' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.---The seven appellants alongwith Said Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz, the two acquitted accused, were tried for the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and Abdul Haq and for the murderous assault over Zulfiqar (P.W.10) and Liaqat Ali (P.W.11) and the learned trial Court by judgment dated 21-11-1994 convicted and sentenced them in the following terms as noted in the impugned judgment of the High Court:-- "(1) MUHAMMAD ALTAF APPELLANT.
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Death sentence for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and compensation of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(c) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Zulfiqar P.W. And a payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to Zulfiqar P.W. And in default thereof to undergo further R.I.
For three months;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For the murderous assault on Liaqat P.W. And payment of Rs,3,000 as compensation to Liaqat P.W. And in default thereof to undergo further R.I.
For three months;
(e) Under section 148, P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
' All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(2) FAROOQ ALTAF APPELLANT:
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Death sentence for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof he shall undergo further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(c) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. And compensation of Rs,3,000 to P.W. Zulfiqar for murderous assault on him or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For the three months;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Liaqat All P.W. And compensation of Rs,3,000 to Liaqat Ali P.W. Or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months;
(e) Under section 148, P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
' All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(3) MUJAHID NAWAZ APPELLANT:
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Death sentence for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and compensation of Rs,10,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(c) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Zulfiqar P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to Zulfiqar P.W. And in default thereof to undergo further R.I.
For three months' R.L;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For injuries caused to Liaqat Ali P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to him and in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months;
(e) Under section 148, P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
' All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(4) HUMAYUN ALTAF APPELLANT:
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment thereof to suffer further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment thereof to suffer R.I. For four months;
(c) Under section 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Zulfiqar P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to Zulfiqar P.W. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo three months' further R.I.;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Five years' R.I. For murderous assault on Liaqat P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to Liaqat P.W. And in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months' R.I.;
(e) Under section 148. P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
All the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.
(5) MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN APPELLANT:
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149., P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(c) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Five years' R.I. For the murderous assault on Zulfiqar P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to Zulfiqar P.W. And in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For the murderous assault on Liaqiat P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to Liaqat P.W. And in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months;
(e) Under section 148, P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
All the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
(6) HAKIM ALI APPELLANT.
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(c) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Zulfiqar P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to him or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I.
For three months;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Liaqat Ali P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to the said P.W. Liaqat Ali or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months;
(e) Under section 148, P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
All the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.
(7) NIAZ AHMAD APPELLANT.
(a) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(b) Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.---Imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Abdul Haq and payment of compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months.
(c) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Three years' R.I. For murderous assault on Zulfiqar P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to him and in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For four months;
(d) Under sections 324/149, P.P.C.---Five years' R.I. For causing injuries to Liaqat Ali P.W. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 to him or in default of payment thereof to undergo further R.I.
For three months.
(e) Under section 148, P.P.C.---Two years' R.I.
' All the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.
' All the appellants were also given the benefit of section 382-B of Criminal Procedure Code."
2. The incident in this case occurred on 21-6-1993 at 6-30 p.m. And was reported by Safdar Ali (P.W.10) at 8-30 p.m. The same day. It was stated in the report that he alongwith Muhammau Rafique, were standing in the Chowk near the shop of Inayat Machhee; in the meantime his cousins Abdul Khaliq, Zulfiqar, Ghulam Murtaza sons of Chand Khan and Liaqat Ali came from the side of their land. When they reached the shop of Inayat Machhee then all of a sudden Muhammad Altaf armed with .12 bore shot gun, Farooq Altaf armed with .222 rifle, Mujahid Nawaz alias Mithu having 7.Mm rifle, Muhammad Nawaz armed with 12. Bore gun, Hakim Ali having stick, Niaz Ahmad armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Hussain with hatchet, Humayun Altaf with .12 bore gun and Said Muhammad empty handed, came out from the house. Said Muhammad raised Lalkara that Ghulam Murtaza should be taught lesson for disgracing Mujahid Nawaz and none should escape.
