' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- One Muhammad Iqbal, his brother Munir Ahmad and their cousin and brother-in-law, namely, Javed had been tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Faisalabad for having committed the murder of Muhammad Anwar deceased and for having caused injuries on the persons of Mst. Kishwar Sultana, Mst. Azra Bibi, Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Muhammad Yaqoob after trespassing into the house of Muhammad Anwar deceased.
2. Vide its judgment, dated 31-3-1990, the said learned trial Court found all the three guilty. On their conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C., Iqbal was sentenced to death while Munir and Javed were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Each one of them had also been directed to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 or to suffer one year's R.I. In default, in addition to which each one of them had also been ordered to pay an amount of Rs,5,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo six months' R.I. In default. Pursuant to their conviction under section 452/34, P.P.C., each one of them had been punished with five years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or six months' R.I. In default.
Consequent upon their conviction under section 324/34, P.P.C., each one of them had been sentenced to two years' R.I. Whereas after convicting each of them under section 323/34, P.P.C.
Each one of them had been directed to suffer one year's R.I. The sentences of imprisonment had been directed to run concurrently.
3. Murder Reference No,94 of 1990 seeks confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to Iqbal convict. Criminal Appeal No,321 of 1990, filed jointly by all the three convicts, impugns the convictions and sentences above-noticed while the complainant has filed Criminal Revision No,245 of 1990 praying for enhancement of the sentences of imprisonment awarded to Munir and Javed, to sentences of death.
4. All these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
5. The occurrence in question had taken place on 2-3-1989 at about 5-30 p.m. In the courtyard of the house of Anwar deceased situate in 'Y-Block' of Madina Town, 2-1/2 Kms. Away from Police Station Peoples Colony of Faisalabad. The same had been reported to Safdar Hussain Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.11) by Muhammad Aslam (P.W.6) while the latter was present at Chowk Abdullahpur at about 7-30 p.m. The same day.
6. Muhammad Aslam complainant had stated that he was a resident of Street No,2 `Y-Block' of Madina Town while his brother Anwar deceased and a Hamzulf of the said deceased, namely, Yaqoob (given up) were both residing together in House No,53 in Street No,1 of the said block of Madina Town. He had added that lqbal appellant was a neighbour of Anwar deceased and that at about 5-00 p.m. On the day of occurrence, the complainant was present in Bismillah Chowk for making purchases of household articles where Anwar deceased and Iqbal quarrelled with each other over an electric wire supplying electricity to the house of Anwar deceased which was passing from over the house of lqbal appellant. The complainant claimed that he patched up the matter but lqbal appellant went away after hurling abuses and declaring that he would teach a lesson to Anwar deceased for not removing the said electric wire.
7. The complainant had further reported that Anwar deceased returned to his house and at about 5-30 p.m. When the complainant had also just reached his house, he heard 'alarm raised by the women-folk in the house of Anwar deceased and rushed to the spot by which time one Allah Ditta (given up) had also reached there. He had further alleged that in their view, all the three appellants out of whom lqbal appellant and Munir were armed with Chhuris while Javed was armed with a hockey stick, launched an attack resulting in the death of Anwar deceased and in injuries to Mst.
Azra (the widow of the deceased), Mst. Kishwar (a sister of Mst. Azra), Mst. Shamim Akhtar (wife of the complainant) and Yaqoob (the husband of Mst. Kishwar). Anwar deceased had succumbed to the injuries while being transported to the hospital.
8. It may be mentioned here that as per the report of the post-mortem examination, Anwar deceased had received stab wound on the left side of his chest and two abrasions had been detected on the back of his right elbow and on the front of his left knee. Mst. Kishwar Sultana (P.W.7) had received six injuries on her person out of which four were incised wounds while one was an abrasion and the other was a laceration. All these injuries were simple in nature. Mst. Azra (P.W.8) had two lacerations and also complained of pain on the left side of her buttock. These injuries were also simple in nature and had been caused by a blunt weapon. Mst. Shamim Akhtar (given up) had received only one laceration which was simple in nature and was the result of a blunt weapon while Yaqoob (given up) had five injuries on his person out of which three were incised wounds and two were lacerations and all were simple in nature.
9. During the course of investigation, all the three had been arrested on 7-3-1989 whereafter Iqbal appellant and Munir had led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuris and a blood-stained hockey had been recovered at the instance of Javed. These recoveries had been affected on 11-3-1989.
10. When confronted with the prosecution case, the appellants had denied their participation in the occurrence in question and had attributed their implication to false involvement on account of enmity and suspicion.
11. Canvassing acquittal for the appellants, their learned counsel argued that the occurrence had in fact taken place in the house of lqbal appellant where Anwar deceased, Aslam complainant, Yaqoob (given up), Mst. Kishwar Sultana, Mst. Azra and Mst. Shamim Akhtar had come to attack the appellant party on account of the dispute over the electric wire. He had added that no occurrence had taken place in Bismillah Chowk and the same was only a fabrication and further that the females of the appellant party had also received injuries as a result of the attack mounted by the complainant party and it was, thereafter, that the appellants had retaliated in self-defence causing injuries on the members of the complainant party.
