' Tufail Baig, Sarwar Baig, Khadim Hussain, lnayat Baig, Nazir Baig, Sharif Baig and Feroze Baig were hauled up on the statement of Mirza Sharif Baig, dated 4th August, 1977 which was recorded by A.S.I. Muhammad Ayub the same day at 4-15 p.m. At Murghzar Colony Post, Bhimber Road, Gujrat.
Mirza Sharif Baig was on his way to report about incident which took place on 4th August, 1977 at 9- 00 a.m. In the area of village Chak Bazurg Police Station Kharianwala in which lqbal Baig son of Siddique Baig and Feroze Baig son of Ahmad Baig were seriously injured with daggers. Local police accordingly registered a case under sections 307, 452 and 148/149, P.P.C. Later on both the injured died,lqbal Baig on 10th August, 1977 at 3-45 p.m. And Feroze Baig on 4th August, 1977 at 6 p.m. The case, therefore, took a serious turn and it became a case of double murder.
2. Mirza Sharif Baig reported that at the time of occurrence, he alongwith Feroze Baig son of Ahmad Baig, lqbal Baig son of Siddique Baig son of Ahmad Baig and Nawaz Baig son of Ahmad Baig were sitting in the courtyard of his house when Tufail Baig son of Inayat Baig and Khadim Hussain son of Sardar Baig, both armed with daggers, Inayat Baig son of Sher Baig, Nazir Baig son of Ahmad Baig, Sharif Baig son of Sher Baig, Feroze Baig son of Muhammad Baig and Sardar Baig son of Muhammad Baig armed with Dangs appeared. Tufail Baig gave a dagger blow to Feroze Baig who was hit in the abdomen. He gave another blow in the right flank. Khadim Hussain gave a dagger blow to lqbal Baig. He was hit in the abdomen. Both the injured fell down. Inayat Baig, Nazir Baig, Sharif Baig, Feroze Baig and Sardar Baig encircled them and raised Lalkara that whosoever would come close, he would meet the same fate. Sharif Baig, Siddique Baig and Nawaz Baig got a side. On their hue and cry, people collected there. The assailants took to their heels.
' All the seven were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. With the exception of Tufail Baig and Khadim Hussain, the rest were acquitted. The two were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 3,000 each.
3. The convicts have come to this -Court in appeal.
' Sharif Baig (P.W.6) resiled from his statement before the police and came out with a different version which was that on the day of occurrence at about Rotiwela, while he was all alone in his house heard some noise. He got up and saw lqbal deceased dragging Mst. Khalida, his niece, daughter of Nazir Baig. She was joined by her mother Mst. Nazir Bibi. Khalida gave a knife blow to lqbal Baig in the abdomen. The Feroze Baig uncle of lqbal Baig stepped forward. Mst. Nazir Bibi gave him a knife blow. On the alarm, lot of people came to the spot.
' Sharif Baig was declared hostile. He was then cross-examined at length by the Public Prosecutor and ultimately by the defence counsel. I do not think, it is necessary to refer to his cross- examination either by the Public Prosecutor or by the defence because he did not support the first information report.
' The next witness is Siddique Baig. His evidence was that at about 9-30 a.m. He was sitting in his house. Feroze Baig, Nawaz Baig, Sharif Baig and lqbal Baig were also present, Khadim Hussain armed with a Churri and Tufail Baig armed with a dagger came there. Tufail Baig gave a blow to Feroze Baig with dagger. He was hit in front side of his belly. He was given another blow by Tufail on his right flank. Khadim Hussain then gave a Churri blow to lqbal Baig. He was also hit in the abdomen. Both the injured fell down. The witness alongwith others tried to rescue but they were threatened to keep away. They raised alarm. Number of persons collected at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Sharif Baig and Nawaz Baig. The injured were put on cots and removed to the Aziz Bhatti Hospital, Gujrat. He could not depose about the motive and said that the accused had some dispute over the return of money with Feroze Baig. As his son was also murdered, he said that he was killed because he was sitting next to his uncle Feroze Baig.
