1. ' This criminal appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Is directed against the judgment, dated 12th October, 1987 of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, whereby he convicted the appellants Sher Muhammad and Niaz Muhammad under section 302/34, P.P.C. And each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs,5,000 each and in default to suffer imprisonment for one year. In case fine is recovered the half of the amount was to be paid to the heirs of the deceased Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino as compensation under section 3'H A, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that on 19-3-1982, complainant Muhammad Bux, his son Wali Muhammad and nephew Sabihdino were present at their land. There appeared Jial, his sons Niaz Muhammad, Muhammad Nawaz, Sher Muhammad and Khan Muhammad son of Ameer Bux, Noor Muhammad son of Amir Bux, Meero son of Ameer Bux, Jaro, Murad sons of Jaro and Rahim Bux son of Kaman, all by caste Mahar, out of them Jial, Muhammad Murad, Noor Muhammad Jaro and Sher Muhammad had hatchets while Khan Muhammad and Rahim Bux had guns and Meero Niaz Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz had Lathis and also 2 or 3 unknown persons were with them Jaial and Rahim Bux instigated and asked the complainant and Sher Muhammad caused hatchet injuries to Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino, who fell down, Muhammad Bux raised cries, which attracted Haji, Molidino, Imamdino, Achar, Mire, Kalandar Bux all by caste Bhambhra. They came and intervened, but they were also given Lathi and hatchet blows, who fell down. It is alleged that accused Sher Muhammad took out a match box and set on fire the shed built at the land. Rahim Bux took away double barrel licensed gun thereafter accused went away. Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino died due to the injuries and others also received hatchet and Lathi injuries at various parts of the bodies. Complainant Muhammad Bux came at the Police Station Kandhra, District Sukkur and lodged report on the same day at 16-00 hours. Police after usual investigation challaned the case. The motive given in the F.I.R. Is that there was a dispute in connection with Survey Nos. 200, 201 and 286, situated in Dch Tarai. It is stated in the F.I.R. That one Manshomal Hindu entered into fulfil the promise, therefore, civil suit was filed and complainant got stay order. Manshomal against sold the above Survey Nos. To Jaial by a registered sale-deed.
2. Complainant and others approached Jial to abandon the property which they refused and it is stated that on the day of incident accused wanted forcible possession.
3. Charge (Exh.2) was framed on 11th January, 1984 to which appellants pleaded not guilty, therefore, case proceeded and evidence was recorded.
3. ' Prosecution examined complainant Muhammad Bux (Exh.17), P.W.2 Molidino (Exh.16), P.W.3 Achar (Exh.17), P.W.4 Haji (Exh.18) P.W.5 Kalandar Bux (Exh.20) P.W.6 Meeno (Exh.21) as eye-witnesses. P.W.7 Muhammad Lukman, Mashir P.W.8 Muhammad Surffer (Exh.28), Tapedar, P.W.9, Dr. Imtiaz Ali (Exh.31) and P.W.10 Ghulam Hussain (Exh.66) Investigating Officer.
4. ' Complainant Muhammad Bux stated that deceased Wali Muhammad was his son and deceased Sahibdino was his sister's son. He purchased the land bearing Survey Nos. 210 and 286, Deh Tariai from one Manshomal under sale agreement. His maternal-uncle Wahid Bux had also a share of four Annas in the land. He paid Rs,8,000 as advance towards sale price and remaining amount of Rs,40,500 was to be paid at the time of registration. He asked Manshomal for the ,registration deed, but he avoided, therefore, civil suit was filed and he got stay order. He has stated that he also got the possession of the land, but after the filing of the civil suit, he came to know that the land is in the name of the accused Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Nawaz and Niaz Muhammad, all sons of Jaial. He approached them for the settlement of matter, but accused refused to solve the problems. He applied for stay order in the Civil Court, which was not granted, but in appeal he got the stay and produced copy of the order in the civil suit, in which accused were the party. On the day of incident, he along with Wali Muhammad and son Sahibdino was present at their land, where accused Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Jial, Jaro Muhammad Murad, Noor Muhammad with hatchets, accused Khan Muhammad and Rahim Bux with guns and others with Lathis alongwith 3 or 4 unknown persons came with bullocks. He stated that accused told them to leave the possession of land as they had stay order from the Court, to which they replied that they have also a stay order and will not leave the possession, whereupon Jial and Rahim Bux instigated other accused thereby Jial, Sher Muhammad, Noor Muhammad Jaro, Muhammad Murad gave hatchet blows to Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino, while those who were armed with Lathis caused Lathi injuries to them. On cries Kalandar Bux, Molidino, Haji, Achar, Imamdino came and tried to settle the matters, but the accused caused them Lathi and hatchet blows. He stated that Rahim Bux entered into the but and took away the licensed gun of the complainant when Sher Muhammad set fire his hut. Accused ran away. Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino died on the spot, while Molidino, Achar, Imamdino, Haji and Kalandar Bux received injuries. Muhammad Bux went and lodged report at Police Station Kandhara. He produced F.I.R. As Exh.18.
