' KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Murder Reference No,16 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal No,90 of 1996 filed by Muhammad Tayyub Hussain, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Khan sons of Muhammad Tayyub Hussain, Muhammad Ishaque son of Ahmad Din, Muhammad Umar son of Muhammad Ishaque, Muhammad Saeed son of Talib Hussain, Abdul Waheed son of Talib Hussain and Tanweer Ahmad son of Altaf Hussai-i, appellants. Muhammad Tayyub Hussain, his two sons namely Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Khan, were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bahawalnagar, on 9-9-1996 to undergo death sentence for the murder of Abdul Malik, under section 302-B/149, P.P.C., with a fine of Rs,1,30,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default six months' S.I. Half of the fine, if recovered was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. They were also convicted and sentenced under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., to undergo two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 each for causing injuries on the person of Mst. Jannat Bibi complainant and Muhammad Hanif P.W., in default of payment of fine, six months' S.I. Fine if recovered was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured P.Ws.
2. Muhammad Ishaque, Muhammad Saeed, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Umar and Tanweer Ahmad appellants were awarded life imprisonment under section 302/149, P.P.C., with a fine of Rs,30,000 each, in default six months' S.I. For causing injuries on the person of Abdul Malik, deceased, Half of the fine, if recovered was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
They were also convicted and sentenced under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., for two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 each, in default six months' S.I. They were also convicted and sentenced under section 148, P.P.C., to undergo two years' R.I. Each.
3. It may be noted here, that four co-accused of the appellants namely Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Ali, Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Yasin were tried and acquitted by the learned trial Court.
4. Besides the deceased Abdul Malik, there were four injured P.Ws. Namely Mst. Jarmat Bibi, Muhammad Hanif, Noor Hussain and Muhammad Sharif. Mst. Jannat Bibi was examined as P. W.1 being a complainant and mother of the deceased Abdul Malik, Muhammad Hanif was examined as P.W.2 while Noor Hussain and Muhammad Sharif were not produced and were given up as unnecessary by the prosecution.
5. The occurrence in this case took place within the area of Chak No,3/Fordwa on 1-9-1995 at 7-00 a.m. Which was at a distance of 12 kilometres away from Police Station, Saddar, Chishtian while the matter was reported by Mst. Jannat Bibi, complainant P.W.1 at the Police Station vide F.I.R. Exh.P.A., which was got recorded by Shah Jehan, S.I. P.W.10 at 10-00 a.m.
'6. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R., are that Mst. Jannat Bibi was resident of Basti Kamera Mauza Mahar Sharif and her husband had died 22 years ago. She had only one son namely ABdul Malik, who had a litigation since long time with Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain and others. Abdul Malik deceased in this regard had got registered a case. On 28-8-1994 against Muhammad Khan son of Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain vide F.I.R. No,136 of 1995 under sections 430 and 379, P.P.C.; at Police Station, Shahar Fareed while Muhammad Anwar son of Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain had got a case registered against Abdul Malik deceased on 16-6- 1995 vide F.I.R. No,85 of 1995 under section 324, P.P.C., in Police Station, Shahar Fareed. In the said case, Abdul Malik, deceased was arrested but he came to his house after being released on bail just 15 days prior to the present occurrence. On the day of occurrence, said Abdul Malik deceased along with his mother Mst. Jannat Bibi complainant had to go to the said Police Station for the investigation of said case. Due to the fear of the accused, he did not board a wagon from the Adda but went to Adda Basti Azeem situated in Chak No,3/Fordwah in order to board a wagon. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Ali son of Jamal Din, Muhammad Yasin and Ghulam Rasool sons of Abdul Aziz Bhatti, came there on a motorcycle, who had links with Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain, of Joya's party. After seeing the complainant and her son Abdul Malik, they returned back and informed Tayyeb etc. At about 7-00 a.m. Muhammad Tayyeb armed with hatchet came there alongwith his son Muhammad Afzal on a motorcycle, which was being driven by said Muhammad Afzal. After reaching there, both of them raised a "Lalkara" to the effect that they have come to teach a lesson for registering a criminal case against them. After hearing the said "Lalkara" complainant and Abdul Malik stood up, on which Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain appellant gave a hatchet blow with its right side on the back of head of Abdul Malik. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Ishaq appellant armed with "Sota", Muhammad Anwar appellant armed with Sabal) ( J ), a weapon being used for digging the earth, Muhammad Umar appellant armed with "Sota", Tanveer Ahmad appellant armed with "Sota", Muhammad Saeed appellant armed with "Sota" and Abdul Waheed appellant armed with "Sota", all Joya by caste, reached there on a tractor-trolley having no registration number which was driven by Muhammad Khan appellant and they had come there for the help of Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain etc. On seeing 'them, Abdul Malik deceased along with Mst. Jannat Bibi complainant raised hue and cry in order to save their lives and started running towards Basti Azeem. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Hanif, Noor Hassan, Mst. Shamim Akhtar and Muhammad Hanif son of Noor Elahi also came there. All of them were followed by the accused/appellants. Muhammad Anwar appellant gave a Sabal blow on the forehead of Abdul Malik while Muhammad Afzal caught hold Abdul Malik from his arms. Thereafter, Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain appellant gave another hatchet blow on the back of Abdul Malik deceased while Muhammad Ishaque appellant gave a "Sota" blow on the right wrist of Abdul Malik deceased.
