MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-This petition is directed against the judg--ment of Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench, dated 25th February, 1981 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 66/1979/BWP and Murder Reference No. 6/80/BWP.
2. Petitioner Khurshid Ahmad, alongwith his co-accused Wahid Bakhsh was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahim Yar Khan for the murder of Muhammad Ayub about 35 years, by stabbing him with sickle and knife in furtherance of their common intention. Both the accused were held guilty under section 302/34, P. P. C. And were sentenced to death vide judgment dated 9-5- 1979.
3. Appeals were filed by the two convicts in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. The learned Judge converted the death sentence awarded to Wahid Bakhsh to that of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 which if realized was ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased, while the appeal filed by Khurshid Ahmad was dismissed and his death sentence was confirmed vide the impugned judgment. Wahid Bakhsh did not challenge his conviction by the, High Court and only Khurshid Ahmad has filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. The report was lodged by the widow of the deceased Mst. Faiz Mai at the Police Station Saddar Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan on 29-6-1978. At about 2-30 p.m. Lying at a distance of about 3 miles from the spot village Kacchhi Jamal. In this report she stated that her father-in-law Muhammad Abdullah and mother-in-law were murdered by Khurshid Ahmad petitioner who is the first cousin of the deceased, for grabbing the property of Muhammad Abdullah but as the petitioner later gave up his claim to the property of Muhammad Abdullah, Muhammad Ayub deceased who was son of Muhammad Abdullah, compromised the case against him and the petitioner was acquitted and he took up his residence with the deceased in his (Ayub's) house about a year ago, petitioner Khurshid Ahmad against pressed his demand for the property but Ayub deceased refused to part with any part of the pro--perty in his favour. On this, Khurshid Ahmad petitioner left the house of Muhammad Ayub deceased, and started living with Wahid Bakhsh of Kacchbi Jamal, and filed a suit against deceased Muhammad Ayub and his sisters in the Court of Civil Judge, Khanpur which was pending at the time of occurrence.
5. On the day of occurrence at about 9 a. m, the deceased had gone to the Bazar to make sundry purchases in Khanpur City and while returning to his village at about 2-30 p.m. Was attacked by the two accused. She was picking chillies from the field when she heard the cries of the deceased.
She ran in that direction and Noor Ahmad, P. W. 8 and Habibullah P, W. 9 also arrived at the spot.
She saw the deceased being attacked by the accused; Khur--shid petitioner was dealing blows with sickle while Wahid Bakhsh was giving knife blows to the deceased. After injuring the deceased, who was running here and there to escape the assault and ultimately fell down, the two accused dragged the deceased and dealt more blows on his body, with their res--pective weapons. Noor Ahmad and Habibullah raised a lalkara but the accused replied that if they came to help the deceased, they would also be dealt with in the same manner. Thereafter, the accused decamped from the spot, with their weapons.
6. The report (Exh. P. J.) was recorded by Malik Khadim Hussain, S. H. O. Police station (P. W. 11) on 29-7-1978 and was read out to the complainant Mst. Faiz Mai who admitting the same to be correct thumb-marked the same. The said S. H. O. Then set out for the spot where the dead body was lying in a watercourse. He prepared the injury statement and the inquest report and sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He took the blood-stained earth from the spot, investigated the case, and arrested the accused on 31st July, 1978.
7. While in custody Khurshid led the police to the recovery of blood--stained sickle P. 10 which was sealed into a parcel, and Wahid Bakhsh led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P. 20 which too, was sealed into a parcel and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Reports of Chemi--cal Examiner Exh.
P. L. And that of Serologist Exh. P. M. Are in the affirmative.
8. Postmortem examination was performed by Dr. Salahuddin P.W. 7 who found one stab-wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x abdominal cavity on the right side near the umbilicus; second stab-wound 1 1/4" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity on the left side; incised wound 2 ----- x 2 1/2" x into muscle deep on right side of the neck; 19 incised wounds into muscle deep of various dimensions and about 5 abrasions.
According to the doctor the death was due to shock and haemorrage resulting from injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which ac--cording to him were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature.
