RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---- Hamayun, Muhammad Saleem, Rahman Javed, Muhammad Bashir, Rahmat, Muhammad Afzal and Shaukat were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad under section 302/307/148/ 149, P. P. C. For the murders of Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased, attempt on the life of Muhammad Alim P. W. 10 and for rioting. The learned trial Judge, by his judgment dated 11 December, 1979, convicted all the seven accused under section 302/149, P. P. C. On two counts, for the murders of Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceas--ed, under section 324/149, P. P. C. For simple injuries caused to Muhammad Alim P. W. 10 and under section 148, P. P. C. For rioting. Muhammad Bashir, accused, was sentenced under section 302/149, P. P. C. For the murder of Talib Hussain, deceased, to suffer death, subject to confirmation by this Court, and to pay a fine of Rs: 10,000 or in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and under section 302/149, P. P. C. For the murder of Muhammad Salim, deceased, to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Humayun, Muhammad Salim, Rahman Javed, Rahmat Khan, Muhammad Afzal and Shaukat accused, were sentenced under section 302/149, P. P. C. On two counts, to life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years each on each of the two counts. All the seven accused were sentenced under section 324/149, P. P. C. To two years' rigorous imprison-- ment each and under section 148, P. P. C. To two years' rigorous imprison--ment. The six appeals (Cr. A. 56/80, Cr. A. 57/80, Cr. A. 58/80, Cr. A. 67/80, Cr. A. 69/80 and Cr. A. 78/80), preferred by the seven convicts against their conviction and sentences, the connected reference (M. R. 26/80), submitted by the trial Judge for the confirmation of the death sentence imposed on Muhammadth Bashir, accused, and the private revision (Cr. R. 109/80) preferred by Muhammad Sharif, complainant, against Hamayun and five others, accused, for the enhancement of their sentences, are all now before us for disposal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 5th February, 1977, at about 1.00 p. m., Muhammad Sharif informant P. W. 9, his son Talib Hussain, deceased, and nephew Muhammad Saleem, deceased, were proceeding from their house in Mohallah Gurunanikpura towards Mohallah Razabad in order to see their ailing relative, namely one Muhammad Siddique. When they reached the Chowk Dispensary in Gulberg-C, a tonga driven by Niaz alias Teddy (since absconding) and bearing the aforementioned seven accused as passengers, suddenly reached there from behind. Muhammad Bashir, Hamayun and Muhammad Saleem, accused, were armed with daggers, while the remaining four accused were carrying knives. All the accused alighted from the tonga. At that time Muhammad Bashir, accused, shouted a lalkara and asked Talib Hussain, deceased, to beware of their presence, because he would avenge his disgrace from him. Muhammad Bashir, accused, opened the assault by inflicting dagger blow on the left upper arm of Talib Hussain, deceased.
Thereupon, Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9, Talib Hussain, deceased, and Muhammad Saleem, deceased, ran towards the building of M. B. Middle School. However, the seven accused chased them and encircled both Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased, near the outer wall of the aforesaid School. Muhammad Bashir, accused, again dealt a dagger blow on the left side of the abdomen of Talib Hussain, deceased, who fell down injured. Hamayun, accused, then followed his co-accused by inflicting a dagger blow on the left flank of Muhammad Salim deceased.
Thereafter, Muhammad Saleem accused, gave a dagger blow on the left side of the chest of Muhammad Saleem deceased, and felled him to the ground. Muhammad Afzal alias Bhola, Rehmat Khan, Rehman Javed and Shaukat (who was the unidentified accused) gave knife blows to Muhammad Saleem deceased. Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 kept on raising alarm, on which Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10, Muhammad Saeed P. W. I1 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 were attracted to the spot. Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 came forward to rescue the injured persons from the assault, but he was given knife blows by Muhammad Bashir and Hamayun, accused. The incident was witnessed by the aforesaid P. Ws. Who also claimed to identify the unknown culprit in case he was brought before them. The accused persons then decamped from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. The motive for the commission of the Crime was that two days before the occurrence, Talib Hussain, deceased, was driving his rickshaw near Dhobi Ghat, Faisalabad, which accidentally struck Muhammad Bashir, accused, who was going on foot there. Both Talib Hussain and Muhammad Bashir, accused, had altercation with each other, during which they grappled, but were separated by Muhammad Shafi P. W.
