Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 1980, decided on 6th April, 1983.
---S. 302--Recovery evidence, evidentiary value of--Alleged crime weapons not found stained with human blood, held, were of no consequence.--[Recovery].
---S. 300, Exception 4 & S. 149--Vicarious liability, principle of- Occurrence a sudden affair and during fight injuries sustained by both sides--Each and every accused, held, individually liable for his own act, in circumstance.
---S. 302--Evidence, appreciation of--Benefit of doubt--Occurrence a sudden affair, in which deceased killed from complainant side and injuries sustained by both sides--Except for general allegation of causing injuries to prosecution witnesses alongwith others no specific role attributed to accused in F. I. R.--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.
---Ss. 302, 323 & 324--Offence, alteration of--Occurrence a sudden affair--Deceased killed from complainants' side whereas injuries sustained by both sides--Accused responsible for causing only simple injuries with Deng and hatchet--Conviction of accused altered from S.302 to S.323/324, P.P.C. in circumstances.
---Ss. 302 & 304, Part I--Offence, alteration of--Occurrence a sudden affair and during ensuing fight, one killed from complainant-side while injuries sustained by both sides--Shot fired by accused hitting deceased in belly, resulting in his death--Conviction of accused under S.302, P.P.C. altered to one under S. 304, Part I, P.P.C. in circumstance.
---S. 307--Evidence, appreciation of--Shot fired by accused hitting prosecution witness in chest, with an exit wound at back Injury caused being grievous, conviction under S. 307, P.P.C. maintained.
M.B. Zaman for Appellants.
Muhammad Naeem for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1983.
Sarfraz son of Khurshid, aged 16, armed with hatchet, (2) Murid Hussain son of Sultan, aged 75, armed with Dang, (3) Salehon son of Muhammad Hussain, aged 45, armed with Dang, (4) Ghulam Haider son of Said Muhammad, aged 70, armed with hatchet, (5) Tajammal Hussain son of Bashir Ahmed, aged 20/21, armed with revolver, and (6) Imtiaz Ahmad son of Khurshid, aged 18, armed with revolver, have been convicted and sentenced vide judgment, dated 30-6-1980 of the Sessions Judge, Gujrat, as follows: Each of them was convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf, aged 37, and each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine of Rs.10,000 or in default to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. Each of them was also ordered to pay compensation amounting to Rs.10,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the heirs of the deceased or in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Each of them was also convicted under section 307/149, P.P.C. for murderous assault on Nazir Ahmad (P.W. 9), Munawar Hussain (P.W. 12) and Shah Muhammad (P.W. 13) and each of them was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Each of them was further ordered to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,000 to the three injured in equal shares or in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Each of them was also convicted under section 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal of the convicts is being taken up alongwith Criminal Revision No. 829 of 1980 filed by Nazir Ahmad complainant for enhancement of the sentence of the appellants to death as well as P.S.L.A. No. 60 of 1980 filed by Muhammad Akram against the dismissal of his private cross complaint about the same occurrence, incorporating the defence version, and these are being disposed of by this judgment.
Sarfraz and Imtiaz Ahmed appellants are real brothers and are grandsons of the brother of Murid Hussain appellant. Tajammal Hussain appellant is grandson of Ghulam Haider appellant. Murid Hussain and Ghulam Haider appellants are first-cousins and Salehon appellant is sister's son of Ghulam Haider appellant. Thus, all the members of the accused party are inter-related.
From amongst the members of the accused party Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants are injured. At present Sarfraz, Murid Hussain and Salehon appellants have been admitted to bail and their sentence had been suspended.
2. The occurrence took place at 11 a.m. on 10-9-1978 in Mauza Dhool Khurd at a distance of two miles from Police Station Saddar Gujrat. F.I.R. (Exh. P. K.) was lodged by Nazir Ahmad P. W. 9 (injured), uncle of the deceased, at 5 p.m. on the same day and it was recorded by Muhammad Bashir, A.S.I. (P.W. 11). Originally the case was registered against the appellants under section 307/324/148/149, P.P.C. but later on, on the death of the deceased at 5-50 p.m. on 11-9-1978 in Mayo Hospital, Lahore, section 302, P.P.C. was added.
