ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J.-The three appellants namely Kaloo son of Abdul Majid, Hamzo son of Mohd. Malook and Ali Mohd. Son of Ghulam were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana on .a charge under section 302/34, P. P. C. Each one of the three appellants were found guilty of the said offence and sentenced to death. The appellants have filed an appeal through Mr. Mohd. Hayat Junejo, Advocate, who has represented them before us, whereas Mr. Manzoor Hussain has appeared for the State. The Additional Sessions Judge has also referred this case under section 374, Cr. P. C. For confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the appellants.
The prosecution story briefly is that the three appellants are related inter se. Appellant Hamzo is a second cousin of appel--lant Kaloo, whereas appellant Ali Mohd. Is the first cousin of appellant Kaloo. The evidence discloses that Ghulam, the father of appellant Ali Mohd. Had been murdered and Mohd. Saleh, the deceased in this case was tried on the said charge but acquitted. It is, therefore, said that the three appellants had a grievance against deceased Mohd. Saleh and have for that reason caused his death.
3. The incident in this case occurred on 9-2-1971 at bipahari time on the public road going from Dokri Town to Mohanjodaro Railway Station. The actual place of the murder is said to be near a Rice Mill of one Devandas. I may state that bipahari time in the beginning of the month of February would correspond to the time between 1-00 and 2-00 p.m. The report in regard to the incident was lodged on the same day at Dokri Police Station at 3-30 p .m. The evidence establishes that the Police Station is situated at a distance of two furlongs from the scene of occur--rence. This report which is Exh. 9, was lodged by Noor Mohd. a brother of the deceased. In the report the prosecution story is that Noor Mohd. Complainant had brought meals for his deceased brother Mohd. Saleh, who was working as a labourer at the agricultural farm, Dokri. Noon meals had been brought and the deceased after taking the said meals asked the complainant Noor Mohd. To wait so that he may cut some grass and thereafter go to the village where they were residing. The evidence dis-- closes that this village is situated at a distance of 3/4 miles from the scene of occurrence. After cutting the grass Noor Mohd., and deceased Mohd. Saleh started for their village and when they were on the road the three appellants each of whom was armed with a hatchet emerged from a minor and challenged the deceased and Noor Mohd. Noor Mohd. Ran away on account of fear and so did Mohd. Saleh. However, the three appellants succeeded in catching deceased Mohd. Saleh, who raised cries. All the three appellants gave injuries to deceased Mohd. Saleh, who died on the spot. In the meantime Kauro, the person horn whose held deceased Mohd. Saleh had cut the grass also came running. Besides Kauro, Nazo and Mitho also came running. However, the F. I. R. Recites that the actual assault was witnessed evens by Nazo and Mitho. It is further the case of the prosecution that both Nazo and Mitho pursued the three appellants and caught hold of appellant Kaloo, whereas appellant Hamzo and Ali Mohd. Succeed yd. In escaping. The appellant Kaloo was thereafter taken to Police Station Dokri where the case was registered by S. H. O. Mir Mohd. The said Police Officer investigated the case and inspected the scene of offence and prepared a Mashirnama of the same (Exh. 11) in presence of Mashir Ali Mohd. (P. W. 8). A bundle of grass and the loin cloth of the deceased was found at the scene. The dead body was found to be having hatchet injuries and an inquest report in respect of the same was also prepared. Earlier to visiting the scene of occurrence the Police Officer had arrested appellant Kaloo and seized the blood- stained hatchet and the blood-stained shirt and loin cloth that he was having on his person. These seizures were made under a Mashir--nama (Exh. 16) in the presence of Mashir Nazar Mohd. (P. W.
7). The blood-stained articles namely the hatchet, shirt and loin cloth were sent to the Chemical Analyser, who by a report (Exh. 21) has certified the same to be stained with human blood. The Police Officer recorded the statements of witnesses. He also arrested the appellants Ali Mohd. And Hamzo on 10-2-1971 but nothing was recovered from them. After completion of investigation the three appellants were sent up to stand their trial which has resulted in their conviction and sentence as aforesaid.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined complainant Noor Mohd. (P. W. 3) eye-witnesses Kauro (P.
