ABDUL HAYEE QURESHI, J.-This appeal has been filed by eight persons namely Sharafuddin son of Hamza, Ghulam Hyder son of Ghulam Rasool. Habibullah son of Arz Muhammad, Abdul Rahman son of Koural, Jamalud--din son of Muhammad Siddiq, Dhani Rux son of Kehar Khan, Abdul Ghafoor son of Muhammad Hussain, Din Muhammad son of Chuttal, who have been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, under sections 147, 302/149, 324/149 and section 1413, P. P. C. They were awarded R. I. For one year under section 147, P. P. C., transportation for life under section 302/149, P.
P. C., and two years' R. I. Under section 324/149, P. P. C. And one year R. I. Under section 148, P. P. C. Ail the appellants have filed an appeal and have been represented before us by Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, except that appellant Habibullah has been represented by Mr. Azhar A.I Siddiqui. The State was represented before us by Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A. G. And Mr. Ghiyasuddin Baloch has appeared for the complainant and has assisted the Asstt. A.G.
2. All the appellants are closely related to each others. Appellant Jamaluddin is the cousin of appellant Abdul Ghafoor; appellant Abdul Rehman is uncle of appellant Ghulam Haider and second cousin of appellant Sharfuddin. Appellant Din Mohd. Is again an uncle of Ghulam Haider, and Dhani Bux is a nephew of Din Mohd. Appellant Habibullah besides having blood relationship with the appellants is also married to the sister of appellant Abdul Rehman. Suffice it to say that all the appellants are not only closely related to each other but belong to the same family.
On the other hand deceased Tahir,-the injured Mooso, and eye-witnesses Dhani Bux and Abdul Karim are also closely related Inter se and also related to the appellants.
The parties are Zangejas by case and are residents of Ismail Khan village within the Pano Akil Taluka of Sukkur District. Mohammad Siddiq, the father of appellant Jamaluddin died about 15 years before the date of this incident which had taken place on 8-8-1969. He left about five or six- acres of land which by devolution under the Muslim Law were to be inherited by appellant Jamaluddin, his son; Mst. Hawa, his mother and Mst. Saeedan, his daughter. It appears that Jamaluddin used to cultivate this land and pay a portion of his earnings to Mst. Hawa and Mst.
Saeedan, married P. W. Dhani Bux, who in turn is the cousin of Jamaluddin. After the marriage of Saeedan a dispute arose with regard to this land which resulted in an application being made to the Revenue Authorities. Mohammad A.I, the Mukhtiar kar of Pano Akil, was directed by the Deputy Commissioner to change the record-of-rights in favour of all the three legal heirs i.e. Jamaluddin, Mst. Hawa and Saeedan. After this decision in regard to mutation was given by the Revenue Authorities appellant Ghulam Haider made an application -to the Mukhtiar kar of Pano Akil on 5-8- 1969 vie., three days before the incident, stating that he had purchased the land in question from Jamaluddin and therefore record-of-rights which showed him as the owner should not be mutated. This application was pending and Mohammad A.I, the Mukhtiar kar, had directed Ghulam Haider and Jamaluddin to be present on the land at 5 p. m. On 8-8-1969 because he would come and inspect the same. The Mukhtiar kar had also directed some persons from the complainant party to be present at the same time and place.
3. The prosecution story then is that deceased Mohammad Tahir, complainant Mohammad Mooso and P. Ws. Dhani Bux and Abdul Karim hited a Tanga (if P. W. Wahid Bux with a view to provide a lift for Muhammad A.I, Mukhtiar kar, across a canal. The evidence discloses that there is no moterable road on the other side of the canal. The party reached the canal at about 5 p. m., and witnesses Abdul Karim and Dhani Bux then went to the Otaq of the local Zamindar Muhammad Hasan Bullo to find out if the Mukhtiar kar had arrived. It is stated in evidence that this Otaq is at about 120 paces from the canal where this incident occurred. Abdul Karim and Dhani Bux were informed by P. W.
Attaullah, a nephew of Muhammad Hasan Bullo that the Mukhtiar kar had not yet reached. While Dhani Bux and Abdul Karim were returning from the Otaq of Muhammad Hasan Bullo, they saw all the 8 appellants coming from the Juwar cultivation and at that time each one of them had a knife.
