' LEHRASAP KHAN, J.--Allah Yar alias Yara (50), Ahmad Ali (35), Saifullah (55) and Manzoor (35), have been convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, under section 302/34, P.P.C. For causing the death of Muhammad All (35) vide judgment, dated 17-4-1982. Allah Yar has been sentenced to death and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default two years' R.I. While others have been sentenced to imprisonment for life each and fine of Rs,10,000 or in default two years' R.I. Each. It has also been directed that the fine, if realised, would be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.
' Vide same judgment, the learned trial Judge has acquitted Muhammad Ali, Said Muhammad and Muhammad Amin co-accused.
2. The aforementioned convicts have challenged their conviction and sentences through the present appeal viz. Criminal Appeal No, 223 of 1982. The matter also stands referred to us under section 374, Cr.P.C. Vide Murder Reference No, 88 of 1982, seeking confirmation of death sentence awarded to Allah Yar alias Yara appellant. Muhammad Nawaz complainant has also filed criminal revision (Criminal Revision No, 581 of 1982) for enhancement of sentences awarded to Ahmad Ali, Saifullah and Manzoor and also for enhancement of compensation.
' All the three matters shall be disposed of by this single judgment.
3. The occurrence in this case took place on 5-7-1978 at 7-00 a.m. In front of the Baithak of the deceased in Chak No, 23/J.B., at a distance of eight miles from Police Station Chak Jhumra.
' Muhammad Nawaz P.W.8, brother of the deceased while on his way to Police Station Chak Jhumra to report the occurrence, met Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W. 12 at Chowk Khichian at 10-30 a.m., where his statement Exh.P.C. Was recorded by the aforementioned police officer. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was recorded at the police station by Muhammad Akram M.H.C. (P.W.3) at 11-15 a.m.
4. Regarding motive it has been alleged that the deceased had constructed a Kotha on a State land which was in his unauthorised possession. On that land a Kotha was also built by Allah Yar and Ahmad All appellants. The deceased demolished that Kotha raised by the appellants about seven months prior to the present occurrence. The accused party thereupon got registered a criminal case against the deceased, Muhammad Nawaz complainant and eight others. The case was still pending before a criminal Court at the time of occurrence.
' Civil litigation was also pending between the accused party and the complainant party. One Muhammad Ibrahim, a distant relative of Yara appellant owned some land which was in possession of Yara etc. But the deceased got it transferred to his own name, whereupon Yara etc. Filed a civil suit in which stay was granted and an appeal was pending in the Court of Mr. Azad Muhammad Awan, the then Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.
5. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated that at the eventful time Muhammad Ali deceased was present in front of his Baithak near the thoroughfare putting Tobacco in the Chilam of Huqqa, while his brother Muhammad Nawaz P.W.8, the complainant, was present at his shop. He heard Lalkara raised by Ahmad Ali, Saifullah, Manzoor, Muhammad All and Allah Yar alias Yara, the five accused that the deceased Muhammad Ali should not be left alive. The accused were variously armed. Ahmed All was carrying a gun, Allah Yar was also carrying a gun, while Saif and Manzoor were armed with spears and Muhammad All was armed with hatchet. Soon after the Lalkara, Ahmad. All fired the first shot hitting the deceased on his left flank. After suffering this injury, Muhammad All deceased ran into his Baithak, but all the five accused reached near the door of the Baithak. Muhammad All deceased came out at the door and pushing aside the accused ran towards the west, but at some distance he fell down near the wall of Rehman Malooka. Allah Yar alias Yara fired the second shot at him hitting him near the right ear on the head. Muhammad All the acquitted accused gave a hatchet blow on the right side of the face of the deceased while Saif and Manzoor continued inflicting injuries with their respective spears on the back of the neck, shoulders, ribs on the right as well as on the left sides and also on left hand. When after the departure of the assailants from the scene of occurrence, Muhammad Nawaz complainant went near his brother, he found that Muhammad All had already succumbed to the injuries. The occurrence was seen by Muhammad Nawaz P.W.8, Sardara P.W.9, Mukhtar Hussain P.W.10 and Muhammad Hussain (not produced).
