1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The two appellants, Sharif and Murad, were tried, along with four others, by the learned Sessions Judge of Bahawalpur, for the murder of two brothers, Shah Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad, and for causing injuries to an infant daughter of Ghulam Mohammad deceased. All the six were convicted on both counts. Each of them was sentenced to death for the offence of murder and to rigorous imprisonment for four years under section 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In appeal, and reference proceedings under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the convictions and sentences of only the two appellants Sharif and Murad were maintained by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, and the remaining four accused were acquitted. In the first information report one other person, also named Mohammad Sharif, was mentioned as being one of the assailants, but he absconded and has not so, far been brought to trial.
2. The incident took place at sunset time on the 11th of May 1967, in Basti Sehol, forming part of village Jhandani a distance of 14 miles from Police Station Hasilpur in the Bahawalnagar district. The first information report was made at 11-30 p.m. The same night by Mohammad Nawaz (P. W. 17), a paternal cousin of the two murdered brothers.
3. The motive for the crime was that about a year before the present occurrence Sharif, a brother of the two deceased persons in this case, had found his wife flagrante delicto with Ashiq, a step--son of the acquitted accused Ramzan, and had killed them both at the spot in his own residential house in the Basti. Sharif was convicted and sentenced to only one year's rigorous imprisonment.
4. He was still undergoing the sentence, when Ashiq's family decided to take revenge.
5. According to the prosecution, the attack was launched by Ashiq's step-father Ramzan, Ramzan's sons Sharif, Hanif and Shafi, his step-son Sultan Sikander and his step-son-in-law Murad, as well as the absconder Sharif Joya, who was not related to Ramzan but was stated to be living with the family. At that time the two deceased persons were present at their thrashing-floor along with Mohammad Nawaz (P. W. 17), Ahmad Bakhsh Metla (P. W. 18), Ghulam Hassan Kanju (P. W. 20), Ahmad Bakhsh Mochi (P. W. 21) and Allah Ditta Kumhar, for the purpose of dividing the wheat crop between the tenants and landlords. The deceased Ghulam Mohammad was holding his infant daughter, Mst. Amir Mai, in his lap. It is said that the appellant Sharif, was armed with a hatchet, the appellant Murad was carrying a gun, the absconder was carrying a rifle, the acquitted accused Mohammad Hanif and Sultan Sikander were carrying pistols and Ramzan and Mohammad Shafi were armed with sticks. The assailants encircled the thrashing-floor and opened fire with their respective weapons at Shah Mohammad and his brother Ghulam Mohammad. Shah Mohammad was the first to be hit. The infant Amir Mai was also injured. Ghulam Mohammad threw his dang and ran for his life but was pursued and fired at by the four assailants who were armed with, pistols, gun and rifle. He fell down at a distance of one killa from the thrashing-floor, and was then attacked by the appellant Sharif with his hatchet, and the acquitted accused Mohammad Ramzan and Shafi with their sticks. Shah Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad expired at the spot, and the assailants managed to escape.
6. It is alleged that the assailants then entered the abadi of village Sehol and went to the house of Dost Mohammad (P.W. 19) who is the father of Mohammad Nawaz (P. W. 17). As Dost Mohammad was not available at the house, the assailants fired two or three shots in the air and then went away.
7. On spot inspection, A. S. I. Abdul Khaliq (P. W. 22) and S. I. Mohammad Bashir Khan (P. W. 23) were able .To recover the following articles from near the two dead bodies and the heap of grain lying at the thrashing-floor:-
(a) two empty cartridges of a rifle;
(b) eight pellets;
(c) blood-stained earth from two places;
(d) two pairs of shoes, apparently belonging to the assailants;
(e) four misfired cartridges of .303 calibre;
(f) five empties of .32 bore;
(g) a revolver string; and
(h) a broken piece of a stick.
8. Two more empties of .303 bore were recovered by the Sub---inspector of Police from the house of Dost Mohammad (P. W. 19).
9. Mohammad Ramzan and his sons Mohammad Sharif and Mohammad Shafi were arrested the next morning from their residence at Chah Muradwala. Mohammad Ramzan led to the recovery of a broken piece of stick, a hatchet and a sota, which were all found to be blood-stained. The shirt worn by Mohammad Ramzan was also found to be stained with blood and was seized. Hanif, Sikandar and Murad accused were arrested three days later on the 14th of May 1967. The shirt and chaddar on the person of Murad, the shirt on the person of Hanif and shirt and chaddar on the person of Sultan Sikandar were also taken into possession as they appeared to be stained with blood, On the 26th of May 1967, Murad led to the recovery of a shot-gun along with three live cartridges from his residence at Chah Muradwala.