Appellant Habibullah, a hunchback, incited his remaining seven companions to attack the party of deceased Tahir. On such instigation appellants Sharfuddin and Ghulam Haider are said to have caused three knife injuries on the head of comp--lainant Mooso whereas the other five appellants namely Abdul Rehman, Jamaluddin, Dhani Bux, Abdul Ghafur and Din Muhammad attacked deceased Tahir and caused him 13 stab wounds on account of which he died instantaneously.
Ataullah, Saindino and Wasant came running from the Otaq of Muhammad Hasan Bullo and witnessed the incident. It is stated in evidence that on arrival of these three persons the appellants started to running but Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider were apprehended by witnesses on the spot. Each one of these three appellants had a blood-stained knife and the shirt of appellant Sharfuddin was also blood-stained. The three appellants were made to sit in the Otaq of Muhammad Hasan Bullo and complainant Muhammad Mooso was asked by Ataullah to proceed to Pano Akil Police Station in the Tanga of Wahid Bux to lodge the report.
4. While this incident had taken place a little after 5 p. m. The report was lodged by Muhammad Mooso at Pano Akil Police Station at 8-30 p. m. This report (Exh. 15) was recorded by Zafar A.I, the S. H. O. Of Pano Akil Police Station. After recording the report the Police Officer prepared a Mashirnama (Exh. 45) of the injuries on the person of Mohammad Mooso. Muhammad Mooso was also examined by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti, Medical Offcer of the Government Dispensary at Pano Akil and he found three incised injuries on his person. These injuries have no depth and while one is skin deep, the other is superficial and the third is deep only up to the scalp. The Police Officer came to the scene of occurrence which was at a distance of four miles from the Police Station and saw the dead body of Tahir lying there. He held an inquest on the dead body in presence of two mashirs, one of whom was P. W. Mevo. The three appellants Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider, who had been apprehended on the spot were also arrested by police officer when they were produced before him by Attaullah. Sharfuddin was found to be having an injury on his right hand and his shirt was blood-stained. A Mashirnama to that effect was also prepared by the Police officer which is Exh.
23. Ataullah also produced three blood-stained knives, each one of which had been recovered from the possession of these three appellants at the time of their apprehen--sion. The police officer carried out investigation and recorded the statements of eye- witnesses. He also sent the blood-stained knives and the shirt of appellant Sharfuddin to the chemical analyser and each of these articles have been certified to be stained with human blood vide, Exh.
46. The Police Officer arrested appellant Abdul Rehman on 9-8-1969 from the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur where the appellant was in service. Appellant Abdul Ghafur was arrested on 10-8-1969 from his house at Sukkur. Appellant Dhani Bux was arrested by a Police Officer of Sukkur Police Station on 12-8-1969 and likewise Jamaluddin was arrested on 18-8- 1969, appellant Habibullah was arrested on 28-8-1969.
5. At the trial the prosecution examined complainant Mohammad Mooso (P. W. 4), Dhani Bux (P. W.
61, Abdul Karim (P. W. 7), Attaullah (P. W. 8), Saidino (P. W. 10), Wasand (P. W. 11) as eye-witnesses.
Wahid Bux, the Tonga driver was also examined but since he did not support the prosecution, he was treated as a hostile witness. The prosecution also examined Mohammad A.I (P. W. 3), the Mukhtiar kar, who, had dealt with the dispute concerning the land and Mst. Saeedan (P. W. 12) a co- sharer in the disputed land on point of motive. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Bhatti (Exh. 47) had been examined in the Committal Court and his evidence was brought on the record of the Sessions as Exh.
47. This medical officer examined complainant Mohammad Mooso and geld post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Tahir. The other witnesses were S. H. O. Zafar A.I, the investigating officer; Mevo (P. W. 5), the Mashir who had assisted the Police officer. The Tapedar, who prepared the sketch of scene of offence was also examined by the prosecution.
6. While the appellants did not examine any defence witnesses in their statements under section 342, Cr. P. C. They denied each and every allegation of the prosecution. Appellants Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider also denied their apprehension or recovery of incriminating articles. Appellant Sharfuddin stated that he was not present al the time of occurrence and he attributed his false implication to a dispute with complainant Mohammad Mooso regarding land.
