' This judgment will dispose of Cr1. Appeal No,1453 of 2002 and Crl. Revision No,946 of 2002 directed against the judgment, dated 29-7-2002 passed by Muhammad Tariq Abbas', learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:--
(1) Under section 148, P.P.C.. All the accused were sentenced to undergo 2 years' R.I. With fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default two months' R.I.
(2) U/s 302(b), P.P.C. Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Asghar and Amjad Ali were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000 each or in default six months each.
(3) U/s 324, P.P.C. Muhammad Afzal and Shabbir Ahmad were sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.I.
With fine of Rs.20,000 each or in default one year R.I.
(4) U/s 337-F(1), P.P.C. Muhammad Afzal and Shabbir Ahmad were sentenced for one year each, with fine of Rs.5,000 each as Daman to Bashir P.W.
' All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the instant case as narrated by Mst. Salamat Bibi, complainant in the F.I.R. Are that on 5-5-2001 at about 5-30 p.m., she alongwith her husband Muhammad Ramzan (deceased), her sons Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Khalil her son-in-law Nasarullah alias Nasir and other family members, was present in her house, when Muhammad Akbar armed with iron pipe, Muhammad Asghar armed with iron pipe, Muhammad Amjad Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Shabbir armed with Dandas with common intention came at the door of her house. Muhammad Akbar raised Lalkara and called them out to teach them a taste whereupon the complainant's husband Muhammad Ramzan and son Muhammad Bashir P.W. Came out. That Muhammad Asghar accused inflicted iron pipe blow at the head of Muhammad Ramzan deceased. Thereafter, Muhammad Amjad accused inflicted Danda blow at the head of above named deceased. After that, Muhammad Akbar accused inflicted iron pipe blow which hit at the head of Muhammad Ramzan deceased who fell down on the ground. Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Shabbir accused started beating Muhammad Bashir P.W. With their respective Dandas and caused injuries to him at his both the shoulders, back and left lower leg. The motive behind the present occurrence was that Muhammad Ramzan deceased had abstained Muhammad Akbar from beating one Muhammad Amjad son of Saida Sheikh.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter investigation of the instant case was entrusted to Karamat Ali, A.S.-I., who initially registered the case F.I.R. No,167, dated 6-5-2001 under section 324/ 337-F(i)/337- L(ii)/147/148, P.P.C. After the death of Muhammad Ramzan in General Hospital, offence under section 302, P.P.C. Was added and on the supplementary statement of the complainant Iftikhar Ahmad accused was also named with a role of Japha to Muhammad Ramzan. After the death of Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Razzaq S.-I. Took over the investigation of the case in hand and proceeded to the spot. He prepared the inquest report of Muhammad Ramzan vide memo. Exh.P.Q.
And injury statement Exh.P.S. He secured blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.M. Last-worn clothes of the deceased were received by him vide memo. Exh.P.F. On 22-5-2001, he arrested Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Asghar, Amjad Ali, Muhammad Afzal and Shabbir Ahmad. On 25- 5-2001 Muhammad Akbar got recovered an iron pipe vide memo. Exh.P.H. On the same day Muhammad Asghar accused got recovered iron pipe vide memo.. Exh.P.J. Muhammad Amjad and Shabbir accused also got recovered Sotas vide memos. Exh.P.K. And Exh.P.L. Respectively.
Ultimately, the investigation of the case was completed by the D.S.P. Concerned, and the challan was submitted.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 14 witnesses including Doctors, Investigating Officers, eye-witnesses and other relevant witnesses. After tendering report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.W. And that of Serologist Exh.P.X. Learned counsel for the complainant closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence. After taking into consideration every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that as far as motive is concerned prosecution has failed to prove the motive because Mst. Salamat Bibi complainant P.W.8 had stated before the learned trial Court that no occurrence had taken place in 'the earlier part of the day when her husband. Muhammad Ramzan had reprimanded Muhammad Akbar for not beating Muhammad Amjad son of Saida Sheikh, who was not produced by the prosecution.
Learned counsel submits that recoveries were allegedly effected from Akbar, Asghar, Amjad and Shabbir but no recovery was effected from Afzal and Iftikhar, that there is clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. Because no inhabitant of the village was joined during the recovery proceedings.
