BASHIR-UD-DIN AHMAD, J.-Six persons namely, Fazal Muhammad alias Fazal (40), Kamal Din alias Kamala (70), Muhammad Aslam (26), Muhammad Sharif (23), Yousaf (50) and Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoor (38) were tried on charges under sections 148, 302/149 (two counts) and 307/149, P. P.
C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, who convicted Muhammad Aslam under section 302/ 149, P. P. C. On each of the two counts and sentenced him to suffer death. Fazal Muhammad, Kamal Din, Muhammad Sharif, Yousaf and Abdul Ghafoor were sentenced to transportation for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the murder of Muhammad Sadiq. They were further convicted under section 302/149, P. P. C. For the murder of Bashir Ahmad deceased and each one of them was sentenced to transportation for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprison--ment for five years each. All of them were further held guilty under section 307/149; P. P. C. And were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years plus a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year each. They were also held guilty under section 148, P. P. C. And were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. The sentences of imprisonment in the case of Muhammad Aslam were ordered to take effect in the event of the death sentences not being confirmed by this Court. The sentences 'of imprisonment in the case of Fazal Muhammad, Kamal Din, Muhammad Sharif, Yousaf and Abdul Ghafoor were ordered to run consecutively.
2. The convicted persons appealed and the case is also before us under section 3 4, Cr. P.C. In so far as Muhammad Aslam is concerned for the confirmation of the death sentences. This judgment will dispose of the appeal as well as the reference.
3. The facts of the case shortly stated, are that on November 13, 1967, Sadiq deceased gave a beating to Muhammad Sharif appellant in the afternoon. At about sun-set time, Muhammad Ramzan was present in his baithak at Chak No. 66-JB with Sadiq deceased, Rehmatullah, Ibrahim and Muhammad Amin, when the appellants turned up. Yousaf and Aslam had pistols, while the remaining appellants were armed with guns. 'They challenged Ramzan and said that they would avenge themselves by killing Sadiq who had beaten Sharif appellant. Muhammad Ramzan suggested to the person who were present with him at his baithak including Sadiq deceased to suitably make amends. Sadiq deceased and Amin went out of the baithak in order to beg of the appellants to forgive Sadiq deceased and Muhammad Ramzan. Sadiq deceased and Amin had hardly uttered a sentence when the appellants opened fire hitting Sadiq deceased and Amin who fell down. Muhammad Ramzan closed the door of the baithak. Meanwhile, Bashir deceased, whose house is situated in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, came up. He was slightly harsh towards the appellants. Aslam appellant fired at Bashir deceased followed by his confederates. Bashir deceased fell down on receiving the first shot which was fired by Aslam. Muhammad Ramzan took out his revolver and fired five shots at the assailants through the window, which resulted in injuries to Fazal Muhammad and Kamal Din appellants. The assailants then fled.
4. The motive for the murder was enmity. In the B. D. Election held in the year 1964, Zahur, the mother's sister's son of Muhammad Ramzan contested the election against Tufail, who is mother's sister's son of Fazal Muhammad appellant for the Union Council seat. Tufail Muhammad was elected. It resulted in bad blood between the parties. Some time later, Anwarul Haq, a son of the mother's sister's daughter of Muhammad Ramzan, along with Sa'eetu, another relative of Muhammad Ramzan, were challaned for a murderous assault on Saqlain and Karamat Husain, who are related to the appellants. That case was still pending when the present occurrence took place.
