DORAB PATEL, J.-The appellants Fateh Muhammad and Shahan. Are cousins and they were tried under -section 302/34, P. P. C. With Karimbux, a brother of the said Fateh Muhammad, and Ghulam Rasul, a mutual cousin, for the-murder of Gulab "Jalbani deceased. By his judgment dated 15th July 1968 learned Sessions Judge acquitted the said Ghulam Rasul and Karimbux and convicted the appellants under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced them to death. The appellants have filed 'an appeal against their conviction and sentence and the case is also before us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, we shall dispose of the appeal and the reference of the learned Sessions Judge by this judgment.
2. According to the prosecution the material facts are as follows :- Gulab deceased and his brother P. W. Gohram lived in village Noor Md. Jalbani, Tal: Shahdadkot.
The appellants and the acquitted accused had lived in that village about seven years before the occurrence, but had left it because Murad Ali, the brother of the appellant Fateh Muhammad and the acquitted accused Karimbux, had been murdered, Ghulam Kadir and P: W. Gohram, brothers of Gulab deceased, had been tried for that murder and acquitted. After their acquittal, the appellants had left the village Noor Md. Jalbani, but about one month before the occurrence they had returned to this village in order to avenge Murad Ali's murder. Gulab deceased and P. W. Abdul Rahman Jett were- cultivators of the land of Dodo Sonani, the local nekmard, and the fields where they worked were about one mile from the village Noor Md. Jalbani. On 8th December 1967 Gulab and the said P. W: Abdul Rahman were sitting in a shed in the dera in the said fields when the appellants and the acquitted accused came and attacked Gulab and killed him with hatchet blows and ran away. Before running away, they had warned P. W. Abdul Rahman not to tell anybody of the occur--rence, therefore, after they had left, he wept to P. W. Gohram and informed him only that his enemies murdered his brother Gulab. He then went and informed his nekmard Noor Muhammad that the appellants had murdered Gulab. P. W. Gohram went to the said dera and saw his brother lying dead. The next day, at dawn, he left for the Shahdadkot Police Station to report the occurrence and the F. I. R. Exh. 8 was recorded at 3-00 p.m. By Ghulam Muhammad S. H.
O. Shadadkot Police Station. P. W. Ghulam Muhammad S. H. O. Immediately went with P. W. Gohram to the wardat and commenced investigations. On the same evening, shortly after 5-00 p.m, he arrested the appellants. The appellant Fateh Muhammad produced a blood-stained shirt, a blood- stained loin cloth and a blood-stained hatchet from his house, which he secured vide Mashirnama.
Exh.
13. Likewise after his arrest the appellant Shahan produced from his house a blood-- stained loin cloth and shirt and a blood-stained hatchet, which he secured vide Mashirnama Exh.
14. All the recoveries were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for a, report, and according to the report of the Chemical Analyser Exh. 16 all the recoveries were stained-with human blood. After completing investigations the appellants and the acquitted accused were challaned.
3. In their statements in both the Courts below the appellant denied the offence and also denied the recoveries anal said that they had been implicated on account of enmity. The appellant Fateh Muhammad said that P. Ws. Abdul Rehman and Sabhago go had enmity with them because he and his brother had taken R lie cattle of these witnesses to the cattle pond before the occurrence and according to the appellant Shahan they had been falsely implicated on account of the enmity of Noor Muhammad Jalbani deceased. Neither the appellants nor the acquitted accused produced any evidence in their defence.
4. The prosecution case is principally based on the evidence of P. W. Abdul Rahman, the only eye- witness of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted his evidence as reliable but in view of the gravity of the charge, he has held, as a rule of prudence, that it would not be safe to rely on the solitary evidence of an eye-witness, unless that evidence was corroborated. Therefore, as blood-stained clothes and hatchets were secured only from the appellants, he has convicted the appellants and acquitted the other accused. The evidence of Dr. Ali Anwar who carried out the post-mortem of the body of Gulab deceased proves that he was killed by hatchet blows as claimed by P.W.Abdul Rahman therefore, the only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants.