He further stated that deceased Tahir was his paternal uncle. Appellant Ghulam Haider also denied his presence and pleaded that at the relevant time he had been called by the Additional District Magistrate, Sukkur, for appointment as a clerk. This appellant further stated that Mst. Hawa and Mst.
Saeedan had no interest in the disputed land which he had purchased from appellant Jamaluddin.
Appellant Din Mohammad also denied each and every allegation of the prosecution. He also stated that he bad a dispute with complainant Mohammad Mooso and that Mst. Saeedan and Mst.
Hawa had no share in that land. The remaining five appellants Habibullah, Abdul Rehman, Jamaluddin, Dhani Bux and Abdul Ghafoor substantially adopted the statements of the other three appellants namely Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider.
7. The learned trial Judge relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses. He also believed that three out of eight appellants had been apprehended at the spot and that blood-stained knives were recovered from them. The evidence relating to motive was used as corroboration. According to the learned Sessions Judge the evidence of Attaullah, Saidino and Wasant was not tainted by any malice or enmity. The learned Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that this was a pre- planned murder. The learned Sessions Judge also believed that Habibullah had instigated the remaining appellants.
8. There can be no manner of doubt that deceased Tahir died of the injuries that he received at the time of occurrence, and I am also not all in doubt that complainant Mohammad Mooso also received injuries in the transaction. The medical officer's evidence is very clear on the point and this evidence is strongly supported by the evidence of eye-witnesses and Investigating Officer.
Deceased Tahir received as many as 13 knife blows and the injuries caused to him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The only question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether this crime was committed by the appellants and if so who among them can be safely held to be guilty. All the eight appellants are closely related to each other and belong to one and the me family. It is also very char on the record that there was a dispute regard to the land of Siddiq, the father of appellant Jamaluddin. Mohammad A.I, the Mukhtiar kar of Pano Akil who has been examined as a prosecution, witness has produced some documents to show the proof of existence of this dispute. Exh. 10 is the copy of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur and the same states that appellant Jamaluddin alongwith Mst. Saeedan and Mst. Hawa were the legal heirs of deceased Siddiq and for that reason entitled to inherit the land of deceased Siddiq. Exhs. 11 and 12 are the copies of the record-of-rights. While Exh. 11 shows that the land of Mohammad Siddiq was mutated in the individual name of appellant Jamaluddin to the exclusion of Mst. Saeedan and Mst. Hawa; Exh.12 another document showing that the same land was transferred by appellant Jamaluddin to appeal ant Ghulam Haider. It appears that after the order by the Deputy Commissioner was passed, recognizing the share of Mst. Hawa and Mst. Saeedan, appellant Ghulam Haider made application (Exh. 13) to the Mukhtiar kar of Pano Akil alleging that Mst. Hawa and Mst. Saeedan were not the mother and daughter of Mohammad Siddiq and were for that reason not entitled to inherit any property left by Mohammad Siddiq. This application bears the signature of appellant Ghulam Haider and is dated 5-8-1959 viz. Three days before the date of incident. There is nothing on the record to indicate that this dispute had been settled to the satisfaction of the accused party. In fact the evidence of Mukhtiar kar Mohammad A.I clearly shows that he wanted to visit the site on 8-8-1969 at about 5 p. m. Under these circumstances the presence of the complainant party and the party of the appellants at the scene is very probable because the Mukhtiar kar was to come to that place for the settlement of this dispute.
Although the complainant party and the party of the appellants are closely related even to each other, but it cannot be overlooked that this dispute in regard to the land of Siddiq bad divided the family in two factions of rival supporters. While deceased Tahir was the son of the sister of Mst.
Hawa and for that reason a likely heir of Mst. Hawa in regard to a portion of the land, P. W. Dhani Bux on account of his marriage with Mst. Saeedan was also likely to obtain a part of this land. In fact the two female heirs of Siddiq may not be as deeply interested in the land as the male members of the family, who would acquire this land for their benefit through these women. It is, therefore, established that the motive as alleged by prosecution is correctly enunciated in the evidence.
