K. M. A. SAMADANI, J.-The Murder Reference No. 22 of 1971 and Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 1970 have arisen from the conviction of Sikandar son of Karim, Wattu, aged 30 years. Shera, aged 46 years and Rehman aged 26 years, sons of Din, Bhatti, all residents of Islam Nagar, P. S. Sharqpur, under section 302/34, P. P. C. Recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, on 12th September, 1930, who sentenced Sikandar and Shera appellants to death and Rehman appellant to transportation for life. The appeal is also directed against the conviction of Shera appellant under section 429, P. P. C. And the consequent sentence of six months' R. I. Awarded to him. The allegation against the appellants was that they along with Muhammad Yusaf son of Moosa, Wattu, aged about 30 years, a cousin of Sikandar appellant, attacked the deceased Alam Shah son of Bharpur Shah, Syed, aged 35 years, resident of Thathi Bhangwan, in execution of a pre--meditated plan and killed him. In the course of the attack, however, the said Muhammad Yusaf also received a gunshot injury inadvertently and died as a result thereof. There was also a dog present at the scene belong- -ing to Alam Shah deceased which tried to defend its master but was shot dead by Shera appellant and hence his conviction under section 429, P. P. C.
2. However, the prosecution case in detail is that Alam Shah deceased and Sikandar appellant regarded each other not only as political rivals in the B. D. Elections to be held in the future but also as rival Chaudharis of the village. Sikandar appellant wanted to remove Alain Shah deceased from his way. He asked the brother of the deceased, namely, Massum Shah P. W. To dissuade the deceased from contesting elections and challenging Sikandar's Chaudharahat. But Alam Shah deceased would not give in. So, on the 26 of June, 1968, at about Chahwela, when Alam Shah deceased was in the fields smoking huqqa with his gun and a bag of cartridges hung up on a treeth close-by, Muhammad Yusaf and Rahman appellant approached him. They however, just seated themselves close to Alam Shah deceased. At that time, Rahmat Shah, a cousin of Alam Shah deceased (C. W.) and Fiaz P. W. a cul--tivator and servant of the deceased, were in the fields tilling the land. Massoom Shah P. W. Also happened to reach the scene a little before the said Yusaf and Rahman appellant. Shortly afterwards Sikandar appellant armed with a gun accompanied by Shera appellant arrived there. When these two persons appeared on the scene, Yusaf and Rahman pounced upon Alam Shah deceased and grabbed him, who had apparently ignored their presence so far. Alam Shah thereupon raised an alarm and called out for help. Rehmat Shah and Niaz rushed towards him leaving the ploughs in the field. But Sikandar appellant opened fire with his gun aiming at Alam Shah deceased. He fired two shots consecutively. One of them hit his own cousin Yusaf who was grappling with Alam Shah deceased. Yusaf fell to the ground. Then Shera appellant grabbed the gun of Alam Shah deceased from the tree along with the bag of cartridges and fired two shots therewith at the deceased. Sikandar appellant also fired another shot at the deceased and killed him on the spot. Rahman appellant was carrying a dung with which he hit Rehmat Shah and Riaz witnesses when they tried to intervene. When Masoom Shah P. W. Tried to advance, Sikandar appellant fired at him too though missed him. This nevertheless deterred Masoom Shah P.W. The three appellants delivered a few more blows to Alam Shah deceased with the butts of the guns and the dang and then carried Yusaf away to their village. Shera appellant shot also the dog of Alain Shah deceased dead when attack--ed by it. Soon after the incident, Masoom Shah P. W. Went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report (Exh. P. A).
The appellants denied the incident altogether and asserted that they had been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity but produced no evidence in defence.
