' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 4-6-1999, passed in Criminal Appeal No,174 of 1993 and Criminal Revision No,92 of 1993.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Ashraf complainant while on his way to his house from Adda Badar reached Dhok Ghulam Ali at 7-00 a.m. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 appeared at the scene on a tractor being driven by Sher Jang respondent No,1 . Muhammad Hanif, respondent No,2, was armed with a hatchet, whereas Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Riaz respondents Nos.3 and 4 were armed with Soties. All the accusaed-respondents raising Lalkara not to spare the complainant attacked on him, Muhammad Hanif gave first hatchet blow on the head of the complainant, whereas the second blow given by him landed on the finger of his left hand.
Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Riaz gave soties blows on left thigh and right leg of the complainant and Sher Jang allegedly passed on the tractor over the legs of the complainant, who fell down on the ground and his both legs were fractured. Muhammad Khan and Fazal Dad, who were present in their land, witnessed the occurrence. Muhammad Ashraf complainant lodged the report of the occurrence.
3. Muhammad Nawaz A.S.-I. (P.W.7) recorded the complaint (Exh.P.W.), prepared site plan (Exh.P.H.) and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Amir Afzal, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.8), registered the case through formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.W.1) whereas Bashir Ahmad (P.W.9), partly conducted the investigation and found Muhammad Hanif accused fully involved in the case.
4. All the accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. The trial Court vide judgment, dated 23-9-1993 convicted the accused-respondents under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced Sher Jang and Muhammad Hanif respondents to six years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 each and in case of default, both the accused were to undergo further R.I. For six months, whereas Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Riaz were sentenced to 2 years' R.I.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-respondent filed a joint appeal, whereas the complainant side also filed a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence of the accused. The learned High Court vide impugned judgment dated 4-6-1999 acquitted respondent Sher Jang, whereas the appeal of Muhammad Hand, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Riaz accused-respondents was dismissed with the alteration of conviction from section 307 to section 308, P.P.C. And reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by them with payment of fine and compensation. The revision filed by the complainant was also dismissed. Hence, this petition.
6. Malik Muhammad Nawaz Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable. Moreover, the acquittal order passed by the learned High Court in favour of Sher Jang is not justified and not tenable and that alteration of conviction from section 307, P.P.C. To section 308, P.P.C. Is unwarranted.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and minutely examined the record. Admittedly, there is no previous enmity between the parties. The only available motive for the offence is that there was grudge of the respondents on account of objection raised by the complainant that they should not take the tractor through his land. The allegation of the prosecution that Sher Jang respondent caused injuries by passing tractor on the legs of the complainant, is not supported by medical evidence. The learned High Court has considered this aspect of the case by holding that if fracture of legs should have been the result of passing over the tractor, as stated, the injuries would not be in the nature of simple fracture but it would cause more serious damage in the nature of compound fracture. The learned High Court in Chambers rightly discussed and considered that fracture of the legs was probably the result of injuries caused to the complainant by the remaining accused with the blunt weapons. Therefore, the acquittal of Sher Jang in any case is not open to exception. The incident had occurred at the spur of moment when the respondents-were passing their tractor through the land of the complainant. The injuries were caused by Lathies and the circumstance leading to kill the complainant is not spelt out. Even the motive in this case is not proved.
' Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly altered the conviction of the respondents from section 307, P.P.C. To section 308, P.P.C. Enhancing the amount of compensation to be paid by the respondents. It would be advantageous to refer her relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment which reads as under:-- "8. The result of the above discussion is that the charge against Sher Jang appellant is not proved beyond doubt, he is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted from the charge, whereas the conviction of the remaining appellants under section 307, P.P.C. Is altered under section 308, P.P.C.
And taking into consideration the old ages of the appellants who have also faced sufficient agony of trial and are prepared to pay compensation in addition to the fine reduce their sentence to the period already undergone by them. The appellants, as offered by their learned counsel, will pay compensation to the complainant in the following manner:-
(i) Muhammad Hanif will pay Rs,20,000 as compensation in addition to Rs,20,000 as fine which shall also be paid as compensation to Muhammad Ashraf injured under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Within two months failing which, he will suffer Si. For six months and the amount of fine and compensation shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue.
(ii) Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Riaz appellants will pay Rs,10,000 each to Muhammad Ashraf complainant within two months. However, in case of default, they will suffer S.1. For two months and the amount of compensation shall be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue."
8. For the foregoing reasons, in our considered view, this petition is without merit and substance, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.