W. 4) and Nazo (P.W. 5) and Mohd. Mithal alias Mitho (P. W. 6). Besides these witnesses the prosecution examined two Mashirs Nazar Mohd. And Ali Mohd. Who gave evidence, with regard to recoveries from appellant Kaloo and the inspection of scene of offence. Dr. Barkat Syed, who had examined the dead body of deceased Mohd. Saleh had been examined in the Court of committing Magistrate and his evidence was brought on record as Exh.
22. Mir Mohd. Police Officer, who had investigated the case was also examined.
5. All the appellants in their statements denied each and every allegation contained in the prosecution evidence against them. They however alleged false implication on account of enmity and stated that witnesses were interested and related inter se. They admitted that Gulab had been murdered by deceased Mohd. Saleh who was acquitted on the charge. Appel--lant Kaloo also denied recovery of blood-stained hatchet and clothes. The appellants did not examine any witness in defence.
6. The deceased had 16 incised injuries on his person and on various parts of the body. Of these 16 injuries, four were caused on his left hand and arm which could have been the result of the single blow and the remaining 12 injuries were independent. The medical evidence, therefore, establishes that at least 13 injuries were caused to the deceased and each one of them was incised in nature.
The injuries were caused on the neck, face, vertebra, scapular region and various other parts of the body. The large blood vessels of the neck were completely cut. On that state of medical evidence I am in no doubt whatsoever that the injuries caused to the deceased were not only sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, but did in fact cause the death. Mr. Mohd. Hayat Junejo, the learned Advocate for the, appellants also refrained from making any criticism in regard to the case on the basis of medical evidence.
7. The question that then arises is whether the murder of Mohd. Saleh was committed by the three appellants or any of them. The case mainly hinges on ocular testimony of the four eye-witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Of these eye-witnesses Noor Mohd. The complainant is a brother of the deceased ; Kauro is a cousin of the deceased and Mobd. Mithal is also related to the deceased. This position is admitted. The other witness Nazo is in no manner related to the deceased or the complainant party. He is a Magsi by caste whereas the deceased and the other three eye-witnesses are Deros by caste. I may also mention that while Nazo is residing at Dokri Town and at a distance of 30 paces from the Rice Mill of Devandas, which is very near the scene of occurrence, the remaining three witnesses namely Noor Mohd. Kauro and Mohd. Mithal reside at village Dera at a distance of 3/4 miles from the scene of occurrence. At the trial, Nazo gave evidence as an eye-witness and while stating that the deceased was given injuries by three persons, he identified only appellant Kaloo but with regard to Hamzo and Ali Mohd. He stated that they had not committed this murder. Nazo had earlier been examined by a Magistrate under section 164, Cr. P. C. In that statement Nazo had mentioned the names of each one of these three appellants. At the trial Nazo was declared a hostile witness by the prosecution because he did not implicate appellants Hamzo and Ali Mohd. He was confronted with his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. And he stated that whatever had been stated by him Was at the instance of the Police. The remaining three eye-witnesses Noor Mohd.. Kauro and Mohd. Mitho had, however, implicated all the three appellants.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the ocular testimony of Noor Mohd, and Kauro.
He held that both of them were present at the scene of offence and had witnessed the incident. He was further of the view that they were natural witnesses and there was no chance or possibility of mistaken identity. In regard to Mohd. Mithal the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed his evidence although with an expression that he too had tried to favour the appellants. With regard to Nazo the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that he had been tampered and had for that reason tried to save appellants Hamzo and Ali Mohd. Relying on the evidence of Noor Mohd., Kauro Arid Mohd. Mithal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded this conviction.
