' Shaukat Manzoor (27) son of Manzoor Hussain, Nazar Hussain (65) son of Mahmood Khan, Manzoor Hussain (65) son of Muhammad Hussain, Sardar (60), his brothers Aliah Ditta (35) and Aliah Rakha (50) sons of Said were tried for the murder of Rifaqat Iftikhar (20) and for murderously assaulting Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 and Saddaqat ljaz P. W.
12. The learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his judgment dated 16-12-1981 convicted Shaukat Manzoor under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default to undergo six months' R. I. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. Nazar Hussain was convicted under section 324, P. P. C. And sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 3,000 or in default to suffer S. I. For three months. Manzoor Hussain, Sardar, Aliah Ditta and Aliah Rakha accused were, however, acquitted for want of proof.
2. Challenging their conviction and sentences Shaukat Manzoor and Nazar Hussain have filed this appeal.
3. The prosecution case is that about a year prior to the occurrence Rifaqat Iftikhar deceased was proceeding to Gujranwala. In the way Shaukat Manzoor appellant gave beating to him. 2/3 days thereafter Rifaqat Iftikhar deceased gave beating to Shaukat Manzoor appellant. In the year 1969 cross-cases under section 307, P. P. C. Were registered against the accused party and the complainant-party. Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 uncle of the deceased had been helping Muhammad Khan in prosecution of the case under section 148/307/149, P. P. C. Got registered by him against Manzoor HusSain accused (since acquitted) and others.
' On 19-10-1976 at about 1-15 p.m. While Rifaqat Iftikhar deceased was passing in front of the Dera of Manzoor Hussain accused (since acquitted) Shaukat Manzoor appellant told him to ask his uncle Muzaffar Hussain P. W. To desist from helping Muhammad Khan P. W. In the case got registered by him against Shaukat Manzoor and others. Shaukat Manzoor and Rifaqat Iftikhar also exchanged fist blows with each other. Shaukat Manzoor appellant declared that he would teach a lesson to Rifaqat deceased for that insult. The deceased narrated the said incident to his uncle Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 and sat with him in front of his house. Saddaqat Ijaz P. W. 12 was also sitting there at that time. On the same day i,e, 19-10-1976 at about 3 p. m., the deceased accompanied by Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 and Saddaqat P. W. 12 left for their Dera and when they reached in front of the Dera of Manzoor Hussain accused (since acquitted) they saw Manzoor Hussain and Shaukat Manzoor armed with rifles, Nazar Hussain appellant armed with a gun, Sardar, Aliah Ditta and Aliah Rakha armed with hatchets present there. Manzoor Hussain accused raised a Lalkara that the deceased and his companions should not be spared whereupon Shaukat Manzoor appellant fired a shot from his rifle hitting the deceased on his chest. Nazar Hussain appellant fired a gun shot hitting Saddagat Ijaz P. W. 12 on his right leg. Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 leaned over the deceased when Manzoor Hussain accused fired a gunshot on him hitting his Nazar Hu left thigh and right elbow. Nssa in appellant fired another shot hitting Saddaqat on his left calf. In the meantime, Mushtaq Ahmad and Asghar Ali P. Ws. (not produced) reached there and witnessed the occurrence. On their alarm all the accused fled away in a car. Rifaqat Iftikhar deceased died at the spot. Maqbool Hussain P. W. Accompanied by Saddaqat Ijaz and Asghar Ali proceeded to Police Station Wazirabad where he lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. G. At 3-30 p, m. On the same day.
' After recording the F. I. R. S. I. Muhammad Anwar Khan P. W. 13 statements Exhs. P. H prepared the injury statem. And P. J. Of Maqbool Hussain and Saddaqat Ijaz P. Ws. Respectively. He then left for the spot and on reaching there prepared the injury statement Exh. P. K. And inquest report Exh. P. L.
Of Rifaqat Iftikhar deceased and despatched his dead body for post-mortem examination. He also got Maqbool Hussain and Saddaqat Ijaz P. Ws. Medically examined.
