' Bashir aged 40, Nizam Din aged 31, Matlub aged 25, Ashiq aged 20, Wajid Ali aged 31 and Dafedar Muhammad Bashir aged 80 were tried by Mr. Muhammad Hussain Parvez, Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for offences under sections 148, 302/452/323/324/149, P. P. C., by his judgment dated 31-5-1972. The learned trial Judge acquitted Dafedar Muhammad Bashir, giving him the benefit of doubt, but convicted the remaining five accused of the said offences and sentenced them as follows :- ' Under section 302/149, P. P. C., he sentenced each of them to transportation for life.
' Under section 452/149. P. P. C., he sentenced each of them to 3 years' R. I.
' Under section 323/149, P. P. C., he sentenced each of them to 2 years' It. I.
' Under section 148, P. P. C., also he sentenced each of them to 2 years' R.
1.
' All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The above noted convicts have filed two separate appeals against the sentences.
' Bashir and Nizam Din who are brothers inter se have filed appeal No, 464 of 1972 through M. Anwar, Advocate, while Matlub, Wajid Ali and Ashiq have filed Criminal Appeal No, 484/72 through Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Chohan Advocate. At the bearing they were also represented by Dr. Khalid Ranjha Advocate.
' Since both the appeals relate to the same case, they are being heard and disposed of together, by a single judgment.
3. The facts of the prosecution case briefly are as follows The appellants as well as the deceased and the P. Ws. Resided in a village known as K-Plot, Tehsil Okara, District Sahiwal. On 19-10-196', a minor through which the fields of the parties were irrigated was desilted at the orders of the concerned authorities. About 100/150 persons had joined in this operation. Muhammad Hayat P. W.
5 and Sadiq deceased were also amongst the persons who had taken part in the desalting of the minor. They returned to their house at about 4/5 p. m. When they reached their house they found all the accused, including Dafedar Muhammad Bashir (acquitted accused), sitting in the bailhak of Karamat, in front ' of the house of the deceased. Muhammad Hayat P. W. 5 entered his house while Sadiq deceased was still outside wben.Bashir and Nizam Din appellants reprimanded him for having desilted the minor. They are said to have resented the desilting the minor because the speed of the flow of water in the minor would increase, with the result that the supply of water to the fields of the accused, (who took their water from an outlet which was situated up-stream as compared to the one from which Sadiq deceased and his family irrigated their fields), would be decreased. The accused, therefore, stood to lose from this operation. It is alleged that all the accused persons started abusing Sadiq, who in turn also abused them. On this all the accused went to their houses and came back armed with weapons. Bashir, Nizam Din and Ashiq appellants were armed with spears, Wajid Ali appellant was armed with a sota, Matlub appellant was armed with a takwa while Dafedar Muhammad Bashir (acquitted accused) was armed with a sofa. They entered the house of the deceased. At that time Sadiq deceased, said the father of the deceased, Hayat Muhammad P. W. 5, the uncle of the deceased, Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6, the brother of the deceased and Mst. Maroofan P. W. 7 the sister of the deceased, all of whom resided in the same house, were also present. Nizam Din appellant opened the attack by giving a spear blow in the abdomen of Sadiq, Dafedar Muhammad Bashir gave sofa blow on the back of Sadiq deceased while Ashiq appellant gave a spear blow which struck the fore-head of Sadiq deceased. Said, the father of the deceased came forward to rescue him but was given blows by Dafedar Muhammad Bashir and Wajid Ali appellant with sotas. Mst. Maroofan P. W. 7 tried to rescue her father but Bashir appellant gave a spear blow which struck her on the left hand. Matlub, Bashir and Wajid Ali appellants gave blows with their respective weapons to Muhammad Ashiq P. W.
6. In the meanwhile, on hearing the noise, Sher Muhammad P. W. 2%, Khan (not produced) and Muhammad Ali (C. W. 1) case into the courtyatd of the house, by scalingover the compound wall, because the appellants on entering the house had bolted the outer door of the courtyard from inside. These witnesses intervened and the appellants went away taking their respective weapons with them. Sadiq had been seriously injured. His relatives, including Hayat Muhammad P. W. 5, Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6, Mst. Maroofan P. W.1 and his father Muhammad Said placed him in a tonga and took him to Police Station Renala Khurd, where they met a police officer and narrated the entire incident to him. But instead of recording the F.
