'HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Ashiq, the appellants, were tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, District Sialkot, in case F.I.R.
No,316/1998, dated 26-9-1998, registered with Police Station Mautra, Tehsil Daska, for offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. After the conclusion of the trial, the said learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of murdering Muhammad Mansha, Aman Ullah, Saqab Rafique and Muhammad Saleem. Consequently, each of the appellants was convicted and sentenced to the rope under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. On four counts, vide judgment dated 24-2-2003. Under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The appellants were ordered to pay compensation of Rs,300,000 to the legal heirs of each of the deceased, in equal share or in default of payment thereof, they were ordered to undergo six months S.I. Each.
2. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned trial Court, the appellants challenged their conviction and sentence by filing the instant Cr. Appeal, whereas the learned trial Court sent a Reference (M.R.No,88/2003) for the confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to each of the appellants. This consolidated judgment will dispose of both the aforesaid matters.
3. Succinctly, the prosecution's story, as narrated by the complainant-Farrukh Rafique Butt (P.W.10) through his statement (Exh.P.M.), which later on culminated into F.I.R. (Exh.P.M.1), was/is to the effect that on 26-9-1998 at about 7-45 p.m. The complainant along with Muhammad Rafique and Liaquat Ali were talking to each other, while sitting at Chowk Shahabwali under a tree; the electric bulbs were on; Muhammad Mansha, Amanullah and Saqib Rafique (deceased) were also having a chat, while sitting together aside, whereas Muhammad Saleem (deceased) was sitting with the complainant; in the meanwhile, Muhammad Shafiqae, (P.O.) armed with Klashnikov along with Muhammad Akram, armed with rifle.44 bore, Ashiq Musalli, and Master Muhammad Nawaz, both the armed with 222-rifles respectively, emerged from Mochianwali street. Muhammad Akramappellant bawled out, that he prepared, they had come; thereafter, the appellants opened fire. They firstly targeted Muhammad Mansha, Amanullah and Saqib Rafique, who were sitting on a wall; Mansha and Amanullah were shot at by all the four accused; Saqib Rafique (deceased)immediately rushed towards the complainant party, and then fell down; thereafter all the accused shot at Muhammad Salem and Saqib Rafique as a result of which both bled to death instantly; then the Appellants returned to Mansha and Amanullah who were lying injured and opened fire upon them, who after receiving bullet wounds succumbed to their injuries at the spot, thereafter, all the four accused fled from the spot through the passage wherefrom they had come.
'The motivating factor behind the occurrence is stated to be that the land of one Rehmat (deceased) was being cultivated by the complainant party since long. Muhammad Akram and Master Muhammad Nawaz, the appellants, had been forbidding the complainant party persistently from doing so. About 20 days before the occurrence Master Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Akram, the appellants had warned the complainant party that they would never let them cultivate the said land, they vowed that to achieve their goal they could commit as many murders as needed. However, despite the said threat the complainant and Muhammad Mansha (deceased) did not let the appellants cultivate the said land, consequently they nurtured a grudge against the complainant party, and in this backdrop they mowed down four people.
4. After completing the investigation, the I.O. Found the appellants guilty and challaned them to face the trial.
5. During the trial, the prosecution, in the support of its case, produced as many as 17-witnesses out of whom Farrukh Rafique Butt-complainant appeared as P. W.10 and furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Liaquat All and Muhammad Rafique entered the witness box as P.W.11 and P.W.15, respectively and corroborated the complainant's version. Muhammad Rafi, S.-I. Who besides recording the statement of the complainant, had investigated the case, appeared in the witness box as P.W.17 and provided the detail of the investigation conducted by him. Dr. Muhammad Asif Mughal, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Amanullah (deceased), came forward as P.W.1 and furnished the detail of injuries observed by him on the corpse of the deceased, as under:-
(1) A firearm lacerated wound 2x2 cm. Obliquely x cranial cavity deep on the occipital area of head.
Margins were inverted. Slight blackening was present around the wound i.e. Wound of entry.
(2) A fire-arm lacerated wound 6 x 3 cm. Obliquely on the left side of neck at the upper most part.
Margins were everted (Wound of exit).
(3) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm. With inverted margins. Slight blackening was present around the wound on the outer aspect of left upper arm in upper most part. (Wound of entry).
(4) A fire-arm lacerated wound 5 x 4 cm. Obliquely on the left shoulder girdle. Margins were everted (Wound of exit).