Learned counsel submits that all the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and also inter se. Mst. Salamat Bibi is wife of Muhammad Ramzan deceased: Muhammad Bashir and Khalil Ahmad are sons of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that in fact one accused person were namely Akbar Ali the appellant and one Nazir Ahmad father of Akbar Ali were also injured in this case. They were medically examined on the same day but their injuries have been suppressed, that in fact it was a case of right of self-defence. Neither the complainant nor his witnesses have mentioned the injuries of Akbar and Nazir Ahmad in the F.I.R. In their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Or before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that in fact it was complainant party who was aggressor. If both these versions are put in a juxtaposition then version of the appellants seems to be more plausible and convincing one.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State submits that motive has been admitted by the accused party. Delay in the F.I.R. Has been explained. There is no conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, that time, place and seats of the injuries on the person of the deceased Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Bashir injured are mentioned in the F.I.R. Place of occurrence is near to the house of the complainant, that it was a case of premeditated occurrence. There was no question of false implication as there was no enmity between the parties, that the accused party had other ways to go to their house but they intentionally passed through the house of the complainant party and caused injuries to them. They submit that all the accused except Iftikhar were found guilty. They both support the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the file. In the instant case, there is one deceased namely Muhammad Ramzan husband of Mst.
Salamat Bibi and one injured P.W. Muhammad Bashir son of Muhammad Ramzan. Khalil is another eye-witness and son-in-law of the deceased. Allegations against Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Amjad were that they caused one injury each on the head of Muhammad Ramzan with iron pipe and Danda respectively. I have gone through the post-mortem report and the diagram. There are two injuries on the head of the deceased while injury No,3 is on his right eye, so there were not three injuries on the head as alleged by the prosecution. As far as Muhammad Afzal and Shabbir Ahmad are concerned, the allegation against them was that they were armed with Dandas and caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Bashir P.W. Who was medically examined on the same day and there were four injuries on his person. Injuries Nos.1 to 3 were under section 337-L(i), P.P.C. While injury No,4 was Ghair Jafia Dammia. The contention of Mst. Salamat Bibi was that she took the injured Muhammad Ramzan and Bashir to the Hospital for medical examination which is totally incorrect because according to the medico-legal report of Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Bashir it was the police who got them medically examined at 7-45 p.m. On 5-5-2001. On the other hand according to the statement of Dr. Amjad Atique Mirza, both Akbar appellant and his father Nazir Ahmad (not accused in this case) were got medically examined by the police on the same day at 8 p.m. Prosecution has failed to explain their injuries in the F.I.R., in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And also before the learned trial Court. The appellants had specifically taken the plea of right of self-defence. There are 7 injuries on the side of the complainant party while there are 8 injuries on the side of the appellant party. As far as Muhammad Afzal and Shabbir Ahmad are concerned, they had not caused any injury to the deceased. They were arrested on 22-5-2001, so in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the sentence which they have already undergone is treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
However, the fine of Rs.20,000 each is maintained or in default three months R.I. They are also convicted under section 337-A(I), P.P.C. And are sentenced to undergo one year R.I., with fine of Rs.5,000 each. Same is also treated to be undergone. However, they are directed to pay Rs.5,000 each as Daman to Bashir Ahmad injured P.W. As ordered by the learned trial Court.
8. As far as Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Amjad are concerned, they were attributed one injury each on the head of the deceased but there are two injuries on the head of the deceased and third is on his eye while on the other hand Muhammad Akbar was also injured in this case and he received three injuries on his C person. As the prosecution has suppressed the injuries of Muhammad Akbar and his father Nazir Ahmad, I while treating his case of right of self- defence (though exceeded),convert the sentence of above said three appellants from section 302- B, P.P.C. To section 302-C, P.P.C. And order that instead of life imprisonment they will undergo 7 years R.I. D with benefit of section 382-B. Cr.P.C. As far as compensation awarded to them is concerned, in cases of right of self-defence, no compensation can be awarded. Reliance in this regard is placed on PLD 1982 SC 294 D titled as Meraj Begum v. Ljaz Anwar etc. Co compensation is set aside.' With these observations/modifications this appeal stands disposed of and the Crl.
Revision is dismissed.