SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---This criminal appeal arises from the judgment dated 31.5.2010, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib has convicted Muhammad Sufyan, Muhammad Irfan (appellants) and Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali (since absconding, after his sentence was suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 14.3.2011) under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life with direction to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to them. Their co-accused, Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Ikram, Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Amin were, however, acquitted of the charge on extension of benefit of doubt. It all happened on conclusion of their trial in case-FIR No.107/2005, dated 4.6.2005, registered for offences under section 302, 324,148, 149, P.P.C., at police station City Nankana Sahib.
2. Precisely, the prosecution story as narrated by Muhammad Anwar (complainant/P.W.8) in the FIR (Exh.PC/1) is that it was at about 4.00 p.m. on 4.6.2005, when he, his real brother Muhammad Afzal, Yasir and Asghar Ali came to a bazaar of Nankana Sahib to buy some household articles; when they reached Goal Chakkar Guru Bazaar, they were ambushed by Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bakhsh (since acquitted), armed with iron rod, Ikram (since acquitted), Wan (appellant), armed with daggers, Munir Ahmad (since acquitted), Sufyan (appellant), armed with chhuries, Muhammad Amin (since acquitted), Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali (since PO), armed with pistols and two unknown person, armed with firearms; Muhammad Yousaf raised Lalkara that they all should be killed and frequent litigation be brought to an end and by shouting so, he gave an iron rod blow to the head of Muhammad Asghar PW (not produced); Sufyan (appellant) stabbed Muhammad Afzal (deceased) by means of his Chhuri at the locale of left armpit; Munir Ahmad' (since acquitted) inflicted an injury by his Chhuri on the posterior head of Muhammad Afzal Ikram (since acquitted) clubbed his dagger at the back, near hip-area of Muhammad Afzal, due to which he fell onto the ground; Irfan (appellant) clubbed his dagger into the abdomen of fallen Muhammad Afzal; he (complainant), and his companions came forward to rescue his brother and he was attacked by Muhammad Amin, who inflicted an injury by the butt of his pistol above his right eye; Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali (since PO) dealt a butt blow of his pistol to the forehead of Yasir (P.W.9); whereafter all the accused opened indiscriminate firing in order to murder them and they ran into some nearby shops to save themselves; a wave of terror and fright was spread in the bazaar by the accused; the occurrence was witnessed by many a persons present there; Muhammad Afzal succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
The motive behind the occurrence was that the complainant side had instituted a suit and obtained a stay order about their shop, which was situated in Rehriwala bazaar, due to which the accused felt grudged and they committed the occurrence. The complainant reported the matter to Liaqat Ali SI (P.W.12) at 4.30 p.m. on 4.6.2005, at Railway Road, who drew up complaint (Exh.PC) and despatched it to police station through Muhammad Saleern 1378/C for registration of case, on receipt of which Muhammad Boota ASI (P.W.5) drafted formal FIR (Exh.PC/1), at 4.40 p.m., the same day.
3. Dr. Shabbir Ahmad MO (P.W.7) performed autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Afzal, at 12.45 a.m. on 5.6.2005, vide post- mortem examination report (Exh.PE) and observed following injuries thereon:- i) An incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1 cm on the occipital region of the skull on the back, exposing the underline bone. ii) An incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on the lateral side of the left chest, 16 cm below the left pit and 15 cm from the left nipple. On dissection, left chest cavity was full of blood: Left lung was damaged, heart pierced, left ventricle and septum was damaged. iii) An incised wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side of epigastrium on the abdomen. iv) An incised wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the back of left lion, 2 cm above the left iliac crest, the wound is muscle deep.
He opined that death. in 'this case was due to excessive haemorrhage and shock, resulting from injury No.2, which damaged the heart and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was "within ten minutes" and that elapsed between death and postmortem examination was "within twelve (12) hours".
This medical officer also medically examined Yasir Amin (P.W.9), Asghar Ali PW (not produced) and Muhammad Anwar (complainant/P.W.8) at 11.50 p.m. on 4.6.2095, vide Medico-legal Reports Exh.PH, Exh.PK and Exh.PM, respectively and observed following injuries on their persons:- YASIR AMIN: A contusion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side of forehead, 2 cm above the left eye.
