' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This criminal appeal with the leave of the Court arises from the facts that in the occurrence which took place on 29-3-1986 at 2-00 pm. Near the shop of Bahadur complainant in Nai Abadi, Haji Pura, at a distance of 1-1/2 Kilometre from Police Station, Shalimar, Lahore, Muhammad Jehangir alias Badshah appellant armed with pistol , Muhammad Naveed appellant armed with rifle alongwith Muhammad Latif armed with rifle and Farooq armed with pistol allegedly launched attack on Muhammad Munir deceased, Muhammad Bashir and Bahadur P.Ws. Muhammad Latif caused the death of Muhammad Munir. Muhammad Naveed fired shot from his rifle hitting the left leg of Muhammad Bashir P.W. Muhammad Jehangir alias Badshah gave blow with the butt of his pistol on the head of the complainant, in the presence of Muhammad Riaz P.W. 4 and Muhammad Ilyas P.W. (not produced). Muhammad Munir died on the spot.
2. The motive allegedly was that on the day of Basant, Muhammad Arif brother-in-law of Muhammad Munir deceased has a fight with Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Naveed accused.
So, the appellants and the co-accused bore grudge and wanted to take revenge of their insult. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Bahadur P.W.6 on the same day at 2-00 p.m. At the Police Station which was recorded by Maqsood Ahmed S.I. P.W.10.
3. According to the medical evidence, Muhammad Munir died as a result of fire-arm injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Bashi{ suffered one fire-arm wound on back of calf. Bahadur complainant also suffered one lacerated wound on his head. The four accused were arrested on 18-4-1986. At the time of arrest pistols were recovered from Muhammad Jehangir appellant and Farooq accused in the presence of Bahadur P.W.6 and Muhammad Riaz P.W. On 22-44986, Muhammad Naveed appellant got recovered rifle from his house in the presence of Muhammad Ashraf P.W.3 and Muhammad Saeed (not produced). The recoveries were effected by Maqsood Ahmed S.I. P.W.10. Since no empty was recovered from the spot, the weapons recovered from the accused were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
4. To prove its case, prosecution produced twelve witnesses. Dr. Imran Mirza P.W.9 has proved the Medico-Legal Report of the injuries of Bahadur P.W.6. Dr. Syed Shoaib Shah P.W.11 has proved the post-mortem examination report of Muhammad Munir deceased. Dr. Khalid Saeed P.W.12 stated that Bashir P.W. Was admitted in the hospital with the history of gunshot wound and there was a lacerated wound on the back of calf with ragged margins. Muhammad Bashir P.W.5 and Bahadur Khan P.W.6 claimed to have seen Muhammad Latif firing shot from the rifle which hit Muhammad Munir who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. They also claimed to have seen Muhammad Naveed appellant causing injury with the shot fired from his rifle to Muhammad Bashir P.W. And Muhammad Jehangir alias Badshah appellant giving blow with butt of his pistol on the head of Bahadur Khan P.W. Bahadur Khan P.W.6 and Maqsood Ahmed P.W.10 have supported the recovery of pistols from Muhammad Jehangir appellant and Muhammad Farooq.. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.3 and Maqsood Ahmed S.I. P.W.10 have supported the recovery of rifle from Muhammad Naveed appellant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
5. In their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the incriminating circumstances. They raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. Muhammad Latif accused pleaded alibi. He made statement under section 340 (2), Cr.P.C. Stating that at the time of occurrence he was in village Baddoke attending the marriage ceremony of his sister-in-law Mst.
Parveen and he had attested the Nikahnama. In defence he produced Mansab Ali, Secretary Union Council D.W.1, Abdul Aziz, Nikah Khawan D.W.2, Faqir Ali, Secretary Union Council D.W.3, Muhammad Safdar D.W.5 and Saeed Ahmed S.I. D.W.6 in proof of the plea of alibi.
6. The trial Court, on 8-9-1988, convicted all the accused under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the murder of Muhammad Munir and sentenced Muhammad Latif to death and a fine of Rs,25,000 or in default 2 years' R.I. And others to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default one year R.I. Each. The accused were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. For murderous assault on the injured P.Ws. And sentenced to seven years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default six months' R.I. Each. Feeling aggrieved thereby, they filed appeal before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Believing the plea of alibi of Muhammad Latif, the High Court acquitted him. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the High Court has stated:-- "The documentary and the oral evidence brought on record by Latif appellant is sufficient to reasonably establish that the marriage ceremony of Mst. Parveen Akhtar, a sister of the said appellant's wife, had taken place on the day of occurrence at about 2-00/2-30 p.m. Which date and time coincided with the date and 'the time of the occurrence in question."