9. The prosecution in this case has mainly relied on the evidence of seven eye-witnesses who have been named above. Out of these witnesses, Wahid Bux, the Tonga driver has not supported the prosecution and was treated as a hostile witness. On a reading of his evidence I find that his evidence does help the prosecution to the extent that the complainant party bad engaged his Tonga in order to provide conveyance for the Mukhtiar kar, who was to arrive on that day. He has also supported the prosecution in regard to apprehension of Sharfuddin, Dhani Bux and Ghulam Haider. He has stated that after the arrival of "five, six and seven" persons at the canal his horse shied and started running and he, therefore, followed his horse and did not see the incident. He however states that when he came back alongwith the horse he found that Tahir had died and a crowd of people bad collected. He also saw the three appellants who had been apprehended by the witnesses at the spot. To that extent his evidence is consistent with the remaining prosecution evidence and could be relied on.
10. The remaining six eye-witnesses could be divided in two groups, the first group comprising of complainant Mohammad Mooso and eye--witnesses Dhani Bux and Abdul Karim. They are the members of the same family and while Dhani Bux is the sister's son of complainant Mohammad Mooso, Abdul Karim is the son of a cousin of the complainant. Deceased Tahir was also related to each one of these three eye-witnesses. The other group consists of Attaullah, the nephew of Mohammad Hasan Bullo, Saidino and Wasant. Of these the later two are also Bullos by case who recognized Mohammad Hassan Bullo as their Sardar and have stated that while they live at a distance of a few miles from the scene of occurrence they had come on that day in connection with the settlement of a Karo-Kari dispute.
11. Coming to the evidence of the three witnesses Mohammad Mooso, Dhani Bux and Abdul Karim, I observe that they were as much interested in the dispute concerning the land of Mohammad Siddiq as the heirs of Mohammad Siddiq themselves. It is their admitted case that they had come to the canal bank because the Mukhtiar kar was to arrive for the purpose of holding some inquiries.
Although complainant Mohammad Moosa has stated in his evidence that relations between the party of the complainant and the party of the appellants were cordial and normal, I find that this assertion is far from true. The disputes concerning land very often lead to violence just as in this case. The mere existence of a dispute regardless of rights, genuine or assumed, do tend to embitter the relations between parties and, therefore, it is difficult to believe that relations between the rival claimants of laid could remain cordial. In fact the evidence in this clearly discloses partisanship. The evidence also discloses that some cases bad been filed by the accused party against Dhani Bux, Abdul Karim, and Bahadur, the father of Abdul Karim. An admission to that effect was made by P. W. Dhani Bux in the Court of the committing Magistrate. He; however, denied having made such a statement when he was examined to the Sessions Court and for that reason an extract from his deposition in the Committal Court was brought on record as Exh.
29. This extract reads as follows:-- "Accused have been filing false complaint(s) against me, Abdul Karim and Bahadur Complainant was co-accused with me in complaints filed by accused against us."
12. This appears to be the background of relations between the two parties, a background of enmity on account of false cases and dispute on account of land. The learned Asstt. A.G. Has, however, urged before us that since the party of the appellants is related to the complainant party; the evidence of such prosecution witnesses who belong to true complainant party should not be disbelieved. I am inclined to agree with him not for the reason that the complainant party is friendly or related to the party of the appellants but for the reason that the presence of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence is not seriously in doubt or disputed. The question that then arises is whether the evidence of these witnesses could be considered to be of a nature that should be acted upon without corroboration, regard being had to the background of enmity and partisanship. In that context I would first consider the case of appellant Habibullah. This appellant admittedly is a hunchback. Suffering from this physical disability it is improbable that he would take part in this transaction of violence. The prosecution witnesses, however, have assigned to him the part of instigation. The evidence is that he had come alongwith the other seven appellants and had stood on the bank of the canal and instigated others to assault the deceased and complainant party. In the F. I. R. Lodged by Mohammad Mooso, it was stated that he instigated his companions who committed the assault. Likewise the complainant in his evidence in Court has stated as follows:- "As soon as they reached, accused Habibullah incited his companions not to let go us. Accused shouted at us that our days were numbered. We started running towards Mohammad Hasan Bulo's Otaq and went on raising cries. Habibullah kept on instigating his companions while the other seven accused ran after us."
