THE STATE Versus IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN

ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.- -- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.88 of 1982 against the judgment, dated 25-7-1981 handed down by Sheikh Abdur Rasheed, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in Sessions Case No.8 of 1979 pertaining to F.I.R. No. 16, dated 17-2-1977, registered at Police Station Mandra, under sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C.

2. Nine accused were tried in this case and all of whom were acquitted. Consequently, this appeal was filed before this Court by the State, and vide the admitting orders of this Court, dated 7-11-1982, respondents Iftikhar Hussain, Altaf Hussain, Khalid and Noor Hussain were given notices so that their case could be re-examined.

3. This is a daytime occurrence which involved two deaths. It took place on 17-2-1977 at about 4-30 p.m. close to the area of Bus Stand Mandra which is also not far away from the Police Station Mandra, Tehsil Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi. The occurrence is an admitted position but the versions from the prosecution acid from the defence side are at variance.

4. The prosecution version and on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged, is the statement of Muhammad Fazil complainant (P.W.12). According to him, on the day of occurrence and at about 4-30 p.m. he alongwith Muhammad Sarwar, Ali Asghar (P.Ws.), as well as Qamar Zaman and Khaliq Dad, two deceased, were sitting in the courtyard and the Baithak of Qamar Zaman, deceased. When Noor Hussain, Altaf Hussain, Khalid respondents, Muhammad Ramzan, Ali Muhammad, Aurangzeb and Muhammad Banaras while armed with pistols and Iftikhar respondent and his co-accused Tahir armed with 7 m.m. rifles came from the Mandra Bazar side raising Lalkaras stating that they would not spare the complainant's side and would avenge the murder of Gul Hassan. This caused anxiety to the complainant side and they stood up. That Qamar Zaman. deceased, in order to save his life, ran towards his residential room. Altaf Hussain respondent fired at his back with his pistol which hit him on his right buttock. Upon which he fell down on the ground. Noor Hussain respondent fired with his pistol hitting. Qamar Zaman in his left flank. Khaliq Dad, deceased, who was the brother-in-law of Qamar Zaman bent on the person of Qamar Zaman for saving him. When Iftikhar Hussain with his. 7 m.m. rifle and Khalid co-accused with his pistol, simultaneously fired at Khaliq Dad deceased hitting him on the left side of his back. Khaliq Dad deceased fell down and died at the spot. That Muhammad Ramzan accused then fired with his pistol at the complainant Muhammad Fazil. But he was spared and the fire shot instead hit Iftikhar respondent on the lower part of his left leg. That Noor Hussain and another accused fired with their weapons but the complainant party ran inside the residential room and the fire shots, therefore, hit the doors and walls of the said room. The accused then left the place of occurrence alongwith their weapons. It was said that Abdul Ghafoor, Mirza Mazhar Hussain, Ali Asghar and Muhammad Sarwar (P.Ws.) had seen the occurrence.

5. The motive part of the story as narrated was that on 2-11-1974 Gul Hassan, the brother of Noor Hussain. respondent, had been murdered and a case had been registered against the complainant Muhammad Fazil, Qamer Zaman (deceased), his son Farooq-uz-Zaman and one Zulfiqar. That, however, the complainant was discharged in the case during investigation. The said murder case was pending at the relevant time.

6. The immediate motive was also scribed. According to the complainant, on 9-2-1977 Noor Hussain respondent and Muhammad Ashraf co-accused had made an unsuccessful murderous assault on him and a case had been registered at Police Station Mandra.

