1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The three respondents were con--victed and sentenced to transportation for life each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. On appeal, however, their conviction and sentences were set aside by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court. This petition is by the State seeking leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. The occurrence took place on the 7th July 1971, at 5-40 a.m. In the vicinity of the graveyard of Prang village. Respondents Abdul Malik and Taza Gul are nephew and servant respectively of respondent Abdul Sattar. The allegation was that the three respondents committed the murder of Ghulam Yahya in the presence of his brother P. W. Abdul Wahid and another witness P. W. Khanzada. The first information report was lodged at Prang Police Station only three furlongs away from the place of occurrence at 6-50 a.m. According to the investigating officer who recorded the first information report, the dead body of Ghulam Yahya was brought to the police station as he was about to proceed to the place of occurrence. The motive alleged for the murder was that some time earlier Abdur Rauf, brother of respondent Abdul Sattar had been murdered and P. W. Abdul Wahld and his brother Ghulam Yahya deceased were prosecuted for the murder, but acquitted. The prosecution case as disclosed in the evidence was that the deceased along with P. Ws. Abdul Wahid and Saidan Shah were proceeding towards `Khat Koruna' and when they arrived near the Shrine of `Bhola Baba', the deceased asked his companions to wait, and himself went to answer a call of nature 35-40 paces away from them, and while he was about to sit down the three respondents appeared near the graves 30 paces away from the deceased and each of them fired a shot at the deceased as a result of which he fell down on the ground. The respondents then proceeded to the opposite direc--tion but in the meantime the deceased had got up and started running towards the west. The three respondents turned round and having found the deceased running away chased him to a distance of 150-160 paces and having finally reached the accused respondent Abdul Sattar alone with his shot gun shot at the deceased through his chest from a close quarter.
3. Thereafter all the respondents escaped from the scene.
4. P. W. Abdul Wahid who claimed to be a matriculate, however, stated in his first information report that the deceased was at first shot at and hit by respondent Abdul Sattar, and when the deceased got up and ran after Abdul Sattar, the other two respondents fired one shot each at the deceased as a result of which he fell down. The witness was confronted with his version in the first information report, but he flatly disowned it saying that he had reported to the police officer what he deposed in the trial Court. The police officer who recorded the first information report was not questioned on this inconsistency, and he stated in his evidence that after report had been recorded P. W. Abdul Wabid affirmed its contents and signed it.
5. In support of its case the prosecution relied upon the evidence of only two eye-witnesses, namely, Abdul Wahid and Khanzada and also on the recovery of blood-stained earth from two spots at the place of occurrence.
6. The learned Judges of the High Court rightly found that there was blood feud between the parties and, therefore, P. W. Abdul Wahid, brother of the deceased could not be relied upon without any corroboration. The learned Judges pointed out that although the corroboration was sought from an apparently independent witness, P. W. Khanzada, he was not as disinterested as the prosecution claimed him to be. In support of this view the learned Judges found that P. W. Khanzada had deliberately tried to suppress the fact that his brother Sahibzada had con--nections with the deceased. The witness admitted that there had been security proceedings between his brother Sahibzada and Saidan Shah on one side and one Dilawar Shah on the other, but denied that the deceased was a party to these proceedings. It appears, however, that in his statement before the committing Magistrate, with which he was duly confronted, the witness had disclosed that his brother Sahibzada was an associate of the deceased and that the deceased was in the party of Sahibzada and Saidan Shah in the aforesaid security proceedings. Again P. W. Khanzada went back on his earlier statement before the com--mitting Magistrate in which he had accepted the defence case that on the complaint of one Dilawar Shah, the witness's brother Sahibzada and the deceased were accused of robbery of a pistol, shot-gun and Rs. 1,500.
7. The learned Judges have also found it improbable that the deceased having been shot at by the respondents and fallen down would be in a position to rise up and then run to a distance of 150-160 paces before he was shot again through the chest by respondent Abdul Sattar.
8. Dr. Rafiuddin, Medical Officer, Lady Reading Hospital, who held the autopsy found the following injuries on the deceased :----
(1) A fire-arm entrance wound, 2" x 2", on the right aside of chest, 2" below the right nipple. Skin around the wound was blackened. Clothes around the wound were also blackened.
(2) Ten fire-arm (pellet) entrance wounds, 1/2' x 1/3" each, on the right side of narrow back.
(3) A pellet entrance, 1/2" x 1/3", on the back of right thigh with a taced pellet on the inside under the skin which was removed.
(4) A pellet entrance wound, 1/2" x 1/3", on the outer side of right leg with an exit wound on the inside.
(5) One pellet exit wound, 1/2" x 1/2", on the front of right side of abdomen.
(6) A pellet exit wound, 1/2" x 1/2", on the left side of abdomen, 1" below the rib margin. 5 pellets felt under the skin and were removed.
(7) A pellet entrance wound, 1/2"x 1/3", on the lower border of left hip with a pellet felt and removed from the inner side of the same hip.
(8) Two pellet exit wounds, 1/2" x 1/2", each on the lateral side of right hip. One pellet felt under the skin and was removed.
(9) A pellet exit wound, 1/2" x 1/2", on the top of left shoulder with 4 pellets felt under the skin and removed.
9. Injury No. 1 was evidently the result of the deceased having been shot at from a close quarter by respondent Abdul Sattar when the deceased had got up and run after having been shot at on the first occasion by the three respondents. Injuries Nos, 5 and 6 which are exit wounds in the abdomen may be ascribed to injury No. 1. Other injuries on the narrow back, right thigh, right leg, left hip, right hip and left shoulder of the deceased were apparently the result of the shots on the first occasion.
10. That being so, it seems improbable that the deceased would be able to get up and run to a distance of 150-160 paces with these injuries on him. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased could run after having received these injuries.
11. The learned Judges of the High Court have also noticed another improbability. Both the deceased and P. W. Abdul Wahid having been equally involved in the murder of the brother of respondent Abdul Sattar, it was difficult to believe that only the deceased was persistently shot at and injured and P. W. Abdul Wahid was allowed to go absolutely scot free.
12. It is also difficult to comprehend why the body of the deceased was removed from the spot and taken to the police station although P. W. Abdul Wahid had left it behind and proceeded to lodge tile first information report without taking the body with him. The admitted removal of the body might have enabled the recovery of blood from two different spots at the place of occurrence and, therefore, the mere recovery of blood from two different spots could not be regarded as corroboration of the ocular evidence that the deceased was shot at two different places.
13. The learned Judges of the High Court have also commented not without justification upon the delay in lodging the first infor--mation report. As noticed already, the police station was hardly three furlongs off the place of occurrence and yet it took more than an hour to lodge the first information report. No explana--tion has been furnished for this delay.
14. Having regard to the inconsistencies, improbabilities, and the delay in lodging the first information report and other unsatis--factory features of the case mentioned above, the impugned order of the High Court appears to us to be appropriate and does not, therefore, call for any interference.
15. The petition is accordingly dismissed.