Thereafter, Muhammad Umar appellant gave injury with "Sota" on the person of Abdul Malik deceased, who fell on the ground, when Abdul Malik deceased was lying on the ground, Muhammad Anwar, Abdul Waheed and Muhammad Saeed also gave "Sotas" blow on the person of Abdul Malik deceased. When Mst. Jannat Bibi complainant stepped forward, she was also given beating by Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Saeed and Tanveer Ahmad with their respective "Sotas".
Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Sharif, Noor Hassan, Muhammad Hanif son of Noor Elahi and Mst.
Shamim Akhtar tried to apprehend the accused/appellants when complainant and Abdul Malik deceased reached in front of the door of Shaban Arain Abdul Malik deceased fell down and died there and then. In the meanwhile, all the abovesaid accused persons asked Muhammad Khan appellant, that if Abdul Malik was still alive he should be overrun by the tractor, thereafter, Muhammad Khan appellant separated the trolley from the tractor and brought the same there and put the tractor on the body of Abdul Malik deceased and overrun his dead body. When Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Hanif and Noor Hassan tried to apprehend the above said appellants they were also injured but in spite of that, they apprehended Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Afzal along with their weapons of offence while the rest of the appellants/accused while leaving their tractor-trolly and motorcycle ran away from the spot. Complainant further stated that Abdul Malik was her only son, who had been killed by the accused (appellants) persons in furtherance of their common object due to previous litigation. She after leaving the P.Ws. And other co-villagers at the spot, went to Police Station along with Zahoor Ahmad (her maternal nephew) and Nazeer Ahmad Arain.
7. The Investigating Officer namely Shah Jahan, S.I. P.W.10 after preparing F.I.R. Exh.P.A., despatched Mst. Jannat Bibi for the medical examination about her injuries. He himself went to the spot and took into possession the dead body of Abdul Malik deceased, prepared his injury statement, inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem to Civil Hospital, Chishtian. He also prepared the injury statements of Muhammad Hanif, Muhammad Sharif and Noor Hassan and recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. He also prepared brought site plan Exh.PP, collected bloodstained earth from the place where the dead body was lying and took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B. He also took into possession tractor P.11, trolly P.12 and motorcycle P.13 vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C., Exh.P.D. And Exh.P.E. Respectively. He arrested Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Anwar appellants at the spot alongwith their weapons of offence i,e, hatchet P.1 from the possession of Muhammad Tayyeb appellant not blood-stained and took the same into possession vide Exh.P.F. He also took into possession "Sabbal", P.2 from Muhammad Anwar appellant and secured the same vide recovery memo. Exh.P.G. He sent all the three P.Ws. To Civil Hospital, Chishtian for their medical examination.
8. Abid Akhtar, Inspector/S.H.O. Arrested Muhammad Umar, Abdul Waheed, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Ishaque and Tanveer Ahmad appellants on 26-9-1995. On 8-10-1995, all the above said appellants led to the recovery of their respective "Sotas", which were not blood-stained vide recovery memos. Exh.F'.1., Exh.P.J., Exh P K , Exh. P . L and Exh. P.M respectively. He also recorded the statements of P.Ws. Namely Muhammad Khan and Noor Ahmad Shahid under section 161, Cr.P.C.
According to his investigation, Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad Ali and Ghulam Rasool were found innocent.
9. We may also mention here, the statement of Dr. Abdul Ghaffar M.O., examined as P.W.6 by the learned trial Court, who had medically examined Mst. Jannat Bibi complainant, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Abdul Malik, deceased, also medically examined Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Hanif and Noor Hassan P.Ws. For the just decision of this case, his statement is very necessary, which is reproduced below: "On 1-9-1995 at 10-40 a.m. I medically examined Mst. Jannat Bibi wife of Sher Muhammad resident of Basti Mameri Mauza Mahar Sharif on the request of police. The injured was brought to me by Muhammad Afzal, F:C.
