' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- Saifullah aged 20 years son of Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain aged 45 years, Muhammad Bashir aged 40 years and Abdullah aged 55 years, sons of Soina, Muhammad Asghar aged 20 years son of Abdullah, Muhammad Arshad aged 23 years son of Mulaim, Muhammad Inayat aged 40 years son of Saleh Muhammad and Mulaim aged 75 years son of Massan appellants alongwith Bashir Ahmed, Muhammad Sharif sons of Sohna and Asadullah son of Bashir Ahmad were tried under section 148/302/307/149, P.P.C. For the murders of Mian Khan, Nausher and Mst. Khani Bibi deceased by the learned Special Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No,V, Multan who vide judgment, dated 11-4-1988 convicted and sentenced the appellants under section 148, P.P.C. To three years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For three months each. They were convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. And awarded death penalty each on three counts except, Mulaim appellant with a fine of Rs,10,000 each on each count or in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. For two years on each count. Mulaim appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,10,000 each on each count or in default thereof to further R.I. For two years on each count.
' His sentence was ordered to run concurrently. The appellants were given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The appellants were also directed to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 each to the heirs of the three deceased or in default thereof to undergo six months' R.I. Each. However, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif and Asadullah were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
' The appellants by way of this appeal have challenged their conviction and sentence whereas Muhammad Khan has filed Criminal Revision No,205 of 1990 questioning the acquittal of Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif and Asadullah. This judgment shall dispose of both appeal as well as the Criminal Revision.
2. The prosecution case as narrated in the complaint Exh.P.F. Lodged by Muhammad Amir is that on 9-12-1986 Muhammad Amir first informant alongwith three deceased namely Mian Khan and Nausher, his sons and Mst. Khani Bibi, wife of Mian Khan early in the morning left for Railway Station Noor Shah as the deceased had to go to Mailsi through train. However, Amir complainant instead of going with the deceased stayed at his tube-well in the way whereas the deceased proceeded to Noor Shah Railway Station. After some time Muhammad Hanif son of Isa informed the complainant at his tube-well that at about 9-00 a.m. When Mian Khan, Nausher and Mst. Khani Bibi deceased were sitting at the platform of Noor Shah Railway Station, Saifullah, Muhammad Hussain, Asghar, Arshad and Inayat armed with guns, Bashir armed with carbine, Asadullah and Abdullah armed with revolver, Mulaim and Bashir son of Sohna with plastic coopies in their hands and Sharif 'son of Sohna empty-handed appeared at the platform. Muhammad Sharif and Saifullah raised Lalkara not to spare the deceased whereupon Saifullah, Muhammad Hussain and Bashir fired at Mian Khan causing injuries on different parts of his body. Mian Khan in an injured condition ran inside the office of Station Master and the three accused chasing him fired as a result of which glasses of the door of office were broken. Mian Khan 'died at the spot. Asadullah, Arshad and Inayat accused fired at Nausher causing injuries on different parts of his body who fell in the waiting room. Mulaim and Bashir son of Sohna sprinkled petrol on him and Muhammad Sharif lit a match to burn the deceased who died at the spot. Abdullah and Asghar accused fired at Mst. Khani Bibi causing injuries on different parts of her body and she also died. One Nasarullah son of Pir Bakhsh present at the railway station was also injured during the occurrence. This fateful occurrence was witnessed by Nasarullah, Ahmad Ali, Jahan Khan, Shafi alongwith Naveed Ahmad Bhatti.
3. The motive as disclosed is that about two years before the occurrence Dost Muhammad father of Saifullah appellant was murdered and complainant alongwith his deceased son, namely Mian Khan and Nausher were tried as. Accused but were subsequently acquitted. Saifullah etc. Accused- having grudge caused the death of three deceased. Complaint Exh.P.F. Lodged by Muhammad Amir was recorded by Muhammad Naeem A.S.I. P.W.23 at 1-00 p.m. At Railway Station Noor Shah and on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.F./1 was recorded by Muhammad Ashraf, Head Constable P.W.3 at 6-00 p.m. With Railway Police Station, Samasatta.
