1. ABDUL RAZAK A. THAHIM, J.-Appellants Ali Gohar son of Ghulam Hyder Sarohi, Muhammad Pannah son of Muhammad Murad Sarohi and Muhammad Usman son of Muhammad Sadique Sarohi, have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 8th May, 1983 of Sessions Judge, Khairpur, whereby they have been convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. And each of them has been sentenced to death and a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default to R. I. For two years. The fine if recovered has been ordered to be paid to heirs of deceased. Appellant Ali Gohar and Muhammad Pannah have also been convicted under section 324. P. P. C. For causing simple injuries to Ashique Hussain and sentenced each to suffer R. I. For one year. These three appellants were tried alongwith co- accused Ghous Bux who was acquitted by the same judgment. The case has also been submitted before this Court for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the appellants. We propose to dispose of the appeal and the death reference by this common judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that on 22nd July, 1980 at 4-30 p. m. Ashique Hussain Manglo, came at Police Post, Khuhra and lodged report in which he stated that he and his brother Mashooq Ali used to ply Suzuki Vans between Ripri and Khuhra. One Rahim Bux was cleaner at Mashooq Ali's Van while Liaquat Ali was cleaner of Ashique Hussain. On the day of incident as usual they left their Suzukis at Khuhra Stand. At about 4-15 p, m. Both brothers alongwith cleaners Rahim Bux, Liaquat Ali and one Israr Ahmed driver came to a Hotel of Gullan and started taking meals under a shade when all of a sudden Ali Gohar, Muhammad Pannah, Muhammad Usman and Ghous Bux all Sarohis by caste residents of Ali Bux Sarohi, Taluka Gambat appeared from western side. Ali Gohar had a "kaat" (Big knife), Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Pannah had hatchets while Ghous Bux had a pistol and they challenged Mashooq Ali, whereupon Ashique Hussain and others started running inside the Hotel but Mashooq Ali fell down in the veranda of Hotel due to obstruction of wooden piMar. Accused Ali Gohar caused kaat injuries to Mashooq Ali, whom Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Pannah gave hatchet blows. Ghous Bux tried to fire from his pistol but it did not work. Ashique Hussain tried to rescue his brother but he was also given blows by accused Ali Gohar with kaat and Muhammad`Pannah with hatchet. In the meanwhile Ghullan, owner of the Hotel, Israr Ahmed, Rahim Bux, Liaquat Ali and other persons came running and challenged the accused who ran away with their respective weapons. Mashooq Ali died due to injuries. Ashique Ali who had injuries was brought by Israr Ahmed in his Suzuki to Police Post where his report was entered in roznamcha by Madad Ali, A. S. I. P. Who sent that report to Police Station Gatnbat for incorporation in 154, Cr. P. C. Book. The motive is that 12 months before this incident one Muhammad Siddik Sarohi was murdered by Muhammad Maroof Manglo and Khadim Hussain Manglo therefore accused in revenge of Muhammad Siddik Sarohi's murder, killed Mashooq Ali Manglo.
2. A. S.-I. Madad Ali Khokhar, prepared mashirnama of injuries of complainant Ashiq Hussain and referred him to Medical Officer Gambat for treatment and certificate. He then proceeded to wardat. Which was pointed out by Israr Ahmed. It was in the Hotel of Ghullan at village Khuhra from where blood was secured. The dead body of Mashooq Ali was sent for post-mortem to Gambat. A.
3. S.-I. Recorded statements of P. Ws. Israr Ahmed. Liaquat Ali, Gullah, Rahim Bux at the wardat. On same day i. e. 22nd June, 1980 he arrested accused Ali Gohar, Muhammad Pannah and Muhammad Usman from Otaq of Ali Bux Sarohi and secured blood-stained clothes and crime weapons kaat and hatchets. On 28th June, 1980 the statements of Ghulam Rasool, Kaloo and Nisar were recorded. On 2nd July, 1980, accused Ghous Bux was arrested who produced one pistol and live cartridge. Finally the case was challaned.