853. I noted the following injuries:---
(1) A tender swelling measuring 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the back of right elbow joint. Area is very much swollen. Movements of right elbow joint restricted Patient conscious. Advised X-ray of right elbow joint. Injury kept under observation.
(2) Complaint of pain on right side of chest anteriorly. No visible mark of violence.
(3) Complaint of pain on the left side of chest anteriorly in third, fourth, fifth and sixth intercostal space. Area is very much tender to touch. Advised X-ray of chest. Injury was kept under observation.
(4) Complaint of pain on fingers of left foot. No visible marks of violence.
(5) Complaint of plain on the back of neck. No visible marks of violence X-rays reports.
' Vide X-ray Report No,2229, dated 1-9-1995 right elbow joint, there was seen fracture, displacement of lower and of right humerous. Vide X-ray Report No,2230, dated 1-9-1995 X-ray of chest, there was seen fracture, displacement of second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth left ribs anteriorly. Injuries Nos.1 and 3 Ghair Jafiah Munagallah while injuries Nos.2, 4 and 5, no apparent injury seen. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and within a duration of four hours. Exh.P.O. Is the correct carbon copy of my M.L.R. Which is in my hand and signed by me. X-ray films Exh.P.O. And Exh.P.O./2, injury statement Exh.P.O./3 bears may seal and signature.
' On the same day at 1-30 p.m. I conducted post-mortem examination of deceased Abdul Malik son of Sher Muhammad resident of Kameri Mahar Sharif aged about 45 years, brought by the police and identified by Muhammad Hanif and Munir Ahmad.
EXTERNAL APPEARANCE A dead body of middle-aged person about 45 years of age, with good built and height lying in supine on mortuary table wearing black colour shirt and Shalwar and while colour Safa. All the clothes were bloodstained, shirt was torn from the chest and abdomen and present only in both arms. Anterior aspect of chest and abdomen, necked and shirt was not present. Eyes and mouth closed. Left hand clinched. Rigor mortis developed. P.W. Staining's present on dependent parts. I found the following injuries:
(1) An abrasion measuring 8 c.m. x 7 c.m. On left side of forehead. There was lacerated wound measuring 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left side of forehead, in the middle of abrasion. On exploration there was seen fracture of frontal bone on left side. Brain, membrane intact.
(2) A lacerated wound measuring 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. On right ocertial region of scalp posteriorly and right side of occipital region of scalp. On exploration occipital bone and right perital bone were fractured. Occipital bone on right side broken into three pieces and two separate pieces of right perital bone present. Brain, membrane rupured and brain was damaged. Hair were absent in an area of 8 c.m. x 5 c.m. Over and around the wound.
(3) A lacerated wound measuring 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left side of occipital region of scalp and right perital region posteriorly. On exploration occipital bona on left side fractured and two separate pieces were present. Left perital bone also fractured and two separate pieces were present. Brain, membrane ruptured and brain matter damaged.
(4) Upper half of right forearm swollen. On exploration there was seen fracture, displacement of right radious filed with serious fluid, each measuring about 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Present in an area of 14 c.m. x 7 c.m. On medical aspect of right upper arm and medical side of anterior aspect of right forearm. Some were ruptured and louter layer of skin peeled of due to rupture of blisters.
(5) An abrasion measuring 18 c.m. x 14 c.m. On back of right side of chest on scapula and lateral aspect of right shoulder joint and lateral side of right upper arm. There was bruise measuring 3 c.m. x 4 c.m. 2 c.m. Below the abrasion.
(6) An abrasion measuring 14 c.m. x 8 c.m. On back of right side of chest below lower boarder of right scapula.
(7) An abrasion measuring 52 c.m. x 14 c.m. Extending from right buttock the lateral side and back of right thigh below right knee joint and ending at upper 1/3rd of right calf.
(8) A bruise measuring 6 c.m. x 5 c.m. On lateral aspect of middle of right upper arm. Nobody fracture seen.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION.
' Cranium and Spinal Cord. Already described.
' THORAX ' Heal healthy containing 10 cc liquid blood. All the other viscera healthy.
' ABDOMEN ' Stomach empty containing 50 cc gestic juices. Small intestine healthy, discended with gases.
Large intestine containing semi-solid faecal matter. Urinary bladder containing about 200 cc urine.
