' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- Appellants Muhammad Siddique, Riasat All and Muhammad Akram were tried alongwith Elahi Bakhsh by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act on charges under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. Six other co-accused absconders were also tried in 'absentia, and vide judgment dated 6-6-1991, the learned trial Judge acquitted Elahi Bakhsh of the charges, but convicted the appellants and six absconders on the said charges. The appellants were thus convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For six years each, and to pay fine of Rs,30,000 each or in default thereof, to suffer further R.I. For one year each.
2. Aggrieved by their aforesaid conviction and sentences, appellants have filed two appeals 675 of 1991 and 682 of 1991 which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
3. The occurrence in which two persons were found dead and two police constables namely Yahya Ibrar and Muhammad Sarwar were injured took place on 9th of May, 1990 in village Aulia Pur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Narang situated at a distance of 8 miles from the police station.
Complaint the basis of the F.I.R. Exh.P.S. Was drafted by Rana Naseem P.W.14 was sent to the police station for the registration of the case, where, formal F.I.R. Exh.P.S./1 was drawn by Liaqat Ali A.S.I.
P.W.6.
4. Prosecution case in brief and the statement sent to the police station by P.W.14 was that on the fateful day D.S.P./Iftikhar Khara at Sheikhupura had received an information that in village Aulia Pur, two groups headed by Asghar Ali and Muhammad Akram, who were at daggers drawn with each other on account of the previous murder and also over the cutting of crops were firing on each other since the preceding night. It also came to the knowledge of the D.S.P. That both sides had gathered around various criminals from other districts for their help. On the receipt of this information, the D.S.P. Alongwith heavy contingent of police alongwith Bhag, Ramzan and Nasir Shah proceeded on official vehicle to village Aulia Pur, and it was noticed that both sides were firing on each other. The police party then shouted and asked both sides and restrained them from firing on each other, but they without caring for the arrival of the police continued firing on each other with their lethal weapons. Since the police party was also made the target by both the sides, therefore, in exercise of the right of self-defence, the police also fired by using various official arms and ammunition. Such exchange of firing continued for about half an hour. Meanwhile, both sides while taking advantage of standing crops decamped from the scene of occurrence. When the police party reached at their fortification, they found lying Khalid Mehmood with .7 mm rifle in his right hand alongwith 43 live bullets and 12 crime empties in a bag in his left armpit which were taken into possession. Niamat was also found lying holding a .12 bore gun alongwith .12 live cartridges. Both Khalid Mehmood and Niamat were found dead. Near their dead bodies 15 empties were also found. According to the police both Khalid Mehmood and Niamat had died on account of exchange of firing between the two groups headed by Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Akram. It is noteworthy to mention that no case in respect of the murders of Khalid Mehmood and Niamat was registered, nor any private complaint was filed. It is further pertinent to mention that appellants Siddique and Riasat were arrested at the spot. Riasat at that time was armed with a carbine P.3 while Siddique was having a Mouser P.4. Appellant Akram was arrested on 13-7-1990.
5. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by P.Ws.3 to 5 and two injured constables namely Yahya Ibrar and Sarwar P.Ws.7 and 9, respectively.
6. Muhammad Sarwar and Yahya Ibrar both injured constables were medically examined by P.W.8 Dr. Sajid Bashir Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Sheikhupura on 10th of May, 1990, and noticed one injury each on their persons. The doctor was cross-examined at length, and in the opinion of the doctor both the injuries received by both the constables were caused with fire-arm, inasmuch as, the doctor opined that the injuries were penetrated wounds though there was no exit wound, yet the doctor categorically stated that it was fire-arm. In answer to a question the doctor opined that these injuries could be caused by friendly hand.
7. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State, we have carefully perused the record of this case, and have heard the various contentions raised by them.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that it was improbable in the circumstances of the case that both sides who were engaged in firing on each other would at once make the police party as their common target. It was further contended by the learned counsel that no witness from the public was cited to depose the truth of the case.
9. It was argued that the conviction of those who were found guilty in absentia was set aside, and they were retried, and as a consequence of their retrial they were acquitted of the charge as the prosecution case against them was found to be false. It was further contended that the prosecution case is totally false as two persons from public were killed by police, and with a view to save their own skin, this false case was made by the prosecution to help the police to screen its own crime. It was further argued that both the injuries were received by constables and that too both the gunmen of the D.S.P., and since the doctor opined that these were caused by friendly hand, therefore, this piece of evidence causes doubt about the entire prosecution case and the same stands falsified.
10. After anxious consideration, we are of the view that these contentions have no force, because in the first instance, if these injuries were caused by friendly hand they must have blackening and tatooing thereon, and the same could have been fractured, therefore, such answer given by the doctor in crossexaminatidn has no bearing upon the issue, because we can ourselves. Appraise the medical evidence, nature of the injuries and the locale thereof. Muhammad Samar constable received injury on thigh while Yahya received the injury on his arm, both the injuries were declared as simple. Thus, we are not impressed by this argument raised at the Bar.
11. The contention that the prosecution case has been found to be false in another trial of the absconders, referred to above, therefore, this case also false, is also without any substance because while deciding this case, findings in the other judgment cannot be read as evidence in this case, as this case has to be decided on its own merits. Thus, we repel this contention as well.
The police party became the common target of both the parties who were already involved in firing on each other is not a strange phenomenon because in such like situation, police becomes the common enemy, therefore, as a joint target both the parties headed by Muhammad Akram and Asghar Ali thought it fit to fire at the police party, thus, it cannot be said that it was improbable or unbelievable. Overwhelming evidence exists on the record that the police party was fired at as a result of which, two constables received injuries. No other piece of evidence was pointed out, nor an iota of evidence exists on the record so as to infer that the prosecution is shaking or doubting. No enmity worth the name exists on the record so as to motivate the police to involve the appellants in this case. Consequently, we are of the view that the prosecution has brought guilt home to the appellants, therefore, these appeals are dismissed. However, adverting to the question of sentences, it was argued that it being too severe required interference by this Court. In view of the simple injuries received by both the injured constables, we are inclined to reduce the sentences.
Accordingly, we direct that now the appellants shall undergo five years' R.I. Instead of six years' R.I.
Similarly, sentences of fine are also reduced to ten thousand each, or in default thereof, to suffer further one year's R.I. Each. With this modification in the sentences of the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos.675 of 1991 and 682 of 1991 these appeals are dismissed.
Sentence reduced.