ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 9-12-1984 dismissing their appeal in a murder case.
They were tried alongwith four others for the murder of Munir Ahmad deceased.
2. The motive alleged, briefly, was that the deceased prevented the accused from damaging their crops but they did not desist. It is alleged that on the day of occurrence, at about Degerwela on 28- 4-1980, Taj Din, complainant (P.W.9) having purchased land in village Buchokipar was engaged in the cultivation of the said land with his son Munir Ahmad deceased. According to the complainant the Dogars of the said village used to damage his crops and his deceased son Munir Ahmad had been restraining the said Dogars from doing so According to Taj Din (P.W.9), complainant, on the fateful day at Degerwela, he along with his son Munir Ahmad deceased was cutting wheat crops with the help of Noor son of Chiragh, Bashir son of Mehr Din and Mehr Din son of Farid Bakhsh, when Shafi son of Chiragh Dogar armed with a gun, Bagha son of Lakha armed with Sota came to his field and asked his deceased son Munir Ahmad to accompany them for seeing a buffalo, who accompanied them. He had hardly covered the distance of about a Killa when the accused party attacked him with their respective weapons. Hassan Din and Shaukat inflicted hatchet blows on the deceased in the first instance where after all the other accused gave beating to the deceased resulting his ultimate death at the spot.
3. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Taj Din (P.W.9).
During the investigation one hatchet was recovered from each of the petitioners namely Hassan Din and Shaukat, which were found to be stained with human blood.
4. In support of its case the prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of Taj Din P. W.9 (father of the deceased) and Noor Muhammad (P.W.10); recovery of the two hatchets from the petitioners; motive and the medical evidence.
Injuries found on the body of the deceased are described as follows: -
(1) A contused wound 5 c.m. x 2 1/2x sculp deep on the left temporalregion of skull, 8 c.m. Above left ear.
(2) A contused wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left occipital region of skull 3 c.m. Behind injury No. 1.
(3) A contused wound 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. Skin deep on the right forehead just above right eyebrow.
(4) An abrasion 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left scapular region.
(5) A contusion 15 c. m. x 3 1/2 c. m. On the left gluteal region.
(6) An abrasion 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the front of left knee joint.
(7) An abrasion 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. Just above the knee joint.
(8) A swelling on the left back of chest with contusion 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the centre of it.
5. The learned trial Court acquitted four co-accused who were alleged to have been armed with Dangs (which were not recovered) but convicted the two petitioners on the ground that the testimony of the eye-witnesses as against them was supported by the recovery of the blood- stained hatchets at their instance.
The High Court dismissed their appeal and maintained their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life vide the impugned judgment.
Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the only reason for distinguishing the petitioners' case from that of the acquitted co-accused is that the blood-stained hatchets were recovered at their instance. He pointed out that a reading of the injuries found on the body of the deceased would show that none of the said injuries were sharp-edged. He pointed out further that it was not the case of the prosecution in the F.I.R. That the injuries were caused by using the wrong side of the hatchets nor had they stated so in their statement at the trial. Nor has it been shown that the blood stains were found on wrong side of the hatchets.
He, therefore, submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in relying on the supposed recovery of the hatchets from the petitioners, taking it as an important piece of evidence to convict them while the four co-accused were acquitted by them. He submitted that the recovery in this case had wrongly been believed and that it is possible that it were the persons armed with Dangs who had caused injuries in question to the deceased.
7. We feel that the matter needs further consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider whether the well-recognized principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases have been followed in this case.