1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 28th July, 1972 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 330 and 331 of 1970 (Murder Reference No. 118 of 1970). By this judgment, the appeals were dismissed and the death sentence of both the appellants was confirmed.
2. The appellants Abdul Hakeem and his brother Dur Mohammad were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan under section 302/34 P. P. C. For the Murder of Mst. Rahiman, a divorced wife of Abdul Hakeem appellant. Both of them were convicted under section 302/34, P. P.
3. C. And sentenced to death. The appellants challenged this judgment in the Lahore High Court and a Division Bench of the High Court, by judg--ment dated the 28th July 1972 in Criminal Appeals Nos.
4. 330 and 331 of 1970 (Murder Reference No. 118 of 1970), dismissed the appeals and confirmed the death sentence. The appellants challenged this judgment in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 226 of 1970 and leave was granted to them on the 10th January, 1970, for the consideration of the following contentions :----
(1) that no reliance could be placed on the prosecution evidence in this case, as the Investigating Officer had acted clearly dishonestly in planting on the petitioners the recovery of weapons of offence stained with human blood; even though the petitioners were alleged to have escaped with their weapons by swimming across the river Indus, they were arrested 13 days after the incident and the hatchets were recovered after another 13 days from the date of arrest ;
(2) that the ocular evidence was in conflict with the medical evidence as the eye-witnesses had alleged only three hatchet blows whereas medical evidence shows five such incised injuries on the deceased and there was no explanation for the abrasions found on one of her thighs ;
(3) that the motive for the crime was very weak and vague, and the prosecution had not succeeded in establishing the existence of any such Balochi custom as is alleged in this case ; and
(4) that the Courts below have not given due weight to certain impor--tant features of the case, namely, the presence of semen in the swabs taken from the vagina of the deceased, the failure of Dhelu (P. W. 10) to use his licensed gun against the assailants, the absence of any disinterested witnesses although it eras the day of Eid-ul-Azha, and the fact that the deceased witness. Dil Murad, had not been cross---examined by the defence during the commitment proceedings.
5. The prosecution case is that Abdul Hakeem was married to Mst. Rahiman deceased. This relationship continued for about 15 years but the couple was not blessed with any child. Abdul Hakeem, for this reason, divorced Mst. Rahiman. It is alleged that she went to Islamabad and stayed with her brother Abdullah P. W.
8. Who is Imam of a mosque at that place. P. W. Mondar, a maternal cousin of Mst Rabiman, was summoned to Islamabad where his Nikah was performed with the deceased. After this marriage, Asst. Rahiman became pregnant. This fact is stated to have offended Abdul Hakeem and his brother. It is alleged that for this reason, they have committed the murder of Mst. Rahiman under what has been termed as a Balochi custom.
6. It is alleged that on the 29th February, 19-69, on Eid-ul-Azha day, the .Appellants committed the offence outside the Haveli of Mondar P. W. According to the prosecution, Mondar was coming back after offering his prayer when he saw the two appellants from a distance of one acre carrying hatchets and entering his house. His father Dhelu P. W. 10 bad gone to nearby field to urinate. It is alleged that in the view of these two witnesses, Abdul Hakeem appellant delivered the first hatchet blow on the neck of Mst. Rahiman who was sleeping outside the Haveli on a cot. Dur Muhammad appellant followed him and gave another hatchet blow on her face. Abdul Hakeem gave a second blow on the right forearm of the deceased. These assaults made on the deceased resulted in the death of the deceased on the spot. P. Ws. Dhelu and Mondar chased the culprits and were met in the way by Dil Murad P. W.
13. The River Indus flows at a distance of two and a half acres from the spot. It is alleged that the appellants took hold of two Inflated Sandharies (inflated skins) and swa m towards the other bank. 1n this way, they escaped from the scene of occurrence.
7. The prosecution case is supported by P. W. Mondar, P. W. Dhelu and P. W. Dil Murad, who was examined in the committal Court and whose statement was brought on the record of the trial Court under section 33 of the Evidence Act as he had died. We have gone through the evidence of these witnesses with the aid of the learned counsel for the appellants and are satisfied that they are the witnesses of truth. It is not alleged against Mondarand Dhelu that they were on inimical terms with the appellants. No such allegation has been made. It is, therefore, quite clear that there, was no ground for these persons to falsely implicate the appellants. Dil Murad P. W. Was an independent witness. He was examined in the committal Court and was not examined on the point that he saw the appellant running from the place of occurrence and swimming across the river. We see no reasons to disbelieve the statement of this witness.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the motive is weak is of no consequence. Even if the motive is weak there is direct evidence on the record to show that the appellants were responsible for the murder of the deceased.
9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the ocular evidence was in conflict to the medical evidence is also of no conse--quence. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the veracity of the eye-witnesses does not necessarily rest on giving the exact number of injuries. In the confusion and excitement of a fatal attack it is usually not possible to count the injuries. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the police has falsely planted blood-stained hatchets on the appellants and the investigation was a tainted one.
10. According to him, this is a good circumstance for accepting the appeal of the appellants. The contention of the learned counsel has no force. The recovery made from the appellants has been discarded. This was the only thing which could be done. On this ground the ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved.
11. After carefully considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are satisfied that the appellants have been rightly convicted anti there is no ground to interfere in this matter. We would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.