' Jamal Din (55) son of Ismail and his two sons, Hashmat Ali (17) and Muhammad Ashraf (15), Arain by caste, resident of Chak No. 27/ Abbasia, Tebsil Liaquatpur, District Rahimyar Khan were found guilty of the murder by Muhammad Arshad and had been sentenced to transportation for life by order of the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dated the 7th of June 1971. The convicts have appealed.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 25th of July 1971, Muhammad Arshad deceased was present in the Dera of Abdul Rashid, in Chak No. 27/ Abbasia. Ghulam Nabi and Allah Ditta were also there. It was round about 12-00 noon when Ismail Barber came there. He shaved all the persons present.
Muhammad Arshad then borrowed a razor from the barber and proceeded towards the khal, because he wanted to remove his pubic hair. The barber also left the place. A short while after that Allah Ditta, Abdul Rashid and Ghulam Nabi heard the alarm of Muhammad Arshad who was crying that he was being killed. All the three persons rushed to the place from where the alarm was coming which was approximately at a distance of one acre. There they found Jamal Din appellant Holding the deceased by his arms and had put a foot on his neck. Hashmat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf were inflicting injuries on Muhammad Arshad... The appellants ran away when Allah Ditta, Abdul Rashid and Ghulam Nabi reached near Muhammad Arshad.
' The motive for this murder, according to the prosecution, was that the elder daughter of Jamal Din, namely, Rashidan became pregnant while she was still spinster. The appellants suspected the deceased to be responsible for the pregnancy of Mst. Rashidan. They were, therefore, out the outlook to take revenge of this insult. Occasionally when the appellants and the deceased came face to face with each other the appellants looked for some excuse to punish the deceased for the insult caused to the family.
3. Investigation in this case was conducted by Ghulam Qadir Khan S. H.
0., Police Station Liaquatpur, who recorded the first information report (Exh. P. F.) lodged by Allah Ditta. This officer prepared the injury statement (Exh. P. B.) and the inquest report (Exh. P. C.). The appellants were arrested on the 26th of July 1971 at 12-00 noon from Liaquatpur Railway Station.
Vest (P. 10) and chaddar (P. 11) of Hashmat. Ali which was found stained with blood was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P. K. The Sub-Inspector also got removed Vest P. 12 and chaddar P. 13 from the person of Muhammad Ashraf, which were also stained with blood vide memo. Exh. P. L.
Hashmat Ali was injured. The Investigating Officer prepared his injury statement and got him medically examined. Knife P. 6 was recovered on the 28th of July 1971 at the pointing out of Hashmat Ali from a jute field in Chak No.
27. This was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. C. Muhammad Ashraf while in police custody led to be the recovery of knife P. 7 from his house,. Which was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh. P. H.
4. Jamal Din appellant when examined by the trial Court denied, the charge and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to party politic& Ch. Shah Muhammad was a big Zamindar of the Ilaqa. Jamal Din owned land near his land. He wanted that Jamal Din should sell his land to him but he did not agree. Shah Muhammad felt annoyed. The deceased was a bad character and that the appellant did not know as to who bad caused his death. He further stated that the prosecution witnesses were host le to him because they were the tenants of Shah Muhammad. Similar are the statements of Hashmat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf.
5. The prosecution case rests on the ocular evidence of Allah Ditta (P. W. 8) and Abdul Rashid (P. W.
9) and the recoveries of knives P. 6 and P. 7 Although Ghulam Nabi was cited as a witness but he was given up as unnecessary. The trial Court did not believe the evidence pertaining to the recovery of knife P. 7 at the instance of Muhammad Ashraf, because no blood was found on it.
Regarding the knife P. 6 recovered at the instance of Hashmat Ali, the report of the Serologist was that the blood had disintegrated.
6. The main evidence to be considered in this case is that of Allah Ditta and Abdul Rashid P. Ws. And then the medical evidence. I may observe here that Hashmat Ali who was found injured was medically examined and the doctor noticed the following injuries on his person:- "(1) An incised wound 1/2' x 1/10' skin deep, on the first inter phalangeal joint palmer aspect of left index.