(5) A fire-arm lacerated wound 3 x 1-1/2 cm. x bone deep obliquely on the back of left fore-arm, upper most part. Margins were inverted and slight blackening was present around the wound.
(Wound of entry),
(6) A fire-arm lacerated wound 7 x 4 cm. Obliquely on the back of left upper arm, in middle.
Margins were everted. (Wound of exit)
(7) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm. Chest cavity deep on the back of left middle chest in middle. Margins were inverted. And slight blackening was present around the wound (Wound of entry).
(8) A fire-arm lacerated wound 2x2 cm. Cavity deep on the outer aspect of left chest in middle.
Margins were everted (Wound of exit).
(9) A fire-arm grazing wound 4x2 cm. Transversely on the outer aspect of left thigh in middle.
Margins were inverted and blackening was present around the wound. Nothing with the underlying structures.
(10) A fire-arm grazing wound 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 cm. Obliquely on the outer aspect of right leg in the lower part. Margins were inverted and slight blackening was also present. Nothing with the underlying structure.
'In his opinion, death had occurred due to injury Nos.l and 7 that was direct trauma to the vital organ, i.e. Brain mater with its major blood supply and lung (left lungs with its major blood supply) that led to excessive haemorrhage (internal and external) shock and ultimately death in an ordinary course of nature.
'Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Muhammad Mansha (deceased), came forward as P.W.2 and furnished the detail of injuries observed by him on the corpse of the deceased, as under:
(1) A fire-arm -arm lacerated wound 3/4 x 3/4 cm. Inverted margins, obliquely directed, on outer aspect of right upper arm, upper part.
(2) A fire-arm lacerated wound 2-1/2 x 1 cm. Muscle deep, everted margins, obliquely directed on front of right upper arm, 6 cm. Medical from injury No,l. This was exit of injury No,l.
(3) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm. Inverted margins, chest cavity deep obliquely directed on back of right side of chest in lower part, 4 cm. Right from mid-line.
(4) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 cm. Everted margins, chest cavity deep obliquely directed on back of left side of chest in lower part, 14 cm. Left from mid-line, exit of injury No,3.
'In his opinion, injuries Nos.3 and 4 were fatal. They produced massive trauma to the vital organs, e.g. Right and left lungs and liver, leading to massive internal and external haemorrhage, shock and death.
'Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed (P.W.2) also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Salim and observed the following injuries on it:
(1) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm bone deep, inverted margins obliquely directed on front of right side of chin close the midline.
(2) A fire-arm lacerated wound 11/2 x 1/2 cm. Bone deep everted margins obliquely directed on under surface of chin on right side (Exit of injury No,l).
(3) A fire-arm lacerated wound 2x1 cm. Bone deep obliquely directed with inverted margins on front of right side of neck in upper part, 1-1/2 cm. Above and right side from prominence of adam's apple.
(4) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 cm. Bone deep obliquely directed everted margins on lower most part of back of neck in middle. This was exit of injury No,3.
'In his opinion, the fire-arm injury caused extensive trauma to the neck, soft tissues, vessels and cervical vertebra, which produced massive external haemorrhage, shock leading to cardiorespiratory failure and death.
'Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, who had conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of Saqib Rafique (deceased), stepped forward as P.W.7 and furnished the detail of injuries observed by him on the corpse of the deceased, as under:
(1) A fire-arm grazing wound 7 x 1-1/2 cm. Oblique in direction, on outer aspect of right chest, in lower most part. Blackening of edges was present.
(3) A fire-arm lacerated wound 2-1/2 x 1-1/2 c.m. X D.N.P. On right iliac fossa. Edges of wound were everted.
(4) A fire-arm lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/2 cm. X D.N.P. On medial aspect of left thigh in lower part.
Margin of wound were inverted and blackening on edges was present.
(5) A fire-arm lacerated wound 2x1 cm. X D.N.P. On outer aspect of left thigh in lower part. Margins of wound were everted.
(6) A fire-arm lacerated wound 3/4 x 1/2 cm. X D.N.P. On poster lateral aspect of right thigh in middle. Margins of wound were inverted and blackening of edges was present.
(7) A fire-arm lacerated wound 2-1/2 x 1 c.m. D.N.P. On front of right thigh in upper most part.
Margins of wound were everted.
'In his opinion injury No,2 was fatal. The cause of death was extensive internal haemorrhage leading to shock and death.