1. R., he told them to go to Okara Civil Hospital for medical aid. The P. Ws. Then put Sadiq deceased in a truck and took him to Civil Hospital Okara, teaching there at 3 a.m. Sadiq deceased as well as the other three injured persons, namely, Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6, Alit. Maroofan P. W. 7 and their father Said were also admitted in the hospital and were medically examined, by Dr. Mehdi Hasan Mumtaz P. W.
2. The doctor also wrote a ruqua Exh. P.
0. To Muhammad Yusuf S. H.
0., Police Station Okara City (P. W. 19), who reached the hospital at 5-30 a. m. He made an inquiry Exh. P. T. From the doctor as to whether Sadiq was in a fit condition to make a statement. The doctor replied in the negative whereupon the S. H.
0., recorded the statement of Muhammad Hayat P. W.
5. He sent this statement to Police Station Rnala Khurd, because the village of incident fell within the jurisdiction of that police station. On receipt of the statement, Karim Bakhsh A. S. I., of Police Station Renala Khurd (P. W. 17), formally recorded F. I. R., Exh. P. F/A at 7-30 a. m. On 20-10-1968. Sadiq deceased died shortly thereafter. The doctor informed Muhammad Yusuf S. L, S. H.
0., Police Station Okara City, (P. W. 19) of his death vide ruqqa Exh. P. V./2. Muhammad Yusuf S. I.
Rushed to the hospital and prepared the inquest report and injury statement and then sent the dead body for postmortem examination through Abdul Ghafoor Foot-constable. He also wrote a ruqqa Ex. P. Y to Police Station Renala Khurd about the death of Sadiq. Karim Bakhsh A. S. I., (P. W. 17) left for the place of occurrence (village K-Plot), reaching there at 1 p. m. There he took into possession some blood-stained earth from the house where Sadiq deceased was injured vide memo. Exh. P. F. He then recorded the statements of the P. Ws. And got a site-plan, (Exh. P. G.) prepared through Inamullah, P. W.
11.
' Four of the accused namely, Dafedar Muhammad Bashir, Matlub, Ashiq and Wajid All were arrested on 21-10-1968. Seven days later, on 28-10-1968 Wajid Ali appellant led to the recovery of the iota P. 1 from his residential house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. B. On the same day, Ashiq appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained spear P. 2 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. D. Similarly, Matlub appellant led to the recovery of takwa P. 3 from his bethak. This was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P. G. Dafedar Muhammad Bashir led to the recovery of a blood-stained iota P. 4 from his house. It was also taken into possession vide Exh. P. E.
5. Dr. Mehdi Hasan Mumtaz examined all the injured persons including the deceased while he was still alive. He found two injuries on the person of the deceased; one small incised injury between the left thumb and index finger of Alst. Maroofan P. W. 7 ; six injuries on the person of Said the father of the deceased and three injuries on the person of Ashiq P. W. 6 ' Dr. Muhammad Asghar, Medical Officer (P. W. 1) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body on 20-10-1968. He found the same two injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that these were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
' All the accused denied their guilt and said that they have been involved due to enmity.
6. In support of their case the prosecution relied on the motive, the ocular evidence, the recoveries of blood-stained earth from the compound of the deceased's house and the recovery of weapons from four of the accused. It produced 19 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants. The recovery of the weapons has been proved through Chiragh P. W.
10. It may be mentioned that recoveries of crime weapons from Defacer Muhammad Bashir (acquitted accused), the three of the appellants namely, Wajid Ali, Matlub and Ashiq, but he did not rely upon recovery of weapons from Dafedar Muhammad Bashir and Matlub because the house from which these were recovered is also in the occupation of their brothers, As far as the details of the incident itself are concerned, the prosecution produced Muhammad Ashiq (P. W. Maroofan (P.
W. 7) and Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 as eye-witnesses. Hayat Muhammad another eye-witness died before the trial was held. He could not, therefore, be examined at trial. As a result his statement made by him before the learned Inquiry Magistrate was transferred to the Sessions file, under section 33 of the Evidence Act, as the statement of P. V.
