' Muhammad Ibrahim etc. The seven appellants, were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, convicted vide judgment, dated 27-3-1989 and sentenced as under:-- Under section 302/149, P.P.C. Imprisonment for life each and a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default thereof 1 year's R.I. Each.
Under section 307/149, P.P.C. Five years' R.I. Each Lad a fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default thereof four months' R.I. Each.
Under section 148, P.P.C. Two years' R.I. Each.
' All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was not granted. They have come up in appeal.
2. Liaqat Ali complainant (P.W.7) has filed revision petition for the enhancement of the sentence which is still at preliminary hearing stage. It is proposed to dispose of the two by the single judgment.
3. The occurrence took place at 2-30 p.m. On 29-10-1986 in the area of Small Industries Estate Chak No,7 J.B. About 11 kilometres from Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad. Muzammal Hayat, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.7) recorded. The F.I.R. (Exh.P.H.) on the same day at 4-15 p.m. On the statement of Liaqat complainant (P.W.9). The version given in the F.I.R. Is that Liaqat complainant and his brother Younas (given up P.W.) as well as Ibrahim Ismail, Younas and Boota appellants were employed in Crescent Textile Mills, Faisalabad. On 28-10-1986 i,e. a day before the occurrence, the complainant .And Younas had had a minor dispute with the 4 appellants in the Mills. On their way back to their houses on the return from the Mills they again disputed and grappled with each other.
They received minor injuries and the people present separated them.
4. The version proceeds that on the day of occurrence after being off from the Mills at 2-00 p.m.
They started back. On the way, Shaukat, the deceased, and Muhammad Ayub (injured P.W.10) were in wait for the complainant and Liaqat and joined them. Ismail, Ibrahim, Younas and Boota appellants had left for their houses before the complainant and his brothers started for their house.
The complainant, Younas, Ayub P.Ws. And the deceased were on two cycles. When they reached in the area of Small Industries Estate, Ismail, Younas and Arshad appellants armed with daggers, Boota and Shaukat appellants with Saryas and Ibrahim and Shafiq appellants armed-with Sotas came out of the Sarkandas and assaulted them. Ismail, Younas and Arshad appellants caught hold of Shaukat deceased and caused injuries. Ayub P.W. Was caught hold of by Boota, Shafiq and Shaukat and injured. Ibrahim appellant threatened the P.Ws. Not to come near. After injuring the deceased and Ayub, the appellants left with their weapons. Shaukat expired at the spot. Ayub was taken to the hospital by the complainant and got admitted. The dead body had also been brought to the police station in a wagon.
5. Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad Paracha (P.W.1) had performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shaukat deceased on 30-10-1986 at 8-30 a.m. It was the dead body of a normal stout build man of 37 years, wearing shirt, vest and Chadder, all blood-stained, with corresponding cut marks.
Following injuries were found on the dead body:-
(1) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x scalp deep on right side head on top 10 c.m. From the right ear at 11 o'clock position.
(2) A lacerated wound 1. c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x skin deep transversely just above the right eyebrow.
(3) An incised wound L-shapc 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Skin deep in front of right ear on the face.
(4) An incised wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep just under the right jaw angle and was L shape.
(5) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on front lower end of left arm.
(6) An incised wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. x joint deep on outside of right knee, underneath joint was opened.
(7) Two stab wounds L shape making attached with skin flab at angle each 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. And 4 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. Both muscle deep on right lumber region in middle.
(8) A stab wound 8 c.m. x 3 c.m. x chest cavity deep on outer border of back right chest 4 c.m.
Below the scapular angle, cutting the lower part of right lung, right auricle upper part and right entricle on anterior wall and a small cut on left border of sternum inside through and through in the 8th inter-costal space.
(9) A stab wound 7 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. x bone deep on inside of right thigh, lower part above the knee, underneath big blood vessels and muscles were cut through and through.
' On dissection, the chest wall was found cut under injury No,8 with pleura and right lung also cut.
Left chamber of the heart was also cut through and through and so were the big blood vessels in the lower area of thigh under injury No,9. The stomach contained 3/4 ounces of semi-digested food. Small intestines contained chyme. Large intestines were having faecal matter. Bladder had 2 ounces of urine.
' Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were by blunt weapon and the rest by sharp-edged. Injuries Nos.6, 8 and 9 were declared grievous and the rest simple. All were ante-mortem. The death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of all the injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The death was immediate and time between death and post-mortem examination was about 18 to 20 hours.
6. Dr. Muhammad Ajmal (P.W.6 and D.W.1) medically examined Ayub (P.W.10) on 29-10-1986 at 3-15 p.m. He was having the following injuries:--
(1) A lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Bone deep on the left back top of head near occiput.