12. This plea of self-defence now being raised by the learned counsel appears to be without merit.
The I.O. Had collected blood-stained pieces of bricks from the courtyard of the house of the deceased and it was not the case of the defence that they had shown any blood to the 1.0. Which was allegedly available in their house where the occurrence, according to them, had taken place.
The females of the appellants party who had allegedly received injuries at the hands of the complainant party had never ever got themselves medically examined and there is nothing on record, except bald suggestions, that any member of the appellant party had received any injury during the occurrence in question. We, therefore, reject this plea canvassed on behalf of the appellants and hold that the occurrence had in fact taken place in the house of Anwar deceased.
13. It is not denied by the appellant party that an electric wire supplying electricity to the house of the deceased was passing over their roof. The inference is, therefore, obvious that the appellant party would have a grouse in respect of the said wire and an altercation between Muhammad lqbal appellant and Anwar deceased on that account is thus a reasonable claim, as made by the prosecution.
14. The prosecution case is being supported by at least two injured witnesses i,e. Mst. Kishwar Sultana (P.W.7) and Mst. Azra (P.W.8) and it is also in evidence that besides these two females, Mst.
Shamim and Muhammad Yaqoob of the complainant party had also received injuries on their persons. No previous enmity or illwill existed between the parties. Muhammad Aslam complainant is not injured but his presence at the place of occurrence is undeniable. In the circumstances, in the presence of this ocular testimony, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the members of the complainant party had received injuries at the hands of the three appellants is a conclusion which is not open to any exception. We have already ruled out the possibility of the occurrence having taken place in the house of Iqbal appellant which inference drawn by us is further supported by injuries on the persons of the three females of the complainant party because it is not believable that if the complainant party had to come to the house of Iqbal appellant to mount an aggression then they would also take with them their females.
15. The number of injuries received by the deceased and the P.Ws. And the number of persons of the complainant party who had received these injuries is a proof of the fact that the complainant party had made no exaggeration while implicating members of the appellant party in the occurrence in question.
16. We, therefore, hold that the participation of the three appellants in the occurrence in question is not open to any doubt and stands proved on record.
17. It is, however, in evidence that Anwar deceased had only received a solitary injury on his person which had proved fatal because the other injuries are minor abrasions on the back of his elbow and on the front of his knee which abrasions could have been the result of the fall of the deceased after receipt of the first injury. Munir and Javed appellants had not inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased. None of them had even raised a Lalkara or had caught the deceased and had in fact done nothing to facilitate the infliction of the fatal blow on the person of the deceased.
18. Consequently, we do not find them vicariously liable for the murder of Anwar deceased. Their conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. Is, therefore, set aside and both of them are acquitted of the said charge.
19. Iqbal appellant had inflicted a solitary blow on the person of the deceased. He had not repeated the attack. The root cause of the occurrence was an act of the complainant party i,e. The passage of electric wire over the roof of the house of lqbal appellant. Therefore, we find that imposition of death penalty on Iqbal appellant is not justified. Resultantly, the death sentence awarded to Iqbal appellant is not confirmed and he is instead directed to suffer imprisonment for life under section 302, P.P.C. The amount of Rs,5,000 directed to be paid by him as compensation to the heirs of the deceased is, however, inadequate. The same is enhanced to an amount of Rs,25,000 in default of payment of which he shall suffer six months' R.I. And this amount of compensation shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. This enhancement has been made after notice to the learned counsel for the appellants.
20. Iqbal appellant was also attributed a simple injury on the person of Mst. Kishwar Sultana P.W. His conviction under section 324/34, P.P.C. Is, therefore, maintained but his conviction under section 323, P.P.C. Is set aside.
21. Munir and Javed appellants had inflicted injuries on the person of Mst. Kishwar Sultana and Mst.
Azra P.Ws. Their convictions and sentences as recorded under sections 323/34, P.P.C. And 324/34, P.P.C. Are, therefore, maintained.
22. The conviction of all the three appellants under section 452/34, P.P.C. Is also maintained but the sentence of five years' R.I. Awarded to each one of them on the said charge is reduced to a sentence of three years' R.I.
23. All the sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently and each one of the three appellants is also allowed the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
24. The convictions and sentences as recorded by the learned trial Court which have not been altered by us are maintained.
25. Since we have acquitted Munir and Javed appellants of the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C., therefore, there is no question of awarding them death penalty on the said charge. Criminal Revision No,245 of 1990 is consequently dismissed. Murder Reference No,94 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No,321 of 1990 are diposed of in the above terms.
Death sentence not confirmed.