Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J.--The Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar vide judgement dated 22-06-2010 has convicted and sentenced appellant Shah Nawaz son of Din Muhammad under Section 302(b) of the, PPC to suffer life imprisonment and to pay Diyat amount to the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Wahab, with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No, (S)60 of 2010 for his acquittal, whereas the complainant instituted Criminal Revision Petition No, (S)20 of 2010 for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant. Since common question of law and facts is involved in the matter, therefore, both the matters are being disposed of by means of this common judgement.
2. The concise facts, arising out of instant appeal, are that complainant Abdul Sattar in his Fard-e- Bayan Ex.P/4-A, alleged that he is owner of a bus, in which his brother Abdul Wahab was conductor.
On above date, at about 7:00 a.m., he, along with his brothers Abdul Wahab, Abdul Razaq and son Abdul Karim, after taking passengers from the Goth in the said bus, when reached Manji Pur, accused persons Shafi Muhammad, Rab Nawaz, Shah Nawaz and Lal Muhammad, were standing there having sticks and stated his brother Abdul Wahab that today they will not leave him alive and started beating him with sticks and kicks, due to which, his brother sustained serious injuries and became unconscious and accused persons ran away from the crime scene. Consequently, a case vide Crime No, 08 of 2010, under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the, PPC, was registered at Police Station Sanhri District Jaffarabad. Subsequently, injured Abdul Wahab succumbed to the injuries in hospital and Section 302 of the, PPC was incorporated in the FIR.
3. After registration of the FIR Ex.P/7, investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-7 Tariq Aziz, ASI, who visited and inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site inspection note and site sketch, recorded the statements of PWs, arrested co-accused Rab Nawaz and Shafi Muhammad, obtained inquest report of the deceased from BHU Sanhri Panhwar, took into possession blood-stained clothes of the deceased, produced by the complainant in Police Station. On 07-04-2 010, accused Shah Nawaz and Lal Muhammad alias Lalo were arrested and during course of investigation, both of them made disclosure regarding commission of the offence and in consequence whereof four sticks were recovered on their pointation and after completion of the investigation, he placed the papers before SHO, who prepared complete challan Ex.P/7-B and the appellants were sent up to face the trial.
4. Charge was framed and read over to the appellants, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the accusation, produced seven witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Rafique Ahmed, medical officer, examined the victim and issued medico legal certificate Ex.P/1 and he was referred for further treatment to Civil Hospital, Jacobabad, however, he expired in the hospital at Larkhana. He further examined' the dead body of the deceased and issued death certificate Ex.P/1-A. PW-2 Dad Muhammad, constable, initially brought the injured to BHU Sanhri for treatment, wherefrom he was shifted to Jacobabad, however, he succumbed to the injuries. PW-3 Muhammad Anwar, HC, is recovery witness of blood-stained clothes of the deceased vide memo.
Ex. P/3, disclosure memos. Ex.P/3-A to Ex.P/3-D. He is also witness to the recovery of sticks vide memos. Ex.P/3-E to Ex.P/3-H. PW-4 Abdul Sattar is complainant of the case, who produced his Fard- eBayan Ex.P/4. PW-5 Abdul Karim, alleged to have, witness the occurrence. He is also witness to the site inspection memo. Ex.P/5. PW6 Abdul Razaq is also an eye-witness of the occurrence and PW-7 Tariq Aziz, ASI, is Investigating Officer of the case. Then the prosecution closed its side.