4. Prosecution in support of the case examined II witnesses before the trial Court. P. W. 1 complainant Ashiq Hussain, P. W. 2 Israr Ahmed, P. W. 3 Gul Muhammad (Gullan), P. W. 4 Rahim Bux are the eyewitnesses of the incident. P. W. 8, Ghulam Rasool saw the accused running away after committing offence. P W. 10, Khuda Bux is mashir of wardat, arrest of accused and recovery of blood-stained clothes and crime weapons from accused. P. W. 5, Ashfaque All is tapedar who prepared sketch of wardat and be produced it as Exh. 14-A. P. W. 7, Mushtaq Ahmed, incorporated the entry of roznamcha in 154, Cr. P. C. Book and produced it as Exh. I7-A. P. W. 9, Mehrab Ali corpse- bearer who took the dead body of Mashooq Ali, to Hospital for post-mortem, P. W.
11. Madad Ali Khokhar, A. S.-I. Recorded complaint and investigated the case. The evidence of P. W. 6 Dr. Rahim Bux is at Exh.
15. He conducted post-mortem on the body of Mashooq Ali and issued injuries certificate of Ashique Hussain. Post-mortem Notes and Certificates are at Exh. 15 and Exh. 15-A. The report of Chemical Examiner is at Exh. 23-A. P. W. Liaquat Ali was given up as his whereabouts were not known and statement of A. P. P. Khairpur is at Exh. 22.
5. Appellants in their statements in the trial Court under section 342, Cr. P. C. Have stated that allegations against them are not correct and witnesses have deposed only to oblige complainant due to their friendship. Appellants and acquitted co-accused have not examined any witness in their defence.
6. We have heard Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, Advocate for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. Agha Ghulam Ali, Advocate for the State.
7. The trial Court after assessing the evidence of the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above on the basis of occular testimony of witnesses and other circumstances like Medical evidence and motive. Ghous Bux co-accused was given benefit of doubt by the trial Judge and acquitted on the ground that he did, not cause any injury and recovery of pistol was not believed against him.
8. The evidence against the appellants consisted of ocular testimony furnished by complainant Ashique Hussain, Gullan, Israr Ahmed, Rahim Bux, and medical evidence, motive recoveries of blood-stained clothes and crimes weapons and that they were seen running away from place of occurrence immediately after occurrence by P. W. Ghulam Rasool.
9. We propose first to deal with ocular testimony of eye-witnesses. Complainant Ashique Hussain who received injuries therefore is natural witness and his presence at the spot at the time of incident cannot be doubted. He has stated that he and his deceased brother Mashooq Ali used to ply Suzuki and Taxi while P. W. Rahim Bux was cleaner on deceased's van and Liaquat Ali was cleaner with him. On the day of incident at about 4-15 p. m. They all and one Israr came to take meals at the Hotel of P. W. Gullan Memon, while they were taking meals in the shade of Hotel they heard challenge from western side extended by accused Ali Gohar, Muhammad Pannah, Ghous Bux and Muhammad Usman. On hearing this they tried to run inside the Hotel but Mashooq Ali fell down due to obstruction, then accused Ali Gohar gave him kaat blow while Muhammad Pannah and Usman caused hatchet injuries. Accused Ghous Bux tried to fire from his pistol but it could not function. He tried to rescue his brother Mashooq ,41i but Ali Gohar gave him kaat blow. He has deposed that all the above-named witnesses saw the incident. P. W. Israr took him to Police Post where he lodged report. P. W. Rahim Bux who was cleaner on Suzuki of deceased Mashooq Ali has supported the version given by complainant Ashique Hussain. He saw and identified the accused causing injuries to Mashooq Ali and Ashique Hussain with kaat and hatchets. P. W. Gullan (Gul Muhammad) is owner of Hotel and was present in the Hotel and saw the accused causing injuries. He had identified the accused and stated that Gohar had kaat, Usman and Pannah had hatchets who caused injuries to Mashooq Ali. He has also deposed that Ashique Ali who tried to save his brother was given injuries by Gohar with kaat and Pannah with hatchet and Israr took complainant Ashique Hussain to Police Post. He has also stated that police came at wardat at about 5-10 p. m. When his statement was recorded. No enmity whatsoever is suggested or proved with appellants, except that suggestion was made that he was deposing at the instance of complainant. Gullan is natural and truthful witness who fully corroborated the version given by complainant.
