1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--- Through the instant appeal, Muhammad Nazir appellant has challenged the order, dated 14-9-1988 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby his appeal against the order, dated 23-12-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi convicting him under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Iqbal deceased and sentencing him to death and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof to six months' R.I. Was dismissed and the death sentence confirmed.
2. Leave was granted for the reappraisal of the evidence in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence; that Mansabdar co-accused of the appellant who was attributed the role of effective firing at the deceased by Abdul Hameed P.W.5 and Sher Zaman P.W.6 was acquitted thereby disbelieving the evidence of the eye-witnesses with respect to the involvement of Mansabdar co-accused in the instant case and that the witnesses being interested were not worthy of credence.
3. ' The brief facts of the case are that the parties are closely related to. Each other. Abdul. Hameed complainant P.W.5, on the one hand, is the nephew of Muhammad Iqbal deceased and on the other his wife is the sister of Muhammad Nazir appellant. He is also the first cousin of the appellant.
4. His sister is also married to Muhammad Bashir brother of Muhammad Nazir appellant. Sher Zaman P.W.6 is the uncle of the complainant who is also the uncle of the appellant. Prior to the instant tragedy, Muhammad Zaman another uncle of the complainant was murdered on 19-11-1980 for which Muhammad Bashir and Abdul Aziz brothers of the appellant were charged alongwith their father Muhammad Afsar. Abdul Hameed complainant P.W.5 and Muhammad Iqbal deceased were cited as witnesses in the said case in which Muhammad Afsar had secured bail while his sons were behind the bars.
5. ' On the day of occurrence viz. 30-4-1983, Muhammad Iqbal deceased, Abdul Hameed P.W.5, Sher Zaman P.W.6 and Abdul Hakeem (not produced) started from their village at sunrise time for Rawalpindi and when they reached the place 'known as Hadanwali Cherhi, Mansabdar acquitted accused armed with .12 bore gun and Muhammad Nazir appellant armed with hatchet appeared on the scene and Muhammad Nazir appellant shouted to the deceased that they would not allow him to go away and will teach him a lesson for prosecuting the case of Muhammad Zaman deceased against them. The deceased ran away for safety. Mansabdar acquitted accused fired at him hitting him on his back and Nazir appellant came in front of him and gave him hatchet blows on his head and also on othei parts of his body when he fell down on the ground. Muhammad Iqbal died on the spot. Both the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased to a nearby depression and removed his clothes, shoes and Dhoti and took them away alongwith them. Sher Zaman P.W.6 came to the Courts at Rawalpindi while Abdul Hameed P.W.5 went to the police station leaving Muhammad Akbar to look after the dead body. He reported the murder to the police on the basis of which case F.I.R. Exh.PA. Was duly registered.
6. ' The police rushed to the spot from where blood-stained earth and pellet Exh.P.1 was recovered and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. On 11-5-1983 the appellant Muhammad Nazir while in police custody led the police party and produced hatchet P.2, Dhoti P.3 and shoes P.4/1-2 of the deceased from a place called Jabiwali which were taken into possession vide recovery memo.
7. Exh.P.C. On 25-5-1983 the acquitted accused produced gun Exh.P.5, Qamees P.6, Shalwar P.7 and Identity Card of Muhammad Iqbal P.8 from a place known as Jabiwali which were also taken into possession by police vide Exh.P.D. After the completion of the investigation, necessary challan was submitted to the Maga Magistrate who in his turn sent up the accused for trial before the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge-sheet against them, recorded the evidence produced by the prosecution, examined the accused under 342, Cr.P.C. Who also tendered themselves for cross-examination under section 44 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. On the appraisal of the evidence produced by the prosecution and the statements of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the introductory part of the judgment, but extending the benefit of doubt to his co-accused Mansabdar, acquitted him of the charge. The appeal filed before the High Court by the appellant having failed and the death sentence confirmed by the High Court, hence the instant appeal through leave of the Court.
8. ' We have heard Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate for the appellant, Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate for the State and have been taken through the record of the case by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the arguments incorporated in the leave granting order. He laid much emphasis on the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus and submitted that once the trial Court came to the conclusion that Abdul Hameed P.W.5 and Sher Zaman P.W.6 had perjured themselves by implicating an innocent person, namely, Mansabdar, a close relation of theirs, their testimony qua the appellant was equally not credit worthy and the appellant too, was entitled to acquittal. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court have taken pains to sift the grain from the chaff and finding the charge against the appellant duly proved from the ocular evidence corroborated by other facts and circumstances of the case, convicted him but since according to the learned trial Judge the charge of firing was not corroborated by any injury of fireshot on the deceased, the co-accused of the appellant, as a matter of abundant precaution, was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The learned trial Judge has not disbelieved the evidence in toto but has advanced convincing and plausible reasons in support of the presence of the P.Ws. On the spot at the time of occurrence and witnessing the tragedy. As stated earlier, the parties are closely related to each other and there is no reason why Abdul Hameed and Sher Zaman P.Ws. Have charged the appellant falsely for the murder of Muhammad Iqbal deceased. Their presence at the spot is natural as both of them as well as Muhammad Iqbal deceased and Abdul Hameed P.W. Were witnesses in the earlier case which was fixed before the Court on the date of occurrence and they had to accompany each other for attending the Court for giving evidence in the Court and there is nothing unusual in their this assertion. Dr. Mahmood Khan, Medical Officer P.W.11 positively stated in the examination-in- chief that if injury by sharp-edged weapon is inflicted on the same injury where there is a small pellet on the body the injury by the pellet cannot be identified which is very rare phenomenon.
9. When questioned under cross-examination he deposed that he cannot give the dimension of the hole which was present on the backside of the shirt which was slightly blackened and, according to him, it was not necessary that there should be blackening on the injury as well, as the shirt had slight. Blackening. In the circumstances, the trial Court deemed it proper that in the absence of positive evidence regarding fire-arm injury, the safest course of dispensation of criminal justice had to be adopted and in consequence extended only the benefit of doubt to Mansabdar accused but, by no stretch of imagination, this can benefit the appellant in any way, as against him the charge was well-founded and proved to the hilt. We are, therefore, convinced that the lower two forums on appreciation of evidence produced in the case convicted the appellant and, there being no legal flaw therein, no interference is called for.
10. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed.