1. ' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-By this appeal, which has been filed by leave of this Court, the appellants have challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-9-1980 whereby their appeal was dismissed which was directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, convicting them for the murder of Qayum Akhtar and his paternal-uncle Nazir Ahmad and awarding them sentence of death for the murder of Qayum Akhtar plus fine of rupees two thousand (Rs, 2,000) each or in default to undergo one year's R. I. For the murder of Nazir Ahmad each of them was convicted under section 326/34, P. P. C. And sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment plus fine of Rupees two thousand (Rs, 2,000) or in default to undergo one years' R. I.
2. Each of them was also ordered to pay Rupees for thousand (Rs, 4,000) or in default to undergo two years' R. I. As compensation to be paid equally to the heirs of the two deceased in the instant case.
3. ' The incident involved in the case had taken place on 27-5-1973 on the katcha road between Aurangabad and Sarai Alamgir at 3-30 a.m. According to the facts, as disclosed in the F. I. R.
4. Subedar Muhammad Sharif and his brother Nazir Ahmad were proceeding to Sarai Alamgir on the fateful day at some distance behind Qayum Akhtar, deceased. On hearing an alarm of Qayum Akhtar from near the bungalow of Ghazi Azizur Reiman, they arrived at the scene of occurrence and saw that the appellants had felled Qayum Akhtar on the ground and had inflicted one knife blow each on the back of the deceased Qayum Akhtar. Nazir Ahmad (real brother of the complainant) attempted to rescue when Noor Hussain father of Muhammad Iqbal, appellant (since acquitted by the trial Court) and Muhammad Riaz, appellant, held Nazir Ahmad. Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Riaz then felled Nazir Ahmad also on the ground. Muhammad Iqbal then gave a knife blow on the buttock of Nazir Ahmad while Muhammad Riaz gave a knife blow on the front of his head. The occurrence was also witnessed by Tanveer Ahmad and Sardar Ali, won over witnesses.
5. Qayum Akhtar succumbed to his injuries and the appellants ran away from the spot. Nazir Ahmad died in the hospital on 2-6-1973.
6. ' The prosecution produced only one eye-witness of the occurrence, namely, Subedar Muhammad Sharif father of the deceased Qayum Akhtar and brother of Nazir Ahmad, deceased, while the other two witnesses cited in F. I. R. Namely, Tanvir Ahmad and Sardar Ali were given up as being won over.
7. The appellant Muhammad Riaz was arrested on 28-5-1973 while Muhammad Iqbal appellant was arrested on 31-5-1973. A bloodstained knife and blood-stained shirt were recovered at the instance of Muhammad Riaz, appellant, under a duly prepared and attested memo. Likewise a blood- stained knife and blood-stained shirt were recovered at the instance of the appellant Muhammad Iqbal and recovery memos. For the same were prepared which were duly attested by witnesses.
8. According to the report of the serologist the above-mentioned articles were found to be stained with human blood.
9. ' At the trial the appellants denied having participated in the occurrence, disowned the recoveries and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity.
10. ' Dr. Ghayur Alam had medically examined Nazir Ahmad, deceased, while he was in an injured condition, and found on his person an incised wound on the right side of buttock, a contused wound on the forehead and an incised wound also on the forehead and an abrasion on the right wrist joint. According to him, the two incised injuries, mentioned above were caused by a sharp- edged weapon whereas the other two were caused by a blunt weapon. Nazir Ahmad died on 2-6- 1973 when Dr. Tahir Anees, P. W. 14 conducted post-mortem examination on his dead body and found on his person the same injuries except that the incised wounds were stitched and there was another stitched horizontal wound of operation (incision for administrating of blood) over inner aspect of right ankle. Death, according to the opinion of the doctor, was due to bleeding and shock caused by the incised injury on the buttock which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to the postmortem examination report conducted by Dr. Ghayur Alam on the dead body of Qayum Akhtar, the deceased had a contusion mark on the nose and an incised wound on the left side of back of chest and another incised wound also on the left side of the back of chest 5" below. Death in his opinion was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the incised injuries on the back which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Muhammad Riaz, the appellant, was also examined by the same doctor on 29-5-1973 and according to his report the appellant had on his person a bruise with an abrasion on right cheek and an abrasion on the right index finger. Both the injuries were simple and had been caused with a blunt weapon between 2/3 days.
