Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHR ALI VS Respondent: ATTA MUHAMMAD
1988 S C M R 543
1988 S C M R 543
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
MEHR ALI--Petitioner
versus
ATTA MUHAMMAD and others--Respondents
Petition for Leave to Appeal No.138 of 1985, decided on 19th January, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 12th February 1985 in Criminal Appeal No.384/80).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ,
---Ss.302, 307 & 34--Convictions and sentences awarded to accused by Trial Court set aside by High Court--Contention that High Court had no justification in setting aside convictions and sentences of accused--High Court found to have rightly arrived at the conclusion that the occurrence took place in the form of a sudden fight in which injuries were caused to both the sides and in that background it had proceeded to fix the liability of each and every member of the accused party--No interference, held, was called for in impugned judgment.
Mehar Ghulam Ali Mubashar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th January, 1988.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 12 February, 1985.
The brief facts are that Atta Muhammad, Allah Bakhsh, Qadir Bakhsh and Gohar Din respondents were tried for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Abdur Rahman and for causing injuries to five persons, namely, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, Mst.Shehran Bibi, Mehr Ali, Nawaz Khan and Mst. Hayat Bibi. All the four of them were convicted under section 302/34, P.P. C. and each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine. They were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to two years' R.I. On appeal the Lahore High Court Lahore set aside their convictions and sentences under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. but instead Allah Bakhsh was convicted under section 304, Part II, P.P.C. for causing the death of Abdur Rahman deceased and he was sentenced to seven years R.I plus fine. He was likewise convicted under section 323, P.P. C. on two counts for inflicting simple injuries to Mst. Hayat Bibi and Mst. Ghulam Fatima and was sentenced to one year's R.I. plus fine on each count. Qadir Bakhsh was convicted under section 323, P.P.C. on five counts for causing simple injuries to Abdur Rahman deceased, Mehr Ali, Mst. Hayat Bibi, Mst. Shehran and Mst. Ghulam Fatima and was sentenced to one year's R.I. plus fine on each count. Atta Muhammad was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. on three counts for causing simple injuries to Abdur Rahman deceased, Mst. Hayat Bibi and Mst. Ghulam Fatima and was sentenced to one year's R.I. plus fine on each count. Gohar Din was convicted under section 323, P.P.C. on four counts for causing simple injuries to Abdur Rahman deceased, Mst.. Bashiran, Nur Zaman and Mst. Ghulam Fatima and was sentenced to one year's R.I. plus fine on each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was allowed to Allah Bakhsh. All the four were also ordered to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased and other injured persons.
According to the medical evidence just as injuries had been caused on the complainant side, the members of the accused party had also received injuries at the hands of the other side. Atta Muhammad had numerous injuries on his person caused by blunt weapon but simple in nature. Similarly- Allah Bakhsh had three abrasions simple in nature. Qadir Bakhsh and Gohar Din had also simple injuries on their persons caused with blunt weapon. There is no background of previous enmity between the parties. Both the parties live in 'the same lane. The motive, set up was that all the four respondents had suspected that Adalat a boy of 12 years and son of Abdur Rahman deceased was having illicit relations with Mst.Afzal Khatun daughter of Atta Muhammad. This motive had rightly been disbelieved as the finding of the High Court is that both the parties were armed with weapons of offence like Sotas, hockeys, hatchets etc. and that there was a sudden fight between them which may have been due to some remarks passed by Adalat as against Mst. Afzal Khatun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the. High Court had no justification in setting aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the respondents under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C.
We have carefully considered his arguments but in our considered opinion no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of the High Court which had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the occurrence took place in the form of a sudden fight in which injuries were caused to both the sides and it was in this background that it had proceeded to' fix the liability of each and every member of the accused party. In the light of which has been discussed above we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
S. Q. /M-326/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.