5. ' In cross-examination, he stated that civil suit was filed against Manshomal and Mukhtiarkar Rohri.
6. Thereafter, accused were added as defendants. He stated that P.W. Haji son of his brother, Achar and Molidino were present. Mubarak is the brother of- Molidinci. P.W. Mino is son of Sahibdino's sister. The sister of Kalandar Bux is married with the brother of Sahibdino. He stated that counter- case is pending against him and his witnesses. Accused Niaz Muhammad, Nawaz and Sher Muhammad are sons of Jial and Khan Muhammad is nephew of Jial and other accused are related to Jaial and belonged to his family. He stated that all the five accused were armed with hatchets attacked on both deceased persons at the same time and gave blows and he cannot say exactly, which accused gave Lathi blows to whom. He has admitted that about 6 months prior to the incident, civil suit was filed and he came to know that the land was in the name of accused persons. He stated that they were unarmed.
7. ' P.W.2 Molidino stated that on the date of incident, he was present in his house near the land of Muhammad Bux, when he heard cries of 'Murder' `Murder'. He went there and Achar, Kalandar Bux, Mino, who also came there. He saw accused Jial, Sher Muhammad, Jaro, Muhammad Murad, Noor Muhammad with hatchets while Rahim Bux and Khan Muhammad with guns and Muhammad Nawaz, Mino, Niaz Muhammad with Lathi. He has not seen any other person, but two or three haris with a pair of bullocks were there whom he could not identify. At the instigation of Jial and Rahim Bux other accused persons attacked Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino. He tried to settle the matter, out hands of Jaro and Murad and after receiving injuries he became unconscious. He stated that Muhammad Bux was in possession of the land at the time of incident. He stated that Muhammad Bux was in possession of the land at the time of incident. Complainant Muhammad Bux purchased the disputed land from Monshomal while accused claimed that he had purchased the disputed land. He was sent to Civil Hospital, Sukkur and he remained as indoor patient for 16 days. He stated that Sher Muhammad set at fire the house of Muhammad Bux before he received injuries. Accused Rahim Bux took away gun from the house of Muhammad Bux. He stated that Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino died in this incident. In cross-examination he admitted that he and other witnesses are accused in counter-case and stated that Sher Muhammad, Jial and Niaz Muhamamd accused did not receive any injury as complainant party was unarmed and not caused any injury to them in defence.
8. ' P.W.3, Achar has corroborated the version as given in the F.I.R. Stated that accused came with Lathis, guns and hatchets. Deceased Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino received injuries at the hands of Sher Muhammad, Jaro, Noor Muhammad, Jial and Muhammad Murad as these accused had given hatchet injuries to them. He stated that Noor Muhammad gave him hatchet blows. He stated that he cannot say if his brother Imamdino received injuries. He fell down and was not in senses.
