1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-Leave to appeal was granted to reappraise the evidence as it was uncorroborated and there were discrepancies coupled with the finding of, the High Court that the motive was far-II ' The incident occurred at sunset time on 12th of June, 1973 on the pathway leading from the "Dhari" of deceased Muhammad Sharif to his. Chak. At that time he was carrying milk and as he reached Killa No, 23 of the square belonging to Ahmad Ali and others, the appellants emerged from a nearby field, out of Whom Abbas, Arif, Mehdi, Shera and Saadullah were armed with hatchets, while Ashraf had a chhavi, and all of them caused blows with their weapons to the deceased on various -parts of his body, as a result of which he expired.
2. ' This incident was witnessed by Noora, Ghulam and Ahmad, who were following the deceased with milk pots. The motive imputed was that about 10 years before the present incident, the deceased had caused injuries to Majeed, brother of appellants Arif, Mehdi, Ashraf and Abbas, with an iron-rod and he was booked for trial under section 326/307, P. P. C., but was acquitted. It was to avenge this aggression that the assailants who were inter-related, caused his death.
3. ' The report was lodged by Said Muhammad (P. W. 8) at Police Station Vehari, the same night at 10.00 p. m.
4. ' From the spot, blood-stained earth, a Huqqa and a pair of shoes, belonging to the deceased, were recovered.
5. ' Appellants Arif, Mehdi and Ashraf being arrested on 13th June, 1973, produced the incriminating weapons such as hatchets by the first two and a chhavi by the, third.
6. ' On the deceased as many as 16 incises were noticed which caused his death.
7. ' In defence, the appellants denied their participation in the crime and alleged enmity against the complainant party. Those from whom the incriminating articles were recovered denied their production. As for the injuries caused to Majeed, the real brother of Ashraf, it was said that it was a chance fight and that it had no particular significance. No details of the enmity were given by any one of the appellants.
8. ' The trial Court while appraising the evidence held that the F. I. R. Was not lodged at the spot as alleged, and that the motive stood established as the appellants did not even deny the imputation in their statements recorded under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further impressed that at the time when the injuries were caused to Majeed, appellants Arif, Abbas, Mehdi and Ashraf were teenagers, and it was upon reaching the age of majority that they had taken the avenge. As for the eye-witnesses, namely, Ghulam (P. W. 9) and Noora (P. W. 10), the trial Court held that their presence was natural, as it was a time at which the villagers usually brought milk from their "Dharis" to their houses, and in the absence of any suggestion as to enmity against the appellants, their testimony was entitled to full credence. The other factor, which weighed with the trial Court, was that Ghulam was related not only to the deceased, but also to the appellants, and, therefore he would not have implicated his own relatives if they had nor participated in the crime.
9. Noora had not given out his relationship with the deceased or Ghulam, but Ghulam himself stated that Noora and the deceased were related to him. Said Muhammad, the brother of the deceased stated that there was no direct relationship with Noora, but it was only through Ghulam. This being so Noora cannot be regarded as a partisan witness. He too, according to the trial Court, would not have falsely implicated the appellants. As to the recovery of the incriminating articles, the trial Court placed implicit reliance on the testimony -of the recovery witness, Muhammad Akbar (P. W.
10. 7), a paternal cousin of the deceased, as he was also not established to have had any enmity with the appellants. While rejecting the suspicion as to the non-preparation of the recovery memos. At the spot, the trial Court did not regard it as of any consequence in the context of the testimony of the recovery witness as he had no reason to be a party to the fabrication of this evidence. The trial Court also held that if it was to be accepted that the crime weapons were foisted then the Investigating Officer would have also foisted such weapons on the other three appellants, namely, Abbas, Shera and Saadullah. Intrinsically, therefore, this gave sufficient strength to the recoveries.
11. And, finally, the trial Court also placed reliance on the evidence of Shabbir Hussain, S. I., who had effected the recoveries. Lastly, the trial Court rejected the suggestion that the deceased was murdered by Muhammad Hussain as his elder brother Abdul Latif had illegally detained his wife "list. Inayat Bibi. The trial Court having held as aforesaid convicted the appellants under sections 148 and 302 read with 149, P. P. C. On the first count the trial Court sentenced them to two years' R. I., and on the second count all of them were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
12. ' On appeal, the High Court upheld their convictions and sentences. Upon a reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court substantially upheld the reasons given by the trial Court for accepting the testimony of the two eye-witnesses, and so also the testimony of the recovery witness Muhammad Akbar (P. W. 7). Lastly, as no compensation was awarded under section 544-A, Cr. P. C., the High Court directed that each of the appellants should pay a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default to undergo R. I.
13. For one year each. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.
14. Even though the High Court has not accepted the motive, as in its view it was far fetched, still the culpability of the appellants could not be assessed by this criterion, if there was ocular testimony of the quality which B alone was sufficient to establish the guilt. The absence of motive would not, in any manner, cloud their testimony. The trial Court had with clarity upheld the ocular account as it found no infirmity in it, and if it has to be accepted then it must be accepted against all the assailants. This is so because none of the witnesses was found, in any manner, inimical towards the appellants. Another salient feature is, as is pointed out above, that Ghulam (P. W. 9) was related to both sides, and in the absence of anything to show that he had any leaning towards the deceased, his words as to the participation of those against whom no recovery of incriminating articles was effected, should not be lightly treated, Noora is indirectly related to the deceased. His evidence is, more or less, of a non-partisan nature and should be appraised on that footing. The credence given to their evidence by the Courts below rules out the necessity of corroboration. As to the mention of hatchets by these witnesses in their depositions, there is always a likelihood of mistake in identification of the crime-weapons in the commotion caused by the transaction when many persons are participating, and this feature alone would not weaken their evidence. Additionally, no attempt was made to show that none of the injuries on the deceased would have been caused by a chhavi. Therefore, its use cannot be doubted. The numerous injuries found on the deceased are consistent with the participation of the assailants charged with the crime. Lastly, it is always a matter of the credibility of a witness, and the principle of corroboration is resorted to only as a matter of caution for the safe dispensation of criminal justice. In this case, we are of the view that the ocular testimony is of such credibility and unimpeachable character that it does not require any corroboration.
15. ' In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.