FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, J.---This is an appeal from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur whereby he had acquitted the above three respondents of offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. Charge against them was that on 17th July, 1975 at 1-00 a.m. They had alongwith absconding accused Gaman, committed murders of Suleman and Ghulam Hyder in the garden of Chhatal Mangnejo in village Chakar Varyaso, tajuka Ganbat District Khairpur, by causing them injuries with hatchets and lathi, in furtherance of their common intention.
2. Complainant Ghulam Farid, P. W. Saifal and the two deceased Ghulam Hyder and Suleman used to work in the garden of Chhatal which they had taken on lease. They also used to sleep in the garden at night. On the night between 16th/ 17th of July, 1975 all these four persons were sleeping in the garden as usual. At 1.00 p.m, complainant Ghulam Farid woke up on cries of ---murder ! Murder ! .P. W. Saifal also woke up. P. W. Rasool Bux, who was said to be attending to his rotation of water in the neighbouring land, also heard the cries and is alleged to have come to the garden, where a lamp was alight. It is further alleged that these persons saw the above three respondents alongwith absconding accused Gaman giving hatchet and lathi blows to Ghulam Hyder and Suleman. Respondent Wasand is said to have been armed with a lathi while others with hatchets.
Ghulam Varid, Saifal and Rasool Bux claim to have identified the four persons named above in the light of the lamp. All the four culprits are said to have run away after causing injures to Suleman and Ghulam Hyder. After some time P. Ws. Belo and Ali Gulab had also come who were informed about the incident.
3. Complainant Ghulam Farid left the above persons by the injured persons Suleman and Ghulam Hyder and himself went to Wadero Gul Muhammad to inform him of the incident. Gul Muhammad advised the complainant to lodge F. I. R. With the police. The complainant then came back to the scene of offence and removed the two injured to Sabbodero police station and lodged report at 8- 30 a.m. In the following morning. Mr. Rounaq Ali S.H.O. Had recorded the report. Injured Suleman had, however, died in the way to the police station. The dead body of Suleman was despatched to medical officer Hingorja for post-mor--tem examination. Injured Ghulam Hyder was also referred to the same medical officer who was of the opinion this injured should be removed to Jamshoro Hospital for better treatment. He was taken to Jamshoro on the next day, that is 18th July, 1975, but he also died in the way and was, therefore, brought back. His dead body was sent to another medical officer, that is, of Ranipur for post-mortem examination.
4. The deceased persons and Ghulam Farid are related inter se. They had agreed to give their niece in marriage to respondent Wasand and in exchange Wasand had agreed to give his sister in marriage to Makkan, nephew of deceased Suleman. Daughter of the absconding accused Guman was also agreed to be given in marriage to Shah Nawaz, nephew of the deceased Suleman. It appears that there was some dispute between the two parties on account of matrimonial affairs.
Some of them had retracted from their commitments. As a result of this, it is alleged that accused Gaman had abducted Mst. Sehat niece of deceased Suleman. Again the respondents had demanded the hand of Mst. Hajul niece of the Suleman, for Wasand but the two deceased had refused because their niece Mst. Sehat had already been kidnapped by them. It is also alleged that Wadero Gul Muhammad had asked the respondents not to visit the village of the complainant. The above matrimonial dispute is said to be the motive for the two murders.
5. The case was investigated by Mr. Rounaq Ali. He had recorded statements of P. Ws. Saiful, Rasool Bux, Belo and Ali Gulab on the same day when the F. I. R. Was lodged, that is, 17th July, 1975. He then went to the scene of offence which was pointed out by complainant Ghulam Farid. He found blood stains on the ground. A lantern was hanging from a pole in the garden. The blood-stained earth was secured and P. Ws. Darya Khan and Qurban were examined.
6. On 18th July, 1975 Mr. Rounaq Ali received information about the death of Ghulam Hyder. He held inquest on his dead body and then sent it to Medical Officer Ranipur for autopsy, because Medical Officer Hingorja was not available. He also secured blood-stained clothes from the persons of the two deceased.