9. ' P.W.4, Haji has supported and stated that the accused were armed with hatchets and attacked on. Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino, who fell down. They received injuries at the hands of 5 (five) accused persons, who were armed with hatchets. Accused Jailal gave him (Haji) hatchet blows, while accused Niaz Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz gave him Lathi blows. He stated that Kalandar. P.W.5 Kalandar Bux stated that he was working at his land alongwith Meeno. They heard cries of Muhammad Bux, Sahibdino and Wali Muhammad and others. They rushed there and saw that Muhammad Bux was crying that his children were being murdered. He saw the accused persons. Accused Jial, Sher Muhammad, Jaro, Muhammad Murad, Noor Muhammad armed with hatchets while Niaz Muhammad, Nawaz, Meero with hatchets and Rahim Bux and Khan Muhammad with guns. He saw that accused persons were armed with hatchets, who were giving blows to Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino. Haji, Achar, Molidino and others came and he and other witnesses tried to separate them but Jial instigated to which accused Niaz Muhammad and Nawaz gave him Lathi blows. Accused Rahim Bux took away the gun of the complainant from his house while Sher Muhammad set fire the house of complainant. He was sent to the hospital. He stated that complainant Muhammad Bux was in possession of land at the time of incident as he purchased from one Manshomal, but Jial purchased the disputed land from Manshomal afterwards. In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say which of the accused gave injuries to whom.
10. ' P.W.6 Meeno stated that he and Kalandar Bux were present at their land and heard cries from the eastern side. They rushed towards the land of Manshomal which was in possession of Muhammad Bux. He saw 6 to 8 other unknown persons who were armed with Lathis and hatchets and had bullocks. Accused Jial, Sher Muhammad, Jaro, Muhammad Murad and Noor Muhammad, had hatchets while Nawaz, Niaz, Meero with Lathies. The five accused persons were armed with hatchets and were giving injuries to Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino. They wanted to separate them, but Jial instigated and accused Jaro gave him hatchet blow and Niaz Muhammad also gave Lathi blows and he fell down. He stated that he sustained two hatchet and two Lathi injuries. He was brought to the police station with the complainant, where his statement was recorded and then he was sent to hospital.
11. ' P.W.7 Muhammad Lukman (Exh.23) stated that on 19-3-1982, he was made Mashir of injuries of Kalandar Bux, Molidino, Meeno, Haji, Achar and Imamdino. He produced Mashirnama as Exh.24. He also produced the inquest report of dead body of Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino as Exhs.25 and
26. He stated that police arrested accused in counter-case and he produced Mashirnama as Exh.27. In cross-examination he admitted that he is a retired Head Constable and he was convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, but acquitted by the High Court. He is a witness in civil suit filed by Muhammad Bux. His village is 25 miles away from the Wardat as well as from the police station. He came for his own work and the police made him Mashir of Wardat.
12. ' P.W.8 (Exh.28) is a tapedar and he prepared the sketch of Wardat, which he produced as Exh.29.
13. ' Dr. Imtiaz (Exh.31) has stated that Dr. Sher Khan left service and has gone out of country. His whereabouts are not known. He is not expected to come back in near future. He stated that he is well-conversant with the signatures of Dr. Sher Khan. He produced post-mortem reports as Exhs.32 and 33, which were signed by Dr. Sher Khan. According to the post-mortem report of Wali Muhammad son of Muhammad Bux aged 27 years conducted on 19-3-1982, the following injuries were found:-- ' Injury No,1. Incised wound left side of frontal region 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. Injury No,2. Incised wound occipital region 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. x skull deep.
14. ' Injury No,3. Incised wound occipital region 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. Skull deep.
15. ' Membrane were torn, brain matter damaged. Stomach contents semi-digested food particles.
16. Bladder was empty.
17. ' Bones.
(1) Fracture occipital bone of skull.
(2) Fracture frontal bone of skull."
18. ' From the external and internal examination, the Medical Officer was of the opinion that death has resulted from intercranial hemorrhage due to fracture of skull caused by sharp cutting substance and damaged brain matter sufficient to caused death.. He stated that following injuries were found at Sahibdino on 19-31983 by the Medical Officer:-- ' Incised wound on occipital region 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. Skull deep. Incised wound occipital region 9 c.m. x skull deep. Lacerated wound right on left leg 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. Skull deep.
19. ' From the internal examination brain membrane found torn, brain matter damaged. Stomach contents partially digested food particles. Bladder was found empty, fracture occipital bone of skull.
20. ' Remarks of Medical Officer.
21. ' From the external and internal examination of Sahibdino son of Muhammad Saleh. After opening the skull, skull cavity was full of clotted blood. Fracture of occipital bone of skull. Brain matter damaged sufficiently alongwith intercranial haemorrhage to cause death."
22. ' Dr. Imtiaz Ali has also stated that Dr. Ali Nawaz is dead, who examined 12 injured persons and issued certificates. He is well-conversant with the signature and handwriting of Dr. Ali Nawaz. He produced the certificates and supplementary certificates as Exhs.34 to 66. He stated that these medical certificate are in respect of Khuda Bux, Sher Muhammad, Lal Bux, Shaman, Usman, Lal Khan, Rajar, Niaz Muhammad, Achar, Imamdino, Khuda Bux and Haji Khuda Bux received two injuries by hard and blunt weapons and both were grievous. Sher Muhammad sustained two injuries, one by sharp-cutting and other by hard substance, both were simple. Lal Bux received 7 injuries, out of which one to four were by sharp cutting weapons and rest were hard blunt substance all were simple injuries Shaman received 3 injuries out of which two were by sharp cutting and one was by hard blunt. Usman received 4 injuries by hard and blunt weapons. One and two, three injuries were simple and four grievous Lal Khan received 2 injuries by hard blunt weapon.
23. Rajor one received injury by hard blunt weapons and is grievous. Niaz Muhammad received 1 injury by sharp-cutting weapon, which is simple, Achar received 4 injuries out of which one and two were by sharp cutting weapons and simple and 3 were grievous by hard blunt weapons 4 simple by hard blunt weapon. Imamdino received two injuries by hard blunt weapons out of which No,1 is grievous No,2 is simple. Khuda Bux received injury by hard blunt weapons. No,1 is grievous No,2 is simple. Haji received 4 injuries by hard blunt weapon and all are simple. The original certificate have been produced in counter-case and photo copies have been produced in this case.
24. ' P.W.10, Ghulam Hussain stated that on 19-3-1982 he was the S.H.O. At Kandhra Police Station and on that day at about 4-00 p.m. Muhammad Bux came and lodged report (Exh.15).
25. ' Injured P.W. Molidino, Imamdino, Achar, Meeno and Kalandar also came at the police station and he has prepared the Mashirnama of injuries (Exh.24) and recorded their statement. He referred injured to M.O. (Medical Officer) Kandhra for examination and treatment. Sher Muhammad and Niaz also came at the police station and he arrested them and prepared Mashirnama as Exh.67. He came at the Wardat, which was in Survey No,200, Deh Tari, where dead bodies of Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino were lying. He secured bloodstained earth and prepared Mashirnama (Exh.66) and inquest report of dead bodies of Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino (Exhs.25 and 26). He sent dead bodies to Civil Hospital, Sukkur for post-mortem. He recorded the statement of Sher Muhammad and Molidino. On 29-3-1982, he arrested Khan Muhammad, Achar, Meero, Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Murad. And Jaro and prepared Mashirnama (Exh.61), Appellant Sher Muhammad produced hatchet and he secured and prepared Mashirnama (Exh.58). Appellant Niaz Muhammad produced Lathi, which was not blood-stained. Such Mashirrama (Exh.60) was prepared. Accused Jaro prepared gun of deceased and a hatchet. He prepared Mashirnama (Exh.65). Jaro also produced blood-stained hatchet and he prepared Mashirnama (Exh.59). Murad produced blood- stained Danda and he prepared Mashirnama. Nawaz produced hatchet and such Mashirnama was prepared. A case was registered under section 13-D against accused Jam on behalf of the State. The blood-stained articles were sealed and sent to the expert and he produced report of the Chemical Examiner as Exh.68. He recorded the F.I.R. Of crime No,12/82 at Kandhra Police Station under sections 324, 147 and 148, P.P.C. This report was lodged by the appellant Sher Muhammad.
26. ' In cross-examination, he stated that when he reached at the Wardat he found Shaman, Lal Khan, Rajor, Niaz Muhammad, Usman and Khuda Bux from the accused side lying injured and they were also referred to Civil Hospital for examination treatment and certificate 4 or 5 pairs of bullocks were also available belonging to accused party and he has stated that the land of Wardat was in possession of accused Sher Muhammad, who was lying on his land with his family members.