5. The appellant in his examination under Section 342 of the, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegation and claimed to be innocent. He recorded his statement on oath as envisaged under Section 340(2) of the, Cr.P.C. and also produced DW-1 Muhammad Azeem and DW-2 Abdul Salam, SI, in his defence. The trial Court, after close of the parties evidence, vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove, hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its charge against the appellant. He stressed that the ocular evidence, having been disbelieved against co-accused persons, could not be relied upon against the appellant, without any independent corroboration. He further contended that the case of the appellant was not distinguishable from that of acquitted accused, viz, Rab Nawaz son of Shah Nawaz, Lal Muhammad alias Lal Bakhsh son of Khan Muhammad and Shafi Muhammad son of Din Muhammad, against whom the ocular account had been disbelieved and, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to the same benefit, which had been extended to them. In the said context, learned counsel submitted that it is a settled principle of administration of criminal justice that one accused could not safely be convicted on the same discrepant prosecution evidence, on which benefit of doubt had been extended to co-accused, in absence of strong corroboration or confirmatory circumstances conclusively proving his participation in the crime, no one should be convicted.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General, appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the complainant, argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellant was present at the time of occurrence and had caused injury on the skull of deceased, which had resulted in the death of deceased Abdul Wahab; that the weapon of offence had been recovered from the place of occurrence, which further connects him with the prosecution case; that the ocular account furnished by complainant PW-4 Abdul Sattar, PW-5 Abdul Karim and PW-6 Abdul Razaq was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and, lastly, contended that the appellant has been nominated in the promptly registered F.I.R. as a principal perpetrator.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment with their valuable assistance.
9. So far as the unnatural death of deceased Abdul Wahab son of Taj Muhammad is concerned, Dr. Rafiq Ahmed, Medical Officer BHU Hospital Panhwar, who had conducted the external post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Abdul Wahab, came forward as PW-1 and furnished the detail of injuries, observed by him on the corpse of deceased as under:
1. "Bruises present on posterior aspect of left mid forearm. Bruises shape is oblique and 04 cm in length.
2. Bruises present on right lumber region. Bruises shape is oblique and 03 1/2 cm in length.
3. Heamatoma present on just above to right ear. Heamatoma shape is round and 04 cm in diameter,
4. Swelling in both testies.
5. Bruises present on left side back of chest. Bruises shape is oblique and 06 cm in length."
According to the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to head injury caused with blunt object.
10. In order to substantiate the accusation, prosecution mainly relies on the statements of PWs Abdul Sattar, Abdul Karim and Abdul Razaq, who have fully supported the prosecution version and stated that on the day of incident, they were plying their bus from Khairdin Manjhi Pur to Jacobabad. After boarding passengers, when reached Manjhi Pur at about 07:00 a.m., they saw accused Shafi Muhammad, Rab Nawaz, Shah Nawaz, Din Muhammad and Lal Muhammad, equipped, with dandas, who raised lalkara to Abdul Wahab that they will not leave him alive and started beating him with dandas and kicks, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and different parts of his body, resultantly, he became unconscious and fallen on the ground and, subsequently, the accused persons escaped from the venue on two motorcycles and they, being empty handed, could not chase them. Initially, the injured was taken to BHU, Sinhari and, thereafter, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jacobabad for treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries. The ocular account, furnished by the said witnesses, is straightforward and confidence inspiring.
Despite lengthy cross-examination, the defence failed to create any dent to their veracity, except a few discrepancies, which are immaterial and not fatal to their evidence. They were accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence in the bus in question, as such; their presence, at the place and the time of occurrence, could not be doubted by any degree of seriousness.
11.The occurrence had also taken place in broad daylight and, under such circumstances, no question of mistaken identification arise at all. Their evidence is not suffering from any material contradiction, discrepancy or infirmity and consistent with the probabilities, materially fitting in with the other evidence, more particularly the medical evidence.
12.No doubt, PW-4 Abdul Sattar and PW-6 Abdul Razaq are the real brothers of deceased Abdul Wahab, whereas PW-5 Abdul Karim is his cousin, but only on account of relationship with the deceased, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses, for the reason that they had no direct animosity with appellant Shah Nawaz, who has been attributed the fatal injury on the skull of deceased Abdul Wahab. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement-reported in 2000 SCM R 1784 held as under: "An interested witness is one who has all motive for falsely implicating an accused, is a partisan and is involved in the matter against the accused. Friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused."
Likewise, in the judgment-reported in 2000 SCM R 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the proposition of interested witness, observed as under: "Moreover, we find that none of the two eye-witnesses could be termed as interested witness because none had any previous ill-will or grudge against the petitioner. Merely, because P.W.4 is father of the deceased and P.W.5 belongs to the `Baradari' of the deceased, would not make them interested as they had no reason to substitute the petitioner for the real killer."