13. Whilst leaving, Bashir accused had hurled a threat that he would avenge the insult later.
3. After the occurrence, the three injured persons, namely, Talib Hussain, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 were removed to the D. H. Q. Hospital, Faisalabad, where Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem succumbed to their injuries. Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Mian P. W. 1 medically examined Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 at 1.00 p. m. And found one stab wound on his thigh and two incised wounds on his left upper arm, all of which were found to be simple.
4. At 1.30 p. m. On the same day, Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 lodged F.
1. R. Exh. P. K. At Police Station Gulberg, which was recorded by Ahmad Khan P. W.
17. The Police Officer then proceeded to the hospital where, after preparing the necessary papers, he sent the dead bodies to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He then proceeded to the spot, where he collected the blood-stained earth from the places where Muhammad Salem and Talib Hussain had been injured, vide memos.
Exh. P. G. And P. H. Respectively.
5. The same day at 4-00 p. m. Dr. Major Yousaf Ali 1- W. 2 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Talib Hussain, deceased, and found two stab wounds on the left deltoid region and left abdomen, three abrasions on the right check and right upper arm and bleeding from the nose. The intestines were protruding out from the left abdomen. All the injuries were caused with sharp-edged weapons. Two stab wounds were with sharp-edged weapon, whereas the rest were with blunt weapon. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the stab wound. On the left abdomen, which injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. At 4.45 p. m. The same doctor conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Saleem, deceased, and found five stab wounds on the neck, left chest, iliac crest and left thigh and an incised wound on the left buttock. All the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the two stab wounds on the left chest and the stab wound on the thigh.
6. On 11th February, 1977, Hamayun, Muhammad Afzal and Rahmat Khan, accused, were arrested by Ahmad Khan P. W. 17.
7. On 20th February, 1977, Hamayun, accused, led to the recovery of a blood-stained dagger P. 10, which was taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh. P. N. In the presence of Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, Ahmad Khan, Inspector, P. W. 17 and Zaheerul Haq (given up P. W.). On the same day, Muhammad Salim and Rehman Javed, accused, were arrested by Malik Ghulam Muhammad, S. I.
P. W. 15.
8. On 23rd February, 1977 and 24th February, 1977, Muhammad Bashir and Shaukat, accused, were arrested by Naseer Ahmad Khan, S. I., P. W. 7.
9. On 26th February, 1977 Rahman Javed and Muhammad Saleem, accused, led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P. 11 and dagger P. 12 respectively, which were taken into possession by the police vide memos. Exhs. P. O. And P. Q. The recoveries were witnessed by Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, S. I., P. W. 15 and Zaheerul Haq (given up P. W.).
10. On 5th March, 1977, Muhammad Bashir, accused, led to the recovery of a blood-stained dagger, P. 13 which was taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh. P. R. In the presence of Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, Ahmad Khan, Inspector, P. W. 17, and Zaheerul Haq (given up P. W.). The two parcels of blood-stained earth recovered from the spot where the two deceased had been done to death and the three daggers and one knife recovered at the instance of four accused persons were found by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist to be stained with human blood, except that the blood on one of the three daggers was found by the Serologist to have disintegrated and he, therefore, could not opine the same to be of human origin. Since the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist do not separately connect the three daggers with the three different accused who led to their recovery, it is difficult to state which dagger of which particular accused bore blood stains which had disinteg--rated. After completing the investigation, the challans against all the seven accused was sent up.
11. At the trial the prosecution produced Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 and Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 to prove the motive. Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9, Muhaqt mad Alim P. W. 10, Muhammad Saeed P. W. 11 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 in proof of the ocular account, Mehr Muhammad Nawaa M.
1. C. P. W. 12 to support the test identification parade, Muhammad Nazir P. W. 6, Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, Malik Ghulam Muhammad S. L, P. W. 15 and Ahmad Khan Inspector, P. W. 17 in support of the recoveries and Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Mian P. W. 1 and Dr. Major Yousaf Ali P. W. 2 to corroborate the medical testimony.
12. All the seven accused denied the accusations that were levelled against them. Muhammad Bashir, accused, imputed his false involvement due to enmity with the P. Ws. He stated that a few months before the occurrence, the police required Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 because he was a bad character and since he had taken the police to the house of the said witness, be was annoyed with him and had falsely implicated him. The other accused imputed their false implication to suspicion.
13. The learned trial Judge, relying upon the motive qua Muhammad Bashir, accused, the ocular account, the recoveries and the medical testimony, convicted and sentenced all the seven accused, as stated above.
14. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the complainant and the State and have also perused the record. The evidence as regards motive is furnished by Muhammad Sharif com--plainant P. W. 9 and Muhammad Shafi. P. W.