5. Two of the witnesses mentioned in the F.
1. R., as eye-witnesses namely, Muhammad Said, (the father of the deceased) and Muhammad Ali were not produced by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge, however, summoned Muhammad All as a Court witness. He supported the prosecution only with regard to Matlub, Ashiq, Wajid Ali and Dafedar Muhammad Bashir. The motive was deposed to by Muhammad Hayat and Muhammad Ashiq P. Ws. 5 and 6 respectively.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the evidence on the record. I may mention that on a reading of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge it appeared to be a fool proof case against the appellants. Four eye-witnesses, three of whom were themselves injured during the incident, have supported the prosecution case, Their presence at the spot cannot be denied because of the injuries sustained by them. Their testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence and the recoveries made from some of the accused. Moreover, Muhammad All C. W. 1 also supported the prosecution case against Ashiq, Matlub, Wajid Ali and Dafedar Muhammad Bashir. The defence suggestions made to the eyewitnesses during the trial are conflicting and are therefore not very convincing. My tentative view, therefore, was that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellants. But on going through the statements of the eye-witnesses, minutely and carefully, I had to change my view because there are many material contradictions and improvements in the statements of eye-witnesses, which cast serious doubt on their veracity and go to show that they have no respect, whatsoever, for truth and that they could not, therefore, be relied upon to maintain the conviction of the appellants.
8. I would first take up motive part of the prosecution story. As already mentioned, the motive of the attack is said to be that on the day of occurrence, Sadiq deceased had taken part in the desilting of the minor from which he as well as the accused persons received water for their respective fields. When he and his uncle Muhammad Hayat P. W. 5 returned to their house that evening, the appellants and Dafaliiat Muhammad Bashir (acquitted accused), who were sitting in front of the house of the deceased, are alleged to have abused him. Sadiq deceased returned the abuses whereupon all the accused went to their homes ; armed themselves with different weapons ; returned to the spot, entered the house of Sadiq deceased and attacked him. They are said to have been aggrieved by the desalting of the minor because this was likely to quicken the flow of water in the minor with the result that the water supply to the fields of the accused, (who obtained water for their lands from the outlet which is situated up-stream as compared to the outlet from which Sadiq deceased and his family obtained the water for their land) was likely to diminish. In the first place it is admitted on the record by some of the eye-witnesses e. g. Muhammad hayat complainant, and Ashiq P. W. b that about 100-150 persons took part in the desilting operation. It is also admitted by the eye-witnesses than desilting was carried out on the orders of the officials of the concerned department (irrigation Department) and was done under the supervision of the Overseer and certain other Government employees. It is also admitted by Ashiq P. W. n during his cross-examination that the clearance of silt took place at tar every six months or a year. He also admitted that the accused as well as the complainant party had been obtaining water from the same minor ever since the Partition of the country. In other words, desilting of the minor had been taking place periodically for about 20 years prior to the incident and no one appears to have objected to the same. It is admitted that none of the accused persons objected to the desilting even while it was beings carried out on the day of the occurrence. There is no reason, therefore, that the accused should have resented the desilting to such an extent on that particular day.
Moreover, there was no reason for them to have had grievance about the desilting only (or even mainly) against Sadiq deceased because as already mentioned 100-150 persons had taken part in desilting, under the orders and supervision of the officials of the relevant department. Another interesting fact which is admitted by Ashiq P. W. 6 is that the land of Ashiq Ali and Wajid Ali appellants as well as that of Dafedar Muhammad Bashir co-accused were irrigated by an outlet situated at the tail of Rajbah. This fact is also admitted by Sher Muhammad P. W.
8. It is, therefore, evident that if Sadiq deceased and his family were to gain by the desilting of the Rajbah so did Ashiq and Wajid Ali appellants Dafedar Muhammad Bashir (acquitted accused) because they too would get more water. Matlub appellant is the son of Dafedar Muhammad Bashir acquitted accused and his interest must naturally have been connected with that of his father.
Consequently they could not possibly have had a common motive with Nizam and Bashir appellants whose land was watered from an outlet situated upstream as compared to the outlet that served the land of the complainant's family and the four co-accused named above. There was, therefore, no reason as to why Dafedar Muhammad Bashir, his son Matlub appellant, Wajid Ali and Ashiq appellants should have joined Nizam Din and Bashir appellants in complaining about the desilting of the minor in question and then assaulting the complainant party in their house.