'P.Ws Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Rafique, were given up by the prosecution, as being unnecessary. Rest of the witnesses being formal in nature need not be discussed here.
6. Learned D.D.A, after tendering into evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh. PEE) and that of Serologist (Exh.PFF), closed the prosecution's evidence.
7. The appellants made their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. While responding to question No,5, Muhammad Akram, the appellant stated as under: "The case against me is false one. I am innocent. I have been involved just due to suspicion as the occurrence was un-seen and took place in the darkness of night. The witnesses are interested witnesses. I have been declared innocent by all the investigating agencies. Moreover, Farrukh Rafique and Muhammad Rafique P.Ws deposed in my favour at the time of disposal of bail petition before worthy Sessions Judge, Sialkot. After that the complainant party wanted to grab money by black-mailing me which was not accepted by us so they have appeared as witnesses against the true story just to get their goal."
'While responding to similar question, Muhammad Nawaz and Ashiq Hussain, the appellants, toed the line of Muhammad Akram, the appellant.
8. The appellants opted to produce their defence evidence but they did not opt to appear as their own witnesses under section 340 (2), Cr.P.C.
9. After recording the statement of the appellants, Tahir Maqsood, DSP Pasrur entered in the witness box as C.W.1. According to him, during his investigation all the appellants were found to be innocent. Sh. Bashir Ahmed appeared as C.W.2. His statement being insignificant is not worth mentioning. Ch. Ashiq Hussain Gondal, Advocate appeared as D.W.l and deposed that about one year ago, he had scribed an application and an affidavit on the asking of Muhammad Rafique, most probably in connection with some murder case.
10. After the conclusion of the trial, all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to death as mentioned above.
11. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellants has contended that despite the fact the prosecution has miserably failed to prove it case against the appellants to the hilt the learned trial Court handed down the death sentence to all the appellants while convicting them under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. In order to expound the said contention learned counsel for the appellants has contended that admittedly the statement of the complainant, which culminated into the F.I.R.
Was recorded at the spot, a fact which, according to the learned counsel, shows that the legal machinery was put into motion after due consultations and deliberations; that the said fact alone makes the prosecution version doubtful; that from the record it has been established that the dead-bodies were sent for their postmortem examination with a considerable delay, rather on the second day of the occurrence and the said fact further reveals that the complainant (Exh.P.M.) was recorded after due deliberations and consultations; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motivating factor behind the occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R.; that on the point of motive all the witnesses made contradictory statements, therefore, the prosecution's story qua motivating factor behind the occurrence is liable to be discarded; that it was an unseen occurrence, which took place in the dark hours of the night; that neither in the site plan prepared by Arif Hussain, Draftman (P.W.16) nor in the inspection notes prepared by the investigating officer any source of light was shown at or around the place of murder; that during the trial the said fact was duly admitted by the investigating officer as well as Arif Hussain (P.W.16) who while appearing in the witness box candidly conceded to the suggestion that at the time of preparation of the site plan no source of light was pointed out to him; that the medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular account, inasmuch as there was slight blackening on and around the injuries suffered by Amanullah one of the deceased whereas Muhammad Mansha another deceased whose dead- body at the time of its recovery was lying nearby the dead body of Amanullah-deceased did not suffer such like injury; that on the point of distance from where all the deceased were shot at, all the eye-witnesses contradicted each other; that before the commencement of the trial Farrukh Latif-complainant (P. W.10) and Muhammad Rafique (P,W.13) another eye-witness had sworn affidavits Exhs.D.A and D.B. Exonerating the appellants from the charge of the murder; that the said affidavits were duly proved on the record and during the trial, both the said eyewitnesses could not deny the execution of the said affidavits; that according to the contents of the said affidavits there was pitch darkness at the time and the place of occurrence, and the appellants were reported against on the basis of a Lalicara raised by Shafique, the proclaimed offender, who after naming all the appellants individually had asked them to return as the job had been accomplished; that though Farrukh Latif-complainant while appearing in the witness box claimed that he had sworn the said affidavit under enormous pressure, but no such claim was put forward by Muhammad Rafique the other eye-witness; that in view of the said affidavits no reliance can be placed on the statements of such like witnesses who change their stance, as and when required so; that during the investigation all the appellants were found innocent; a fact which was duly supported by Sh.
Bashir Ahmed, D.S.P. (C.W.2) and Talib Masood, D.S.P. (C.W.1); that in view of the said discrepant evidence the appellants cannot be hanged and that all the eyewitnesses are chance-witnesses, therefore, their testimony is liable to be discarded on this score as well.
