1. ' Appellants abovenamed, being aggrieved by judgment dated 14-6-1977 of the learned III Addl.
2. Sessions Judge, Sukkur, in Sessions Case No,1220/75, by which appellants have been convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For 2 years and to pay fine of Rs,500 each or in default to suffer further R.I. For 3 months, have preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds: ' The prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Kahar, at Police Station Ubauro, on 5-6-1974, at 5-30 p.m. Reads as under:- ' The complaint is that about 20-25 days ago Arzoo s/o Bagoo, Chacher had suspected his wife Mst. Mubarkan, with Shabbir s/o Dahir and due to fear Mst.Mubarkan came and took refuge in the house of my nephew Ranjho at night time. Arzoo and others searched her for the whole night. On the next morning after hearing about her whereabout, Bagoo father-in-law of Mst. Mubarkan took her back. Niaz Muhammad s/o Bagoo, Haji s/o Muhammad, Jiand s/o Mataro and Bagoo all my caste-fellows (Chacher), were annoyed with Ranjho for giving shelter to Mst. Mubarkan on that night. They used to say to Ranjho time and again as to why he had not informed them about Mst.
3. Mubarkan, whom they searched for the whole night and it was on the next day that they took her back after learning about her whereabout. He (Ranjho) should sit with them in Faisla or they will see him. Till today no Faisla was held. Today at about 4-00 p.m.! Alongwith Laloo s/o Bachoo, Guloo s/o Luqman, left our houses together and were coming to Kamoo Shaheed and when we reached near Kamo Shaheed in the land of Dildar Khan, we saw my nephew Ranjho coming from Kamoo Shaheed town. From nearby Niaz Muhammad armed with hatchet, undo armed with hatchet Haji armed with Lathi and Bagoo who was empty-handed came there raising 'Lalkaras'. Bagoo instigated others to catch and not to leave Ranjho but to kill him as he is not giving them Faisla. On his instigation He gave Lathi blows to Ranjho on his head, who fell down. Niaz Muhammad gave hatchet blow to Ranjho on his right hand and chopped off his nose. Undo also gave hatchet blow to him. We raised alarm and asked them not to kill the man. On our cries the appellants ran away towards estern side. We saw Ranjho who had hatchet and Lathi injuries on his head, right hand and other parts of the body and his nose was chopped off. Then we took Ranjho and now brought him to the Police Station. Ranjho is not in his proper senses. I complain that the above appellants due to above reason and with the intention of murdering have caused hatchet and Lathi blows to Ranjho and chopped off his nose.
4. ' The above F.I.R. Was recorded by Muhammad Bashir S.I.P., P.W.8. Re has deposed that at the time injured Ranjho, who was brought on a cot was unconscious and not able to make statement. He prepared Mashirnama of his injuries in the presence of Mashirs Mehar and Sultan vide Exh.6. He referred the injured to the Hospital for treatment. He proceeded to the Vardat in the company of the complainant and reached there at about 7-15 p.m. He prepared the Mashirnama of the scene of offence vide Exh.13, and also collected the blood-stained earth from the spot. He recorded the statement of Guloo and Lal Bux. On 6.6.1974. He arrested appellants Niaz Muhammad alias Niazoo, Haji and Jinad. They were arrested from, their village near the well. Appellant Niazoo produced his hatchet, which had blood on it. Appellant Haji produced a Lathi which was also blood stained, He did not seal these articles, but seized them under Mashirnama Exh.7. On 8-6-1974, he arrested appellant Bagoo and submitted the entire papers to Abdul Rashid A.S.I., who then prepared the formal challan and submitted the same in Court.
5. ' At the trial prosecution in support of its case had examined P.W.1 Mahar Mashir, P.W.2 Kahar complainant P.W.3. Ranjho, injured P.W.4 Gul Muhammad eye-witness, P.W.5 Sobho Mahir of scene of offence, P.W.6, Lal Bux eye-witness. P.W. 7 Dr. Sudhamo and P.W.8 Muhammad Bashir Investigating Officer. The Appellants in their statement had denied their participation in the commission of offence and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.
6. Appellants Niazoo and Haji had denied the recovery of hatchet and Lathi from them. They have not examined any witness in their defence.
7. ' Learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the appellants abovenamed as herein-before mentioned and consequently the appellants have filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in memo. Of appeal.
8. ' The learned Advocate for the appellants in support of the above appeal submitted as under:-
(a) That all P.Ws. Are closely related and connected and on account of admitted enmity between the parties due to earlier case of abduction, their statements required independent corroboration which is not available at all in present case, as learned trial Court for cogent reasons discarded alleged recoveries.
(b) That P.Ws. Tried to deny their relationship inter se and as such on this .Ground also no reliance can be placed on their statements, without independent corroboration.
(c) That alleged eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and as such no reliance ought to be placed on their statements, in view of enmity alleged by appellants, without independent corroboration.
(d) Mashir of recovery was related to complainant side and articles alleged to have been seized were not sealed on spot and as such learned trial court was fully justified in discarding such recoveries.
9. ' In support of the above contentions the learned Advocate for appellants relied upon case PLD 1981 Kar. 1 and submitted that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgment as statements of P.Ws. Required independent corroboration, on account of admitted enmity between parties but such corroboration is not at all available on record, after discarding of recoveries by learned trial Court for cogent reasons.
11. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment and case cited by the learned Advocate for appellants.
12. It is an admitted position, that all the P.Ws. Are inter-related, on account of enmity stated by the appellants their statements required independent corroboration. In addition to this, I have carefully gone through the statements of alleged eye-witnesses of the incident as well as injured. I find material contradictions, in their statements inter se in respect of distance from where they saw the incident as well as, their statements do not inspire confidence. I also find the presence of P.W. Chun, Lal Bux Mahar, Khar on the place of Wardat as chance witness. These witnesses have given no reason for going together at the time of incident to Kamhoo Shaheed village and as such their statements also do not inspire confidence. I find the learned trial Court discarded alleged recoveries from the appellants for cogent reason and such statements of all P,Ws., who were highly interested and inter-related, against whom applicants have alleged enmity, their evidence required independent corroboration. Such corroboration could have been there on account of alleged recoveries. Learned trial Court for cogent reasons discarded said recoveries and I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion of learned trial Court. Keeping in view these conclusions of mine in my opinion, prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. ' Therefore, I allow the above appeal and set aside convictions of the appellants and sentences awarded to them and acquit them by giving them benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by the appellants in the above appeal.
14. ' In view of the above judgment, I dismissed suo motu Revision 150 of 1977 and discharge notices issued to the appellants in this connection.