(2) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1/3 c.m. x bone deep on right top of head.
(3) A lacerated wound 7-1/2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Bone deep L-shaped on middle top of head.
(4) A stab wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x depth not probed on the front upper most part of right side of chest.
(5) An abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. With contusion mark 6 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. On back upper part of right forearm.
(6) An abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. With contusion mark 6 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. On outer side of right elbow.
(7) A lacerated wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. Muscle deep on the back tip of right thumb.
(8) Multiple abrasions with contused swelling scattered on back of right hand and fingers each 2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m.
(9) A contused swelling 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the outer side left thigh upper part.
' Injury No,4 was by sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt object. All were fresh. There were corresponding cuts on the shirt which was bloodstained. Injury No,4 was declared grievous and the rest as simple.
7. This very doctor had medically examined Shaukat, Ismail and Younas appellants on 29-104986 at 4-45 p.m. Shaukat appellant was having the following injuries:--
(1) A stab wound 4 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x DNP obliquely on front lower part of left upper arm just near front of elbow.
(2) A stab wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. DNP situated obliquely on front lower part of left upper arm just near and inner injury No,1.
' Shirt's sleeve was torn all along and blood stained. Both the injuries were by sharp-edged-pointed weapon and were fresh.
' Ismail appellant was having the following injuries:--
(1) An incised wound 7 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone cut through and through at the web between right middle and index finger, bone pieces were coming out of the wound joint being opened up.
(2) An incised wound 1-1/4 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x bone deep on the inner side of right index finger.
(3) An incised wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1-1/4 c.m. x bone deep on the front tip of left little finger, tip chopped off and was missing alongwith tip of bone.
' The injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapon and were fresh. All were kept under observation.
' Younas appellant was with the following injuries:--
(1) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. x bone deep situated obliquely on the front of right wrist.
(2) A stab wound 3-1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. DNP situated obliquely on the outer side of left elbow.
' Both the injuries were fresh, with sharp-edged weapon and were kept under observation. X-ray was advised of wrist and elbow and corresponding cut on the shirt was also seen which was blood-stained.
8. The case of the appellants in their statements at the close of the trial was that Ayub P.W.
Alongwith Iftikhar, Saif-ur-Rehman had committed the murder of Shaukat deceased. Liaqat complainant and Ayub belonged to one party and while rescuing Shaukat deceased, Ismail, Shaukat and Younas appellants were injured.
9. Munir Ahmad, Sub-Inspector (P.W.12) investigated the case. He prepared the injury statement and inquest report (Exhs.P.V. And P.W.) when the dead body of Shaukat was in the police station. He moved application (Exh.P.X.) to the doctor inquiring whether Ayub P.W. Was fit to make statement and the reply was in the negative. He reached the spot the same day i,e. 29-10-1986 and recovered blood-stained earth vide memo. (Exh.P.U.) and sealed the same into parcels. He arrested Younas, Boota, Arshad, Ismail and Shaukat appellants on 1-11-1986 while Ibrahim and Shafiq appellants were arrested on 1111-1986. The Shalwar and shirt (P.7 and P.8) of Younas were blood-stained, were secured vide memo. (Exh.P.J.) and sealed into a parcel. Shirt and Chadder (P.9 and 10) of Shaukat appellant were also blood-stained and were secured vide memo. (Exh.P.K.). Ismail was admitted in the hospital and after being got discharged was arrested. Ayub P.W. Produced his blood-stained shirt, vest and Chadder (P.4, 5 and 6) which he took into possession vide memo. (Exh.P.I.) and sealed the same into parcel. He admitted in cross-examination that he learnt on 1-11-1986 that three of the accused were injured who produced their medico-legal reports before him on 4-11- 1986. The same were attached by him with the record. He denied the suggestion that the version of the accused at the time of arrest was that Ayub P.W., Iftikhar and Saif-ur-Rehman had injured the deceased and that they (the accused) had received injuries while rescuing him. According to him the injuries of the accused were self-suffered. It may be pointed out at this very stage that when Dr. Muhammad Ajmal (P.W.6) was approached in this regard vide applications (Exhs.P.F. And P.G.) his reply was otherwise vide reports (Exhs.P.F./1 and P.G./1) regarding Shaukat and Younas appellants.
10. It is admitted on the record that Ibrahim and Ismail appellants are real brothers. Shafiq and Arshad are real brothers inter se. Boota, Shaukat and Younas appellants are real brothers. A sister of Shafiq and Arshad is married to Boota appellant. Even otherwise they are first cousins.
11. Liaqat complainant, Muhammad Ayub (P.W.10) Shaukat deceased and Younas (given up P.W.) are real brothers. Arshad and Shafiq appellants are the maternal-uncles' sons of the complainant and the deceased. The mother of Ismail appellant is the maternal-cousin of the complainant and the deceased.