Even Nizam Din and Bashir appellants cannot be said to have had any reason for having felt aggrieved over the cleaning and desilting of the minor in view of the fact that this operation had been carried out yearly or six monthly, for the last more than twenty years. I, therefore, feel that not only has the prosecution failed to prove the motive but the motive alleged by it has proved to be incorrect. It has been held in Hakim All v. State (I) that motive if alleged but not proved reflects adversely on the prosecution case. The reason for this is that failure to prove the alleged motive {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1971 SCMR 432 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' goes to show that the prosecution has suppressed the real cause for the incident and has resorted to concocting a false motive to influence the mind of the Court.
9. I now proceed to consider certain other facts emerging from the statements of the eye- witnesses which cast a serious doubt on the prosecution story and also reflect adversely on the veracity of the witnesses themselves.
' It has been stated by Muhammad Hayat P. W. 5, Ashiq P. W. 6 and Mst. Maroofan P. W. 7 that shortly after the incident they placed Sadiq deceased (who was still alive) in a tonga and went with him to Police Station Renala Khurd, within the jurisdiction of which the village of occurrence is situated.
They have stated categorically that they met a police officer at the said thana and told him the story about the occurrence but he (1. e. The police officer) did not record the F. I. R., and, instead.
Directed them to go to the Civil Hospital at Okara. Mst. Maroofan P. W. 7, who had also gone with them to Police Station Renala Khurd, however, admitted before the committing Magistrate that it was the thanedar who had met actually recorded the statement of Muhammad Hayat P. W. 5 with regard to the incident. She denied at the trial that she had made this statement before the committing Magistrate but when confronted with her statement before the ex-committing Magistrate it was found that she had in fact stated so before him.
10. According to the prosecution version, the injured witnesses including Sadiq deceased were then taken to the hospital at Okara and were medically examined. '1 he doctor sent a ruqqa to the Police Station Okara about their arrival and Muhammad Yusui S. H. 0 , Police Station Okara (P. W. 19) went to the hospital, he found that Muhammad Sadiq deceased was unconscious. It is stated by him (1. e. By Muhammad Yusuf S. H.
0.,) that when I reached the hospital Muhammad Sadiq wai unconscious". It is for this reason that he recorded the statement (Exh. P. A.) of Muhammad Hayat P. W. 5 and not that of Muhammad Sadiq. He then sent the statement &h. P. A. To the Police Station Renala Khurd through a foot constable, for the registration of the case.
' Muhammad Hayat (P. W. 5) has, however, stated as follows during his cross-examination : "Thanedar first of all visited the bed of Sadiq (deceased), and asked him as who had injured him.
He told the thanedar that he was injured by Nizam Din with spear, Dafedar Muhammad Bashir with rota and Ashiq with spear."
' This gives a direct lie to Muhammad Yusuf S. H.
0., (P. W. 19). Although Ashiq P. W. 6 stated at the trial that Sadiq deceased had remained unconscious till his death and denied having made statement to the contrary before the committing Magistrate, but when he was confronted with his statement before the committing Magistrate it was found that he had said that : "Thanedar first of all, after reaching the hospital, made enquiries from Sadiq deceased who was in senses."
' This not only gives a lie to Muhammad Yusuf S. H.
0. (P. W. 19) but also goes to show that Ashiq P. W. 6 has not respect for truth and is always willing to make a change in his statement to conform to the story given out by the police.
' There are also indications that the F. I. R., was recorded on the statement of Muhammad Hayat (P.
W. 5) at the spot, after his return from the hospital to his village, on the next day, because Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6 has stated in his cross-examination as follows : "The police had already arrived before our arrival, in the village. There, in our village, in the baithak of Khuda Bakhsh lamberdar, the statements of the complainant, Hayat Muhammad, myself, Mst.
Maroofan, Sher Muhammad, Khan and Muhammad Ali were recorded."
' It is evident from what has been stated above that the F. I. R., was recorded after due deliberation and consultation between the police and the complainant party and the possibility of concoction and involvement of innocent persons cannot be ruled out.