5. The desperadoes went to the house of Ghafoor and Sharif which is towards the north of the house of Muhammad Ramzan at a distance of 100 or 120 feet from his baithak. They continued firing towards the house of Muhammad Ramzan. The firing stopped after mid-night. Muhammad Ramzan came out of the baithak after the firing had ceased. He found that Sadiq and Bashir had died by that time. Amin was lying injured. He called certain persons and sent Muhammad Amin to the District Headquarters Hospital, Lyallpur. Muhammad Ramzan left for Thikriwala Police Station, 6 miles away from the scene of the tragedy, and on reaching the police station was informed that the Sub-Inspector had gone to Chak No. 58/JB. From Thikriwala Police Station, Muhammad Ramzan went to Chak No. 58/JB via Lyal1pur and reached there at 5-00 a. m., after covering a distance of 19 miles on a scooter. He made the statement, Exh. P. A, to S. 1. Nur Husain (P. W. 18). After scribing the statement, the S. I. Endorsed it to the thana for the registration of the case and himself proceeded to the spot and reached there at 7-00 a. m. He prepared the injury-sheets and inquest-reports and then despatched the dead-bodies to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He took into possession blood-stained earth from two places and sealed the same into parcels separately. On November 14, 1967, Ramzan produced his licensed revolver, Exh. P. 2, and the copy of license, Exh.P. 3, which were taken into possessions by the police. Aslam and Yousaf appellants were arrested on November 22, 1967. Aslam produced his licensed revolver Exh. P. 7, which were taken into possessions by the police. Sharif was arrested on November 24, 1967. While Ghafoor came to be apprehended on November 27, 1967. On December 1, 1967. Yousaf took the police to his house and produced a 12 bore pistol, Exh.P.1, which was also taken in to possessions by the police. Fazal Muhammad appellant, while in custody, led to the recovery of gun, Exh. P. 4, from the house of Fazil Muhammad in no way advance the case of the prosecution because no empty was recovered from the spot. Fazal Muhammad and Kamal Din were arrested on 14-11-1967.
6. (a) Dr. Ahmad Ghulam Muhammad(P. W. 1) on November 14, 1967, at 4-30 p. m. Performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Bashir Ahmad deceased and found a gun shot wound -- x --, going inside the chest, situated at the back of the left side of the chest, --below the inferior angle of left scapula bone and 4 from the middle line. Death, according to the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage, resulting from injuries to the heart and left lung.
(b) The same day at 5-30 p. m., the doctor also conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Muhammad Sadiq and found the following injuries:--
(i) An abrasion 1 x -- on the right side of the face 1 from the ear.
(ii) A pellet wound -- x -- on the front aspect of the right shoulder joint.
(iii) An abrasion 1"x --" on the front aspect of the right elbow joint
(iv) A pellet wound --" x --" which was the wound of entry on the front aspect and outer side of the left arm in its middle.
(v) A pellet wound which was the wound of exit at the back and outer aspect of the left arm--" x --", 3" from injury No. 4.
(vi) A pellet wound --' x --" which was the wound of entry on the outer aspect of the left elbow joint.
(vii) A pellet wound --"x -- which was the wound of exit on the outer aspect and back of the left elbow joint, 2" from injury No. 6.
(viii) A pellet wound -- x --" going inside the abdomen situated on the right side of the abdomen in its upper part," from the middle line.
(ix) A pellet wound --" x --" on the left groin.
(x) An abrasion --" x -- on the right knee joint.
In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries to the liver and stomach which in turn were caused by injury No. 8. The doctor further opined that injury No. 8 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
(c) The same doctor also examined Muhammad Amin P. W. On November 14, 1967, at 4-45 a. m.
And found the following injury on his person: A lacerated wound 3/8" x 1/6" not probed, situated on the front aspect of the left side of the chest in its lower part 61" below the nipple and 3" from the middle line.
The injury was simple and caused by fire-arm.
7. (a) Dr. Muhammad Aslam Malik (P. W. 2) examined Fazal Muhammad accused on November 13, 1967 , at 8-50 p. m. And found the following injuries on his person: -
(i) A gun shot wound of entry 1/6" x 1/6" on the right side of chest, lower and front side, 3" below the right nipple direction backwards. The margins were not echhymosed.
(ii) A wound of exit --x --" with everted margins on the back of chest right side lower part, below the line of base of scapula.
Both the injuries were grievous caused by a fire-arm.
(b) On the same day, Dr. Muhammad Aslam Malik also examined Kamal Din accused and found the following injury on his person: - A gunshot wound of entry J' x J" on the back of left elbow The injury was kept under observation. It was caused by a fire-arm.
8. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them. Explaining the circumstances in which Fazal Muhammad alias Fazla and Kamal Din alias Kamala came to be injured, they made identical statements. The statements made by Kamal Din in this behalf is reproduced below for the sake of convenience: - "On the day of occurrence, some time before evening prayer call time, I went to the house of Muhammad Aslam Lambardar for getting white Mexi Pak Wheat seeds. I paid him Rs. 70.00 at the rate of Rs. 35 per maund. He told me that he would give the seed on the following morning. Fazal Muhammad accused reached there. He also demanded the wheat seed from Aslam Lambardar and Aslam gave the same reply to him. Fazal Muhammad accused left the baithak. I followed him at a distance of 5I karams. When Fazal Muhammad accused reached in front of the house of cobblers, which was in front of the house of Ramzan P. W. Across the lane, Ramzan P. W. Abused Fazal Muhammad accused. Fazal Muhammad accused told Ramzan P. W. Not to abuse any more.