3. The motive for crime, as stated in the F.I. R. , is that 1 year prior to the present occurrence Munawar Hussain (P.W. 12), uncle of the deceased, as well as the deceased gave beating to Murid Hussain appellant and as a result a case was registered against them under section 325, P.P.C. which was pending at the time of the occurrence and both the parties had been bound down under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. for maintaining peace. Secondly it was stated in the F.I.R. that where the complainant party were.stated to be constructing a house, the land thereunder was disputed between the parties. It may be pointed out at this stage that the complainant party backed out from this motive at the trial stage but introduced two additional motives in the course of the trial. The first is that Munawar Hussain (P.W. 12) had abducted a Khalazad of Tajammal Hussain appellant and the second is that during the last one year, the accused party had tried to ambush the complainant party, including the deceased, 2/3 times but they were lucky enough to escape. The background of the motive clearly indicates that there exists enmity between the two groups and the trial Court has also accepted that there existed previous enmity between the parties.
4. The prosecution has produced four eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Nazir Ahmad (P.W. 9), uncle of the deceased (injured), Munawar Hussain (P.W. 12), another uncle of the deceased (injured) and Shah Muhammad (P.W. 13), grandfather of the deceased (injured). Muhammad Hussain (P.W. 15) is another eye-witness of the occurrence, who is uncle of the deceased, but he is not injured. Muhammad Yaqub and Salehon, both related to the deceased, had been cited in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses but were not examined and had been given up as won over.
5. Sarfraz, Murid Hussain, Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants were arrested by Muhammad Zar, S.I. (P.W. 16) on 13-9-1978. The remaining two appellants namely Imtiaz Ahmad and Tajammal Hussain were arrested by him on 24-9-1978. It may be pointed out at this stage that no crime empty was picked up from the spot. Furthermore, two hatchets, two Dangs and two revolvers are stated to have been recovered at the instance of respective appellants but neither hatchets, nor Dangs were blood-stained and nor they were sent for chemical examination. Similarly, the two revolvers were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory as these could not be connected with the commission of crime due to the absence of the crime empties from the spot. Learned counsel has pointed out that in paragraph 21 of the judgment the trial Court has wrongly observed that the two hatchets recovered in the instant case were human blood-stained. It is argued that the observation is erroneous and is not founded on the record. I am inclined to agree with learned counsel because the memos. of the two hatchets are Exh. P.R. and Exh. P.E. and in these memos. These hatchets have not been described as blood-stained. The attesting witnesses named in the two recovery memos. are Muhammad Riaz (P.W. 3), Muhammad lqbal (P.W. 4) and Muhammad Zar S.I. (P.W. 16). Two other witnesses namely Muhammad Anwar and Qadar Dad were not examined. From amongst the attesting witnesses, who had been examined, only Muhammad Riaz P.W. states that the hatchets were stained with blood but he states that every article which was recovered from the appellants, other than the fire-arms, and which he had attested, was stained with blood. However, Muhammad Riaz P.W. is not being supported by Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Zar S.I. P.Ws. who do not state that the two hatchets or the two Dangs were stained with blood. In any case, these articles were not sent for chemical examination as the reports of the Chemical Examiner or of the Serologist in respect of them are not on the record. According to the statement of the P.P., dated 9-2-1980 the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist were placed on record only in respect of human blood-stained earth. Thus, it is evident that the recoveries, in the instant case, of two hatchets and two Dangs were of no consequence as they were not found to be stained with human blood and of the two revolvers were also of no consequence as they were not connected with the commission of crime. So the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the ocular testimony.
