SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---For causing the death of Muhammad Amir, deceased, and rioting, six persons including the to appellants and one Inayat were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, on charges under section 302, read with sections 149 and 148, Pakistan Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the to appellants and Inayat of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 and acquitted the others. For the said offence he sentenced them to imprisonment for life and payment of fines. The three convicts filed an appeal before the High Court. The complainant party also filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to them by the Trial Court. The High Court acquitted Inayat but maintained the conviction of the appellants on the charge under section 302; it enhanced their substantive sentences to death. The appellants have now come in appeal to this Court.
2. The occurrence took place on ,6-12-1983 at Dopehrwela just outside the Railway Station, Harriah, in District Gujrat. According to the prosecution, shortly before the occurrence, the deceased had arrived at the railway station by train on his return to Mandi Bahauddin where he had earlier gone to attend the Court of a Magistrate. As soon as he came out of the passenger's shed, he encountered the appellants and the co-accused. Hayat, appellant, had a carbine while Akram, appellant, was armed with a shot-gun. After raising a Lalkara the appellants fired at him. The deceased was hit in the chest and he died on the spot.
3. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be the enmity which had developed between the parties during the election to the Local Union Council. It was alleged that the deceased was a supporter of his paternal uncle, Ghulam Haider (P.W.4), who was contesting election against Inayat, a co-accused.
4. The occurrence was stated to have been witnessed by Ghulam Haidei (P.W.4) and Nazar Muhammad (P.W.5). Nazar Muhammad (P.W.5) had also come by the same train as the deceased, while Ghulam Haider (P.W.8) had come to the railway station alongwith his sister-in-law to do some shopping. Immediately after the occurrence Ghulam Haider (P.W.4) started for the Police Station, Malikwal, but on the way he met S.I. Ghazanfar Ali, incharge of the said police station. He made a statement before this officer. On the basis of this statement a case was registered at Police Station, Malikwal, at 4-00 p.m.
5. The investigations were carried out by S.-I. Ghazanfar Ali (P.W.11). He found three empty cartridges and a pellet at the scene of occurrence. He arrested the appellants on 15-12
6. At the Trial the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges' against them. They alleged that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. They did not produce any evidence in their defence.
7. The case of the prosecution against the appellants rested upon the ocular testimony provided by Ghulam Haider (P.W.4) and Nazar Muhammad (P.W.5). The prosecution sought corroboration for the ocular account from to recovery evidence. The Trial Court as well as the High Court accepted the ocular as well as the recovery evidence, and held the appellants guilty of causing the death of the deceased.
8. The appellants and the co-accused are related inter se. Hayat, appellant was the brother of Inayat and Baqri. Akram, appellant, was the brother-in-law of the son-in-law of Baqri. Nawaz was the son of Baqri. Ghulam Haider (P.W.4) and Inayat had been engaged in criminal litigation with each other. Apart from that they were rivals in the election to the Local Union Council. Nazar Muhammad (P. W .5) had been accusing Inayat of killing his maternal uncle. In the circumstances neither Ghulam Haider (P.W.4) nor Nazar Muhammad (P.W.5) could be regarded as a disinterested witness. However, the recovery evidence in so far as the to appellants are concerned supports their testimony. As already noticed, the investigating officer had found 3 empty cartridges from the scene of occurrence; after their arrest the appellants helped the investigating a officer in. Getting a carbine and a shot-gun recovered: Two of the empty cartridges were found by the fire-arm expert to have been fired from the carbine and the shot-gun. There is no reason why the statements of the recovery witness, Ali Draz (P.W.8), and the investigating officer, with regard to the recovery of fire-arms at the instance of the appellants should be disbelieved.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below had not found the eye-witnesses reliable enough, for, they had despite their testimony to the contrary, acquitted four of the persons put on trial. It was therefore unsafe to base the conviction of the appellants on evidence which lacked credibility. We are unable to accept this contention. As noticed earlier, the case of the appellants is on a different footing inasmuch as the ocular testimony has found confirmation from the recovery evidence. Thus, so far as they are concerned the ocular account could safely be relied upon. In the circumstances, the Courts below did not commit any error in holding the appellants responsible for causing the death of the deceased.
10. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.