4. After recording the complaint Muhammad Naeem A.S.I. P.W.23 prepared the injuries statement Exh.P.KK. And inquest report Exh.P.LL. Of Mian Khan deceased, injuries statement Exh.P.MM. And inquest - report Exh.P.NN. Of Nausher deceased and injuries statement Exh.P.00. And inquest report Exh.P.QQ. Of Mst. Khani Bibi deceased. He despatched all the three dead bodies to Civil Hospital, Mailsi, for post-mortem examination. During the spot inspection he took into possession blood- stained earth from three places of murder of three deceased through separate memos. Exhs.P.Q., P.R. And P.S. He took into possession 18 crime empties of .12 bore gun P.18/1-18 and 7 crime empties of .32 bore P.19/1-7 from the platform vide memo.Exh.P.T. He secured six pellets Exh.P.20/1-6 of 7.65 mm and two pellets Exh.P.22/1-2 of .32 bore from the floor of office of Station Master. He secured 6 pellets Exh.P.21/1-6 from inside waiting hall and two .12 bore pellets Exh.P.23/1-6 from the platform and took all these into possession vide memo. Exh.P.U. He found fireshot on window-panes and register hanging on the wall of office of the Station Master. He took into possession broken pieces of window panes and glasses vide recovery memo. Exh.P.V. He also secured the register Exh.P.25 having marks of pellets vide memo. Exh.P.W.
5. Dr. Riaz Hussain Khan P.W.1 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mian Khan deceased on 10-12-1986 at 8-00 a.m. And found the following injuries thereon:--
(1) Eight pellet lacerated wounds on the front of middle of lower part of chest, oval shape 1-1/4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Deep into the chest.
(2) A lacerated fire-arm wound 9 c.m. x 6 c.m. x 10 c.m. On the back of right buttock upper part directed to the front and upwards. There was fracture of neck of right femer and right iliac bone.
The edges of the wound were burnt and back unburnt powder was found in the wound.
(3) A lacerated fire-arm wound 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the middle of right buttock. The injury was superficial and edges of the wound were burnt.
(4) A lacerated fire-arm wound 6 c.m. x 4 c.m. On the outer side of right buttock deep to the bone.
The direction was upwards and inwards. The edges of the wound were burnt.
(5) A lacerated fire-arm wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. x 11 c.m. On the back and lower part of left buttock, directed to the front and upward. The edges of the wound were burnt.
' In his opinion cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to fire. Arms injuries Nos.1 to 5.
Injury No,1 was alone sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
' On the same day at 9-30 he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nausher and found the following injuries thereon:--
(1) A lacerated fire-arm wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the left of head passing deep into brain. It was oval shaped and its edges were inverted and burnt.
(2) A lacerated fire-arm wound 1-1/4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Oval shaped on the upper part of chest near midline. The wound was going deep into the chest.
(3) A lacerated fire-arm wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. x through and through the right shoulder with a lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the back of shoulder. There was fracture of head of right humerus.
(4) A lacerated fire-arm wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the back and lower part of right shoulder with oval shape.
' In his opinion death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries on the head and chest. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 individually were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
' On the same day at 11-00 a.m. He peformed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst.
Khani Bibi deceased and found the following injuries on her person:--
(1) A lacerated fire-arm wound 9 c.m. x 4 c.m. x through and through the left of face, and fracture of the mandible on left side.
(2) A lacerated fire-arm wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. In shape, on the outer side of chest with 6 lacerated wounds 1-1/4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Each around it. The edges of the wound were inverted. The exit wound of this injury was on the right of back as a lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. In the middle and 6 lacerated wounds each 1-1/2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. The edges were everted.
(3) A bruise 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the right of scalp. It was 9 c.m. Away from right ear.
' In his opinion cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injury on the chest and face.
Injuries Nos.1 to 3 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The investigation was taken over by Muhammad Rafique S.I. P.W.24 on his arrival at the spot at midnight. He took into possession last worn clothes of all the three deceased and got Nasrullah P.W. Medically examined by the doctor who found four fire-arm injuries on his person which were simple in nature and were caused within the duration of about 28 houRs, On 9-12-1986 he secured station diary P.26 and took the same into possession through memo. Exh.P.Y.