13. According to Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, about 2/3 days before the occurrence, he was returning home from Bhawana Bazar when be saw the rickshaw driven by Talib Hussain deceased, strike Muhammad Bashir, appellant, about hundred yards from Imambarah, Faisalabad. Both the deceased and the appellant exchanged abuses with each other and also resorted to grappling, whereupon he intervened and separated them.Muhammad Bashir, appellant, whilst leaving held out a threat that he would avenge his disgrace from Talib Hussain, deceased. In cross-examination he denied that Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 was his maternal uncle- and stated that he was not related to him in any manner. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately concealing his relationship with Muhammad Sharif P. W.
9. He further stated that he did not know Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9, Bashir, appellant, or Talib Hussain, deceased, before that did not ask their names when Bashir, appellant, and Talib Hussain, deceased, fell out with each other that many people had collected at the spot when they had quarrelled ; that only he had separated them and that he did not inform any one about that incident. He also stated that at the time of the rickshaw accident, he did not know the place of residence of Talib Hussain, deceased. He stated that he learnt about the murders of Talib Hussain and Saleem, deceased, on the day of occurrence from the residents of the mohallah, as it was a talk of the town, and that he went to the spot when the police came there and narrated the incident before the Inspector of Police Mr. Chaddhar on the same evening. Muhammad Sharif, complain--ant, P. W. 9 also confirmed the story of the motive as given by Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 in his examination-in-chief. He stated he was told about this incident by Talib Hussain, deceased. It is the case of the appellants that Muhammad Sharif, complainant. P. W. 9 is the maternal uncle of Muhammad Shafi P. W.
13. In this respect, certified copy of the affidavit Exh. D. J. Of Allah Ditta, father of Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, filed by him before an Additional Sessions Judge to secure the release of his other son Muhammad Rafique on bail in a case instituted against him under section 307/452, P. P. C. Has been referred, which shows that Mst. Hajran is the wife of the said Allah Ditta, that the said Mst. Hajran is the sister of the late Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9, that the wives of both the said late Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 bear the name Mst.
Azizan Mai and that the case institu--ted against Muhammad Rafique by Mst. Shagufta Parveen, wife of Muhammad Shafi P. W.
13. Is being falsely supported by Mst. Azizan Mai wife of Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 and Mst. Azizan Mai widow of the late Muhammad Ismail, in exchange for his son Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 supporting the prosecution case relating to the murders of Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased. Though Muhammad Shafi P. W.
13. In answer to specific questions put to him in order to prove his relationship with Muhammad Sfarif P. W. 9, denied same and tried to suggest that Mst. Hajran Bibi wife of Allah Ditta deponent and mother of Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 was the daughter of Fateh Muhammad and not Ghulam Muhammad, it appears that the affidavit Exh. D. J. Of his own father Allah Ditta deponent submitted in the bail petition of his real brother Muhammad Rafique clearly shows that Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 is his real maternal uncle. Irrespective of the fact whether this relationship exists or not, Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, according to his own statement in cross-examination, admitted that he neither knew Bashir appellant, nor Talib Hussain, deceased, prior to the incident about the motive nor had he asked their names when they bad quarrelled and he had separated them. In these circumstances, when he learnt about the murders of Talib Hussain and Saleem deceased, on the day of occurrence, from the residents of the mohallah and went to the spot, when the police came there, it is not understood bow he came to inform the Inspector of Police about the identity of Bashir appellant, and Talib Hussain deceased whose identity previously was not known to him and both of which persons were not present with the police on the said evening when the police officer was present at the spot. It cannot be forgotten that Bashir, appellant, was not arrested till some days after the occurrence and Talib Hussain deceas--ed, had been taken to the hospital and both the persons were not at the spot with the police on the evening of the day of occurrence, so that Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 could have seen both of them and remembered of the earlier incident that had taken place 213 days before the murder. In these circumstances, it is clear that Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 is a cooked up witness at least so far as where the motive, as put forward by the prosecution, is concerned, even, otherwise, the motive, even if accepted, is so trivial, that it would not, in our opinion, compel Bashir, appellant, and his six companions, if they were passing by Dispensary Chowk in a tonga, to all of a sudden alight on seeing Talib Hussain, deceased, and his friends, and make a concerted and a murderous attack on them with daggers and knives. It seems that the real motive of the occurrence is something else. It does not relate to some past enmity, because, if it was so it would have come on record. It appears to be something immediate or contemporaneous with the occurrence. Whichever it is, it has not been put forward before us, but has been withheld. In these circumstances, we would hold that motive does not stand proved against any of the appel--lants. However, this does not in any way affect the case against the appel--lants as the occurrence in this case, as will be shown in the subsequent paras stands proved by direct evidence' of a reliable character. In these circumstances, the absence or, motive for the commission of the offence does not assume any vital importance.