Ramzan P. W. Fired shot at Fazal Muhammad accused. I tried to lift Fazal h Muhammad, Latif accused of the cross case, told me not to lift Fazal Muhammad. In the meantime, Latif accused of the cross case fired pistol shot which hit me on the back of my elbow. I fell down. Ismail and Niamat came there. They took me and Fazal Muhammad accused to the house of Fazal A Muhammad.
From there, we were taken on cart to Police Station Thikriwala. Abdul Ghafoor accused and Tufail, who lived in Lyallpur, were sent for Abdul Ghafoor accused and "'Tufail reached Police Station, Thikriwala in a car. Tufail went into the Police Station. He -returned and informed that the thanedar was not at the police station. I and Fazal Muhammad were put into the car and taken to 'hospital Lyallpur. Fazal Muhammad was given injection. I was bleeding. Thanedar of Lyallpur came to the hospital. He first recorded the statement of Fazal Muhammad and then recorded my statement."
Abdul Ghafoor, and Muhammad Sharif pleaded alibi. The statement made by Muhammad Sharif in this regard runs: - "I was present in College on 13/14th November, 1967. I was called by my brother Abdul Ghafoor accused on 14 November, 1967 in his office. He informed me that probably a case was registered against me and him. He told me to go to my bungalow in Gulberg Colony. I and my brother Abdul Ghafoor came to Sessions Court on 17th November 1967 for bail, but the police was found in the Sessions Court. I and my brother then went to Lahore to apply for bail. My brother Abdul Ghafoor applied for bail before arrest in the High Court on 20th November 1967. 1 applied for bail before arrest in the High Court of 21st November 1967. I was allowed interim bail by the High Court on 22nd November 1967. The bail application was fixed for 24th November 1967. The police for bail before arrest was rejected on 24 1967. The police arrested me in the High Court the rejection of my bail application. I was present to Gulberg Colony on 13th November 1967, time of occurrence."
Ghafoor said in his statement at the trial that he was in the office of the Municipal Committee, Lyallpur, as Accounts Clerk at the material time, as the Accounts had ordered on November 9, 1967 that he and Muhammad Arshad Accounts Clerk should help' another Accounts Clerk Muhammad Hassan in clearing his arrears. Abdul Ghafoor examined Muhammad Hassan (D. W. 1), Muhammad Latif Bhatti (D. W. 2) and S. Irshad Husain (D. W. 3) to prove that at the material time, he was working. In the office of the Municipal Committee, Lyaltpur. We shall revert to the defence evidence at the proper stage.
9. At the trial, Muhammad Ramzan (P. W. 12). Muhammad Amin (P. W. 13), Rehmat Ullah (P. W. 14) and Ibrahim (P. W. 15) gave direct evidence. Muhammad Ramzan is Sub-Accountant in the State Bank of Pakistan; Lyallpur and was on leave at the material .Time. Sadiq deceased was remotely connected with him and also worked for Muhammad Ramzan. On the day of the alleged occurrence, he gave a few slaps to Sharif appellant. Sadiq deceased, Muhammad Amin, Rehmat Ullah and Ibrahim were present at the baithak of Muhammad Ramzan at about sun-set time when the appellants came there. They had collected in the baithak of Aslam appellant with the set purpose of wreaking vengeance. Aslam and Yousaf were armed with pistols. The rest of the culprits carried guns. They challenged Muhammad Ramzan. They threatened to avenge themselves not only on Sadiq, but also on Muhammad Ramzan for the insult to Muhammad Sharif. Muhammad Ramzan, suggested to Sadiq and Amin, to go out and make suitable amends. Sadiq deceased and Amin went outside the baithak and had hardly spoken a few words, when the appellants opened fire and remarked that this was the reply to the apology which Sadiq and Amin intended to offer.