5. As we have observed P. W. Gohram, the first informant, had trot witnessed the occurrence. He has said in his evidence that ,P. W. Abdul Rahman had come to him on the night of the occurrence and informed him that his enemies had murdered his brother and he has further said that a month before the occurrence P. Ws: Abdul Rahman and Sabhago had come and warned him that the acquitted accused had threatened to take revenge against him and his brother for the murder of their brother, Murad Ali. We shall presently consider P. W. Abdul Rehman's evidence, but P. W.
Sabhago's evidence supports P. W. Gohram's evidence. 1 P. W. Sobhago has said in his evidence that the appellants and the acquitted accused had left the village some years before the occurrence and suddenly he had met the acquitted accused one morning about a month before the occurrence as he was going to the land. On inquiry, they had told him that they had returned to the village in order to avenge the murder -of Murad Ali, therefore, he had informed' Gohram of this threat immediately. We have to observe here that this witness has only implicated the acquitted accused, therefore, there is no reason to doubt his veracity. He has also not been cross-examined on any allegation of enmity with the appellants and it is not disputed that he lived in village Noor Muhammad Jalbani; therefore, he was a natural and disinterest--ed witness and his evidence fully supports the prosecution case about the appellant's motive for murder. However, the evidence of motive by itself is of no consequence and we have to examine the evidence of P. W. Abdul Rahman on whose evidence the prosecution case is based.
6. P. W. Abdul Rahman has said in evidence that on the night of the occurrence, he and Gulab deceased were sitting in a shed near the dera where they lead stored some paddy. Suddenly the appellants and the acquitted accused rushed into the shed armed with hatchets he knew them, and as their faces were open he was, able to recognise them. The acquitted accused seized him and dragged him out of the shed, whilst the appellants dragged Gulab out of the shed and killed him with hatchet blows, Then they all left with their weapons, but before leaving they had threatened him with death if he disclosed their names to any body. Therefore, after they had left, he went to P. W. Gohram anal only told him that his enemies had murdered his brother. Then he went and informed his nekmard Noor Mohammad of the Occurrence. Although the appellant Fateh Muhammad had alleged enmity with this witness, despite a lengthy cross-examination, this witness was not even cross---examined on the alleged enmity. Further although this appellant has said in this statement to the Court that he had a dispute with P. W. Abdul Rahman, because he had placed P. W. Abdul Rahman's cattle in the cattle pond, he did not produce any eviden6e in support of this allegation, nor did he cross---examine P, W. Abdul Rahman about it. Accordingly, we see' no reason to doubt the veracity of P. W. Abdul Rahman. As he and Gulab deceased were both cultivators of Dodo Sonani using the same d'era where the occurrences took place, we hold that he was a natural and disinterested witness on whose evidence reliance can be placed.
7. However, as he is the only eye-witness of the occurrence we shall examine learned counsel's criticism on his evidence, According to learned counsel the occurrence took place on 5th of the lunar month, therefore, P. W. Abdul-Rahman could not have been identified the assailants. P. W. Abdul Rahman knew the appellants and the acquitted accused. The latter had seized hi and pulled him out of the shed whilst appellants had pulled Gulab deceased out of the shed. In these circumstances, eve though the night may have been dark, we do not think it would have been difficult for P. W. Abdul Rahman to recognise the assailants as he knew them.
8. Learned counsel next contended that although according to P. W. Abdul Rahman's evidence he and Gulab decease used to sleep in the shed of the dera, the mashirnama of the wardat did not contain any reference to beds or beddings; therefore, according to learned counsel P. W. Abdul Rahman was not sleeping at the wardat and he could not have been wit the deceased at the the of the occurrence. But no question was put to P. W. Abdul Rahman about the beddings in hi cross- examination, therefore, we do not know what his explanation would have been, if he had been asked this question Similarly, no, question has been put about the beddings either to P. W. Jan Muhammad, the mashir of the mashirnama of the wardat, or to P.W. Ghulam Muhammad S.H.O.
Who prepared the mashirnama. In these circumstances we see no reason doubt P.W. Abdul Rahman's veracity, merely because the mashirnama does not contain any reference to beds or beddings.