All the other viscera's normal.
' OPINION ' After thorough external internal post-mortem examination, I am of the opinion that the injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 collectively were the cause of death. Injuries Nos.2 and 3 leading to damage to brain matter. Cardiorespiratory failure and death. These injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No,1 was Shajjah-e-Hashmia in nature,' injuries Nos.2 and 3 Shajjah-e- Damiaha, injury No,4 Ghair Jaifah Munagallah, injuries Nos.5, 6 and 7 Ghair Jaifah Damiyah in nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by blunt weapon within a duration of 5 to 10 minutes. Duration between death and post-mortem within 8 hours. After conducting the post-mortem examination, I handed over the dead body, post-mortem report, last worn clothes of the deceased to Abdul Majeed 480/C. Exh.PP is the correct carbon copy of post-mortem report which is in my hand and signed by me. Exh.PP/1 and Exh.PP/2 are the diagrams showing the location of injuries. Exh.PP/3 is the injury statement while Exh.PP/4 is the inquest report, both signed by me.
' On the same day, at 7-30 p.m. I medically examined Muhammad Sharif son of Allah Yar aged 40 years resident of Chak No,3/Fordwah Basti Azeem Wali, brought by police and noted the following injuries:---
(1) Complaint of pain on the middle of lateral aspect of left forearm. Area is tender to touch. Patient fully conscious. Advised X-ray of left forearm. Injury kept under observation.
' Vide X-ray Report No,2228, dated 1-9-1995, no fracture was seen so the injury was. Declared as simple. The injury was caused by blunt weapon within a duration of 12 hours. Exh.PQ is the correct carbon copy my M.L.R. Which is signed by me. Eih.PQ/1 is the X-ray file. Exh.P.Q/2 is the injury statement which bears my signature and seal.
' On the same day, I medically examined Muhammad Hand son of Allah Yar aged 40 'years resident of. Chak No,3/Fordwah of Basti Azim Wali, Chishtian, brought by the police. I noted the following injuries on his body:
(1) A lacerated wound measuring 5 c.m. x 25 c.m. x skin deep on left side of perital region of scalp posteriorly. Patient fully conscious. Advised X-ray of skull. Injury kept under observation.
(2) A bruise measuring 8 x 3 c.m. Oblique in direction on anterior aspect of right side of chest in third, fourth and fifth intercostal space. Area is tender to touch. Colour of bruise red. Advised X-ray of chest. Injury kept under observation. Vide X-ray Reports Nos.2224 and 2225, dated 1-9-1995 X-ray of scalp, no fracture seen vide X-ray Report No,2226, dated 1-9-1995 X-ray of chest, no fracture seen.
' Injury No,1 Shajjah-e-Khafifah, Injury No,2 simple. Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within a duration of 12 hours. Exh.PR is the correct carbon copy of my M.L.R. Which is in my hand and signed by me. Exh.PR/1, Exh.PR/2 and Exh.PR/3 are X-ray films and Exh.PR/4 is the injury statement, signed by me.
' On the same day I medically examined Noon Hassan son of Muhammad Ramzan aged 45 years, resident of Chak No,3/Fordwah brought by police and found the following injuries on his body:
(I) A lacerated wound measuring 2 c.m. 1 c.m. x skin deep on right side of upper lip. Patient fully conscious.
(2) Bruise measuring 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. On back of index, middle and ring fingers of left hand. Ring finger is very much swollen. Colour of bruise red. Advised X-ray of left hand. Injury kept under observation.
' Vide X-ray Report No,2227, dated 1-9-1995 X-ray of left hand there is seen fracture of middle phalyn of ring finger of left hand. Injury No,1 is Shajjah-e-Khafifah while injury No,2 Ghair Jaifah Hashimah. Both the injuries were caused by blunt weapon within a duration of 12 hours. Exh.P.S. Is the correct carbon copy of my M.L.R. Which is in my hand and signed by me. Exh.PS/1 X-ray film and Exh.PS/2 injury statements, signed by me. XXX By Mian Muhammad Afzal Wattoo (NIL opportunity given)
XXXX By the learned Defence counsel Mian Muhammad Tayyeb Wattoo, Advocate.