10. Now we come to evidence of P. W. Israr, who has supported the prosecution case and stated that he saw appellants causing injuries to deceased Mashooq Ali and injured Ashiq Ali at the Hotel. He took Ashique Hussain to Police Post Khuhra. He had identified the accused in the Court. He has produced his 164, Cr. P. C. Statement Exh. 11-A and admitted the contents to be correct. This witness has deposed before trial Court that he saw accused first time on the day of incident but he correctly pointed out accused in the Court and gave correct descriptions of the respective weapons which appellants and acquitted co-accused were carrying at the time of incident.
11. Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that eye-witness Rahim Bux who is related to complainant P. W. Gullan might have seen the incident but has not identified the assailants and has deposed at the behest of complainant and that the assailants were not known to P. W. Israr, therefore in the circumstances the identification parade of accused through this witness was necessary and on this point he has invited our attention to two cases Gullan v. The State where it was held that evidence of witness against stranger accused whose description in F.
12. I. R. And police statement is missing be discarded. In the reported case further identification parade was held after 14 days of arrest and some witnesses admitted that police had shown accused to them before identification test. In another case Kak alias Abdul Razak v. The State , where it was held that when prosecution witness was not acquainted with accused prior to occurrence and identification parade was not held thus evidence of such witness was not considered of much value. In the reported case facts are distinguishable. Incident took place at night, only eye-witness Saindino did not know the appellant before the incident but the High Court relied upon all the three eye-witnesses, including Saindino, whose evidence with regard to the1 2 identity of appellant was considered not of much value for want of identification parade. Other two eye-witnesses were believed and conviction was maintained. In both the reported cases facts are different.
13. In the present case Israr has implicated the accused and identified them in Court and that there is no enmity alleged by appellants with this witness. This witness has supported the prosecution case but admitted before the trial Judge that he had seen the accused persons only on the day of incident and identification parade did not take place. Presence of this witness at the spot at the time of incident cannot be doubted because he had taken injured complainant to P. P. Khuhra, where report was lodged and then took injured to hospital. Name of this witness appears in F. I. R.
14. Which was lodged promptly within 15 minutes. P. W. 11 Madad Ali A. S.-I. Had admitted before the trial Court that injured/complainant was brought at P. P. In Suzuki by P. W. Israr. Moreover even vardat was pointed out by P. W. Israr. Incident took place in broad daylight at 4-15 p. m. And this witness saw the incident from beginning to the end and had sufficient time to see assailants clearly. Moreover, names of assailants were divulged at P. P. By injured/complainant in presence of this witness. In these circumstances identification test was not so necessary. This witness has fully supported case of prosecution and his evidence is very much consistent with other eye-witnesses.
15. However, on the point whether accused was not previously known and value of identification parade, we would refer to case of Muhammad Afzal and others v. The State , where it has been observed at para 13, page 133 as under:-- "13. Now there is no provision in law that identification proceedings should be held in cases where a crime is committed by persons unknown to the witness or for that matter in any type of cases. The identification has by itself no independent value. As stated by Viscount Haldane, L. C. In King v.
16. Christie (1914 A C 545) 'its relevancy is to show that the witness was able to identify at the time and to exclude the idea that the identification of the prisoner in the dock was an afterthought or a mistake'. In practice however, it is not safe to accept the statement of a witness about complicity of an accused in a crime if he did not describe him by name or other particulars during the investigation and still was not made to identify him out of a group. If, however, the identity of the accused is proved by other convincing evidence direct or circum-stantial, the absence of identification test proceedings will be immaterial. It will be presently shown that in this case the identity of appellants was sufficiently and adequately established by the evidence of P. W. Rahim Khan corroborated by the recoveries from the appellants. But before that I may also refer to the identification that has, according to me, taken place at the Police Station for as stated earlier it is reasonable to assume that P. W. Rahim Khan had seen the appellants at the Police Station when they were in the custody as suspects and that they were ported out by the witness. It is the defence version that the appellants were not the only suspects in custody and if, therefore, P. W. Rahim Khan identified the appellants to the police as perpetrators of the crime it is not a case of an accused being shown singly in advance to facilitate his identification later on. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellants were even otherwise properly identified by P. W. Rahim Khan at the Police Station. Be that as it may, for in any event, there is no reason to doubt the identification testimony of P. W. Rahim Khan at the trial."