' Muhammad Rafiq S.I. P.W.24 arrested Muhammad Hussain, Bashir son of Sohna, Arshad, Asghar, Sharif and Mulaim on 14-12-1986 from the Dera of Muhammad Hussain appellant. On 17-12-1986 Muhammad Arshad led to the recovery of double-barrel gun P.30 with seven live cartridges P.31/17 from the Jisti Petty lying in the residential room of Saifullah appellant which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.BB. Muhammad Bashir accused led to the recovery of carbine P.32 with three cartridges P.33/1-3 from the Jisti Petty lying inside the residential room which was taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.CC. Asghar appellant got recovered .32 bore pistol P.34 with seven cartridges P.35/1-7 from the box lying in the Kotha of his paternal-grandmother which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.DD. Muhammad Hussain appellant led to the recovery of gun P.36 with five cartridges P.37/1-5 lying in the heap of cotton inside his residential house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.EE. On 21-12-1986 Muhammad Asghar appellant led to the recovery of gun P.39 from the bushes near Railway Station Noor Shah which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.GG. Abdullah accused led to the recovery of revolver P.40 from underneath the ground near. Railway. Station which was taken into possession through memo.
Exh.P.HH. Mulaim appellant led to the recovery of Kuppi P.38 from the straw of rice lying in the Kotha of Muhammad Hussain which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.FF.
8. On 23-12-1986 Saifullah appellant was arrested by Muhammad Rafiq S.I. P.W.24 and on 25-12- 1986 he led to the recovery of gun P.29 from inside the residential room situated in the Ihata of Muhammad Hussain and Bashir appellants. The gun was taken into possession through memo.
Exh.P.AA.
9. On 18-12-1986 Muhammad Naeem, A.S.I. P.W.23 arrested Inayat and Abdullah appellants and on 22-12-1986 Inayat led the police party headed by Muhammad Naeem P.W.23 to the Dera of Muhammad Hussain appellant and got recovered his licensed gun P.27 alongwith licence P28 which were taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.Z. Asadullah accused was arrested by Muhammad Rafiq S.I. P.W.24 on 27-12-1986 and Bashir son of Sohna accused was arrested on 6-1- 1987 by Noor Khan S.I. P.W.22. Bashir accused led to the recovery of Kuppi P.41 which was taken into possession by Noor Khan S.I. P.W.22 vide memo. Exh.P.JJ. Sealed parcels of blood-stained earth and the crime empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 30-12-1986 and the sealed parcels of weapons of offence were sent to the laboratory on 25-1-1987.
10. After completion of investigation the challan was submitted against the appellants and the acquitted accused.
11. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Riaz Hussain P.W.1 and Dr. Muhammad Riaz P.W.2. P.W.3 Muhammad Ashraf Moharrir/H.C. Kept sealed parcels intact in his custody. P.W.4 prepared the site plan; P.W.5 delivered the three parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner intact, P.W.6 received the parcels of crime empties on 30-12-1986 and delivered them on 1-1-1987 in the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory; P.W.7 took the photographs of the place of occurrence. P.W.8 Sardar Khan, Constable escorted the dead bodies of Mian Khan, Nausher and Mst. Khani Bibi deceased from the Railway Station Noor Shah to Civil. Hospital Mailsi for postmortem examination. Rafique Ahmed Kazim, Station Master P.W.9 witnessed the recoveries of different articles from the spot. Nasarullah Afridi P.W.10 is Assistant Station Master who made entries in Register No,26 Exh.P.Y. Muhammad Hanif P.W.16, Ahmad Ali P.W.17, Jahan Khan P.W.18 and Naveed Ahmed P.W.19 furnished ocular account of occurrence. Noor Khan P.W.22, Muhammad Rafique P.W.24 and Abdullah Khan P.W.25 are the Investigating Officers of the case. Muhammad Ameer complainant died before commencement of the trial and Muhammad Azeem P.W.21 proved his death. The Chemical Examiner's report Exh.P.UU and that of Serologist Exh.P.VV. Were also placed on record. Dr. Muhammad Arif Saeed who medically examined Saif Ullah, appellant on 9-12-1986 was examined as C.W.1. The bullet P.1 recovered from the head of Nausher deceased was sent to Fire-arm Expert alongwith pistol P.34 for comparison by the learned Special Court after preparing the sealed parcel. Report of the Fire-arm Expert is Exh.C.W.2/A. Muhammad Abdullah who took the parcel and brought the report was examined as C.W.2.
