1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi; whereby the convicts Criminal Appeal No,141 of 1988, was accepted and respondents Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted and by the same judgment the State Appeal No,149 of 1988 for setting aside the order of acquittal of respondents Nos.3 and 4 and enhancement in the sentence of respondents.Nos.1 and 2, was dismissed .
2. ' The prosecution case unfolded by Muhammad Safdar complainant in his report lodged to Asad Ullah Khan, A.S.I., on 27-5-1988 at 7-45 p.m. Is that on the day of occurrence at about 5 a.m. He and Baqar Khan son of Jaffar Khan, his deceased father, were present in their house situated in village Gangothi when Abdur Razzaq son of Abbas came there and started abusing them to which he took an exception. The altercation attracted Haji Adalat son of Muhammad Khan, Auraugzeb son of Adalat Khan, Zahoor son of Mansabdar, Abdul Ghafoor son of Mansabdar, Muhammad Akram and some others to the spot. Abdur Razzaq called out Nazir son of Bashir, Rustam Ali son of Rahim Ullah, for his help. On their arrival there was exchange of hot words. In the meantime Nazir and Bashir left the spot and after a while appeared duly armed with .12 bore shotguns and challenged the complainant party for dire consequence for having demolished the wall. Abdur Razzaq drew out a revolver from his trousers folder. Nazir armed with 12 bore gun fired at Abdul Ghafoor which hit him on his chest and fell down on the spot. Abdur Razzaq fired With his revolver which hit on the frontal side of the neck of Baqar Khan P.W.; Bashir accused fired with .12 bore shotgun on the front side of the chest of Muhammad Akram deceased. On hearing the fire shots, Tariq Mahmood deceased came out of his house. Muhammad Nazir accused fired on his abdomen and right arm. Bashir fired another shot hitting the chin of Haji Adalat P.W. Nazir fired another shot which hit on the left arm and right heel of Muhammad Safdar P.W. Bashir fired at Aurangzeb P.W. And injured him. He also fired at Zahoor Ahmed P.W. Nazir injured by firing with .12 bore Faiz P.W. Rustam Ali who was armed with a Soti inflicted a blow on Haji Adalat P.W., on his face.
3. ' While giving motive for the offence it was stated that on the night of occurrence the trolley of Abdul Ghafoor had struck the wall of Abdur Razzaq and had damaged it which had annoyed the accused. The accused, therefore, after forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons attacked the complainant's house and committed the murders of Muhammad Akram, Abdul Ghafoor and Tariq Mehmood and caused injuries to Muhammad Safdar, Adalat Hussain, Aurangzeb, Muhammad Fayyas, Zahoor Ahmed and Baqar Khan. P.P.C. To various terms of imprisonment. Abdur Razzaq and Rustam Ali respondents were extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.
4. ' The accused were tried by the Special Court for Speedy Trials (No,VII Rawalpindi). The learned Judge vide his order dated 10-10-1988 found respondents Nos.1 and 2 guilty and on conviction sentenced both of them to life imprisonment under section 302, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,25,000 each.
5. They were further convicted and sentenced under sections 307/34, P.P.C. And 324/34, Two appeals were filed against the judgment of the Special` Judge; one, by the convicts and the other by the State. Both were disposed of by a common judgment dated 18-4-1993 as stated above against which leave to appeal is prayed for, as stated above.
6. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perusal of the record it is evident that the occurrence took place in a broad daylight in which three persons lost their lives, the complainant and the P.Ws. Sustained the injuries. The leaked Judge acquitted respondents Nos.3 and while respondents Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted by the learned High Court mainly on the plea of self-defense.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner; whether the learned High Court was justified in acquitting respondents Nos.1 and 2 on tht ground of exercise of right of self-defense in the circumstances of the case and in absence of any finding as to who invited the attack and as to whether the learned High Court was juitified to ignore the ocular evidence of the injured P.Ws.
8. Merely because an injury to one of the accused had not been explained, require consideration.
9. Leave to appeal is granted for re-appraisal of the evidence in the light of the aforementioned' contention against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 only. Bailable warrants be issued in the sum of Rs,25000 each against respondents Nos.1 and 2.