1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The appellant, Bakka, was tried, along with four of his relations named Rukan Din, Muhammad Sadiq, Muhammad Hanif and Ghafoor, for offences falling under sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 149 thereof. Hanif and Ghafoor were acquitted, whereas the remaining three were convicted and given various sentences including transportation for life for the offence of murder. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court has acquitted Rukan Din and Sadiq of all the offences charged against them, and has also acquitted Bakka of the offences falling under sections 148 and 307/149, P. P. C. The High Court has, however, maintained the conviction and sentence recorded against Bakka under section 302, P. P.
2. C. For causing the death of Shana.
3. Leave to appeal was granted, on a jail petition filed by Bakka, to examine whether his conviction could be maintained in view of the finding recorded by the High Court that the contradictory statements made by the prosecution witnesses had created "a purposeless and bating" confusion, and also the fact that the same evidence had not been accepted as against the four co accused of the appellant.
4. The dispute between the parties was said to have arisen owing to the appellant having chopped off the branches of some Keekar trees standing on the land of Shahab Din (P. W. 9), which was on lease with Shana deceased. On the expiry of the lease the appellant is stated to have made an effort to obtain this land from Shahab Din, but the latter renewed the lease in favour of Shana, as a result of which the appellant and his companions felt insulted and annoyed against Shana.
5. It was alleged at the trial that the occurrence took place at about 7 a.m. On the 29th of December 1964 when Shana deceased and his nephew Hayat Muhammad (P. W. 13) were coming out from the mosque after morning prayers. When they passed near the house of the acquitted accused Sadiq and Rukan Din, all the five accused emerged from inside the house and attacked the deceased and his nephew. Rukan Din was said to be armed with a pistol, Sadiq and Muhammad Hanif with 12 bore guns, Ghafoor and the appellant with spears. Rukan Din and Sadiq fired at Shana, hitting him on his legs. The shot fired by Muhammad Hanif injured P. W. Hayat on his legs. On receiving these injuries both Shana and Hayat fell down on the ground, whereupon the appellant inflicted a spear blow on the chest of Shana. The acquitted accused Ghafoor also inflicted a spear blow on the head of the deceased, who died at the spot. The incident was said to have been witnessed, besides the injured Hayat Muhammad, by Noor Samand (P. W. 11), Shahra (P. W. 12) and Yaseen (P. W. 14). Noor Samand is a cousin and brother-in-law of the deceased whereas Yaseen is his son.
6. The incident was reported to S. I. Fateh Nasib (P. W. 15) by Noor Samand at 8-15 a.m., when he met him while on his way to Police Station Dera Rahim. The place of this meeting is said to be 3 --miles from the spot.
7. The autopsy of the dead body, as performed by Dr. Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 1) showed that Shana had 9 injuries on his person. Out of these, five were multiple, fire-arm wounds, three were minor abrasions or incisions and one stabbed wound 2" x 2" in front of the right side of chest, below the right nipple.
8. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries to the lung and heart as a result of the stabbed wound, which were found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
9. The witness Hayat was found to have sustained six multiple pellet wounds, besides an abrasion.
10. The appellant was arrested on the very day of the occurrence, and led to the recovery of a blood- stained spear from underneath Bhoosa stored in a room situated in the compound belonging to the acquitted accused Sadiq. The recovery was effected in the presence of Hamid A.I (P. W. 10) and Shahra (P. W. 12). The spear was found to be stained with human blood on examination by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist.
11. An unlicensed gun with some cartridges was also recovered from the possession of the acquitted accused Hanif, but nothing more needs be said in If, as the case of this accused is not before us.
12. The appellant and his companions pleaded not guilty at the trial denying all the allegations and asserting false implication due to enmity. They did not, however, produce any evidence in defence.
13. It will be seen that the case against the appellant rests on the ocular testimony of Noor Samand (P.
14. W. 11), Shahra (P. W. 12), Hayat (P. W. 13) and Yaseen (P. W. 14). This testimony is sought to be corroborated by the recovery of the blood-stained spear at the instance of the appellant. It is true that the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased, but there is no reason for them to falsely implicate the appellant by attributing to him the fatal spear blow. It is to be noticed that Hayat Muhammad (P. W. 13) was injured during the course of the same incident. As the occurrence took place in broad daylight, he had full opportunity of observing the whole incident. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that Hayat Muhammad was in any manner exaggerating the part played by the appellant.
15. The confusion noticed by the learned Judges in the High Court was more superficial than real. The site plan had shown two points between which the deceased was said to have been dragged after the occurrence, whereas the witnesses deposed at the trial that the deceased had been lifted by his assailants after the attack and not dragged. The Investigating Officer had found the body of the deceased lying at a distance of 20 Karams from his house in an open place on a Charpoy outside the habitation. The injured witness Hayat Muhammad had clearly stated that the deceased was carried for a few Karams by the assailants after he had fallen down, and that blood had fallen in front of the door of the deceased. This statement appears to us to be fully consistent with the notes given on the site-plan, as the word `dragged' used by the draftsman need not be taken in its literal sense, and could cover the act of carrying the deceased from one point to another while he was bleeding. We consider, therefore, that there was no bating con--fusion in the evidence of the eye- witnesses, when viewed against the back--ground of the site-plan relied upon by the prosecution.
16. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eye--witness account having been found to be false as against four other persons, the same should not have been accepted by the High Court as against the appellant. The principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has long since ceased to be applied by the Courts in this country, and they have always endeavour--ed to separate the grain from the chaff. In this case, the Courts below have been very cautious in giving the benefit of doubt to the other four accused, although the nature of the injuries found on the deceased as well as the witness Hayat Muhammad clearly showed that two kinds of weapons had been employed by the assailants. In any case, as against the appellant, the eye-witness account does not stand alone. It finds strong corroboration from the recovery of the spear, stained with human blood. The fatal injury was caused to the deceased by a spear, and to that extent the medical evidence also provides corroboration against the appellant.
17. One last point made on behalf of the appellant was that the spear was recovered from a room situated in the compound of the acquitted accused, Sadiq, and for that reason this recovery could not provide corroboration as against the appellant. This argument overlooks the fact that the spear was lying concealed under a stack of Bhoosa of which only the appellant ha peculiar knowledge. In these circumstances, the Courts below were right in regarding this recovery as providing corroboration against the appellant.
18. For the foregoing reasons, we. Are satisfied that the appellant has been rightly convicted for the murder of Shana. He has already been awarded the lesser punishment of transportation for life. His appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.