MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.--Noor Shah and his son-in-law Sher Shah were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan under section 449/302/34, P.P.C. For causing the death of Wazir Shah with hatchets at about midnight the house of Bahar Shah, the father-in-law of the petitioner in Chak No.11/N.P. Tehsil Sadiq Abad, District Rahimyar Khan, and acquitted.
2. The prosecution story is that Wazir Shah deceased was carrying on an illicit liaison with Mst.
Shahnaz daughter of Noor Shah accused for about five years preceding the occurrence. This Mst.
Shahnaz was meanwhile married to Sher Shah respondent who started living with her in the Province of Sind. She died about to years after the marriage and Sher Shah returned to his Chak No.11/N.P. On the preceding evening the petitioner had gone to the house of his father-in-law Bahar Shah in this very Chak and had stayed overnight with him. Bahar Shah, Wazir Shah deceased, his brother, and his son Lal Shah slept in the courtyard. They woke up at about midnight on hearing the out cries of Wazir Shah deceased. In the light of moon Ghulam Shah P.W.8 saw Nur Shah and Sher Shah respondents injuring his brother Wazir Shah. The accused succeeded in making good their escape over the wall of the house while Ghulam Shah was shouting for help. Ghulam Shabir further stated that Niaz-ul-Hasan P.W. Had seen the accused running away from the place of occurrence.
3. Ghulam Shah P.W.8 lodged the first information report Exh.P.A. At Police Station Sadiq Abad six miles away from the place of occurrence on 8-5-1976 at 4 a.m.
4. The prosecution produced three eye-witnesses Ghulam Shah P.W.8 who is a brother of the deceased, Bahar Shah P.W.9 the father-in-law of Ghulam Shah, Lal Shah P.W.10 son of Bahar Shah.
They also recovered hatchets stained with human blood, the recovery whereof was witnessed by Niaz-ul-Hassan P.W.6 and Habib Ullah P.W.11.
5. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges and claimed to be tried. They denied having produced the hatchets and also disowned the removal of blood-stained shirt and Chadar (Exhs.P.4 and P.3) from their persons by the police. ,
6. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all.
7. The learned Sessions Judge found that the footprints of the culprits at the place of occurrence were covered with baskets and were shown to the police on its arrival by P.W.10 and P.W.3. The learned Sessions Judge inferred from this piece of evidence that the eye-witnesses were not sure as to the identity of the culprits otherwise there was no point in their trying to preserve their footprints. He, therefore, repelled the suggestion that the eye-witnesses had identified the assailants.
8. The learned Sessions Judge also found that the so-called eye--witnesses had carried on a consultation between them before Ghulam Shah left three hours later to lodge the F.I.R.
9. The house of Nur Shah and Sher Shah are at a distance of one mile in one case and to squares in the other from the house of Bahar Shah where the incident took place. There was also a suggestion supported by evidence that Bahar Shah P.W.9. Was in fact sleeping in a Kotha as he was unwell.
10. It was found that all the eye-witnesses were closely related inter se as qua Wazir Shah deceased. Niaz Shah P.W.6 had unequivocally denied having seen the accused coming out of the house of Bhar Shah after the occurrence. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the waning light of the moon. It was clear from the testimony of the Doctor that the deceased had received injuries Nos. 1 and 2 first and could in any case have not shouted after receiving them. The witnesses on the other hand say that they saw only to or three hatchet blows being given to the deceased. The total number of blows received by him was about 14. The so-called eye-witnesses are, therefore, not telling the truth. In other words, they had not witnessed the occurrence at all. The suggestion that Bahar Shah slept in the Kotha because of his illness was on the face of it acceptable.
11. An important feature of the prosecution is that Mst. Naziran and Rasool Shah are said to have told Allah Vasaya and Niaz-ul-Hasan P.Ws. That thieves had murdered Wazir Shah deceased.
12. The evidence suffers from a number of discrepancies some of which have been noted above.
The witnesses were, therefore, correctly disbelieved.
13. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was affirmed by the High Court.
14. The mere fact that all the witnesses of the occurrence and that there have been recoveries does not enhance the case of the prosecution at all and in any case it was for the High Court to finally determine these questions of fact which have been gone into by it on the basis of which the acquittal of the respondents had been upheld by the High Court.
15. There was even no motive for the occurrence. The woman who was supposed to be the cause of all trouble had been married away more than three years ago to somebody else. She had lived with her husband for to years and had died to years before the occurrence. There was, therefore, no motive left so far as the alleged illict liaison is concerned.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate to us that the conurrent findings of the to Courts below are in any way perverse, arbitrary or conjectural. In any case they were the judges of fact which they found in favour of the accused after taking into consideration all the relevant evidence and factors.
17. In these circumstances we find no force in the petition which is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.