MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This appeal is by special leave of this Court against the judgment dated 7-12-1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by which Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1990 jointly filed by Mahboob Khan appellant and Abdul Majid was partially allowed and while Abdul Majid was acquitted, the conviction of the former under section 302, P.P.C, sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000 imposed therefor and its payment by way of compensation to the heirs of the deceased were maintained. ,
2. The prosecution case was that about ten years prior to the occurrence Mst. Umtul Hafiz daughter of Ghaffar Khan and granddaughter of Muhammad Hanif Khan complainant was married to Muhammad Tariq resident of Emanabad, District Gujranwala. He started living with his in-laws.
After the marriage of Tariq, his brother Liaqat had been visiting him in the house of his father-in- law. About six months prior to the occurrence, Liaqat migrated to village Khanduwali, purchased a house from Ghafoor Meo and started living in it. About three months thereafter Liaqat returned the house to Ghafoor Meo and went back to his village Emanabad alongwith his family leaving the luggage in the house of Ghaffar Khan. Four days prior to the occurrence, Liaqat went to village Khanduwali for collecting his luggage. On 28-6-1987 Liaqat and Muhammad Hanif complainant were sitting on the bridge in the village when Shezi daughter of Badlu accused passed near them and started abusing Liaqat. Liaqat returned the abuses upon which she left the spot threatening Liaqat with teaching a lesson for abusing her. It is alleged that after some the Badlu etc. Accused party appeared holding clubs in their hands. Hanif complainant sent Liaqat deceased to his house.
The accused party is alleged to have abused Liaqat and also threatened that they would avenge the insult to Mst. Shezi. At about 2-00 a.m. In the night between 28th and 29th June, 1987, when Liaqat was asleep alongwith Muhammad Hanif Khan complainant and Khurshid Ahmad P.W., in the cattle shed of Muhammad Jamil, Badlu armed with a .12 bore gun, Mehboob Khan son-in-law of Badlu accused holding a dagger in his hand, Asghar accused armed with hatchet, Ibrahim also armed with a dagger and Abdul Majid empty-handed reached the cattle-shed. Abdul Majid accused caught hold of the arms of Liaqat Ali deceased upon which Liaqat Ali started crying awakening Khurshid Ahmad P.W. Badlu raised a Lalkara urging the four accused aforesaid to kill Liaqat so as to teach him a lesson for disgracing his daughter Mst. Shezi. Thereupon Mehboob Khan gave him a dagger blow causing stab wound 3 x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep, obliquely in the middle of epigastrium 4 cm below the sternum. Muhammad Hanif and Khurshid Ahmad P.Ws.
Raised alarm whereupon Badlu Khan accused fired a shot and threatened that if any one came near them he would be killed. On hearing the alarm Ismail and Abdul Ghafoor P.Ws. Were attracted to the spot, who also witnessed the occurrence. When Muhammad Hanif Khan complainant reached near Liaqat he found him having succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Leaving Khurshid and Ismail P. Ws. For guarding the dead body, Muhammad Hanif Khan complainant alongwith Ghafoor went to the Police Station Satrah where his report was recorded at 5-00 a.m. The same morning. Death according to Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Daska, had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries to liver and stomach which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
2. Muhammad Yasin (P.W.10) then S.H.O. Of Police Station Satrah, on 29-6-1987 visited the venue of the crime in village Khunduwali. After usual formalities of preparing the inquest report and injury statement of the deceased, he despatched the dead body of Liaqat Ali to mortuary for post- mortem examination. He recorded the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Khurshid, Abdul Ghafoor and Ismail P.Ws. During the spot inspection blood--stained earth was secured and was sealed into a parcel. Cot P-1 which was blood-stained was also taken into possession. The appellant and his co-accused Abdul Majid and Ibrahim were arrested on 14-7-1987 while the remaining to accused, namely, Badlu and Asghar were apprehended on 17-7-1987. He got prepared the site plan Exh.PG through Akhtar Naqash, Draftsman.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined Muhammad Hanif Khan (P.W.2), Khurshid (P.W.3) and Ismail (P.W.4). All 'the three P.Ws. Substantially supported the prosecution case.
4. While denying the prosecution allegation and pleading not guilty at the trial, the appellant and his co-accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the case "due to enmity and litigation with the P.Ws." According to Mehboob Khan appellant he belonged to Lahore District and had been implicated being the son-in-law of Badlu Khan co-accused. In support of these assertions, they examined in defence Taj Muhammad (D.W.1) and Samiullah (D.W.2). The evidence of the to D.Ws. Implied that Liaqat Ali had been murdered by Muhammad Hanif and Khurshid alongwith Jamil in whose cattle-shed the occurrence had taken place. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the eye-witness account furnished by Muhammad Hanif Khan complainant (P.W.2), and Khurshid (P.W.3). Both of them have positively stated that the appellant had dealt with the dagger blow on the stomach of the deceased which proved fatal causing almost instantaneous death of the deceased. The learned trial Judge discarded the defence plea that Liaqat Ali deceased had been murdered by the complainant party and had attempted to shift the venue to the 'Haveli' of Muhammad Hanif Khan P.W.2. According to the defence, the deceased had been done to death due to illicit relations with the wife and the daughter of Muhammad Hanif Khan P.W. This defence plea was not entertained by the learned trial Judge observing that to different versions have been put forth by the appellant and his co- accused. In this context a reference was made to the suggestion put to Muhammad Hanif Khan (P.W.2) and Khurshid (P.W.3) that the deceased was carrying on illicit liaison with Mst. Kishwar, daughter of Muhammad Hanif Khan. On the other hand, according to the learned trial Judge, Badlu Khan co-accused of the appellant, had stated in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That Liaqat Ali deceased had developed illicit relations with Mst. Kishwar daughter of Jamil and Mst.
