' Manzoor Hussain son of Inayat Muhammad {35), Mumtaz Hussain, Mulazim Hussain (19 and 17, respectively), Zahoor Hussain (25) and Abdul Ghafoor (27) sons of Noor Muhammad were sent up for trial by Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha, for offences under sections 302/109, 148/149, 324, P.P.C. (Qisas and Diyat Ordinance) for the murder of Muhammad Siddique. Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 25-2-1992 convicted and sentenced each of them to two years' R.I. For the offence under section 148, P.P.C. Each of them was further convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. To 20 years' R.I. Each of them was also directed under section 337-D read with section 149, P.P.C. To pay Rs,57,330 to Muhammad Hussain as compensation. It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. They were further given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The convicts have appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.M. Lodged by Muhammad Sher, was to the effect that he was a goldsmith. He had two sons Inayat Hussain and Muhammad Siddique, and two daughters, namely, Mst. Irshad Bibi and Mst. Kausar Bibi. He had married his daughters to his brother's sons. His son Muhammad Siddique was serving in the Army and was on leave. Five/six days before the occurrence, Muhammad Siddique's wife Mst. Sakina went to her parents' house because of some differences. First informant tried to bring her back but failed. On 6-2-1991 Muhammad Siddique brought back her sister Mst. Kausar Bibi from the house Of his cousin Zahoor Hussain. On the same day at about 6-30 p.m., appellants armed with knives came to his house while raising Lalkaras. At that time Muhammad Siddique and Inayat Hussain, sons of the first informant, with Zulfiqar and Muhammad Hussain were having meals. The accused persons raised a Lalkara that they would not be spared for having insulted Mst. Sakina. Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Hussain came out, upon which Abdul Ghafoor gave a knife blow which landed on the chest of Muhammad Siddique. Zahoor's blow landed on his right flank. Muhammad Hussain, brother of the first informant tried to intervene, whereupon Mulazim Hussain gave a knife blow which landed on the right side of his neck. Mumtaz gave a knife blow which landed on the right flank of Muhammad Hussain. Manzoor Hussain's knife blow landed on the chest of Muhammad Hussain. Thereafter, all the accused persons gave blows to Muhammad Siddque and Muhammad Hussain. The first informant with his son Inayat Hussain, and Zulfiqar tried to intervene, whereupon the accused persons belaboured them and thereafter ran away. The commotion attracted many people of the locality to the spot. Both the injured were taken to Civil Hospital, Sahiwal, but Muhammad Siddique died because of the injuries. Muhammad Hussain was admitted to the hospital.
3. F.I.R. Exh.P.M. Was lodged by Muhammad Sher, P.W.7 on 8-2-1991 at 7-30 p.m. It was recorded by Taj Muhammad, S.I./S.H.O., P.W.11, at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha with regard to an occurrence which took place the same day at 6-30 p.m. At the house of Muhammad Sher in village Sahiwal, District Sargodha, one furlong from Police Station Sahiwal.
' Taj Muhammad, S.I./S.H.O., P.W.11 after recording F.I.R. Exh.P.M., went to Civil Hospital, Sahiwal, and prepared injury statement Exh.P.N. And inquest report Exh.P.O. Of the deceased and thereafter sent the dead body for autopsy. He recorded the statements of the witnesses at the hospital. Thereafter he came to the spot and secured blood-stained earth from the place where Muhammad Siddique was injured, vide memo. Exh.P.F. He arrested all the accused persons on 19-2-1991, and on 28-2-1991 all of them led to the recoveries of blood-stained knives from their house, which were secured vide memos. Exhs.P.G., P.H., P.J., P.K. And Exh.P.L. He got all the recoveries attested by P.Ws. Sarfraz and Haji Ahmad. He got prepared site plan Exh.P.E. And Exh.P.E./1 from the Draftsman and gave his note in red ink thereunder. After usual investigation, he challaned the accused persons.
4. Dr. Inayatullah, Medical Officer, BHU Gull-da-Kot, P.W.1, on 9-2-1991 at 11-30 a.m. Conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Siddique and found the followng injuries:-
(1) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Going deep in chest cavity on outer aspect of front left side of chest at level of left nipple.
(2) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bone deep on outer lower right side of chest 10 c.m. Below and outer to right nipple.
(3) Bruise 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. On outer aspect of right buttock.
' In his opinion, injury No,1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were with sharp-edged weapon, whereas injury No,3 was with a blunt weapon. In cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased had taken meal about two hours before his death.
' P.W.2 Dr. Liaqat All Khan, M.O., R.H.C. Sahiwal, on 8-2-1991 medically examined Muhammad Hussain and found the following injuries:--
(1) Incised wound 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Right side of neck.
(2) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. Near the nipple of left thorax.
(3) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. Deep on the left ribs at a distance of four c.m. From injury No,2.