7. On 27th July, 1975 Mr. Rounaq Ali went to otaq of Atta Muhammad Khan Lund who produced the three respondents Muhabat, Chhato and Wasand before him. All of them were arrested in presence of Mashirs Ghulam Shabeer and Uris. It is alleged that on the same day respondent Muhabat had led the police to his house and produced a hatchet which was concealed under a -- -ralli---. There were some blood stains on the back side of this hatchet, which was secured and sealed in a parcel and such Mashirnama was prepared. It is further alleged that accused Chhato also led the S. H. O. And the above Mashir to his house and produced a hatchet from the heap of onions lying under a cot in his house. The back side of this hatchet was also blood-stained. It was secured and sealed in a parcel and such Mashirnama was prepared in presence of the same Mashirs. Accused Wasand is also alleged to have produced a lathi in presence of the same Mashirs, but there was no blood on it. The blood--stained articles were sent to Chemical Examiner.
According to report of the Chemical Examiner, blood on the two hatchets appeared to be disinteg- -rated and therefore, their origin could not be determined. After complete--ing the investigation the case was sent up for trial. Plea of the respondent is that they have been implicated falsely on account of matrimonial dispute. They have denied that Mst. Sehat was abducted by absconding accused Gaman. Their case is that Mst. Sehat was given in marriage to Gaman. They also admitted their inter se relationship.
8. The case against the respondents rests on the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses Ghulam Farid complainant Exh. 8, Rasool Bux Exh. 11 and Saiful Exh.
12. They have given prosecution story as nar--rated above. It is admitted that Ghulam Farid is cousin of deceased Suleman and also his brother-in-law. Rasool Bux is real brother of deceased Suleman. P. W. Saiful is cousin of Suleman and is married to his sister. They have admitted that there is matrimonal dispute between them and the respondents and that Met. Sehat is niece of deceased Suleman. It is also admitted that both the deceased were cousins to each other. The above ocular testimony is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P. W. Ali Gulab Exh. 10 who is said to have reached the scene of offence after the incident and was informed by Ghulam Farid and others about the incident.
Factum of recovery of hatchets and lathi from the respondent is sought to be proved from the evidence of Mashir Uris Exh. 16 and Mr. Rounaq Ali S. H. O. Exh.
17. The respondents have not produced any evidence in defence.
9. So far as the factum of murder is concerned there is no dispute about it. The plea of the respondents appears to be that Suleman and Ghulam Hyder were murdered by unknown assailants who were not identified by any one in the dark night. Moreover there is evidence of Dr. Khalid Latif Exh. 9 and Dr. Allah Warayo Exh. 14 who had held post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the two deceased. On 17th July, 1975 Dr. Allah Warayo had held post-mortem on the dead body of Suleman and found following injuries on his person :-
(1) Incised wound 1" x 1/6" x skin deep left side of forehead.
(2) An incised wound 1" x --" x bone deep on the left tem--poral region.
(3) An incised wound 2" x --" x maxillary sinus deep.
(4) An incised wound 2" x --" x skin deep left partial region.
(5) An incised wound 1--" x 1/6" x skin deep on left partial region posterior to injury No. 4.
10. On internal examination following damages were found: -
(1) Fracture of left temporal bone.
(2) Fracture of left maxillary bone with the result maxillary sinus was open.
(3) Vertebral column was healthy.
The stomach contained semi-digested food. According to this medical officer death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 2 and 3 which were caused by sharp-cutting weapon such as hatchet and were sufficient individually to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time of death was about 13 hours.
11. Dr. Khalid Latif, Medical Officer Ranipur had received the dead body of Ghulam Hyder on 18th July, 1975 at 10 p. m. For post-mortem examination. He found following injuries on the person of this deceased :-
(1) A lacerated wound l--" x --" x skin muscle bone deep, at the left eye the frontal bone of skull with the bone of arbitul --fossa fractured.