3. The prosecution case was supported by the three eye-witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. Namely, Masoom Shah, Rehmat Shah and Riaz. Besides, the evidence relating to the recoveries of the weapons of offence and the testimony of the Forensic Expert corroborated the ocular evidence. The eye-witnesses remained consistent in their statements before the Courts of Inquiry and trial and could not be shaken by the defence in cross-examina--petition except for minor discrepancies of immaterial character. So, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied, in his arguments before us, mainly on the apparent improbability of the sequence of events as alleged by the pro-- secution. According to him it is incredible that Sikandar appellant should have killed his own cousin Muhammad Yusaf in an attempt to kill his adver--sary. Secondly, he contends that it is highly improbable that out of Muhammad Yusaf and Rehman appellant who allegedly preceded the other two appellants to the scene of occurrence with the intention of killing Alam Shah deceased, the former should have gone there completely unarmed and the latter armed only with a dang. He also contends that it does not appeal to reason that Shera appellant should have accompanied Sikandar appellant empty-handed. But in the first place, the occurrence cannot be disbelieved on the mere ground that it appears improbable. In this strange world of ours there is no dearth of unimaginable or improbable events taking place every now and then. No limits can be set either to the ingenuity or to the follies of man. In our opinion, no event, circumstance or phenomenons can be summarily dismissed as improbable unless it can be shown to be physically impossible. In the present case, the scheme of the crime as unfolded by the prosecution does not even appear to be improbable. It is under--standable that in order to obviate the possibility of a counter attack by Alam Shah deceased, Rehman appellant and Yusaf were sent in advance to the place where the deceased were sitting so that he should be rendered helpless at the time of the attack. It was certainly ungallant on the part of the appellants but not imprudent. It is also understandable that Yusaf and Shera did not carry any weapons other than a dang with them, their purpose being only to catch hold of the intended victims. Rehman appellant seems to have carried the dang mere by force of habit than on purpose.
4. As for the death of Yusaf, it was obviously accidental and a result of rashness on the part of Sikandar appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants argues that normally a man would not go to the extent of risking the life of his own collaborator and muchless of one who is also closely related to him in his keenness to do away with an enemy. But the degree of care and caution exercised in the circumstances like these attending the commission of the offence in this case varies from person to person. At any rate, one cannot expect any high regard for the life and safety of a friend or a relative from a person who has scant regard for human life any way. 1n the present case, Sikandar appellant was obviously faced with only two alternatives, namely, of either taking a chance and shooting down his adversary even at the risk of killing his own cousin or of being over--powered by the witnesses who together with the intended victims would be equal in number to his own party.
There was also the possibility of Alam Shah deceased retrieving his gun from the tree if not attacked and killed sooner. In our opinion, therefore, Sikandar appellant and his men acted very much in a manner expected of any other persons equally unperturbed by the qualms of conscience and bent upon killing an enemy. Alam Shah deceased and Yusaf were so close to each other-one trying to hold the other in his grip and the other trying to get away that it is no surprise that Yusaf got hit by the shot aimed at Alam Shah deceased.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that all the three eye-witnesses are interested persons, and, therefore convictions could not have been based on their testimony. The shore answer to this contention is that merely because of their relationship with the deceased they cannot be dubbed as interested witnesses. An interested witness, in the context of a criminal case, is one who is interested in falsely implicating the accused. If there was any rivalry between Alam Shah deceased and Sikandar appellant, it does not mean that either Masoom Shah complainant or Rehmat Shah C. W. Or Riaz P. W. Would a be interested in having Sikandar or any one of the other appellants hanged after the death of Alam Shah deceased unless they were the murderers.
7. It is true that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly disbelieved the motive put forward by the prosecution i.e. With reference to the B. D. Elections. But the ignorance of the true motive on the part of the prosecution, of which the perpetrator of the crime alone may be aware, does not disprove the commission of the crime itself. Further, for a hot headed and unscrupulous man, a challenge to his authority or status can very well serve as a sufficient reason to murder the contender. And the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the desire of Sikandar appellant to be the sole Chaudhry of the village furnished not improbable motive to kill Alam Shah deceased.
8. In short, for the reasons given above we are of the view that the convictions and sentences in question are not open to exception. The sentences of death are accordingly confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.