7. Whereas, the defence version came to light through the statement of Iftikhar Hussain, the injured accused in this case. In answer to the question as to why this case had been made against him, he made the following reply:

"Actually on the day of incident in the evening when I was hoisting the flag of the independent candidate Malik Mehboob for the National Assembly seat of that area who was contesting the election against Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti mentioned above, as we were his supporters in front of the hotel of Qamar Zaman deceased. On that Qamar Zaman and Khaliq Dad deceased alongwith one Adalat alias Titi reached there and forced us not to hoist the flag but my companions Pervez and Aurangzeb, the real brothers inter se and sons of Muhammad Hussain my relatives and myself insisted to hoist the flag and refuted the suggestion of the deceased which infuriated them and they started abusing us upon which we also returned them abuses and as a result Adalat Hussain Titi who was having a .12 bore pistol and Qamar Zaman deceased who was having a pistol started firing at us on the exhortation of Khaliq Dad deceased. Qamar Zaman's fire hit my left leg fracturing my bone and felled me down on the ground. In the meanwhile Riaz and real brother of my companions alongwith his brother Fayyaz reached there and Riaz with his own licensed revolver started firing on the deceased and the fire shots hit Qamar Zaman, he fell down and at that time Khaliq Dad deceased tried to pick up the pistol of Qamar Zaman and apprehending further danger the above-named Riaz fired another fire shot and incidentally same hit Khaliq dad deceased. The entire action taken by the above-said Riaz was simply to save my life and lives of his real brothers at the hands of the deceased. None of the so-called eye-witnesses was present at the relevant time on the spot and I was taken into custody by the police to whom I had narrated these facts immediately but no proceedings were initiated against the complainant party for the reasons mentioned above. This high handedness was brought to the notice of higher authorities by my mother Mst. Maqbool Jan soon after the incident through telegram and petitions but all had gone in vain, due to the pressure of P.P.P. on the local administration, as the entire administration at the relevant time was a puppet in the hands of P.P.P. The police avoided to get me medically examined for some days and had been fabricating different versions in connivance with the complainant party and lastly finalized the version put forward before this Honourable Court which is false and frivolous and is the outcome of the so many brains of the then party in power. However, later on fortunately when I was released on interim bail to take my intermediate examination, I availed the opportunity and filed a complaint Exh.D.M. in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate who was entrusted with the enquiry by the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and after conducting a thorough enquiry the learned Ilaqa Magistrate was pleased to hold my version as prima facie correct and as a result summoned the accused in the said complaint. The order of the learned Magistrate in this behalf is Exh.D.O. When I was taken into custody from the spot on the relevant date the flag in question was also taken into possession by the police alongwith .12 bore pistol of Adalat Hussain alias Titi mentioned above but deliberately and maliciously destroyed the same later on."

8. It was also stated by him that his father Noor Hussain respondent was not present in the village on the day of the occurrence. While the case of rest of the respondents was one of denial. They also denied the recoveries and stated that they have been involved in this case because of enmity.

9. While Noor Hussain respondent had additionally advanced his plea of alibi stating that he had appeared before the Lahore High Court in his bail matter, seeking his pre-arrest bail on 17-2-1977 in a case registered under section 3b7, P.P.C. at the instance of the accused party and he was allowed bail on 18-2-1977. In this connection, he had produced Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Senior Advocate of Lahore, who supported his case of alibi and stated that on 17-2-1977 the respondent Noor Hussain was present with him until 11 a.m. in the High Court premises and was in his chamber until 2-30 p.m. the same day. That subsequently, on the same date, he again called on him at his chamber at about 6 p.m. on 17-2-1977. That he was present before the High Court on 18-2-1977 at 7-45 a.m. when he appeared before the Court of Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Gulbaz Khan. Reliance was placed on the order granting interim bail to the respondent which is Exh.D.L. on the file.

10. It was also the case of Altaf Hussain respondent that the case under section 307, P.P.C. (regarding immediate motive) had been manoeuvred for political reasons and had been later withdrawn.

11. Dr. Muhammad Sami Tariq (P.W.9) had medically examined Iftikhar Hussain respondent and he found the following two injuries, on his person:--

"(1) A circular lacerated wound of inlet with margins inwards and inside scorched and blackened = 1/3" all around with redish inflamed area of 1/6" around it. Wound measured 7-1/2" below the tibial tubersoity situated half inch lateral to the tibial and anterior border of the left lower leg. The wound measured " x ". The swollen area around the wound was 5/8" x 5/8".

(2) A wound of outlet with margins outwards " lower level of the inlet wound. There is also an area of redish inflamed zone 1/8" all around. The swollen area around is 1" x 1". There was no pus formation in the inlet or in outlet. These wounds were dressed before examination."