11. ' The High Court found the motive for the murders as having been proved and in this connection reliance was placed on the statement of Muhammad Rafiq, P. W. 15, who had corroborated the statement of the complainant, Subedar Muhammad Sharif, about the previous incident of a day prior to the occurrence, and the medical evidence showing a bruise and an abrasion on the person of Muhammad Riaz, appellant.
12. ' It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had examined only a solitary witness of the occurrence, namely Subedar Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 17, who was closely related to the two deceased while the other two witnesses cited in the F. I. R. Had been given up. As such, according to the learned counsel, the conviction of the appellants was not sustainable.
13. This contention was examined by the trial Court as well as the learned High Court and the statement of Subedar Muhammad Sharif, the complainant, after close scrutiny was believed. It was found that this solitary eye-witness had no previous enmity of any kind with the accused and in spite of lengthy cross-examination by the defence his credibility was not shaken. There is no principle of law which lays down that conviction of an accused person cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. If a witness is closely related to the deceased corroboration is sought not as a principle of law but as a rule A of prudence for supporting the statement of such a witness. If the statement of such a witness does not suffer from any inconsistency, exaggeration and improvements the same can well be made the basis for holding the accused guilty. The complainant, Subedar Muhammad Sharif was not regarded as an interested witness by the High Court in the sense that he had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant, and his evidence though reliable by itself, was found to have been corroborated by the recovery evidence, which was believed and the medical evidence.
14. ' We have gone through the impugned judgment of the trial Court as well as the learned High Court and have examined the evidence on the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that no principle of appreciation of evidence or any rule of law governing dispensation of criminal justice has been violated in the case and, in the circumstances, there is no ground for setting aside the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34, P. P. C.
15. ' On the question of sentence it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the motive, in the instant case, as set up by the prosecution, was not proved and the real cause of the occurrence in the C circumstances still remained shrouded in mystery. It was pointed out by him that the motive for the occurrence was said to be a previous quarrel between the appellant Muhammad Riaz and the deceased Qayum Akhtar in which the latter had allegedly suffered beating. In the said fight, Muhammad Rafiq, P. W. 15, who had allegedly separated them, was examined and his statement was regarded as a corroborative piece of evidence for the purpose of proving the motive. In the said quarrel Nazir Ahmad deceased was not involved nor the appellant Muhammad Iqbal was a party to the same. The alleged quarrel according to the learned counsel, could not have taken place without any rhyme or reason and there should have been some plausible motive for the same also. According to the learned counsel, a quarrel like the one as alleged by the prosecution, was not enough to provide a motive for the commission of an offence in which two persons were murdered: It was, therefore, asserted that the prosecution had failed to establish the real motive for the previous quarrel as well as for the subsequent occurrence in which the offence was committed. It was admitted by the complainant that he was not aware why his son Qayum Akhtar had a quarrel with the accused Muhammad Riaz in the previous fight nor any reason for the said quarrel was given by Muhammad Rafiq, P. W. 15, who had witnessed the same and who, having been present on the occasion, was likely to know the cause for such a quarrel. In so far as the injuries found on the person of Muhammad Riaz, appellant, are concerned it was contended by the learned counsel that the possibility of the same having been received by him during the course of his involvement in the occurrence in which attempt on the lives of two persons was made, cannot be ruled out, and. Therefore, the benefit of such possibility should be extended to the appellants as a ground for the mitigation of sentence awarded to them. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on Ghulam Nazir v. The State (1) and Mst. Farah Naz v. The State (2) and Ali Hussain v. Mukhtar and 2 others (3).
16. The above contention of the learned counsel on the question of sentence is not without force and in the circumstances while the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34, P. P. C. Is maintained their sentences of death are altered to imprisonment for life. Fine awarded to them is enhanced to Rs, 10,000 each and in default of such payment the appellants shall undergo further R.
17. I. For three years each. Fine if realized shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Shall also be extended to the appellants while computing their sentences of imprisonment. All other convictions and sentences are maintained. Substantive sentences to run concurrently.
18. ' The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.