15. The ocular account in this case is furnished by Muhammad Sharif complainant P. W. 9, Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10, Muhammad Saeed P. W. 11 and Ajiz Hussain P. W.
14. Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 is the father of Talib Hussain, deceased, but the remaining witnesses are neither related to the complainant party nor in any way are inimical to or have, any animosity with any of the appellants. In fact, the remaining three witnesses are not even related inter se, though Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 are known to be friendly with. Each other and so also Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 with Muhammad Saleem P. W.
11. Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 was accompanying both the deceased at the relevant time, therefore, he is a natural witness.
Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 were going to the house of Muhammad Saeed P. W. 11, when, at the place of occur--rence, they met Muhammad Saeed P. W. .11 and saw the occurrence. Fortuitously, Muhammad Saeeed P. W. 11 bad gone to see his friend Karamat Ali residing in 34-C Gulberg, whose residence was situated in Chowk Dispensary, when he met the other two and saw the occur--rence. The said three witnesses are, therefore, natural witnesses. The 'story of all the eye-witnesses is consistent. The particulars of the occurrence are already reproduced in para. 2 above and need. Not be repeated: It. Is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that Muhammad Sharif complainant P. W. 9 is an interested witness, that Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 is the villain of. The peace in that he is a badmash with a criminal record, and he and Muhammad Bashir appellant, who were companions, had fallen out, when the latter had taken the police to the former's house when they were looking for him, and that he had supplied the names and the particulars of all the appellants out of animosity on a piece of paper to Muhammad ,Sharif complainant P. W. 9, who had blindly dictated them to the police officer when he later went and had his F. I. R. Recorded, that the remain--ing three witnesses' have blindly supported the story falsely implicating all the appellants, and. That in view of the criminal record of Muhammad A1eem . P. W. 10 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14, strong-corroboration against each appellant is required before conviction can be laid at their feet. It is further submitted that none of the eye- witnesses saw the occur--rence. In this connection it is stated that according to Dr. Yousaf Ali P. W.
2's testimony, the incident took place eight hours before the autopsy, which would place the occurrence at 8-45 a. m., that all the injuries on Saleem, deceased, were on the left side of the body; which would show that he was not surrounded by appellants and attacked, as alleged, that none of the prosecution witnesses who took the two deceased and Aleem injured P. W. To the hospital had any blood stains on their clothes; which were taken into possession by the hospital, and that Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 was the father of Talib Hussain, deceas--ed, and the paternal uncle of Saleem, deceased, and in the normal course would have been expected to interfere on seeing his son and nephew being cruelly injured. Lastly, it was submitted that no identi--fication parade was held with regard to all the appellants, which .Was necessary, as apart from Ajiz Hussain P. W. l4 who knew the identity of all the appellants, none of the other prosecution witnesses knew of their names and particulars at the time of incident. As regards the assertion that none of the eye- witnesses saw the occurrence, we will discuss this first. Dr. Major Yousaf Ali P. W. I's testimony only places the probable time of the death within eight hours of the autopsy. This does not necessarily mean that the death took place exactly at 8-45 a. m. It could have taken place even later between 12-00 and 1-00 p. m. The injuries on Saleem, deceased, being all on the left side, do not in any way suggest that be was sleeping whilst he was murdered, as suggested by the learned counsel for Rehmat Javed, appellant. The fact that the stomach of Saleem, deceased, contained semi- digested food shows that it was not a night time occurrence. In any case, it was not suggested to any of the witnesses that the said deceased was done to death whilst be was sleeping. The injuries, therefore, on the left side of Saleem, deceased, do not in any material way negative the pro-- secution case. The fact that no blood-stained clothes were recovered from the prosecution witnesses does not unequivocally imply that they were not present. In normal cases some --- Marham Patti--- is done before injured persons are taken to hospital. The fact that the injuries of the two deceased and Aleem P. W. 10 were bandaged before they were taken to the hospital on a rickshaw, has not been totally excluded by cross-examination. The absence of blood-stains on the clothes of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, does not destroy the prosecution story. As regards the assertion that Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 was not pre--sent as he did not suffer any injury, fails to take into consideration the fact that he was overawed by the presence of seven assailants, all duly armed with daggers and knives, and it was, therefore, most unlikely in the circumstances for him to have interfered. As regards the suggestion that all the appellants should have been put to the test of an identification parade, there is no merit in this contention. The names of all the appellants, except Shaukat, were given in the F. I. R. With their parentage and other particulars. As will be demonstrated later, all the prosecution witnesses knew some of the appellants and in any case bad seen all of. Them at the time of occurrence. In these circumstances, identification parade with record to the appellants other than Shaukat was not called 'for. However, the identity of Shaukat, appellant, was not known at the time of the recording of the F. I. R. In these circumstances when be was arrested, his identification parade was held, as was required by law, and he was picked out by Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14; the other two witnesses not having been summoned. In these circumstances, the contention that the prosecution witnesses were not present, must be totally rejected. Muhammad Sharif complainant P. W. 9, though related to both the deceased, cannot ipso facto, on that account, be termed as an interested witness. He had no enmity against any of the appellants. The motive, as urged against Bashir, appellant, also does not involve the complainant in any way to show he was inimical. Accord--ing to the complainant's statement in cross-examination, he had seen the appellants by their faces, though they had no kind of connection with him or his son nor were concerned with him in any manner, and that he learnt about their names and addresses from Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 in the Civil Hospital on the day of occurrence. The only appellant know to him was Rehman Javed, whom he knew for a year, though he did not remember his profession. In fact, Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10, Muhammad Saeed P. W. 11 and Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 were not even known to him previously. Muhammad Saeed P.
W. 11, according to his testimony in cross-examination, could not give particulars and addresses of the appellants, except that he knew them from their faces and that he personally knew Bashir and Hamayun, appellants, and the names and addresses of the rest were supplied to him by Ajiz Hussain P. W.
14. He also did not know Muhammad Sharif, com--plainant, P. W. 9 and Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased, before the occurrence. Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10, according to his testimony in cross-examination, only knew Bashir, appellant, but corrected himself later by stating that' he knew all the appellants from their faces and names because they used to sit with Bashir, appellant. As regards his earlier statement made, he stated that he bad abruptly and inadvertently stated that he did not know the other appellants. He also did not previously know Muhammad Sharif complainant P. W. 9 and Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased. Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 who was the person who knew the names and addresses of all the appellants, in cross-examination admitted that he had been a companion of Bashir, appellant, with whom he had been challaned in a case under section 307, P. P. C. In the year 1965, in which case he was acquitted. He also admitted having been previously involved in a number of criminal cases. Like the remaining three witnesses, he also had not previously known Muhammad Sharif, complainant, P. W.
9 and Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased. Though Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10 was previously involved in a dacoity and murder case and an Arms Ordinance case and Ajiz Hussain P.
W. 14 was involved in about four criminal cases and was a witness in two other cases, nothing has been brought out in their testimony to show that they had any enmity or animosity with any of the seven appellants as to falsely involve them on a capital charge of murder. Both Muhammad Sharif, complainant, P. W. 9 and Muhammad Saeed P. W. 11 have no criminal record and appear to be respectable witnesses. They also do not have any enmity or animus with any of the appellants to involve them falsely. Irrespective of the fact that Ajiz Hussain P. W. 14 furnished the names and other particulars of the appellants on a paper to the complainant and the other witnesses, the fact remains that the complai--nant and the other witnesses knew some of the appellants by their names and faces and saw all a---- them at the time of occurrence and nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to show that the appellants were either not present or that their identity or particular parts attributed to them was doubtful. It appears that the incident generally did take place, as alleged, that all the eye-witnesses did see the occurrence and that all the appellants were present at the time of occurrence, though who took effective part as to be criminally liable we will attempt to evaluate in a subsequent part of this judgment, in view of the chance meeting between the two groups. We repeat that so far as the presence of the appellants is concerned, this is not a case where any corroboration is required, nor do we propose to look for the same. All the appellants were present. However, in view of the fact that both the opposing parties happened to meet each other by chance and the true motive has been hidden from us, the forces, which activated each appellant to act cannot be assessed with any degree of certainty, with the result that for the purposes of abundant caution, the question as to who effectively did take part and can be saddled with criminal liability, is a matter which calls for serious evaluation, which we shall deal with when evaluating the evidence as regards recoveries.
16. The evidence as regards the recoveries is furnished by Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13, Malik Ghulam Muhammad S. I. P. W. 15 and Ahmad Khan Inspector P. W.