The more details are provided in his statement. The X-Ray Report prepared by him regarding these injuries is Exh.P.O./1, whereby the injury No.1 was declared to be the grievous.

12. Dr. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.16) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Raja Khaliq Dad deceased on 18-2-1977. The deceased was aged about 48 years. He found the following injuries on his person:--

"(1) A fire-arm wound of entry on left side back of chest upper part near the shoulder and 4" on its top. The wound was 1/3" diameter with burnt edges.

(2) A palpable deformed pistol bullet was present under the skin and subcutaneous tissues on right side of chest in the posterior acillary line which was dissected out.

(3) An abrasion " x " on left side of forehead."

More details about the condition of the body and the observations made are given in the statement of the doctor and need not be repeated here. Exh.P.Z. is the post-mortem report and Exh.P.Z./1 is the pictorial representation of the injuries.

13. Writing about the cause of death, the doctor observed that this was on account of severe shock and haemorrhage to the aorta, blood vessels of right lung and injuries of both lungs because of injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No.2 was also the result of fire-arm. While injury No.3 was because of blunt weapon. The death occurred immediately at the spot. More details about the opinion of the doctor are given in the statement of the doctor itself recorded before the trial Court.

14. Dr. Muhammad Siddique (P.W.16) also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Qamar Zaman at about 10-40 a.m. on the same day i.e. on 18-2-1977. He found the following injuries on his person:--

"(1) A fire-arm wound 1/3" diameter on left, side lower part of chest 5-3/4" from the left nipple and at 6'O Clock position.

(2) A fire-arm wound on right buttock lower outer part."

The cause of death was attributed to both these injuries and probable time between the injuries and the death was stated to be two hours.

15. After dissection, the doctor had observed as follows:--

"The 7th rib was found broken under injury No.1 and the peritonium and its blood vessels were also lacerated. A very deformed bullet was found living in the 3rd lumber vertebra which was dissected out. Under injury No.2, the muscles of the right buttock were lacerated and there was a hole in the left iliac crest and were a broken bullet was found lying deep on the left groin. Under injury No.1 the peritonium was full with blood and under injury No.2 the anterior surface of the urinary bladder and intestines were contused under the injuries. Rest of the organs of the body were healthy."

Exh. P.A.A. is the post-mortem report.

16. Besides the complainant, the other witnesses who appeared to support the prosecution- case were Ali Asghar (P.W.13), Mazhar (P.W.14).

17. Qazi Muhammad Hafiz-ud-Din (P.W.1) prepared the site plan, Exh.P.A. and its copy Exh.P.A./1 on the directions of the police and on the pointation of the P. Ws. while endorsing his notes on it in black ink. Muhammad Azam (P.W.2) took the dead body of Khaliq Dad to the mortuary. He also escorted the dead body of deceased Qamar Zaman for post-mortem examination and took over sealed phials and last-worn clothes of both the deceased vide memo. Exh.P.B. Niaz Ali, Muharrer (P.W.3) on the complaint Exh.P.C. sent by the Investigating Officer through Khadim Hussain Constable, recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.C:/1, verbatim. On 17-2-1977 he received three sealed parcels, two containing blood-stained earth and one containing crime-empties which he stored in the Malkhana for safe custody. It was stated by him that the complaint was received at the police station 5-25 p.m. when Khadim Hussain, constable, also brought a green flag but this was not taken as a case property. This witness was extensively cross-examined with respect to the irregularity which appeared in the Roznamcha Waqiati kept at the police station where he had not been incorporating the entries as is required under the rules including the F.I.R. in question and it appears that Roznamcha Waqiati had been completed subsequently and was not even in proper and prescribed form. Muhammad Fazal (P.W.6) took the sealed parcels containing blood-stained earth for onwards transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, at Lahore. While he took another sealed parcel for onwards transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Islamabad. According to him, as he could not locate the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad, he delivered all the parcels at the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. An objection was raised at Lahore and so he brought back the parcels 'for removing of the objection. The same happened with respect to the sealed parcels pertaining to the blood-stained earth, which he delivered back, to Ghulam Jilani, Muharrer. According to him, on 1-3-1977 he was again handed over two parcels containing blood-stained earth and a parcel containing empties by the Muharrer which he delivered on 2-3-1977 at the office of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and the Chemical Examiner. But once more objections were raised with respect to the parcels containing blood-stained earth which he brought back and after correction, returned to Lahore on the night of 3-3-1977. That 4-3-1977 was a holiday and on 5-3-1977 these were delivered at the office of the Chemical Examiner. This witness on 18-4-1977 also carried eight sealed parcels containing fire-arms which he deposited with the office of Forensic Science Laboratory at Lahore.

