1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-Petitioner Noor Muhammad is father of petitioner Ghulam Muhammad and two other co-accused, namely, Muhammad Din and Ghulam Nabi who were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layllpur. All these four persons were tried for the murder of Sultan Ahmad and Faqir Muhammad under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the petitioners alone were convicted and sentenced thereunder to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal and reference the convictions and sentences of the petitioners were maintained and confirmed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court.
2. ' The occurrence took place on the 23rd of April, 1971 about sunset time in the Bait hak of petitioner Noor Mohammad situated in Chak No, 73 R. B., Tehsil Jaranwala in the district of Lyallpur. A first information report was lodged by P. W. 11 Maqbool Ahmad, nephew of Sultan deceased, on the same day at 9 p.m. At Police Station, Khurrianwala, which is about three miles away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by four persons, namely, P. W. 11 Maqbool Ahmad, nephew of Sultan deceased, P. W. 12 Sardar Muhammad, who is said to belong to the Biradari of Sultan deceased, P. W. 13 Ashaq Ali, maternal uncle of P. W. Maqbool Ahmad and P. W. 14 Muhammad Sharif, Lambardar, also a maternal uncle of Sultan deceased. The last two named witnesses are brothers. According to the prosecution story, Sultan deceased was on friendly terms with the family of the petitioners and bad at one time developed illicit intimacy with the daughter of petitioner Noor Muhammad whereupon he was forbidden to enter the house of the petitioners.
3. The matter appears to have been settled and Sultan again started visiting the petitioners and there was an affair between him and Mst. Allah Rakhi wife of Muhammad Din who has since been acquitted. Faqir Muhammad deceased was father of Mst. Allah Rakhi. Petitioner Noor Muhammad had promised to marry his own daughter to Faqir Muhammad in exchange for the marriage of Mst.
4. Allah Rakhi with the said Muhammad Din. Petitioner Noor Muhammad, however, went back on his promise and this was alleged to be another reason for ill-feeling between the deceased persons and the petitioners.
5. ' On the 23rd of April 1971 Sultan deceased was invited by petitioner Noor Mohammad to visit the latter's house. Faqir Mohammad deceased was also a guest of the petitioner on the same day.
6. Towards the evening the four eye-witnesses, who were in the locality, heard reports of discharge of firearms coming out of the ijaithak of petitioner Noor Muhammad's house and they went there.
7. They found the door of the Baithak closed from inside. They, however, looked through the crevices of the doors/windows and saw the two deceased persons as well as the petitioners and the acquitted accused persons inside the Baithak. Petitioner Ghulam Muhammad and one of the accused, Muhammad Din, were armed with revolvers; petitioner Noor Muhammad had a hammer while the other acquitted accused Ghulam Nabi was armed with an iron piece/something of iron.
8. Petitioner Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Din fired at Sultan Ahmad deceased while petitioner Noor Muhammad and the acquitted accused Ghulam Nabi assaulted Faqir Muhammad deceased with their respective weapons. The witnesses pushed open the door and found Sultan and Faqir Mohammad dead. The petitioners threw down their weapons in the Baithak and went into the interior of their house. As a result of the first information report the Investigating Officer proceeded towards the spot and recovered, inter alia, a blood-stained danda (Exh. P. 1), a revolver (Exh. P. 3) and several cartridges, both spent and unspent. Petitioner Noor Muhammad was arrested on the 25th of April 1971, and he was found wearing a blood-stained Dhoti. This Dhoti, however, has not been relied on. Petitioner Ghulam Mohammad and the other two acquitted accused were arrested about the 2nd of May, 1971. On the same day petitioner Ghulam Muhammad led to the recovery of a revolver (Exh. P. 6) from inside a well. The recovery of Exh. P. 6 has also not been relied on by the High Court, and I think this was without any valid reason.
9. ' The post-mortem examination of Faqir Muhammad deceased disclosed that the deceased had a large number of multiple contusions and 3 lacerated wounds on various parts of his body, all caused by a blunt weapon. The membrane of the brain was found to be congested and haemorrhage was observed in the substance of the brain. Seven ribs were found fractured. Neck muscles and deeper tissue of the neck were contused and lacerated. According to the doctor the death was due to traumatic asphyxia as a result of contuions on the neck and chest.