10. Although the Chemical Examiner found the incriminating articles, except the stick of accused Shafi and the hatchet of appellant Sharif, to be stained with blood, yet the Serologist found human blood only on the samples of earth and the clothes taken from the persons of Ramzan and Hanif. As regards the remaining articles, the Serologist reported that the origin of the blood could not be determined due to its disintegration. The shot-gun recovered at the instance of Murad was also not connected with the empties recovered from the spot. However, the broken piece of stick recovered from the spot was found to match with the one seized at the instance of the acquitted accused Mohammad Ramzan.
11. The medical evidence shows that the infant Mst. Amir Mai had sustained a bullet wound in front of the left knee-joint, and a lacerated wound on the left arm above the elbow-joint. A bullet was removed from the knee-joint.
12. The deceased Shah Mohammad had sustained five fire-arm injuries, one of which was a bullet wound and the remaining by pellets.
13. The deceased Ghulam Mohammad was found to have four punctured wounds at the back; one punctured wound on the mastoid region, a punctured wound just above the right knee, three punctured wounds on the upper part of the face, a wound of undisclosed description an the right palm, an incised wound: at the back of the skull and an incised wound in the middle of the face extending equally across both cheeks. Its dimensions were 4' x 1" x 2 -- ". Nos.1 bone had been crushed, lower half of the nose was amputated and gone off. The hard palate was cut and the brain matter was exposed. The face had been beaten into pulp.
14. The appellants and their co-accused pleaded not guilty at the trial, and asserted that they had been falsely implicated. They did not, however, lead any evidence in defence. It may be stated that although at the trial they denied the allegations relating to the motive for the crime, yet during the commitment proceedings they admitted bad blood between the parties on account of the murder of Mohammad Ashiq, and they also alleged that the first informant Mohammad Nawaz (P. W. 17) was inimical towards them for the reason that his wife Mst. Allah Wasai had married accused Sultan Sikandar after obtaining divorce from Mohammad Nawaz.
15. For convicting all the six accused persons, the learned trial Judge placed full reliance on the ocular testimony of Mohammad Nawaz (P. W. 17), Ahmad Bakhsh Metla (P. W. 18), Ghulam Hassan Kanju (P. W. 20) and Ahmad Bakhsh Mochi (P. W. 21). Although the last-named witness had made an important conces--sion in favour of the accused by stating in cross-examination that at the time of the assault the assailants' had muffled their. Faces, yet the learned Sessions Judge did not permit the Public Prosecutor --to cross-examine him, but at the same time he made an order transferring the previous statement of Ahmad Bakhsh Mochi to the record of the trial under section 288 of the Cr. P. C. The learned trial Judge found corroboration of the ocular evidence in the existence of a strong motive on the part of the accused persons, and the circumstance that the nature and the number of injuries found on the deceased persons as well as the infant Mst. Amir Mai were compatible with the number of the assailants, and the weapons attributed to them. The learned Sessions Judge does not appear to have devoted much attention to the incriminating recoveries.
16. In the High Court, the learned Judges found that "some consultation did take place between members of the complainant party before lodging the report"; and that the incriminating recoveries were not of much help to the prosecution. The High Court observed that the two pairs of shoes found to have been abandoned at the spot were not proved to belong to any of the accused persons; that the shot-gun recovered at the instance of the appellant Murad was not connected with the crime empties; that the hatchet and the stick were not found to be stained with blood; and that it was strange that the clothes recovered from the persons of Hanif and Murad should have been found to be stained with blood, although these two accused persons were alleged to have fired from a pistol and a gun respectively and could not have come into close contact with the injured persons. The High Court also commented adversely on the delay that had taken place in sending these articles to the Chemical Examiner. As regards the ocular evidence, the High Court accepted the presence of the witnesses at the spot but observed that the first informant, Mohammad Nawaz, was inimical towards the accused persons, and accordingly corroboration should be looked for. It found that this was lacking in the case of Ramzan, Shafi, Hanif and Sultan Sikandar, notwithstanding the fact that the broken piece of stick recovered at the instance of Ramzan was found by the learned Judges themselves to match with the broken piece of stick recovered by the Police from the spot. However, as against the present two appellants, the learned Judges found corroboration primarily in the nature of the injuries found on the bodies of the two deceased persons. On this view of the matter, the High Court felt that it was not safe to maintain the convictions and sentences recorded against the other four accused persons and accordingly acquitted them.
17. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention that the eye-witnesses being interested and no trustworthy corrobora--tion from any independent source being available against the appellants, their conviction was not based on a proper appreciation of the facts of the case.
18. We have examined the entire evidence brought on the record during the course of the trial, and have also heard at length Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for the appellants and Mr. R. S. Sidhwa for the State.
19. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel for the appellants that this is indeed a case where the majority of the eye-witnesses can be described as interested and partisan, and for that reason it is necessary to look for satisfactory corro--boration for the purpose of connecting the appellants with the crime. It is proved that Mohammad Ashiq, a step-son of the acquitted accused Ramzan and a step-brother of the other accused persons, was murdered by a brother of the deceased Shah Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad. It is also in evidence that the wife of the first informant, Mohammad Nawaz, had obtained divorce and married the acquitted accused Sultan Sikandar. Ghulam Hassan Kanju (P. W. 20) is either a servant or a tenant of the complainant party. Similarly, Ahmad Bakhsh Metla (P.W.18) isa tenant of the deceased, although he is said to be cultivating some land belonging to other persons as well. The only eye-witness who does not appear to be particularly connected with the complainant party is Ahmad Bakhsh Mochi (P. W. 21) as he is a "moeen" of the village. In this state of the record, the learned Judges in the High Court were clearly right in looking for corroboration of the ocular evidence of the interested witnesses.
20. Although the learned counsel have drawn our attention to several decided cases for the purpose of bringing out the nature of corroboration necessary in such a case, yet we think it is not necessary to dilate upon them, as it would suffice if the principles enunciated by this Court in Nazir and others v. The State (PLD 1962 SG 269) are briefly mentioned. It was held in that case that:--- "For corroboration it is not necessary that there should be the word of an independent witness supporting the story put forward by an interested witness. Corroboration may be afforded by anything in the circumstances of a case which tends sufficiently to satisfy the mind of the Court that the witness has spoken the truth. What circumstances will be sufficient as corroboration it is not possible to lay down. But, as the question before the Court would he whether some innocent person had not been implicated in addition to those who were guilty, the circumstance relied upon roust have a bearing on this question."
21. It was added that:----- "In the ease of an interested witness the corroboration need not be of the same probative force as in the case of an accomplice for the two do not stand on the same footing. Circumstances corroborating the eye-witness may be such as (1) that the number of culprits mentioned was such as would be required for an attack of the kind which is the subject-matter of the proceedings; (2) that the persons named as culprits were such as would be expected to ,join in the attack."
22. Judged in the light of these principles we find that in the present case the two appellants are such persons as had a motive to commit the two murders with which they are charged. The medical evidence clearly shows that the deceased Ghulam Muhammad had at lesst two injuries which were caused by a hatchet, namely, injuries No. 2 and 5. It will be recalled that injury No. 2 was an incised wound at the back of the skull, with bone underneath being cut through and through by a sharp-edged weapon; and injury No. 5 was an incised wound at the middle of the face extending equally across both cheeks. Its full descrip--tion has already been given while narrating the facts.
23. These two injuries leave no doubt that Ghulam Mohammad was attacked with a hatchet which, according tee the eye-witnesses, was wielded by the appellant Sharif who had chased Ghulam Mohammad, along with other assailants, when Ghulam Mohammad had tried to run for his life after throwing away his infant daughter. It is true that the hatchet produced by the appellant Sharif's father Ramzan was not found to be stained with blood, arid for that reason the recovery of the weapon of offence does not provide any corroboration. It also loses its probative value on account of the fact that the hatchet was not produced by the appellant Sharif but by his father. The fact, nevertheless, remains that the allegation made by the eye-witnesses regarding the part played by the appellant Sharif is corroborated by the nature of the injuries found on the body of Ghulam Mohammad deceased.
24. Similar corroboration is available as against the appellant Murad, as two of the injuries on the body of Shah Mohammad deceased consisted of skin deep punctured wounds which were caused by gun fire. Pellets were also recovered from the spot, thus supporting the prosecution on the pint that a gun was fired at the deceased. It may be mentioned that an unlicensed gun was produced before the Police by the appellant Murad. Although none of the crime empties were directly connected with this gun, yet the production of the gun is a relevant circum--stance to be taken into account against this appellant. It has to be remembered that the corroboration necessary in a case of the present kind is not to be such as would, by itself, justify a conviction. The confirmatory circumstances are to be looked at for the purpose of supporting the ocular account given by witnesses who cannot be implicitly relied upon. In this context, we are satisfied that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court as providing corroboration against the appellants are indeed directly relevant for the purpose.
25. Apart from the circumstances mentioned above there is also the fact that both the appellants were implicated by Ahmad Bakhsh Mochi (P. W. 21), in spite of the concessions made by him in cross-examination by stating that the assailants had muffled their faces at the time of the attack.
26. He had not said any such thing in his statement during the commitment proceedings, and for this reason the learned Sessions Judge was right in bringing that statement on the record under section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We consider that in the circumstances the learned Public Prosecutor should have been permitted to cross-examine this witness, but the refusal of the learned trial Judge to grant such permission has not in any manner prejudiced the appellants; only the prosecution could complain about it.
27. Taking a comprehensive view of the case we find that the High Court has, in fact, been very cautious and careful in this case by acquitting the four companions of the appellants, as satis-- factory corroboration would appear to be available not only as against the two appellants but also against their father Ramzan end possibly their brother Hanif. However, their cases are not before us as the State has not agitated by way of an appeal against acquittal.
28. For the foregoing reasons we are satisfied that both the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced. Their appeal is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.