6. In the F.I.R. the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the following manner: While Nazir Ahmad (P.W. 9) was constructing his house alongwith Munawar Hussain (P.W. 12), Shah Muhammad (P.W. 13) and the deceased, the appellants armed as described above, appeared on the scene of orime and attacked them. Ghulam Haider appellant raised a Lalkara to the effect that no one should be spared. Thereafter, Imtiaz Ahmad appellant. fired through his fire-arm and the shot hit in the belly of the deceased who fell down. But while the deceased was in the fallen condition, he was given a hatchet blow by Ghulam Haider appellant which fell on his back. Then Tajammal Hussain appellant fired two shots through his fire-arm, one after the other, and both these shots hit Munawar Hussain (P.W. 12) on his chest and on his back. Munawar Hussain P.W. fell down and while he was in fallen condition he was given Dang blows by Salehon appellant. Thereafter Salehon appellant gave Dang blows to Shah Muhammad (P.W. 13) which fell on his head and he also fell down. Then Imtiaz Ahmad appellant fired a shot through his fire-arm which hit at the back of Nazir Ahmad P.W. Then Ghulam Haider, Sarfraz, Salehon and Murid Hussain appellants caused injuries to Nazir Ahmad P.W. with their respective hatchets and Dangs, while Tajammal Hussain and Imtiaz Ahmad appellants were raising Lalkaras to the effect that if anyone came near them, they would not leave him alive. At this stage due to the alarm Muhammad Hussain (P.W. 15), Muhammad Yaqub and Salehon (both not produced) were attracted to the scene of crime and rescued them from the clutches of the accused party. Nazir Ahmad P.W. further stated that in the exercise of their right of self-defence they also threw brick-bats at the appellants as a result of which Ghulam Haider appellant sustained injuries. It has already been stated that Ghulam Haider appellant had sustained injuries in the course of the occurrence but there is no mention in the F.I.R. as to how Salehon appellant had sustained injuries.
7. Only Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants had given their own version of the occurrence in their statements before the trial Court. Salehon appellant admitted the motive in respect of the case under section 325, P.P.C. but he denied the prosecution version of the occurrence. He disowned the recovery and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to the enmity of the P.Ws. His version of the occurrence was that the complainant party was raising construction on their pathway and thus they were encroaching upon the pathway. The accused party asked them not to do so whereupon they injured Salehon end Ghulam Haider appellants. Thus, Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants who only were present at the time of the occurrence acted in the exercise of their right of self-defence of their persons as well as property and caused injuries in retaliation to the complainant side. Salehon appellant further stated that Muhammad Akram had filed a cross-complaint against the P.Ws. which contained the true version of the occurrence. Ghulam Haider appellant has supported the version given by Salehon appellant. He also denied the prosecution version of the occurrence and disowned the recovery stating that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity of the complainant side. But in the course of explaining his injuries, he produced a copy of the cross complaint filed by Muhammad Akram which was based on the version given by Salehon appellant. Both of them stated that they were innocent but they did not produce any defence except producing Muhammad Akram (D.W. 4) who had filed the private cross complaint in the instant case. It was dismissed and against this dismissal P.S.L.A. No. 60 of 1980 has been filed in this Court which is being taken Up and disposed of alongwith this appeal. The defence of the other appellants was total denial having not participated in the occurrence. They disowned the recoveries and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to their relationship with two others and due to enmity of the complainant side. Their case was that they had not been present at the time of occurrence. Two out of them, namely, Imtiaz Ahmad and Tajammal Hussain ppellants, pleaded alibi and produced three D.Ws. In support of their pica of alibi. But as is clear, their plea of alibi had not been accepted by the trial Court. The statement of Muhammad Akram (D.W. 4) is to the effect that he was related to both the sides and he filed a private cross complaint regarding this very occurrence in which it was alleged that at the time of the incident only Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants were present. They were beaten up by the complainant party. He came to their rescue and while he was rescuing them, the fire-arm of Nazir Ahmad P.W. fell from his hand on the ground. Then Muhammad Akram D.W. picked up the same and fired in the exercise of his right of self-defence. Thus, Muhammad Akram D.W. claims that it was he who had' fired all the three shots, one of which hit the deceased and the other two hit another member of the complainant party. It may be pointed out at this stage that it is this Muhammad Akram D.W. who tiad filed the private cross complaint in the instant case under section 307/325/324/447/148/149, P.P.C. about the same occurrence containing the version which is now being advanced by the defence. This private cross--complaint was dismissed vide judgment, dated 30-6-1980 by the same Judge i.e. Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. It is against the dismissal of this private cross-complaint that P.S.L.A. No. 60 of 1980 has been filed.
