1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal is by special leave of this Court. The leave was granted to consider whether in view of the criticisms offered by the High Court itself as to the credi--bility of the prosecution evidence there was adequate corrobora--petition of the evidence against the appellants.
2. The two appellants along with three other persons were tried under sections 148 and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 149, P. P. C. For rioting while armed with deadly weapons, and for causing the death of one Rana Bashir Ahmad, Lambardar of the village and a Member of the Union Council. The trial Court found all the accused persons, including the appellants, guilty of the offences they were charged with, and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced. The two appellants were sentenced to death while the three other accused persons were sentenced to transportation for life under section 302 read with 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. All of them were further sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each under section .148 of the Code.
3. On appeal and reference before the High Court the convic--tions of the two appellants alone were maintained and their sentences confirmed while the convictions and sentences of the other three accused were set- aside and they were acquitted.
4. The occurrence took 'place on the 7th October 1967 at about 9 a.m. Near a puli (culvert), off a road running West to East leading from the village Abadi on the West. According to the prosecution story the deceased armed with a pistol and his brother-in-law P. W. 11, Nazir Ahmad, were proceeding together eastward on their bicycles from their village on the west to another place called Gaimbar for the purpose of purchasing bricks. They were waylaid when they arrived near the puli (culvert).
5. The appellants along with their companion emerged from the sugarcane field on' the north-west and attacked Rana Bashir Ahmad (the deceased). Appellants Nos. 1 and 2, Iqbal and Faqir Hussain, were armed with a gun and a hatchet respec--tively, while the acquitted accused persons Sardara, Aish and Allah Bakhsh were armed with a spear, a revolver and a pistol, respectively. It is said that appellant No. 1 fired his gun at .The deceased hitting him near the left armpit as a result of which the latter-fell down. Appellant No. 2 then struck the deceased several times with a hatchet.
6. Sardara also struck the deceased several times with a spear, while the remaining two accused held the deceased by his legs. The deceased was then carried by the accused. Persons towards their tubewell situated more than a killa away to the north of the culvert. Enroute about 2 karams away Muhammad A.I, Barkat and Mehar joined the accused persons. In the meantime having heard the report of & gun and the alarm raised by 1P. 'W. Nazir Ahmad, the other witnesses, namely, P. W. 13, Muhammad Anwar, a nephew of the wife of the deceased and P. W. 14, Muhammad Hussain, a maternal uncle of the son of the deceased, rushed to the spot and they were followed by P. W. 12, Abdui Razaq, son of the deceased.' P. W. Muhammad Hussain had called out to P. W. Abdul Razaq that his father had been attacked, and that Abdul Razzaque should, therefore, fetch his, gun.
7. P. W. Abdul Razzaque accordingly fetched his father's licensed gun from their house and proceeded to the spot. , He fired two shots towards the assailants and hit three of the accused persons namely, Sardara, Iqbal and the said Muhammad A.I, a tenant of Iqbal. The accused persons, however, succeeded in carrying 'the body of the deceased to the watercourse near the tubewell and throwing it in the watercourse. The prosecution case further was that two bicycles belonging to the 'deceased and P. W. Nazir Ahmad, a wrist-watch, a revolver and a sum of Rs.975 belonging to the deceased were left at the spot.
8. The motive for the murder, according to the prosecution, was that an the day previous to the occurrence an old culvert had been dismantled for fresh construction by P. W. 14, Muhammad Hussain, a Member of the Union Council, who had obtained a contract for the construction of culverts and watercourses of Chak No. 56/4-R. The stones of the dismantled culverts were removed by the accused persons, Aish and Faqiria to the said tubewell. The deceased had been informed of this removal and he had demanded their return from Aish and Faqiria and also abused them in front of their houses. Accused Aish was also sent for by the deceased the next morning and the former was told that the stones of the dismantled culvert must be brought to the dera of the deceased by the time the deceased returned from his mission of purchase of bricks. The accused persons committed the offences to avenge the insult of abuses hurled by the deceased coupled with his demand to return the stones of the dismantled culverts.