(2) A lacerated wound 2--" x 3" x 2" at the middle of both the nasal bone down to the tip of the nose, the both nasal bones and the maillary bones of left and right side fractured, the 2 incisors and 2 canines teeth of upper gum, but, were torn from upper gum.
(3) A bruise 11" by --" at the front of the chest.
(4) A bruise 10" x --" at the front of the chest below the 3rd injury.
(5) A lacerated wound --" x --" x skin and muscle deep at the upper part of right hand middle finger.
(6) A lacerated wound --" x --" x skin deep at the front of left leg.
(7) A lacerated wound --" x --" x skin muscle deep at the front of lower part of right knee-joint.
(8)An incised wound 1--" x --" x skin muscle deep at the upper part of right leg (on front).
(9) An incised wound 1--" x --" x skin and muscle deep at the middle of right leg below the 8th injury.
(10) An incised wound --" x --" x skin deep at the lower part of front of right leg below the 9th injury.
(11) An incised wound --" x --" x skin deep at-the lower part of front of right leg, below the 10th injury.
On internal examination following damage was found: -
(1) A part of scalp of frontal part of scalp of left side, slightly above the eye-brew was cut.
(2) Skull frontal bone on left side above the left eye-brew with both nasal bones and both maxillary bones fractured.
(3) Membranes of brain contained confused blood in its left frontal part.
(4) The stomach was empty. Some parts of the digested food were present in small intestine.
In his opinion death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent upon intro cranial concussions due to injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 appeared to have been caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi. These injuries were grievous in nature and were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries Nos. 3, 4. 5, 6 and 7 appeared to have been caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Injuries Nos. 8 to 11 appeared to have been caused by sharp-cutting weapon such as hatchet.
12. It is, therefore, proved that Ghulam Hyder and Suleman had died as a result of hatchet and lathi injuries which they had received at mid-night between 16th and 17th of July, 1975. The only direct evidence to prove the connection of the respondents with this crime is the word of the three witnesses Ghulam Farid, Saifal and Rasool Bux who are related inter se and are admittedly on inimical terms with the respondents due to abduction of their relative Mst. Sehat. They claim to have identified the four culprits at mid-night in the light of a lamp. They further stated that their cousin Ali Gulab had arrived later who was informed about the incident. Ali Gulab himself has been examined as P. W. 6 (Exh. 10) and he has stated that on hearing cries he had reached the scene of offence where Suleman and Ghulam Hyder were lying injured and that Ghulam Farid, Saifal and Rasool Bux had informed him that the three res--pondents and the absconding Gaman had caused lathi and hatchet injuries to the two injured persons,
13. Enmity between the parties is admitted. In this behalf the com--plainant has made following admission in his deposition :- ---Mst. Sehat and Mst. Hajul are the daughters of Dhani Bux, who is alive. Mst. Sehat's husband Mubarak also is alive. Dhani Bux and Mubarak live in our village. Dhani Bux also was not inclined to give the hands of his daughters and has refused them. Mubarak had filed a case against Gaman of abduction of Mst. Sehat. But I do not know as to where he had filed such case. Mubarak had filed a case of abduction of his wife Mst. Sehat against Gaman in the Court of the District Magistrate, but I was not witness in that case, Mubarak and Gaman had settled their differences in the case of the abduction of Mst. Sehat. Mubarak is nephew of Dhani Bux. It is not a fact that Mubarak had divorced his wife Mst. Sehat and with the consent of his parents was given to Gaman. Shah Nawaz is son of Dhani Bux. It is correct that there has been Nikah of Mst. Husna, daughter of Gaman with Shah Nawaz son of Dhani Bux. It is correct that Mubarak had taken Rs. 5,000 as compensa--tion for divorcing his wife Mst. Sehat. It is not a fact that Gaman had given his daughter to Shah Nawaz in exchange of his wife Mst. Sehat. Gaman had given hands of his daughter Mst. Husna and Wasand's sister Mst. Bhagul in exchange of Mst. Hajul and Mst. Husna Bhagul were given in marriage to-the sons of Dhani Bux, namely Shah Nawaz and Makkan respectively. The deceased Suleman was my cousin and Salo. P. W. Saifal also is cousin and Salo of deceased Suleman P. W. Rasool Bux. Is brother of Suleman. P: W. Belo is cousin of deceased Suleman. Ali Gulab is cousin of deceased Suleman. P. W. Ghulam Shabeer is distant cousin of Suleman. Dhani Bux is distant cousin of the deceased Suleman. Deceased Ghulam Hyder was Puphat of my father. P. W. Saifal is son of Ghulam Hyder's cousin-sister. P. W. Ijaz is brother of deceased Ghulam Hyder from mother side. P. W.
