1. ' Laab Din has challenged judgment dated 29-9-2000 whereby he was convicted under sections 302/149, P.P.C. On two counts for causing addath of Sadar Din and Wali Muhammad and sentenced to imprisonment for life on both counts and was imposed fine of Rs,20,000 on exaction to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. As compensation. He was convicted under sections 307/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years' R.I. For causing injuries to Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Alduar and Ali Muhammad, P.Ws. And a fine of Rs,20,000, if recovered, Rs,5,000 out the same -will be paid to the injured P.Ws. He was also convicted under sections 452/149, P.P.C.
2. And sentenced to 7 years' R.I. And a. Fine of Rs,2,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months' S.I. He was further convicted under section 148, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, * Cr.P.C. Was, however, extended in his favour.
3. ' Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that a case F.I.R. No,87 dated 24-6-1987 was registered with Police Station Kamalia under sections 302/307/452/148/149, P.P.C. And Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Yousaf, Liaqat Ali, Riasat Ali, Nasir Ali, Faiz alias. Faizi and Laab Din (appellant) were nominated as accused. All the other accused except the present, appellant were arrested and after completion of investigation were challaned to face the trial. Laab Din was declared proclaimed offender. The other accused faced the trial and on 2-10-1998 Punjab , Special Court for Speedy Trials convicted the six accused and Sher Muhammad alias Shera, Liaqat Alil, Riasat Ali and Nasir Ali were sentenced to death and a fine of Rs,20,000 while Muhammad Yousaf and Faiz alias Faizi were sentenced to imprisonment for life with, a fine of Rs,10,000 each. They filed appeal before the High Court Lahore and vide judgment dated 27-4-1991, Muhammad Yousaf,, Riasat Ali and Faiz.
4. Ali were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt while death sentence of Sher Muhammad and Liaqat Ali was converted into imprisonment for life. However, death sentence of Nasir Ali was maintained. The accused filed special leave to appeal before, the Honourable Supreme Court. The conviction and sentence of Nasir Ali, Liaqat Ali and Sher Muhammad was maintained through judgment dated 11-4-1991.
5. ' Laab Dm, appellant was arrested on 22-4-1997 and against him after completion of investigation supplementary thallan was submitted on 27-3-2000.
6. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as contained in para. 2 of judgment of the trial Court are as under:- "that on 26-6-1987 at about 4-30 p.m. The above mentioned six accused armed with .12 bore guns while Laab Din armed with rifle in prosecution of their common object entered the house of complainant Muhammad Akhtar. Laab Din accused raised Lalkara and asked whereabouts of Saddar Din with his alarm to teach him lesson for previous fighting. Meanwhile Riasat Ali accused fired at complainant . Muhammad Akhtar hitting his left thigh. Liaqat Ali accused gave firearm injury to Abdul Sattar at left side of his chest. The other co-accused continued raising Lalkara.
7. Witness Muhammad Arshad was also attracted to the spot. Then all the 7 accused entered the house of Wali Muhammad deceased raising Lalkara and inquiring about Saddar Din. Riasat Ali fired at Wali Muhammad, but he was saved. Then Nasir Ali fired at Wali Muhammad hitting on his right pelvic girdle. He fell down and died at the spot. Thereafter, Riasat, Sher Muhammad and Faizi accused fired at Ali Muhammad P.W. Hitting on various parts of his body ;including thigh arms and back etc. Muhammad Arshad witnesses the occurrence being present in the house of Wali Muhammad and he narrated the said incident to the complainant. Accused did not stop and left for the search of Saddar Din. Reaching near the house of Nawaz Butt they once again opened firing; complainant. Muhammad Akhtar also reached there and found his father Saddar Din and Karm Din lying dead there. Other witness Muhammad Iqbal was also lying there in injured condition. The latter told the complainant that in his presence Nasir accused fired at Karm Din hitting his back resulting his instantaneous death, while Laab Din fired two shots at Saddar Din (father of complainant). One fire hit him causing his (Saddar Din) death. Muhammad Iqbal also narrated to Muhammad Akhtar that Sher Muhammad, Liaqat Ali and Muhammad Yousaf fired at him (Muhammad Iqbal) causing him injuries. Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ismail also saw the occurrence. The accused alongwith their respective weapons fled away from the spot".
8. ' The charge was framed against the appellant by the trial Court which was denied by him and he claimed trial.
9. ' During the trial, legal heirs of deceased Karm Din compromised with the appellant which was allowed, therefore, the appellant faced the trial on two counts for causing death of Saddar Din and Wali Muhammad.
10. ' The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.
11. ' The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Aslam P.W.10, who conducted. The post- mortem examination and found two injuries on the dead body of Wali Muhammad, two injuries on the dead body of Saddar Din. He also medically examined injured prosecution witnesses and found three injuries on Muhammad Iqbal, one injury on Muhammad Akhtar, one injury on Abdul Sattar and 12 injuries on Ali Muhammad.
12. ' The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Akhtar, P.W.13 who was complainant of the case. He supported the version of the F.I.R. And narrated the motive for Me occurrence which was previous fighting and registration of criminal cases between the parties. Abdus Sattar P.W.14 and Muhammad Arshad P.W.15 were also eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Both of them corroborated the complainant on all material points. Muhammad Iqbal P.W.16 was also injured in the same occurrence. He deposed against the appellant and supported the prosecution story. Likewise Muhammad Ismail P.W.17 was also eye-witness. He supported the prosecution story and implicated the appellant about his participation in the occurrence. The remaining witncsses are of formal nature and need not to be discussed.
13. ' The prosecution evidence was closed by tendering in evidence report of Chemical Ekaininer Exh.P.CC and that of Serologist and FSL Exh.P.EE.
14. ' The statement ,of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations and . Claimed his innocence and false involvement.
15. ' The trial culminated into. Conviction of the appellant as mentioned. Hence this appeal. The complainant has filed criminal revision for enhancement of his sentence.
16. ' Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has argued that the appellant was 83/84 years old at the time of his arrest and even if he does not challenge the conviction and sentence awarded to him is too harsh, therefore, it has been prayed that the same be reduced adequately and lenient view be taken in his favour due to his old age.
17. ' Conversely, the appeal has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. Learned counsel for the complainant states that there was no mitigating circumstance for awarding him lesser sentence.
18. ' Heard. Record perused.
19. The appellant was nominated accused in the F.I.R. With specific role. The ocular account was furnished by injured P. Ws. Namely, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Akhtar, Abdul Sattar and Ali Muhammad and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted and their testimony has been relied upon up to the level of Honourable Supreme Court during the earlier round of litigation. The prosecution case has been' further corroborated by the absconsion of the appellant. His co- accused were closely related to him. They were arrested and they faced the trial and appellant remained absconder for years together and he has no explanation to offer for disappearance from the seen. The ocular account has been further corroborated by medical evidence. Mere old age is no ground to reduce legal sentence which cannot be less than imprisonment for life. The trial Court has already taken lenient view in his favour' and the legal sentence cannot be further reduced under the law, therefore, after deep reappraisal of evidence I do not find any force in the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, if the appellant feels like and is really old and infirm, he may make representation to the Constitutional authorities for commutation of his, sentencc and release from jail.
20. ' Criminal Revision filed by the complainant is also dismissed having no force.