' This is a revision petition filed by Umer Hayat, petitioner, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 31-7-1969, acquitting Muhammad Ashraf and three others, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 of a charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of one Bashir deceased. This petition was admitted qua Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Akram, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 only, and dismissed in limine qua Muhammad Arshad and Safdar, respondents Nos. 2 and 4.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The learned Sessions Judge found that Sadiq P.W.13 was the brother-in-law of Bashir, deceased. The learned Judge also found that Hadayat P.W.14 was related to the deceased through his wife Mst. Kaniz Begum, whose brother was married to Mst. Sahran, the sister of Bashir, deceased. The learned Judge also found that Hadayat P.W.14 was a chance witness, in that though he had not attended the Court proceedings under section 307/34, P.P.C. Against Bashir, deceased, and Tufail P.W.15 and had never known the accused before the occurrence, he had given particulars of the four accused in his statement. The learned Judge also held that Hidayat P.W.14 had not been subjected to any identification test. The learned Judge also found that Tufail P.W.15 was a co-accused with Bashir, deceased, in a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. And that he had admitted his relationship with the deceased through their maternal grandfathers, who were related to each other. The learned Judge also found that Mst. Ghulam Fatima P.W.17 was a sister of the deceased. In these circumstances, the learned Judge looked for corroboration, which he did not find in the instant case.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that Tufail P.W.15 was an independent witness and that even the testimony of single witness is sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused. In this connection, learned counsel relies upon Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others PLD 1980 SC 225.
Learned counsel also submits that the appreciation of the medical evidence by the learned Judge was faulty.
4 It cannot be stated that Tufail P.W.15 is a totally disinterested witness. The reasons given by the learned trial Judge in holding him to be an interested witness, as stated above, are substantial and I would, therefore, agree with the learned trial Judge in the assessment that all the four eye- witnesses were either related or interested in the deceased and that, therefore, corroboration was required. As regards the appreciation of the medical testimony, the learned Sessions Judge has not been careful in his appraisal of the evidence. If one sees the skiagram, injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are all nothing more than a part of the pellet spread of one gunshot injury. For what reasons the doctor has cared to describe them as three separate injuries, it is difficult to imagine at this stage.
Injury No,4 on the leg is nothing but an abrasion, which the deceased may have suffered when he was lifted down from the tonga. Injury No,5 is nothing more than a tiny abrasion, hardly of any consequence. The pellet spread according to the skiagram appears to be of a diameter of about four to five inches, which shows that the deceased was fired at from a range of twelve to fifteen feet, which fits in with the distance given by the witnesses. The deceased was found to have some semi-digested food in his stomach. The witnesses submitted that the deceased had taken his last meal at 6-00 or 7-00 in the morning. The doctor opined that from the contents of the semi- digested food in the stomach, the deceased had taken something to eat six/seven hours before his death. The statement of the doctor is obviously false. Within six to seven hours, all food in the stomach would clear out Very likely the deceased took something to eat in the Court premises, where he had gone to attend his case. But whatever be the position, one thing is clear in my view that Bashir, deceased, received pellet spread from only one gunshot injury and not two gunshot injuries, as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, corroboration as against each accused was necessary as held by the learned trial Judge. Taking all circumstances into consideration, the acquittal of the respondents is neither illegal nor perverse.
5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.