Ghulam Shabeer is distant cousin of deceased Ghulam Hyder Mashir Ashraf is distant cousin of deceased Ghulam Hyder.---
14. All the alleged eye-witnesses and even the mashirs are, therefore, highly interested. Their evidence is not to be relied upon unless it is corroborated in material particulars. In support of this view reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the case of Bagh Ali v. The State (PLD 1973 SC 321) in which it has been laid down as under: - "The appraisement of the evidence of eye-witnesses has to be based upon a full consideration and evaluation of all the circumstances appearing in the case where there is a total absence of physical circumstances to connect the accused person with the crime, and there is a background of enmity. In such a situation the ocular evidence must, in order to carry conviction on a capital charge, come from an unimpeachable source. If such a source is not available, then it must be supported by some strong circumstances which would enable the Court to overcome the inherent doubt which such evidence must necessarily create."
Learned defence counsel has further relied on the case of Lashkari and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1981 Kar, 1) in which a D. B. Of this Court held as under: - "It would thus be seen that the three eye-witnesses are deeply interest--ed and inimical to appellants Lashkari, Guloo and Murad Ali. The rule in regard to corroboration of the evidence of the interested and inimical witnesses, although a rule of caution has virtually ripened into a rule of law.
The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, stated the rule and cautioned against acceptance of such testimony without corroboration for the reason that false implication is not very rare in this country. One has no hesitation in saying that murder in such society infuses in the mind of the family of murdered person a desire to avenge and thus a series of murders had taken place. When feelings between the parties become embit--tered false implication or inflation in the number of accused very often is resorted to. It is precisely for such reason that the Courts are to be on guard and normally look for some corroboration lending an assurance to the evidence of witnesses."
The above observations are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. All the eye-witnesses including Ali Gulab who had reached the scene of offence later, are highly interested and had a motive to implicate the respondents in a false case because absconding accused Gaman, who is related to other respondents, had abducted their woman Mst. Sehat.
15. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever. Ali Gulab cannot be treated as a witness of corroboration because he himself is related to other P. Ws. Hence tainted evidence of one interested witness cannot be taken as corroboration of tainted evidence of other interested witnesses.
16. So far as the evidence of mashirs Uris Exh. 16 and Mr. Rounaq Ali Exh. 17 regarding recovery of hatchets is concerned, it is also not of any help to the prosecution because none of the hatchets was found to be stained with human blood. Thus, this is a case in which corroboration of the evidence of interested witness is completely lacking.
17. We are, therefore, of the view that the case against the reason--dents has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The incident had taken place in the dark night. P. W. Rasool Bux was not on the spot at the time of incident. His presence at the rotation of water to the land where he has claimed to be working, is doubtful, because the land was irrigated by a tube-well. This fact is admitted by Rasool Bux himself. If the land was irrigated by the tube-well, then the question of rotation of water does not arise. His presence at the spot is, therefore, doubtful. Moreover four persons have been involved in this case who belong to the party which is hostile to the complainant's party. Possibility of exaggeration also cannot be ruled out. In such cases innocent persons are usually implicated alongwith the real culprits with a spirit of vengeance. More--over it is doubtful if in the light of a lamp, the witnesses could have identi--fied the culprits with certainty: For all these reasons we are of the view that the case against the respondents is not free from doubt. The reason--dents have, therefore, been rightly acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.