9. Ocular evidence was given by Noor Ahmad, P. W. 8 and Habibullah P. W. 9 while Mst. Faiz Mai was declared h stile by the prosecution as she had resiled from her statement as given in the F. I. R. In its entirety. Noor Ahmad, P. W. 8,and Habibullah, P. W. 9 gave a graphic picture of the occur--rence and claime4 that they were working in the field near the spot when they heard the cries of the deceased and went near the scene of occurrence and saw the petitioner Khurshid Ahmad and Wahid Bakhsh dealing blows to the deceased Ayub with sickle and knife, and also saw Mst. Faiz Mai present at the spot. Thereafter, she left for the police station to lodge the report.
10. The accused were examined but they denied the occurrence Kurshid Ahmad, petitioner, however, admitted that he was charged for the murder of Muhammad Abdullah and his wife but he was acquitted due to lack of evidence; that he had not demanded any share in the property from Muhammad Ayub deceased; but he had straightaway filed a suit for his share on the basis of his legal right; and that he had no grudge against the deceased. He, however, produced no defence and produced only copy (Exh. D. C.) of the written statement filed by Muhammad Ayub deceased in the aforesaid civil suit filed by him (petitioner).
11. Learned counsel, after reading the entire prosecution evidence made efforts to establish that the prosecution evidence was not worth credence and the same should have been discarded in toto; that Noor Ahmad, P. W. 8 and Habibullah, P. W. 9, both, according to the learned counsel, were chance witnesses; that Noor Ahmad was related while Habibullah had no reason to be present at the spot at the crucial time on the day of occurrence. We have examined these points, and find that if Habibullah is in no way, inimical to the petitioner nor his evidence had been shattered by the cross-examination at the trial. He claimed to be present at the spot looking after the-cotton crop and the field sown with cotton crop was shown in site plan Exh. P. A./1 prepared by Halqa Patwari.
12. Similarly, we cannot attribute ulterior motive to Noor Ahmad P. W. 8 (though related to the deceased) for deposing falsely against the peti--tioner. The learned counsel next contended that the statement of Mst. Faiz Mai, P. W. 10 belies the entire prosecution story as she stated at the trial: "I was plucking chilies from my field. I heard a hue and cry. I rushed towards that side and found that my husband was gaping and tossing to and fro. There was none near about ---------. " and that " I went to the houses of Noor Ahmad and Habibullah' in village Azim Shah and told them that my husband had been murdered. I made them sit near the dead body and myself went to police station. I told the S. H. O. That my husband had been murdered and that I do not know as to who had murdered him. The Police Officer asked me to name some one as the culprit and I replied that I would not name any. The S. H. O. Accompanied me to the spot. He wrote something in collusion with Habibullah, Noor Ahmad and one Lumberdar and then got my thumb-impressionon many a paper---------.---
13. We are sure that Mst. Faiz Mai has been won over by the accused as she is related to him and was the second wife of the deceased whose former wife Mst. Sairan is still alive and after the death of her husband Ayub deceased there was no interest or sympathy left with the family of the deceased. However, the proposition is well settled that the hostile witness is open to the same acid test of judicial scrutiny, and therefore we agree that the findings of the two Courts below, could not turn on the statement of Mst. Faiz 'Mai.
14. The learned counsel lastly argued that as the death sentence awarded to Wahid Bakhsh has been altered to life imprisonment, the person who gave the fatal two injuries Nos. 1 and 2 to the deceased, therefore, benefit should be given to the petitioner Khurshid Ahmad a: he has, not caused any of these injuries to the deceased. We do not find any force in this argument as injury No: 3 also, according to the doctor, is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This is an incised wound of 1 -- x -- muscle deep on the right side of the neck extending to the front of the neck. The trachea and blood vessels were cut, although nature of the injuries is stated to be simple. Moreover, we find that there is also direct motive for the accused petitioner to kill the deceased, Wahid Bakhsh being his friend, had only joined hands with him in the sole interest of the petitioner. The petition is without merit and is consequently dismissed.