After that Farooq Altaf fired with his .222 rifle which hit Ghulam Murtaza on 'the right side of the back; Muhammad Nawaz then fired at Ghulam Murtaza hitting him in front portion of the lower part of his abdomen; Abdul Haq stepped ahead towards him when Altaf fired at him hitting him on his left side of the lower portion of the back and with the shot fired by Mujahid Nawaz Abdul Haq was hit on the right side of the back near spinal cord. Hakim Ali gave Sota blows to Abdul Haq on various parts of his body while he was lying down. Muhammad Hussain hit Zulfiqar with axe on his head with which he fell down. With the shot fired by Niaz Ahmed P.W. Liaqat Ali received injuries on left elbow. Next shot was fired by Humayun Altaf at Liaqat Ali hitting him on the back of left side. On hue and cry raised by him, Muhammad Aslam, Naseeb Khan and other villagers were attracted.
Abdul Haq died on the spot while the three injured were removed to the hospital.
3. Motive for the crime was stated to be a dispute between Ghulam Murtaza on one hand and Asghar Ali son of Muhammad Naseeb and Mujahid Nawaz on the other over pigeons the same day at 10-00 a.m. Mujahid Nawaz at the time had threatened that he would avenge his insult.
4. It is necessary at this stage to mention the inter se relationship of the appellants and also that of the eye-witnesses as that would facilitate understanding of the case and its correct perspective.
Muhammad Altaf appellant No,1 is father of Farocq Altaf appellant No,2 and Humayun Altaf appellant No,4 and is son of Said Muhammad, the acquitted accused. Hakim Ali appellant No,7 is father of Muhammad Nawaz the acquitted accused while grand-father of Mujahid Nawaz appellant No,3 and Niaz Ahmed appellant No,5 as they are sons of the said acquitted accused Muhammad Nawaz. Muhammad Altaf appellant is brother-in-law of the acquitted accused Muhammad Nawaz. Muhammad Hussain appellant No,6 is paternal uncle of Muhammad Nawaz.
The relationship of the witnesses inter se with the deceased and injured P.Ws. Are that Safdar Ali complainant (P.W.10) is the first cousin of the two deceased Abdul Haq and Ghulam Murtaza and Zulfiqar, the injured P.W.14. Although Safdar Ali had denied direct relationship of Liaqat Ali P.W.11 with the deceased but has admitted that "Qaisar Khan is the grand-father of Liaqat Ali P.W. It is wrong to say that Qaiser Khan and Qaim Khan are real cousins. (Volunteered that they are from brotherhood)". Liaqat Ali while appearing as P.W.11 in cross-examination stated:-- ' "I do not know if sister of Qaim Khan, grand father of mine was married to one Jassay Khan paternal uncle of Zulfiqar P.W. It is incorrect that I am intentionally suppressing this relationship."
' In any case, it shows that this witness is purposely suppressing the relationship otherwise he should not have been evasive in his reply but should have been definite in giving the relationship.
P.W.12 Zulfiqar is brother of the two deceased. P.W.13 Muhammad Naseeb, the eye-witness, is brother-in-law of the complainant and father of Asghar Ali (P.W.11) who deposed about the motive.
5. It is pertinent to note that in the F.I.R. Besides the appellant and two other accused Said Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz had been charged but Said Muhammad was acquitted being aged man and the role attributed to him was that of Lalkara whereas Muhammad Nawaz although charged for effective firing at Ghulam Murtaza deceased but the charge was not borne out from the injuries on the person of the said deceased.
6. Leave was granted to consider the following contentions raised by the learned counsel at that stage:--
(i) The testimony of C.W.1 Mian Altaf Ahmad, D.S.P., declaring Muhammad Altaf, Said Muhammad, Farooq Altaf and Niaz Ahmad as not guilty, has not been considered in its correct perspective as the petitioners have not been extended the benefit accruing from it;
(ii) The order of learned Magistrate whereby the said accused/appellants were discharged, was not taken into consideration and was set aside without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or recording some evidence;
(iii) The testimony of the eye-witnesses has not been found confidence inspiring in respect of the acquitted accused Muhammad Nawaz and Said Muhammad which could not be made basis for conviction of the appellants in absence of trustworthy and reliable supporting evidence;
(iv) The witnesses who gave ocular account were interested and without -independent corroboration of their evidence it could not be made basis for a finding of guilt;
(v) The conflict in medical and ocular evidence was glaring and was discarded without any valid reason.