12. Conversely, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the appeal vehemently by submitting that the blood-curdling occurrence was reported to the police quite promptly; that since in this case four innocent people were gunned down right in the heart of the village, therefore, naturally, someone abruptly and incidentally brought the said occurrence into notice of the police, which reached at the place of occurrence within one and a quarter hour of the occurrence; that since in this case four people were mowed down in a very shocking manner, therefore, the grief and shock-stricken kith and kin of all the four deceased were not expected to leave the place of occurrence so horriedly to report the matter to the police, and before they could come out from the spell of shock, the police reached there was recorded the statement of Farrukh Latif at the spot, a fact which clearly and out-rightly contradicts the defence version that Farrukh Latif was a chance witness; that though in this case four people were lynched yet the complainant party did not try to throw the net wide and only implicated four people, who, in fact had caused the murder of four people; that the said fact along contradicts the defence version that the F.1.R. Was lodged after due consultations and deliberations; that the motive in this case has been proved to the hilt, similarly, the ocular evidence provided by the witnesses is fully reliable; that though the affidavits were executed by two of the eye-witnesses but the reason for swearing of the said affidavits has been explained by the eye-witnesses, who duly claimed that the said affidavits were procured by the appellants under enormous pressure built up by all the influential people including the politicians of the area, the names of whom have duly been mentioned in the said affidavits; that the complainant party belongs to a poor and down trodden family, who earn their bread and butter while working as labourers, whereas the appellants belong to very influential and wealthy families, this was the reason that all the local politicians and influential people pressed the said eyewitnesses hard for swearing the affidavits in favour of the appellants so that they could get bail from the Court; that, be that as it may, even from the contents of the said affidavits one fact is very obvious that Akram Nawaz and Ashiq appellants were available at the place of occurrence and they were asked by Muhammad Shafique, co-accused to return as the job had been accomplished that in view of the said contents of the affidavits the appellants cannot get benefit from the said affidavits; that though two of the eye-witnesses had sworn the said affidavits but the third eyewitness namely Liaquat Ali who appeared in the witness box did not swear such like affidavit; that all the eye-witnesses made a straight-forward version qua the occurrence and corroborated each other on all the material aspects of the case; that from the day one, the police were favouring the appellants who are very influential people, therefore, obviously an attempt was made by the police officials for damage the prosecution case; that for the same reason the electricity bulbs which were indeed available at the time and place of occurrence were not shown by the investigating officer in the inspection notes, similarly, the Draftsman was asked by the I.O. To omit the mentioning of the existence of the bulbs at the time and place of occurrence; that while doing so, it was not appreciated by the investigating officer as well as the draftsman that right in the opening sentence of the complaint (Exh.P.M.), which culminated into the F.I.R. It was mentioned by the complainant that electricity bulbs were lit, and in the light of the said bulbs the occurrence was witnessed by them; that the existence of the slight blackening around the injuries of Amanullah, one of the deceased, would not demolish the case of the prosecution; that in this case four people were mowed down by four people, therefore, the eye-witnesses could not/cannot be expected - to give a photographic view of the occurrence by mentioning the distance between the witnesses and the deceased with exactitude; that at the time of assault launched by the appellants, they were not expected to stand still at one point.
