1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Appellants Mansab, Khana, Abdur Rahman and Jumma, all by caste Awans, have been sentenced to transportation for life each under section 302/34, P. P. C. By the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, by judgment dated the 24th February 1964, for murdering Muhammad Taj on the afternoon of 21st October 1963, when he was returning to his village Jodh, after he had attended a Magistrate's Court at Rawalpindi. Their conviction was upheld by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West, Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1964, decided on the 24th February 1967. The appellants have filed this appeal by special leave against the said judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 20th October 1963, deceased Muhammad Taj attended a case filed by hi m under sections 496-498, P. P. C. In Rawalpindi. When he appeared in that case he was informed that a case under section 366, P. P. C. Had been filed against him and he was asked to furnish surety. Mirzaman stood surety and the bail bonds were attested by P. W. Fateh Muhammad.
3. On the comple--tion of these proceedings, the deceased accompanied by Fateh Muhammad left for Rawalpindi by the afternoon train which reached Golra at about 5-00 p.m. They proceeded from there to the village of the deceased and had reached an area called Dane-were when they found the four appellants armed with sticks sitting on a banna. Abdur Rahman appellant shouted a lalkara upon which Mansab, Khana and Abdur Rahman gave blows each on the head of the deceased who fell down and thereafter all the four appellants gave beating to the deceased. At that time, Nauroze and Muhammad Iqbal who had also returned by the same train and were on their way to village Jodh, saw this incident. Muhammad Taj succumbed to his injuries a few minutes later. The appellants threatened the eye-witnesses and fled away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, eye-witness Nauroze went to village Jodh to inform the relatives of the deceased. Muhammad Iqbal remained at the spot to look after the dead body and Fateh Muhammad went to Golra Police Station to lodge the First Information Report, Exh. P. G. At 7-30 p.m.
4. The First Information Report was recorded by Rai Shah Muhammad. He made inquiries till 1-30 a.m.
5. He recorded the statement of Nauroze and Muhammad Iqbal at 12-30 midnight. Some of the appellants were arrested on the 23rd October 1963, and the remaining were arrested by Sher Zaman, A. S. I., Police, on the 24th October 1963. Sticks, Exhs. P. 7, P. 8 and P. 9 were produced by the appellants but nothing hinges on them because they were not found stained with human blood.
6. The motive of the offence is alleged to be that Muhammad Taj deceased had enticed away Mst.
7. Karam Jan twice. She is widow of Sarwar, real brother of Bahadur, father of appellant Mansab. Mst.
8. Kay-am Jan was restored on the intervention of the baradri twice. She ran away with the deceased who married her. She was again restored to her people and was retained by Bahadur. On this occasion, deceased filed a complaint under sections 494 and 498, P. P. C.
9. The appellants have denied all the allegations against them and have expressed their ignorance about this incident. Their plea is that they have been implicated due to long outstanding enmity with the alleged eye-witnesses. They have even denied the abduction of Mst. Karam Jan and her marriage with the deceased.
10. The conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of P. W. Fateh Muhammad, P. W. Nauroze and P. W. Muhammad Iqbal.
11. Leave was granted in this case to consider the question whether the same finality should be attached to appraisal of evidence by one Judge of the High Court which formerly attached to the findings recorded by a Division Bench, and whether the judgment under consideration lacks the depth which is expected of a final Court of appeal.
12. The argument of the learned counsel has received our anxious consideration. We have examined the plan, Exh. P. A., and are satisfied that the dead body of the deceased was found from the path and not from a place at a distance of 30 to 40 karams as stated by Nazir Ahmad, Patwari. It was urged by the learned counsel that P. W. Fateh Muhammad's statement is not a statement of truthful witness because he was a resident of Dhok Sarai Kharbuza and had no business to go to village Jodh. This contention has also no force because as pointed out by the High Court, it is true that he had not to go to village Jodh where the deceased resided but his evidence shows that he had intended to accompany the deceased and, thereafter, to go to his village. We also do not find anything strange about this conduct of the witness. There is no doubt that this witness was present on the spot as he lodged the First Information Report at Golra Police Station which is at a distance of about three miles from the spot. If he had not been present on the scene of occurrence, he would not have been able to lodge First Information Report at 7-30 p.m. Besides his statement that he was with the deceased at Rawalpindi on the day of occurrence and he attested the bail bonds is supported by the record of the Case No. 167/2 of 1953 (Mst. Karam Jan v. Muhammad Taj and Karim Dad), a case pending under sections 376, 342 and 354/406, P. P. C. And also from the record of the Case No. 168/2 of 1963 (Muhammad Taj v. Bahadur Ali) under sections 498, 493, 344, 494/511, P. P. C. On this evidence, it is quite satisfactorily proved that both the deceased and eye-witness Fateh Muham--mad were at Rawalpindi and bad attended the Court on that day. In the presence of this evidence, his further statement that he had accompanied the deceased from Rawalpindi to Golra and thcn accompanied him to his village appears to be a true statement. Similarly, the statement of P. W. Nauroze and Muhammad Iqbal also appears to be a statement truthful witness.
13. They belong to the Awan caste to which the parties belong. They also live in village Jodh and are milk --seller by profession. Their evidence that they go to Rawalpindi to sell milk and return to their village in the afternoon appears to be a true statement. In these circumstances, the mere fact that they are related to the deceased or interested persons or somewhat hostile to the appellants' party is no ground to disbelieve their evidence. Learned counsel also referred us to certain discrepancies in the statement of the eye--witnesses. These discrepancies are of a minor character and can-- not belittle the value of their evidence.
14. It was urged that according to the view of this Court, the evidence of such witnesses should have been corroborated by some independent evidence. Mr. Dilawar Mahmood, learned Assistant Advocate-General, has referred us to a decision of this Court in the case of Nazir and others v. The State (PLD 1962 SC 269). It was held in that case that there cannot be an inflexible rule that the statement of interested witnesses can never be accepted without corroboration. We have, however, looked for some corroboration of the statement of the eye-witnesses. We find that the injuries on the deceased person showed that more than one person participated -in the crime.
15. There were three contused wounds on the head of the deceased. Six contusions were on the left side of the back of the chest. One con--tusion over the left buttock and one contusion over the back of upper arm. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the number of the assailants could have been less than four and someone from amongst the appellants is falsely added, is purely conjectural.
16. After going through the evidence of the prosecution we are satisfied that the conviction of the appellants is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no ground to inter--fere. The appeal is dismissed.
17. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-I agree.