Sadiq and Amin fell down after receipt of gun-shot injuries. Meanwhile, Bashir Ahmad who lived in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, came there and reprimanded the appellants. Aslam fired ath th shot at Bashir Ahmad, who was- hit. He fell down. The rest of the culprits also fired. Muhammad Ramzan, who was present inside his baithak took out a revolver and fired through the window injuring Kamal Din and Fazal Muhammad appellants. The assailants ran away. They, however, continued firing from the house of Abdul Ghafoor and Sharif till mid-night. The pellets mostly hit the walls of the house of Muhammad Ramzan. After the firing had ceased, Muhammad Ramzan came out of the baithak, and found that Sadiq and Bashir had already died. Amin was lying injured.
Muhammad Ramzan sent Muhammad Arnin to the District Headquarters Hospital, Lyallpur. He went to Thikriwaia Police Station, at a distance of six miles from the scene of occurrence, avid learned of the presence of the Sub Inspector in Chak No. 58/JB. He went there and made the statement Exh. P.
A. Muhammad Amin, Rehmat Ullah and Ibrahim happened to be present with Muhammad Ramzan at his baithak at the time of the occurrence. They substantially corroborated the story narrated by Muhammad Ramzan: Muhammad Amin was injured and his presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence was not seriously denied by the defence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the conviction is improper inasmuch as it is based on evidence which is not only interested but also inimical. We now proceed to examine if the' enmity between the parties was so acute as to make it unsafe to rely on the ocular account without its corroboration from an independent source. It may be stated at the very outset that although there are faction;: in the Chak; one of Gujjars and the other of Arains, but there had been no blood feud between the parties prior to the occurrence under consideration. The relations between the parties got strained when in the year 1964, Zahur Ahmad (P. W. 8) contested the B. D. Election against Muhammad Tufail who is related to the appellants. The complainant is the mother's sister's son of Zahur Ahmad. Anwarul Haq a son of the mother's sister's, son of the complainant and his relative, Saleem, were a challaned for murderous assault on Suqlain and Karamat, who are relate; to the appellants. Maqbool (P. W. 10) on one side and Fazal Muhammad appellant on the other made applications for initiation of proceedings for the breach of the peace.
It is on the record that Subedar Rehmat Ullah was the uncle and father-in-lam of Shakur Ahmad (P.
W. 9). Maqbool Ahmad is a brother of Shakur Ahmad. Zahur Ahmad is married to the father's sister's daughter of Shakur Ahmad. The wife of Shakur Ahmad is the sister of the wife of Rehmat Ullah (P. W.
14). Subedar Rehmat Ullah had two wives, namely, Mst. Zainab and Mst. Aisha. Shakur Ahmad P. W.
Is the son of Mst. Zainab. Mst. Bhagi is a step-mother of Shakur Ahmad. She was the real sister of Ibrahim (P. W. 15). ' Shakur Ahmad admitted that Latif son of Rehmat Ullah, who was an accused in the cross-case is a brother of Zahur Ahmad P.. W. Muhammad Shall (P W. 7) stated before the Committing Magistrate that Sadiq deceased was his relative. He resiled from this statement when examined, at the trial. Zahur Ahmad admitted that Sadiq deceased was the servant of the complainant. Muhammad Saleem (P. W. 11) stated that his wife and the wife of Bashir Ahmad deceased are sisters. Ramzan admitted that he was accused in the cross-case. Ramzan, Muhammad Amin, Rehmat Ullah and Ibrahim P. Ws. Are Arains. The appellants are Gujjars.
Muhammad Amin admitted that he belonged the party of Muhammad Ramzan. Rehmat Ullah admitted that Ramzan is related to him. He is mother's sister's son of the wife of Rehmat Ullah the relationship, in our opinion in remote. Rehmat Ullah admitted further that his wife's brother named Latif, is an accused in the cross case with the complaint. It is also in the statement of Rehmat Ullah that two or four months before the present occurrence, there were security proceedings taken against both the parties Ten persons of the faction of Arains and five or six persons of the faction of Gujjars were challaned for the breach of peace Later on, the parties settled their differences and decided to live amicably as is evident from the document, Exh. D. E. Executed on 20-8-1967. Rehmat Ullah admitted that his son Anwarul Haq was challaned under section 307, P. P. C. For causing injuries tc. Suqlain. Ibrahim P. W. Denied that he was related to the complainant. He admitted in his statement before the Committing, Magistrate that Sanda was a cousin of his father, being a collateral in the third degree. He admitted at the trial that Alst Sairan, a daughter of said Sanda, is the mother of Ramzan complainant. We are clear in our minds that the evidence of witnesses, other than Ibrahim, is interested. Undoubtedly, Ibrahim is remotely connected, but he has no enmity with the appellants. He belongs to the Chak; where the occurrence took place. The trial Judge very properly considered Ibrahim as a disinterested witness. Ibrahim was not a party to the deed Exh. D. E. He was never challaned along with the complainant party in the security proceedings. He took no part in any of the activities of the Arains against the Gujjars. We consider that the evidence of Muhammad Amin and Rehmat Ullah is sufficiently corroborated by Ibrahim whom we consider as an independent witness. The occurrence took place before the darkness set in and from the present of innumerable pellet marks on the walls of the complainant's house we conclude that the story narrated by-the eye-witnesses gives a true account and we are inclined to accept the same and proceed to act on it.