13. Heard. Record perused.
14. We have gone through the entire evidence oral as well as documentary with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties. We have straightaway noticed that in this blood-curdling crime four people were gunned down by the appellants. Admittedly, in this case four people were mowed down at a place, which is situated in the heart of the village, and is surrounded by houses of different people. The occurrence in this case took place at 7-45 p.m. And within 75 minutes the police reached at the scene of gory crime and after recording the statement of Farrukh Latif (P.W.10).Complainant, put the legal machinery into motion. So, without any fear of contradiction it can be said that in this case the F.I.R. Was lodged with a more than reasonable promptitude, inasmuch as the occurrence took place at 7-45 p.m. And the statement of the A complainant (Exh.P.M.) which culminated into the F.I.R. (Exh.P.M./1) was recorded at 9-00 p.m. According to Farrukh Latif (P. W.10), the distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is six kilometers. Muhammad Rafique (P.W.5) during his cross-examination stated that the police had reached the spot within 10 to 15 minutes of the occurrence. It is true that the complaint (Exh.P.M) was recorded by the police at the place of occurrence, a fact which in the normal circumstances puts the Court on guard to see the authenticity and the correctness of the allegation levelled by the complainant, because in the cases of complaints, which are recorded at the spot normally it is presumed that the same is jotted down after preliminary investigation. However, in this case we cannot discard the prosecutions version simply on the said score, for, admittedly in this bloody occurrence four people were brought down to the grave by the blood-thirsty assailants. It was not easy for the complainant-party to come out from the spell of grief and shock instantly. It appears that before they could' come out from tremors of the said shock and fear, somebody conveyed the inconclusive information to the police regarding the gory crime. It was quite natural for the police to respond to such like information abruptly and instantly, therefore, it appears that the police reached the place of occurrence within no time and after reaching the place of occurrence Muhammad Rafi, S.-I. Recorded the statement of the complainant and started investigation. In the cases of recording of F.I.R. At the place of occurrence the courts take the prosecution version with care and caution. However, in this case we find that for the murder of four people the prosecution did not try to throw the net wide and implicated only four people in this B case as assailants and murderers of the said people. The said fact obviates the chance of due deliberations and consultations by the complainant party. It appears that the prosecution came up with a straightforward version by implicating only those people who had indeed assassinated and lynched four people. Therefore, we are not inclined to discard the prosecution version only on the ground that the complaint was recorded at the spot.
15. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the application whereby the dead-bodies were sent for postmortem examination,bore the date of the next date of occurrence is concerned, we conclude that the recovery memos, of bloodstained earth and crime empties were prepared on the very night of the occurrence. As it was a case of four murders, therefore, the conclusion of the preliminary investigation whereby the police investigating officer was supposed to make the inspection notes, examine the dead-bodies and record the statements of eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Naturally had to consume sometime. Therefore, it is quite possible that in the said process the date might have changed after midnight and therefore, the signing of some of the documents showing the next date of their execution is quite natural.
16. As far as the contention that the occurrence in this case took place in darkness is concerned, we find that in the opening paragraph of the complaint made by Farrukh Rafique---the complainant - -- it was claimed by him that when the complainant party, while sitting the Chowk Shahabwali, were having a chat inter se, the electricity bulbs were lit at the place of occurrence, a fact which is quite natural phenomenon, because the occurrence admittedly had taken place right in the heart of the village Chowk. Ehsanullah (P.W.9) during his cross-examination stated as under: "Place of occurrence is shirine of Baba Shahab Ali located in the heart of the village, which has four walls."
'In our society such like shrines are often lit if the electricity connection is available at the relevant shrine. In this case it is not denied that the supply/connection of electricity was available in the village Negaur where the occurrence took place. Consequently, the statement of Arif Hussain, Draftsman, according to whom no point or source of electricity light was shown in the site plan is not much helpful to the defence. The said omission on the part of the investigating officer or the Draftsman appears to be incompetence on the part of the said witnesses, who despite the fact that the electricity light was shown in the F.I.R. Failed to mention the source of light in the site plan. - For contradicting the positive statement of the complainant regarding the availability of the electricity light, the said witnesses should have made a positive assertion in the relevant document regarding the unavailability of the said source.
17. Now taking up the defence plea regarding the weakness or unavailability of the motivating factor behind the occurrence, we find that in the F.I.R. The complainant positively claimed that there was a dispute between the parties over the land owned by one Rehmat, who had been killed in an earlier occurrence. The said land according to the complainant party was being cultivated by them for years together but Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Nawaz, the appellants were persistently forbidding/dissuading the complainant party from cultivating the said land. In the said backdrop according to the complainant 20 days before the occurrence the said two appellants hurdled threats on the complainant as well as Muhammad Manshadeceased showing their evil intention/design to kill as many people as they could do for grabbing the possession of the said land forcibly. While appearing in the witness box the complainant corroborated the said version, which was further strengthened by Liaquat Ali (P.W.11) who claimed that he and Muhammad Mansha-deceased had quarrelled with Akram-appellant over the issue of the land which was owned by one Rehmat. It is not denied that the said land was cultivated by the complainant party.
Though, there is a slight contradiction between the statements of the eye-witnesses qua the motivating factor behind the occurrence but the fact remains that the salient features of the motive stood proved beyond shadow of doubt. Even otherwise, the defence has failed to put forward any .Parallel story on the basis of which they were implicated in this case falsely.
Consequently, we conclude that the prosecution successfully proved its story qua motive.
