' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J---This appeal by Piran Ditta appellant is directed against the judgment dated 22-12-1990 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby his Criminal Appeal No, 41/1987 against his conviction and sentence under sections 148 and 302, P.P.C.
Was dismissed.
2. The appellant and his co-accused Allah Ditta, Allah Diwaya, Allah Bachaya sons of Jalal and Sohanra son of Jiyan were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge on the allegation that on 4-1- 1983 at 3-00 p.m. They formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly committed the murder of Khan Muhammad deceased. By judgment dated 24-8-1988 the Additional Sessions Judge convicted all of them under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced them to R.I. For two years each. The appellant was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,15,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For three years. Allah Ditta, Allah Bachaya and Sohanra were convicted under section 325, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,2,000 each. It appears that the convicts other than the present appellant had not challenged their conviction and sentence before the High Court.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14-1-1988 at about 3-00 p.m. Muhammad Ramzan complainant, his father Khan Muhammad and his mother Mst. Wasso were going to Tibbi Lundan in order to make some purchases. On their way all the five accused armed with Sotas confronted them near the protection Bund of Dhukkar. Piran Dittan appellant gave a sota blow to Khan Muhammad on his head as a result of which he fell to the ground. Thereafter Allah Diwaya and Allah Ditta gave one sota blow each to him hitting his nose and left side of chin respectively.
Then Allah Bachaya gave him two blows causing injury on both his lips. Sohanra accused gave him three sota blows hitting his left thigh, left leg and chest. Muhammad Ramzan complainant and Mst.
Wasso raised alarm attracting Jivan and Hazoor Bakhsh P.Ws. Who also saw the occurrence. After the occurrence the accused persons went away taking their Sotas with them. Khan Muhammad succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
' The motive for the offence was that a year prior to the occurrence Muhammad Ramzan complainant had insulted Allah Ditta accused on which he got annoyed.
' Leaving the dead body in the custody of Mst. Wasso, Jivan and Hazoor Bakhsh P.Ws., the complainant went to Police Station Harrand and reported the occurrence to Zulfiqar Ahmed Sub- Inspector/SHO at 12-05 a.m. Vide F.I.R. Exh. PJ.
4. After recording the F.I.R. The S.H.O. Reached the spot and secured some blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh. PE. After preparing the injury statement and inquest report he despatched the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He arrested the appellant and his co-accused Allah Ditta, Allah Bachaya and Sohanra on 6-3-1983. At the time of arrest the appellant produced Sota P1 vide memo. Exh. PF. After the usual investigation the appellant and his co-accused were challaned.
5. On 16-1-1983 at 10-00 a.m. Dr. Hasnain, S.M.O. T.H.Q. Hospital, Jampur conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Khan Muhammad deceased and found following injuries on it:-- "(1) A lecarated wound 2" x 1" brain injured with pieces of bones pressing into brain matter on anterior side of left head just at the upper part of forehead.
(2) A lacerated wound 1/1-4 x 1/4" x going through and through fracturing the opposite tooth and lacerating the gum of left upper lip. Its upper end extended on to left side of nose.
(3) A lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4 " on left lower lip.
(4) A lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x fracturing the underlying bone and teeth on left side of chin.
(5) A contusion 2" x 1" on middle of left thigh.
(6) A lacerated wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on chin of left leg.
(7) A contusion 3" x 1" x fracturing the underlying rib on upper part of anterior side of chest slightly towards left side."
' In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from injury No,1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.3, 5 and 6 were simple and the remaining were grievous.
6. In support of its case the prosecution examined two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Wasso, the son and the widow of the deceased. The prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recoveries.
7. After examining the evidence on the record the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not "so grave that the aggrieved would think of committing the murder to revenge himself....". He further observed that it was simply a chance that the accused persons met the complainant party and there was no premeditation on the part of the accused persons. He also took notice of the fact that the appellant had given only one Sota blow and did not repeat.
8. After hearing the learned counsel and keeping in view the above referred observations of the trial Court which are well-reasoned and based on evidence, no intention to kill on the part of the appellant can be inferred. From the evidence it appears that after giving one blow he disassociated himself. He can, however, safely be burdened with the knowledge that a violent blow on the head was likely to cause the death of the deceased and in that view of the matter the offence committed by him falls within the ambit of section 304, Part II of the P.P.C.
' Accordingly we alter his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. To one under section 304, Part II of the P.P.C. And reduce his sentence to R.I. For 10 years. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. He will also be given benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. With the above modification in the conviction and sentence the appeal is dismissed.