' The participation of Farooq accused in the occurrence appeared doubtful to the High Court. So, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. The convictions and sentences of Muhammad Jehangir alias Badshah and Muhammad Naveed appellants were maintained and the appeal to their extent was dismissed on 22-5-1991. In paragraph 44 of the judgment, the High Court has stated:-- "As has been noticed above, the ocular testimony vis-a-vis Naveed and Jahangir appellants inspires confidence and even if some corroboration be required, the same is available in the form of motive and the medical evidence available on record."
Feeling aggrieved thereby, they filed petition for leave to appeal in this Court which, subject to limitation, was granted to reappraise the evidence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that Muhammad Bashir P.W.5 and Bahadur Khan P.W.6 are not fruthful witnesses as they at least have falsely implicated an innocent person namely Muhammad Latif whose plea of alibi has been accepted by the High Court; that Muhammad Farooq to whom they (eye-witnesses) have attributed active participation has also been acquitted for want of corroboration; and that the High Court has failed to keep in view the principles enunciated by the superior Courts for safe administration of justice in criminal cases.
8. Supporting the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the State submitted that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no universal application and the Courts must "sift the grain from the chaff'. He has argued that by the facts of injuries on their persons, the presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot is very much established; that the eye-witnesses had no enmity to involve the appellants falsely in the case and for convicting the accused they can be relied upon without corroboration and if the corroboration is really required, the same is available in the form of motive and the medical evidence.
9. In the peculiar circumstances of the case the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.
10. We have anxiously attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the evidence on record and the circumstances appearing in the case. We feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. No doubt, by the fact of the injuries on their persons the presence of Muhammad Bashir P.W.5 and Bahadur Khan P.W.6, on the spot at the time of occurrence, is very much confirmed, but the factum of the presence of the witnesses on the spot does not mean that they are witnesses of truth. Acid test of veracity of a witness is inherent merit of his own statement. In the instant case, by the fact of acquittal of two accused it is very much clear that the eye-witnesses have not only exaggerated the number of the assailants but have.Also falsely implicated an innocent person Muhammad Latif whose plea of alibi has been found correct by the High Court. The eyewitnesses had gone to the extent of assigning the major role of murder of the deceased to Muhammad Latif for which he could be hanged, and as such they have shown reckless disregard not only for the truth but for the human life as well. In this view of the matter, we feel that corroborative evidence qua each appellant is imperative. So, in order to be satisfied that no innocent person is convicted, we have decided to look for additional evidence giving support to the statement of the eye-witnesses so as to create that degree of probabilities of guilt of the appellants which can be made basis of safe convictions.
11. Corroboration is required both as to the story of the prosecution as well as the identity of the assailants. We are fully aware that the corroborative evidence need not be such that it can of its own probative force bring home the change to the accused. It should, however, be a circumstance which points to the inference that the particular accused whose case is being considered did participate in the commission of the offence. The force that such circumstance should possess in order that it may be sufficient as corroboration must depend on the particular circumstances of each case. Since in the instant case the eyewitnesses have judiciously been found capable of involving an innocent person and attributing him the main role of murder, we feel that in this case corroborative evidence must be exceptionally strong and sufficient enough to connect each of the appellants with the crime allegedly committed by them. We do not for such evidence in the circumstances of motive or post-mortem examination report.
12. The motive is a double-edged weapon and it cuts both ways and which way it actually cuts depends upon the circumstances of each case. In the instant case, Muhammad Latif, who according to the prosecution had also a motive against the deceased has been acquitted. So, the benefit of the maxim "enmity cuts both ways" would go to the appellants.
13. The medical evidence may support the ocular evidence with regard to the injuries suffered by the deceased, kind of weapon used for causing the injury, duration between the injury and the death, and presence of injured witness or the accused on the spot, but it will not corroborate the identity of the assailants.
14. The prosecution case is pregnant with serious doubts. There is confusion and darkness all around and it is not possible for this Court to sift grain from the chaff.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is accepted, the convictions and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are hereby acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
' On 2-5-1995, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were ordered to be released by a short order and these are the reasons therefor.