18. The ocular evidence has been attacked by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the same was contradicted by the medical evidence. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the statement of P.W.1, according to whom the firearm -injuries suffered by Amanullah, one of the deceased had slight blackening, but the ocular evidence cannot be discarded simply on the said score, for, it is not a case of single murder, rather in this case four people were gunned down. The dead-bodies of the four deceased were found to be bullet riddled.
Obviously, all the four deceased were not standing on one point. Similarly, their assailants had fired at them while standing on different points. Neither assailants nor the deceased were standing still like a statue. According to the prosecution some of the deceased had tried to save their lives by scurrying to the complainant party. Consequently, the said inconsistency in the prosecution evidence is immaterial and does not advance the case of the defence either.
19. Now coming to the main ground of attack on the ocular account, we find that during the investigation Farrukh Latif (P.W.12) and Muhammad Rafique (P.W.11) swore affidavits in favour of the appellants. According to the said affidavits they had only seen Muhammad Shafique, the proclaimed offender at the spot. According to them, Muhammad Shafique the said proclaimed offender asked the appellants, who according to the contents of the said affidavits could not be seen by the said deponents, to return as the job/design had been accomplished. While appearing in the witness box Farrukh Latif admitted the execution of the said affidavits but claimed that the said affidavits were sworn under the tremendous pressure of the appellants' party who belonged to a very influential political group. However, Muhammad Rafique (P.W.15) straightaway admitted the execution of the said affidavit and failed to claim that he had sworn the said affidavit under the pressure of the appellants. A perusal of the said affidavits would reveal that a number of political personalities/big wigs of the area were mentioned as respectables who had brokeren the said compromise between the parties on the basis of which the affidavits were sworn, so that the appellants could get bail from the Court. The fact remains that even in the said documents the presence of the appellants were shown at the time of occurrence. According to the said eyewitnesses due to darkness, the said appellants could not be seen and identified by them. Be that as it may since both the eye-witnesses made contradictory statements during the investigation and the trial, therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on their statements but even after discarding their statements the appellants cannot be acquitted of the charge, because there is another important witness namely Liaquat Ali, who appeared as P. W.11. The said witness remained steadfast throughout D and never succumbed to the pressure of the appellants. It is not the case of the appellants that the said witness ever swore any affidavit in their (appellants') favour. During the trial he stuck to his guns and fully implicated all the appellants in his statement.
Despite lengthy cross- examination the cross-examiner failed to shake his credibility and cause any dent in his statement. Further, his statement is duly corroborated by the other attending circumstances.
20. At this stage we would like to observe that the conviction can be maintained on the basis of solitary statement of an eye-witness provided his statement rings truth. The number of the witnesses does not matter, rather it is the credibility of the witness that matters. It has come on the record that the complainant party belongs to a poor and labourer class. In our society it is very difficult for such a class to combat with the influential persons but nevertheless the credit goes to Liaquat Ali, who remained steadfast against the F appellants and did not succumb to the pressure built up by the appellants or the political shots of the area.
21. Now coming to the opinion of the police according to which all the appellants were found innocent, we find that opinion G of the police is neither admissible in evidence nor is it binding on the courts. Tahir Maqsood, D.S.P (C.W.1) had declared Muhammad Akram-appellant innocent while accepting his plea of alibi. It would be important to mention here that the witnesses of the alibi did not appear in the witness box. Therefore, the said opinion of the police is useless and meaningless for the appellants.
22. It is true that despite the fact that four people were mowed down in a bloodcurdling crime but no incriminating article/weapons of crime was recovered from the appellants but they cannot be given clean chit only on the said score. The recovery of incriminating articles is only a corroboratory piece of evidence, and if the prosecution succeeds to prove its case by the ocular evidence then the said evidence cannot be disbelieved only on the score that recovery could not be effected from the accused. There is no deep-rooted enmity between the parties, therefore, the appellants have failed to point any reason for their false implication in this case. Shafique, the co- accused of the appellantis still absconder. In this case Liaquat Ali (P.W.11), who admittedly was residing at 20/25 feet away from the place of occurrence is quite a natural witness. As observed above, we could not find anything on the basis of which his evidence can be discarded. His statement is duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the other attending circumstances.
Therefore, the conviction awarded to the appellants is hereby maintained. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellants, therefore, the appeal filed by them stand dismissed.
Death sentence confirmed. Murder Reference is answered' in the affirmative.