12. The appellants admitted their relations inter se. However, it was denied that Bashir son of Sohna, Sharif and Asadullah son of Sharif have any connection with the other appellants. They admitted that in the murder case of Dost Muhammad father of Saifullah, two deceased were convicted but ultimately were acquitted by the High Court. The appellants denying the allegations pleaded false implication due to. Enmity. Bashir accused pleaded that he was a prosecution witness in that murder case of Dost Muhammad against Mian Khan and Nausher deceased and therefore, he had been falsely implicated. Abdullah accused pleaded that he being son of Bashir accused has been named as an accused in the case. He taking plea ,of alibi stated that he was a school teacher and on the day of occurrence was present in his school from 8-45 a.m. To 3-00 p.m. The appellants except Abdullah and Saifullah did not produce any defence evidence or appear in the witness-box in their own defence. Saifullah appellant examined Ijaz Ahmad D.W.1, Amjad Ali D.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal D.W.4. Supplementary statements of Muhammad Hussain, Saifullah, Arshad, Asghar, Abdullah and Inayat appellants were recorded.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions:--
(i) That the crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence did not find mention in the document Exh.P.H. Prepared by Muhammad Naeem P.W.23 at Railway Station Noor Shah before registration of case which document bears all other details except the crime empties.
(ii) That no place of crime empties was shown in the site plan Exh.P.G. Prepared by P.W.4 for want of pointation of such place by the P.Ws.
(iii) That the crime empties and the blood-stained earth were recovered on the day of occurrence but were sent to the office of Chemical Examiner on 13-12-1986. The weapons of offence were recovered from the appellants during the period from 17-12-1986 to 25-12-1986 but according to P.W.3 the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 14-1-1987 whereas all these parcels were received by the concerned office on 26-1-1987.
(iv) That according to the prosecution Asadullah acquitted accused caused injuries to Nausher deceased but revolver alleged to have been used by him was recovered from Abdullah.
Muhammad Asghar appellant got recovered two types of weapons of offence i,e. Gun P.39 on 21- 12-1986 and pistol .32 bore P.34 on 17-12-1986. The crime empties C.12 matched with the gun whereas empties C.20 to 25 matched with pistol P.34. According to the story in the F.I.R. He used only gun but the recovery of pistol from him changed the whole reflection of the prosecution case.
Revolver P.40 recovered from Abdullah does not match with any empty.
(v) Saifullah appellant and one Nasrullah P.W. Were injured during the occurrence which circumstance shows that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as disclosed by the prosecution and the possibility of cross-firing cannot be ruled out in the circumstances.
(vi) That the occurrence took place at 9-00 a.m. But none of the P.Ws., claiming their presence at the spot took any step to inform the police till the arrival of Muhammad Naeem P.W.23 who after completing the preliminary investigation recorded the statement of the' complainant and thereafter the case was registered.
(vii) That the detail of the injuries is not mentioned in the statement of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which fact excludes their presence at the spot at the relevant time and that the going of Muhammad Hanif P.W.16 to intimate the complainant about the occurrence instead of reporting the matter to the police makes his presence at the spot doubtful. His name is not mentioned as eye-witness in the statement of other P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C.
(viii)That Nasrullah, the injured P.W. Was intentionally not produced on false pretext to avoid disclosure of actual story. Nasrullah Khan Afridi P.W.10, Assistant Station Master being natural witness of the occurrence did not report the matter to the police for want of necessary particulars of the deceased.
(ix) That the injuries on the persons of deceased coupled with other circumstances indicate that a wider net has been spread over to involve maximum number of persons which is evident from the fact that Arshad, Mulaim, Asghar, Abdullah and Inayat appellants belonged to Gujranwala whereas the remaining to District Vehari but all were named as accused together in the occurrence.
(x) That the P.Ws. Are related inter se with the deceased and are inimical towards the appellants, the presence of P.Ws. At the platform being highly doubtful and their evidence not confidence inspiring cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction.
14. Learned counsel for the State contends that the P.Ws. Are natural witnesses of the occurrence.
Since two sons and one daughter-in-law of the complainant were murdered, therefore, it was quite natural for Muhammad Hanif to rush to inform the complainant. He next contends that there are sufficient corroboratory evidence in the nature of recovery of weapons of offence, crime empties, motive and medical, therefore, the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts.
15. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the State and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
15-A Admittedly Mian Khan and Nausher deceased with their father Muhammad Ameer complainant were accused in murder case of Dost Muhammad, father of Saifullah appellant who were convicted by the trial Court but ultimately were acquitted by the High Court. All the appellants are closely related inter se. Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Bashir and Abdullah appellants are real brotheRs, Saifullah is their nephew. Asghar appellant is son of Abdullah and Irshad is son of Mulaim appellant brother-in-law of Muhammad Hussain. Inayat, is son-in-law of Mulaim, therefore, they being aggrieved of the murder of Dost Muhammad, father of Saifullah appellant had a strong motive for launching attack on the deceased.
15-B The ocular account in the present case was furnished by Hanif P.W.16, Ahmad Ali P.W.17, Jhan Khan P.W.18 and Naveed Ahmad P.W.19. It is correct that the name of Muhammad Hanif P.W. Does not appear in the, statement of remaining eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. But keeping in view the whole situation the doubt, if any, about his presence at the spot is removed. He immediately after the occurrence proceeded to inform Muhammad Ameer complainant about the incident and thereafter again came to the place of occurrence with him. Muhammad Naeem P.W.23 recorded the statement of the P.Ws. At the spot after recording the statements of Muhammad Amir complainant and Muhammad Hanif P.W.16 had accompanied Muhammad Amir to the spot. P.W.23 admitted his omission of not mentioning the name of Muhammad Hanif in the statements of other witnesses. It appears that it was only an omission as stated otherwise the complaint Exh.P.F. Is reproduction of the information supplied by P.W.16 to the complainant at his tube-well and the contents of the complaint are fully corroborated by the evidence of eye- witnesses including Muhammad Hanif and also P.W.23 Muhammad Naeem A.S.I. Who recorded the statement of Muhammad Amir complainant. If Muhammad Hanif was not present at the spot, then instead of cooking a fake story of his going to the tube-well of Muhammad Amir and again back with him at the spot, Muhammad Amir could be shown to be present at the spot at relevant time.
We are therefore, of the view that the presence of Muhammad Hanif P.W.16 at the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted.
16. There is also no circumstance to indicate and suggest the nonappearance of the remaining eye-witnesses at the spot. They have given a sufficient explanation of their presence at the Railway Station at particular time. The railway station is a public place and presence of prosecution witnesses at railway station cannot be objected to be unnatural. The contention that none of the P.Ws. Has reported the matter to the police does not carry any weight for more than one reason.
The occurrence took place at the platform falling within the jurisdiction of railway police and that there being no police station at Noor Shah Railway Station the case was to be registered with Railway Police Station Sama Satta at a distance of 30 miles but in the meantime, Muhammad Naeem P.W.23, A.S.I. Of Railway Police reached Noor Shah by chance who recorded the statement of Muhammad Ameer complainant. Therefore, the P.Ws. Were not in a position to lodge the report immediately after the occurrence. The other reason was that Muhammad Hanif P.W. Had proceeded to inform Muhammad Ameer complainant, therefore, the remaining P.Ws. Kept waiting for the arrival of Muhammad Ameer complainant and did not proceed for Sama Satta to lodge report of their own. In this situation the presence of the P.Ws. Cannot be excluded for the reason that the report was not lodged by them.
17. The factum of running of Mian Khan deceased to the office of Station Master and Nausher deceased to the waiting room from which places broken glasses were taken into possession, is evident from the statement of Nasrullah Afridi, Assistant Station Master P.W.10. The running of deceased after receiving the injuries to look for shelter was natural and the statement of Nasrullah Afridi, Assistant Station Master provides corroboration to the eyewitnesses establishing their presence at the spot.
18. The preparation of document Exh.P.Y./1 extract of the register prepared by Nasrullah P.W.10 at 9- 50 a.m. Was for the purpose of Railway Record itself. He simply narrated about the incident which had taken place at the Railway Station and was not supposed to give each detail. Anyhow he was neither known to the parties nor has any idea about their particulars, therefore, the giving of names and other necessary details as such with regard to injuries and recovery of crime empties were not required to be given in the extract of register which was only for railway purpose. However, the report of fateful incident in the said register in the present form is in the natural sequence, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that this document first prepared in time not containing the detail is fatal to prosecution being without any foundation are not entertainable.
19. The contention regarding non-production of Nasrullah and injured P.W. Has no force and not to be given any importance, as he was not produced for having been won over, therefore, it has no adverse effect on the prosecution case. The appellants were at liberty to produce him in their defence and introduce the true story if there was other than the one put by the prosecution. A request could also be made to call him as a Court-witness but defence avoided to take any risk in this behalf.