17. We have carefully read the evidence of the above eye-witnesses Ashfaque Hussain, Rahim Bux, Gullan and Israr. There is absolutely no inconsistency or contradiction in the evidence of these four eye-witnesses. E Each one of them have given consistent evidence even about the complainant leaving the scene of occurrence for lodging report and such report was lodged within 15 minutes of the occurrence in which the names of all the witnesses are mentioned. We are very much impressed by the fact that incident has taken place in broad daylight in a hotel and F. I. R. Was lodged with extreme promptitude within the shortest possible time by injured eye-witnesses as complainant and names of eye-witnesses and assailants are categorically given in F. I. R. Hence3 possibility of manipulation or false implication is excluded. Reliance can be placed on cases of Ghazi and others , Mohram and others and Amir Bux and others v. State .
18. We next proceed to examine the medical evidence as an argument has been raised before us that the same is in conflict with the ocular evidence. Dr. Rahim Bux Exh. 15, had performed the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Ashiq Ali, and saw injuries of the complainant Ashique Hussain and issued such certificate. He started postmortem on 22nd June, 1980 at 6-30 p. m. And finished at 8-30 p. m. And found following injuries on the body of deceased Mashooq Ali :- "(1) One incised wound 4" x 1" x brain deep on the right temporal and the frontal region. Fracture of temporal region. Fracture of temporal and frontal bone was seen.
(2) One incised wound 4" x li" x brain deep on the right temporal region of head and right temporal region of face. Fracture of right temporal and right mandible was seen.
(3) One incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the right mastoid region. Fracture of right mastoid bone was present and the right ear was also cut.
(4) One incised wound 5" x 2" x bone deep on the right side of the neck cutting all the vessels of the neck on the right side and there was fracture of cervical bone.
(5) One incised wound 2i" x 1" x bone deep on the right side of face. Fracture of the right mandible was noticed.
(6) One incised wound 11" x x skin deep on the right mandible region.
(7) One incised wound 5" x 2" x brain deep on the left occipital region. Fracture of the occipital bone was present.
(8) One incised wound 5" x 2' x brain deep on the left occipital region. Fracture of the occipital bone was present.
(9) One incised wound 4" x 2" x bone deep on the occipital region. Fracture of the occipital bone was noticed.
(10) One incised wound 3" x 2" x bone deep on occipital region.
(11) One incised wound 4" x 2" x bone deep in the center of both parietal region.
(12) One incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the left occipital region.
(13) One incised wound 1" x li" x skin deep on the left shoulder.
(14) One liner cut 5" skin deep on the right venial region."
19. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, were sufficient to cause death individually and collectively and appeared to have been caused by some sharp-cutting weapon such as hatchet. The time between death and post-mortem was 2 to 3 hours. Post-mortem notes are at Exh. 15-A. On the same date injured Ashique Hussain was referred to same Medical Officer for examination, treatment and certificate. He examined him at 6-00 p. m. And found following injuries :- "(1) One incised wound 21" x 1" x skin deep on the left parietal region.
(2) One incised wound 5' x 2" x muscle deep on the left arm near elbow joint.
(3) One incised wound 1r x i" X muscle deep on the lower 1/3rd of the left forearm.
(4) One incised wound i" x i" x skin deep on the upper 1/3rd of left forearm.
(5) One bruise 3" x 1" right forearm.
(6) One bruise 3" x 2" on the right forearm.
