' This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,150 of 1992 and Criminal Revision No,22 of 1993.
2. The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No,48, dated 1-5-1988 registered at Police Station Dhuman, under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. In this case, vide his judgment dated 22-9-1992 Mr. S.M. Waqarul- Hassan Bukhari, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal in Sessions Case No,1 of 1990 which became Sessions Trial No,10 of 1990 while acquitting co-accused of the appellants Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Yaqoob convicted the appellants Khalid Munir and Muhammad Ayub under section 302 read with section of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. They were also made liable to pay Rs,10,000 each as fine or in lieu thereof, to suffer further one year rigorous imprisonment each. Half of the amount of fine, if realized, had to be paid to the legal heirs of Idrees Amjad, deceased. Khalid Munir was convicted under section 323 of the P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. While Feroze Khan was also convicted under section 323 of the P.P.C. For causing simple injury to Mst. Ghulam Sakina (P.W.) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Additionally, the trial Court also held the appellant Feroze Khan, Manzoor Hussain, Khalid Munir and Muhammad Ayub guilty under section 323/34, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Muhammad Shafi (P.W.) and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were to run concurrently. However, they were given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. Muhammad Shafi (P.W.9) is the complainant ' in this case'. According to him, on 1-5-1988 Feroze Khan (appellant) was driving a tractor which crossed the fields of Muhammad Shafi (on lease with him) located in Khasra No,2202. Who had asked him to refrain from bringing the tractor to his fields.
An altercation took place between the two. It was said that at that time Khalid Munir, Muhammad Ayub (appellants) and Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Yaqoob (acquitted accused) came there. All of them were armed with Sotis and they hurled Lalkaras and questioned as to why the tractor was stopped and why the complainant entered into a verbal altercation with Feroze (appellant). That in the meanwhile, Idrees Amjad (deceased) who is the son of the complainant, alongwith Khadim Hussain (P.W.) and Mst. Sakina (P.W.), who were close by, came there. Khalid Munir (appellant) inflicted a Soti blow on the head of Idrees Amjad. That Muhammad Ayub also caused another Soti blow over the right ear of the deceased. That Khalid Munir repeated a second blow landing it on the left ear of the deceased, That when Mst. Sakina (P.W.) stepped forward, Feroze Khan (appellant) gave her a Soti blow on the right side of her face. That Idrees Amjad who had fallen down, was inflicted Soti blow by Muhammad Azam (acquitted accused) and Manzoor Hussain (appellant) landing on the left and right side of his chest. Within his view, Manzoor Hussain and Feroze Khan (appellants) further inflicted Lathi blows on Khadim Hussain (P.W.). While, he was inflicted Lathi blow by Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Yaqoob (acquitted accused) and Muhammad Ayub and Khalid Munir (appellants). The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Sharif who also rescued the complainant's side. It was .Mentioned that when Manzoor Hussain and Feroze were landing stick blows on Khadim Hussain, he also gave fist and elbow blows to Manzoor Hussain and Feroze (appellants).
4. The motive of the occurrence was stated to be an incident which took place 8/9 days prior to the present occurrence when Feroze (appellant) drove his tractor in the cotton fields of the complainant and was forbidden. It was alleged that about 9 days later on 1-5-1988, the appellants' side having made preparation for an attack, again brought the tractor to the field of the complainant and when they were stopped, the appellants' side came out and injured the complainant's side.
5. The complainant, Idrees Amjad, Khadim Hussain and Mst. Sakina Bibi were taken to the hospital in an injured state at Chakwal where they were medically examined. At this juncture, the complainant recorded his statement before the Police Officer (Exh.P.A.) in the .Hospital and signed the same. He also produced the medico-legal reports of Khadim Hussain, Mst. Ghulam Fatima (P.Ws.) and Idrees Amjad (deceased) who was then in an injured state. Idrees Amjad later expired on the night between 1/2-5-1988. The deceased was a student of B.A. In the Government College at Chakwal.
6. The parties are related to each other and the relationship is reflected in the statement of the complainant.
7. Mst. Ghulam Sakina, the injured P.W., supported the prosecution gory as P.W.11. While speaking about the altercation which took place between Feroze (appellant) and Muhammad Shafi (complainant) on that day, this witness stated that both exchanged filthy abuses and these abuses had caused passion to go up.
8. Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chuhan, C.M.O., District Headquarter Hospital, Chakwal (P.W.4) had examined Idrees Amjad (deceased) when he was brought to him in an injured state, He was a young man of 21 years and according to the doctor, he suffered the following five injuries:--
(1) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" bone deep with swelling 2" x 2" on top of scalp 1/2" to the left midline and 5-1/2" above the left ear.
(2) A swelling 1" x 1" on left side of scalp on parietal area 2" above the left ear.
(3) A swelling 1-1/2" x 1" on front of right temporomandibular joint.
(4) A reddish contusion mark 2-1/2" x 1/2" on posterio lateral aspect of left side of chest.
(5) A swelling 1" x I" on right clavical at the junction of medical 2/3 and lateral 1/3".
' His condition then was serious and he was unconscious. His injuries were kept under observation and he was referred for X-Ray.
9. When the deceased Idrees Amjad expired, the said doctor also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of said Idrees Amjad. The following injuries were found on his person:--
(1) A lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" bone deep with swelling 3" x 3" on top of scalp 1/2" to the left of midline and 5-1/2" above left ear.
(2) A swelling 2" x 2" on left side of scalp on parietal area 2" above the left ear.
(3) A swelling 3" x 2" on front of right temporomanibular joint extending to the temporal part of scalp.
(4) A bluish back contusion mark 2-1/2" x 1/2" on posterior lateral aspect right side of chest.
(5) A swelling 2" x 2" on the middle of right clavical.
' In his testimony, the said doctor in respect of these injuries further observed as follows:-- "Clotted blood was present on right temporo-parietal area and left parietal area under injuries Nos.3 and 2. There was the depressed fracture of right temporoparietal bone and Toone was broken into pieces under injury No,3. There was fissured fracture of left parietal bone under injury No,2. Membrains were ruptured under injury No,3. A lot of black clotted blood was present in area 5" x 4" under injury No, 3, The brain matter was compressed under injury No,3. Clotted blood was also present in the area 2" x 2" under injury No,2. Heart was healthy. Right vertical contained blood and left vertical was empty. All other organs in the thorax were healthy. Stomach contained 2 ounces of dark green coloured fluid. Small intestines were empty. Large intestines were full of stool. Bladder contained small amount of urine. All these said organs and other organs in the abdomen were healthy. In the museuloshelual system medial part of right clavicle was fractured under injury No,5.
' Death in my opinion was due to subdural haemorrhage caused by depressed facture of right temporoparietal and left parital bone and compression of the brain under injuries Nos.3 and 2. Both the said injuries Nos.3 and 2 were individually fatal as well as collectively fatal. Injury' No,5 was grievous. Rest were simple. All the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by blunt weapon. The probable time between injuries and death was 14 to 16 hours and between death and postmortem was 9 hours."
' Exh.P.H. Is the correct carbon copy of his post-mortem report, while Exh.P.H./1 and the Exh.P.H./2 are the pictorial representation of the injuries.
10. Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chuhan had also examined Muhammad Shafi (P.W.) on the same day and found the following injuries:-- "(1) A reddish contusion mark 1-1/2" x 3/4" with swelling 2" x 2" on front of left shoulder.
(2) Two abrasions each 1" x 1/4", 3/4" apart on front of left side of chest just below the clavical.
(3) A reddish contusion mark 4" x 1/2" with swelling 5" x 3" on left scapular area with marked tenderness.
(4) A reddish contusion mark 2" x 1-1/2" on the lower lateral part of left chest.
(5) A reddish contusion mark 10" x 1" horizontal plan 2" above the natalcleft.
(6) A reddish contusion mark 1-1/2" x 1" with swelling 4" x 3" on the back of left forearm 3" distal to elbow-joint.
(7) A reddish contusion mark 2" x 1" parallel to the right inguinal resion."
' Exh.P.D. Is the carbon copy of his medico-legal report. All these injuries after Ex-Ray report were declared simple in nature. He too examined Khadim Hussain (P.W.) and found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) A reddish contusion mark 4" x 1-1/2" on back of left shoulder and scapular area.