ASGHAR ALI: i) An incised wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the head, 3 cm behind the left ear, skin deep.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR: A contusion measuring 1 cm x .5 cm on the right eyebrow outer side. ii) A contusion measuring 4 cm x 1 cm on the top of the right-, shoulder.
4. Liaqat Ali SI (P.W.12) carried out the investigation of this case. He reached the spot, inspected the dead body of Muhammad Afzal, prepared inquest report (Exh.PG), drafted application (Exh.PF) for postmortem examination and despatched it to the mortuary for autopsy under the escort of Muhammad Siddique 868/C (P.W.10); he prepared injury statements (Exh.PJ, Exh.PL and Exh.PN) of Yasir Amin, Asghar Ali and Muhammad Anwar, injured PWs; he also prepared visual site-plan (Exh.PQ) of the place of occurrence; collected blood through cotton therefrom, made it into a sealed parcel and prepared seizure memo Exh.PA; he got prepared site-plan in-scale (Exh.PD and Exh.PD/1) of the place of occurrence by Abdul Ghafoor draftsman (P.W.6); he found presence of Muhammad Amin SI/accused doubtful and deferred his arrest for the time being; he declared Muhammad Amin son of Jan Muhammad and Muhammad Yousaf as innocent, during the course of investigation. Thereafter, investigation was entrusted to Rana Ramzan, Inspector (P.W.11), who arrested Munir Ahmad, Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali (since PO), Irfan (appellant), Ikram and Sufyan (appellant) on 24.6.2005 and subjected them to interrogation, during the course of which Muhammad Yousaf (since PO) got recovered chhuri on 3.7.2005, whereas Muhammad Irfan (appellant) and Sufyan (appellant) led to the recovery of iron rod and Danda Chobi, respectively; he prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery (Exh.PP). On completion of investigation, he prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and submitted it before the learned trial court for trial of the accused in accordance with the law.
5. On indictment, the appellants and their acquitted co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The prosecution produced twelve witnesses, namely Mukhtar Ali 111/HC (P.W.1), Muhammad Amin (P.W.2), Muhammad Saleem (P.W.3), Abdul Latif 1646/C (P.W.4), Muhammad Boota ASI (P.W.5), Abdul Ghafoor draftsman (P.W.6), Dr. Shabbir Ahmad MO (P.W.7), Muhammad Anwar (complainant/ P.W.8), Yasir Amin (P.W.9), Muhammad Siddique 868/C (P.W.10), Rana Ramzan Inspector (P.W.11) and Liaqat Ali SI (P.W.12), in order to prove its case. Thereafter, the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., whereby they proclaimed their absolute innocence in the matter. While answering the question, why this case against them and why the PWs had deposed against them, the appellants stated as under:- MUHAMMAD SUFYAN: "All the PWs are related inter se and are inimical towards me and my co-accused. I have falsely been roped in this case as my grand father Muhammad Din had filed a civil suit against the grand father of complainant in respect of the shop in dispute, which is situated in Rehrianwala Bazar, Nankana Sahib. Similarly, my grand mother Mst. Sughran Bibi (Phophi of complainant) has also filed a suit to get her share out of the said shop against his brothers and sisters. I am real nephew of co-accused Muhammad Munir. All the suits are pending before the learned Civil Court, Nankana Sahib. Till the day of occurrence, the shop in dispute was in possession of my co- accused Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux and his sons who had a shoe business there.
On the day of occurrence, at about 3/3.30 p.m., the complainant party attacked at the said shop and forcibly took the possession of said shop from my co-accused Muhammad Yousaf etc. At that time Muhammad Irfan, Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Amin SI co-accused persons were present in the said shop who were ousted from the said shop by the complainant party. The murder occurrence was committed by my co-accused Muhammad Irfan in revenge of the forcible possession of the said shop taken by the complainant party in provoked condition, who was arrested by the police from the place of occurrence soon, after the occurrence but his arrest was not shown by the police. Neither I nor my other co-accused except Muhammad Irfan had participated in the commission of murder of Muhammad Afzal deceased. The occurrence of murder had not happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The complainant party was aggressor who aggressed upon the shop owned by my co-accused Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux and his sons. Asghar Ali PW had also not been produced by the prosecution and they had withheld their evidence without any proper and just reason. During investigation the stance of prosecution was found incorrect and doubtful. The complainant and PWs Yasir and Asghar had also not received any injury at our hands during the occurrence."