10-A. I now proceed to point out other discrepancies in the statements of eye-witnesses which go to show that they have no respect for truth and are prone to change their statements to suit the occasion. According to the statements of Muhammad Hayat, Ashiq and Bashir P. Ws. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the occurrence had taken place in the courtyard of the house of the deceased where all the inmates of the house were present. For instance, Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6 stated as follows : "When the accused entered, myself, Sadiq deceased, Mst. Maroofan and my father Said were standing in the courtyard, separately, but near each other".
' But Mst. Maroofan P. W. 7 had stated before the learned committing Magistrate (which was made earlier in time) that when the assailants came, the inmates of the house were sitting in the kotha
(room) of their house and that in fact the assailants had entered their room and it was there that they had injured Sadiq deceased. It would be useful to reproduce in extenso the relevant portion of her statement, made during the cross-examination :- "When the accused came, we were not sitting in the kotha but were in the compound. I did not state before the committing Magistrate dated 16-12-69 that I, Said, Hayat and Ashiq were sitting in the kotha when the accused entered our house, (confronted so recorded). It is incorrect that on seeing us all the accused entered the kotha in which we were sitting and I did not state so before the committing Magistrate (confronted so recorded). It is incorrect that the accused entered the kotha where we were sitting and inflicted injuries to all of us. I did not state so before the committing Magistrate. (confronted so recorded). It is incorrect that all the accused were still inside the kotha when the three P. Ws. Namely, Sher Muhammad, Khan and Muhammad Ali reached there and I did not state so before the committing Magistrate (confronted so recorded). It is incorrect that I said before the committing Magistrate that Sadiq deceased had received the injuries inside the kotha while we three P. Ws. Received the injuries in the courtyard. (confronted so recorded). It is incorrect that on seeing Sadiq deceased being injured, I, Ashiq and Said ran out into the courtyard where we were injured by the accused and I did not state so before the committing Magistrate (confronted so recorded)."
' It is evident from the above statement of Mst. Maroofan P. W. 7 as to what kind of witness she is.
The Court cannot be expected to rely upon her testimony to maintain the conviction of the appellants in such a serious offence. Msi. Maroofan is stated to be an eye-witness and was herself injured during the incident. But the fact that on this material aspect, her presence at the spot cannot be doubted, but the fact that the above-noted admissions made by her before the committing Magistrate are in direct conflict with the story given by the other eye-witnesses shows that the latter had changed the original version, and thus renders their testimony doubtful.
11. Apart from the witnesses who are related to the deceased, three other eye-witnesses are named in the F. I. R. They are, Muhammad Sher P. W. 8, Khan and Muhammad Ali P. W.
1. According to the prosecution version that accused persons had bolted the door of the courtyard of the deceased's house from inside, after entering the same, and the aforementioned persons (i. e.
Sher Muhammad P. W. 8, Khan and Muhammad All (C. W. 1) are stated to have entered the house by scaling over the wall of the courtyard of their house and witnessed the occurrence. Sher Muhammad was produced as P. W. 8 while Khan and Muhammad Ali were not produced. But Court examined Muhammad All as Court-witness (C. W. 1). It was urged on behalf of the accused that since they are independent witnesses, who are not related to the deceased, their statements have great evidentiary and corroborative value. It is, however, significant to note that Hayat Muhammad P. W. 5, one of the eye-witnesses who was present in the house at the time of the incident has said that : "Sher Muhammad (P. W. 8) and Khan P. W. Had reached the spot after the fight, through the main door and by scaling over the western wall."
' It would be noticed that he has omitted to mention the presence of Muhammad Ali (C. W. 1) altogether, although his arrival has been mentioned in the F. I. R., as well as by the other witnesses.
It is also noteworthy that Hayat Muhammad P. W. 5 has stated that Sher Muhammad and Khan had arrived at the scene after the incident. They could not, therefore, had witnessed the occurrence.
' Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6 also stated at the trial that only Sher Muhammad P. W. 8, Khan (not produced), Muhammad Ali (C. W. 1) had come into their house and that they had come in by scaling over the wall and had seen the occurrence. He stated further that these witnesses had arrived during the incident. But in his cross-examination he stated as follows : "I did not state before the committing Magistrate that Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Ali and other persons of the village turned up after the occurrence. (confronted so recorded). All the accused entered our house through the door and not after scaling over the wall.