(2) A reddish contusion mark 2" x 1-1/2" on back of left chest below scapula.
(3) A lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep with swelling 2" x 2" on back of right elbow-joint.
(4) A swelling 4" x 4" on front of right thing in middle.
(5) A reddish contusion mark 1" x 1/2" on front of right side 8" from the right knee.
' These injuries after X-Ray report were declared simple.
11. Feroze Khan (appellant) said to have been injured in the who found the occurrence, was also examined by the said doctor, following injuries on his person:-- "(1) A reddish contusion mark 2-1/2" x 1-1/2" with swelling 4" x 2-1/2" on the medial aspect of left scapula.
(2) A reddish contusion mark 6" x 3/4" with swelling 7" x 2" extending to the left wrist-joint to the posterior lateral aspect of left forearm.
(3) A swelling 1" x 1" on lateral maleous of right foot."
' These injuries were declared simple in nature and were caused with blunt weapon. Exh.D.B. Was the correct carbon copy of the M.L.C. Prepared by the said Dr..Khalid Mehmood.
12. Dr. Khalid Mehmood Chuhan had also examined Hafiz Manzoor Hussain (appellant) and found the following injuries on his person:-- "(1) A lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x bone deep with swelling 3" x 2" on the scalp 1/2" to the right of middline and 3-1/2" from the right ear.
(2) A reddish contusion mark 1" x 1/2" on the back and outer side of right arm 2" above the elbow joint with a swelling 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" on the back of right elbow-joint.
(3) He complains of pain in left scapular area.
' These injuries were also declared simple in nature. In his cross-examination while speaking about the injuries suffered by Hafiz Manzoor Hussain (appellant) and Feroze Khan (appellant), it was the doctor's opinion that these injuries could be the results of pelting of stones except for injury No,2 and that the injuries suffered by the appellants Hafiz Manzoor Hussain and Feroze Khan could also be caused by blunt weapon or on account of a scuffle or fist blows.
13. Lady Dr. Naveeda Aslam (P.W.7) on 1-5-1988 had examined Mst. Ghulam Sakina (P.W.) aged about 42 years and found a lacerated wound bone deep on her person, which injury was declared simple in nature. Exh.P.L. Is her medico-legal report.
14. On the same day, the said Lady Doctor had also examined Mst. Nawab Khatoon wife of appellant Feroze and she found the following injuries on her person:-- "(1) A lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/8" x skin deep with swelling 2" x 2" on the back of left side of head.
(2) A reddish contusion mark 1" x 1" on the top of right shoulder.
(3) A reddish contusion mark 1" x 3/4" on the lower part of right knee-joint.
(4) Abrasion 1" x 1/4" with swelling 3-1/2" x 3-1/2" on. The outer part of left ankle-joint.
(5) Complained of pain on the back."
' These injuries were kept under observations and were found simple. It was the doctor's opinion that these injuries could be caused through pelting of stones. That injury No,1 could be caused by a fall from a sufficient height. And that injuries Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 could be self-suffered or caused by Soti or Danda blows.
15. Amongst the formal witnesses, were Abdur Rauf (P.W.1) who being a Muharrar at Police Station Dhunian and on receipt of the complaint (Exh.P.A.), registered the formal F.I.R. (Exh.P.A./1). On 1-5- 1988 he received a sealed parcel containing blood-stained earth which he kept in the Malkhana.
On 4-5-1988 he handed over the same to Ata Muhammad, Constable, for onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner. On 9-5-1988 he received a sealed parcel containing Sotis which he kept in the Malkhana. One of the Sotis was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner by him on 10-5-1988 through Ata Muhammad, Constable. Ata Muhammad (P.W.2) corroborated the statement of Abdur Rauf. Ameer Hussain, Constable (P.W.3) had taken the dead body of Idrees Amjad for autopsy and after autopsy, he received the last-worn clothes of the deceased and he gave these clothes to Sub-Inspector which he took into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B.
Muhammad Nouroze (P.W.5) is the landlord of the land where the occurrence took place and came to support the fact that it was leased out to Muhammad Shafi said to be in the cultivating possession. Zulqurnain, Patwari (P.W.6) had prepared the site plans (Exh.P.K. And Exh.P.K./2) on the pointation of witnesses and at the instance of the police.