9. On a reading of the evidence of complainant Noor Mohd. We have entertained grave doubts with regard to his presence at the time of the incident. Admittedly; Noor Mohd: is a resident of village Dera which is situated at a distance of 3/4 miles from the scene of occurrence. The only reason that is given by Noor Mohd. In relation to his presence at the scene of occurrence is that he had brought meals for his deceased brother who was working at the agricultural farm. This reason does not appeal to us and we feel that in the context of events it was not necessary for Noor Mohd. To bring food for deceased Saleh. The story of the prosecution is that after taking food all that deceased Mohd. Saleh did was to cut grass and then proceed to his village. The incident is said to have taken place at bipahari time which would correspond to the time between 1 and 2 p.m. It would thus appear that the time of this incident was such that Noor Mohd. Could have gone and taken his meals at his village which was at a distance of 3/4 miles. Moreover, if Noor Mohd. Was present at the scene of occurrence the F. I. R. Should have been lodged immediately. The Police Station is at a distance of two furlongs from the scene of occurrence and the report was lodged at 3-30 p.m. It should not take more than 15 to 20 minutes to reach the Police Station, but all the same the report appears to have been lodged after nearly two hours. The learned Advocate for the appellant has contended before us that Noor Mohd. Was not present at the scene of occurrence and came only after the crime had been committed and on that premises the learned Advocate has further contended that the F. I. R. Is belated, and that for the reason that Noor Mohd. Had to be called from the village. We find substance in this contention and have good reason to doubt the evidence of Noor Mohd.
10. Besides the aforesaid circumstances there are various outer factors that have persuaded us to doubt the evidence of Noor Mohd. In regard to his presence. In cross-examination this witness has stated as follows :---- "I have stated in my lower Court deposition while giving evidence in my cross-examination that S. H. O. Recorded state--ment of Nazo and he did not prepare the Mashirnama of the securing of accused Kaloo and after this he visited the vardat of this crime and after he recorded the F. I. R. Of this crime lodged by me, and after that he prepared Mashirnama of the securing of accused Kaloo and about recovery of hatchet."
The above passage indicates that Noor Mohd. Had in the committal Court stated that it was Nazo who had first informed the Police with regard to the incident, and the F. I. R. Was lodged later. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has considered the above statement, but resolved the doubt in favour of the prosecution on the hypothesis that Noor Mohd. Was a simple villager and had not been able to understand the question asked by the defence Advocate in cross-examination. In fact this pot the correct approach in appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, It is not merely this statement which has per--suaded us to doubt the presence of Noor Mohd, at the scene of offence, but even Nazar Mohd., the Mashir of recovery of blood--stained hatchet and clothes has clearly stated that Naze and Mitho had produced appellant Kaloo at the Police Station. In fact this Mashir has denied the presence of complainant Noor Mohd. At the Police Station when appellant Kaloo was produced before the Police Officer. If Noor Mohd. Had been present and had seen the incident, he being the brother of the deceased would have been the first person to go to the Police Station arid lodge the report.
The evidence of Mohd. Mithal also casts a serious doubt in regard to the presence of Noor Mohd. At the scene of occurrence. This witness who is a relative of the deceased has stated that he and Nazo had caught hold of appellant Kaloo and brought him to the place where the deceased was lying and he then saw Noor Mohd. And Kauro at that place. In fact he tried to make an improvement in his evidence in the Sessions Court in that regard. In his evidence before the committal Court he: toad clearly stated that Noor Mohd. And Kauro bad come at the scene of occurrence after the crime. He had further stated in his evidence that before registering the F. I. R.
The Police Officer had inquired from him and Nazo.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has not relied on the evidence of Nazo as far as appellant Hamzo and Ali Mohd. Are concerned. He has however relied on the evidence of Nazo as far as appellant Kaloo is concerned. The process of reasoning is that tae witness had been tampered.
The Public Prosecutor had confronted Nazo with his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. And in fact this statement has been exhibited as Exh.
12. Even in this statement Nazo bad stated that he rushed towards the scene of offence and caught hold of Kaloo and it was there after that Noor Mohd. And Kauro reached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge bad relied on the section 164, C. P. C.
Statement of Nazo to discredit the witness but even in that 'statement the witness had stated that Noor Moh nd Kauro had come after' the murder.
11. Regard being had to all these circumstances, we would not rely on tire, evidence ;of Noor Mohd.
In so far as he asserts that he witnesses the crime the circumstances of the case show that the F. I.
