' The petitioners, Rub Nawaz, Talib Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz, are seeking suspension of their sentences awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, vide his judgment, dated 25-9-2000. The conviction and sentences awarded to the petitioners by the learned trial Court are as follows:-- ' Under section 148, P.P.C. 1 year's R.I. Each.
' Under sections 302/140, .P.P.C., life imprisonment, on two counts, for Qatl-i-Amd of Ashfaq and Meharban deceased.
' They have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs,1,00,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased. Under sections 324/149, P.P.C. 5 years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,10,000 each for making murderous assault on Muhammad Aslam, P.W.
2. The role attributed to the petitioner No,2, Talib Hussain, is that he while being armed with knife caused injuries to Muhammad Aslam, P.W. And the role attributed to him and Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner No,3, is that they jointly lifted the deceased Meharban from the street and took him inside the house where he was fired at from close range and killed, by the co-accused Nazak. The role attributed to petitioner No,1, Rub Nawaz is of firing and causing injuries to the deceased Ashfaq. The motive is also attributed to him.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant and have also gone through various paragraphs of the impugned judgment referred to us by the learned counsel for the parties.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the eye-witnesses, while in the witness-box, have not stated that the petitioner, Talib Hussain caused any injury to the injured P.W., Muhammad Aslam, and the petitioner, Talib Hussain, has, therefore, wrongly been convicted under sections 324/149, P.P.C. It is submitted next that the allegation against the petitioners Talib Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz, of having lifted Mehrban deceased from. The street and having taken him inside the house forcibly, where he was done to death by the co-accused, is false and it has been levelled only to widen the net and even otherwise the prosecution version in this regard is absurd because Talib Hussain was allegedly armed with a knife and Muhammad Nawaz was armed with an iron rod and they did not cause any injury to the deceased and had they been present on the spot and had they participated in the occurrence, they would have caused injuries to the deceased. It is submitted next that the role attributed to petitioner, Rub Nawaz, of firing and causing injuries to the deceased Ashfaq has also not been established because in para.27 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has held that Rub Nawaz and co-accused Fayyaz fired at the deceased Ashfaq and the fire of one of them hit the deceased and it is not certain that whose fire caused injuries to the deceased Ashfaq. It is also submitted that the motive, as alleged against the petitioner, Rub Nawaz is not proved. In the end, it is submitted that it was a night time occurrence and no light was available at the spot and all these facts and circumstances show that it is a fit case for the suspension of sentence.
5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the petition has submitted that the petitioner, Rub Nawaz and co-accused Fayyaz were armed with .12 bore guns and a number of pellet injuries were found on the person of deceased Ashfaq and it cannot be said with certainty that fire of only one of them caused injuries to the deceased, whereas the shots fired by both could have caused injuries to the deceased. Learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing the petition has submitted that the trial Court has not disbelieved the motive as set up against the petitioner, Rub Nawaz, who also caused injuries to the deceased Ashfaq. It is submitted next that through evidence, it has been established that the petitioner, Talib Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz lifted the deceased Meharban from the street and took him inside the house, where he was done to death by the co-accused, they being members of the unlawful assembly, thus actively participated in the commission of the offence, resulting two deaths and none of the petitioners is entitled to be released on bail through suspension of the sentences and the deeper appreciation of evidence is not required at this stage.
6. Avoiding the repetition, we hold that the arguments of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant have force because the petitioner, Rub Nawaz is attributed injuries to the deceased, Ashfaq, and as to whether the injuries to Ashfaq deceased were caused by petitioner, Rub Nawaz, or by the co-accused Fayyaz or by both of them, require deeper appreciation of evidence, which cannot be ventured upon at this stage. Similarly, the role attributed to the petitioners, Talib Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz, of having lifted the deceased Meharban from the street and having taken him inside the house forcibly, where he was done to death by the co-accused Nazak, has been believed by the learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been involved falsely just to widen the net, also requires deeper appreciation of evidence.
7. In view of the abovementioned, we see no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.