16. Muhammad Ijaz (P.W.8) is the witness of the recovery of the blood-stained earth from the spot where Idrees Amjad had suffered injuries and it was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.M., signed by him and Amjad Khan, P.W. He had also identified the dead body of Idrees Amjad.
17. Muhammad Younas (P.W.10) is an eye-witness who also supported the prosecution story with respect to the occurrence and its motive part. He also witnessed taking the tractor, involved in this case. In possession by police vide recovery memo. Exh.P.P.
18. Muhammad Sarwar, Sub-Inspector (P.W.12) is the Investigating Officer and on receiving information about the occurrence, he went to the D.H.Q. Hospital, Chakwal, recorded the statement of Muhammad Shafi (Exh.P.A.) 'and sent it for registration of a case at Police Station Dhuman. He recorded the statements of injured P. Ws. Except Idrees Amjad who was not capable of making the statement. He later went to the spot and recorded the statements of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Younas. He collected the blood-stained earth and converted it into a sealed parcel vide,memo. Exh.P.M. In the presence of the witnesses. He also prepared the rough site plan (Exh.P.Z.) and on it scribed his marginal notes. After the death of Idrees Amjad, he amended the offences. He prepared the inquest report of Idrees Amjad (Exh.P.AA.) and his injury statement (Exh.P.BB.) and got the post-mortem examination conducted on his dead body, and later got the site plans prepared through the Patwari while writing his own marginal notes in red ink. Amir Hussain, Constable handed over to him the last-worn clothes of the deceased which Were blood-stained and he took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. Which was also attested by Amir Hussain. He arrested Khalid Munir, Muhammad Ayub (appellants), Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Azam (acquitted accused) on 3-5-1988. On 5-5-1988 he arrested Feroze Khan and on 6-5-1988 he arrested Manzoor appellant. He took the tractor. Used in the occurrence, into possession on 7-5- 1988. He also got the recoveries effected which were of sticks that these recoveries had been made one by one. Later he handed over these sticks to the Muharrer of the police station for safe custody.
He collected further evidence and also received the M.L.Rs, of Manzoor Hussain and Feroze. After completing the investigation, he submitted the challan.
19. In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. The case of Khalid Munir (appellant) was one of denial and on the question, "have you anything else to say", his answer was as follows:-- "I am completely innocent, I am a holder of International passport. I was in the process of leaving Pakistan for the country of Oman for my employment there. In this regard permission for visa had been allowed to me on 24-4-1998. The complainant party in order to spoil my future and put an obstacle for my departure to Oman have involved me in this case. I am the bread winner of my family. I produce my original passport Exh.D. In this behalf."
20. The case of Manzoor Hussain (appellant) was also one of denial and he stated that he was innocent. The same was the position taken by Muhammad Ayub. However, appellant Feroze came out with his own story on the question as to why this case was made against him, which was as under:-- "I have my agricultural land near Shaheed Shah Colony in which wheat crop was sown by me.
Similar is the position of Hafiz Manzoor Hussain my co-accused. On the day of occurrence, I, my wife Mst. Nawab Khatoon and Hafiz Manzoor Hussain my co-accused who is the son of my real sister were cutting the wheat crop in our fields which was .Ripe one. Muhammad Shafi complainant P.W. Had exchanged abuses and altercated with me some time before the present occurrence. He felt insulted and left that place giving me threat of dire consequences and went away from there.