But it appears that the remaining witnesses had not implicated appellant Habibullah in their statements under section 164, Cr. P. C. Or in their evidence before the Committal Court. Dhani Bux states that he did not bear Habibullah instigating and in fact in his section 164, C r. P. C. Statement he had not stated that Hibibullah was even present. Similarly P. W. Abdul Karim had not disclosed the presence of Habibullah in his section 164, Cr. P. C. Statement. Likewise Attaullah, Saidino and Wasant bad not also implicated Habibullah either in the Committal Court or in their statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. It would thus seem that the prosecution witnesses attempted to build up a case of abetment and instigation against appellant Habibullah at the time of giving evidence in the Sessions Court, This circumstance clearly shows that the prosecution witnesses have a desire to implicate even such persons against whom they had not given evidence at the earlier stage of this case. That being so, it would indeed be in conson--ance with the rule of prudence and caution to scan arid analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses thoroughly and accept such portion of it as is consistent with the established and proved circumstances of the case. Whenever it is manifest that the prosecution witnesses have attempted to falsely implicate even one out of the several accused, the Courts have guarded against false implication of each one of the accused and in that case the Courts would normally not act without independent corroboration.
Our experience of evidence in criminal cases has shown that very often truth is alloyed with falsehood. Our experience also shows that there is a tendency in this province of Sind to implicate the maximum number of members of a family when an opportunity to implicate them on account of enmity arises. In the present case also it seems that the prosecution witnesses have implicated almost every adult member of the family to which the appellants belong. The glaring example is that of appellant Habibullah, in regard to whom a belated attempt has been made by the prosecution to bring a charge of incitement.
13. The learned Asstt. A. G. Ultimately conceded before us that the evidence of this group of witnesses namely the group of the complainant being interested should not be acted upon without corroboration. He, however, stated that the evidence of the other group of witnesses namely of Attaullah, Saidino and Wasant was independent evidence and should be used as corroboration.
Attaullah is the nephew of Mohammad Hasan Bubo. It is establishedon record that Mohammad Hasan Bullo was prosecuted in a case under the D. P. R. In 1965 and in that case Sulalman Malang, who is the father-in-law of appellant Ghafur and as such related to each of the appellants had given evidence against him. Mohammad Hasan Bullo is said to be the Sardar of the tribe of Bullos and for that reason must be an influential and powerful man in that locality. On the, other hand the party of the appellants are small cultivators. The fact of Sulaiman giving evidence against Mohammad Hasan Bullo would by itself be sufficient to hold Attaullah, a nephew of Mohammad Hasan to be an interested and inimical witness. What is more that the prosecution witnesses have in their evidence attempted to conceal the part that Mohammad Hasan Bullo had played at the time of this incident. Since the incident had taken place at a distance of only 120 paces from the Otaq of Mohammad Hasan Bullo, the presence of the latter at the scene of occurrence would be very probable. In that case the complainant party having sought the assistance of Mohammad Hasan Bullo in this case cannot be ruled out. Complainant Mohammad Mooso had in his deposition before the Committing Magistrate stated that he had first informed Mohammad Hasan Bullo about this incident at Pano Akil and had then gone to the police station. He even admitted that Mohammad Hasan had accompanied him to the police station. However, when he appeared in the Sessions Court he went back on his earlier statement. This appears to have been done with a view to lend a garb of independence to the evidence of Attaullah, Saidino and Wasand. In my view Attaullah being a nephew of Mohammad Hasan is inimical to the party of the appellants. He fully assisted the complainant party in the case by apprehending appellants Sharfuddin, Din Mohammad and Ghulam Haider and also asked Wahid Bux, Tonga Driver to provide a lift to complainant Mohammad Mooso for reaching the police station. The learned Asstt. A.G. Further stated that Saidino and Wasant had no cause to falsely implicate these appellants. These two witnesses are also Bullos by case. They are residing at a distance from the scene of occurrence.