18. Liaqat Hussain (P.W.7) is a witness of the recovery of blood stained earth from the place where the dead body of Khaliq Dad was lying, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. He was also a witness of the recovery of blood-stained earth from the place where Qamar Zaman deceased had fallen in an injured state which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. According to him, police took into possession six bullet empties of .7 m.m. rifle (P.10 to P.15), one missed bullet of .7 m.m. rifle (P.16), five bullet empties of .32 bore (P.17 to P.21) and one missed bullet of .32 bore (P.22) which were lying scattered at the place of occurrence, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. This witness is also a recovery witness with respect to the revolver (P.23) which Altaf Hussain respondent got recovered from his house, and, was sealed into a parcel vide memo. Exh.P.H. He also witnessed the recovery effected from Aurangzeb accused, from whom .7 m.m. rifle of Tahir accused was recovered as this was entrusted to him. This rifle (P.24) was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.J. On the same day, Noor Hussain got recovered a revolver (P.25) from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K., attested by this witness. Khalid respondent while in police custody, also led to the recovery of revolver .32 bore (P.26) lying in his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. This witness signed all these memos. Sakhawat Hussain (P.W.8) identified the dead body of Qamar Zaman. He is also a witness of recovery of pistol from Banaras (P.27) from his house, taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.M., as well as from Ramzan accused of a revolver (P.28), recovered from his house and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.M.

19. Shaukat Hussain (P.W.10) is a witness of recovery of revolver (P.29), originally belonging to Aurangzeb accused and which had been exchanged with him for his rifle, taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.R. Muhammad Akbar (P.W.11) is a recovery witness of rifle .7 m.m. (P.30) from Iftikhar respondent which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.S.

20. Saleem Akhtar (P.W.15) who was the Investigating Officer, recorded the complaint, Exh.P.C., on the statement of Muhammad Fazil, whom he had met at Bus Stop of Mandra. He went to the spot, prepared the injury statement of Qamar Zaman, Exh.P.F., and sent him for his medical examination to the Civil hospital at Gujjar Khan. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Khaliq Dad deceased (Exh.P.U.) and his injury statement (Exh.P.V.). He picked the blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence where the dead body was lying vide memo. Exh.P.E. and from the place where Qamar Zaman was injured (Exh.P.F.). He inspected the place of occurrence and discovered six bullet empties of .7 m. m. rifle (P.10 to P.15), one missed bullet of .7 m.m. rifle (P.16), five bullet empties of .31 bore (P.17 to P.21) and a missed bullet of .32 bore (P.22), which he took into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. He arrested Muhammad Banaras and Tahir accused the same day. He then proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Rawalpindi, after knowing about the death of Qamar Zaman and entrusted the dead body of Khaliq Dad for post-mortem examination. In the hospital, he prepared the injury statement, Exh. P. W. of the dead body of Qamar Zaman and inquest report, Exh.P.X., and received the last-worn clothes of both the deceased from his constable.

21. On 20-2-1977 he arrested Iftikhar accused alongwith a .7 m.m. rifle which he was carrying, and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.S. As Iftikhar Ahmad was in an injured state, he prepared his injury statement, Exh.P.Y., and sent him to the Civil Hospital, Gujjar Khan for medical examination and received his blood-stained Shalwar the same day.

