GULBAZ KHAN, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 4th February, 1979 whereby the three brothers, namely, Abdur Rehman aged forty years, Khuda Bakhsh aged thirty-five years and Ata Muhammad aged thirty years, residents of Chah Abraindwala, situated within the area of village Haiderwahan, P. S. Chhutta, were convicted under sec--tion 302/34, P. P. C. For committing the murders of Muhammad Ramzan and his two sons Ghulam Shabbir and Abdul Karim and sentenced to death and a fine of rupees five thousand each. The fine was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation. The three appellants were, however, acquitted of the charge under sec--tion 307/34, P. P. C. For making murderous assault on Mst. Aisha com--plainant (P. W.
8) on the ground that the appellants had not voluntarily caused hurts to her. The case was referred to this Court for the confirma--tion of the death sentences of the three appellants, namely, Abdur Rehman, Khuda Bakhah and Ata Muhammad. The Murder Reference and Criminal Appeal are being disposed of together.
2. The deceased and the appellants were closely related to each other. Muhammad Ramzan deceased was an uncle of the three appel--lants. He was also father-in-law of Khuda Bakhsh appellant as the latter was married to the former's daughter named Mst. Sakina. The motive for the present occurrence was that Mst. Ashraf Mai, wife of Abdur Rehman appellant was suspected of having illicit relations with Ghulam Shabbir deceased.
3. On 6th May, 1976 at about Degarwela, Muhammad Ramzan deceased, his two sons Ghulam Shabbir and Abdul Karim deceased, his wife Mst. Ghulam Aisha complainant, daughters Mst.
Hajran (P. W-9) and Mst. Bashiran (not produced) and Ghulam Rasool (brother-in-law of Abdul Karim deceased, not produced, were present at their Ambah (place for tethering cattle), which was close to their houses. The three appellants came to the spot throwing challenge. Abdur Rehman appellant carried a hatchet. Khuda Bakhsh appellant was having a stick, while Ata Muhammad was armed with a chhuri. They shouted that they had come to teach lesson to Ghulam Shabbir deceased for his illicit relations with Mst. Ashraf Mai (wife of Abdur Rehman appellant). Abdur Rehman appellant inflicted three hatchet blows in succession to Ghulam Shabbir deceased on the neck and face, who fell down and died. Muhammad Ramzan ind Abdul Karim deceased tried to rescue Ghulam Shabbir deceased but were injured by Khuda Bakhsh appellant with stick, who ran towards their house and in order to save their lives they entered a Kotha and chained the door from inside. Mst. Aisha complainant was inflicted stick blows by Khuda Bakhsh appellant. Abdur Rehman appellant broke open the door with his head. Abdur Rehman, Khuda Bakhsh and Ata Muhammad appellants caused injuries to Muhammad Ramzan deceased and Abdul Karim deceased in their Kotha with their respective weapons. During the occurrence Abdur Rehman received some stick blows from the hands of his brother Khuda Bakhsh. The entire occurrence was witnessed by Mst. Aisha complainant, her daughter Hajran and Ghulam Rasool. They pleaded for mercy in name of Holy Quran. The three appellants left for their houses saying that they were quite contended. Leaving the dead bodies under the care of Ghulam Rasool and Mst. Hajran, Mst. Aisha went to the house of Khuda Bakhsh Daha but he was not present. Thereafter, she went to the house of Allah Ditta Arain, who was also not present. Allah Ditta returned to his house during the late hours of night. Mst. Aisha complainant took him along and went to the Police Station, which was at a distance of about eight miles and lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. S. On 7th May, 1976, at 6-30 a. m. The F. I.
R. Was recorded by Muhammad Aslam Hayat Sub-Inspector (P. W. 11). The Sub-Inspector prepared the injury statement of Mst. Aisha complainant and got her medically examined. He reached the spot at about 8.00 a. m. And prepared injury statements and inquest- reports of the three deceased and sent their dead bodies for post-mortem examination. He collected blood-stained earth from the three places, where the three deceased were murdered ' and prepared separate sealed parcels. He recovered five pieces of wooden planks of the door of the house of Muhammad Ramzan deceased. He arrested Abdur Rehman appellant on 7th May, 1976, who produced blood- stained hatchet P. 10, which was sealed into a parcel. The said appellant was wearing blood- stained shirt P.
9. The Sub-Inspector removed the shirt from his person and sealed it into parcel.
Since Abdur Rehman appellant was injured, the Sub-Inspector prepared .His injury statement and got him medically examined. Khuda Bakhsh and Ata Muhammad appellants were arrested on loth May, 1976. The former was wearing blood-stained shirt, P.
11. It was removed from his person and sealed into a parcel. Khuda Bakhsh appellant while in police custody, produced blood-stained stick from his residential Kotha, which was sealed into a parcel. Ata Muhammad appellant produced blood-stained chhuri from his residential Kotha. It was also sealed into a parcel Lal (P. W.-7) and Ghulam Sarwar (notproduced) attested the- Memos of blood-stained clothes and the weapons of offence. The three appellants were challaned after investi--gation.
4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of the case.