(7) One bruise 3" x 2" on the back of left shoulder."
20. All injuries were simple in nature and injuries 1, 2, 3 and 4 appeared to have been caused by sharp- cutting weapon like hatchet and Nos. 5, 6 and 7 by hard and blunt substance such as light. Injuries were about 1 to 3 hours old and certificate is at Exh, 15-B, Rahim Bux in his cross-examination certified that injuries Nos. 14 and 15 on deceased could be caused by a weapon like "kaat" and rest of the 13 injuries by hatchet and he could not say in what position such injuries could have been caused to the deceased.4 5 6 The evidence of eye-witnesses is supported by medical evidence which shows that injuries were caused to deceased Ashique Ali with kaat and hatchets, and the post-mortem notes, certificate and evidence of Doctor further confirmed assertion of eye-witnesses about the time, the manner in which incident took place and weapons used.
21. Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh contended that three injuries with blunt weapon on the body of complainant Ashique Hussain have not been explained by the prosecution. The explanation appears to be that while Ashique Hussain attempted to rescue his brother, he might have sustained injuries with handle of hatchets as he fell down on his brother and could not notice those injuries at the relevant time when his brother was being beaten mercilessly. Therefore in our opinion ocular testimony gets full support from medical evidence on facts, time and other circumstances. On this point we refer to a case Muhammad Ali alias Muhammada v. The State relevant at 1217 where the Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court have held that :- "It is quite consistent with the ordinary course of human conduct, in a situation like, the one described by the witnesses, where one helpless victim is trying to find shelter in the shop to avoid a murderous assault by assailants armed with fire-arms, to struggle in order to escape a direct hit and in the process of shooting in such an atmosphare charged with excitement, it is possible for the assailants to open indiscriminate firing resulting in some of the shots missing the target and hitting the walls. Also in the trauma of the dramatic events occurring suddenly, it is natural for the witnesses, who themselves may be apprehending harm in the face of successive shots, not to clearly observe the sequence with which the shots landed on the body of deceased. However, they could certainly be in position to say who was shooting at the deceased. As regards the injuries given to the deceased with the dagger by Shakeel appellant, the version of the three witnesses is consistent and free from every contradiction."
22. Having dealt with medical evidence and evidence of four eye-witnesses we now proceed to examine the evidence of Ghulam Rasool who has shop at Khuhra near the place of occurrence. He has stated that on hearing cries of 'murder' ! 'murder' ! From southern side he came out from his shop and rushed towards the scene of offence and saw four persons Pannah, Ghous Bux, Usman, Dost Muhammad (but he stated that actually he had forgotten the name of fourth accused but he had correctly pointed out Ali Gohar in Court). He saw that Usman and Pannah had hatchets, Ghous Bux had a revolver and fourth man with kaat came out from Hotel of Gullan and went away towards south. He found Mashooq Ali lying dead while Ashique had injuries who narrated the incident and gave him names of accused. No enmity was suggested or proved by the accused with this witness who is 'Biadanis by caste. He is natural and independent witness as his shop is at distance of 20-25 paces from the place of incident. He has no motivation to falsely implicate accused and saw them immediately after incident coming out of Hotel and running away with their weapons. He has fully corroborated the version given by complainant. Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh contended that statement of Ghulam Rasool was recorded after 6 days of incident therefore his evidence cannot be relied upon. He has invited our attention to a case of Wali Muhammad v. The State . The facts of the reported case are quite different from this case. In the reported case the name of the witness was mentioned in F. I. R. And he was the only material witness. In the present case the name of this witness does not appear in F. I. R. But police after arrest of accused seems to have tried to collect independent evidence and recorded statements of shopkeepers of the vicinity.
23. A. S.-I. P. On 28th June, 1980 recorded the statements of Kaloo. Ghulam Rasool and Nasir. Under these particular circumstances the delay in recording the statement of this witness could easily be ignored.
