1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Saleem convict/appellant, through leave of the Court on jail petition, has called in question his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. And sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 5,000. Or in default one year for having committed the murder of Jalal Din, his step uncle, passed by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 25-9-1990. The leave granting order is as follows:-- ' The enmity between the parties was found established by the High Court. It was of such a nature that the petitioner had to sell his land and leave the village to settle elsewhere. Further, the High Court held `the evidence as to motive is doubtful and the prosecution having made an effort to set it up failed to substantiate it and, therefore, it must suffer'. The trial Court found the recovery evidence discrepant but believed it. The High Court did not reject it but at the same time did not rely on its corroborative value and proceeded to consider the case to be one of those exceptional cases where in spite of such enmity and the witnesses being interested no need for further corroboration existed. Such a' iew of the law requires examination for which it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal."
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 7-11-1986 at 6.00 a.m. Abdul Sattar complainant PW-10 was proceeding towards his cotton field to ease himself while the deceased Jalal Din and the appellant Muhammad Saleem were going ahead of him at some distance. Farzand Ali PW-11 and Rehmat Ali (given up) also came there to wash their hands in the water channel. The accused and the deceased turned towards the Dera of the deceased and after covering some distance they started altercating with each other followed by exchange of abuses. The appellant brought out .12 bore pistol from his dub and fired at the deceased hitting him on his chest as a result whereof he fell down on the ground and expired. The complainant tried to apprehend him but they could not do so on account of threatening by the appellant with dire consequences and he made good his escape. The motive alleged is that the appellant wanted the deceased to alienate his property in his favour, he being issueless to which the deceased was not agreeable and instead was bent upon gifting the same in favour of his daughters. After the usual investigation, challan against the appellant was submitted to the Ilaqa Magistrate who in his turn sent up the accused for trial before the Court of sessions where, after the framing of necessary charge-sheet, recording of prosecution evidence and recording the statement of the accused/appellant wider section 342, Cr.P.C. He was found guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced to death and fine of Rs,5,000 or in default one year R.I. Vide judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 17-1-1988.
3. However, on appeal the conviction of the appellant under section 302, PPC was maintained but sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment, as according to the High Court, the motive was shrouded in mystry. Hence the instant appeal.
4. ' We have heard Mr. Nasir Saeed Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General, for the State, and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds contained in the leave granting order and submitted that the prosecution witnesses being inimical to the appellant, had falsely implicated him for the murder of his step-uncle and that they being interested witnesses, their deposition without corroboration could not form the sole basis for the coviction of the appellant. It is admitted by Abdul Sattar complainant PW-10 in his statement in Court that his distant cousin Faryad was murdered for which Muhammad Saleem appellant, his brother Islam and one Gulzar were charged but acquitted by the Court. Farzand Ali PW-11 is his brother and thus both of them were apparently inimical to the appellant but at the same time they could not be termed as friendly to Jalal Din deceased who was admittedly the step-uncle of the appellant and was prosecuting the earlier criminal case on behalf of the appellant. These PWs have stuck to their version from the stage of F.I.R. Till the conclusion of the trial. Had they falsely implicated the appellant for the murder of the Jalal Din, his own step-uncle, his heirs which included his daughters, widow and sister would have made hue and cry and would have been able to influence the investigating agency to exonerate the appellant of the charge. They could even enter into compromise with him in the instant proceeding if they were satisfied about the innocence of the appellant. No doubt, it is the rule of criminal jurisprudence that depending upon facts of a case, interested witnesses might not be believed unless materially corroborated from other facts and circumstances of the case which appears to be lacking in this case as the recovery of the crime empties from the spot and the positive report of the ballistic expert according to which the empties were fired from the .12 bore pistol recovered at the instance of the accused, was not accepted by the lower Courts as a measure of abundant caution, but the learned High Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Niaz v. The State (PLD 1960 SC 387) came to the conclusion that the evidence of interested witnesses can be believed if they ring true. The trial Court as well the High Court on proper appraisal of the evidence of these two witnesses have believed their presence at the time of the occurrence and this being a decision on facts is not open to challenge before this Court as we do not find any illegality in the conclusions arrived at by the lower two forums. No doubt, the motive alleged could not be established affirmatively but that by itself cannot cast any aspersion on the veracity of the PWs who were. Strangers to the family of the appellant and of the deceased and were not expected to know about the actual motive. The motive being shrouded in mystery, the benefit of lesser sentence provided under the law was grantee to the appellant and that was all he could expect from the High Court Resultantly, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed.