1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--These two connected appeals, one bearing No. Cr.A.No. 194/80, filed by Rahim Bakhsh and others apellants and the other bearing Cr.A.No. 195/80, filed by complainant Ashiq Muhammad appellant, have arisen by special leave, from the judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 6-2-1978, whereby the death sentence of Rahim Bakhsh awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge Multan for the murder of Khuda Bakhsh vide judgment dated 13-3-1976, was confirmed and his appeal was dismissed; the death sentence awarded to Ghulam Rasul awarded to him in the same case was substituted to that of life imprisonment and appeal of Muhammad Nawaz and Amir Bakhsh against their sentences of life imprisonment was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. ' The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 23-12-1973 at noon-time complainant Ashiq Muhammad (P.W. 8) alongwith Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) and Khadim Hussain (given up) went to the Bhaini of Faiz Bukhsh (P.W. 9), situate in Square No. 54 at Chak No. 132/10-R to receive a sum of Rs. 200 as price of 4 bullock from him. Faiz Bukhsh (P.W. 9) told them that he would pay the amount in Chak No. 132/t0-R, which was at a distance of 1-1/4 miles from the Bhaini. All of them started towards the Abadi of the said Chak through a Katiha road. At about 3-00 or 4-00 p.m. When they reached near the tubewell of Hassan Ahmad Tarrar, suddenly, the convicted appellants namely, Ghulam Rasul armed with a pistol, Rahim Bakhsh armed with .12 bore gun, Amir Bakhsh and Muhammad Nawaz both armed with rifles, appeared from the northern side. On seeing them Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) ran towards the tubewell room for saving his life but before he could reach there, Ghulam Rasul fired pistol shot and Rahim Bakhsh fired a gunshot at Khuda Bakhsh, which hit him on his chest. Amir Bakhsh and Muhammad Nawaz accused also fired with their rifles but their shots did not hit the deceased. After receiving the injuries the deceased fell down on the ground and died on the spot. All the appellants after commission of the crime decamped from the spot towards the cast, leaving their 3 bicycles near the spot. The P.Ws. Could not chase them because of fear of death. Leaving Khadim Hussain P.W. And Barkat Chowkidar with the dead body, Ashiq Muhammad (P.W. 8) went to the Police Station, Jahanian, which was at a distance of about 15 miles from the spot and lodged the F.I.R. (Ex. PH). S.I. Mirza Saeed Alam Baig (P.W. 10) recorded the F.I.R. At 7-00 p.m. The same day.
3. ' On the same date at 7.30 p.m. S.I. Mirza Saced Alam Baig (P.W. 10) visited the spot. He prepared inquest report (Ex. PK) and injury statement (Ex. PK/1). On 24-12-1973 at morning time the S.I. Sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination under the escort of F.C. Iftikhar Hussain P.W. 2) and himself collected blood-stained earth from the spot and made it into a scaled parcel vide memo (Ex.PA). The S.I. Also took three bicycles left behind by the accused into possession vide memo (Ex. PB). The S.I. Sent the parcel of blood-stained earth to the chemical expert for examination who opined that the earth is stained with human blood.
4. ' On 10-1-1974, the Si. Mirza Saeed Alam Baig (P.W. 10) arrested Amir Bakhsh, Rahim Bakhsh and MUhammad Nawaz accused at bridge No.
14. A rifle (P. 13) was produced before him by Amir Bakhsh accused and was taken into possession by the S.I. Vide memo. (Ex. PL). On 14-1-1974 Rahim Bakhsh accused led the police for the recovery of gun (P. 7) with 4 live cartridges (P. 8/1-4) from an earth bin in his house which the S.I. Took into possession vide memo. (Ex. PE). Similarly, Muhammad Nawaz accused led the police for the recovery of rifle (P. 9) with four live bullets (P. 10/1-4) from a heap of dung in his courtyard which the S.I. Took into possession vide memo. (Ex. PF). Ghulam Rasul accused remained absconder, the S.I.
5. Registered a case under section 216 P.P.C. Against his harbourers and took proceedings against him. As a result, on 9-3-1974, he was arrested by the said S.I. At Bridge No. 14 and produced pistol (P.
6. 11) with two life cartridges (P. 12/1-2) vide (Ex. PG).
7. ' On 24-12-1973 at 2.00 p.m. Dr. Riaz Hussain Khan (P.W 1), Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Jahanian conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased who found two main wounds on the dead body. One was composed of four small holes on the right side of the chest near the shoulder joint and the other consisted of contused wounds, 115 in number, scattered in an area of nine inches diameter, on the right side of the chest and on the upper part of the right arm. The doctor found the third rib on the right side fractured in the middle. He also found injuries on the right lung and pleura. The doctor opined that the death of the deceased occurred due to these injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
8. ' The motive for the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that about four years prior to the occurrence Mst. Saidan Bibi niece of Ghulam Rasul accused was married to Riaz son of Sadiq. Sadiq is the uncle of Khuda Bakhsh deceased. Mst. Saidan was the owner of 9 bighas of land. This marriage was done against the wishes of Ghulam Rasul and Rahim Bakhsh etc. Due to this reason, about 10 months prior to this occurrence, Ghulam Rasul etc. Had made a murderous assault on Muhammad Sadiq and a case under Section 307 P.P.C. Was registered against them. Ghulam Rasul and Rahim Bakhsh accused were declared as proclaimed offenders in that case. Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) was helping his uncle against the accused appellants in that case. Khuda Bakhsh deceased was also a P.W. In another theft case against Rahim Bakhsh. On this resentment the accused committed the murder of Khuda Bakhsh (deceased).
9. ' After completion of the investigation formalities all the accused were challaned before the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan to stand their trial under section 302/34 P.P.C. The appellants have, however, pleaded their innocence. The learned trial Judge on examination of the evidence recorded by him at the trial found the appellants guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted them under Section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced Ghulam Rasul and Rahim Bakhsh to death and Muhammad Nawaz and Amir Bakhsh to life imprisonment for the murder of Khuda Bakhsh deceased. The learned trial Judge, however, imposed line of Rs. 1,000 on each of the accused to be paid to the heirs of the deceased on realization or in default to suffer further R.I. For one year vide judgment dated 13-3-1976.
10. ' The appellants filed Appeal No. 422 of 1976 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore against their convictions and sentences. A learned Division Bench of the High Court which heard the appeal vide impugned judgment dismissed the same against accused appellant Rahim Bakhsh, Muhammad Nawaz and Amir Bakhsh, confirmed the death sentence awarded to Rahim Bakhsh and partly allowed against Ghulam Rasul appellant by reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment on the following reasons:-- "The learned trial Judge awarded the lesser penalty to Muhammad Nawaz and Amir Bakhsh presumably on the ground that shots fired by them had not hit the deceased. Now, so far as Ghulam Rasool is concerned we are not satisfied that his shot too had not gone astray. At the time of occurrence he was armed with a pistol. According to Ashiq Muhammad (P.W. 8) and Faiz Bakhsh (P.W. 9) he was the first one to fire at the deceased. Both are definite that the deceased did not fall down till he was hit by the shot fired by Rahim Bakhsh appellant. Now, if we examine the doctor's evidence the possibility cannot be precluded that the deceased was hit by one shot only. As already pointed out the deceased had two main wounds on his body. One consisted of four small holes and the other comprised 115 pellet shots. It is very likely that the one with four small holes might have been caused by stray pellets of the shot which had caused the other wound. The eye- witnesses could have been genuinely mistaken whether the shot fired by Ghulam Rasul had actually found its target in the deceased. We, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to him, and treating him at par with Muhammad Nawaz and Amir Bakhsh reduce his sentence of imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine awarded to him is nevertheless maintained."
11. Leave was granted to the appellants by this Court to examine whether the defence version is not plausible enough to cast some serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution. Similarly, leave was also granted in Cr. A. No. 195/80 filed by Ashiq Muhammad apppellant for the enhancement of the sentences of life imprisonment of Muhammad Nawaz and others to that of death in the same case.
12. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments of the Courts below and perused the record in CrA. No. 194/80. We find that the learned Judges of the High Court have properly scrutinized the evidence on record while partly allowing the appeal of Ghulam Rasul convicted accused by reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment and dismissing the appeal of the rest of the appellants. We, therefore, see no reason for any interference with their impugned finding. The record of the case shows that the entire case against the appellants is based on the ocular account as provided by Ashiq Muhammad (P.W. 8) and Faiz Bakhsh (P.W. 9) which is supported by medical evidence and motive of the occurrence. Both these witnesses have claimed that. They were present on the spot and before their eyes the appellants had opened fire at Khuda Bakhsh (deceased). They have also deposed that the deceased was hit with the shots fired at him by Ghulam Rasul and Rahim Bakhsh only. This fact is not denied by the appellants as they have admitted their participation in the occurrence but have given an entirely different version of the occurrence. They .Havc tried to bring the case against them under the special exception of right of exercise of. Self-defence. They have alleged in their statements that they were attacked by Khuda Bakhsh (deceased) who was armed with spear, his uncle Muhammad Sadiq and his nephew Riaz both armed with 1),Ings. In support of their version they have led only the evidence of the doctor who had examined them at Multan, after eight days of the occurrence. This version on the part of the appellants does not bear any truth because on the one hand there is no independent witness to corroborate the stand of the accused except their own statements and on the other hand, the occurrence had taken place on 23.12-1973 at noon time and the appellants remained in hiding for eight days and did not care to get themselves medically examined soon after the occurrence. If they were really attacked by the deceased party they would have definitely reported the matter to the police and lodged a formal FIR. To that effect instead of taking an uncorroborated plea of self-defence in their trial after a considerably long period. Furthermore, the complainant Ashiq Muhammad (P.W. 8) and Faiz Bakhsh (P.W. 9) arc independent witnesses. They have no enmity with the appellants and there is no likelihood of their falsely implicating the appellants in the said case. Both of them have given a reasonable and E satisfactory explanation of their presence at the spot and have given a true and clear account of the occurrence. Both of these witnesses have been cross-examined and they have stated that they were accompanying the deceased ai the relevant time and nothing has been disclosed from their conduct which could give vent of their falsely implicating the appellants in the crime.
13. ' On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution in our view, has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellants, as they acted in a cruel manner by killing Khuda Bakhsh deceased in furtherance, of their common intention. As regards the plea of the defence, the learned Judges of the High Court after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence on record have arrived at a correct conclusion by holding this plea as improbable and dismissed the appeal of the appellants.
14. ' Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned High Court is unexceptionable. The result is that we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 194/80 accordingly.
15. ' As far as Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1980 is concerned, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant to pursue this appeal. We, therefore, recall the leave granting order dated 13th October, 1980 and dismiss the petition.