Dr. Naseer Ahmad conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ramzan and Ghulam Shabbir deceased. He found twelve injuries on the person of Abdul Karim. The said deceased had eight incised wounds, one stab wound, one cut mark and two bruises. All the injuries were anti-mortem. Out of twelve injuries, ten were with sharp-edged weapon. Injuries Nos. 5, 6 and 12 were dangerous to life. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries to the vital organs, i. e. Brain and right lung. Injuries No s. 5, 6 and 12 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Sixteen injuries were found on the dead body of Muhammad Ramzan. He had eight bruises, two lacerated wounds, three incised wounds and three cut marks. All the injuries were anti-mortem.
Injuries Nos. 2 and 10 were fatal while injury No. 4 was grievous and in the opinion of doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries to the vital organs, i. e. Kidney and left lung. Injuries Nos. 2 and 10 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, Ghulam Shabbir deceased had three incised wounds. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were fatal. In the opinion of doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of these injuries. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The same doctor medically examined Mst. Ghulam Aisha com--plainant and found a lacerated wound and two bruises on her person. The three injuries were simple in nature and caused with blunt weapon.
Abdur Rehman appellant was also medically examined, who had two lacerated wounds and two scratches. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon.
5. Mst. Aisha complainant (P. W. 8) and Mst. Hajran (P. W. 9) fully supported the prosecution case.
Mst. Basbiran was not produced in Court on account of her tender age. Ghulam Rasool (P. W.), a brother---in-law of Abdul Karim deceased, who was also sister's son of the appellants was not produced in Court. Mst. Aisha and Mst. Hajran fully supported the prosecution version and involved the three appel--lants in their statements. Both of them were cross-examined at length but nothing in favour of the appellants could be brought on the record. Mst. Sakina daughter of Mst.
Aisha (complainant) was residing in the house of her husband Khuda Bakhsh appellant even at the time of occurrence. The complainant denied the suggestion that she had left the house of her husband and started living with her. She explained that Mst. Sakina was brought to her house after the present occurrence. There was no previous ill-will between the parties. As stated above both the parties were closely related to each other. During cross-examination Mst. Aisha stated that suspicion about illicit relations between Mst. Ashraf Mai and Ghulam Shabbir deceased arose five days prior to the occurrence. She further explained that excepting that suspicion there was no other, disputes between the appellants and the deceased. Different suggestions were thrown to Mst. Aisha at random. It was suggested to her that there was dispute between her and her brother over the ancestral property. She denied the suggestion. She further stated that she had relinquished her share in favour of her brothers. The mutation of inheritance was attested as back as 27th October, 1981. In case there had been any grudge on that account the complainant would have filed an appeal against the said mutation or civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdic-- tion. It appears that she had relinquished her share in favour of her brothers. There was no dispute over the ancestral property. It was again suggested if there was dispute over the marriage of her daughter Mst. Hajran between her husband and her parents. This suggestion was again denied.
Further suggestion was that she went to her parents and invited them to forcibly take away Mst.
Hajran as her husband was reluctant to give her hand. This suggestion was also denied. The defence plea was that the brothers and relations of Mst. Aisha had come to take away Mst. Hajran forcibly and when the deceased resisted they were done to death. It was also defence case that Abdur Rehman appellant received injuries when he tried to rescue the deceased. The report was lodged on the following morning. If the brothers and other relations Mst. Aisha had been the real culprits. Mst. Aisha could not have a soft corner for them, as her husband and her two sons were done to death. In case Abdul Rehman appellant had intervened in order to rescue the three deceased he would not have escaped with four minor injuries with blunt weapons. The statement of Mst. Aisha was fully corroborated by the statement of her daughter Mst. Hajran. The latter also denied the suggestion that she was forcibly taken away during the dark hours and in that occurrence the three deceased were killed. If maternal relations of Mst. Hajran had been real culprits, she would not have spared them as her father and two brothers had been murdered, in her presence. The defence plea that Allah Bakhsh, Ahmad Bakhsh, Ghulam Rasool and Mushtaq were the murderers was a clear lie. Mst. Aisha and Mst. Hajran were disinterested witnesses. Their statements could not be rejected on account of their relationship with the three deceased. There was no previous enmity between the appellants and the said two witnesses. They were closely related to the appellants and had no motive to falsely involve them. On account of these reasons, we hold that the statements Mst. Aisha and Mst. Hajran did not require any independent corroboration. Their statements were free from defects. We did not come across any material discrepancy in the statements of the said two witnesses. The trial Court was justified in placing reliance on the testimony of the said two witnesses.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not discuss the re--coveries in the impugned judgment. Lal Khan supported the recoveries but during cross-examination he had shown concession to the appel--lants and it had made his statement doubtful and for that reason we shall exclude recoveries of blood-stained clothes and blood-stained weapons out of consideration.
7. The case stood proved to the hilt from the evidence furnished by Mst. Aisha and Mst. Hajran. After having considered the entire material on record, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it.
Proper sentences had been awarded in this case, and it is not a fit aas for interference with regard to sentences awarded to the three appellants. The death sentences of the three appellants, namely, Abdur Rehman, Khuda Bakhsh and Ata Muhammad are confirmed.
8. Before parting with this appeal, we cannot help making observation that the learned Additional Sessions Judge omitted to pass separate sentences for separate offences although the three appellants had been charged separately for committing murders of Ghulam Shabbir, Abdul Karim and Muhammad Ramzan.