1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.-- Shabbir Ahmad and his brother Naseer Ahmad sons of Mubarik Ali alias Makha, cultivators, residents of Chak No, 108/10-R, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan for the murder of Munir Ahmad and for murderous assault on Akram alias Bhola.
2. ' The trial Judge, by judgment, dated 30-4-1981, found both brothers guilty of murder of Muhammad Munir. They were accordingly sentenced under section 302/34, P.P.C. To death and a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. For three years each. They were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to 7 year& R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. For one year each.
3. ' The convicts appealed to this Court. Reference for confirmation of death sentence is also before us. Both the matters are being decided by this judgment.
4. ' On 12-12-1979, Muhammad Yousuf son of Ahmad Din, resident of Chak No, 10/110-R, lodged the report Exh.P.C. At Police Station, Jahanian, with regard to the murder of Munir Ahmad.
5. ' The occurrence took place at 11-00 a.m. Report was lodged after 11/2 hours. In the report Muhammad Yousaf stated that Munir Ahmad son of Muhammad Ibrahim was married to his sister Mst. Nazeeran Bibi. One Sharif had come from England to see him (Muhammad Yousuf). Munir Ahmad also came to see Muhammad Shard at the house of Muhammad Yousuf complainant.
6. Munir Ahmad stayed for the night in the house of Muhammad Yousuf.
7. ' On the day of occurrence in the morning, Munir Ahmad left for his Chak. Muhammad Yousuf accompanied him. When they reached near the cattle-shed of Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Yousuf complainant went for toilet. While Munir Ahmad walked towards his cattle-shed. Muhammad Yousuf after finishing with toilet, proceeded to the Bhaini of Munir Ahmad. He heard alarm from the cattle shed. Muhammad Yousuf rushed towards that side. He saw Shabbir Ahmad armed with Phora and Naseer Ahmad with Sota. They were beating Munir Ahmad. Shabbir ahmad gave a Phora blow on the chest of Munir Ahmad, who fell down. Then Naseer Ahmad started beating Munir Ahmad with Sota. His legs were broken. Muhammad Yousuf raised hue and cry. Sardar, Noor Ahmad and Naeem Afzal, who were attracted to the spot, witnessed the occurrence. Both the accused, thereafter, ran away with their respective weapons towards the southern side. The witnesses alongwith complainant placed Munir Ahmad on a cot.
8. ' In the meanwhile, Sardar Muhammad, Noor Ahmad, Naeem Afzal and Muhammad Yousuf heard alarm from the sugarcane field. The complainant alongwith them ran towards that direction. He found Shabbir Ahmad inflicting Phora blows on the head of Muhammad Akram. Muhammad Akram fell down. Both the appellants gave blows to him while he was lying on the ground. On seeing P.Ws., the appellants took to their heels.
9. ' Muhammad Yousuf complainant alongwith Sardar, Noor Ahmad and Naeem Afzal P.Ws. Took Muhammad Akram to the cattle-shed of Munir Ahmad. There they found that Munir Ahmad had died.
10. ' The motive was about the dispute over some land between Munir Ahmad and Younus. It pertained to 6 Acres of land. This had been transferred to Younus. Case was pending in the civil Court. The accused were helping Younus. Munir Ahmad gave beating to Mubarik Ali, father of the accused.
11. The accused felt offended. Yousuf and Akram appeared as eye-witnesses.
12. ' Sardar Muhammad and Noor Ahmad attested the recovery memo. Exh.P.G. It pertained to the blood-stained Phora P.6, recovered on 18-12-1979, at the instance of Shabbir Ahmad.
13. ' On the same day, Naseer Ahmad led to the recovery of Sota P.7 from the heap of Bhoosa. It was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.H. The same recovery witnesses attested it. Both the recovery witnesses resiled.
14. ' On 13-12-1979, Dr. Abdul Khaliq conducted the post-mortem of Munir Ahmad. The doctor noticed 12 abrasions, 2 incised wounds and 2 fractures on the dead body of Munir Ahmad. In the opinion of doctor, the death was due to the fracture of the 1st and 2nd cervical vertebrae due to the oligaemice shock.
15. ' Muhammad Yousuf blamed both the appellants for the murder of Munir Ahmad and injuring Muhammad Akram. He also gave evidence about the motive which has been referred to above.
16. ' The appellants in their statement admitted their relationship inter se, as well as with the deceased, who was their paternal uncle. The other allegations were denied. Both the brothers stated that the case against them was false.
17. ' Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable evidence. Muhammad Yousuf was a close relative of the deceased. Ikram did not depose about the murder of Munir Ahmad. There was no independent evidence to corroborate testimony of Muhammad Yousuf.
18. ' It was submitted that the conviction and sentence as such were not legally maintainable.
19. ' Last of all, learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, Muhammad Yousuf was not present at the spot. The evidence pertaining to the recovery did not appeal to reason.
20. ' Medical evidence did not provide necessary corroboration.
21. ' We have also heard learned counsel for the State who supported the impugned judgment.
22. ' It is correct that Yousuf alone deposed about the murder of Munir Ahmad. Ikram gave evidence with regard to the attack on his life. In our opinion this proves the bona fide of the prosecution. In case the prosecution was keen to create evidence, the son could have easily been tutored to depose about the murder of his father.
23. There is nothing wrong with the evidence of Muhammad Yousuf. The defence did not bring anything on record, from which it could be inferred that he did not see the occurrence and was not stating the truth or was inimical towards the appellants.
24. ' There is no legal bar for recording or maintaining conviction on the solitary statement of a witness provided he is truthful witness.
25. ' We accept the evidence of Muhammad Yousuf. His evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The post-mortem report provides the necessary corroboration to the ocular version. It proves that two types of weapons were used which suggest that there were more than one assailants.
26. Ikram gave convincing explanation of his presence at the spot. He was injured. He named his assailants. We believe him.
27. ' For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the appellants have been rightly convicted for the murder of Munir Ahmad and murderous assault on Muhammad Ikram.
28. ' We have now to consider whether they have been properly sentenced. The prosecution case is that prior to the occurrence, the deceased gave beating to the father of the two appellants.
29. Shabbir and Naseer appellants are youngmen of 23 and 18 years, respectively. The two sons could not tolerate their father being given beating. They felt small. They were very much humiliated and offended. Obviously they wanted to take revenge for this insult. They were on the outlook for a proper opportunity. When they got a chance they took their turn.
30. ' Although the deceased and injured Ikram had many injuries but it appears that the appellants were not anxious to finish Munir Ahmad, but were out to teach him a lesson for what he did to their father.
31. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to confirm death sentence The same is commuted to imprisonment for life.
32. ' The conviction and sentence under section 307/34, P.P.C. Is upheld. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Full amount of fine shall be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased; while the fine under section 307/34, P.P.C. In full shall be paid to the injured P.W.
33. ' Both Criminal Appeal and murder reference are disposed of.