11. Next it was urged that the conduct of the deceased persons and Muhammad Amin P. W.
Extremely unnatural, in that there was no sense in Sadiq deceased and Muhammad Amin coming out of, the baithak knowing that six persons having armed were there to be encountered. We do not share this view. The evidence is that they had gone out of the baithak at the bidding of Muhammad Ramzan to plead with the appellants. Similarly, Bashir Ahmad had been attracted to the spot on haring the noise. He simply remonstrated with the appellants for their high- handedness and %vas shot dead for nothing. Learned defence counsel then argued that the ocular evidence was in conflict with the testimony of the medical witness. He submitted that the number of shots fired by the culprits was not more than two in any case. We have examined this contention in the light of the medical evidence and feel that more than two shots were fired. It is true that the number of shots fired was greatly exaggerated by the witnesses, but once the conclusion is reached that the appellants had cone to the spot armed with lethal weapons and some of them had fired at the victims, it becomes immaterial whether one or more shots were fired and whether two or more out of the culprits fired the shots, which actually hit the victims. The liability of those who did not indulge in firing or whose fire did not hit the deceased persons or Muhammad Amin is still there. They are vicariously liable. We find no substance in the argument that the ocular, evidence is in any manner inconsistent with- the testimony of the doctor and repel the contention.
12. There is no dispute either about the time or venue of the occurrence. The report (copy Exh. P. AA) in the cross-case mentioned the time of occurrence as 5-00 p. m. The fact that two of the appellants, namely, Fazal Muhammad and Kamal Din, who sustained gun-shot injuries in the transaction, were examined at 8-15 p.m. At the District Headquarters Hospital, six miles, away, on November 13, 1967, confirms that the time of the occurrence as stated by Ramzan in his report to the police was substantially correct. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, stressed that the report to the police in this case was sufficiently belated. We do not agree. There is evidence that firing by the culprits continued till mid-night. This was sufficient to keep the complainant party indoors. The firing ceased after mid-night. Muhammad Ramzan came out of the baithak to find that Sadiq and Bashir Ahmad had already expired. It must have taken him sometime to make arrangements for the removal of Muhammad Amin, who was injured, to -the hospital. It was after Muhammad Amin had been sent to the hospital that Muhammad Ramzan left for police station Thikriwala, six miles away. He went on a scooter. .He says that he learned at Thikriwala police station that the Sub-Inspector was away to Chak No. 58/JB. This information was given to him by some one who was present inside'the gate of the police station, but was not in uniform. Counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the statement of H. C. Muhammad Hayat (P. W. 5) on this point. He asserted that Muhammad Ramzan did not come to him. The Head Constable also asserted that it was his duty to record the report in the absence of the Sub-Inspector and the A. S. I.
From the police station. The latter assertion by the Head--Constable is correct, but in practice we usually find that a Head Constable is always reluctant, in the absence of the Sub-Inspector, to record a report, particularly in a murder case. In the circumstances, we do not attach much value to the assertions on the part of the Head Constable. The fact remains that thereafter Ramzan proceeded to Chak No. 58/JB via Lyallpur which is about 19 miles from the police station. He reached Chak No. 58/JB at 5-00 a. In. And made the statement Exh. P. A. We know from experience that in colony districts, a police officer usually travels in conveyance provided by the complainant.
It is in evidence that Muhammad Ramzan arranged for a car to take the Sub-Inspector to the spot.
