1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This is an appeal, as of right, by Nura and his sister's husband, Gulzar, who were acquitted of the charge of murdering one, Sohney Khan, by the Additional Session Judge, Sahiwal but on an appeal by the State, a Division Bench of the High Court (Lahore) set aside their acquittal and holding them guilty under section 302/34, P. P. C. Sentenced each of them to transportation for life.
2. According to the prosecution case, Nura, who was once an employee of the deceased, was turned out by the latter from the village because of his suspected liaison with certain village girls, which annoyed Nura, who took his revenge and killed the deceased.
3. The occurrence took place on the night between the 19th and 20th of September 1962, at about 9 p.m. The deceased was returning to his house after offering isha prayers in the mosque in the company of his son, P. W. Muhammad Saeed. On the way, near the uninhabited house of one, Sajwara Mirasi, the appellants pounced on him and caused him injuries with their hatchets. P. W.
4. Muhammad Saeed was able to identify them in the light of the torch, which he was having with him. On the alarm of Muhammad Saeed, P. Ws. Muhammad Asghar, Walia and Muhammad Khan, reached the spot, and witnessed the occurrence. The report was lodged by P. W. Muhammad Saeed at 2 a.m. The same night at Police Station Malka Hans, situated at a distance of 5 miles from the crime spot, in which a full account of the occurrence, including the names of the persons, who had witnessed the murder, was given. During investigation, Nura, appellant, produced a hatchet from a sugar-cane field, which, according to the report of the Serolo--gist, was stained with human blood.
5. The deceased had suffered 12 injuries, some of which were individually fatal. He died due to shock and haemorrhage and rupture of the liver.
6. Nura, appellant, pleaded innocence, and alleged that P. W. Muhammad Khan, was the real murderer of the deceased, as he was his bitter opponent, and that Muhammad Khan was also responsible for the false charge against him, because he (Muhammad Khan) suspected the appellant Nura for carrying on an immoral relationship with Muhammad Khan's mother. It was alleged that Muhammad Khan had thus killed two birds with one stone, i.e., for murdering the deceased and charging the appellant for that murder.
7. Gulzar, in his committing Court statement, admitted that he was a brother-in-law of Nura, but at the trial, he tried to twist that admission, by stating that he had divorced his wife, the sister of Nura, some years before the occurrence, and that his relations with Nura were strained, implying that he could not have joined hands with Nura for murdering Sohney Khan. He also attributed his false involvement in the case to P. W. Muhammad Khan.
8. The prosecution case depended on the ocular testimony of P. Ws. Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Asghar, Wali Muham--mad and Muhammad Khan. The trial Judge held that the conduct of these eye-witnesses was unnatural, as they had made no attempt to apprehend the culprits at the spot, and that the claim of identification by two of them, namely, Wali Muham--mad and Muhammad Khan, P. Ws. Was doubtful, as they were allegedly standing behind the back of the culprits. The learned trial Judge also found that the evidence of the reco--very of hatchet at the instance of Nura was discrepant. He also held that since Gulzar had divorced the sister of Nura, and the relations of the two had become strained, therefore, they could not be expected to join hands in murdering the deceased. The learned Judges in the High Court have not accepted any of these grounds to be valid for the acquittal of the appellants.
9. The main question in the case is whether the two appel--lants were identified by the P. Ws. As claimed by them. It was admittedly a dark night. The identification of the culprits was claimed on account of the light of the torch lit by P. W. Muhammad Saeed. This fact was mentioned by Muhammad Saeed at the earliest opportunity, in the First Information Report at the Police Station. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that if the light of the torch was the only means for identification of the culprits, as claimed, the torch should have been taken to the Police Station by P. W. Muhammad Saeed, and produced there, which he did not do. If the torch was falsely introduced in the F. I. R., it could have been as easily and falsely procured, to leave no room for that argument.
10. As stated by the learned Judges of the Division Bench in the High Court, P. W. Muhammad Asghar is an independent witness, and so is the case with P. W. Wali Muhammad who was a mueen of the whole village, and not particularly interest--ed in either party'. The site plan (Exh. P. G.) reveals that the houses of P. W. Walia, Muhammad Khan and Asghar, are in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence, and they must naturally have been attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm. The number of injuries on the person of the deceased indi--cates that more than one person had taken part in the assault on him, which must have lasted for sometime, and that the witnesses, who arrived at the spot, had a good opportunity to see and to identify the assailants. The fact that the wit--nesses did not give a chase to the culprits to apprehend them, should not detract from their version, as not all persons have' the heart to risk their own safety in such situations. The recovery of the blood-stained hatchet from Nura is a valuable piece of corroborative evidence, proved by satisfactory evidence which appears to have been discarded by the trial Judge without any valid ground. Again, it appears that the learned trial Judge was unduly influenced by the belated statement made at the trial by Gulzar that he had divorced the sister of Nura, which resulted in strained relations between them, and that he could not have, therefore, joined hands with Nura to commit this crime. As already stated above, Gulzar had without reservation, admitted before the committing Court that he was a brother-in-law of his co-accused, Nura. His story at the trial that he had divorced the sister of Nura, who was no longer his wife, was an afterthought, which was introduced to create a suspicion about his association in this crime with Nura.
11. We consider that the acquittal of the appellants by the trial Judge was made on erroneous assumptions, and that the learned Judges of the High Court, on a correct appraisement of the evidence, were quite right in reversing this acquittal. In the result we dismiss this appeal.