' On 27-10-1976 he arrested Aliah Rakha and Aliah Ditta accused (since acquitted). Manzoor Hussain was arrested on 20-10-1976. His licensed gun P. 11 was also seized. Zahoor Ahmad D. S. P.
Crimes Branch P. W. 15 arrested Shaukat Manzoor appellant on 16-11-1976 while Nazar Hussain appellant was arrested by him on 17-11-1976. Nazar Hussain produced 7 mm rifle Exh. 5 as well as .12 bore gun P. b before him which he secured through memo. Exh. P. B.
4. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Cheema P. W. 8 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rifaqat lftikhar deceased and found the following injuries on his person :-
(1) A fire-arm entrance contused wound, with inverted margin 1/4"x 1/4" x going deep on the front of left chest upper part 2" below the left clavicle and 3" left to the mid line.
(2) A fire-arm exit wound with inverted margin 1/2"X1/2" on the back of right chest at the middle.
' Death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent upon the above injuries.
' He also examined Maqbool Hussain P. W. And found the following injuries on his person :-
(1) A fire-arm entrance wound with inverted margin 1/4" x 1/4" going deep on the outer side of the right thigh at the' middle.
(2) A fire-arm exit wound with irregular margin 4" x 3" muscle deep on the front and inner part of the right thigh at the middle.
(3) Abrasion 1/8"x 1/8" on the inner side of left elbow.
(4) A fire-arm wound 3" x x skin deep on the front of right chest at the middle. The bullet had passed by grazing the skin. ' lnjuties Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were caused by fire-arm while injury No, 3 was caused by blunt weapon.
' He also examined Saddaqat Ijaz P. W. And found the following injuries on his person :
(1) A fire-arm wound 3r x 21"X muscle deep on the inner side of left leg upper part. The bullet had passed by grazing the muscle.
(2) Two abrasions r x 1/4" of each on the inner side of right knee.
' Injury No, 1 was caused by fire-arm while injury No, 2 with blunt weapon.
5. Shaukat Manzoor and Nazar Hussain appellants denied the prosecution allegations and attributed the case to enmity. Shaukat Manzoor appellant produced certified copies of the judgments Exh. D. F. In Criminal Case No, 35-2 of 1979 in the case got registered by Muhammad Khan. Nazar Hussain appellant stated that he did not reside in village Mardakay but in Sargodha and was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and had been involved on account of his relationship with Manzoor Hussain, Manzoor Hussain accused (since acquitted) stated that a day before the occurrence he had gone to Sargodha in connection with the prosecution of a case pending against his relative Muhammad Aslam and met Ch. Muhammad Asghar Cheema in that connection. Thereafter, he met Muhammad Iqbal Chughtai A. C., Sargodha, Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate, Sargodha and stayed for the night in the house of Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate. On the day of occurrence he met Muhammad Iqbal Chughtai, A. C., Sargodha at his house, Muhammad Akbar Cheema, Advocate and Muhammad Asghar, Advocate. He left for Gujranwala at about 11 a.m. And on reaching Hafizabad atabout 2 p. m. He met Ghulam Rasul Bath, Ghulam Rasul Chatha and Rehmat Khan, Advocates. The said Advocates travelled with him upto Gujranwala. He examined Mian Rehmat Khan Advocate, Muhammad Asghar Cheema Advocate and Muhammad Iqbal Chughtai, A. C. Sargodha in his defence.
6. The prosecution examined Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 and Saddaqat Ijaz P. W, 12 as eye-witnesses, Mushtaq Ahinad and Asghar Ali named as eye-witnesses in the F. I. R. Were not examined. Mehdi Zaman A. S. I. P. W. 5 was examined to prove the recoveries of rifle P. 5 and .12 bore gun P. 6 from Nazar Hussain appellant. Nothing was recovered from Shaukat Manzoor appellant.
7. Relying on the evidence of Mat. Manzoor Hussain P. W. 11 and Saddaqat Ijaz, P. W. 12, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as described above. Their testimony was found corroborated by the medical evidence. Recoveries and motive were not held proved by the trial Court. The plea of alibi of Manzoor Hussain (since acquitted) was accepted and he was not held to be present at the time of occurrence. Shaukat Manzoor and Nazar Hussain appellants were not found to have shared the common intention of doing away with the deceased. They were, therefore, held liable for their individual acts. Nazar Hussain was not found to have intended the death of Saddaqat Ijaz P. W. The prosecution case was found disproved against Sardar, Aliah Ditta and Aliah Rakha accused. They were consequently acquitted.
