This Jail Appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 22-2-1984 of Syed Fazal Hussain Shah, the then Sessions Judge, Sanghar, whereby he convicted appellants Gamoon and Andal under section 302/34, P.P.C. And awarded rigorous imprisonment for life to them. He also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The prosecution story is that on 9-9-1982 at about 7-00 a.m. Complainant Ali Nawaz and the P.Ws. Were working in their paddy field. His father Abdul Majeed was going to sell garlands for cattle at the cattle Piri of Sanghar. Appellants Gamoon and Andal waylaid Abdul Majeed and started giving hatchet blows to him. On his cries complainant Ali Nawaz and P.Ws. Rasul Bux, Dilsher and Lal Bux alias Laloo Kundani went running to the scene of offence. The appellants after causing injuries to Abdul Majeed made good their escape. Abdul Majeed succumbed to his injuries. About 20-22 days prior to this incident, there was a quarrel between the complainant party and the appellants as the cattle of the complainant had trespassed over the lands of the appellants and damaged their crop. The matter was settled by Sardar Salim Bugti who imposed a fine of Rs.2,000 upon the complainant party, which was paid by them to the appellants. The appellants were obviously not satisfied with this settlement and committed the murder. The F.I.R. Was taken down by A S. I. Abdul Sattar at 9-15 a.m. On the same day. He inspected the scene of offence and secured blood-stained earth from there. He held inquest on the dead body and sent the same for autopsy. He found a pair of Chapls at the scene of offence and secured the same. He then made enquiries from P.Ws. Rasul Bux Allahdito, Sher D.1 and Lai Bux alias Laloo. He then arrested the appellants from the Chak of Rais Ghulam Ali Khan. They were carrying blood-stained hatchets in their hands and were wearing blood-stained clothes. The A.S.I. Secured all these blood-stained articles and sent them to the Chemical Analyser whose report is In the affirmative except with regard to their shirts. He then got 164, Cr.P.C. Statements of the above P.Ws. Recorded. He then handed over the case papers to the S.H.O. Who challaned the case.
3. A charge was framed against the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302 read with 34, P P.C. To which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellants was total denial of the prosecution story. They alleged that the complainant party had fought with them when they protested over the damage of their crop by the cattle of the complainant and the complainant party were made to pay compensation by their Zaminar. Hence they have falsely implicated them in this case.
4. On behalf of prosecution, complainant Ali Nawaz and P.Ws. Dilsher, Rasul Bux and Laloo were examined as eye-witnesses. P.Ws. Allahdino was the Zamindar who was apprised about the incident by the complainant and on his advice the F.I.R. Was lodged. P.W. Nooro is Mashir Dr. Imtiaz Ali is the Medical Officer and A.S.I. Abdul Sattar is the Investigating Officer. The appellants did not lead any evidence in their defence.
5. The learned Sessions Judge framed three points for determination. The first point related to the factum of death of Abdul Majeed on account of hatchet injuries, the second point related to the connection of the appellants with the crime and the third point related to the nature of the offence.
He found all the points in the affirmative and came to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. On point No. 1, besides other evidence, he referred to the evidence of the Medical Officer, Dr. Imtiaz Ali who held post-mortem examination and found the following external injuries on the dead body of Abdul Majeed: (1)Incised wound 1.2 c. m. x 3 c. m. Bone deep on left parietal region with a fracture of parietal bone.
(2)Lacerated wound 2 c. m. x 3 c. m. x -- c. m. Below right mandible.
(3)Incised wound 11 c.m. x 4 c.m x heart deep in the 5th intercostals space on left side with fracture of 5th rib.
(4)Incised wound 6 c. m. x 5 c. m. x bone deep with fracture of tibia bone on middle third of lower left leg.
(5)Incised wound 8 c.m. x 7 c.m. x bone deep with fracture of left tarsal bone on left foot.
(6)Incised wound, 7 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x bone deep with fracture of meta-tarsal bones of left foot.
(7)Incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep 3 c.m. Below the anterior side of right knee joint.
(8)Incised wound 13 c.m. x 4 c.m. x bone deep with fracture of 3rd lumber region at left medio laterally on posterior side.