20. Saifullah appellant, no doubt, was medically examined and was found injured but he in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied to have received injuries in the occurrence, therefore, the injuries on the person of Saifullah can be of no use to him to argue for the purpose of creating doubt in the prosecution case rather it is strong corroborative evidence to establish his presence at the spot.
21. There was no other enmity between the parties except the murder of Dost Muhammad, father of Saifullah appellant, to suggest that the appellants were substituted with a false motive. The enmity in the present case furnished motive to the appellants who are closely related inter se as the two deceased were acquitted of the charge for the murder of father of Saifullah appellant. The defence has not brought on record any circumstance to plead that there were also other reasons with the complainant for false implication of the appellants.
22. The eye-witnesses in the present case namely Muhammad Hanif, Jhan Khan, Naveed are quite independent and they have no relations with the complainant or any enmity with the appellants, therefore, none of them can be called as planted witness. It is correct that Jhan Khan and Muhammad Hanif belong to the Bratheri of complainant but this is not enough to exclude their evidence from consideration. Naveed Ahmad belongs to the Bratheri of the appellants and there is no evidence on record that he is their opponent. All the three witnesses have given a reasonable explanation about their presence at the Railway Station at the relevant time. The arguments of the learned counsel that some of the appellants belong to District Gujranwala whereas the other to District Vehari and both being opponent of the complainant were made accused in the case together which fact shows that the story was arranged in a way to involve maximum number of enemies carry no weight in the circumstances of the case. None of the appellants belonging to District Gujranwala has established his presence at the relevant time at a place other than the place of occurrence. Moreover, admittedly all appellants are closely related inter se and having agricultural land in Vehari are also permanently putting themselves at their land, therefore, mere original place of residence at Gujranwala is no evidence to hold non-presence of the appellants at the spot.
24. The crime empties recovered from spot matched with weapons of offence recovered from the accused as under:-- ' Three crime empties C.3, C.6 and C.15 of .12 bore matched with carbine P.32 recovered from Bashir.
' Five crime empties C.1, C.2, C.11 and C.18 matched with .12 bore gun P.36 recovered from Muhammad Hussain.
' One crime empty C.12 matched with .12 bore gun P.39 recovered from Muhammad Asghar.
' Three crime empties C.4, C.5 and C.14 matched with shot gun P.30 recovered from Arshad appellant.
' Five crime empties C.20 to C.25/3 were found matched with pistol P.34 recovered from Asghar.
' The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per prosecution story Asghar was armed with gun and he did not use two types of weapons does nto carry any weight for the reason that the gun carried by Asghar appellant was visible and he used the same as stated by the P.Ws.
But at the same time he had a pistol with him and the using of the same was not impossible. It looks that he after firing one shot with gun, used the pistol which could not be noticed by the P.Ws.
The accused was arrested much later after the occurrence and the possibility of his delivering the pistol P.34 to his companion cannot be excluded. The important aspect of the matter is that the empties recovered from the spot on the same day were found matched with the pistol recovered at the instance of the accused. Anyhow, even if the recovery of pistol P.34 is excluded from consideration, the prosecution case against Asghar is not damaged. The ocular account has been furnished by independent and natural witnesses inspiring confidence and also seeks sufficient corroboration from other circumstances and evidence available on record. Saifullah appellant is son of Dost Muhammad in whose murder case the two deceased were accused thus Saifullah appellant had direct motive for launching attack on the deceased.
26. The prosecution story qua the role of each appellant is corroborated with the recovery of crime empties at the spot and the matching of the same with the weapons of offence recovered from the appellants. The injuries on the person of Saifullah appellant, the document Exh.P.H. Prepared by Nasarullah P.W., the recoveries of two dead bodies from the office of Assistant Station Master and waiting hall, and also the contents of the complaint Exh.P.F. Recorded on the statement of Muhammad Amir on the basis of information supplied to him, by Muhammad Hanif P.W.16 are the strong circumstances in favour of prosecution to give support to the story and provide enough corroboration to the prosecution case.
27. No doubt the parcels containing crime empties were not sent to the concerned office before the recovery of weapon of offence and the parcels of the crime empties and the weapon of offence, remained in custody in Malkhana together for some time, but there is no evidence to suggest that the same were tampered with by any one.
