1. SAMAD AHMAD, J.-The appellant, Abbas was tried, along with his cousins, Muhammad Shall, Habib and Jawahar, for causing the murder of one, Kamal, and his son, Abdur Rahman, under section 3,12/34, P. P. C. (two counts), and for attempting on the life of another son of Kamal, namely, P. W.
2. Muhammad Hussain. The trial Judge convicted them and sentenced the first two to death and the other two, each to transportation for life on the murder counts. He also convicted all of them under section 307/34, P. P. C. For attempting to kill P. W. Muhammad Hussain, for which Muhammad Shall was sentenced to 5 years' R. I. And the rest to 7 years' R. I. Each. On appeal and reference in the High Court, all the accused were acquitted of the charge under section 307/34, P. P. C. Habib and Jawahar were also acquitted of the murder charges, but the conviction, and sentences of the appellant and Muhammad Shafi on both the counts of the murder charge were upheld, and their sentences of death were confirmed.
3. The occurrence took place on the night between the 23rd and 24th of November 1966. It was alleged that at first the accused went to the well at Chah Miluwala of P. W. Muhammad Hussain, and assaulted him. After that, they repaired to his house in Basti Dohranwali, about 2 squares away from the Chah, where they fired Shot$ at the two deceased persons, namely Kamal and Abdur Rahman, killing them on the spot. The alleged motive for the crime was that the appellant had illicit relations with Mst. Bakhtawar, a daughter of Kamal, deceased, and similarly, Muhammad Shafi had illicit connections with Mst. Nur Mai, another daughter of Kamal, which was naturally resented by Kama] and his relations, leading to bitterness between the parties. The account of the assault on Muhammad Hussain was given at the trial by P. W. Muhammad Hussain himself and P. Ws. Ghulam Hussain and Murad. They were disbelieved by the learned Judges of the High Court. The firing at the two deceased persons was witnessed by P. Ws. Mst. Anwar Khatoon and Mst. Shah Khatoon, both of whom were inmates of the house, where the murders had taken place. The learned Judges of the High Court have believed their testimony in spite of its interested character, and found that it was corroborated by the oral dying declaration of Abdur Rahman, deceased, as deposed to by P.
4. W. Nur Hussain, and also by the recovery of two guns respectively from Muhammad Shall and the present appellant.
5. Both Muhammad Shafi and the appellant had come up to this Court for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences. This Court, vide its order dated the 25th of February 1970, disallowed the prayer of Muhammad Shafi, but leave was granted to Abbas, the present, appellant, in the following terms :- "We consider that while the corroborative evidence of the recovery of the- gun from Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, with the matching empties, which are satisfactorily established, is strong and sufficient to- support the ocular evidence against Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, the second gun (No. 72) and the corresponding matching empties allegedly used by Abbas, petitioner, have nor been satisfactorily traced to him. Muhammad Asbraf, from whom this gun was borrowed by Abbas, petitioner, on the pretext of shooting pigeons, was not produced at the trial. The evidence of borrowing of the gun was supplied by one, Hussain Bakhsh, P. W. 12, the admissibility of which is of a doubtful nature."
6. The two lady witnesses, Mst. Shah Khatoon and Mst. Anwar Khatoon, who are wife and daughter-in- law of Kamal, deceased, respectively, were natural witnesses of the occurrence. According to their testimony, two guns were used in this crime, one by the appellant and the other by Muhammad Shafi. This finds support from the fact that the gun recovered from Muhammad Shafi as well as the one produced by Muhammad Ashraf, which, accord--ing to the prosecution case, was borrowed from him by the appellant and used in this crime, were found by the Ballistics Expert to match with the empties, which were recovered from the spot. Muhammad Ashraf was given up at the trial by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that he had been won over. Hussain Bakhsh, P. W. 12, bad seen Abbas borrowing the gun of Muhammad Ashraf on the day preceding the night of occurrence for shooting pigeons. His evidence, which was direct and primary and admissible under the law, so far as the borrowing of the gun by the appellant from Muhammad Ashraf is concerned, has been believed by the Courts below, and we do not see any valid reason to take a contrary view.
7. Muhammad Ashraf was separately prosecuted under section 21 of the Arms Act for ' lending his licensed gun to the appellant, and for his own interest as well as that of the appellant, he could not have been relied upon by the prosecution to make a favourable statement to the prosecution case. He was, therefore, rightly abandoned by the prosecution.
8. We consider that the firing of the gun by the appellant at the time of the occurrence on the victims, as alleged by the eye--witnesses, is sufficiently corroborated by the recovery of the gun and the empties, which were fired from this gun by the appellant, as alleged by the P. Ws. The other piece of corroborative evidence, viz. The oral dying declaration of Abdur Rahman, deceased, deposed to by P. W. Nur Hussain, which has been accepted by the High Court, lends further strength to the prosecution case.
9. We consider that the guilt of the appellant is satisfactorily established, and no case is made out for our interference. The appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.