1. ' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---The facts giving rise to this petition are, that Allah Ditta, his brother Fateh Sher, the petitioners herein, along with Muhammad Bakhsh their father, Muhammad Sher, their brother and Mst. Saddo Mai their mother were tried under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. By the Punjab Special Court For Speedy Trial No,VI!I, Sargodha. On 6-8-1988, they were convicted and sentenced as under:-- "Allah Ditta, Fateh Sher and Muhammad'Balchsh were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced each one of them to death on three counts and fine pf Rs,20,000 each'or in default to suffer R.I. For five years on each count. They were also convicted under section 323/34, P.P.C. To one year R.I. Each, whereas Muhammad Sher and Mst. Saddo Mai, were convicted under section 323/34.
2. P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For one year each. All of them were, however, acquitted of the charge under sections 148, P.P.C. And 307/149, P.P.C."
3. ' On appeal, the Lahore High Court on 23-4-1991, acquitted Muhammad Bakhsh of the charge of murder on all the three counts, instead he was convicted under section 323, P.P.C. Allah Ditta-and Fateh Sher were also acquitted of the charge under section 323/34, P.P.C The sentences of Muhammad Bakhsh, Mst. Saddo Mai and Fateh Sher under section 323/34, P.P.C. Were reduced to that already undergone by them. The death sentence awarded to Allah Ditta on two counts and death sentence awarded to Fateh Sher on one count were confirmed. With the above noted modification in the convictions and sentences, the appeal was disposed of.
4. ' Allah Ditta and his brother Fateh Sher convicts, through this Jail Petition'seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgments whereby they stand convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. ;' One Allah Bakhsh son of. Khuda Bakhsh P.W. 14 lodged F.I.R. (Exh.PA) on 24-5-1988, at 6-30 p.m. At Police Station Bakkar, wherein stated that on the same day at 4 p.m. The complainant, alongwith his father Khuda Bakhsh, deceased, his brothers Abdul Wahid and Abdur Rehman deceased were going towards the thrashing machine in their field, within the area of Chah Maqqadamawala, Muhammad Bakhsh, Sher Muhammad armed with Sotas, Mst. Saddo Mai armed with Danda, Allah Ditta armed with Chhura and Fateh Sher armed with Khanjar, appeared on the scene, raising Lalkara. Muhammad Baksh, Allah Ditta and Patch Sher caused injury to Abdul Rehman deceased.
5. Allah Ditta injured Abdul Wahid, Muhammad Sher, Mst. Saddo Mai and Muhammad Bakhsh caused simple injuries to Wahid Bakhsh complainant. The occurrence was witnessed by Ghulam Yasin P.W.
6. 15 besides the complainant and Imam Bakhsh (not produced). Khuda Bakhsh died at the spot, Abdur Rehman died on way to hospital and Abdul Wahid died in the hospital.
7. ' The motive as described by the prosecution was, that 7/8 years prior to the occurrence Khuda Bakhsh deceased, asked Muhammad Bakhsh accused to vacate his house, whereupon, Muhammad Bakhsh replied that he had no place to live. This led to alteration between them.
8. Muhammad Bakhsh not only refused to vacate the house, but also threatened Khuda Balchsh deceased with dire consequences.
9. ' The prosecution heavily relied on the ocular account of the occurrence furnished by Wahid Balchsh, the complainant and Ghulam Yasin P.W.
15. Wahid Bakhsh also deposed about the motive, which became real cause of the occurrence.
10. ' The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Admitted their presence at the time of the occurrence, but raised plea of self-defence.
11. ' The trial Judge believed the prosecution version and rejected the. Defense plea. He convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.
12. ' On appeal the conviction of the petitioners was maintained but the sentences imposed were modified.
13. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the evidence on the record. The learned High Court Judges by appraising evidence on record observed:-- "On our independent assessm ent of the evidence produced by the prosecution, we find that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. Containing the names of the appellants, the weapons carried by them and the manner in which they caused injuries to the deceased and Wahid Bakhsh, complainant. There is nothing in evidence to show that F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.) is not a genuine document or was not prepared at the time and place as it purported. Wahid Bakhsh P.W. Is an eye-witness. By the fact of injury his presence on the spot is very much established. Furthermore, his presence has been admitted by the defense. The statement made by him finds support from the evidence given by Ghulam Yasin, P.W. 15, who had no ' serious enmity or motive to depose falsely against the appellants. The two eye-witnesses have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. The presence of Ghulam Yasin at the time of occurrence was not unnatural. The statements made by the eye-witnesses are in consonance with the circumstances appearing in the case. In the occurrence, three persons on the side of the prosecution lost lives.. The complainant was also injured. There were as many as 12 injuries on the three deceased caused by sharp-edged weapon and by blunt weapon. The number of the injuries on the three deceased and the complainant commensurate with the number of the assailants named by them. In view of the alleged motive the appellants were the persons who could join the assault on the deceased. No doubt Wahid Bakhsh P.W. Has not explained the injuries of the appellants but in cross-examination, Ghulam Yasin P.W. Has explained the injuries of the accused persons."
14. ' The defense plea raised by Allah Ditta appellant was rejected being unreasonable and far from truth.
15. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court Judges in our view, correctly evaluated the evidence on record and found the petitioners guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment which is based on sound reasoning. In the result this petition is dismissed and .
16. ' However, we observe that the judgment of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No VIII, Sargodha, in this case was passed on 6-8-1988. Now, in view of the terms of the Amnesty Order passed by the President of Pakistan dated 7-12-1988, the benefit of amnesty is available to all those convicts who had been sentenced to death by Courts up to 6-12-1988, irrespective of the confirmation of the sentences of death by the higher Courts in appeal or otherwise. It is clarified that the petitioners will now suffer the imprisonment for life on each count and not death, the rest of the sentences are maintained but shall run concurrently. The petitioners shall also be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In the computation of the sentences.