27. ' Appellant Sher Muhammad in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. (Exh.70) has denied the allegations and stated that he was in possession of the disputed land. He purchased the land from Manshomal under registered sale-deed. With regard to the injuries, he stated that there was a fight and P.Ws., who were aggressors, caused injuries to him, accused Niaz Muhammad and 6 others, who were witnesses in the counter-case. He produced his statement in writing as Exh.71 alongwith documents Annexures 'A' to 'L'.
28. ' Appellant Niaz Muhammad has adopted the Statement of his brother co-accused Sher Muhammad. His statement is Exh.72.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate for the appellants, it is contended by the learned counsel that appellants have been convicted on the basis of the evidence of Achar, Haji and Kalandar Bux and evidence of complainant Muhammad Bux, Meeno and Molidino have been disbelieved. It is submitted that the evidence against appellants and the co-accused is identical.
29. The recoveries have not been believed and it has been held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that this is a case of free fight. The contention of Mr. Hayat Junejo is that the accused purchased the land from Manshomal by registered sale-deed and this point has not been considered by the trial Court. It is argued that there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Mr. Junejo has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1962 SC 502, PLD 1983 SC 79, PLD 1985 SC 11 and 1985, 1992.
30. ' Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Assistant Advocate-General, submitted that in the counter-case, the complainant party was acquitted by the learned Judge, therefore, he has rightly held that the case is of a free fight. He argued that there is a direct allegation against the appellants that they caused hatchet injuries to both the deceased.
31. ' In the present case 10 accused, namely, Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Murad, Muhammad Nawaz, Meero, Muhammad Jial and Jaro were sent up for trial and out of them only appellants Sher Muhammad and Niaz Muhammad have been convicted while remaining 8 accused were acquitted by the learned Bird Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The evidence against the accused is ocular testimony of 6 witnesses, the recoveries and the motive. The trial Court in its judgment decided that the accused had not framed unlawful assembly. The presence of the complainant Muhammad Bux eye-witnesses, Imamdino, Meeno and Molidino has not been believed. The evidence of the Mashirs have been discarded as such he has not considered and believed to the recoveries. He has convicted the appellants Sher Muhammad and Niaz Muhammad on the basis of the evidence furnished by three eye-witnesses, namely, Achar, Haji and Kalandar Bux. The prosecution has not filed any acquittal appeal against the 8 acquitted accused. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has also not argued this aspect of the case. It is in evidence that five persons, namly, Jial, Noor Muhammad, Sher Muhammad, Jaro and Muhammad Murad were armed with hatchets and they all accused hatchet injuries to deceased Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino, Achar in his evidence clearly stated that accused Noor Muhammad gave him hatchet injury. P.W.
32. Haji stated that Jial caused him hatchet injury. The evidence of Kalandar Bux and Meeno is that they sustained injuries at the hands of Nawaz, Niaz and Jaro. It is very important to note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted Noor Muhammad, Niaz, Murad and Jaro, who has hatchets. Molidino also specifically stated that he sustained injuries at the hands of Jaro and Muhammad Murad. The trial Court has believed the evidence of 3 witnesses to the extent of causing injuries to deceased Wali Muhammad, Sahibdino only, but he has acquitted those persons, who alleged to have caused injuries to these witnesses. It is in the evidence of these witnesses, who were believed that all the 5 (five) accused who were armed with hatchets caused injuries to both the deceased, but out of them Jaro, Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Murad have been acquitted, but only appellants Sher Muhammad having hatchet and Niaz Muhammad having Lathi, have been convicted. According to the post-mortem report deceased Wali Muhammad sustained three incised injuries caused by sharp-cutting weapons when deceased Sahibdino sustained 3 injuries out of which 2 by sharp cutting while injury No,3 resulted wounds caused by hard and blunt substance. There is general allegation that 5 (five) accused gave injuries to deceased and it is in the F.I.R. That accused were armed with Lathi caused injuries to them, but evidence of 3 eye- witnesses, who were believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is contrary to the F.I.R.
33. Achar (Exh.17) stated that Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino received injuries at the hands of Sher Muhammad, Jaro, Noor Muhammad, Jial and Muhammad Murad, who gave hatchet injuries to them and other accused threatened him not to come near. He stated that Noor Muhammad gave him hatchet blow and he fell down and was not in senses. He has not attributed any part to appellant Niaz Muhammad for causing any injury with Lathi. He stated that he cannot say, who caused injuries to whom. He has denied the presence of injuries on Sher Muhammad and Niaz Muhammad and stated that he was unarmed and also denied presence of Haji, Khuda Bux, Usman, Lal Bux, Lal Khan and Shaman. Another eye-witness Haji has also given the same evidence and stated that accused Niaz Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz gave him Lathi blows, but he was silent so far Lathi injuries caused to deceased. He has only stated that accused were armed with hatchet caused injuries to both the deceased with hatchet. Kalandar Bux has stated that he saw accused persons, who were armed with hatchets and were giving blows to deceased Wali Muhammad and Sahibdino. He stated that Nawaz and Niaz Muhammad attacked and gave him Lathi injuries. He has not attributed any part to Niaz for causing injuries to deceased. From the evidence of the above three witnesses, it is clear that no part has been attributed to Niaz Muhammad for causing injuries to the deceased when there is only one injury by hard and blunt substance on deceased Wali Muhammad. Since it has been held that there was a free fight then the case of every accused is to be decided on his individual liability. When there is an allegation that 5 accused caused hatchet injuries to the deceased and in all there are 5 injuries by sharp- cutting weapons on both the deceased. Therefore, it cannot he said that only Sher Muhammad caused these injuries to both the deceased. I have not been able to understand as to how the learned Additional Sessions Judge has distinguished the case of Sher Muhammad from others. He only convicted that Sher Muhammad and Niaz Muhammad are injured, and were present at Wardat, therefore, they are responsible for both murders. This can hardly be the basis of conviction.
34. There is another aspect of the case that S.H.O. When reached at the Wardat, found Lal Bux, Shaman, Usman, Lal Khan, Rajor and Khuda Bux lying injured and he referred all the injured to the Medical Officer. He stated that these injured were from the accused party. From the perusal of the medical certificate, it is clear that La! Bux sustained 7 injuries, out of which 4 are by sharp-cutting weapons and others by Lathis. Shaman sustained 3 injuries out of which 2 are incised wounds.
35. Usman sustained 4 injuries by hard and blunt substance. Lal Khan received 2 injuries. Rajor one injury and Khuda Bux also sustained injuries by hard and blunt substance. From the prosecution side, there is no explanation as to how these persons received injuries at the Wardat. Prosecution witnesses Achar received 4 injuries by sharp cutting and hard blunt substance. Imam Bux received 2 injuries by hard and blunt substance. Haji sustained 4 injuries by hard and blunt substance, but trial Court has acquitted these persons, who alleged to have caused the injuries to the witnesses, who were examined. Their evidence has partly been accepted to the extent of the injuries caused to the deceased. They arc eye-witnesses and injured when their evidence were not believed to the extent of injuries sustained by them. There is hardly any justification to believe the evidence against the appellants. The witnesses have not taken the plea of self-defence. They have stated that they were unarmed and not caused injuries to the other side. The admitted position is that 8 persons from the accused side including the appellant sustained injuries for which there is no explanation from the prosecution side. It is thus clear that both the parties have not come forward to give true account of the incident, and it is argued by both the learned counsel that the complainant side in the counter-case was acquitted. The motive has not been discussed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at length. S.H.O. Has admitted that at the time of incident appellant Shcr Muhammad was in possession of the land and house of the accused was built there. Not only this but the case of the appellants is much more stronger on the point that land was purchased by a registered sale-deed by Shcr Muhammad and the contention of the complainant is that there was only sale-agreement between him and Manshomal.
6. I am of the view that the conviction on the basis of evidence of these 3 eye-witnesses does not inspire confidence. The trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to eight accused, who were armed with hatchet, gun and Lathis on the same evidence. The evidence of complainant, which was stated to be available at land, has not been believed when the evidence of those persons, who came on cries has partly been believed and partly been disbelieved as such the case of the present appellants is not free from doubt.
36. ' For the reasons stated above, I allow the appeal. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.