1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Sultan, appellants herein, through leave of the Court, call in question the judgment dated 13-10-1990 passed by a learned Divison Bench of the Lahore High Court, whereby their appeal against their conviction and sentences under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. Was dismissed with the only modification that the death sentence imposed upon Abdul Aziz was reduced to life imprisonment and, in consequence, the murder reference made by the learned Sessions Judge vide his older dated 15-3-1988 was not confirmed.
2. Leave was granted for the reappraisal of evidence on the following points:-- "(1) According to F.I.R. And ocular evidence, four accused persons were involved and specific roles were assigned to them but trial Court has convicted only two and acquitted the remaining two.
(2) Prosecution has examined only two eye-witnesses namely, complainant Dholar and injured eye-witness Abdul Aziz, who are both related to deceased Muhammad Ramzan. Two other eye- witnesses namely, Muhammad Yar and Bagh Ali, who are shown in F.I.R. To have come to the spot and seen the incident, have not been examined and given up as unnecessary. There is admitted and recorded background of enmity between the parties including filing of cases and this is so admitted by two eyewitnesses named above, in their cross-examination.
(4) Evidence of eye-witness Dholar is assailable on grounds, firstly, that he did not live in the locality where incident took place and secondly, that if he was present alongwith deceased then why he was not attacked like deceased and eye-witness Abdul Aziz and why was he spared.
(5) Evidence of injured eye-witness Abdul Aziz is assailable on the ground that he is interested and has admitted enmity, as such there is no guarantee that he has spoken the whole truth particularly, when trial Court did not believe his version partly and acquitted two accused persons.
3. Secondly, although he was taken to the hospital alongwith deceased, still doctor said that injuries of this witness were about 4 hours old.
(6) Corroboratory evidence of recovery of weapons can be questioned on the grounds firstly, that all accused persons were arrested on 12-1-1986, when weapons were recovered from them on 21-1- 1986 (after delay of 9 days), while accused remained in police custody. Secondly, all weapons were found to be blood-stained when accordingly to F.I.R. Only knives were used by Aziz and Sultan and the remaining two accused persons were given role of catching hold of deceased Ramzan and P.W. Abdul Aziz. Thirdly, there were other inmates in the houses from where weapons were recovered."
4. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Dholar complainant P.W.1 alongwith his brother Muhammad Ramzan deceased and Abdul Aziz P.W.2 (their sister's sons) had gone to Qabula town for the purchase of some spare parts of tractor and on their return, when they were proceeding towards their fields where the tractor was standing in unserviceable condition at 2-30 p.m., Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Sultan appellants armed with knives alongwith Ghulam Farid and Hassan acquitted accused armed with Sotas shouted to Muhammad Ramzan deceased and Abdul Aziz P.W. That they would teach them a lesson for helping Ali Sher etc. In the civil litigation and simultaneously Ghulam Farid acquitted accused caught hold of Muhammad Ramzan deceased and Abdul Aziz delivered him a knife blow on the chest hitting him on the right side of chest and Hassan acquitted accused held Abdul Aziz P.W. In his grip and Muhammad Sultan appellant gave a knife blow to him hitting him on the upper part of abdomen. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Muhammad Yar and Bagh All as well. Muhammad Ramzan succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Dholar complainant P.W.1 went to the police station Qabula and lodged report Exh. PA.
5. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be the land dispute between the accused party and All Sher etc. Brothers of the wife of Muhammad Ramzan deceased in which the deceased used to help him. After necessary investigation in the case the appellants and the acquitted accused were placed on trial before the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who, on the appraisal of the evidence produced before him by the prosecution, the statement of the accused under sections 342, Cr.P.C. And 340(2), Cr.P.C., vide his judgment dated 15-3-1988, convicted both the appellants under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P.P.C. Abdul Aziz appellant was sentenced to death subject to confirmation by the High Court and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default further two years' R.I. Under section 302/34, P.P.C.
6. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default six months' R.I. Under section 307/34, P.P.C. It was further ordered that if the sentence of death is not confirmed by the High Court and altered to one for life imprisonment or any other period, then both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Muhammad Sultan appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default two years R.I. Under section 302/34, P.P.C. And to seven years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default six months' R.I. Under section 307/34, P.P.C.
7. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Both the appellants were also burdened with the payment of Rs,25,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default six months' S.I. And Rs,3,000 each as compensation to Abdul Aziz P.W. Or in default two months' S.I. Each. The compensation referred to above was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Ghulam Farid and Hassan accused were, however, extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, through the impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants but commuted the death sentence imposed upon Abdul Aziz appellant to life imprisonment.
8. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Advocate, for the appellants; ' Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate for the State; and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the points enumerated in the leave granting order and submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for their acquittal. The learned State, counsel, on the other hand, controverted the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and stressed, that the guilt of the accused was proved from the eye-witness account furnished by Dholar P.W,1 and Abdul Aziz P.W.2 coupled with the medical and circumstantial evidence in the case.
10. ' The occurrence, according to the F.I.R. Exh.PA, took place at 2-30 p.m. On 7-1-1986 and the report was lodged on the same day at 4-00 p.m. By Dholar complainant P.W.1 in Police Station Ahmad Yar District Sahiwal distant 9 miles from the police station. Abdul Aziz P.W.2 was examined by Dr. Faiz Hussain P.W.9 at 4-30 p.m. On the same day who found a stab wound on the front of right chest and according to his opinion the injury was caused to him within four hours of the examination.