R. Was belated and the delay may have been caused on account of the absence of this witness from the scene so that he may have had to' be called from the village. Besides, there are glaring indications on the record which come from indepen--dent source and admission of the witnesses showing that it was Nazo who had caught hold of the appellant and taken him to the Police Station, and even at that' time complainant Noor Mohd. Was not present. In fact witnesses have admitted that before the F. I. R. Was recorded, S. H. O. Mohd. Bux had received the information in regard to the crime from Nazo. It is inconceivable that Nazo would have been the first' person to inform the police if Noor Mohd., who is a brother of the deceased, had been present at the scene. We, therefore, disbelieve the witness Noor Mohd. In regard to his evidence given as an eye-witness. The same criticism will also apply to Kauro because Kauro is a close relative of Noor Mohd. And his evidence is also to the effect that he was along with Noor Mohd. And the deceased at the time of commission of this offence.
12. We now proceed to consider the evidence of witnesses Nazo and Mithal. P. W. Mohd. Mithal is a dero by caste and has admitted that he is related to deceased Mohd. Saleh and also to P. Ws. Noor Mohd. And Kauro with regard to whose presence we are doubtful. According to this witness, he had-gone to the Rice Mill of Devendas in connection with his work and at bipahari time. He heard cries from the record and ran out of the factory. At that time he saw P. W. Nazo running towards the place of occurrence. He has further stated that he saw all the three appellants inflicting hatchet blows on Mohd. Saleh who. Died instantaneously. This witness has further stated that after causing the death of Mohd. Saleh the appellants started running and they were followed by him and Nazo.
This pursuit resulted in capture of appellant Kaloo on the spot. Thereafter according to this witness, appellant Kaloo was brought at the Police Station. This witness has however stated that he saw Noor Mohd. And Kauro -at the scene after appellant Kaloo had been caught. However in cross- examination he admitted in his evidence before the committing Court he had deposed that Noor Mohd. And Kauro came at the scene after the incident. He also stated that before the F. I. R. Was lodged by Noor Mohd., the Police Officer laid made inquiries from him and Nazo. The evidence relating to the presence of this, witness appears to be convincing. It is further corroborated by the evidence of Mashie Nazar Mohd., who has stated that he along with Nazo had produced appellant Kaloo at the Police Station. His presence at the police station is also mentioned in the Mashirnama relating to arrest of appellant Kaloo and recovery of blood-stained hatchet and clothes from him.
S. H. O. Mir Mohd. Has also spoken about the' presence of this witness at the police station when appellant Kaloo was produced before the Police Officer after his apprehension. Even witnesses Noor Mohd. And Kauro who although had not seen the incident had come later on, have 'stated that witness Mohd. Mithal was present at the scene. Nothing has been brought on record to show that this witness was not present at the time of murder. We are of the view that the incident had occurred at day time and the witness has given a cogent reason for his appearance at the scene of offence and further that nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to cast a doubt in regard to the fact of his presence at the scene. However, we cannot overlook the fact that this witness being related to the deceased and witnesses Noor Mohd. And Kauro is an interested witness. Since he is related to Noor Mphd. And Kauro, be may be related even to Gulab who had prior to this incident been murdered by deceased Mobd. Sakh. This witness cannot, therefore, be considered to be a disinterested witness. In the circumstance we would look for corroboration of his testimony.
13. The prosecution in this case has examined Nazo who is a thoroughly disinterested witness. This witness is of a different caste and lives in a different Town. His evidence shows that he is residing very near the place of occurrence. This witness Nazo has, however, been treated as a hostile witness. He was cross-examined by the prosecution and the main particulars at which his cross- examination was directed were in regard to participation of Hamzo and Ali Mohd. In the crime. This witness had in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination implicated appellant Kaloo as a person who was one of the three persons that caused injuries to deceased Mohd Saleh.
He also implicated Kaloo by stating that the latter was arrested on the spot. The evidence of Nazo cannot be considered to be false evidence. He did state that he saw three persons inflicting hatchet blows to the deceased. He has not minimized the number of assailants nor the magnitude of the assault. All that he said was that he had not been able to identify the remaining assailants.
There is further no evidence that he knew appellants Hamzo and Ali Mohd. It seems that the prosecution considered this witness to be hostile because in his earlier statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. He had named Hamzo and Ali Mohd. Also. With regard to that statement Nazo stated that he had made that statement but at the instance of the police. Be that as it may in so far as appellant Kaloo is concerned, even the prosecution holds him to be truthful witness. When dealing with a hostile witness it is open to the` Court to act on such particulars in the evidence of a hostile witness as may be considered to be true in relation to the circum stances of the case. It would be wrong to assume that the evidence of a hostile witness has to be discredited wholly. The may be a case when a witness may be trying to exculpate one out of several accused for some personal reasons and all the same giving true evidence regarding the rest. In such case it cannot be said that the entire evidence of a hostile witness should be left out of consideration.