10. ' The post-mortem examination of Sultan deceased disclosed that he had four fire-arms wound of entrance and one wound of exit in addition to three lacerated wounds on his body. As a result of the fire-arm wounds the fifth rib was found fractured and the right lung and pleura lacerated.
11. Three pellets were recovered from inside the body.
12. ' The petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. Petitioner Noor Muhammad explained that Faqir Muhammad deceased had assaulted and injured Sultan while the relatives of Sultan Ahmed deceased had assaulted and injured Faqir Mohammad deceased.
13. The petitioners, however, led no evidence in their defence.
14. ' The trial Court had relied upon the evidence of all the four eye-witnesses although it felt that their evidence required corroboration. The trial Judge having found corroboration against the two petitioners only, he convicted them alone, and acquitted the others.
15. ' The learned Judges of the High Court, however, relied upon the evidence of two witnesses only, namely, P. W. 12 Sardar Muhammad and P. W. 13 Ashaq Ali. Both these witnesses were found to live in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence as their houses were only one acre away from the Baithak of Noor Muhammad. The High Court also found that not only were they natural and competent witnesses but that they had no enmity with either of the petitioners and bad therefore no motive to falsely implicate the petitioners.
16. ' P. W. 12 Sardar Muhammad stated in his evidence that his house was adjacent to the house of P.
17. W. 13 Ashaq Ali, and that the house of P. W. 12 was at a distance of hardly one acre from the place of occurrence. His presence at the spot does not appear to have been challenged. He said it was incorrect that he did not see the occurrence and that he became a fake witness due to Biradare.
18. No suggestion had been put to him of the existence of any ill-feeling or enmity between him and any one of the petitioners.
19. ' P. W. Ashaq Ali stated that the report of a pistol shot would be heard in his house if fired in the house of the accused. His presence at the place of occurrence has not been challenged nor has it been put to him that he could not or did not see the occurrence.
20. ' The statements of both these witnesses were recorded by the police on the same night.
21. ' Their evidence have received support from the fact that a blood-stained hammer and a live bullet were recovered from the house of petitioner Noor Muhammad. No suggestion had been put to any one of the two witnesses that the petitioners were not present in the house of Noor Mohammad at the time of occurrence. Petitioner Noor Muhammad has admitted in course of his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he alone was present in his house. He also admitted the recovery of the dead bodies of the two deceased persons as well as a blood-stained Danda and a blood-stained hammer (Exh. P. 5) and several live and missed bullets And a crime empty from the spot. He, however, denied the recovery of the two revolvers. Petitioner Ghulam Muhammad, too admitted the recovery of the two dead bodies of Faqir Mohammad and Sultan as well as a blood-stained Danda and a hammer and some live and missed bullets and a crime empty from the Baithak of petitioner Noor Muhammad. He also admitted the recovery of one revolver from the spot. In answer to another question Ghulam Muhammad said that he was out in the fields and when he came back to the house he was told by the ladies that Faqir Muhammad had murdered Sultan and the relatives of Sultan had murdered Faqir Muhammad and that the police was already present there.
22. The statements of the two petitioners lend support to the prosecution version of the occurrence to a large extent. The recovery of a blood-stained hammer ant some bullets, mis fired as well as fired ones, and also two liv bullets from the house of petitioner Noor Muhammad afforded good corroboration of the evidence of the two eye-witnesses.
23. ' The medical evidence also supported the manner of the occurrence. The motive, too, supported the prosecution case.
24. ' In these circumstances I do not think that any fault can be found with the High Court for relying on the evidence of P. Ws. Sardar Mohammad and Ashaq Ali.
25. ' I also find no substance in the contention of Mr. Saeed Akhtar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the evidence of these two witnesses suffered from inherent improbabilities. No such improbabilities appear to have been pointed out before the High Court.
26. ' There is no substance in this petition and I would accordingly dismiss it. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-I agree.