11. Under cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the injury on the person of Abdul Aziz P.W.
12. Could be by a friendly hand. Obviously, the F.I.R. Was lodged with promptitude and the details of the occurrence have been exhaustively described in the F.I.R. Attributing stab wound of the deceased to Abdul Aziz appellant and that of the Abdul Aziz P.W. To Muhammad Sultan appellant.
13. The promptitude of the F.I.R. Is also supported by the circumstantial evidence of the semi-digested food found in the stomach of the deceased by the doctor at the time of postmortem examination.
14. The presence of Dholar complainant P.W.1 on the spot at the time of occurrence appears to be natural. The presence of Abdul Aziz P.W. On the spot cannot be doubted at all because of the stamp of injury on his person. He is, no doubt, the sister's son of the deceased but it is highly improbable that he would falsely implicate innocent persons for his injury as well as that of Muhammad Ramzan deceased and allow the real culprits to go scot free whom he must have identified in the daylight. There is no material evidence on the file to show that the deceased and the injured P.W. Had any serious enmity with anybody else to make an attempt on their lives. On the other hand, their relations with the accused party were strained on account of the civil litigation between the accused and their in-laws.
15. The ocular evidence of Dholar P.W.1 and Abdul Aziz P.W.2 is supported by the circumstantial evidence as well. The I.O. On visiting the spot the same day recovered blood-stained earth, silencer Exh.P./1, a packet of D grease Exh.P.2, side-mirror of tractor Exh.P.3 and a pair of shoes of the deceased Exh.P.4/1-2 from the spot and a pin of tractor Exh.P.5, a ring containing key Exh.P.6 from the pocket of the deceased. The accused were arrested on 12-1-1986. Abdul Aziz appellant on interrogation while in police custody led to the recovery of blood-stained knife Exh.P.12 from underneath an iron box lying in his house which was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PE on 21-1-1986. On 25-1-1986 Muhammad Sultan appellant led the police to the recovery of blood-stained knife Exh.P.15 from a bush near Khadar canal in the area of village Jamman Shah which was sealed and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. PH. Both the knives were E sent to the serologist and according to his opinion side Exh.PR., the knives were found to be stained with human blood.
16. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the appellants emphatically argued that Dholar complainant, brother of the deceased and uncle of Abdul Aziz P.W.2, is a resident of village Majeed Shah, District Bahawal Nagar whereas the occurrence took place in Mauza Pakhian and that his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence is not natural; that Abdul Aziz being closely related to the deceased was an interested witness and not worthy of credence; that the alleged recovery of knives from the appellants was fake; that the injury on the person of Abdul Aziz P.W.2 was simple in nature and could be self-inflicted to justify his presence on the spot; that there was no direct motive for the appellants to do away with the deceased and injure Abdul Aziz P.W.2; that Muhammad Yar and Bagb All who were mentioned as eye-witnesses were given up; that on the principle of falsus uno falsus in omnibus the prosecution evidence could not be accepted against the appellants when it was discarded qua the acquitted accused; and finally, that section 34 was not attracted to the case and Muhammad Sultan appellant was liable only under section 307, P.P.C. For causing simple injury to Abdul Aziz P.W.2.
17. ' We have considered the aforementioned points of the learned counsel for the appellants but are unable to subscribe to his views. As discussed earlier Dholar complainant P.W.1 is the person who lodged the First Information Report and the very fact asserted by the learned counsel for the appellants that he belonged to a ace about 9 miles away from the spot, per establishes his presence at the spot at the time of the occurrence. He and Abdul Aziz P.W. Have charged the appellants for causing the death of deceased Muhammad Ramzan and delivering stab blows to Abdul Aziz P.W.2. The very fact that both of them were armed with knives and attacked the deceased and Abdul Aziz P.W. With the , shows their common intention. The doctor later on opined the injury of Abdul Aziz P.W.2 simple in nature but he positively stated that it could not be caused by a friendly hand. The seat of the injury is such where nobody would take the risk of piercing a knife in the body just to show one's presence at t e spot to involve innocent persons for an offence involving capital sentence when according to the appellants there is no direct blood-feud between them. Motive is a double-edged weapon and if there was no motive for the appellants to commit the offence then there is no motive for false charge as well. The motive disclosed, in the prevailing circumstances of the area, can be considered sufficient to incur the wrath of the accused/appellants to the extent of attempting at the lives of the complainant party. Muhammad Yar and Bagh All were given up by the. Prosecution for sufficient reasons, inasmuch as, Bagh All is the brother of All Sher brother of the wife of the deceased with whom the accused party had civil litigation, whereas Muhammad Yar is the clan fellow of the complainant party. Their addition to the panel of prosecution witnesses could not improve upon the prosecution case and were rightly dubbed as unnecessary by the learned prosecutor. It is by now well-settled that the criminal Courts can sift the grain from the chaff and acquit some of the accused as a matter of abundant caution by giving them the benefit of doubt without, in any way, impairing the veracity of the witnesses qua the other accused whose involvement in the occurrence is free from doubt and the part attributed to them is established from the direct as well as circumstantial evidence. In the instant case too, both the Courts below have acquitted the co-accused of the appellants by extending them the benefit of doubt but this cannot come to the rescue of the appellants in any way, as the charge against them has been consistently and satisfactorily established.
18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any flaw in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and, in consequence, dismiss the appeal.