22. On 3-3-1977 he effected recovery from Muhammad Banaras of pistol (P.27). On 9-3-1977 he arrested Altaf Hussain, Ali Muhammad and Khalid accused in this case. On 16-3-1977 he arrested Noor Hussain after rejection of his bail by the High Court. On 22-3-1977 he effected the recoveries of weapons from Altaf Hussain, Aurangzeb, Khalid, Noor Hussain. On 23-3-1977 he effected recovery from Ramzan accused. He got the site plans Exh.P.A. and Exh.P.A./1 prepared while he wrote his notes in red ink and deposited all the sealed parcels with the Muharrer Malkhana for safe custody.

23. The learned trial Court disbelieved the story of the motive, the factum of recoveries, the statement of toe ocular witnesses and held that the ocular evidence was in conflict with the medical evidence and acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish its own case which was based on the aforementioned categories.

24. The motive part of the story was disbelieved by the trial Court because it was said that the earlier murder had taken place in 1974 and this could not have been the cause of occurrence. The learned trial Court had also discarded the theory of immediate motive about the occurrence of 9-2-1977 alleged by Muhammad Fazil complainant of murderous assault at the hands of Noor Hussain and Muhammad Ashraf accused in this case, on the ground that the F.I.R. had not been brought on the file. Whereas, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., Iftikhar had admitted that a case under section 307, P.P.C. had been registered although he had an explanation to offer. The factum about the earlier motive is also not denied and it has come on record that the trial in the murder case of Gul Hassan had yet to commence. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the case of Gul Hassan is reported as 1988 SCMR 1143 and this information was provided by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned trial Court's view that if this motive was still in the minds of the assailants then why did not they attack earlier, is merely conjectural. This may have remained dormant hitherto. When the feelings because of the previous motive of 1974 murder erupted. And these could erupt depending on the circumstances. The past occurrence was also only three years old and the trial was pending. The trial Court was required to be imaginative and dynamic in its thinking about the motive. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the case of Shahzado v. The State and others PLD 1977 SC 413.

25. The ocular evidence was disbelieved because it was said that the prosecution witnesses were inimically deposing towards the accused. That may be so but in cases like the present one where two deaths have taken place, the factum of enmity will not be enough for brushing aside the ocular evidence merely on the ground of enmity unless there were strong grounds for believing substitution. The defence in this case has provided an alternate version that Riaz and his brother Fiaz related to the accused, had fired and killed the deceased. Riaz or Fiaz have never been produced although they were available to the defence for substantiating their theory. Riaz and Fiaz even otherwise were not friends of the complainant side in this case and therefore, the plea that they have been substituted for the present respondents, does not sound cogent nor appealing to the mind.

26. We have also not to forget that the place of occurrence was close to the police station and according to the Investigating Officer, on hearing reports of fire, he himself was attracted to the place of occurrence. This was a busy thoroughfare diminishing all chances in such a day time murder of substitution. The learned trial Court had been finding faults with prosecution case against infirmities which were not so gross. But while the story of the prosecution was disbelieved, the trial Court under the circumstances of the case and the two versions failed to develop its own story, rather it became just mechanical in acquitting all the respondents by brushing aside one category of evidence or the other instead of placing all the facts together and coming to a conclusion which was coherent and logical. For instance, in the case of venue of occurrence and picking up of the blood-stained earth, different standards were used for belying the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

27. A lot of emphasis was, laid with respect to the non-maintenance of the Roznamcha by the Muharrer and on this basis, it was presumed that the F.I.R. may have been delayed. Such an irregularity was over emphasized in this connection. Even with respect to recoveries, the trial Court was never clear on the point that the objections which were raised by the recipient offices and were later removed by the Mandra Police because of which the parcels were returned several times, was no ground for disbelieving the recoveries particularly when the parcels containing empties had been initially sent on 25-2-1977 which was before the arrest of the accused and recoveries of weapons from them in accordance with the dates mentioned hereinabove except for injured accused Iftikhar. And mere return of the empties for removing of objections did not make the recoveries doubtful.

