent and his brother Sardara had caused injuries to Allah Bakhsh, deceased, when they found him in an objectionable position with Sultan Bibi.
9. ' The statement of Noor Muhammad P.W.4 has also been perused by me. It was admitted by him that the blood-stained earth was collected by the police from the Dera of Sadiq, respondent. It is further pertinent to mention that the dead body of the deceased was lying at a distance of 26/27 Karams from the Dera of the respondents.
10. ' The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved Ramzan being a chance witness. Ramzan P.W.
11. Resided at a distance of one mile from the place of occurrence. According to him, he had gone to the deceased for the purchase of fodder. This explanation was not found satisfactory inasmuch as, the fodder was available from near the house of Ramzan P.W. And, therefore, it was considered to be unnatural that Ramzan would go at a distance of one mile to purchase the fodder.
12. On account of the aforementioned reasons, the learned Sessions Judge, disbelieved the entire occular testimony and, therefore, acted upon the suggestion made to the eye-witnesses by the defence. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acted upon the defence plea which was spelt out in cross-examination. The ratio of Safdar Ali's case PLD 1953 SC 93 is that, even though, the defence plea has not been specifically taken but if the same is spelt out while juxtaposing it with the prosecution case, then, it must reflect upon the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has not fallen into error by acting upon such defence plea.
13. The next question arising for determination is the quantum of sentence. If such defence plea was to be relied upon and acted upon, then in my view, the sentence already awarded is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. This petition is dismissed.
14. ' Notice issued to the respondents is hereby withdrawn. Revision declined.