' It has also been alleged that the complainant and Muhammad Ali deceased were informed by Muhammad Afzal P.W.11 and his brother Muhammad Ashraf (not produced) that on Friday, preceding the day of occurrence, Said Muhammad and Muhammad Amin, acquitted accused, as also the aforementioned appellants and Muhammad All acquitted accused, called Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Ashraf aforesaid at the house of Muhammad Amin and Said Muhammad and told them that they had collected sufficient funds in order to murder Muhammad All deceased and they asked Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Ashraf to help them in execution of the mission but they did not oblige them.
6. Autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was performed on 5-7-1978 at 3-00 p.m. By P.W.1 Dr. Lqbal Ahmad Javed, the then Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Chak Jhumra and he noticed 19 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Out of these injuries, injuries Nos. 3 and 4 as also injury No, 12 were caused by fire-arm. The rest were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injury No, 3 was an entrance wound on the right cheek just in front of right ear, 1" x 1" x fracture of zygomatic and temporal bones. The edges of the wounds were inverted and ecchymosed. The skin surrounding the wound was blackened and scorched. The whole of brain matter was found ruptured.
' Injury No,4 was an exit wound of the aforementioned injury on the left side of head extending from the left side of forehead to the left side of middle of head, 21/4" above the left ear, 8" x 11/2" x fracture of frontal bone, fracture of left parietal bone and fracture of temporal bone, were seen. The edges of wound were everted and were ragged and torn.
' Injury No, 12 was a 'circular lacerated wound of entrance, below the middle of left side of abdomen, which was 1/4" x 1/4" skin deep.
' The doctor opined that the death resulted due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 and these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were also individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem.
7. Ahmad Ali, and Allah Yar appellants were arrested on 15-7-1978, by Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W.12 while Manzoor and Sail appellants were arrested by the same Police Officer on 20-7-1978.
' On 5-7-1978, two crime empties P.9/1-2 were.Recovered from the spot, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K. Attested by Mukhtar Hussain P.W.10, Muhammad Hussain (not produced) and Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W.12.
' On 15-7-1978, Allah Yar appellant at the time of his arrest produced gun P.3 alongwith two live cartridges P.4/1-2, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. Attested by Sardara P.W.9, Muhammad Hussain (not produced) and Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W.12. Similarly, on the same day, Ahmad Ali produced gun P.5 with two live cartridges P.6/1-2 which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. Attested by the aforementioned P.Ws.
8. On 20-7-1978, Saifullah appellant got recovered blood-stained Balm P.7 from behind the Bharolas placed in his residential Kotha. It was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. Attested by Sardara P.W.9, Muhammad Hussain (not produced) and Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W.12. On the same day, Manzoor appellant got recovered blood-stained Balm P.8 from his residential Kotha which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.H. Attested by the aforementioned P.Ws.
' The result in regard to stains of blood on the blades of aforementioned Balms P.7 to P.8, recovered, from Saifullah and Manzoor respectively, has been given in positive by the Serologist vide his report Exh.P.U.
' The crime empties recovered from the spot, as detailed above, were delivered at the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory on 11-7-1978. Subsequently the guns were recovered from Allah Yar and Ahmad All on 15-7-1978. These guns were also delivered at the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory on 2-8-1978. As per contents of report Exh.P.V. Of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the two crime empties recovered from the spot were fired from guns recovered from Allah Yar and Ahmad Ali appellants.
9. At the trial, prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. P.W.1 is Dr. Lqbal Ahmad Javed, who as stated above, performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.8 Muhammad Nawaz, brother of the deceased, P.W.9 Sardara paternal-uncle of the deceased and P.W.10 Mukhtar Hussain testified as eye-witnesses and furnished the ocular account of the prosecution case. Sardara and Mukhtar Hussain P.Ws. Aforesaid are also witnesses of recovery of guns and Balms from the appellants in addition to Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W.12 who is the Investigating Officer in the case. The other witnesses are more or less formal ones.