8. Dr. Riaz Ahmad Chaudhary (P.W. 10) medically examined Muhammad Ashraf deceased, while he was still alive, at 12-45 p.m. on 10-9-1978, and found on his person nine injuries in the form of incised wound on the back .of chest, another incised wound adjacent to it in the form of a streek, contusion on lumber spine, abrasion on left shoulder, contusion on back of middle chest, abrasion with laceration on left hand , contusion with abrasion on right side lacerated wound on the right side of head and fire-arm wound of entry in the abdomen region. There was blackening around the wound. The first two injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and the last injury was caused by a fire-arm, whereas the rest of the injuries were caused with blunt weapon. Probable time between injuries and medical examination was 1 to 2 hours. The injured was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. It may be pointed out at this stage that in the F.I.R., to Muhammad Ashraf deceased only causing of two injuries is mentioned and there is no indication as to how the other 7 injuries were caused to him. In the F . I . R . the fire-arm injury in the abdomen region of the deceased is attributed to Imtiaz Ahmad appellant and the incised injury on the back of the deceased is attributed to Ghulam Haider appellant. The other 7 injuries are not explained in the F.I.R. The deceased died in the Mayo Hospital on the following day and his post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Bhatti (P.W. 14) who noted the same injuries on his person. In his opinion the fire-arm injury found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature through shock and haemorrhage. In other words,' the fire-arm injury on the abdomen of the deceased, which, is attributed to Imtiaz Ahmed appellant, led to the death of the deceased, whereas the other injuries on his person, including the one attributed to Ghulam Haider appellant, could be considered as simple, although it is not so specifically stated in the post-mortem examination report.
Dr. Riaz Ahmad Chaudhary P.W. medically examined Munawar Hussain P.W. at 12-30 p.m. on 10-9-1978 and found on his person one contused wound on the right shoulder, abrasion on back of chest, fire-arm injury of entrance in the chest and fire-arm injury of exit at the back of chest. The first two injuries were caused with a blunt weapon and were simple in nature. The remaining injury was entry and exit wound caused by fire-arm and this was grievous in nature. It may be noted here that in the F.I.R. it is stated that Tajammal Hussain appellant fired two shots, one after the other, which hit Munawar Hussain P.W. on the chest and back. But the medical evidence is to the effect that the injury had resulted from a single shot and not from two separate shots. Any way, the fire-arm injury on the person of Munawar Hussain P.W. is attributed to Tajammal Hussain appellant. The blunt weapon injuries on his person are attributed to Salehon appellant in the F.I.R.
On the same day at 2 p.m. this Medical Officer medically examined Nazir Ahmad P.W. and found on his person a contusion on the left hand, lacerated wound on the right forearm and a fire-arm wound on the back of right shoulder. The first two injuries were caused with a blunt weapon, whereas the third injury was caused by a fire-arm. The blunt weapon injuries on his person were simple in nature and the fire-arm injury was grievous. It may be noted here that in the F.I.R. fire-arm injury found on the person of Nazir Ahmad P.W. is attributed to Imtiaz Ahmad appellant, whereas two simple blunt weapon injuries found on his person are attributed to four appellants in the F . I . R . namely, Ghulam Haider, Sarfraz, Salehon and Murid Hussain.
On the same day at 12-10 p. m. he medically examined Shah Muhammad P.W. and found on his person 3 blunt weapon injuries on the scalp and fingers of hand, simple in nature. The injuries found on the person of Shah Muhammad P.W., according to the F.I.R., are attributed to Salehon appellant.
The same Medical Officer, on the same day, at 3 p.m., medically examined Salehon appellant and found on his person six injuries caused with a blunt weapon out of which one on the left wrist was declared grievous. The injuries found on the person of Salehon appellant are not explained or find any mention in the F.I.R.