Even otherwise, the, statement of a witness, who is natural, truthful and whose presence at the place of occurrence could not be doubted, cannot be discarded, merely on the ground that he is a related and interested witness. Though the Courts, by way of abundant caution, look for corroboration from other ocular or circumstantial evidence, however, in the instant case, as already observed, the statements of these witnesses are not only confidence inspiring, but also corroborated by the medical evidence, furnished by PW-1 Dr. Rafique Ahmed.
13.As regard the next contention of learned counsel for the appellant that, since the prosecution evidence was disbelieved qua the acquitted accused persons, therefore, the same evidence, without material corroboration, could not have been considered against the appellant, it may be pointed out that, to our mind, the contention on the face of it appears to be misconceived, for the simple reasons that the evidence against the acquitted accused persons viz Rab Nawaz, Lal Muhammad and Shafi Muhammad was quite different to that of the appellant, whereas the specific injury, on the skull of the deceased, which proved fatal, has been attributed to the appellant Shah Nawaz by PW-5 Abdul Karim during his cross-examination. We have also noticed that during the course of investigation as well as trial, the appellant Shah Nawaz introduced the plea of alibi, which was established to be false by the inquiry officer i,e, Deputy Superintendant of Police (Security), District Jaffarabad, namely, Munir Ahmed Buledi.
14.So far as the case of acquitted accused, viz, Rab Nawaz, Lal Muhammad and Shafi Muhammad is concerned, it may be seen that they had not been attributed any overt act, except proverbial "Ialkara". Despite armed with deadly weapons, as alleged by the prosecution, they had not caused any fatal injury to the deceased or helped the appellant in any way for committing the murder of deceased Abdul Wahab. As such, under such peculiar circumstances of the case, their participation in the crime is doubtful and the trial Court has rightly acquitted them of the charge, while extending the benefit of doubt.
15.We are conscious of the fact that the trial Court has not believed the statements of said witnesses to the extent of acquitted accused, but it does not affect their testimonies, so far the appellant is concerned, as the grain has to be sifted from the chaff. The principal of `Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus' cannot be applied for administration of criminal justice, as, in the present days' society, it has been noticed in most of the cases that witnesses of the complainant party always throw net very wide to implicate a large number of culprits' family and due to this phenomenon, burden of Court in criminal administration of justice has arisen and the Courts have to sift chaff from the grain. While keeping in view the above principle of sifting grain from chaff, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment-reported in PLD 2001 SC 101 has observed as under: ----S. 302(b)/34--Appreciation of evidence--Maxim: "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "-- Applicability--Rule of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has got no application to administration of criminal justice prevailing in the country--Courts, however, are empowered to scan the evidence to reach a conclusion as to whether the evidence furnished by a witness can be believed simultaneously against one set of accused and can be discarded against the other set of accused, subject to independent corroboration on a particular point qua the accused against whom such evidence is to be believed.
16.Similarly, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the absence of motive is also without any substance, as the motive is always in the mind of the offender and the people do commit brutal murders on petty matters. In this regard, we fortified our view by the judgment reported in 1975 SCM R 289, wherein it was observed as under: "It is common knowledge that murders have been committed for no motive worth the name and at any rate on mere minor pretexts. No hard and fast rule could be laid down in regard to the determination of intention which can be spelt out from all the ambient circumstances taken together. A host of them including the highhandedness of the petitioner; the choice of the weapon of offence by him, the seat of injury and the damage done by it unmistakably establish the intention to kill or at least the knowledge that death could in all probability follow in consequence thereof."
17.Having given our anxious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that preponderance evidence available on record, as rightly appreciated by the trial Court, is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty of the charge. There is hardly any substantial ground for lawfully challenging the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment is maintained. Since the murder has been committed with sticks, which is not ordinarily used for the commission of murder, as such, in such peculiar circumstances of the case, lesser punishment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, therefore, Criminal Revision Petition No, (S)20 of 2010, being without merit, is dismissed.