14. The value of testimony of a hostile witness is essentially a matter for the Court. It would be useful to consider some decisions on this point. It appears that in some old cases from Calcutta High Court, the English decision given in the case of Faulkner v. Brine ((1858) 1 P & F 254) by Lord Campbell, C. J., was being follow--ed. Lord Campbell, C. J. In that case bad expressed an opinion that when a witness was treated as a hostile witness and cross-examined by the party calling him, this must be done to discredit the witness altogether and not to get rid of part of his testimony.
Mookerjee, Ag. C. J., in the case of Surandra Krishna v. Ram Daast (AIR 1921 Cal. 677) made a reference to the decision in Faulkner v. Brine and held that little reliance should be placed upon the testimony of hostile witness. Once again in the case of Emperor v. Satyend-rakumar (AIR 1923 Cal.
263), the principle in Faulkner's case and Surandra's case was followed by Walamsley, J., but the learned Judge conclud--ed that the principle laid down by Lord Campbell, C. J., was not applicable in the facts of that particular case, although ' Walamsley, J., was dealing with the testimony of hostile witness. It was in 1931 that a Full Bench,, consisting of five learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court considered the value of interested evidence because a reference was made by a Division Bench. In the case of Profulla v. Emperor (AIR 1937 Cal. 401), the Full Bench was constituted to answer seven questions. The Full Bench in that base answered the following four questions :-----
(1) Whether the evidence of a witness treated as hostile must be rejected in whole or part.
(2) Whether it must be rejected so far as it is in favour of the party calling the witness.
(3) Whether it must be rejected so far as it is in favour of the opposite-party.
(4) Whether the whole of the evidence, so far as it effects both parties favourably or unfavourably, must go to the Jury for what it is worth.
Rankin, C. J., who wrote the leading judgment answered the first three questions in the negative and the last in toe affirmative. The learned Judges of the Bench reviewed the entire Base-law on the subject and came to these conclusions. Rankin, C. J., at page 403 in this judgment expressed as follows :----- "The cross-examination must have some useful purpose and if neither side can rely on the witness, whatever answers he may give, it would be more convenient and less humiliating for all concerned that he should be allowed to go home. Besides, it can hardly be that the wide discretion given to the Court by section 154 is a discretion to deprive the accused of any valuable right ; still less that the Court and the Prosecutor between them can destroy in advance testimony which may be vital to them defence.".
The above observations clearly show that the testimony of a hostile witness has to be considered as for or against the accused 'in accordance with the well known and the well established principles of appreciation of evidence.
15. The West Pakistan High Court, Lahore Bench, in the case of Islam v. The State (PLD 1962 Lah.
1053) also considered the question in regard to evaluation of the evidence of a hostile witness.
Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, J. With whom M. R. Kayani, C. J., agreed expressed as follows:- '
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that since site was declared to be a hostile witness (this is term of con--venience and 'not' of law), she is a witness unworthy of any reliance and leer evidence, therefore should be completely brushed aside. This contention has no force. The fact that the witness is dealt with under section 154 of the Evidence Act, and she is cross-examined as to credit, in no way warrants that the Court is bound in law to place no reliance on her evidence.
'There is also no warrant for the proposition that the party who called and cross-examined her can take no advantage of any part of her evidence. Her evidence is not to be rejected either in whole or in part. But the whole of the evidence so far as it affects both parties favourably or unfavourably, must be taken into account and assessed like any other evidence for whatever it is worth."
There are two other cases from Dacca High Court. In these cases also the same view has been expressed. The first is the case of Dawood Ali v. The State (PLD 1962 Dacca 931). This is a Division, Bench decision and S. D. Ahmed, J. (as he then was), now a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was a member of this Division Bench. In that case the following observation was made :---- "It may be noted here that the mere permission to cross---examine party's own witness does not amount to an expression of opinion by the Court that the witness is a Witness of untruth. The object of the permission to crass-examine is to test the veracity of the witness when he unexpectedly : makes, statements which were not expected of him or even be` displays a tendency to conceal the truth.. Whether the testimony of such a witness should be rejected in whole or accepted in part depends entirely on the result of the cross-examination."