24. ' The next piece of evidence against the appellants, is the incriminating recoveries which had been made from or at their instance. The evidence of mashir Khuda Bux Exh. 21 and Madad Ali Investigating Officer Exh. 23, is relevant in such regard besides the opinion of the Chemical7 8 Analyser, mashir Khuda Bux has been examined to prove the wardat, injuries on complainant Ashique Hussain, and arrest of three appellants on the day of incident at 9-30 p. m. From the Otaq of Ali Bux. He has stated that in his presence one shirt (Cholo) and lion-cloth from Usman, shirt from Pannah and shalwar and shirt from Ali Gohar, all blood-stained, were secured from their persons. He has further stated that Ali Gohar, voluntarily led the police party and produced kaat while Usman and Muhammad Pannah produced hatchets separately. According to him all the articles were blood-stained and sealed. On this point there is also evidence of A. S.-I. Madad Ali, who on the very day after about 4-5 hours of the incident arrested the accused and made recoveries of bloodstained clothes and crime weapons from all the accused. The evidence of mashir and A. S.-I. Is consistent. The report of Chemical Analyser Exh. 23-A, shows that earth, crime weapons except one shirt were found to be bloodstained.
25. The evidence of mashir Khuda Bux has been attacked mainly on the ground that he is brother-in- law of complainant and there was delay in sending clothes to Chemical Analyser. Khuda Bux has admitted that he is brother-in-law of deceased but he is not inimical to accused. His presence at Police Station after incident has been proved as he acted as mashir of injuries of Ashique Hussain and then he went to wardat and I accompanied Investigating Officer for arrest of accused on the same day therefore his evidence is convincing. Even otherwise we have no hesitation in believing the evidence of Police Officer, who immediately after occurrence within four hours arrested the accused and recovered blood stained clothes and weapons when there is no reason to discard his evidence.
26. As regards the delay in sending articles to Chemical Analyser it is necessary to put such questions to the Investigating Officer but in this case there is nothing on record to show that appellants have challenged the evidence before the trial Court. However, in a case Mubarak v. The State , it has been held that mere delay in sending the empty and the weapons for comparison to the Ballistic Expert cannot by itself imply that recovery is doubtful". In the above case the trial Court did not rely on the recovery evidence but High Court disagreeing with the reasoning of trial Court placed reliance on the evidence and Supreme Court held that High Court was right in relying upon this piece of evidence. The observation of Supreme Court in the above-reported case with relevant portion at page 533 is as follows :- " We are further of the view that the recovery of the crime empty from the vardat which matched with the gun which was recovered when the appellant was arrested could also be relied upon. No doubt, the learned Sessions Judge did not rely upon this recovery on the reasoning that the crime empty and the gun were sent to the Ballistic Expert after about 3 months and the positive report about the matching of the crime empty was not of much value. Mere delay in the sending of the crime empty and the weapon for comparison to the Ballistic Expert cannot by itself imply that the recovery is doubtful. This inference can follow only after examining all the attendant circumstances, such as whether any doubt existed about the recovery of crime empty from the spot ; whether any suspicion arose that it had been substituted, etc. As no such suspicious circumstance has been pointed out in this case and, therefore, the recovery of the gun from the appellant could rightly be used as a corroborative circumstance. The learned Judges in the High Court were therefore, right in relying upon this piece of evidence."
27. We are of the view that reliance could safely be placed on the recovery evidence in view of the reasons mentioned above. The last piece of evidence on which the prosecution relied is motive. It is stated that Muhammad Siddique Sarohi of accused party was murdered in which two persons namely Maroof and Khadim from complainant side were challaned. They were in jail at that time. In revenge of murder of Siddique, the accused committed murder of Mashooq Ali. It has been made clear from the evidence of Ashique Hussain that Siddique was maternal-uncle of appellant/accused Ali Gohar. Defence has also made suggestions about this enmity over murder9 of Siddique. The motive advanced by the prosecution has been admitted by the defence but it is argued that due to that enmity appellants have been involved. The motive has been proved by the prosecution and trial Court was justified on relying on this piece of evidence. We also come to the conclusion that K motive is proved when within 15 minutes F. I. R. Is lodged in which this motive has been furnished. The learned counsel lastly contended that a the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not accepted by the trial Court against the acquitted co-accused Ghous Bux, it may be unsafe to convict the appellants on the same evidence. He has relied upon the case of Hakim Ali and 4 others v. The State . In that case five persons were falsely impliated and facts were deliberately suppressed, the witnesses giving false evidence. The facts of the above-reported case are different than the case with which we are dealing. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge only gave benefit of doubt to the acquitted co-accused. There are authorities that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" ,ought not to be applied while evaluating evidence in this country if the evidence upon which the Court is to act can safely be relied up as representing the substantial truth.