The same Medical Officer at 3-10 p.m. on the same day medically examined Ghulam Haider appellant and found on his person 4 blunt weapon injuries and one incised injury and out of these five injuries one was declared grievous in the sense that it had dislocated his tooth. There was contusion on the lower lip and it was this injury which was declared grievous. The rest were simple. In the F.I.R. it is stated that the complainant side in the exercise of its right of self-defence threw brickbats and as a result Ghulam Haider appellant sustained injuries. Learned counsel points out that one of the blunt weapon injuries found on the person of Ghulam Haider appellant and declared simple injury is contusion 5" x 1" on the back of right side of chest and this was certainly a Dang injury which could not have been caused with a brickbat.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the complainant party was raising a construction on the land which had been left as pathway belonging to the accused party and for this purpose they had even managed to dig earth for laying the foundations. It is reasonably probable that when the appellants got this information, they came to the spot in order to dissuade the members of the complainant side from digging the foundations on their pathway. But the complainant side did not listen to them. They attacked the accused side and the appellants as members of the accused party caused injuries to the complainant side in the exercise of their right sf self-defence. Tbus, the first argument of learned counsel is that the case of the appellants is covered by Exception 2 to section 300, P.P.C. His second argument is in the alternative and that is that if Exception 2 was not applicable, in the instant case, then the case of the appellants would be covered by Exception 4 to section 300, P.P.C., for, it could be a sudden fight. I have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the occurrence took place while Nazir Ahmad P.W. was constructing his house alongwith Munawar Hussain and Shah Muhammad P.Ws. as well as the deceased. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that the land on which the construction was being raised, was disputed between the parties. This motive, however, was given up by Nazir Ahmar P.W. in his statement before the trial Court for obvious reasons. There is background of enmity between the parties. Admittedly the deceased and Munawar Hussain P.W. had given beating to Murid Hussain appellant sometime before the present occurrence and as a result a case was registered under section 325, P.P.C. as against them. This matter was pending at the time of the occurrence and both the parties had been bound down under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. for maintaining peace. Then it is stated that Munawar Hussain P.W. had abducted a Khalazad of Tajammal Hussain appellant. Furthermore, it has been stated that the accused party had tried to ambush the complainant party, including the deceased, 2/3 times before the present occurrence, but they managed to escape unhurt. This last motive was not substantiated by any evidence on the record. Be that as it may, from the motive version it is evident that the parties had previous enmity between them. So far as the immediate cause of the occurrence is concerned, it is admitted in the F.I.R. that the land on which the house of Nazir Ahmad P.W. was being constructed by the complainant side, was disputed between the parties. It is further admitted that the occurrence took place because the said house was being constructed op what was claimed to be the pathway of the accused party. Apparently when the accused party came to know about this, they came to dissuade the members of the complainant party from raising construction over their land. The complainant party were not dissuaded and this led to the occurrence. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that in the F.I.R. Nazir Ahmad P.W. had suppressed the injuries sustained by Salehon appellant in the course of the occurrence, although he had stated that the complainant side in the exercise of their right of self-defence threw brickbats as a result of which Ghulam Haider appellant had sustained injuries. After a careful 'examination of the record I am not inclined to accept the first contention of learned counsel for the appellants that they had acted in the exercise of their right of self-defence when a construction was being raised by the complainant side on the land which belonged to the accused party. However, I accept the second contention to the effect that it was a sudden fight between the parties as the construction was being raised by the complainant side over a portion of pathway/land which was disputed between the parties in the sense that the accused party claimed that 1t belonged to them. In this fight, two members of the accused party namely; Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants, have sustained injuries. As it has been stated by me, the injuries sustained by Salehon appellant do not find any mention in the F.I.R. But it is stated therein that Ghulam Haider appellant sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant party due to brickbats. Let the injuries sustained by Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants be scrutinized in the light of the medical examination. According to the medical examination, one of the blunt weapon injuries found on the person of Ghulam Haider appellant and declard simple in nature, was a contusion 5" x 1" on the back of right side .of chest. This injury could certainly not be caused with a brickbat. Its length indicated that it could have been caused with a blunt weapon like a Dang. Then there is an injyry on the person of Salehon appellant which is grievous in nature caused with a blunt weapon and this had resulted in the fracture of his left wrist. Left wrist of Salehon appellant was 'fractured and one wonders if such a fracture could have been caused by a brickbat. Therefore, this injury may have also been the result of a Dang blow, for, a brickbat would not have that much force so as to cause fracture of the left wrist of the victim. From these pieces of circumstantial evidence it is reasonably probable that they might have sustained injuries, some caused with brickbats and others by Deng blows. From the appellants side only these two, namely, Salehon and Ghulam Haider, were injured.
Now let us consider the injuries sustained by the complainant side. According to the medical examination the deceased in the instant ease, had received nine injuries in all, out of which two injuries are incised, six in the form of contusions/ abrasions arid one fire-arm injury. The fire-arm injury on his person was fatal injury which is attributed to Imtiaz Ahmad appellant. Incised injury on the back is attributed to Ghulam Haider appellant. In the F.I.R. only these two injuries have been mentioned, whereas the other injuries have not been explained. It may further be pointed out that all the injuries caused to the deceased are simple in nature except the fir-arm injury in his belly which was attributed to Imtiaz Ahmad appellant and which proved fatal.