I do not remember to have stated before the committing Magistrate that some of the accused entered our house through the door and some by scaling over the wall and that I cannot say as to which of the accused entered (through) door, (confronted so recorded)."
' This would show firstly that in his statement before the learned committing Magistrate (which was earlier in time) Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6 had stated that Sher Muhammad, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ali C. W. 1 had turned up after the occurrence and that some other persons of the village had also come with them. This shows that they had not come during the fight and could not therefore have seen the occurrence. This also shows that this witness (Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6) is capable of changing his statement to suit the prosecution. It is to be noted that he has stated before the committing Magistrate that even the accused had entered the house by scaling over the wall, which is entirely contrary to the statements of the other witnesses.
' In connection with the arrival of Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and other two witnesses, !List. Maroofan P.W. 7 has stated as follows : "It is incorrect that the P. Ws. Reached the spot after we had been injured by the accused and I did not state so before the committing Magistrate (confronted so recorded). I cannot give any explanation as to how the arrival of the P. Ws. After injuries to us had been recorded."
' It would be noticed that even this witness stated that three persons from outside had arrived after the incident. The statements of those witnesses i. e. Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and Muhammad All C.
W. 1, cannot therefore be relied upon or taken into account as corroborating the statements of the relatives of the deceased.
' Sher Muhammad (P. W. 8) had stated before the Committing Magistrate that some other persons had also come into the house of the complainant by scaling over the wall. But he resiled from this position at the trial because he had to conform to the stand taken by the other P. Ws. That only three persons, namely, ho himself, Khan and Muhammad All (C. W. 1), had entered the house after scaling over the wall.
12. The prosecution has also brought certain enmities between some of the appellants and the P.
Ws. It was admitted by Sher Muhammad P.-W. 8 that he stated before the committing Magistrate that Nizam Din appellant had involved him in a case for the theft of a mare.
' With regard to Wajid All appellant, it had been stated by Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6 that; ''he used to play his radio in front of their house though his uncle 'might have' asked him not to play with objectionable sound in front of their house" and said further: "Like o hers we also did not like the radio sounds and we used to close our doors. It is correct that till the radio was audible we did not allow our womenfolk to go out of the house". According to this appellant he had been involved in the case due to this enmity. Although Muhammad Ashiq P. W. 6 denied this assertion but his (Ashiq P W's) above mentioned statement Loes to support the stand taken by Wajid Ali appellant. It may be mentioned that Ashiq appellant and Wajid Ali appellant are cousins inter se and according to the defence Ashiq appellant was also involved in the case for this reason. Considering the widespread tendency to falsely involve all relations and brothers, this may well be true.
13. It cannot be contended that the incident did not take place because one person died and three received injuries during that incident. According to the defence however, the occurrence had taken place at night, after the darkness had set in, and the complainant party had not been able to identify the assailants and that therefore the F. I. R., was lodged by the complainant party after considerable deliberations and it had involved the six accused persons on the basis of guess-work and enmities. Even if it be assumed that some of the appellants bad in fact taken part in the assault it is difficult to rule out the possibility of false involvement of some persons, because, as already observed, even though some of the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, were present at the spot, their testimony cannot be relied upon because they have made so many misstatements and improvements on material aspects and I refuse to believe them as true witnesses, with or without the corroboration furnished by the recovery of 'crime weapons'.
14. No doubt it is now permissible for the Court "to sift grain from chaff" but in some cases it becomes impossible to do so with any certainty and without a possibility of convicting some innocent persons along with the guilty ones. The present case, to my mind, is one in which the credibility of the eye-witnesses is not divisible and the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is applicable to the testimony of the eye-witnesses. I, therefore, fee that none of these eye-witnesses, including Sher Muhammad P. W. 8 and Muhammad All C. W. 1 (who are stated by the inmates of the house to have come after the incident) can be relied upon to support the conviction. And once the eye-witnesses are disbelieved, the evidence of the 'recoveries' or the medical evidence lose their corroborative value, as there is nothing left to corroborate. Consequently, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, accept the two appeals; set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants and direct that they be set at liberty forthwith unless they are wanted in some other case.
' This disposes of both the appeals.