9. The first information report was lodged on the same day, at 12-30 p.m. At Police Station Noor Shah at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence by P. W. 11, Nazir Ahmad, brother of the wife of the deceased. The police arrived at the place of occurrence near the, pull and recovered blood from two places. The police officer also took into his custody some blood mixed with water from the place where the dead body was lying. Sardara accused was arrested on the same day and a blood--stained chaddar which bore pellet marks was recovered from him. He also led to the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet from a sugarcane field. The two appellants were arrested on the next day of occurrence, i.e., 8th October 1967. P. W. Abdul Razzaque produced his gun, which actually belonged to his father, along with his father's licence on the 7th day of October 1967 and it was duly seized by P. W. 16, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Mian Ahmad Bakhsh. On the 8th October 1967, appellant Iqbal produced his gun along with the licence, and they were duly seized. A blood-stained chaddar was seized from his person. Iqbal also produced two cycles, one of which was said to belong to P. W. Nazir, a wrist watch, and currency notes of the value of Rs. 440, said to belong to Bashir deceased, and they were all duly seized. On the same day appellant Faqir Hussain led to the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet from a sugarcane field. Some blond-stained clothes were also recovered from the said Muhammad A.I. P. W. 16 prepared the injury statement of appellant Iqbal and he was medically examined.
10. The defence case was that the accused persons were innocent. Appellant Iqbal stated that at the relevant time he was at his tubewell along with his tenant Muhammad A.I, when the deceased and his son P. W. Razzaque attacked the accused party and opened fire at and injured them, and caused pellet marks on the wall of his kotha. The pellet marks were shown to the Assistant Sub- Inspector. The Assistant Sub-Inspector refused to seize blood from the spot where Iqbal had bled.
11. Iqbal said it was hiss tenant Rahmat who along with other tenants caused hatchet injuries to the deceased when he fired at. Iqbal. Faqir Hussain' said he was not present at the spot and that he was falsely impli--cated. Both the appellants denied the recoveries from them. Accused Sardara said he was in the field and that on hearing the gun shot he arrived at the pull and was shot at by P. W. Abdul Razzaque and was injured at the rear as he turned to escape. The accused fell down and bled profusely at tile pull. He said he and his brothers were instrumental in starting proceedings against the deceased under section 409, P. P. C. Allah Bakhsh said he was falsely implicated by hostile witnesses. He was not present at the spot. He denied having any connection with the tubewell or the co-accused or any grievance against the deceased. He, however, stated that at 'his instance some criminal cases were brought against the deceased, Aish said he was not present at the occurrence and was falsely implicated on account of the fact that he was related to the co-accused to whom the complainant party was inimical.
12. Prosecution sought to prove its case upon the evidence of four eye-witnesses, namely, P. W. 11, Nazir Ahmad, brother of the wife of the deceased, P. W. 12, Abdul Razzaque, P. W. 13, Anwar and P. W. 14, Muhammad Hussain as well as upon the evidence of recoveries of the several incriminating articles mentioned above.
13. Mr. Manzoor Qadir, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has contended that- the learned Judges of the High Court found the witnesses interested and their evidence tainted with embellishments, and; therefore, their evidence could not have been relied on without adequate corroboration. Furthermore their evidence was found-to be false so far as the acquitted accused were concerned, and, therefore, corroboration was essential. This was the criterion laid down by the High Court itself as respects the acquitted accused persons, but it was not applied in the case of the appellants. He has contended that the corroborations relied on do not relate to the identity of the assailants concerned.
14. According to the medical evidence there was no spear injury on the body .Of the deceased. Thus it has been contended, the medical evidence falsified the categorical ocular evidence that Sardara bad injured the deceased with a spear.
15. Sardara's presence at the spot has been proved by the ocular evidence as corroborated by the medical evidence which: disclosed that he had no less than five firearm injuries on him including three abrasions and two lacerated wounds. Furthermore, he ad--mitted his presence at the occurrence during his examination under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is thus evident that the witnesses did not give a totally false story about the presence oft Sardara. The mere fact that their story that Sardara had struck the deceased with a spear was inconsistent with .The medical evidence does not make the witnesses liars. The High Court gave the benefit of doubt to Sardara and. This showed that the Court did not treat the witnesses as liars. The overt act attributed to. Sardara might bb the result of an erroneous impression or delibe--rate exaggeration on the part of the eye-witnesses but these cannot brand them as absolute liars inasmuch as Sardara has admitted that he was present at the occurrence and had been injured with a gun fired by P. W.. Abdul Razzaque.
