' MAZHARUL HAQ, J.-Maqbool Ahmad (19) and his cousin Faqir Hussain (17) were tried for the murder of Ijaz Ahmad and Asif Raza by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. Both accused were convicted on 9th June, 1980 and sentenced to death on each count. They were fined Rs, 5,000 each on each count, in default they were ordered to undergo two years' R. I. They were further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs, 1,000 each to the heirs of the two deceased in equal shares, in default, to further undergo six months' R. I. Their appeals and the connected Murder Reference are before us.
2. Ijaz Ahmad and Asif Raza (deceased) lived in the same mohallah. Their houses were adjacent to each other. Maqbool Ahmad and Faqir Hussain accused often used to stand in front of their houses and used to misbehave with their women. About 7/6 days before the occurrence, the two deceased reprimanded them. They exchanged abuses. Muhammad Hussain, a co-villager, intervened and the matter was hushed up but while leaving, the two accused held out a threat that they would avenge the insult. This was the motive for the crime in this case and according to the prosecution, on 16th August, 1977, at about sun-set, the two deceased were out in the fields to ease themselves. As they reached near the dera of Nazir Ahmad situated near the villege abadi, Maqbool Ahmad and Faqir Hussain were present at the said dera. They raised a lalkara. In the courtyard of dhari, Maqbool Ahmad accused inflicted two knife blows of Ijaz Ahmad in the left flank and in the back on the right side. Faqir Hussain inflicted two knife blows to ljaz Ahmad on the right arm and his neck. Faqir Hussain inflicted a knife blow to Asif Raza in the abdomen. Ijaz and Asif raised alarm and fell down. Bashir Ahmad informant, Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, Sultan and Nazir Ahmad, who were nearby reached there and saw the occurrence. They tried to apprehend the accused but they made good their escape. Ijaz Ahmad died on the spot. Asif Raza was carried to the hospital, Faisalabad. Bashir Ahmad proceeded to Police Station. Chak Jhumra and met with P.
W. 11 Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, S.-I. Near Kichlan Morr. He made statement Exh. P. F. To him in the evening at sun-set time on the basis of which, formal F. I. R. Exh. P. F./1 was registered at Police Station Chak Jhumra at 11.45 p. m. The S.-1. Went to the spot, prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body of ljaz Ahmad for its post-mortem examination.
3. P. W. 1 Dr. Major Yousaf Ali, S. M.
0., D. H. Q. Hospital. Faisalabad, on 16th August, 1977, at 10-45 p. m., examined Asif Raza and found a stab wound 1" x 1-1/2" into abdomen deep with momentum outside in the epigastrium. On the query of the police, the doctor replied that Asif Raza was not fit to make a statement.
4. P.W. 2 Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Mian, D.H.Q. Hospital Faisalabad on 17th August, 1977, held autopsy on the dead body of Ijaz Ahmad and found the following injuries on his person :-
(1) A-stab wound 1-1/4" x 1/2" chest deep between the 6th and 7th intercostal space at outer part cutting left lung through and through.
(2) An incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/2" skin deep over middle inner part of left upper arm.
(3) An incised wound 4" x 2" muscle deep on right chest outer upper part.
(4) An incised wound 3-1/2" x 1" muscle deep on the right side of neck upper part.
(5) An incised wound 1/2" x 1/6" muscle deep on back middle part of right arm.
(6) An abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on right side of the bridge of nose.
(7) An abrasion 3/4' x 1/8" on left side of neck upper part.
' Left pleura and left lung were cut under injury No,
1. In his opinion death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury No, 1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries No, 1 to 5 were caused by sharp-edged weapon and the rest by blunt weapon.
5. On 18th August, 1977, the A. S.-I. Received information that Asif Raza had died. He went to the hospital, prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination.
6. The same day, at 1-00 p. m., P. W. 2 Dr. Muhammad Ajmal Mian held the autopsy on the dead body of Asif Raza and found the following injuries on his person :-
(1) A stab wound 6" long at the middle part of abdomen longitudinally (wound of laparotomy operation).
(2) A stab wound 1" x 1/2" abdomen deep through which a rubber tube has been fit in for drainage cutting internally peritonium, liver, stomach, small intestine and right kidney (which had to be removed during the laparotomy operation).
' Doctor observed that the abdominal wall, stomach and small intestines were cut under injury No,
2. Right kidney was found missing and its root found stiched. In the bed head ticket of the deceased, it was entered that the right kidney.Had a large cut so it had to be removed during the operation.
' Death in his opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury No, 2, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
7. On 19th August, 1977, P. W. 11 Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, S.-I. Arrested both accused. Maqbool Ahmad led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P. 5 from within a sugarcane field in killa No, 3, square No,
40. It was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. M. Attested by P.W. 9 Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and Shah Muhammad (given up). The same day, Faqir Hussain accused got recovered blood-stained knife P. 6 from the sugarcane field, which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. N. Attested by the same aforesaid witnesses. After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. Both accused denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity, party faction and suspicion. They led no evidence in defence.
8. Relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and that of the recoveries of weapons from the accused, trial Court found the prosecution case satisfactorily proved against them.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was a blind murder and the eye-witnesses have stage-managed their presence at the spot. It was also argued that the motive for the crime is based on hearsay evidence and was not proved at the trial. With regard to the motive story, we find that Bashir, informant, admitted at the trial that he had 'heard about it and was not a witness of the earlier incident in which there was an altercation and exchange of abuses between the accused and the two deceased because they had stopped the accused from standing in front of their house. P. W. 8 Nazir Ahmad though climed to have witnessed the said earlier incident but had not said so before the police, nor he mentioned that the accused had held out threats to avenge the insult. In his examination-in-chief, P. W. Ghulam Mohy- ud-Din just narrated the earlier incident but did not mention whether he alongwith the other two eye-witnesses was present. In fact, the three eye-witnesses while narrating the motive story said that when the accused and the deceased had an altercation and were abusing each other, Muhammad Hussain intervened and separated them. Muhammad Hussain was a witness in this case but prosecution gave him upon the ground that he was suffering from paralysis and could not speak. On the other hand, when the Investigating Officer was questioned about the motive story, he frankly admitted that he did not join any female of the family of the deceased during the investigation to verify the allegation whether the accused used to tease them. Explaining the omission, he, however, said that he did not do so because Muhammad Hussain was available as a witness to prove this fact. Both accused have denied the earlier incident and we find that the trial Court in its judgment though believed the eye-witnesses with regard to the actual occurrence but did not advert to the motive story as put up by them. For what we have said above, we are of the view that the prosecution had not satisfactorily proved the motive in this case.
10. In support of his arguments that it was a blind murder, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the occurrence took place when it was dark and later relations of the deceased were put up as the eyewitnesses, who had, in fact, not seen the occurrence. He next contended that the F. I. R. Was also delayed and not made at the Police Station. We have considered this aspect of the case. No doubt, P. W. 7 Bashir Ahmad, informant, admitted that Ejaz deceased was his paternel cousin but we find that he had no enmity with the accused. P. W. 8 Nazir Ahmad admitted that Asif Raza was the grandson of Subhan, his paternel uncle but we find that this witness too had no enmity with the accused. P. W. 9 Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din, third eye-witness, admitted that Ejaz deceased's father was paternal cousin of his father. This witness had also no enmity with the accused. Mere relationship with the deceased will not make them interested witnesses. As they had no motive to falsely rope in the accused on a capital charge, their evidence, therefore., cannot be ignored unless there are some such circumstances in this case, which would otherwise suggest that they had not actually seen the occurrence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the two deceased, who were said to have gone to case themselves would not pass near the courtyard of Ch. Nazir Ahmad's abandoned dhari because it is admitted that a criminal case was registered against Shafaqat, uncle of Ijaz deceased at the instance of said Nazir Ahmad and a cross case was registered by said Shafaqat against Mumtaz son of Ch. Nazir, who is related to Maqbool accused. We have considered the matter. Suffice it to say that it was an abandoned dhari of Ch. Nazir and as such the argument would not hold to good that the deceased would not go that way because of their strained relations with the owner of the dahri. It was further contended that the three eye-witnesses claimed to be just standing in the street when they heard the alarm and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. They could not explain as to why they were standing in the street. In our opinion, there was nothing unusual about it because in village, people get together in the evening in the streets for a chit-chat. The frank admission of the witnesses that they were just standing there rather indicate their true state of mind. It was also argued that in the F. I. R., the informant had not mentioned that Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and Nazir were standing with him at the time when they heard the alarm. F. I. R. Is not a detailed statement. The omission is, therefore, not material.
Neverthless, the fact that these two witnesses saw the occurrence is mentioned by him in the F. I. R.
We also do not find any contradiction worth the name between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence in this case. No doubt, the doctor found semi-digested food in the stomach of Ijaz deceased, but in the absence of any proof as to when the deceased had the last meal, no inference can be drawn that the semi-digested food in the deceased's stomach was the evening meal.
12. The F. I. R. In this case was not belated. Two persons had been attacked. One died at the spot and the other was on the verge of death. Police station was at a distance of nine miles from the place of occurrence and while the informant was on his way to the Police Station, he met with the S.-I. To whom, he reported the matter. The informant was not questioned as to what transport was used by him. Under these circumstances, we do not find any force in this submission that it was a belated F. I. R.
13. In so far as the statements of the eye-witnesses with regard to the occurrence is concerned, we have no reason to discard their testimony. True, they have exaggerated the motive story in describing the earlier incident of altercation/abuses between the accused and the two deceased, which we have considered as hearsay evidence but this would not adversely reflect upon their ocular testimony. They have no reason to falsely rope in the accused in a murder charge. Being the residents of the same village, they are the natural witnesses.
14. The blood-stained weapons were got recovered from the accused on 19th August, 1977 from the sugarcane field, which is situated near the place of occurrence. None of the witnesses said that they saw the accused getting into the sugarcane field after the occurrence with their weapons.
Even otherwise, it would be highly improbable that the accused while running away threw their knives in the field. On the other hand, if they had concealed them later, then for them to have let the blood remain on them would again be improbable. We, however, do not consider it safe to rely on the recovery of weapons but as we have observed earlier, that the eye-witnesses have no motive to falsely rope in the accused, coupled with their evidence, which we have analysed and found reliable, we are satisfied with the guilt of the accused. We, therefore, maintain their conviction.
15. Faqir Hussain, was about 17 years of age on the day of occurrence. Moreover, we find that the prosecution was unable to satisfactorily prove the motive for the crime in this case. While dismissing the appeal, we do not propose to confirm the death sentences of both the appellants which are substituted for life imprisonment on the two counts. Both sentences of each convict shall run concurrently. They shall also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. The period for which they remained in custody during the trial and thereafter shall be excluded from the period of their sentences. Their sentences of fine are, however, maintained on the two counts.