On internal examination he noted as follows:- (1)Membrane of brain on the side of injury No. 1 ruptured.
(2)Pericardium and heart on the left side ruptured.
(3)Blood vessels and thigh on the side of injury ruptured.
From the external and internal examinations of the dead body the doctor was of the opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and 3, which injuries individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem and except injury No. 2 all other injuries appeared to have been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as hatchet. The death of the deceased wars also not disputed. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge oil this point is unexceptionable. On the latter two points, he took into consideration the ocular evidence of complainant Ali Nawaz and P.Ws --Dilsher, Rasul Bux and Lai Bux. He observed that the same was corroborated by recovery of blood stained hatchets and blood-stained clothes of the appellants.
Both these pieces of evidence were further supported by the motive. After reproducing the relevant passages from the evidence of all the four eye-witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that all of them have fully supported the prosecution case. The account of occurrence given by the prosecution witnesses was consistent with the material particulars and it was clear that they had seen the appellants giving hatchet blows to the deceased. These witnesses were subjected to searching cross-examination by the defence counsel but he could not shake their testimony. Certain minor contradictions were brought out in the evidence of these witnesses but the learned Sessions Judge rightly pointed out that the same on the contrary showed that the evidence of the these witnesses was natural and untutored. No two persons can observe the same facts in the same line and even if they do the chances of their being able to describe it in the same words are very rare. Persons in the ordinary course of human nature seldom attach importance to minor detail and either out of foolishness or ignorance try to fill up the gaps in their own way. He also took account of the lapses in the memory due to passage of time.
6. The next objection which was raised before the learned Sessions Judge was as to the relationship of the eye-witnesses with the deceased and the complainant. The objection was rightly rejected by the trial Court and it was observed that the mere fact that a witness is related to the complainant party is hardly a ground to reject and/or to disbelieve his testimony. The testimony of a witness who is natural and whom one would exp t to have seen the incident should not be doubted merely because he happens to be related to the deceased. The mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased would not render him impartial and unbelievable unless he is inimically disposed of towards the accused or has any motive to falsely implicate him. Ordinarily a closely related witness would be the last to screen the real culprit and to falsely implicate an innocent person. Hence the mere fact of interestedness or relationship cannot be made a ground for criticism, but is, on the contrary, often a guarantee of truth. He; therefore, rightly decided tot place reliance on the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses.
7. The recovery of the blood stained hatchets and clothes has been fully supported by. Mashir Nooro who is an independent witness. He resided only one furlong away from the village of the appellants. No enmity whatsoever has been alleged against him. The Mashir had fully supported the prosecution case and had stated in the examination-in-chief that at the time of arrest the police had secured two blood-stained hatchets and the blood-stained clothes from the person of the appellants However, in the cross-examination, he had stated that all the above mentioned articles were lying at the Chak at the time of arrest and the complainant had informed him that the same were secured from the appellants. But this statement of the Mashir does not take away value of whatever he has stated in the examination-in-chief specially because the police officer whose evidence is no less important, has stated that he had secured these articles from the person of the appellants.
8. In 1974 SCMR 1 and PLD 1964 Kar. 530, it was held that where there is reliable ocular evidence which is corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapons, the accused can be safely convicted on the same.
9. Finally, there is evidence of motive. The same is very strong Even the appellants have not denied the same. It has been held in PLD 1976 SC 291 that where motive is proved other evidence direct or circumstantial get support from it and the accused may be convicted. In 1969 SCMR 542, it has been held that in weighing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses motive has an important role to play.
10. The complainant party as well as the appellants party are Bugti Baloch by caste. The allegations of the prosecution are not unnatural.
Such conduct on the part of Bugti Balochis to which tribe the appellant belong is normal and there is nothing unnatural about it. The prosecution story as well as evidence give a ring of truth.
11. Both the appellants were produced before me. I have heard them in person. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.-G., who appeared for the State, supported the conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon the appellants. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants and awarded proper sentence of imprisonment as well as fine. I, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants and dismiss their appeal.