12. The appellants inter se and the eye-witnesses and the deceased are, therefore, close relatives.
Before the occurrence no illwill or enmity of any sort existed between them neither any has been stated in examination-in-chief or put in cross-examination. The only dispute developed a day before the occurrence when Liaqat complainant and Younas P.W. Quarrelled with Ibrahim, Ismail, Younas and Boota appellants in the Mills and on the return journey to the Chak, they again grappled and were separated.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was no motive to assault and injure the complainant party. In any case if there was any motive that was against Liaqat and Younas P.Ws. Who were not touched in the occurrence, Shaukat deceased and Ayub who had not participated in the incident of 28-10-1986 could not be the subject of attack and this negated the prosecution case. He also contended that the occurrence was a sudden one and there was no pre-concert to mount the attack. He also asserted that Younas, Boota and Shaukat appellants were injured and their injuries had not been explained by the prosecution. Thus, according to him, the case against the appellants could not be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand learned counsel for the State argued that the occurrence was over a given motive, it was in an inhabited place (Small Industries Estate), in broad daylight, there was no question of substitution or false involvement, the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged and the injuries of the appellants were self-suffered.
14. As observed above, the parties are closely related inter se and previous to the occurrence they were not having any bad blood among them. The statement of the complainant is, therefore, believable that he and Younas on the one hand and Ibrahim, Ismail, Younas and Boota appellants on the other had a little quarrel in the Mills where they were employed, on 28-10-1986 and on the way back, they again grappled and were separated by the people. The young blood seems to have not felt satisfied and on the next day i,e. The day of occurrence, what seems to have happened is, that both the parties called others to join them to settle scores with each other. Liaqat and Ayub P.Ws. Have stated that Ayub and Shaukat deceased joined Liaqat and Younas on the way. But one can well argue that in view of the previous day's incident they had planned together on the way back. The deceased and Ayub admittedly were not employed in the mills. According to the two eye-witnesses Arshad, Shafiq and Shaukat appellants were also present in the occurrence.
Shaukat being injured and his presence being admitted, it is, therefore, more than clear that Ibrahim, Ismail, Younas and Boota appellants were also joined by others including Shaukat on the day of occurrence to settle the scores. Both the parties seem to have come prepared and fought out. The doctor clearly stated that Younas and Shaukat had not self-suffered the injuries. The nature of the injuries does not indicate that these were self-suffered. Soon after the occurrence, they reached the hospital and were examined by Dr. Muhammad Ajmal within one hour of his examination of Ayub P.W. The injuries could not have been self-suffered or coined in such a short span. The conclusion is irresistible that the three appellants were injured in the occurrence. The 7 appellants if armed to the teeth, as stated by the two eyewitnesses, three of them could not have been injured unless the complainant party were also prepared to have a duel. The defence suggested to the eyewitnesses is that Ayub P.W. Was having illicit connection with the wife of his brother Shaukat deceased and so when he (Shaukat) was being injured, the three injured appellants intervened to rescue him. The investigator has not been cross-examined on this aspect of the defence. It is also not believable that for false involvement of the appellants including those who had tot participated in the occurrence (those who are not injured) all would have been involved falsely.
15. The scenario which one can visualise, keeping in view the eye-witness account, the medical evidence and the motive part of the story, is that on the day of occurrence both the parties came determined to settle the score. Shaukat deceased, Ayub, Liaqat and Younas P.Ws. At least were there from the complainant side. The three injured appellants were on the other. Might be some others were also with them. In the fight that ensued both parties were injured. Had the appellant party been consisting of 7 appellants and while armed the complainant side would not have been able to inflict injuries to 3 of the appellants. The possibility that net had been cast too wide regarding the appellants cannot be ruled out. So as a measure of abundant caution only those of the appellants who are injured deserve conviction while benefit of doubt is required to be extended to the others. Thus appreciating, the charge against Ismail, Younas and Shaukat appellants is brought home. Their conviction has been correctly recorded. Their sentence under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. As awarded by the learned trial Judge is maintained. Their conviction under section 148, P.P.C. Is hereby set aside. Their sentences would run concurrently. They would have the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Whole of the fine under section 302/34, P.P.C. If recovered shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation and that if recovered under section 307/34, P.P.C. Would be paid to Muhammad Ayub P.W. As compensation. The other appellants are granted the benefit of doubt and are hereby acquitted. They be set at liberty, if not required to be detained in any other case. Ibrahim, Muhammad Shafiq and Boota appellants are on bail and stand discharged of their bail bonds. The complainant party having asked for it, the revision petition fails and is dismissed in limine.