1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Petitioners Mohammad Uris, Mohammad Hashim, Khan Mohammad, Mohammad Nawaz, Ali Akbar and Ali Nawaz were tried for the murder of Mahmood Sheikh and for causing simple injuries with lathis and hatchets to Ali Gohar, Yousuf and Roshan, by the Sessions Judge, Larkana, under section 302/149, P. P. C. They have been sentenced to transportation for life under section 302/149, P. P. C. They have also been sentenced to 12 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 323/149, P. P. C. And have been further sentenced to 12 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 148, P. P. C. The sentences are to run concurrently. Their conviction has been upheld by a Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, Karachi Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1968 by judgment dated the 9th January 1970.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 5th July 1967 at Tiphari time in the portion of the land cultivated by deceased Mahmood Shaikh and Arbab, the petitioners came to the land. Ali Nawaz and Faizu incited the others to attack Mahmood and his com--panions who were uprooting the seedlings.
3. Petitioners Uris and Akbar inflicted lathi blows on Mahmood, Hashim and Mohammad Nawaz struck hatchet blows on Hussain. Khan Mohammad gave hatchet blows on Yousuf. Ali Gohar, who had intervened to separate the parties, was also given lathi and hatchet blows by the petitioners.
4. Mahmood, as a result of the injuries, fell down and died shortly afterwards. The injured persons raised cries which attracted Abdul Wahid Kori and Atta Mohammad Sahite. These two persons saw the petitioners going away to their village after inflicting injuries on deceased and other persons.
5. The cause of the dispute between the parties was the breach of the water--course leading to the portion of the land of Mahmood Shaikh and Arbab and diversion of the flow of water to their portion of the land. Deceased Mahmood Shaikh and Arbab, who were present on their land, diverted its flow again to their portion of the land at bipharf time. It was in this connection that Hashim left for his village and brought the other persons on the spot to take revenge from the complainant side.
6. Uris also lodged his counter-report, Exh.
23. He was there--after arrested. His blood-stained shirt and loin cloth were secured under Mashirnama, Exh.
19. Hashim was also arrested and his freshly washed shirt was secured under Mashirnama, Exh.
20. They were also sent for examination and treatment. The clothes recovered from the person of Uris and Hashim were sent for chemical examination and they were found to be stained with human blood.
7. The trial Court convicted the petitioners on the evidence of the eye-witnesses as they had assigned specific parts to each of the petitioners. It was further impressed by the fact that the petitioners were closely related and had made a common cause to take revenge from Arbab and the deceased who had diverted the flow of the water to their own land. This view was also accepted by the High Court.
8. Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the lower Courts have failed to give the benefit of right of defence of person and property to the peti--tioners Nos. 1 and 2.
9. He further contended that the prosecution witnesses are closely related and are hostile to the petitioners. Large number of persons have been involved in this case. In view of this, the Courts below should have looked to the corroborative evidence against the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. The incident occurred in the land jointly in possession of Arbab and the deceased. In this portion of the land lay the dead body of the deceased and two prosecution witnesses were found lying unconscious. There was also blood and a clear indication of trampling of the paddy seedling due to the fight. The flow of the water was also observed in that portion of the land. Thus the account given by the eye-witnesses is corroborated to this extent that the witnesses and the deceased were attacked while they were present on the portion of the land belonging to Arbab and the deceased. The case of the defence that there was only one incident at tiphari time is belied by the fact that Arbab was not present at that time. No injury was found on his person and that shows that he was absent at tiphari time from the place of occurrence. The prosecution case is sufficiently proved by the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses, namely, Ali Gohar, Yousuf and Roshan. They are disinterested persons. Roshan was a labourer and was employed on daily wages to uproot the seedlings. Yousuf was also employed for that very purpose.
10. Eido also has implicated the petitioners though he was not injured. His presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted as he stood the cross-examination.
11. Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that there was discrepancy between the medical evidence and that of the witnesses with regard to the weapon with which the injuries on the deceased were caused. We are inclined to accept the view of the High Court that in the confu--sion of the attack it may not have been possible to clearly observer the weapon with which the injuries were caused on the deceased. No case has been made out of right of private defence of property or person. The petitioners party was the aggressors and we are satisfied that they have been convicted on proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no force in the petition.
12. The same is dismissed.