Our cattle were' grazing nearby and there was some dispute over the grazing of cattle and damage of crop between me and Muhammad Shafi. 1, my wife Mst. Nawab Khatoon and Hafiz Manzoor Hussain my co-accused feeling risk of our life and danger at the attitude of Muhammad Shafi P.W. After his departure from there tried to cut the wheat crop hurriedly and its collections forthwith. At about 7-30 a.m. On the day of occurrence, I, my wife and Hafiz Manzoor Hussain after taking our cattle started towards the village in order to avoid any happening at the instance of Muhammad Shafi P.W. While we reached near, the house of the complainant and the Abadi of Shaheed Shah Colony as we were on our way on a thoroughfare Idrees Amjad deceased, Muhammad Shafi and Khadim Hussain P.Ws. All armed with Lathis (Sotis club) after raising Lalkara that they would teach the lesson of the insult caused by me to Muhammad Shafi P.W. Launched murderous assault on us. They injured me, my wife Nawab Khatoon and my co-accused Hafiz Manzoor Hussain. We in our self-defence including my wife exercised our right of self-defence and caused injuries to them with sticks kept for Zamindara purpose and stones. Idrees Amjad deceased also was injured in the melee, when both parties were busy in the fight. Sakina Bibi P.W.
Abusing us came amongst us from the Abadi and a stone hit her in the melee. Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Sharif P.Ws. Were not at all present at the spot and they did not witness the occurrence. I, my wife and Manzoor Hussain my co-accused after the occurrence came to the police station to get a case registered against the complainant party but the police told us that we should get ourselves medically examined first and then a report would be recorded by the police. I am a poor cultivator and the complainant party are very rich people and is influential. The police was out and out to help them and did not even register our case. On the same day, we three were medically examined at D.H.Q. Hospital, Chakwal and approached the police, but the police in collusion with the complainant party arranged to register a false case against me and my five other co-accused at though Khalid Munir, Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Ayub my co-accused were not present there and they did not take any part in the occurrence. All of us the accused were detained at the police station, from the day of occurrence and we remained behind the bar till the time we were bailed out. My wife Mst. Nawab Khatoon having become dissatisfied from the side of the police brought a criminal case under section 307/34, P.P.C. In which Khadim Hussain, Muhammad Shafi P.Ws. Have been summoned as accused to face the trial. That case is pending in the Court of the learned Magistrate Section 30, Chakwal.
The prosecution version is totally false and incorrect. In order to save them from clutches of law, and later due to death of Idrees Amjad the present case has been brought against us on a totally false and incorrect version."
' He stated that he would produce his witness and which he did by producing his wife Mst. Nawab Khatoon (D.W.1) who supported the defence version as advanced by her husband Feroze (appellant).
21. It has also come on record through the statement of Muhammad Shafi as P.W.9 that a counter- case was got registered on the private complaint of Nawab Khatoon which was pending at the time of trial of this case. In that case, she had advanced her story as narrated by her husband Feroze (appellant) and members of the complainant party in this case had been appearing there as accused. This, therefore, is a case of two versions, one coming from the side of the prosecution while other coming from the side of the defence.
22. In this case the prosecution version appears to have been believed but strangely enough the learned trial Court while using the provision of section 34, P.P.C. Convicted two of the appellants Khalid Munir and Muhammad Ayub to life imprisonment while holding that the others had acted in their individual capacity and thus convicted them only under section 323, P.P.C. And sentenced them accordingly, as aforementioned. It appears that while taking such a course, the learned trial Court may have been obsessed with the idea of a fight inter se the parties, otherwise the trial Court should not have adopted the aforementioned course while sentencing the appellants.
23. The learned counsels for the appellants has vehemently argued that this was not a case of premeditation and that the injuries suffered by the accused side were not sufficiently explained by the prosecution and this clearly indicate some sort of suppression on their part with respect to the actual occurrence. It was also argued by him that in case the appellants came armed and planned as is alleged, they would not have come armed with Sotis only, the weapon allegedly stated to have been used, but would have come well prepared and strongly armed.
24. It has come through the statement of the Sub-Inspector during cross-examination that an unknown person had informed him while he was on patrolling duty that a fight had taken place in village Badyal and that the injured were in the D.H.Q. Hospital, Chakwal. Who also went on to say:-- "It is correct that Muhammad Shafi, the complainant, in his statement Exh.P.A. And also in his supplementary statement whereas the other injured P. Ws. Khadim Hussain, Ghulam Sakina, and the eye-witnesses Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Sharif did not explain before me the injuries on the person of Feroze Khan, Manzoor Hussain accused and Mst. Nawab Khatoon wife of Feroze Khan, the accused.
' It is correct that the place of occurrence from where the bloodstained earth was taken into possession and where Idrees Amjad deceased had fallen and injured is a thoroughfare on a Katcha road."
25. The relevant excerpt from the statement of Muhammad Shafi is also relevant here which is reproduced below:-- "We had exchanged abuses. We had exchanged filthy abuses. We both, I and Feroze accused became very much annoyed and furious. I and Feroze accused both left ourselves control and were provoked to high esteem. Sakina, Idrees Amjad and Khalid Mehmood did not abuse Feroze accused. Similarly Feroze accused also did not abuse any one of them. They forbade me from abusing Feroze accused and they did not forbade Feroze accused. Feroze accused did not abuse any of them. This altercation and abuses were exchanged on the thoroughfare which is adjacent to a field and that field is contiguous to the field containing wheat crop in which we were cutting. This place is thoroughfare would be at a distance of 6/7 yards from the field in which .Ve were cutting wheat crop. This thoroughfare starts from the western side from the side of Abadi of village Chakral and after passing by the side of our residential Dhoke and Shaheed Shah Colony it goes towards village Panjain and also to village Bhudial crossing the road which is called Sarkal Bhudial Road. It is incorrect to suggest that the present occurrence took place in the abovesaid thoroughfare which is near the Shaheed Shah Colony Abadi. I had mentioned in Exh.P.A. That all the accused had after having made preparation with their common object intentionally passed tractor from my land and attacked us. (Confronted with Exh.P.A. Not so recorded)."
26. The Investigating Officer in this case strangely enough-did not take into consideration the injuries suffered by the accused side although the members of the accused side were examined on the same day as per the statements of the doctors.
27. The circumstances of this case lead us to the conclusion that something had happened all of a sudden at the place of occurrence which aroused passions and which led to a melee in which the complainant side were the worst sufferer having lost Idrees Amjad who died while others received injuries. We also find that Sotis were used and the possibility of throwing of stones is also there which further supports the factum of something happening suddenly. There may be something having taken place in the past but that could not be stretched to advance the theory of premeditation and preparedness for the present occurrence. And even if the possibility of a fight is there, this possibility shall have to be taken to the advantage of the accused side i,e, the appellant side in the present case.
28. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that there was a fight, it obviously means that each appellant in this case would be responsible for his individual act. The question now left for consideration is what offence is committed by each and what should be the quantum of punishment. This case relates to the year 1988 when the old provisions of Pakistan Penal Code were applicable and the same shall apply. As this Court has come to the conclusion that the occurrence had taken place because of a sudden quarrel and also because the weapon of offence used were sticks and people suffered injuries from both sides and nothing unusual as such has been attributed to any of the sides, the case would fall under Exception 4 of section 300 of the Pakistan penal Code and would be covered under the provisions of section 304 , Part II in respect of the appellants Khalid Munir and Muhammad Ayub instead of section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. While keeping in view their roles and their individual acts during the quarrel.
Each of them is convicted accordingly to 10 years' R.I. And to a fine of Rs,50,000 each or in lieu thereof to suffer further 6 months' S.I. Each and the total fine if recovered, shall be paid as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased.
29. Against injury caused to Idrees Amjad and attributed to Khalid Munir which was declared simple in nature, the. Trial Court additionally convicted him under section 323, P.P.C. And sentenced him-to one year's R.I. The order of conviction and sentence is upheld.
30. Feroze Khan appellant was found guilty of causing simple injury to Mst. Ghulam Sakina. He was convicted by the trial Court under section 323, P.P.C. And was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. This order of conviction and sentence is also upheld.
' The appellants Feroze Khan, Manzoor Hussain, Khalid Munir and Muhammad Ayub were also convicted under section 323/34, P.P.C. For causing injuries to Muhammad Shall and sentenced to one year's R.I. Each. The order of conviction and sentence attributed to each of the appellants is upheld.
31. The sentences, however, shall run concurrently and the appellants shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is decided accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, Chakwal so that the appellants, on bail, may be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence.
32. In view of the findings aforementioned, Criminal Revision No,22 of 1993 against the order of acquittal of the accused Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Azam and for the enhancement of sentence as far as the present appellants are concerned and for awarding the same sentence to Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Azam accused has no merits and is dismissed.