MUHAMMAD IRFAN: "All the PWs are related inter se and are inimical towards me and my co-accused. I have falsely been roped in this case as father of Muhammad Munir co-accused namely Muhammad Din had filed a civil suit against the grandfather of complainant in respect of the shop in dispute, which is situated in Rehrianwal Bazar, Nankana Sahib. Similarly, his mother Mst. Sughran Bibi (Phophi of complainant and myself) has also filed a suit to get her share out of the said shop against his brothers and sisters. 1 am real son of co-accused Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux who has also filed a civil suit against the complainant party in respect of the said shop. All the suits are pending before the learned Civil Court, Nankana Sahib. Till the day of occurrence, the shop in dispute was in our possession where we had a shoe business there. On the day of occurrence, at about 3/3.30 p.m. the complainant party attacked at the said shop and forcibly took the possession of said shop from us. At that time I, Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad All and Muhammad Amin SI co-accused persons were present in the said shop who were ousted from the said shop by the complainant party. I and Muhammad Amin SI co-accused were going to the police station for reporting the matter when police met us in the way. I along with police came at the disputed shop and Muhammad Amin SI went to his house. My father Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux had gone to the Masjid Noor for offering his Zohar prayer. When I along with police reached at the shop, some person informed about the presence of complainant party near Goal Chakkar, I in provoked condition went towards Goal Chakkar and in front of Madni Market Muhammad Afzal met me and I caused injuries to Muhammad Afzal deceased in revenge of the forcible possession of the said shop taken by the complainant party in provoked condition. Neither I nor my other co-accused except Muhammad Irfan had participated in the commission of murder of Muhammad Afzal deceased. I was arrested by the police soon after the occurrence from the place of occurrence by the police. The occurrence of murder had not happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The complainant party was aggressor who aggressed upon the shop owned by my co-accused Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux and his sons. Asghar Ali PW had also not been produced by the prosecution and they had withheld their evidence without any proper and just reason. During investigation the stance of prosecution was found incorrect and doubtful."
Their acquitted co-accused while answering the said question took consistent stance of their false involvement in this case. All of them including the appellants declined to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The appellants, however, did not lead any oral evidence in their defence, but they relied on the documentary evidence (Exh.DC, Exh.DD, Exh.DE and Exh.DF) produced by their acquitted co-accused, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Baldish.
Learned trial court concluded trial of the appellants through the impugned judgment by holding them guilty of the charge and awarded them the sentence, in mentioned terms.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment is patently illegal inasmuch as learned trial court categorically observed in it that none of the injured witnesses, who formed the ocular account, was present at the spot at the relevant time of the occurrence and their presence was highly doubtful, yet, it held the appellants guilty of the charge of murder and sentenced them to imprisonment for life in a mindless manner; four of the co- accused of the appellants, namely, Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Ikram, Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Amin, who had been assigned specific roles by the prosecution, have been acquitted of the charge and on the same rejected evidence, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced, making the impugned judgment a laughable item; the complainant party showed aggression against the appellants and they had no other choice but to defend themselves, besides, it was only Muhammad Irfan (appellant), who acted under grave and sudden provocation, when he inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Afzal (deceased); the recoveries of the weapons, ,chhuri, iron rod and danda, are inconsequential as none of those was stained with blood, nor there existed any expert report in this regard; once the prosecution case had been disbelieved by it, the learned trial court should have decided the matter by believing statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. without any scrutiny thereof; the prosecution has badly failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, hence, this appeal may be accepted, the impugned judgment set aside and the appellants may be acquitted of the charge.
7. On the contrary, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has submitted that the ocular account has been tendered by the injured witnesses, who bore indelible imprint of injuries on their persons, hence, their presence at the spot at the crucial hour could not be doubted; the observations of the learned trial court as to the presence/absence of eye-witnesses at the spot are self-contradictory and do not appeal to reason or to a prudent mind in any manner; it is not only that the prosecution established its case beyond every shadow of doubt, but the accused also admitted to have committed the crime, though with a different version, that lent a sense of believability to the prosecution case; which ultimately turned out to be an admitted occurrence by the parties; the credible ocular account, the medical evidence and the evidence of motive conjointly rendered it a proved case against the appellants, hence, their appeal may be dismissed and their conviction/sentence upheld.
