1. {{PAGES MISS}} As pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant the evidence of Muhammad Ahmed however does not inspire confidence. In the first place his name does not transpire in the F.I.R. It is not known how his name was brought to the notice of police as being one of those who were present at the time of the occurrence. Moreover, Ahmed All Shopkeeper from whose shop he had witnessed the incident, has not supported him. Furthermore, like the injured Muhammad Juman, he too has been disbelieved in respect of the acquitted accused Zulfiqar Hussain.
2. ' Both Muhammad Juman and Muhammad Ahmed have implicated not only the present applicant but also acquitted the accused. As regards Zulfiqar Hussain their evidence is that he had hit the injured Muhammad Juman with hammer. They are however belied by the medical evidence which does not disclose any injury caused to Juman by hammer. Both the Courts below have preferred medical evidence to the evidence of Muhammad Juman and Muhammad Ahmed in respect of the co-accused Zulfiqar who was accordingly acquitted. In other words Muhammad Juman and Muhammad Ahmed have been disbelieved by the lower Courts in respect of the said co-accused.
3. The contention of he learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, was that in absence of independent corroborative evidence conviction of the applicant could not be based on the evidence of such witnesses. In this connection he relied upon Ahmed Khan and another v. The State PLD 1962 (W.P) Lah. 393 wherein it was held: "It is well established rule of prudence that if the prosecution witnesses are discredited in respect of majority of the accused, it will not be safe to believe their evidence in respect of the remaining accused unless there is some independent corroboration in respect of each of the accused."
4. ' In the above reported case the learned Judges of Lahore High Court have surveyed a number of authorities supporting the above proposition. Some of the said authorities are given below:
(i) Mohla Singh v. Emperior AIR 1931 Lah.
5. 38.
6. Ashraf and others v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 86.
(iii) Rehmat and others v. The State PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 109'.
(iv) Muhammad Faiz Bakhsh v. The Queen PLD 1959 P C 24.
7. ' Reference may also be made to the recent authority reported as Ghulam Sikandar and another v.
8. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11, wherein it was held: "It is often said that the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan. The same principle has been described in some cases, slightly differently; namely, that .The testimony of an eye-witness should not be treated as indivisible although there is no consensus with regard to the later view. A contrary view has also been held. Expressed in a more direct manner a similar rule in the administration of criminal justice which is hall-mark of Islamic Jurisprudence, that when a witness has been found false with regard to the implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath the credibility of such witness regarding involvement of the other accused in the same occurrence would be irretrievably shaken. However, as a matter of convenience a rule has been developed in Pakistan since the case of Ghulam Muhammad v.
9. Crown PLD 1951 Lah. 66 propounded by late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir that where it is found that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to the other accused in the same occurrence. But if the testimony of such a witness is corroborated by very strong and independent circumstances regarding other, the reliance might then be placed on the witness for convicting the other accused."
10. The consensus of the above authorities is that it is unsafe to record conviction on the basis of the evidence which has been disbelieved in respect of other accused, unless it is corroborated by some independent evidence. As has been stated above the requisite corroborative evidence is absolutely lacking in the instant case.
11. ' The last point agitated by the learned counsel for the applicant is with regard to motive. The question arises if the evidence relating to motive can be used as corroboration of the evidence of the injured Muhammad Juman and his witness Muhammad Ahmed. It is in evidence of Muhammad Juman that a month prior to the occurrence he had quarrel with the applicant, but ultimately their differences were resolved and compromise was effected between the two. Thus bitterness, if any, nursed by them against each other had vanished with restoration of normalcy in their relations. Consequently the, applicant could not be held to have any grievence against the injured person at the time of occurrence. Even if they still bore malice for each other the evidence to that effect can not be regarded as independent corroboration to support the above ocular evidence because it comes from the mouth of the same witness namely Muhammad Juman whose evidence is in the need corroboration before it can be acted upon for the purpose of convicting the applicant. In the circumstances of the case the evidence of motive is hardly of any assistance to the prosecution with exclusion of that evidence the prosecution is left with only un- corroborated ocular evidence of Muhammad Juman and his witness Muhammad Ahmed, which in view of the above discussion will not be safe basis for conviction.
