' The appellants were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Okara for committing the murder of Muhammad Hanif son of Muhammad Hassan and attempted murder of his brother Muhammad Yar complainant and his two relations Muhammad Amir and Nazar Muhammad in the furtherance of their common attention.
2. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned judge, vide his judgment, dated 16-10-1986, convicted Ali Sher, Muhammad Khan and Ghulam Rasul appellants under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to further undergo two years' R.I. They were given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. He convicted Muhammad Aslam appellant under section 308, P.P.C. And sentenced him to two years' R.I.
3. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 19-4-1985 at about 2-30 p.m. When Muhammad Yar complainant alongwith Muhammad Amir and Nazar Muhammad, P.Ws. Besides Muhammad Hanif (deceased) was working in the sugarcane field belonging to him, All Sher, Ghulam Rasul, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Aslam appellants accompanied by Gaman, Balal and Khan Muhammad co-accused (who were declared innocent by the police and were not challaned nor they were summoned by the trial Court as accused) all armed with "Sotas", suddenly came there and raised a 'Lalkara" saying that they would teach them lesson for objecting to the proposed marriage of Mst. Karam Nishan by her father Khan Muhammad co-accused with Ghulam Rasul appellant as she stood already engaged with Muhammad Amir (P.W.6). Opening the attack, All Sher and Muhammad Khan simultaneously gave 'Sota' blows to Muhammad Hanif (deceased), one after the other, followed by Ghulam Rasul appellant, as a result of which the victim fell down.
Gaman co-accused raised "Lalkara" that no one should be allowed to escape and caused injuries to Muhammad Amir (P.W.6) with his "Sota". Then Khan Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam appellants attacked Nazar Muhammad (P.W.8), causing him one injury each. Balal co-accused gave him `Sots' blows on the back and right cheek of Muhammad Yar. Complainant party caused injuries to All Sher and Muhammad Khan appellants. The assailants then ran away and the injured were taken to the hospital.
4. The matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Yar and a case was registered initially under sections 148, 307/149, P.P.C. And on the death of Muhammad Hanif in Civil Hospital, Haveli on 20-4-1985, section 302, P.P.C. Was added.
5. During the investigation, Gaman, Balal and Muhammad Khan were found innocent by the police and they were got discharged. Only the four appellants were sent up for trial.
6. On the commencement of trial, the appellants were charged for the murder of Muhammad Hanif and attempted murder of Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Amir and Nazar Muhammad and on their pleading not guilty, the prosecution led evidence against them by producing as many as 13 witnesses.
7. To be a little more precise, Dr. Fakhar Ali (P.W.3) had medically examined Muhammad Hanif when he was still alive as also Muhammad Yar complainant, Muhammad Amir (P.W.6) and Nazar Muhammad (P.W.8). He had also medically examined Ali Sher and Muhammad Khan appellants.
He had proved their medico-legal reports after giving the details of the injuries of each injured. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Shamim (P.W.4) had carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Hanif. He found four injuries caused by a blunt weapon, one located on the top of the head was found to be fatal. Out of the remaining three injuries, two were located on the left side of head and one on the right shoulder. They were simple in nature. In his opinion, injury on the top of the head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as it had caused shock and haemorrhage. He proved the post-mortem report Exh.P.H.
8. Out of the eye-witnesses, the prosecution produced Muhammad Amir (P.W.6), Muhammad Sharif (P.W.7) and Nazar Muhammad (P.W.8). Muhammad Yar complainant was not produced on account of his having been won over by the accused. The testimony of the eye-witnesses finds ample reflection in the narration of the prosecution case and it may be subjected to detailed appraisal, in due course, where necessary.