While Saidino resides 8 or 9 miles from the wardat, Wasant also resides at about 5 miles. Normally these two witnesses should not have been at the scene of occurrence and, therefore, they were cross-examined on that point. Saidino has stated that he had come to the village of Mohammad Hasan Bullo in connection with the settlement of a Karo-Kari affair. He did not disclose the names of the Karo or Kari. He, however, stated that no settlement could take place on that day. Likewise Wasand also gave a similar explanation but without giving any particulars with regard to this Karo- Kari affair. He went to the extent of saying that because of this incident he did not disclose even the object of his visit to Mohammad Hasan Bullo. This witness was confronted with his statement in the Committal Court where he had stated that he had no special work but he had gone to Mohammad Hasan just to see him. In any case these witnesses do not appear to have given a satisfactory explanation with regard to their presence. These witnesses also have implicated Habibullah in regard to whose presence and participation I entertain serious doubts. That being so and further for the reasons that they are under the influence of Mohammad Hasan Bullo, I am of the view that the evidence of this group of witnesses also cannot be considered to be completely disinterested.
14. Having dealt with the evidence of the eye-witnesses I come to the conclusion that since members of a family have been implicated and there is a background of enmity between the parties it would not be safe to act on uncorroborated testimony of these witnesses. The corroboration in this case is furnished by the immediate apprehension of appellant Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider. I would, therefore, proceed to consider this aspect of the case.
15. These three appellants Sharfuddin, Din Mohammad and Ghulam Haider according to all the eye-witnesses were arrested on the spot alongwith blood-stained knives. The apprehension of these appellants on the spot is mentioned in the F. I. R. This report states that these three appellants were arrested by Attaullah, Abdul Karim and Dhani Bux. The S. H. O. War A.I and Mashir Mevo have also supported these witnesses. In that context. Both these witnesses have stated that they saw the three appellants at the wardat when they arrived there the same day. It is also stated in evidence that Ataullah produced these three appellants before the Police and they were arrested. A Mashirnama of their arrest was also prepared. The shirt of Sharfuddin was stained with blood and each one of three knives of the appellants has been found to be stained with human blood. The fact of the knife being stained with blood is spoken of in Mashirnama (Exh. 24) and Mashir Mavo has also deposed to that effect. The investigating officer was not at all cross- examined on the point of arrest of these appellants or recovery of the knives. The appellants in their statement have given no explanation with regard to this aspect of the case. Each one of them has only contented himself by denying this fact. Although appellant Ghulam Haider had in his statement said that at that time he had been called by the Additional District Magistrate, Sukkur for appointment as a clerk, he did not produce that Officer to give evidence in defence. This circumstance of the case is satisfactorily established. In fact all that Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo could urge was the delay in sending the knives to the chemical analyser. No doubt the knives were sent to the chemical analyser after about six months but it cannot be overlooked that the witnesses including the police officer and Mashir have categorically stated that these three appellants who bad caused injuries, were apprehended on the spot and blood-stained knives were recovered from them. This evidence is very significant and I have no hesitation in relying on the same.
16. In the result I would accept the evidence of the prosecution against such of the appellants in regard to whom the ocular evidence is corroborated. In regard to such appellants who are implicated only on the basis of ocular evidence, I would, following the rule of caution acquit them.
17. In the result the convictions and sentences of appellant Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider are maintained and their appeal is dismissed. The remaining appellants namely Habibullah, Abdul Rehman, Jamaluddin, Dhani Bux and A. Ghaffar are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
18. A faint attempt was made by Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo to distinguish the case of Sharfuddin and Ghulam Haider from the case of appellant Din Muhammad. The distinction was sought to be drawn on the basis of evidence which shows that whereas appellant Sharfuddin and Ghulam Haider had only caused injuries to complainant Mohammad Mooso, appellant Din Muhammad is said to have caused the murder of deceased Tahir.
The learned Advocate argued that since Mohammad Mooso had received only simple injuries Sharfuddin and Ghulam Haider cannot be saddled with the liability under section 34 or 149, P. P. C. It cannot be overlooked that all the three appellants had a common motive and belonged to the same party that was supporting Jamaluddin. It also cannot be overlooked that each one of them was armed with a knife and each one of them caused g injuries to the complainant party. The intention of all the three appellants was the same and for that reason each one of them would be liable for the act of others. In the circumstances of this case an inference of further--ance of common intention is not only justified but is inescapable. I see no substance in this contention and repel the same.
19. In the result, the appeal of Sharfuddin, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Haider is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the remaining appellants is allowed.
DORAB PATEL, J.---I agree.