28. Similarly, the rule that the integrity of a witness is indivisible has not been endorsed by the superior Courts of the country without reservation and cannot be accepted as one of universal application.
29. The Courts are supposed to sift the gram from the chaff in each case in the light of its own peculiar circumstances. On this point we would like to refer the cases Tawaib Khan v. The State , Jinda and 2 others v. The State and case of Khairu and another v. The State , where it has been held that rule "falsus is uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable for discarding evidence of witness as a whole and so much of evidence which is credible can be accepted.
30. ' Relying on the same principle this Court has also given benefit to co-accused and relied upon the evidence against others in cases Bakhir and 3 others v. The State . In Supreme Court, in cases Salabat and others v. The State and Bakhtiar and others v. The State have also endorsed the same view as mentioned above.
31. To sum up, the case against the three appellants is established by the evidence of complainant Ashiq Hussain, P. Ws. Gullan, Rahim Bux, Israr Ahmed corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries of blood-stained articles and motive. The F. I. R. Was lodged promptly wherein the names of accused and witnesses were mentioned. Although P. W. Rahim Bux and mashir Khuda Bux are related to deceased and complainant but such fact by itself is not sufficient to brand them as interested witnesses. P. W. Gullan, Israr and Ghulam Rasool are independent witnesses and their presence is also proved. The evidence of the witnesses have been discussed at length in the earlier part of this judgment, and we are of the view that their evidence is true and reliable.
32. ' As a result of the above discussion and finding no merits, we dismiss the appeal. However, the question of propriety of awarding the extreme penalty of death to Ali Gohar, Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Pannah appellants, requires to be examined.
33. Injuries Nos. 14 and 15 were caused to deceased by Ali Gohar with kaat which appeared to be simple and other injuries were caused by Muhammad Pannah, Muhammad Usman by hatchets, but fatal injuries N cannot be pinpointed with certainty to one of the assailants whose participation in the attack otherwise stands established by satisfactory evidence. We refer cases of Muhammad Khan v. The State , Muhammad Ali alias Muhammada v. The State , relevant 1219-H where considering the above circumstances the sentence of death was modified to life imprisonment.
34. Supreme Court in a case Hakim Khan and others v. The State , considering that accused alone had not caused all injuries but others also shared the responsibility of causing injuries to the deceased and prosecution had not made any distinction between the role played by the two assailants, had ordered lesser penalty. Thus for the safe dispensation of justice we consider that life imprisonment in the case in hand, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly we alter the sentence from death to life 0 imprisonment. As the appeal has been dismissed, the fine and10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 conviction under section 324, P. P. C. Stands maintained except modification of death sentence to imprisonment of life.
35. We direct that appellant be given benefit contemplated under section 382-B, Cr. P. C. At the time of computation of sentence by Jail Authorities. Reference for confirmation of death sentence is rejected.
36. Death to imprisonment for life. 1974 P Cr. L J 74 PLD 1965 (W. P.) Kar. 31 1982 SCM R 129 1980 P Cr. L J 30 1980 P Cr. L J 50 1979 P Cr. L J 314 1983 SCM R 1211 1982 P Cr. L J 798 1982 SC MR 531 1971 SCM R 432 PLD 1970 SC 13 1980 P Cr. L J 327 1981 SCMR 1136 PLD 1981 Kar. 490 1983 SCMR 9 1983 SCMR 46 F L D 1977 SC 446 1983 SCM R 1211 1983 SCMR 300