16. Similarly in regard to Allah Bakhsh it was found that although he was armed with a pistol he never used it. The allega--petition against Allah Bakhsh was that he held the legs of the deceased aloe-- - with Aish and both dragged the deceased towards their tubewell. In the absence of any bruise on the back of the deceased and any dragging mark the complicity of Allah Bakhsh was found doubtful. In this connection an affidavit, alleged to have been sworn by P. W. Abdul Razzaque but denied by him, stated that Allah Bakhsh was innocent. This affidavit was taken into consideration. In our opinion in the face of the categorical denial of P. W. Abdul Razzaque the affidavit should not have been relied on unless a Handwriting. Expert had been examined to prove the signature of P. W.
17. Razzaque or the Oath Commissioner had been examined by the defence to prove that the witness had in fact sworn the affidavit. Besides the production of such at affidavit is not only unusual but significant in the presence of evidence that the deceased and his son were inimical to Allal Bakhsh.
18. The High Court, nevertheless, was not convinced that the offence had been fully brought home to him beyond any reasonable doubt and Allah Bakhsh was given the, benefit of doubt. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the witnesses 'did in fact lit when they implicated Allah Bakhsh.
19. As regards Aish although he was armed with a revolver he did not use the weapon and therefore, the mere recovery of a licensed revolver from him was not considered as an adequate corroboration in his case. He was accordingly given the benefit of doubt. This again did not show that the witnesses lied when they implicated Aish.
20. Two other facts viz. That the deceased carried in his pocket Rs. 975 and the recoveries of two cycles, a wrist watch and a sum of .Rs. 440 have also been adversely commented on by the High Court for the purpose of finding that the prosecution case con--tained embellishments. The Court further observed that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report and this furnished an opportunity for the embellishments. While we are unable to agree with the High Court that in the facts and circum--stances of the case there was any delay in lodging the First In--formation Report or that the alleged embellishments were in fact embellishments, we, think it is not necessary for us to go to the extent of affirming our disagreement. The evidence shows that the complainant had concealed himself for safety and he took a circuitous route to escape to inform the people about the occur--rence, and then went to lodge the First Information Report. As regards the cycles, wrist watch and the money, that lay at the spot, it does not' appear that they were guarded by any person. There was, therefore, an opportunity for Iqbal to carry them and it was not unlikely that he did --o. We are of the opinion that even if we agree with the High Court on these points the witnesses have not been proved to be absolute liars so as to make their evidence implicating the two appellants unacceptable.
21. The, defence case has been rightly disbelieved by the High Court and we agree with the High Court on this finding for more than one reason.. There was no blood found near the tubewell or kotha of the appellants ; on the .Contrary blood from two places were recovered from the spot near the pull.
22. The nature' of the injuries sustained by thedeceased, namely, six incised wounds caused with a heavy sharp-edged weapon, and close range two fire-arm injuries with scorched margins prove the truth of the prosecution case that the deceased was suddenly waylaid and killed. On the other hand the superficial firearm injuries sustained by Iqbal and Sardara show that they were fired at from a distance as stated by the prosecution. The existence of pellet mars also support the prosecution case in the facts and circum--stances of the case. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he did not secure any blood in front of the kotha. The defence dared not ask him whether there was any blood near about the kotha or the tubewell or whether his attention was drawn to any such blood as claimed by appellant Iqbal.
23. We have carefully examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and we think that the Court has correctly applied the aforesaid criterion. We also think that the corroborations relied on not only support the occurrence but also tend to show that the two appellants were parties to the commission of the offence charged. We may add here that while such strict corroborations are necessary in the case of an accomplice, they, may not be so in the present case, for, the witnesses herb are neither accomplices nor have they been proved to be false witnesses. It is a different thing if some part of their evidence has not been found acceptable, and several convicts were accordingly given the benefit of doubt by the. High Court.
24. As regards P. W. Nazir Ahmad, he was indeed a companion of the deceased at the relevant time as is evident from the recovery of the two bicycles including his from the possession of appellant Iqbal. These bicycles along with certain: other articles were found lying at the spot by the witnesses of occurrence. A wrist watch and a sum of Rs. 440 were also recovered from the posses--sion of appellant Iqbal. It is true that although one of the bicycles is said to belong to P. W. Nazir Ahmad the prosecution does not appear to have taken the trouble of identifying the bicycle as belonging to P.