(2) An incised wound, 1' linear, superficial on the neck mid lateral aspect, on left side.
(3) 1" linear incised just superficial wound, on head, I" above left angle forehead."
The mere fact that the report of the Serologist that blood on knife P. 7 had been disintegrated would be no ground to reject the evidence pertaining to this recovery from Muhammad Ashraf. This evidence, therefore, would not only be admissible but could even be used for the purpose of corroboration of the ocular account. Both the eye-witnesses, Allah Ditta and Abdul Rashid described the incident in full detail and I have not come across any discrepancy in their testimony nor were there any contradictions. Abdul Rashid was not put a single question in cross- examination regarding the alleged occurrence. His evidence, therefore, pertaining to the killing of Muhammad Arshad goes unchallenged. He was absolutely an independent witness. There is no reason to disbelieve him. Similarly, I have not come across anything in the evidence of Allah Ditta P.
W. Which goes in favour of the defence. The mere fact that he happened to be from the brotherhood of the deceased is no ground to doubt his veracity.
7. The presence of Hashmat Ali is not only established from the ocular evidence but also from the fact that he was injured. Then there is evidence of recovery of knife P. 6 against him. Similarly, there could be no doubt about the partition of Muhammad Ashraf in the commission of crime, because the ocular evidence of Allah Ditta and Abdul Rashid finds corroborations from the medical evidence of the decease 7 whose postmortem examination was performed on the 26th of July 1971 by doctor All Muhammad who found the following injuries:- "(1) An incised wound 1' x 1/5" scalp deep, obliquely situated on right angle of forehead.
(2) A punctured incised wound 1' x 4' x 1/10" skin deep, on the forehead, just above eyebrow (right) at mid-point.
(3) A punctured incised wound 1" x 1/4" skin deep, on tenth rib on right side, 6" above iliac border.
The wound was directed upward and medially.
(4) A punctured incised wound, 1" x 1/4" skin deep, on lateral back, 5 below injury inferior angle of right scapula. The wound was directed upward and medially.
(5) A punctured incised wound, x 1/4" on right lumber region of abdomen.
(6) A puncutred incised wound, 1" x 1/4" on right ranial angle laterally, 1" above alico border.
(7) A punctured incised wound 1 x 1/4" skin and muscle deep, 2" below inferior angle on right scapula. The wound was directed upward and medially.
(8) An incised wound 1/5' x 1/10' skin deep on distal phalanx x of right middle finger of right hand on plamer aspect.
(9) An incised wound, 1/2" x 1/10" skin deep, on distal phalanx on right finger of right hand on plamer aspect.
(10) A punctured incised wound 1' x 1/2", vertically situated on front of left chest, 2" below left nipple.
The wound was directed upward and medially.
(11) A punctured incised wound, 1" x 1/4" x 4' horizontally situated on mid medial border of left scapula.
(12) A punctured incised wound 1" x 1/5" x 1" skin deep, above left renial angle between 10th and 11th ribs, horizontally situated. The wound was directed downward and medially.
(13) An incised wound 1 x 1/10" skin deep, on distal and middle phalangial junction of left hand index finger."
The number, location and dimension of the injuries leave no room for doubt that it was not one man's job but at least two persons must have taken part in the murder of Muhammad Arshad. The participation of Jamal Din appellant is doubtful, because according to the prosecution itself he w empty-handed. Moreover, the part assigned to him not only appears to be very unnatural but also stands contradicted. According to the doctor no abrasion or even a scratch was noticed at the neck of the deceased although according to the prosecution it was Jamal Din who held the deceased by his arms and put a foot on his neck. The case, therefore, against Jamal Din is doubtful. I gave him the benefit of doubt and acquit him. He shall be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. So far as Hashmat Ali and Muhammad Ashraf are concerned, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. I would, therefore, dismiss their appeal.