8. It is contended that in view of the previous enmity between the parties the two eye-witnesses namely Mai: Manzoor Hussain P. W. 11, a retired A. S. I. Of Police and Saddaqat Ijaz P. W. 12 were not worthy of credence. They had been disbelieved against Sardar, Aliah Ditta, Aliah Rakha and Manzoor Hussain accused (since acquitted) as also on the point of motive and recoveries and in the absence of independent corroboration their evidence should not have been accepted against the appellants.
9. The trial Court observed that the evidence of Saddaqat Ijaz and Maqbool Hussain P. Ws. Stood corroborated by the medical evidence. But they were disbelieved with regard to the injuries caused to Saddaqat Ijaz P. W. By Nazar Hussain appellant on his right leg. The trial Court further observed that the said part of their testimony was not corroborated by the medical evidence because according to the Medical Officer the corresponding injury on the right leg of Saddaqat Ijaz P. W. Had been inflicted with a blunt weapon. These eye-witnesses, as already stated above, had been disbelieved qua four acquitted accused. They bad tried to falsely implicate Manzoor Hussain accused (since acquitted) who. Was not found present at the spot at the relevant time by the trial Court and his plea of alibi was accepted by the trial Court. Zahoor Ahmad D. S. P. Had frankly conceded before the trial Court that the plea of alibi put forth by Manzoor Hussain accused had been verified and found to be correct. Mushtaq Ahmad and Asghar Ali the other eye-witnesses named in the F.I.R. Were not examined by the prosecution. Maqbool Hussain P. W. 11 is real uncle of the deceased while Saddaqat ljaz P. W. 12 is his nephew. Maqbool Hussain P. W. Had been disbelieved by the trial Court in respect of his own injury. According to him he had received fire- arm injuries at the hands of Manzoor Hussain accused (since acquitted). But Manzoor Hussain was not found present at the spot at the relevant time and was acquitted by the trial Court. The testimony of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution is in conflict with the medical evidence rather getting any corroboration from there. According to the site-plan the deceased was fired at from a distance of 68 feet but the inverted margins of the wounds of the deceased show B that he was fired at from a much shorter distance. Furthermore, according to the medical evidence the injuries to the deceased had been caused from right angle but the position of the assailant as shown in the site-plan is otherwise. According to Muhammad Ibrahim Draftsman P. W.
7 the floor of the Verandha of the house of the accused from where the accused were alleged to have opened firing was lower than the level of the road by I to 2 feet where the deceased was stated to have been hit.
It is well-settled that the medical evidence cannot alone corroborate the testimony of an interested witness. The injuries on his person may prove his presence at the spot at the relevant time but not that whatever he states is true. A wrong impression is entertained at times that since in the medical examination injuries are found on the person of a witness., his testimony stands corroborated with regard to the persons implicated by him and the part ascribed to them. But this does not always hold good. The injuries alone would not make him a truthful witness or give him an edge over his enemies to falsely implicate them. The right course to be followed in such a situation would be that if such a witness is found to be interested having a motive to falsely implicate his adversaries independent corroboration of his testimony should he sought before acting upon his testimony. But this is not available in this case. It may not be out of place to mention that both the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved with regard to the motive and majority of the accused implicated by them. The trial Court also disbelieved them holding that Nazar Hussain appellant did not share the common intention With Shaukat Manzoor appellant in murdering the deceased as alleged by them. After disbelieving the eye-witnesses on such material aspect it was not safe to convict the appellants on the same evidence in the absence of any independent corroboration.
' For the reasons mentioned above, the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I accept their appeal, set aside their conviction and sentences and acquit them of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. Shaukat Manzoor appellant is discharged from the bail bond.
' The fine, if paid by Nazar Hussain appellant, shall be refunded to him.
205