Zatoon, wife of Jamil which plea had also been adopted by Taj Muhammad (D.W.1): Conversely, according to the learned trial Judge, Samiullah (D.W.2) deposed that Mst. Kishwar, daughter of Jamil, was having illicit relations with Liaqat Ali. The learned trial Judge, therefore, concluded that the appellant and his co--accused were not sure even about the illicit relations of Liaqat Ali deceased either with the daughter or with the mother and daughter. It appeared unconceivable to the learned trial Judge that a man could carry on illicit liaison simultaneously with the mother and her daughter. The learned trial Judge, therefore, held that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of murder of Liaqat deceased against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned trial Judge accordingly convicted the appellant and his co-accused Abdul Majid for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced both of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. Half of the fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of compensation.
4. A learned Judge in the High Court upheld the finding of the learned trial Judge regarding the implication of Mehboob Khan but reversed his finding as regards Abdul Majid was concerned.
5. Leave to appeal was granted in this case to examine the contention that it was not safe to rely on the highly interested testimony of Muhammad Hanif and Khurshid P.Ws. Who were related and partisan witnesses. In this context it has been pointed out that Muhammad Hanif (P.W.2) was related to the deceased inasmuch as his granddaughter Umtul Hafiz was married to Tariq, brother of the deceased, who was inimically disposed towards the accused party because of the litigation between his sister's daughter Mst. Zatoon on the one hand and acquitted accused Badlu Khan and Asghar on the other. According to the learned counsel the same was the position of Khurshid who is the real nephew of Moulvi Abdul Ghafoor (given up P.W.) who was inimically disposed towards Asghar acquitted co-accused of the appellant.
6. Sh. Khyzar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for the appellant, placed reliance on Muhammad Yousuf v. The State (1994 SCM R 1148) to contend that the case of the appellant was not distinguishable from that of the four acquitted co-accused qua whom the ocular evidence had been disbelieved and, therefore, the appellant was also entitled to the benefit which had been extended to his four co-accused. In this context the learned counsel submitted that it was a settled principle of administration of criminal justice that an accused could not safely be convicted on the same discrepant prosecution evidence on which benefit of doubt had been extended to a large number of other accused, in the absence of strong corroboration or confirmatory circumstance conclusively proving his participation in the crime. Reference was made to the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Ali Muhammad (1994 SCM R 1157).
7. As the prosecution has asserted that this was a witnessed crime, the first question is whether the relevant witnesses had any reason or motive to falsely implicate the appellant, or any of them. If not then it will have to be seen whether their presence at the spot was probable or natural, and whether their evidence suffers from any inherent weakness or contradictions which might make it unsafe to rely upon the same. It is an admitted position on the record that the son of Muhammad Hanif Khan P.W. Is the father-in-law of Tariq, brother of Liaqat Ali deceased. Conceding for a while that Mst. Zatoon, a sister's daughter of Muhammad Hanif Khan P.W. Had litigation with Badlu Khan and Asghar co-accused of the appellant. Also conceding that Khurshid P.W. Is the nephew of Ghafoor (given up P.W.) against whom Asghar co--accused had got a case registered against the son of Maulvi Abdul Ghafoor under section 307, P.P.C. It would thus be seen that no doubt granddaughter of Muhammad Hanif Khan had been married to the brother of the deceased.
Nonetheless this relationship is per se not enough to furnish an animus for false charge against the son-in-law of Badlu Khan with whom the to eye-witnesses are not inimically disposed. The reasons for false charge advanced by the learned counsel against to prosecution - witnesses are far- fetched and unconvincing.
8. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Judge in the High Court have not disbelieved the eye-witness account furnished by Muhammad Hanif Khan and Khurshid P. W s. Qua the four acquitted co-accused of the appellant. In point of fact and law, the four acquitted co-accused were merely given benefit of doubt so as to mitigate chance of false implication of all the four accused. The C question of divisibility of credibility of witnesses, in the circumstances of the case, therefore, did not arise.
9. Again it is by now settled that the entire evidence of a witness cannot be rejected simply on the ground of his having exaggerated part played by some accused on falsely implicating some of them. In this context, it is the duty of the Court to sift grain from chaff.
10. It would thus be seen that while scrutinising the evidence of witnesses in a criminal case the trend of exaggerating the charge in the involvement of as many ,persons of the complainant party as possible cannot be ruled out. It would be very dangerous to lay down the proposition that if the complainant party by its foolishness and stupidity or the wrong advice of those who wield the influence and authority exaggerate charge, even those who are the real culprits should also go scot-free. It was in this context that the principles of sifting the grain from chaff was evolved by the Courts in the sub-continent. The tendency of witnesses roping in some innocent persons alongwith the guilty is well-known in our social set-up, but their testimony as a whole cannot be discarded on this account alone. Their evidence is, however, to be scrutinised with care. See Muhammad Yahya v. Nabi Bakhsh alias Nabban" (1968 SCM R 912). Therefore, there is little substance in the contention as the principle that a witness found to be false in part shall be disbelieved in whole has been held to be inapplicable in such cases. In Jehangir v. Crown (1969 SCM R 875), it was held that the argument that the greater part of the prosecution evidence has not been relied upon, as six of the accused had been acquitted, the appellant was also entitled to an acquittal was not entertained holding that there exists no such rule of law and the matter depends solely upon facts and circumstances of each case.
11. We are conscious of the fact that the occurrence is of dead of night. The question is whether the to eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution could have been present; were in a position to witness the occurrence and; could identify the culprit. The to Courts below have answered these questions in the affirmative. We have no reason to disagree with their findings.
12. On the above analysis, we hold that the case against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.