25. W: Nazir. Ahmad. Both the parties appear to have taken the two bicycles to belong to P. W. Nazir Ahmad and the deceased, and the defend did not question the fact that the cycles did not belong to Nazir Ahmad and the deceased. Similar is the position in regard to the recovery of the wrist watch and the recovery of Rs.440. It was the prosecution case that the decease was riding a cycle and had a wrist watch and a sung of Rs. 975 with him at the time of occurrence., The recovery of the two cycles and a sum of Rs. 4 40 particularly the money, have afforded good pieces of corroborative evidence against Iqbal. There was no suggestion-that these articles and the money were planted. It is idle to conceive that somebody would risk his good money in this way with almost no hope of ever getting it back. The trial Court directed that the cycle claimed by P. W. Nazir, the wrist watch and the currency notes of Rs. 440 be handed over to P. W. Nazir. The omission to prove the nexus between these recoveries and their owners has not, in our opinion, affected the implication of appellant Iqbal in any way. The fact that the appellant was found injured 'with firearm amply proved that he was present near about the scene of occurrence.
26. As regard appellant Faqir Hussain the evidence against hi proceed from the same three eye- witnesses and their evidence have received corroboration from the fact that a blood-stained hatchet which was subsequently found to contain human blood, was recovered at the instance of this appellant. The prosecution case that Faqir Hussain gave several hatchet blows to the deceased is also well established by the medical evidence which shows no less than five incised wounds on the person of the deceased. The prosecution case is that Faqir Hussain alone was armed with a hatchet and there is no suggestion to any witness that any one else was also armed with a hatchet. The recover of the hatchet has been believed by the two Courts and we are unable to say that these findings can be described in any manner as unreasonable or perverse.
27. The defence case that the deceased and P. W. Nazir Ahmad had come M -the tubewell and attacked the appellants has rightly been rejected. The recovery of blood from two places near the pull has not only demolished the defence case of an occurrence near the tubewell, but it has also served as an important piece of corroboration for the prosecution case as unfolded by the eye-- witnesses. The absence of any counter-case on the part of the appellants-also appears to us a significant omission. The pellet marks on the wall`. Of the kotha of the accused persons together with the absence of blood from near the kotha far from support--ing the defence version corroborate the ocular evidence than P. W. Abdul Razzaque had fired at the accused persons while they were busy removing the dead body to the watercourse near the tubewell. Two firearm wounds found upon the person of Iqbal, lend more support to the prosecution case rather than to the defence, for, if the occurrence had really taken place near the tub-well, one would have expected recovery of profuse blood' from the place. In this context the recovery of blood-stained chaddar from appellant Iqbal lends further corroboration. The recovery of a licensed gun from the appellant further supported the prosecution case that he was in a. Position to, shoot at anal injure the deceased with the gun as claimed by the prosecution. The medical evidence of one firearm entrance wound on the inner side of the middle part of the left upper arm and six firearm wounds of entrance in and around the left axilla, each measuring 1/3'x 1/3', of the deceased have confirmed the fact that Iqbal fired at and injured the deceased. The fact that no empty was recovered from the spot which matched the gun seized from Muhammad Iqbal hardly reduces the worth of the corroboration afforded by the production of a gun by Iqbal. We should like to observe here that these witnesses though interested, their evidence is not tainted like that of an accomplice. In the case of an interested witness corroboration is required as a matter of prudence to assure the Court that the witness is speaking the truth and corroboration is not required on every material parti-- cular. Be that as it may, if upon the corroborations mentioned above the learned Judges of the High Court have been satisfied that the charge against appellant Iqbal has been proved it cannot be said that the finding is perverse or unreasonable.
28. It has been contended that, having regard to the motive alleged by the prosecution, it was more probable for the deceased and his son to approach the appellant near the tubewell for the purpose of recovering the old stones of the dismantled culvert and, therefore, it fitted more with the defence case. We have already indicated that the absence of recovery of blood from near the tubewell and on the contrary recovery of blood from two places near the puli show that the prosecution case in regard to the place of occurrence was in all probability true. In these circumstances we are unable to , find fault with the Courts for rejecting the defence story.
29. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.