8. Before taking on to the arguments of the parties, it is observed that one of the appellants, Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali (appellant No.2), whose sentence had been suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 14.3.2011 passed in Criminal Petition No.1246 of 2010 and he was released from the prison thereafter, wilfully slipped away and turned a fugitive from law, hence, a perpetual warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against him on 12.2.2016. It was observed that "there may be no cavil to the proposition that one who turns fugitive from law, loses some of his normal rights guaranteed under the substantive as well as the procedural law, including the right of audience/hearing. The same principle would be applicable to the said absentee's case. By following the dictum of "Ikram Ullah and others v. The State" (2015 SCMR 1002) and "Hayat Bakhsh and others v. The State", reported as 1982 SCMR 623, we proceed to dismiss this appeal to the extent of the absentee-appellant with the observation that he would be within his right to ask for its resurrection whenever he would be captured by the police." This is how, the appeal of Muhammad Yousaf (appellant) transiently ceased to exist till such time, when he would be captured again by the law enforcing agencies and he sought for its resurrection.
9. The impugned judgment contains some stunning as well as laugfiable observations and conclusions, which plainly reflected on the understanding of criminal law by the learned trial court, as it excluded possibility of presence of the eye-witnesses, Muhammad Anwar (P. W. 8) and Yasir Amin (P.W.9) at the spot at the relevant time of the occurrence, paragraph No.30 is relevant in this regard, and in the same breath it concluded that the prosecution had proved its case against Muhammad Irfan (appellant), Abu Sufyan (appellant) and Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Ali (appellant/since PO), but they merely defended themselves and acted under grave and sudden provocation, though nothing existed on the record that could lead to such a ridiculous conclusion.
It is neither a case of aggression by the complainant party nor could it be considered a case of retaliation by the defence. To deem it a situation of acting under grave and sudden provocation by the defence, is something which is unimaginable, beside being an alien factor to the circumstances of the case. The police opinion as to "innocence" of Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bakhsh (since acquitted) and Muhammad Amin (since acquitted) has ludicrously been dealt with by the trial court and an inadmissible factor given undue importance. The concluding paragraph (No.30) of the impugned judgment is a pile of self-contradictions and surprising conclusions.
10. Munir Ahmad (since acquitted) caused an injury on posterior head of Muhammad Afzal (deceased) and Muhammad Ikram (since acquitted) gave a dagger blow at the back of left lion of Muhammad Afzal (deceased), which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence tendered by Dr. Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.7). While exonerating Munir Ahmad and Muhammad lkram, learned trial court recorded the funniest findings in paragraph 30, that "the accused persons like accused Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux and Muhammad Amin coupled with Munir Ahmed and Muhammad Ikram accused cannot be excluded and it seems that webs of the wide net has been spread just in order to caught up the major male members from the whole family of the defence side. Hence, I have no hesitation to acquit the accused Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bux, Muhammad Amin, Munir Ahmed and Muhammad Ikram, so, by extending the benefit of doubt, they are acquitted of the charge." Mere fact that no crime weapons could be recovered from Muhammad Ikram and Munir Ahmad during the course of investigation, hardly constituted a conclusive circumstance that could annul the ocular account tendered by Muhammad Anwar (complainant/PW8) and Yasir Amin (P.W.9), but learned trial court thought this lone circumstance overwhelmingly injurious to the prosecution case and resolved it in terms of acquittal of the mentioned accused. By their own assertions, it was the accused side that attacked the complainant party when they were present near Goal Chakkar Madni Market, a place about 2/3 acres away from the shop of the accused and one could walk that distance within five to seven minutes, still learned trial court dubbed the complainant side aggressors and the accused aggressed upon, beside, holding them to have acted under grave and sudden provocation. The acquittal of Muhammad Ikram, Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Amin by the leanied trial court is open to a serious exception, being gratuitous by all means, but nothing could be done of it now as prosecution did not challenge it, nor did the complainant file any appeal against it. Law does not permit to reopen such an unchallenged pronouncement of acquittal by a suo motu action of the court, so it is bound to stay as it is. It would, however, remain an unproductive and unblessed circumstance for the appellants as plea of consistency would only be available, if previously awarded relief is tenable and lawful, which is not the situation here. A mistaken view of the past cannot be made basis for committing yet another mistake.
11. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.8) is the complainant of this case, who reported the crime to Liaqat Ali SI (P.W.12) at Railway Road Nankana Sahib at 4.30 p.m. on 4.6.2005, within thirty (30) minutes of the occurrence, who scribed complaint (Exh.PC) and transmitted it to police station City Nankana Sahib through Muhammad Saleem 1378/C, which formed basis for registration of FIR (Exh.PC/1) by Muhammad Boota ASI (P.W.5) at 4.40 p.m., the same day. The complainant gave an account of the said process in his testimony and so was done by Liaqat Ali SI (P.W.12). Though, it is a contention of the defence that daily diary of the police station had maliciously been frozen after the incident so as to chalk out the FIR at a time, suitable to the complainant party, yet, no such circumstance flowed from the prosecution case, which might corroborate the said stance. Postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Afzal (deceased) had been conducted at 12.45 a.m. within about eight hours of the registration of FIR, which hardly reflected on the timing, when FIR (Exh.PC/1) was recorded. The presence of the complainant at the spot at the relevant time of the occurrence has not only been emphasized by the prosecution, but it also appeared to have been admitted by the defence, which may overwhelmingly be found from line of cross-examination on the witnesses of ocular account, whereby it has been suggested that Muhammad Irfan (appellant), on learning about the presence of the "complainant party" at Goal Chakkar, furiously rushed to the said place and finished Muhammad Afzal there. The complainant's presence at the spot is crucial in many ways, inclusive of preparation of complaint (Exh.PC) at 4.30 p.m. and registration of FIR (Exh.PC/1) at 4.40 p.m., the same day. It may be considered a promptly lodged FIR, hence, it excluded probability of deliberations or consultations, if any, by the complainant before reporting the crime to the police. Such element of promptitude is bound to lend a sense of corroboration to the ocular account in particular and the prosecution case as a whole. It can hardly be doubted that FIR (Exh.PC/1) was lodged at the mentioned time.
12. The motive related to a shop situated at Rehriwala bazaar, Nankana Sahib, which was their property, as claimed by the complainant (P.W.8) and Yasir Amin (P.W.9) in respect whereof they instituted a suit and obtained a stay order in their favour, which grudged the accused. No documentary evidence in this regard could, however, be produced by them nor could, they otherwise establish that it was in their possession on the fateful day and they did some sort of business therein. The defence consistently rebutted the said stance of the complainant by maintaining that the disputed shop was in possession of Muhammad Yousaf son of Muhammad Bakhsh (since acquitted) and his son Muhammad Irfan (appellant), wherein they traded in shoes being owner thereof. They tendered documentary evidence (Exh.DD, Exh.DE and Exh.DF) in support of their contention. Learned trial court categorically observed in the impugned judgment that the accused party was in possession of the said shop on the day of the alleged occurrence. It is a hollow claim of the prosecution as to ownership and possession of the shop-in-issue, as they have not succeeded in proving this particular aspect of their case. The motive has certainly gone un- established, which created a sort of mitigation in favour of the accused.
13. The ocular account, together with the medical evidence, tendered by Dr.Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.7) form most crucial part of the prosecution case. It has been tendered by Muhammad Anwar (complainant/P.W.8) and Yasir Amin (P.W.9), the injured-duo of the case. Their presence at the spot may hardly be doubted as the accused side also inclined to admit their presence at the hot- spot, as they repeatedly used words "the complainant party", wherever they alleged about their incursion on the disputed shop, usurping possession thereof and lastly being present at Goal Chakkar, where the incident of murder. of Muhammad Afzal took place. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.8) and Yasir Amin (P.W.9) have categorically alleged in their statements that Muhammad Sufyan (appellant) gave a chhuri blow at the left armpit and Muhammad Irfan (appellant) clubbed his dagger into the abdomen of Muhammad Afzal, which fact is fully corroborated by the postmortem examination report (Exh.PE) of the deceased. Both the injuries were of extensive nature, that damaged the internal viscera of the deceased, though injury attributed to Muhammad Sufyan (appellant) has only been declared fatal in nature. The one, caused by Muhammad Irfan (appellant) damaged anterior wall of the stomach. Two co-accused of the appellants, namely, Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Ikram, who also caused injuries to the deceased, have been acquitted of the charge by the learned trial court through the same judgment, regarding which, a detailed discussion has been made by this court in preceding paragraphs (9 and 10) hereof with the sum-up remark that a mistaken view of the past could not be made basis for committing yet another mistake. Their acquittal, despite its fallacies remained unchallenged by the prosecution, hence, it is no use discussing it further.