9. Finally; we have observed the F. I. R. Lodged by P. W. Gohram, which was made on the basis of the information supplied by P. W. Abdul Rahman, does not mention the names of the assailants, therefore, on this ground learned counsel argued that P. W. Abdul Rahman's evidence was not fit to be believed. We have considered this aspect of the case. The position would have different if there had been a discrepancy between the F. I. R. And P. W. Abdul Rahman's evidence, but there is no such discrepancy. The F. I. R. States that P. W. Abdul Rahman had informed P. W. Gohram that his brother had been murdered .By his (P. W. Gohram's) enemies. It further state's that about a month earlier also P. W. Abdul Rahman "had told us that we should be careful because Karimbux Joyo and other wanted to take revenge from us". P. W. Sabhago has also given evidence about the 'threats of the acquitted accused. Further there is absolutely no evidence to show that P.W. Gohram and his family had enmity with any Joyos other than the appellants and the acquitted accused. In these circumstances P. W. Abdul, Rahman's statement to P. W. Gohram that his enemies had murdered Gulab, clearly implicates the appellants and the acquitted accused, and the omission of the names of the -assailants looses its significance in this context. Further P. W. Abdul Rahman has given an explanation as to 'why he did not give the names of the assailants. He has said that he did not do so out of fear, because of the threats of the appellants and the acquitted accused that they would kill. Him, if he disclosed their names. Because Abdul Rahman was a disinterested r witness and was not connected with P.W. Gohram or his family, his fear of retaliation and his reluctance to be entangled in the family feuds of others appears to us to be natural, and we accept his explanation as genuine and reliable. But learned counsel argued that his evidence should be treated with suspicion, because he first gave the names of the assailants to P. W. Ghulam Muhammad S. H. O. Only when police's investigations began. It appears to us; in the circumstances discussed, that the very fact that he gave the names of the assailants only to P. W. Ghulam Muhammad S. H. O. After the investigations had obviously commenced shows that he was genuinely afraid of retaliation by the appellants and the acquitted accused, therefore, he disclosed their names only after he was reasonably certain that they had been or would be taken into custody. Accordingly, having given anxious thought to learned counsel's argument and bearing in mind also the nature of the charge against the appellants, we are of opinion that the evidence of P.
W. Abdul Rahman is reliable and if fit to be believed. Moreover his evidence receives strong corroboration from the articles recovered from the appellants, therefore, we shall examine the evidence of these recoveries.
10. As we have observed, both the appellants had produced hatchets, loin cloths and shirts before P. W. Ghulam Muhammad :S. H. O. All these articles were stained with human blood and were witnessed by P. W. Jan Muhammad. P. W. Jan Muhammad was the son of the local nekmard. He has not been cross-examined on any, allegation of enmity against the appellants, therefore, we see no reason to doubt his veracity. Additionally, it is not even alleged that P. W. Ghulam Muhammad S. H. O. Had any reason to falsely implicate only the appellants, therefore, the evidence of the recoveries is reliable. However, learned counsel argued that because the appellants had produced these recoveries immediately on their arrest, this evidence was not fit to be believed. We see no reason whatever to doubt the evidence of P. Ws. Jan Muhammad and Ghulam !Muhammad S. H. O. Merely, because the appellants produced the blood-- stained articles immediately on their arrest, the more so as the murder committed by them was not a murder for personal gain, but for a conception of family honour, however perverse. In these circumstances we accept the evidence of the recoveries as reliable. Conscious as we are of the nature of the charge against the appellants and the fact that the occurrence has been witnessed only by one eye-witness, we are satisfied that, in the circumstances discussed, these recoveries provide sufficient corroboration of the ocular evidence.
11. However, learned counsel argued that as the learned Sessions Judge had given the benefit of doubt to the acquitted accused, it implied that he had disbelieved the evidence of P. W. Abdul Rahman, therefore, as his evidence was disbelieved against to out of the four accused, it was not fit to be believed against the other accused, namely appellants. We have examin--ed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. As we have observed, he has acquitted Karimbux and Ghulam Rasul because he had any doubts about the veracity of P. W. Abdul Rahman evidence, but because he has taken the view that, as a rule of prudence, convictions under section 302, P. P. C. Should not be based on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness, unless his evidence was corroborated by an independent evidence. We are ourselves of the same view, therefore, we see no merit in the learned counsel's argument.
12. In the result the prosecution have proved beyond reason--able doubt that the appellants had murdered Gulab deceased. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The appeals of the appellants are dismissed, the reference of the learned Sessions Judge is accepted and the sentence of death against the appellants is confirmed.