12. ' It would be noticed that while appraising the evidence produced in support of the prosecution case, the learned trial Court has placed reliance also on the witnesses who have either given a complete goby or have turned hostile to the prosecution case. These witnesses are Shabir, Shahid, Abdullah and Ahmed Ali. First of all their names do not appear in the F.I.R. Ahmed AU who is one of those witnesses who have been declared hostile has not doubt admitted in his cross-examination that he saw both the accused at the vardat, Gulzar having 'Churri' and Zulfiqar carrying hammer.
13. However, it would be extremely unfair to the accused to detach his above admission from rest of the text of the witness evidence and use it in isolation for the purpose corroboration. His evidence is in conflict with the evidence of other witnesses in many respects. According to Ahmed Ali, Muhammad Juman was in senses but he did not hear him telling any person as to how he received the injuries. He is however belied by Muhammad Juman whose evidence shows that on receiving injuries he had turned unconscious. Furthermore the acquittal of co-accused Zulfiqar is indicative of the fact that whole evidence including that of above witness has not been believed by the lower Courts. Coming to the evidence of Shahid, he claims to have been informed by the injured that Zulfiqar and his brother had inflicted injuries to him.
14. ' As stated above Muhammad Juman's own version is that he lost senses following the receiving of injuries, the question of his disclosing to any one the names of assailants who caused him injuries would not arise. Moreover, there is no indication in the evidence of Muhammad Juman that he gave the names of his assailants to Shahid or any other witness. Again Shahid's evidence to the above effect is inconsistent with that of Ahmed Ali who has stated that Muhammad Juman did not tell any body as to how he had received the injuries. Their statements are also inconsistent as to whether the accused carried any weapons. Contrary to Ahmed Ali's evidence, Shahid has stated that he did not see anything in the hands of the accused.
15. ' The next witness is Abdullah whose evidence has also been referred by the trial Court as having lent the requisite corroboration. All that he has said is: "On querry from the crowd, Muhammad Juman informed that he was beaten up and injured by accused Zulfiqar and Gulzar."
16. ' Obviously he has not mentioned the name of any person who made the above querry from Muhammad Juman. According to Muhammad Juman himself, he having turned unconcious was not in a position to speak not he claims to have conveyed the names of his assailants to any one.
17. Therefore, the evidence of Abdullah is not trustworthy.
18. ' Like other witnesses referred to above, the evidence of Shabbir too does not appear to be credible.
19. He claims to have seen both accused running away, Gulzar with knife and Zulfiqar with hammer. As pointed above the evidence of Shabbir is contradictory to what other witnesses have stated.
20. In view of the above discussion, it would neither be fair nor just to tear only those pieces from the statements of the prosecution witnesses which seek to implicate the accused and piece them together to make out a case of conviction against him, particularly when even such effect made by the lower Courts has not been availed by them in respect of co-accused Zulfiqar who despite the same evidence was acquitted.
21. From above discussion I have come to the conclusion that the lower Courts have not seriously addressed themselves to the evidence brought on record with the result that their half-hearted appraisal of the evidence have led them to erroneous conclusions. I must say that this is a case of gross misappreciation of evidence which cannot overlooked merely because both the lower Courts have recorded concurrent findings as to guilt of the accused.
22. In such a case this Court cannot but interfere to under the wrong done to the accused. In support of this view if any authority is needed, reference may be made Feroze Khan v. Captain Ghulam Nabi Khan and another PLD 1966 SC 424 wherein it was held: "In appropriate cases, even findings of fact could be disturbed in revision. This would be possible, for instance where the subordinate Court had wrongly allocated the onus of proof, in not applying the correct principles, relating to the appriasal of evidence, or some important piece of evidence had been ignored."
23. Keeping all the circumstances of the case in view it is manifest that the case against the applicant is not free from doubt and since the benefit of doubt must go to him, he is entitled to acquittal. In result the Revision Application is accepted and the impugned judgments of conviction of the applicant are set aside and he is acquitted.