Otherwise, there was no motive against his son. The trial Court examined Mst. Lqbal Bibi as a Court witness. Regarding motive, her statement was that there was some dispute over the money but she did not know what the precise dispute was.
' About the occurrence, she stated that she was present in the Pasari and was preparing tea while Sharif Baig and Siddique Baig were in the courtyard. Feroze Baig, lqbal Baig and Nawaz were also present. Tufail Baig armed with a dagger, Khadim Hussain armed with a Churri and other accused armed with Dangs came there. Tufail Baig gave a dagger blow to Feroze Baig on his chest. He repeated the second blow. He was hit on his left flank. Then Khadim Baig gave a Churr I blow to lqbal Baig hitting him on his abdomen. Both the injured fell down.
' The other evidence is of recoveries from the appellants which were found to be stained with human blood. Dying declaration of lqbal was also recorded and last of all ispost-mortem reports of the deceased. The appellants denied the allegation. They pleaded not guilty. Tufail Baig stated that he was falsely involved in this case by Siddique Baig P.W. As he wanted the hand of Nazir Baig's daughter of his son lqbal Baig deceased. Nazir Baig refused and she was married to him. Khadim Hussain asserted his false involvement due to his relationship with Tufail Baig. In defence, they tendered copy of judgment whereby they were acquitted under the Arms Ordinance.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the very outset submitted that this is a fit case for acquittal because of the statement of the complainant on oath before the trial Court.
From this fact, the learned counsel tried to establish that there was no F.I.R. With regard to Siddique Baig, he contended that he was an interested witness as his son had been murdered. There was no evidence to support his testimony.
' Learned counsel then objected to the summoning of Mst. Lqbal Bibi as a Court witness. He argued that this was not permissible under the law because it amounted to fill in lacunas in the prosecution case. The trial Court was not expected to do that. Another reason why Mst. Lqbal Bibi should not have been called for was that neither the prosecution nor the defence had made a request for calling her. Last of all, it was argued that the trial Court did not believe the motive. Nor did it take into consideration the evidence of recoveries or the dying declaration. The remaining evidence was not sufficient to maintain the conviction.
5. Mr. Nemat Khan, at one stage, in a lukewarm manner submitted that the parties are related. They have compromised. The appeal be allowed. I asked the learned counsel if it had actually so happened, then there should have been some written request on record. The learned counsel was unable to show me any documentary proof. I, therefore, proceed to decide the case on merits.
6. Admittedly, first information report is not substantive evidence. So, if Sharif Baig did not support the F.I.R., that would not mean that there was no information report in this case. The purpose of the report is to put the law in motion. This was duly done when Sharif Baig got his statement recorded by the Police Officer on which the investigation commenced.
7. I have considered the evidence pertaining to the recovery as well as the dying declaration. Not much reliance can be placed on this evidence. However, so far as motive is concerned, it is proved by the evidence of Mst. Lqbal Bibi that there was dispute over the money. Even Siddique Baig said so.
8. Now the next question for consideration is whether the evidence of Siddique and lqbal Bibi and finally the post-mortem report of the deceased is sufficient to base the appellants' conviction and my answer to that is in the affirmative. I am not prepared to reject the testimony of Siddique Baig because he happens to be an unfortunate father of his son who was knived in his presence who utimately died. He is related to both sides.
9. Coming to the evidence of Mst. Lqbal Bibi, am clear in my mind that the trial Court acted rightly and in accordance with law as well as in the interest of justice in summoning her. No exception can be taken to this. She gave a sound explanation of her presence. She saw with her own eyes what happened in the courtyard of her house. She gave evidence with full confidence and even stood the test of cross-examination like a rock. The defence was unable to get anything out of her. There is no restriction in basing conviction on the solitary statement of a witness provided she is a truthful witness. I have no hesitation in holding that Mst. Lqbal Bibi told the truth. Her evidence alone is sufficient to reject this appeal. Nevertheless it finds support from the statement of Siddique Baig as well as the medical evidence which tallies the number and seats of the injuries on the persons of the deceased.
' For the foregoing reasons, I maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellants and dismiss the appeal. The amount of fine, in full, shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of both the deceased. The Collector concerned shall take necessary steps to recover the same.