A learned Single Judge of Dacca High Court in the case of Fazlul Haque v. The State (PLD 1959 Dace 94) expressed that when a witness was cross-examined by the party calling him; his evidence is not to be rejected either in whole or in part but the whole: of the evidence so far as it affects both parties favourably or unfavourably, must be taken into account and assessed like any other evidence for whatever it is worth. The learned Judge referred to and followed the earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Profulla v. Emperor.
Monir in his Book "Law of Evidence", Pakistan, Publication at pages 562 and 563 has considered the question in regard to value of the evidence of a hostile witness. The learned author has expressed the same view as the Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Profulla's case. However, the learned author has stated that in such cases if the evidence,, of a hostile witness is under consideration, the Court has to be on caution.
16. In the light of the above principles, the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be left out of consideration and the evidence has to be considered like the evidence of any other witness, but with a caution for the simple reason that the witness has spoke in different tones. When a person speaks in different voice, it is for the Court to decide in what voice he speaks the truth. In such cases the determining test is corroboration from independent source and conformity with the remaining evidence.
17. In the present case P. W. Nazo had implicated all the three appellants in his section 1,64, Cr. P. C.
Statement, but when living evidence in the Sessions Court he implicated only appellant Kaloo. With regard to the incident itself he has stated that three persons did take part in the commission of this offence but demurred the presence of appellant Hamzo and Ali Mohd. It would thus appear that as far as appellant Kaloo is concerned, this witness has implicated him both in his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. As well as in his evidence before the Sessions Court. However, the evidence of this witness has to be received with caution and for that purpose it has to be looked into in the light of other evidence in the case. The evidence of Mohd. Mithal is also interested and, therefore, requires corroboration.
18. However in the present case there is ample corrobora--tion as far as appellant Kaloo is concerned. This appellant was arrested on the spot and taken to the police station immediately after the incident. His apprehension and production at the police station is deposed to by Nazo and Mohd. Mithal who are corro--borated on the point by Nazar Mohd., the Mashir and Mir Mohd., the Investigating Officer. Both these witnesses have stated that appellant Kaloo was arrested immediately after the incident and brought to the police station. The appellant has led no defence and in his statement he has only denied his arrest and the recovery of his blood-stained clothes and blood-stained, hatchet. The evidence clearly establishes that when appellant Kaloo was brought to the police station, his clothes were blood-stained and blood-stains have been found to be of human origin by the Chemical Analyser. Similarly the hatchet which was found lying at the scene of occurrence has, been found to be stained with human blood. The learned Advocate for the appellant has only contended that Mashir Nazar Mohd. Was not, reliable as he had appeared as a Mashir in 50 or 60 cases of Dokri Police Station, and he admittedly helps the police. No doubt this witness has acted as a Mashir in 50 to 60 cases but all the same in the circum--stances of this case his evidence is reliable, more so, as it is supported also by the Police Officer, the Mashirnama and the eye--witnesses. We will, therefore, use this evidence of apprehension of the appellant on the spot coupled with recovery of blood--stained hatchet and clothes as corroboration of the ocular testimony of Mohd. Mithal and Nazo.
19. The other piece of evidence relied on by the prosecution is that of motive. It has been admitted by the appellant Kaloo in his evidence that Gulab had been murdered by the deceased Mohd.
Saleh. The appellant Kaloo is the nephew of Gulab and, he therefore, had a motive to commit this crime.
20. Summing up, we find that the evidence of Mohd. Mithal and Nazo is sufficiently corroborated in case of appellant Kaloo and we have, therefore, no hesitation in holding him guilty of the offence of which he has been convicted. As far as appellants Hamzo and Ali, Mohd. Are concerned, the evidence of witness Mohd. Mithal not being corroborated ; they will be entitled to benefit of doubt.
21. In the result, the appeal of Kaloo is dismissed, and the sentence of death imposed on him is confirmed. The appeals of Hamzo and Ali Mohd. Succeed. Hamzo and Ali Mohd. Shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.
DORAB PATEL, J.-I agree.