' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This order will dispose of two Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 298 and 299 of 1990 by the convicts and two Criminal Appeals Nos.297 and 300 of 1990 by the complainant.
1. Relevant facts are that on the report of the complainant Muhammad Altaf on 29-5-1985 at about 1-30 a.m. To the effect that when he, his brother Saaraf Hussain (deceased) and Muhammad Nawaz (injured) were proceeding to their house eleven named persons confronted them. Three of them were armed with .12 bore guns, one was empty-handed and seven were armed with Sotas.
One of them, Abdullah raised Lalkara and simultaneously fired a shot in the air. Muzaffar Hussain fired a single shot which hit at the abdomen of the deceased. Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.) was given Sota blows by seven accused. After usual investigation, the accused were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Bahawalnagar. Two of the accused namely Khurshid and Arshad Iqbal were acquitted. The remaining nine accused were convicted under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. Muzaffar Hussain who had fired the fatal shot was sentenced to death and fine of Rs,10,000 and the remaining accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302/149, P.P.C. They were also sentenced to various terms on other charges. This is vide order dated 6-1-1987. The convicts filed appeals in the Lahore High Court and the case was also before it for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Muzaffar Hussain. As regards six of the accused, the learned Judges observed that "in the circumstances, we deem it safer to acquit Abdullah, Muhammad Azam, Riaz Ahmad, Umar Hayat, Farzand Ali and Zulfiqar by way of abundant caution, as serious and grave doubts have arisen in our mind about their participation in the occurrence."
Their appeal was accepted and they were acquitted. As regards the remaining three convicts, the learned Judges observed that "however, in the case of Muzaffar there is clear evidence that he had fired the fatal shot at the deceased. Similarly, there is clear and unambiguous evidence against Mubashir and Ijaz Ahmad having participated in the occurrence. Mubashir and Muzaffar are real brothers while Ijaz Ahmad is their first cousin. They had a motive also as their fathers were annoyed with the complainant party on account of father of the deceased having purchased 25 Kanals of land, excluding them. The appeals filed by them are, therefore, dismissed. Their convictions under sections 302 and 307, P.P.C. Are maintained. However the same are altered from section 302/149, P.P.C. And 307/149, P.P.C. To sections 302/34, P.P.C. And 307/34, P.P.C.. Their conviction under section 148, P.P.C. Is set aside for the reason that participation of five persons or more than that has not been proved." The learned Judges further observed that "they are not inclined to confirm the sentence of death awarded to Muzaffar Hussain appellant for the reason that according to the record, he was 15-16 years old at the time of trial which had taken place in the month of December, 1986. As such, he would be 14-15 years of age at the time of occurrence, which had taken place in May, 1985. He might well have also acted under the influence of his elder brother Muhammad Mubashir, who was 20-22 years old. His sentence of death is, therefore, altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Muhammad Mubashir and Ijaz Ahmad is maintanied. The sentences of fine awarded to them and the direction of payment of compensation out of the recovered amount, are also maintained. The sentences awarded to each of them for convictions under section 307/34, P.P.C. Are also maintained. The sentences awarded to all the three on both the counts shall run concurrently. They shall also be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. This is vide order dated 26th May, 1990.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the convicts in Criminal Appeals No, 298 and 299 of 1990 is that on the same evidence out of eleven accused two were acquitted by the learned trial Court and six by the learned Lahore High Court, therefore, the convict appellants were also entitled to acquittal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant evidence. As regards the convicts, their participation is established on the record. Muzaffar Hussain had fired the fatal shot. Muhammad Mubashir and Ijaz Ahmad had injured the witness. Muhammad Nawaz.
Motive was also proved against them. The medical evidence corroborated the injuries. The learned High Court re-appraised the evidence on record very carefully. It acquitted six of the accused, but found the evidence against the appellants sufficient to warrant their conviction. No misreading of evidence has been pointed out Further re-appraisal of the evidence is not the function of this Court. In view of the evidence on record as accepted by the two Courts below, the conviction of the appellants calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, their appeals are dismissed.
4. As regards the appeal of the complainant (Crl. A No 297 of 1990) for enhancing the sentence of Muzaffar Hussain from imprisonment for life to death, it may be noted that the reasons given by the learned Judges of Lahore High Court to alter the sentence of death to life imprisonment were that he was 14-15 years of age at the time of occurrence and might have acted under the influence of his elder brother. These were valid considerations. Therefore, alternate sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Muzaffar Hussain calls for no interference. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. As regards the second appeal of the complainant (Crl. A No, 300 of 1990) against the acquittal of six respondents and for enhancement of sentences of two respondents Muhammad Mubashir and Ijaz Ahmad from imprisonment of life to death, it may be noted that as regards the last two they were sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned trial Court and no revision was filed for enhancement of their sentence in the Lahore High Court. As regards the acquittal of the six respondents, the learned Judges of the High Court had acquitted them as `serious and grave doubts' had arisen about their participation in the occurrence. The observation has already been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment. Nothing has been pointed out that the reasons did not flow from the evidence on record. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant we do not find any justification to interfere in the order of acquittal of the six respondents by the learned High Court. Therefore, this appeal (Crl. A. No, 300 of 1990) is also dismissed.
5. The result is that all the four appeals stand dismissed.