' It is correct that the shirt of the deceased was torn from chest and abdomen and there was no clothes on chest and abdomen. However, the Shalwar was not torn. It is correct that injury No,1 could be caused if the deceased strikes towards the ground with force and strikes against some/hard substance like bricks and stone. It is correct that if victim falls on ground by tractor there will be injury and if the person is dragged, then there will be abrasion. It is correct that injury No,1, as abrasion could be the result of falling on the ground and dragging. It is correct that this injury could not be the result of a common Sota. It is correct that the pieces of head can be the result of heavy blow with force. If anything strikes against the deceased with pressure, the injury is possible. Injury No,3 on the person of the deceased is also result of heavy blow with full force. If one strikes with the iron rod of any vehicle, there is possibility of injury No,3. Injury No,4 is the result of burning. It may also be caused by boiling water. Injury No,4 cannot be result of heavy vehicle having been passed over it. However, in case of light vehicle, it is possible. Injuries Nos.5, 6 and 7 could be the result of dragging or staining over through the wheel of any vehicle. It is correct that there was no sharp-edged injury.
10. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all. Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. One Syed Kifayat Hussain Shah Inspector/S.H.O., was also examined by the appellants as B.W.1.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants have read before us, the prosecution evidence and other material recorded by the learned trial Court. They submit that witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested and inimical one that their statements are in conflict with medical evidence, that it was not humanly possible that after receiving the injuries, deceased Abdul Malik could have walked for 20 Karams. They also submit that recoveries were effected from both the appellants were not stained with human blood. They submit that Mst. Jannat Bibi is a liar witness because although she was medically examined in 10-40 a.m. By Dr. Abdul Ghaffar P.W.6 but during her statement recorded before the learned trial Court in her cross-examination stated that she was medically examined in the evening by lady doctor. Learned counsel also submit that Muhammad Hanif son of Noor Elahi P.W., an eye-witness is resident of a place, which is 1-1/2 miles away from the place of occurrence. They submit that all the P.Ws. Produced by the prosecution belongs to Arain brotherhood. They further submit that according to the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found all the injuries ante- mortem and this fact belies the version of prosecution witnesses, that after the death of Abdul Malik tractor was overrun on the body of Abdul Malik deceased. They submit, that in fact, Abdul Malik deceased tried to catch hold Muhammad Khan, who was going on tractor along with Muhammad Ishaque and there Abdul Malik tried to gave injury to Muhammad Khan then he had overrun the deceased under his tractor in order to save his life. Lastly, they submit that it was a sudden flare up without any premeditation and all the near relations of the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, so much so that Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain father of Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Khan appellants was aged about 85 years at the time of occurrence and it was unnatural, that he would have accompanied Muhammad Khan appellant and would share common intention to kill the deceased Abdul Malik.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submit that it was a broad daylight occurrence, that matter was reported to the police promptly that specific roles were attributed to the appellants, that hatchet is a blunt weapon, that in all 18 injuries were caused to the deceased and the P.Ws. Lastly, they both submit that prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and they pray that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court be maintained.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also-gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. It has not been denied by the prosecution, that there was long- standing litigation going on between the parties and possibility of false implication in such-like cases cannot be ruled out. Mst. Jannat Bibi, complainant is mother of Abdul Malik, deceased while other P.Ws. Produced by the prosedution are either related to the complainant or from her Brotheri.
All the P.Ws. Produced by the prosecution belongs to Arian Brotheri. Not a single witness has been produced by the prosecution who belongs to another Brotheri besides the Arain Brotheri.
Statements of Mst. Jannat Bibi and other P.Ws. Are exaggerated one. In the instant case, Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain and Muhammad Anwar were armed with hatchet and "Sabbal" ( 4).?
4' ) (a sharp-edged weapon used for digging the earth). Post- report reveals that there is no sharp- weapon injury on the person of Abdul Malik deceased. It is a big conflict between ocular and medical evidence. According to the prosecution case both these appellants along with Muhammad Afzal were apprehended at the spot but the weapons of none of them was stained with human blood, which is most unnatural and improbable. Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain appellant is aged about 85 years and he is father of Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Khan appellants. Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain was alleged to have caused injuries. With hatchet on the person of Abdul Malik deceased from its right side on the back of his head but there is no injury with sharp-edged weapon on that place. The other injury was caused by Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain also on the back of his head but there is no such injury with sharp-edged weapon on the person of Abdul Malik deceased. Muhammad Anwar appellant was armed with "Sabbal" (c)-"m ).
He was alleged to have caused an injury on the forehead of Abdul Malik deceased. According to , the post-mortem report, no sharp-edged weapon injury was found on the said place on the person of deceased Abdul Malik. Muhammad Ishaque, appellant was allegedly armed with "Sota" and gave a injury on the right wrist of Abdul Malik deceased but there is no injury whatsoever at the said place but there are blisters (4.-*) and those were also not on right wrist but on right arm and these were on lateral side of upper part of arm, this fact also shows a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence.
