' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, Actg. C J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of listed-petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3rd October, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1944 and 1946 of 2000.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case in both petitions are that on 20th July, 1996 complainant lodged F.I.R. No,148 with Police Station Ahmad Nagar, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, reporting therein that Ghulam Abbas (petitioner in Cr.P. 752-L/2003) son of Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Inayat son of Sardar, Lal Khan son of Hakim Khan, Shafqat Ali son of Riasat Ali (petitioner in Cr.P. 752-L/2003) had committed the murder of his son Farhat Abbas as he was hurdle in notorious activities of the accused party. Prior to this occurrence Muhammad Arif Naru and Ghulam Abbas etc. Had committed the murder of a person in Mauza Kot Ratta but the case was registered against Rehmat Lumberdar etc. Resident of Kot Ratta. Farhat Abbas, his son used to support Rehmat Lumberdar. Apart from this reason, the accused were also having enmity against him as the accused had moved an application to Authority for the termination of his services as teacher. The accused by hook and crook wanted to take the life of Farhat Abbas and remained busy to make plan for the same as such they made a plan for the murder of Farhat Abbas, his son at the dera of Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Khan. According to said plan on 20th July, 1996 at 7.00 a.m. Sajid Iqbal alias Pappu who also joined the conspiracy of the accused and he also showed him as a friend of Farhat Abbas, upon the instigation of Ghulam Abbas, etc. Called Farhat Abbas from his house. Muhammad Akhtar son of Muhammad Malik,Muhammad Asif son of Ghulam Ali informed the complainant about the plan of murder of Farhat Abbas made by Ghulam Abbas etc. He made suspicion that Sajid Iqbal alias Pappu took Farhat Abbas as per conspiracy of murder of Farhat Abbas,. Complainant immediately along with his son Tahir Abbas and his nephew Ahmed Nawaz, Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Asif chased the Car No, 2112/RIP of Farhat Abbas. When they reached near the Dera of one Pervaiz situated at village Thathi Baloch, they saw that Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Khan accused armed with gun, Shafqat Ali son of Riasat Ali accused armed with gun and two unknown persons armed with rifles emerged at the road. Farhat Abbas stopped his car. Sajid Iqbal alias Pappu accused who caught hold carbine in his hand got alighted Farhat Abbas from the car at carbine point. Ghulam Abbas accused fired with his gun hitting Farhat Abbas on left thigh. Shafqat Ali accused made second fire hitting him on the right knee, Sajid Iqbal alias Pappu accused fired with his carbine at Farhat Abbas hitting him on left knee, Ghulam Abbas, Shafqat Ali, Sajid Iqbal alias Pappu accused and two unknown persons also fired with their respective weapons at Farhat Abbas. Due to fear they did not come near Farhat Abbas and the accused persons after making firing in the air went away. The occurrence was witnessed by him and his companions. Tahir Abbas, Asif Akhtar and Ahmad Nawaz remained present near the dead body of Farhat Abbas and the complainant himself went to police station for registration of case.
3. After registration of the case, investigation commenced and petitioners along with other co- accused were arrested and tried under sections 302/148/149 PPC for committing the Qatl-e-Amd of Farhat Abbas deceased. Since the accused did not plead guilty to the charge read over to them and claimed trial, therefore, prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses to substantiate accusation against them. The statements of the accused under section 342 Cr. P. C. Were also recorded, however, they did not opt to make statement on oath under section 340(2) Cr. P. C. On completion of trial, learned trial Court, after evaluating the prosecution evidence and having gone through the available record, vide judgment dated (sic) convicted/sentenced the petitioners as under:--
1. Under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C.
' Sentenced to imprisonmert for life as Ta'zir, with direction to pay Rs,25,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further undergo six months R.I. Each.
2. Under section 148, P.P.C.
' Sentenced to one year R.I. Each and to pay fine of Rs,50,000 each and in default whereof to further undergo six months' R.I. Each.
' Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to them.
4. Feeling aggrieved from their conviction/sentence, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeals before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which have been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petitions for leave to appeal have been filed.