9. S.I. Saifullah (P.W.13) gave the details of the investigation as an Investigating Officer.
10. The rest of the witnesses were either formal or their testimony was such as it necessitates no detail mention.
11. On the completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating circumstances figuring against them in the prosecution evidence. Ali Sher and Muhammad Khan appellants, however, admitted their participation in the occurrence and pleaded self-defence. They stated that Khan Muhammad co-accused (the father of Ad Sher appellant) had not promised to give the hand of his daughter Mst. Karam Nishan to Muhammad Amir (P.W.6) though the latter was interested in marrying her, rather, Khan Muhammad had promised to marry her with Ghulam Rasul appellant and this caused annoyance to the complainant party which armed with sticks attacked them when they were in their fields alongwith other workers and in their self-defence they caused injuries to Muhammad Hanif (deceased) and the injured P.Ws. Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Aslam appellants denied their presence and participation in the occurrence. The appellants, however, did not produce any evidence in defence.
12. On the conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid and aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, they preferred this appeal.
12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the motive, as alleged by the prosecution, rather, operated against it instead of going against the appellants, because if Khan Muhammad appellant had refused the hand of his daughter Mst. Karam Nishan to Muhammad Amir (P.W.6) then ordinarily the complainant party should have felt annoyed and they must have attacked the accused party and not vice versa. It is urged that Ali Sher and Muhammad Khan appellants, who had admitted their participation in the occurrence, in the background of differences between the parties, had a number of injuries on their person which they had received in defending themselves and in that process Munammad Hanif (deceased) and Muhammad Amir and Nazar Muhammad P.Ws. Received a few injuries at their hands and as a result of the head injury, Muhammad Hanif unfortunately died. In his opinion, these two appellants did not commit any offence while the other two appellants, namely, Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Aslam had not participated in the occurrence and as such they all are entitled to clean acquittal.
13. The learned State Counsel on the other hand, has tried to support the impugned judgment but has also expressed the view that it can be a case punishable under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. As the appellants have exceeded their right of private-defence.
14. The motive for the crime as alleged by the prosecution, was that Khan Muhammad appellant had promised to give the hand of his daughter to Muhammad Amir P.Ws. But later resiling from his commitment, agreed to marry her with Ghulam Rasul appellant and since the complainant party was protesting and objecting to what had been done by Khan Muhammad appellant and his family members, the latter got annoyed and after arming themselves with "Sotas", went to the field where Muhammad Yar complainant (not produced as having been won over by the accused) and his relations Muhammad Hanif (deceased), Muhammad Amir and Nazar Muhammad, P.Ws. Were working and caused them injuries, one of which located on the head of Muhammad Hanif (deceased) proved fatal. On the other hand, the motive, as alleged by the appellants, namely, Ali Sher and Khan Muhammad appellants, was the one as has been mentioned by their counsel in the preceding paragraph. The common factor between these two motives is the betrothal or engagement of Mst. Karam Nishan, the daughter of Khan Muhammad appellant. She was the bone of contention between Muhammad Amir (P.W.6) and Ghulam Rasul appellant. Her father Khan Muhammad appellant was wavering, some time promising her hand to the one party and some time to the other. It seems that he and his son Ali Sher created an ugly situation. On account of their resiling from the commitment, Muhammad Amir (P.W.6) and his relations must have naturally felt annoyed and they might have protested to them in some objectionable manner. This could enrage the appellants as well and the possibility of their having attacked their opponents cannot be altogether excluded, though the other party could also react. It appears that the occurrence took place in the land of the complainant party and it lends support to the prosecution case more than that of the defence. Even if the accused party had a right to defend themselves, they certainly exceeded their right of self-defence in causing the death of Muhammad Hanif and they were rightly convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Similarly Muhammad Aslam appellant was rightly convicted under section 308, P.P.C.
15. As regards their sentence, they in the circumstances of the case, appear to have been harshly treated by the trial Court. Therefore, where the sentence of Ali Sher, Khan Muhammad and Ghulam Rasul appellants is reduced from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each, with no modification in the amount of fine and the sentence in lieu thereof, the sentence of Muhammad Aslam is reduced to the one already undergone by him.
16. Since Ali Sher, Khan Muhammad and Ghulam Rasul appellants are on bail, a copy of this order should be sent to the learned District Magistrate, Okara who shall, after causing their arrest send them to the imprisonment for serving out their remaining sentence, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. They shall, however, be entitled to the benefits of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Sentence reduced.