1. Aqeel Ahmad, Shakeel sons of Ghulam Farid, Ghulam Farid son of Muhammad, Sanata son of Muhammad Ali, Mumtaz Ali son of Ali Muhammad and Akbar Ali son of Ali Muhammad were tried by the learned Special Judge, A.T.C. Faisalabad in case F.I.R. No.248 of 2001 Police Station Saddar, Chiniot under sections 324/353/427/186/148/149, P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and vide the impugned judgment dated 19-9-2002, were convicted and sentenced as under:- - Under section 148, P.P.C. To two years' R.I. Each with fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default thereof to undergo S.I. For six months.
2. Under section 324, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default thereof to suffer S. I. For nine months each.
3. Under sections 353/149, P.P.C. To two years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs.10,000 each, in default thereof to undergo S.I. For six months each.
4. Under section 225, P.P.C. To 1-1/2 years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default thereof to undergo S. I. For four months each.
5. Under section 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act to three years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs.10,000 each in default thereof to undergo S.I. For nine months each.
6. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, given to them.
7. Through the same judgment Mansha son of Muhammad, Mumtaz Ali son of Ali Muhammad, Mushki son of Sanata, Shahid son of Akbar Ali, Muhammad Nawaz son of Soda, Mst. Janat were of Akbar Ali, Mst. Zubaida daughter of Akbar Ali, Mst. Munawar were of Sai, Mst. Rani Bibi were of Atta, Mst. Rizwan daughter of Akbar Ali, Mst. Sahib Bibi daughter of Akbar Ali, Mst. Zohra daughter of Fareed and Mst.
8. Neziran were of Akbar were acquitted of the charge.
9. The brief facts of the case as narrated in F.I.R. Exh.P.D/1 got recorded on the statement Exh.P.D. Of Muhammad Ramzan, bailiff of this Court are that he alongwith Muhammad Idrees under the order of this Court was deputed to recover Mst. Nasreen were of Muhammad Idrees. They reported at the police station through Report. No.9 entered in daily diary dated 19-6-2001 and on official vehicle they arrived at the place of occurrence alongwith the police officials. Mst. Nasreen was recovered from the possession of the accused/appellants and while she was being taken to the vehicle meanwhile the appellants alongwith large number of men and women carrying respective weapons launched attack at the police party and the bailiff and fire made by the accused party hit Ghulam Mustafa, P.W.3 and the car was also damaged and Mst. Nesreen was snatched. During the occurrence Muhammad Ishaque was also injured.
10. After arrest of the accused, investigation of the case was completed and ultimately challan was sent before the Court for trial. The charge was framed which was denied by the accused and they claimed trial. The prosecution produced Dr. Javed Umar, P.W.1 who on 20-6-2001 had medically examined Ghulam Mustafa and found the following injury:-- Incised wound .8 x .3 c.m. x skin deep on the outside of left thigh on middle part.
11. Dr. Nasir Ali, P.W.2 had medically examined Muhammad Idrees and found the following injury on his person:-- A lacerated wound on left ear with loss of middle 1/3 of ear preserving the lower 1/3 and upper 1/3.
12. Ghulam Rasool, P.W.3 had escorted Ghulam Mustafa, injured to DHQ Hospital in injured condition and presented trouser of the injured before the Investigating Officer which was taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.C. Which was attested by him. Ghulam Mustafa, A.S.-I. Injured was examined as P.W.4. He supported the prosecution story. Muhammad Ramzan, bailiff/complainant was examined as P.W.6. He supported the version of the F.I.R. The remaining witnesses are of formal in nature and need not to be discussed.
13. After closing of the prosecution evidence statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations and claimed their innocence and false involvement.
14. The trial culminated into conviction of the appellants as mentioned above. They have challenged their conviction and sentence through the instant appeal.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has argued that he would not challenge the conviction except under section 7(h), Anti-Terrorism Act, but prays for reduction in sentence.
16. As far as conviction under section 7(h), Anti-Terrorism Act is concerned, it has been argued that Mst. Nasreen was to be recovered from the house of her parents on the petition filed by Muhammad Idrees, therefore, resistance or resentment from the womenfolk was natural and it was not the duty of the bailiff to recover the alleged detenue at any cost when resistance was made and the injuries particularly caused to Ghulam Mustafa, A.S.--I. And Muhammad Idrees have not been specifically attributed to any person. The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment specifically when motive was alleged, therefore, it was not a scheduled offence. So far as the sentence under remaining/different sections is concerned, injury on Ghulam Mustafa, P.W.3 was only of pellet and the sentence is too harsh and the appellants have already faced the agony of the trial and pendency of the appeal for fairly a long time and thus deserve reduction in sentence.
17. Conversely, the appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the State who has supported the impugned judgment.
18. Heard Record perused.
19. It is correct that the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment when the resistance was shown by the inmates of the house at the time of recovery of the detenue. She has also not supported the version of the A prosecution to the extent that she was recovered by the bailiff from inside the house, therefore, I agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that no scheduled offence was committed by the accused, so the conviction and sentence under section 7(h) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 is set aside.
20. The conviction under the remaining sections is concerned conducting the raid by the bailiff in the company of the police is admitted. The appellants alongwith their co-- accused launched attack at the police party and the bailiff who was representative of the Court. The prosecution case has been proved against all the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the conviction is maintained and the learned counsel for the appellants is justified in not challenging the conviction recorded by the trial Court.
21. As far as sentence is concerned, the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment. There was no intention to commit murder and the recovery of Mst. Nasreen was to be effected from the house of her parents therefore, possibility of resentment or resistance cannot be ruled out and the appellants faced the agony of the trial for a period of two years, therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case while maintaining the conviction I reduce the sentence accordingly as under which will meet the ends of justice:-- Under section 148, P.P.C. From two years' R.I. Each to one year R. I. And the fine is also reduced to.
22. Rs.5,000 each, in default thereof to suffer months' S. I.
23. Under section 324, P.P.C. From three years' R.I. To one year R.I. Each and the fine is reduced to Rs.5,000 each in default thereof to suffer 3 months S.I.
24. Under sections 353/149, P.P.C. From two years R.I. To three months R.I. Each and the fine is reduced to Rs.5,000 each, in default thereof to suffer 3 months S. I.
25. Under section 225, P.P.C. From 1-1/2 years' R.I. To one year's R.I. Each and the fine is reduced to Rs.2,000 each in default thereof to suffer 3 months' S.I.
26. All the sentences will run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B. Cr.P.C. Will also be available to the appellants. The appeal stands disposed of with the above modification in the conviction and sentence.