5. It may be noted that on 25th August, 2004, the case was sent to the learned Trial Court to record compromise arrived at between the parties in terms of section 338-E, P.P.C. And dispose of the same in accordance with law, after conducting necessary inquiry, but subsequently an application was moved that compromise has been effected in between petitioner Shafqat Ali and the legal heirs of deceased Farhat Abbas. So far as accused-petitioner Ghulam Abbas and others namely Sajid Abbas alias Pappu son of Ghulam Abbas, Abid Iqbal son of Allah Ditta and Fayyas Ahmed son of Inayatullah are concerned, no compromise has been effected by the legal heirs of deceased Fahat Abbas with them. Thus by passing order dated 2nd September, 2004, both the petitions were ordered to be re-fixed for hearing.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that learned Triat Court had disbelieved the evidence furnished by P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman, regarding conspiracy allegedly hatched by the petitioners to murder Farhat Abbas, therefore, if the portion of story of conspiracy is disbelieved then the evidence furnished by P.Ws. Tahir Abbas and Muhammad Asif, relating to happening of the incident becomes doubtful. He further added that the learned High Court failed to attend to this aspect of the case.
7. It may be noted that in this case complainant Ghulam Abbas, lodged the report being father of deceased but he could not be examined on account of his death during pendency of the case, however, in the FIR he nominated two P.Ws. Tahir Abbas and Muhammad Asif to be the eye- witnesses of the incident along with another person namely Muhammad Akhtar Zaman being the witness of incident not of the conspiracy. Out of them P.W.Tahir Abbas had furnished the ocular account of the incident, whereas P.W. Muhammad Asif besides giving the evidence has also attempted to prove the conspiracy along with P.W. Muhammad Akhtar Zaman Learned Trial Court did not discard the evidence of P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman on the question of conspiracy, stamping them being false witnesses but in view of their conduct held that they owed duty to inform the complainant and the deceased Farhat Abbas that petitioners/convict wanted to take the life of Farhat Abbas deceased. Learned High Court did not interfere in the judgment of the Trial Court, which would mean that whatever evidence was furnishsed to establish conspiracy by P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman, that also was not believed but so far as the testimony of the P.W. Tahir Abbas, brother of the deceased, is concerned, it was accepted, both by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. Similarly, except the portion of hatching conspiracy, of the statements of P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman, their testimony has been accepted to be correct.
8. It is well-settled principle of administration of justice in criminal cakes that if a witness has furnished wholly reliable evidence, it is bound to be accepted even without corroboration, whereas halfly reliable evidence needs strong corroboration for its acceptance. Admittedly, as it has been noted herein above that the statement of P.W. Tahir Abbas has been accepted as a whole in respect of happening of the incident, whereas the statements of P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman have also not been disbelieved by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, for it relates to actual incident, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel has no force that on disbelieving the evidence furnished by P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman, on the point of hatching conspiracy, the whole story can be disbelieved.
9. It may further be added that for the safe administration of justice in criminal cases, the principle of sifting grains from the chaff, is consistently being followed in our judicial system. Thus statement of P.W. Tahir Abbas being wholly reliable had furnished strong corroboration to the evidence given by P.Ws. Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman, which has become halfly reliable, after not accepting their version, so far as hatching conspiracy is concerned.
10. It may be noted that ocular account furnished by P.Ws. Tahir Abbas Muhammad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman gets corroboration from the medical evidence produced by P.W. Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Akram Gondal. Learned counsel contended that there is contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence but he could not point out any major contradiction, sufficient to disbelieve the ocular testimony furnished by P.Ws Tahir Abbas, Muhamad Asif and Muhammad Akhtar Zaman and consequently holding that they were not present at the place of incident. It may be noted that as far as medical evidence or expert's opinion is concerned, it is always treated to be confirmatory in nature and if there is ocular account fully reliable in support of incident, then the minor contradictions in medical and ocular evidence can be outweighed. In this behalf we are fortified with the judgment in the case of Muhammad Hanif v. The State (PLD 1993 SC 895).
11. We have scanned the evidence thoroughly in the interest of justice and on the basis whereof conclude that prosecution has successfully established guilt against the convict/petitioners.
12. Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that although instant petitions are being dismissed but as far as the convict Shafqat Ali is concerned, with whom legal heirs of deceased Farhat Abbas have entered into compromise, he may approach the learned Trial Court for acceptance of the same under section 338-E, P.P.C., as it has been observed in Safdar Ali v. State (PLD 1991 SC 202).
' Thus in view of above discussion, both the petitions are dismissed being without substance. Leave declined.