28. The death of all the three deceased was caused with fire-arm injuries and the possibility of using of any other weapon was excluded by the doctor by denying the suggestion put to him by the defence. The time of occurrence, the seat and nature of injuries give full support to the eye- witness account with no conflict.
29. As earlier discussed the appellants had strong motive for the occurrence and the complainant side had no reason or motive to substitute the appellants with some unknown assailants. The circumstances of the case do not suggest any possibility to exclude the presence of the P.Ws. At the spot at the relevant time. The minor discrepancies and contradictions, if any, are natural and bound to occur.
' The eye-witnesses in the case are independent and natural. They are absolutely dependable and there is no circumstance available to doubt their reliability. There is no discrepancy in the statements of the eye-witnesses inter se or qua the other evidence available on record to challenge their credibility and to suggest false implication of the appellants. However, when the parties are inimical to each other corroboration from independent source qua each appellant is must for the purpose of safe administration of justice. It may consist of direct or circumstantial evidence but it need not amount to the conformation of the whole story. However, it is for the Court to see the nature and extent of corroboratory evidence as it varies with the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand some accused were acquitted of the charge on the basis of same evidence which is otherwise of the standard and quality to be relied upon as such, but we are of the view that the rule to look for the independent source of corroboration in the facts of the present case is to be necessarily followed to judge the liability of each appellant in the light of conformatory evidence. The appellants, in the complaint and by the P.Ws. At the trial are attributed role of causing injuries to the individual deceased in the following manner:- ' Saifullah, Muhammad Hussain and Bashir son of Soina (aged 40 years) are attributed fire-arm injuries to Mian Khan, deceased. Muhammad Arshad, Abdullah and Inayat are attributed injuries to Nausher deceased. Abdullah and Muhammad Asghar appellants caused injuries to Mst. Khani deceased whereas Mulaim appellant played the role of sprinkling petrol on Nausher deceased who was burnt by Sharif acquitted accused. The burning is proved in the medical evidence. Saifullah appellant was injured and had direct motive against the two deceased who were acccused in the murder case of his father. Therefore, the ocular account seeks sufficient corroboration from motive and medical evidence qua Saifullah.
' Fire-arm Expert report Exh.P.TT. Shows that crime empties marked C.6 and C.15 matched with the weapon recovered from Muhammad Hussain appellant and crime empties C.12, C.20 to C.25 matched with .12 bore gun and pistol recovered from Muhammad Asghar. The crime empties marked C.5 and C.14 matched with the weapon recovered from Muhammad Arshad. Thus case against Saifullah, Muhammad Hussain, Bashir son of Soina, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Arshad appellants seeking corroboration from motive, medical and crime empties is proved beyond any doubt.
30. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal to the extent of Saif Ullah, Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Arshad appellants fails and is dismissed.
However, in view of the role attributed to each appellant, it is not possible to ascertain the individual responsibility vis-a-vis each injury caused to each deceased. Saif Ullah, Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Hussain caused injuries to Mian Khan and committed his murder.
Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Asghar caused death of Nausher, whereas Muhammad Asghar is guilty of causing murder of Mst. Khani Bibi. Apart from their individual liability they by virtue of section 149, P.P.C. Are also collectively responsible for causing the murder of all the three deceased. However, in the circumstances and the role attributed to an individual appellant with no specific injury, we are not inclined to confirm the death sentence awarded to these appellants under section 302/149, P.P.C. And alter the same to imprisonment for life each on three counts. The sentence of the appellants under section 148, P.P.C. And that of fine and compensation awarded to them by the learned trial Court is maintained. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
31. The allegations against Mulaim appellant and Bashir Ahmad (acquitted accused) are of sprinkling oil on Nausher deceased whereas Muhammad Sharif acquitted accused is attributed the role of setting his body on fire. The case of Mulaim appellant is at par to that of Bashir son of Sohna acquitted accused and on better footing to Muhammad Sharif who set the dead G body of Nausher on fire. Therefore, Mulaim appellant is entitled to the same benefit. The ocular account does not seek corroboration, from any independent source qua Abdullah and Inayat appellants, therefore, they are also given the benefit of doubt. Consequently, appeal of Abdullah, Muhammad Inayat and Mulaim is accepted. Their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. They shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Criminal Revision No,205 of 1990 filed by Muhammad Khan complainant challenging the acquittal of Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Sharif and Asadullah also fails and dismissed accordingly.