Munawar Hussain P.W. had two simple injuries on his person caused by a blunt weapon and one fire-arm injury with entry and exit wounds. In the F.I.R. the-fire-arm injury is attributed to Tajammal Hussain appellant and it is stated that he fired two shots at him. But actually it is the result of one shot in the chest on the front side with the exit wound at the back side. This was a grievous injury.
Nazir Ahmad P.W. had received two simple injuries caused with a blunt weapon and one fire-arm injury on the back of right shoulder attributed to Imtiaz Ahmad appellant. The fire-arm injury is not stated as grievous in the medico-legal report but its description gives an impression. that it is a grievous injury.
Shah Muhammad P.W. received three blunt weapon simple injuries.
The position, which emerges, is that in the sudden fight between the parties in the course of which blunt weapons, sharp-edged weapons as well as fire-arms appeared to have been used by one side or the other, Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants sustained injuries on the accused side, the number of the injuries being eleven in all, out of which two injuries were declared grievous and the rest were simple, whereas from the complainant side, besides the deceased, three persons were injured, namely, Nazir Ahmad, Munawar Hussain and Shah Muhammad P.Ws. I have already pointed out that in my view it is not a case in which the right of self-defence of person or property was available to the appellants. In my considered view it was a sudden fight in which injuries were sustained by both the sides. Since the occurrence has been held to be a sudden fight by me, Exception 4 to section 300, P.P.C. would be applicable to the-case of the appellants. In that view of the matter the convictions as well as sentences awarded to the appellants under sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148, P.P.C. were not proper and they are accordingly set aside. As it was a sudden fight, each and every appellant would be liable for his own act. Proceeding on this basis, there is only a general allegation as against Sarfraz and Murid Hussain appellants for having caused injuries to only Nazir Ahmad P.W., alongwith others, in the statements of the .P.Ws. made at the trial stage, but no specific role has been ascribed to them in the F.I.R. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion they should have been given the benefit of doubt which I hereby give to them. The result is that Sarfraz and Murid Hussain appellants are acquitted and all their convictions and sentences are set aside. Their appeal is accepted. Both Sarfraz and Murid Hussain appellants are already on bail their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Salehon and Ghulam Haider appellants are themselves injured at the hands of the complainant party in the course of the occurrence. Salehon appellant is stated to be armed with a Dang, whereas Ghulam Haider appellant is stated to be armed with a hatchet. Whatever injuries are attributed to them, are simple in nature. Each of them, therefore, is respectively convicted under section 323, P.P.C. and section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment which they have already suffered undergone. Salehon appellant is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. Ghulam Haider appellant should be released from jail forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case.
Imtiaz Ahmad appellant is stated to have fired a shot which hit the belly of the deceased to his death. He is also stated to have caused a fire-arm injury, grievous in nature, to Nazir Ahmad P.W. I, therefore, convict him under section 304, Part i, P.P.C. for having caused the death of the deceased in the instant case and sentence him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. If the fine is realized from him, it should be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. He is further convicted under section 307, P.P.C. for having caused grievous injury on a vital part with fire-arm to Nazir Ahmad P.W. and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. If the fine is realized from him, it should be paid as compensation to Nazir Ahmad P.W. The sentences of imprisonment in his case shall run concurrently. While computing his sentence the Jail authorities are hereby directed to grant him the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. His appeal is accepted to this extent.
Tajammal Hussain appellant is stated to have caused a fire-arm injury to Munawar Hussain P.W. in the chest with an exit wound at the back. . This was a grievous injury. He is, therefore, convicted under section 307 P. P. C . and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rs.2,000 or in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. It the fine is realized from him, it should be paid as compensatiob to Munawar Hussain P.W. While computing his sentence of imprisonment the Jail authorities are heareby directed to grant him the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. His appeal is accepted to this extent.
In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any substance in Cr.R. No. 829 of 1980, which is hereby dismissed in limine.
There is also P. S. L. A . No. 60 of 1980 in this case but at the last stages of hearing-of this case learned counsel changed his mind and did not press it. It is, therefore, dismissed as not having been pressed.
S.A./707/L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer