MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ The prosecution case is that a about 12.30 p.m. while Muhammad Riaz deceased and Allah Ditta complainant were cutting fodder the petitioners herein, namely Muhammad Akram (empty handed), Muhammad Asghar (armed with sota) and Muhammad Akhtar (also empty handed)‑‑ who are brothers came to the spot alongwith the two acquitted co‑accused, namely Shahbaz and Khushi Muhammad (also empty handed), Khushi Muhammad allegedly raised a lalkara whereupon Shahbaz, acquitted co‑accused caught hold of the hands of the deceased while Muhammad Akram petitioner, caught hold of him by his legs and felled him down Thereafter, Muhammad Asghar, petitioner, inflicted a sota blow of the wrist of the deceased, Muhammad Akhtar, petitioner, clasped the deceased by his neck and started throwing him and thereby causing his death.

2. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that Mst. Sakina a relative of the complainant (Allah Ditta P.W.6) was murdered about 8/9 years before the present occurrence and in that connection Shahbaz (acquitted accused) and Muhammad Akram & Muhammad Asghar (petitioners herein) were convicted. They had come back after serving the sentence and on the day of the occurrence Allah Ditta complainant and his son Muhammad, Riaz deceased were cutting fodder in their field when at Chahwela a buffalo of the complainant went astray and damaged the wheat crop of Khushi Muhammad accused. Muhammad Riaz deceased came into the field of the accused party to drive the cattle out of the filed but in the meantime Muhammad Akhtar accused petitioner came there and started abusing the deceased. A scuffle took place between the two and they slapped each other. Allah Ditta complainant separated them but Muhammad Akhtar accused went away threatening them with dire consequences. The subsequent incident wherein Muhammad Riaz lost his life, and detailed above, took place on account of the above background.

3. Mr. Aftab Farrukh, learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, submitted that four of the accused persons were empty' handed and only one had a Sots. Furthermore, simple injuries only', have been caused with the sota while the death of the deceased was solely as a result of the strangulation. In these circumstances it was not possible to infer that the convicted accused had the common intention to commit the murder and at best each accused could only) be burdened with individual liability.

4. This submission requires further consideration. Leave is, accordingly, granted.

5. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and fixed for hearing at a very early date.

6. K.B.A/M‑160/S Leave granted.