AJMAL MIAN, J: --By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above two petitions as the leave is sought against the common judgment dated 28-11-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 1987 whereby the convictions under section 302/34, PPC on two counts for murdering Ali Khan and Mst. Ghulam Fatima were maintained against accused Mazhar Ali and Iftikhar Ahmad (who are petitioners in Cr.P.No.10-R/89 and respondents Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.P.No.116-R/88), hereinafter reference to respondents will mean respondents in Criminal Petition No. 116-R of 1988, and the sentences of life imprisonment plus a fine of Rs.10,000 or two years' R.I. In default plus compensation of Rs.15,000 under section 544-A Cr.P.C. Were sustained against them, whereas the conviction and the above sentences under section 302/34, PPC against accused Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Akram (respondents Nos.3 and 4) were set aside. P.S.L.A. No.4 of 1988 against the acquittal and Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1987 for the enhancement of sentences filed by the complainant were dismissed,
2. The facts to be noted are that on 28-5-1985 at 7.00 a.m. Deceased Ali Khan and deceased Mst.
Ghulam Fatima had come to attend a case in the Sessions Court pending inter alia against them under the Hadood Ordinance in the area of Imambara Road, Attock City, when they were allegedly attacked by respondents Nos. I to 10. The complaint was lodged by P.W-10 Haq Nawaz, a close relation of the deceased Ali Khan (petitioner in the above Cr.P.No.116-R of 1988) immediately after occurrence which was recorded by P.W-12 Faiz Muhammad, S.I. It was converted into a formal F.I.R.
By P.W-7 Bahadur Khan, A.S.I. At 8.35 a.m. At the Police Station Attock City. The motive alleged was that Mst. Ghulam Fatima, real sister of accused Iftikhar Ahmad (petitioner in Cr.P.No.10-R/891 anti acquitted accused Muhammad Ali and cousin of accused Mazhar Ali, was eloped by deceased Ali Khan in respect of which the above case under the Hadood Ordinance was initiated, whereas according to deceased Ali Khan he was lawfully married with Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
Respondents Nos.1 to 4 were arresteed on 28-5-1985, whereas respondents Nos. 5 to 10 were arrested on 6-6-1985. The Investigating Officer upon' completion of the investigation, found that there was no case against respondents Nos. 5 to 10 and, therefore, he submitted challan against respondents Nos. 1 to 4. However, the complainant party filed a private complaint against respondents Nos. 5 to 10. The above State case and the private complaint (Session Case No. 14 of 1986 and Session Trial No. 54 of 1986) were proceeded together. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, by his judgment dated 21-3-1987 acquitted respondents Nos.5 to 10 and convicted respondents Nos.1 to 4 as above. Thereupon, respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1987, whereas the complainant party filed P.S.LA.No.4 of 1988 against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 5 to 10 and Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1987 for the enhancement of sentence of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from life imprisonment to death sentence. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal of respondents Nos.3 and 4 as stated above and dismissed the aforesaid P.S.L.A.No.4 of 1988 and Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1987 filed by the complainant party. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed Cr.P.No.10-R/89 against their convictions and sentences, whereas the complainant has filed the above Cr.P.N0.116-R/88 for the enhancement of the sentence. There seems to be no prayer against the acquittal in the above petitions.
3. We have heard Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioners in Cr.P.No:10-R/89 and Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner in Cr.P. No.116- R/88. The thrust of the arguments of Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf was that since the parties were admittedly on inimical terms, !He conviction against accused Mazhar Ali and Iftikhar Ahmad could not have been maintained on the basis of the evidence of the interested alleged eye-witnesses in the absence of any corroboration which was missing in the present case as the recoveries from the above accused were liable to be discarded. In furtherance of his above submission, he has pointed out that P.W. Hashim was one of the co-accused in the aforesaid Hadood cas,~ with the deceased, whereas Sher Afsar's wife was sister of deceased Ali Khan and that P.W. Ilaq Nawa; was also closely related to the deceased. His further submission that the alleged recovery of two chhuris on the pointation cannot be relied upon as the same were recovered from open field.
On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the complainant, has urged that the number of injuries on the persons of two deceased, namely, 17 on deceased Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 20 on deceased Ali Khan were. Compatible with the number of accused originally implicated and, therefore, the acquittal of respondents Nos.3 to 10 was not warranted.
Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the State, supported the judgment of the High Court.
4. We have gone through the two judgments of the two Courts below and the evidence on record, and we are inclined to take the view that the stand taken by Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned A.S.C.
Appearing for the State, seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record. There is no doubt that there was enmity between the parties and, therefore, to support the ocular evidence corroboration was required. Against accused Mazhar Ali and Iftikhar Ahmad we find corroboration in the form of recovery of blood-stained chhuris at the pointation of the above two accused Exhs.P.14 and P.15, respectively, and the Chemical Analyser's Report in the affirmative. The contention of Kh. Muhammad Yusuf Saraf that recoveries are liable to be discarded as the chhuris were. Allegedly recovered from open field, seems to be incorrect as the recoveries were made from reeds near the land of Arshad Shah and were witnessed by P.Ws. Hashim Khan and Sher Afsar.
Further corroboration is provided by the medical evidence. Whereas there was no reliable piece of corroborative evidence against accused Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Akram as the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular evidence on the question of nature of injuries attributed to the above two accused and there was also interpolation in respect of injuries Nos. 16 and 17 on the person of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The High Court has given the following reasons for acquitting the accused Muhammad AN and Muhammad Akram:-- "---------..He further contended that there are glaring interpolations in the injuries Nos.16, 17 with respect to Ghulam Fatima deceased which were changed as the lacerated wounds which were in fact incised wounds. There is no independent. Corroboration of ocular testimony from the medical evidence. The learned counsel for the defence submitted that in fact the medical evidence is m conflict with ocular evidence, presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot and the occurrence being a day time occurrence would not be sufficient to convict Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Ali who were armed with iron rod Exh.P.16 and Danda Exh.P.17 not being sharp-edged weapons. There is some force in the submissions of the learned counsel, the injuries Nos. 16, 17 suffered by Mst.
Ghulam Fatima deceased attributed to Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Akram appellants seems to be over-written and changed from incised to lacerated wounds. In my opinion the case against Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Akram is not free from doubt, they are entitled to acquittal they shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case."
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has dilated upon the question of sentence and has given the following cogent reasons for awarding lesser punishment of imprisonment for life in place of the normal sentence of death:-- "Now coming to the quantum of sentence we find that it was the case of the prosecution itself that the accused had murdered both the deceased because Ali Khan deceased had abducted Mst.
Ghulam Fatima deceased who was closely related to the accused. There is no dearth of authorities that when the murder is committed in vindication of the family honour then it would 'he considered a mitigating circumstance and lesser sentence of imprisonment for life would serve the ends of justice."
The High Court has concurred with the above sentence. We, therefore, feel that it is not a fit case where this Court should grant leave on the question of quantum of sentence or even on the question of acquittal of respondents Nos.3 to 10.
6. For the foregoing reasons both the above petitions have no merits.Leave is accordingly refused.