17. It is true that Muhammad Shafi P. W. 13 attempted to become a witness of the motive and pretended that, he was not related to the complainant, though he was not present at the time when the rickshaw accident took place and the evidence brought by the appellants shows that he was related to the complainant, yet nothing appears on the record to show that he is not a true witness of the recoveries. . The two Police Officers, namely, Malik Ghulam Muhammad P. W. 15 and Ahmad Khan P. W. 17 have no enmity or ani--mosity against any of the appellants to falsely plant any of the recoveries on Hamayun, Rehman Javed, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Bashir, appellants. In fact, it was not even suggested by any of the learned counsel for the appellants that the police officers were interested in the case and had planted false recoveries on the four appellants. Hamayun, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Bashir, appellants, led to recoveries of blood-stained daggers and Rehman Javed, appellant, led to the recovery of a blood-stained knife, all of which were found to be stained with human blood, excepting that blood on one of the three daggers was found to have disintegrated. This, however, does not make any difference. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that as the weapons of offence were sent after many days to the Chemical Examiner, the recoveries should be rejected as it was not possible after such a long time for the origin of the blood to be discoverable. In the instant case we are not looking for corroboration. But any circum-- stance which may give bus a reasonable ground to believe that any particular appellant was criminally involved. The recoveries of weapon of offence, is sufficient for us to hold the criminal participation of the appellants who have led to such recoveries. The recoveries of weapon of offence by Muhammad Bashir, Hamayun, Muhammad Saleem and Rehman Javed appellant, offer a clear confirmatory circumstance to prove their criminal involvement. The injuries on Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased. And Muhammad Aleem P. W. 10, clearly show that at least a minimum of four assailants were involved in the crime in instance, with weapons as are imputed to the four appellants who have led to their recovery. Bashir, Hamayun and Saleem appellants are specifically imputed to have inflicted the fatal injuries on Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased. They have also led to the recoveries of weapons, which could have been used in the incident. Rehman Javed, appellant, with certain others, is also generally imputed to have inflicted injuries on Muhammad Saleem, deceased. He too has led to the recovery of a weapon which could have been used in the incident. In these circum--stances, for the purposes of safe dispensation of justice and by way of abundant caution, we would hold that Hamayun, Muhammad Saleem, Rehman Javed and Muhammad Bashir, appellants, were present at the spot and effectively did take part in the occurrence with criminal intent as they caused the deaths of Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased, and injuries to Muhammad Aleem P. W.
10. They are, therefore, liable under section 302/34, P. P. C. (on two counts) for the murders of Talib Hussain and Muhammad Saleem, deceased, and under section 324/34, P. P. C. For the sharp-edged grievous injuries to Muhammad Aleem P. W.
10. Their conviction under section 148, P. P. C. Is not warranted and is set aside. Rehmat Khan, Muhammad Afzal and Shaukat appellants, are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Their conviction and sentences under sections 302/ 149, P. P. C., 324/149, P. P. C.
And 148, P. P. C. Are hereby set aside.
17. The only question that now remains is that relating to the sentence of Muhammad Bashir, appellant. As already observed above, the motive, as set forth by the prosecution, does not stand proved. The occurrence erupted out of a chance meeting between two groups and the immediate circumstances which triggered off the incident have been suppressed and have not been put forth.
In these circumstances, Muhammad Bashir, appellant, is entitled to the lesser penalty.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the convictions of Hamayun, Muhammad Saleem, Rehman Javed and Muhammad Bashir, appellants, under section 302/149, P. P. C. (on two counts) and 324/149, P. P.
C. Are converted to that under section 302/34 (on two counts) and 324/34, P. P. C. And all the appellants are sentenced under section 302/34, P.P.C. To life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000) each or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years each on each of the two counts and under section 324134, P. P. C. To two years' rigorous imprisonment each. Their conviction and sentence under section 148, P. P. C. Are set aside. The sentence of death of Muhammad Bashir, appellant, is not confirmed. In the event of realisation of fines from the appellants, half of the same shall be paid as compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. To the legal heirs of the two deceased. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-A, Cr. P. C. Shall be granted to the said four appellants. The convictions and sentences of Rahmat Khan, Muhammad Afzal and Shaukat, appellants, are hereby set aside. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine, if recovered, shall be refunded to them.
19. There being no merit in the private revision (Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1980) filed by Muhammad Sharif, complainant, the same is dismissed in limine.