28. The learned trial Court laid a lot of emphasis on the question of distance as given in the inspection note and the site plan while keeping in view the injury suffered by Khaliq Dad because the doctor while describing injury No.1 stated that it had burnt edges in this connection. Whereas we find no question on this aspect asked from the Dr. Muhammad Siddique. However, following answer came from the Investigating Officer (P.W.15):--

"I have not mentioned in the inspection note that any bullet marks were seen on the door of Baithak of Qamar Zaman deceased. I have not mentioned the presence of any cot at the place of occurrence in my inspection note. In the inspection note the place where Iftikhar accused was injured has not been pointed out. According to the inspection note all the accused are stated to have fired while standing at a distance of five and half Karams from the deceased. In the site plan, Exh.P.A. I have mentioned in my notes that all the accused had fired while standing at one point which is point No.3. According to the site plan Faazal P.W. was standing at point `B' at the time of occurrence. The said point 'B' where Faazal P.W. was standing during the occurrence is about 8 feet away from Verandah of the Baithak of Qama- Zaman deceased. Exh.D.H. is the correct copy of inspection note recorded by me."

29. Anyway, there was no such question with respect to the injuries suffered by Qamar Zaman. One can see that the Investigating Officer was not working meticulously or with care. This may be a deliberate act or may be on account of his inadvertence. His working style was evident from the evidence regarding the way the Roznamcha was being maintained and the way he has been preparing the recovery memos. and the way he omitted the facts like the availability of the empties scattered at the spot. We have to, therefore, carefully view the entire case and its circumstances for arriving at a decision instead of picking up such infirmities which under the circumstances alone are not fatal to the case nor can a case be left as a hostage and at the mercy of careless and often unscrupulous police officials. The Courts on account of their rich experiences and skills are required to discover the truth within the periphery of facts before them and keeping in view the probabilities, and while using the immense powers provided by law whether substantive or procedural, Courts should not allow the incompleteness of an episode to be an impediment in the way from drawing proper inferences from evidence or circumstances. Reliance may be placed on the cases of (1) Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others PLD 1962 SC 502, (2) Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 1994 SCMR 1733, (3) Ahmad Khan v. Nazir Ahmad and others 1999 SCMR 803 and (4) Shamshad v. The State PLD 1963 SC 740. The Courts have not to act mechanically nor to conduct a trial in a mechanical way and to pronounce a judgment in a mechanical process. A judgment cannot be illuminative until it is also fact finding and is focusing on materials on which truth can be based. And the Courts should also not be hesitant in using the tools of procedure for discoveries as these tools are meant to be used. We are in disagreement with the trial Court and the manner in which it had discarded all the evidence as if it was an arithmetical proposition rather than an occurrence involving human being.

30. We are, therefore, of the view that an occurrence did take place. That the story that the actual assailants have been left out and the respondents have been substituted, is not believable. That the matter was reported to the police with promptitude in view of the fact that the place of occurrence was not far away from the police station. This was a day time occurrence. Iftikhar accused was injured during the occurrence. That the motive part of the story is not totally incorrect. That the immediate occurrence may have taken place at the spur of the moment because of some happening which may be on account of hoisting of the flag and without there being any premeditation for this occurrence although the parties were inimical and the previous motive was the nostalgia.

31. The alibi story of Noor Hussain is also believable by this Court amongst the probabilities. This has been his consistent stand and we feel that the learned trial Court could have acquitted him believing his plea of alibi and we maintain that decision.

32. Admittedly, Khalid respondent had a strong motive against the complainant side as Gul Hassan was his father and we also find that Iftikhar respondent was injured during the occurrence. The presence of both these respondents, therefore, at the spot at the relevant time and their participation in the occurrence is established beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, convict them under section 302, P.P.C. and sentence them to life imprisonment each and to fine of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) each or in lieu thereof, to suffer one year simple imprisonment each. The fine if recovered shall be paid as compensation equally to the legal heirs of the two deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B is also given to them.

33. The appeal, therefore, to the extent of Iftikhar and Khalid is accepted, whilst against Noor Hussain and Altaf Hussain it is dismissed. Iftikhar and Khalid respondents are on bail. They be taken into custody so that they suffer the imprisonment. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi for their arrest.

N.H.Q./S-314/L Order accordingly.