10. The plea of the appellants was that of total denial. They did not adduce any oral evidence in their defence. However, they produced documents Exhs. D.F. To D.Z., which are mostly copies of revenue records and F.I.Rs, These documents have perhaps been produced to show that the deceased had many enemies and was a notorious bad character.
11. The learned counsel for the State and for the complainant while supporting the trial Court's judgment submitted that the ocular evidence comprising of the testimonies of Muhammad Nawaz, Sardara and Mukhtar Hussain, corroborated by the recovery of weapons of offence from the appellants fully brings home the guilt to the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that the complainant Muhammad Nawaz was admittedly at his shop at the time of occurrence, while the occurrence took place in front of the Baithak of the deceased. The place of occurrence was not visible from the shop of the complainant. His shop has not been shown in the site plan Exh.P.B.
' It has been next contended that Sardara is the paternal-uncle of the deceased, while Mukhtar Hussain is their partisan. There is sufficient material on the records to show that there was deep- rooted enmity between the parties. These interested witnesses, therefore, do not deserve any credence.
' It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants, that Sardara and Mukhtar Hussain, who are witnesses of partisan character are also witnesses of the alleged recoveries of weapons of offence from the appellants. They cannot corroborate their own testimonies by attesting the recovery memos.
13. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants with care and have also analysed the prosecution evidence and other circumstances of the case. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.8 and Sardara P.W.9 are admittedly brother and paternal-uncle, respectively of the deceased. Mukhtar Hussain P.W.10 admitted that in some criminal cases he and the deceased were co-accused. Mukhtar Hussain can, therefore, be termed as a witness of partisan character.
The enmity between the two parties is also a common ground. In case of such inimical and interested witnesses, this Court has always, as a rule of prudence, insisted upon independent corroboration. The corroboration in this case is sought from the recoveries of the weapons of offence from the appellants. Unfortunately, these recoveries have been attested by Sardara and Mukhtar Hussain. They cannot be considered to be legally qualified to provide corroboration to their own testimonies, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the recoveries have also been attested by Gul Muhammad S.1. P.W.12. A Police Officer cannot always be branded as an unreliable witness. In the absence of any element of dishonesty in the investigation, his testimony can be safely relied upon for believing the recoveries witnessed by him. In the present case, we do not find any disqualification so far as Gul Muhammad S.I. P.W.12 is concerned and we, therefore, regard him as a reliable recovery witness.
14. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is indeed a very strong piece of corroboratory evidence in this case. The crime empties recovered from the spot have been found by the expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory to have been fired from the guns recovered from Allah Yar and Ahmad Ali. As already observed, crime empties were delivered at the Forensic Science Laboratory soon after the occurrence and long before the recovery of guns from the aforementioned two appellants. The result in regard to spears recovered from Saifullah and Manzoor has been returned in positive by the Serologist. Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Javed in reply to a question asked in cross- examination has clarified that incised wounds found on the dead body of the deceased could be caused by spears.
15. From the foregoing conclusions we find that the requirement of the established rule of prudence in the administration of criminal justice that testimonies of interested and partisan witnesses must be corroborated from an independent and unimpeachable source, has been fully met in the circumstances of the present case. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34, P.P.C.
' Allah Yar appellant gave fire-arm fatal injury to the deceased. He has been rightly sentenced to death. Ahmad Ali admittedly caused a simple injury with fire-arm, while out of Manzoor and Saifullah, it is not discernible as to who is responsible for injury No, 5 caused with sharp-edged weapon which has been opined by the doctor to be individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, like injuries Nos. 3 and 4 caused by fire-arm. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, justified in not imposing the normal penalty of death on Ahmad Ali, Manzoor and Saifullah. Their sentence of imprisonment for life is thus upheld. The sentence of fine imposed on all the appellants is considered to be appropriate.
' In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as also the criminal revision under consideration. The death sentence awarded to Allah Yar is confirmed.