14. Muhammad Umar appellant was alleged to have caused an injury with Sota on the left arm of the deceased but there is an abrasion and that can be result of dragging or falling on the ground according to the doctor. As far as, allegation against Tanveer Ahmad, Muhammad Saeed and Abdul Waheed are concerned, there are general allegations of giving Sota blows but the same is also falsified by the medical evidence about Abdul Malik deceased because these injuries cannot be caused with "Sotas". Dr. Abdul Ghaffar P.W.6 had stated during cross-examination that injuries Nos.5, 6 and 7 could be the result of dragging or slaining over through the wheel, of any vehicle.
15. According to the F.I.R., occurrence had taken place at three different places but no blood- stained earth was taken except from the place where ultimately the dead body of the deceased was found and the Investigating Officer had admitted this fact, that he did not collect the blood- stained earth from the two other places i,e,, points Nos.2 and 3 in the site plan. It also looks improbable that after receiving so many injuries, the deceased could walk 20 Karams, this is also lot of exaggeration on the part of complainant and on the part of her witnesses. That version put forward by Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Afzal seems to be more plausible and natural one, that after hearing about the occurrence they came at the spot when they were apprehended by the P.Ws. None of the recoveries effected from the appellants were found to be stained with human blood. Muhammad Hanif son of Noor Elahi P.W.3 15,- real nephew of the complainant and livei 1-1/2 miles away from the place of occurrence. He was also not injured in this case. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. Although, Muhammad Hanif son of Allah Yar is an injured witness, though not related to the deceaw.d but belongs to Arain Brotheri as the other, itnesses. Mst. Jannat Bibi was medically examined by Dr. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.6 at 10-40 a.m. But during cross-examination she stated that she was medically examined by a Women Medical Officer in the evening. She was not telling the whole truth and did not approach the trial Court with clean hands. In our view, both the parties did not approach the trial Court with clean hands and have suppressed the actual facts from the trial Court. As far as, appellants, Tanveer Ahmed, Muhammad Saeed and Abdul Waheed are concerned, general allegation of causing injuries are attributed to them towards the deceased and the complainant, as stated above, there was no injury on the person of Abdul Malik, deceased with "Sota". The other allegation against them was that they had caused injuries to the P.Ws. And they have been convicted under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., to undergo two years' R.I. In our view, although, the occurrence had taken place but not in the manner as stated by the P.Ws. They have C exaggerated the same in order to falsely implicate the near relation of appellant's party. In our view, Muhammad Khan was going on a tractor when he met Abdul Malik and an altercation took place without any premeditation.
Tanveer Ahmad, Muhammad Saeed and Abdul Waheed also came there and they caused injuries on the person of P.Ws. Namely Mst. Jannat Bibi and Muhammad Hang son of NOor Elahi while the two injured P.Ws. Noor Hassan and Muhammad Sharif were not produced by the prosecution during the trial before the learned trial Court. In order to save his life Muhammad Khan overrun Abdul Malik, deceased in such a manner and having such intention and knowledge to kill Abdul Malik deceased. The post-mortem report given above also shows that the deceased received the injuries while he was being overrun by the tractor being driven by Muhammad Khan appellant.
16.' The upshot of the above discussion is, that Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Ishaque, Muhammad Umar, Tanveer Ahmad, Muhammad Saeed and Abdul waheed are acquitted from the charge under section 302-B/14,9, P.P.C. Death sentence of Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain and Muhammad Anwar is not confirmed and they are acquitted. Murder Reference to their extent is replied in negative. Sentence awarded to them under section 148, P.P.C.. Is also set aside. Sentence awarded to them under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., is also set aside. Muhammad Tayyeb Hussain and Muhammad Anwar be released forthwith if not required in any other case, while Muhammad Ishaque and Muhammad Umar are on bail and are discharged of their bail bonds. However, sentence of imprisonment and fine of Tanveer Ahmad, Muhammad Saeed and Abdul Waheed is maintained under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. They are also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, sentence of Muhammad Khan appellant under section 302-B, P.P.C., is maintained. Death sentence awarded to him is also maintained. Murder Reference to his extent is replied in affirmative. Other sentences under section 148, P.P.C., and under section 337-F(v), P.P.C.
Against him are also set aside. With the above said notification and alteration, the abovesaid Murder Reference and criminal appeal tiled by the appellants are disposed of.