Whether he arranged one car or two cars is not material so long as it is there on the record that the conveyance was arranged by the complainant for the police. The Sub-Inspector reached the place of occurrence at 7-00 a. m. F. C. Muhammad Yunis, who accompanied the Sub-Inspector, gave the time of his arrival at the spot at 8-30 or 9-00 a. m. He repelled the suggestion that the information regarding the present occurrence was given at the police station; that the A. S. I. Went to the spot, held an enquiry and then recorded the first information report. We are inclined to, believe the Sub- Inspector when he says that he recorded the statement of Muhammad Ramzan at Chak No. 58/JB and reached the spot at about 7-00 a. m. Learned counsel referred to the statement of F. C.
Muhammad Yunis in support of the argument that the complainant had taken a person having influence with the police in another car to the Sub-Inspector. We do not know who that person was, as the matter was not pursued further in the statement of Muhammad Yunis by the defence. We are not inclined to believe F. C: Muhammad Yunis.
13. The fact that the Sub-Inspector was at Chak No. 58/JB is further confirmed on reference to the report, copy Exh. P. A. A. And the statement of H. C. "Muhammad Hayat (P.W.5). He proved the copy of the F. I. R. In the cross-case. The same difficulty was experienced by the party of the appellants in getting the cross-case registered. It Is in the statement of Abdul Ghafoor made at the trial, that they hired a taxi and went to the police station, when they reached near the police station, they saw Kamal Din and Fazal Muhammad appellants being taken on a rehra and stopped the car there. Abdul Ghafoor continued in his statement at the trial that he got down from the car and started talking to persons present there. Tufail went to the Police Station. He returned from the police station and informed Abdul Ghafoor and others that the thanedar was not present at the police station. We, therefore, hold that the Sub-Inspector was, away to Chak No. 58/JB and that there was no undue delay in the registration of
14. We now address ourselves to the defence evidence. We are called upon to believe that Muhammad Hassan (D. W. 1), who was working as Cash Book Clerk was in arrears of work and had made an application or additional help to Mr. Muhammad Latif Bhatti, Accounts Officer of Municipal Committee, Lyallpur, who directed Abdul Ghafoor appellant and another clerk named Muhammad Arshad to help in clearing the arrears. To that extent, the evidence is not open to any serious criticism, but the fact that on the day of the alleged occurrence Abdul Ghafoor was not in his Chak at the material time but was working in the office of the Municipal Committee, Lyallpur, when he received information regarding the occurrence is not satisfactorily proved from unimpeachable evidence.. We have examined the statement of Mr. Irshad Husain, Municipal Engineer, minutely and find is not possible to accept his word in view of his antecedents in service.
We agree with the reasons given by the trial Judge in discarding the evidence produced in proof of the defence of alibi by Abdul Ghafoor appellant. We have no hesitation in rejecting it as worthless.
The fact that the District Inspector of Police ordered the investigating officer to place Abdul Ghafoor appellant in column No. 2 of the challan is not sufficient by itself to hold that the defence of alibi had been substantiated.
15. Muhammad Sharif appellant did not produce any evidence in support of the plea of alibi in his defence.
16. The cross-case registered at the instance of Fazal Muhammad and the evidence produced in support thereof was examined and the case was thrown out by the Court. The counter version put forth by Fazal Muhammad and Kamal Din was not supported at the trial; by any evidence worth the name. The story itself is highly improbable and merits no serious considers.
17. The motive in this case is sufficiently proved from the evidence of Muhammad Ramzan, which is corroborated by his statement in the first information report and the evidence of Zahur Ahmad. The matters came to a head, when Sadiq slapped g Muhammad Sharif appellant. Muhammad Sharif and hi--s confederates took it as a great affront and decided to settle the old scores and wreaked vengeance unmindful of the con,
18. For the reasons, stated above, we uphold the convictions and maintain the sentences passed on the appellants. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Aslam on each of the two counts, under sec--tion 302/149, P. P. C. Is confirmed in the absence of any extenuat--ing circumstance.
19. There is no merit in the revision petition for the enhance--ment of the sentence. Notice was not issued to the accused and the revision petition was simply ordered to be heard alongwith the appeal of the convicted persons. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for the imposition of the lesson sentence under section 302/149, P. P. C. To the appellants, other than Muhammad Aslam, are substantial and we agree with him. In the result, the revision petition fails and is; also dismissed.
Appeal and revision both dismissed.