(4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Deep near the backside of right shoulder.
(5) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 2 c.m. Deep in the middle of vertebral column.
' Injuries Nos. 1 to 5 were kept under observation and advised X-ray. The nature of injuries was fresh and all the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon.
' On the same day at 7-15 p.m., he also examined Muhammad Sher and observed as under:--
(1) Pain right side of neck.
(2) Abrasion mark on right side of wrist-joint.
(3) Pain back side of chest.
(4) Abrasion mark on right side of right knee-joint of leg.
(5) Abrasion mark on left side of left knee-joint of leg. All the injuries were simple caused with blunt weapon.
' On the same day at 7-30 p.m., he medically examined Zulfiqar Haider son of Ahmed Sher and found the following injuries:--
(1) Pain right side of head.
(2) Pain back side of right shoulder.
(3) Pain back side of left chest.
(4) Pain on right buttock.
' All the injuries were simple, which were fresh and caused with blunt weapon.
5. Prosecution in support of its case had produced 12 witnesses in all. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination and examined the injured, respectively, Muhammad Salim, P.W.3 had prepared site plan Exhs.P.E. And P.E./1 on the directions of the police.
P.W.4 Imtiaz Ahmad, Constable had escorted the dead body to the hospital. Haji Ahmad, P.W.6 had witnessed the recoveries of Chhuris effected at the instance of the appellants. The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Hussain and Zulfiqar Haider, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9, respectively. Manzoor Ahmad, Constable, P.W.10, had delivered the sealed parcels of Chhuris in the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Taji Muhammad, S.I./S.H.O., P.W.11 had conducted the investigation of the case. Muhammad Naeem, M.H.C., P.W.12 had kept the sealed parcels in the Malkhana and so long they remained there, nobody tampered with them.
' At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined without oath, wherein they refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. Except for Zahoor Hussain, others stated that they were not even present at the spot. Zahoor Hussain, however, stated that on the day of occurrence he grappled with the deceased who picked up a Danda, therefore, in order to save himself he picked up a Chhuri and gave blows. The commotion attracted others to the spot as well and they were also injured. Nobody could know who had caused injuries because there was load-shedding at that time.
6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the case against the appellants was not proved at all. Submitted that the ocular account was in conflict with the medical evidence, therefore, no reliance on it can be placed. Argued that the witnesses were close relations of the deceased and were inimical towards the appellants, therefore, they should not be relied upon without independent corroboration which was not available in the instant case. Further pointed out that the recoveries of Chhuris at the instance of the appellants have already been disbelieved by the trial Court. Submitted that even if prosecution story was accepted, it was a sudden fight and, therefore, section 149, P.P.C. Could not be applicable. Lastly it was argued that the eyewitnesses could not be relied upon because they were chance witnesses as they did not belong to the locality. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. According to him, the case was proved beyond doubt. It was asserted that there was no conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence. Further submitted that the presence of the eye-witnesses could not be doubted because all of them were injured and they had fresh injuries on their person.
7. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution story mainly rests on the statements of Muhammad Sher, Muhammad Hussain and Zulfiqar, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9, respectively, who are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It is not disputed that the parties are very closely related inter se. The deceased and the appellants were first cousins, being sons of two brotheRs, They were also related through marriages, as sister of the deceased was married to one of the appellants, and sister of the appellants was married to the deceased. It has come in evidence that apart from matrimonial dispute, the parties had cordial relations and there was no background of any enmity of any nature. It is also not disputed that the houses of the deceased and of the appellants were in the same vicinity. Both the parties are also unanimous on the point that Mst. Sakina, sister of the appellants, was wife of Muhammad Siddique, deceased, who on the day of occurrence was not living with her husband because of some dispute. The eyewitnesses gave a detailed account of the occurrence and were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. They admitted their relationship but at the same time asserted that there was no background of enmity between the parties. Occurrence had taken place inside the house of Muhammad Sher, P.W.7, and, in such circumstances, he was most natural witness. His presence is further proved by the fact that he was injured. I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses are inimical. Daughter of the first informant is wife of one of the appellants and, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that he is inimical towards the appellant side. The eye-witnesses were injured. They were promptly examined by a doctor. This is sufficient corroboration to their statements. In these circumstances, I feel complete reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses can be placed. The contention of the learned counsel that application of section 149, P.P.C. Is highly doubtful is also without force. It is in evidence that the appellants came to the house of the deceased armed with Chhuris and raised Lalkaras. In these circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that section 149, P.P.C. Is applicable.
Defence version also cannot be relied upon because, according to doctor, Muhammad Sher and Zulfiqar, P.Ws. Had received injuries with blunt weapon whereas others had received injuries with sharp-edged weapon. This would mean that two different weapons were used.
' For what has been discussed above, I find the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt against the appellants. Therefore, the appeal fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.