7. The learned counsel at the outset referred to the medical evidence to point out the conflicts/discrepancies therein as against the ocular account. It was in this context clarified that wound No,3 on the person of deceased Abdul Haq was in fact recorded as exit wound in the postmortem report but subsequently the word "exit" was scored out and was substituted by the word "entrance" in order to bring it in line with the ocular account. In this context the following portion of the cross-examination of the Medical Officer (P.W.1) was referred:-- ' "It is correct that originally in injury No,1 I wrote wound of exit (which was cut and I initiated the same and then I wrote the word entrance. It is correct that the dimension of wound of injury No,3 is more than the entry wound in this case. It is correct to suggest that I cut the word exit in injury No,3 and much latter.'
' It was next submitted that injury No,4 on the body of Abdul Haq deceased attributed to Mujahid Nawaz is not entrance but is exit. It was then submitted that injuries Nos.1 and 2 suffered by Abdul Haq have not been attributed to any of the accused. It was further clarified that injury No,5 is exit wound but it has not been shown which injury was its entrance. It was explained that Muhammad Nawaz although charged for effective injury to Ghulam Murtaza in the F.I.R. But as this injury was not found on his body, therefore, he was acquitted and so it was stressed that on this analogy Mujahid Nawaz is to be acquitted because the injuries allegedly suffered by Abdul Haq is not there. It was argued that Farooq Altaf is alleged to have fired at Ghulam Murtaza with .222 rifle but no bullet has been recovered from the injuries and instead pellets have been recovered which could be caused by .12 bore gun with which Muhammad Nawaz had fired but he stands acquitted on account of the discrepancy noted above. It was emphasized that the Police held four accused innocent and the Court acquitted two accused and that the charge in the F.LR. Involved three generations of Said Muhammad, the acquitted accused and appellant Hakim Ali as their sons and grand sons have been implicated in the case. The learned counsel then criticised the judgment of the trial Court as a unique and astonishing when he referred to its following portion:- ' "Muhammad Nawaz accused was alleged in the F.I.R. To have caused the second fire-arm injury to Murtaza deceased. Safdar P.W.10 (complainant) has, however, mentioned in his deposition that Murtaza deceased had not suffered fire-arm injury at the hand of Muhammad Nawaz. The other P.Ws. Have also stated that they were not sure that Muhammad Nawaz accused had caused fire- arm injury to Murtaza deceased. These statements have been made to conform to the opinion of the Doctor according to which there was only one fire-arm injury suffered by Murtaza with its entrance and exit wound. Except for this alleged fire by Muhammad Nawaz no other part has been ascribed to Muhammad Nawaz in the whole occurrence. His participation in the occurrence is clearly doubtful. Same, is the case of Said Muhammad accused, who is about 86 years of age and the allegation against him that he had raised a proverbial Lalkara. It appears that he has been roped in merely because he is father of Muhammad Altaf accused. The participation of Said Muhammad accused in the occurrence is also doubtful. As such Said Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz accused are given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Said Muhammad accused is present in Court on bail. He is discharged of his bail bonds. Muhammad Nawaz accused is in custody. He is ordered to be released, if he is not required in any other case.
' It is true that the testimonies of the P.Ws. Who have testified about the actual occurrence does not totally match with the medical evidence. The depositions of the P.Ws. About the injuries on the persons of Ghulam Murtaza and Abdul Haq deceased have been partly contradicted by the medical evidence. Such shortcomings can be explained by the large number of the accused and the fire-arm used by them. It was not expected from the P.Ws., who had suffered these injuries and the complainant to be in a position to be specifically accurate in description of such injuries. The injured P.Ws. Were under direct hit of the accused, they were not in a position to observe and to remember every single fire made by the accused. Reliance is placed on PLD 1976 SC 234. This objection of the learned counsel for the accused is as such rejected."
' It was argued that there is no corroboration of the testimony of the eye-witnesses, therefore, in view of the above observation in the judgment the appellants like the acquitted accused deserve acquittal on account of the principle of consistency. The motive part of the prosecution case was criticised as fake and inconsequential.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the complainant side argued that the charge against the appellants is supported by the testimony of the three eye-witnesses out of whom two are injured. According to him the recovery of the empties from the spot corroborates the ocular account. It was submitted that keeping in view the double murder and the injuries to the two P.Ws. It cannot be said that the charge is improportionate to the harm caused. It was submitted that Muhammad Nawaz was acquitted as the charge against him was not supported by the medical evidence but in case of Farooq Altaf it finds support from post-mortem report. It was stated that there was no such material contradiction in the eye account in the medical evidence to nullify its over all effect. The learned counsel relied on "Sultan Ahmad and another v. The State" (PLD 1970 SC 206) and "Saeedullah Khan v. The State" (1986 SCM R 1027). The police opinion about the innocence of some of the accused was dubbed as speculative, motivated and dishonest. It was explained that it is not the requirement of any law or rule that motive should be narrated in detail in the F.I.R. The learned counsel representing the State adopted the arguments addressed from the complainant side.
9. In the light of the arguments addressed and in view of the factual aspect of the case it is proper and necessary to first determine whether in the circumstances of this case the prosecution has been able to prove the ingredients of section 149, P.P.C. And its application to the facts of the case.
As this section stands, its ingredients have to be established by the prosecution. The liability of each accused involved in a case can only be fixed if the common object of the assembly is first ascertained. In this case the motive which allegedly prompted the accused to launch their attack was a dispute between the deceased Ghulam Murtaza and P.W. Asghar Ali on one hand and accused Mujahid Nawaz on the other over the pigeons. This was not so serious of dispute which would have prompted Hakim Ali grandfather of Mujahid Nawaz and Muhammad Nawaz father of Mujahid Nawaz or for that matter Said Muhammad, his son of Muhammad Altaf and his grand-son Farooq Altaf and Humayun Altaf to have gone to the spot with the purpose to kill Ghulam Murtaza and his brother Abdul Haq. It is to be noted that the learned trial Court gave benefit of doubt to Said Muhammad as he was attributed only Lalkara and was empty handed. Similarly Muhammad Nawaz was acquitted only because the shot fired by him at the deceased Ghulam Murtaza was not supported by medical evidence. The age of Hakim Ali at the time of recording of his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has been recorded as 85 years and he has been shown armed with Sota while going to the spot to attack the complainant party. The word "knew" occurring in the second part of section 149, P.P.C. Requires that this must be proved by tangible and sufficient evidence and not from conjectures and speculations that the offence was committed in prosecution of the common C object of the assembly. It would, therefore, not be sufficient to show that the accused ought to have known or might have known and that they had reason to believe that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder. In this background it is not just and proper to hold that to avenge a trivial and insignificant incident over pigeon, the grand-father, their son and their grand-son would form an unlawful assembly with the only object to commit murder.
Therefore, in these circumstances section 149, P.P.C. Cannot be made applicable and so every accused would be liable to punishment for the act committed by him during the attack. Appellant No,7 Hakim Ali is charged for inflicting Sota blows on the deceased Abdul Haq which according to Medical Officer (P.W.1) had not resulted in the death of Abdul Haq. Therefore, Hakim Ali is convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For attempting the life of Abdul Haq and is sentenced to five years' R.I. And to pay compensation of Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased Abdul Haq or in default to suffer six months' R.I. He is also convicted under section 337-A(1), P.P.C. For causing Shajjah-i- Khafifah to Abdul Haq and is sentenced to two years' R.I. On this count. But the sentences shall start together. He is acquitted from both the counts of the offences under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and Abdul Haq and also from sections 324/149, P.P.C.
(both counts) for murderous assault over Zulfiqar and Liaqat Ali. He is also acquitted of the offence under section 148, P.P.C.
' Muhammad Altaf appellant No,1 is charged for effective firing with .12 bore shot gun at deceased Abdul Haq hitting him on the left side of the lower portion of the back. According to post-mortem report Abdul Haq has received 8 injuries in all out of which injuries Nos.1 and 2 are entrance wounds with fire-arm on the front of left side of chest but as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants these injuries have not been attributed to any of the accused. Injury No,3 has been shown as wound of entrance on the left side of back of chest which has been attributed to Muhammad Altaf appellant in the F.I.R. And the statements of the P.Ws. However, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that this was initially exit wound which has been converted into entrance. In any case, it could not be proved that this change from exit into entrance was mala fide or motivated in order to benefit the prosecution, rather it appears that the word "exit" was recorded through -inadvertence which was changed into entrance in good faith. Injury No,4 has been recorded as exit, although in the F.I.R. It is attributed to Mujahid Nawaz and injury No,5 has been shown as "this wound of exit" but it has not been clarified as of which entrance wound it was the exit wound. Injuries Nos.6 to 8 on the body of Abdul Haq were with blunt means attributed to Hakim Ali. Appellant Mujahid Nawaz has been charged for firing effectively at Abdul Haq hitting him on the right side of back near spinal cord. This wound appears to be wound No,4 although shown as exit but its entrance has not been given. Similarly entrance wound of injury. No,5 (exit wound) has not been indicated. Thus, it is not ascertainable as to whose shot out of the shots fired by Muhammad Altaf and Mujahid Nawaz, resulted in the death of Abdul Haq and there is also some uncertainty and confusion about the firing as in the F.I.R. They are alleged to have fired one shot each but P.W.11 Liaqat Ali in his Court statement said:-- ' "Then Mujahid Nawaz accused fired at Abdul Haq deceased 2 fire shots hitting on his abdominal region on the left side."
' Therefore, the conviction of appellant No,1 Muhammad Altaf and Mujahid Nawaz appellant No,3 in respect of the murder of Abdul Haq is converted into section 302/34, P.P.C. And the death sentence in case of both the appellants is substituted for life imnrisonment but the amount of compensation in case of each of the appellant is enhanced from Rs,10,000 (ten thousand) to Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) each or in default to suffer six months' R.I. Their conviction under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C. And sentence of life imprisonment thereunder regarding murder of Ghulam Murtaza under sections 324/149, P.P.C. Regarding murderous assault over P.W. Zulfiqar and under sections 324/149, P.P.C. For murderous assault on Liaqat Ali P.W. Are set aside. Appellant No,2 Farooq Altaf has been convicted under sections 302(b)/149., P.P.C. For the murder of Ghulam Murtaza and has been sentenced to death. He is alleged to have fired at Ghulam Murtaza which hit him on the right side of the back whereas with the shot of Muhammad Nawaz (acquitted accused) he allegedly received injuries on the front of abdomen in the lower portion. But Muhammad Nawaz was acquitted as no injury attributed to him was found on the person of Ghulam Murtaza. The injuries attributed to Farooq Nawaz are supported by medical evidence and also the statements of all the eye-witnesses. Therefore, his conviction and sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. For the murder of Ghulam Murtaza is maintained and the death sentence awarded to him on this count is upheld and the amount of fine of Rs,10,000 is also kept intact. However, his conviction under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C. For the murder of Abdul Haq, under section 324/149, P.P.C. For attempted murder of Zulfiqar and under sections 324/149, P.P.C. For murderous assault on Liaqat Ali P.W., are set aside.
The conviction of Humayun Altaf under section 324, P.P.C. For murderous assault over Liaqat Ali is upheld and his sentence under this count is maintained but his conviction and sentence under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C. On two counts, and' his conviction under sections 324/149, P.P.C. For attempted murder at Zulfiqar, are set aside. The conviction of Niaz Ahmed appellant No,5 under section 324, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Liaqat Ali P.W: and sentence of five years' R.I. And payment of compensation of Rs,3,000 is maintained. But his conviction under all other sections awarded to him by the trial Court, are set aside. Similarly the conviction of Muhammad Hussain appellant No,6 in respect of murderous assault over Zulfiqar P.W. Is maintained and the sentence of 5 years' R.I.
And fine of Rs,3,000 awarded to him, is maintained. However, his conviction and sentence under all other sections are set aside.
10. For the reasons given above this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgments are modified to the extent as indicated above.
' Hakim Ali appellant No,7 had been allowed bail by this Court, therefore, the trial Court is directed to issue warrant of arrest against him to serve the sentence awarded to him by this judgment, if he has not already served out the same.