14. The disputed shop was at a distance of 2/3 acres, where the complainant party was attacked by the accused. Muhammad Afzal perished in the incident and three persons, Muhammad Anwar (P.W.8), Yasir Amin (P.W.9) and Asghar Ali PW (not produced) got injured. The medical officer, Dr. Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.7) did not label the injuries of the injured witnesses a product of fabrication or friendly hands, still learned trial court dubbed them as such to conclude that none of them was present at the spot at the relevant time of the occurrence. Both the parties were related inter se, as evidenced by the statement of Muhammad Anwar (P.W.8) and they were well known to each other for years. It was a daylight occurrence, hence, question of their mistaken E identity did not arise. The events have been narrated quite naturally by the eyewitnesses. The injuries that they sustained during the occurrence, though of trivial nature, made their presence at the spot believable doubtlessly. An indelible imprint of their presence at the crime scene may be visualized through the injury-marks on their bodies. It could not be said that the appellants had been implicated in commission of crime falsely or no credit-worthy material had been brought on the record to establish presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot. The eye-witnesses stuck to the FIR and remained consistent in accusing the appellants of committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries to them and another. The plea of the accused that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and eye-witnesses had been introduced by the complainant in consultation with the police could not be given any weight, being it a baseless assertion. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination of eyewitnesses to show that their presence was doubtful or they had falsely involved the accused for murder of the deceased. Instead, the witnesses had reasonably explained their presence at the spot. True, they were interested, but their version of the occurrence is consistent inasmuch as both of them stated at the trial that Muhammad Sufyan (appellant) fatally injured the deceased and Muhammad Irfan (appellant) inflicted a cavity deep injury on his abdomen. The ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, it would not be correct to say that the ocular evidence has not been supported by any other evidence. It is correct that the ocular evidence has not been accepted against the acquitted accused, though ridiculously, yet, it could not be thrown away contemptuously. It is worth noticing that the ocular testimony is consistent about the parts ascribed 'to the appellants by the eye-witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason why such portions shouldn't be relied upon. The eyewitnesses attributed specific parts/roles to the appellants, which is well corroborated by the medical evidence.
15. One of the appellants, Muhammad Irfan had admitted the occurrence, though with a different version, so it would go a long way in establishing his guilt and that of his co-appellant. The stance taken by them in their defence is not only vague, but also unconvincing. Muhammad Irfan accepted the liability of launching an assault on Muhammad Afzal (deceased) and murdering him with a dagger in hand and Muhammad Sufyan (appellant) seeking support from the said defence of the co-accused would literally support the prosecution case against them. The deceased and his companions were at a distance from the disputed shop, when surprised and attacked by the armed accused. Even if some incident qua forcible occupation of the said shop by the complainant party had taken place earlier, it afforded no such impulsiveness to the accused, to act under so-called grave and sudden provocation, as pressed into service by Muhammad Irfan (appellant) in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. and referred to by the co-appellant in his statement of the same kind. There is little doubt in believing that the occurrence took place, in style as deposed about by the credible eye-witnesses.
16. The defence plea of Muhammad Irfan (appellant) that he lost self-control and acted in grave and sudden provocation because of the earlier incident, does no good to him, rather it strengthened the prosecution case, as stated about by the eye-witnesses and duly corroborated by the medical evidence. In any case, the ocular testimony is quite natural and consistent about the way, how the attack was launched by the appellants on the deceased and the injured eye- witnesses. Muhammad Irfan (appellant) admits participation in the occurrence except that he gave his own version of the same, which is not only worth rejecting but also giving an impetus to the prosecution case. The ocular account is believable having been tendered by truthful witnesses and equally is reliable the medical evidence, as mentioned hereinbefore.
17. In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has brought home guilt of the appellants to the hilt and as a result, this appeal is hereby dismissed.