1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Petitioner Muhammad Ali, along with his two brothers Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar and his cousin Muhammad Iqbal and his paternal uncles Abdul Karim and Fazal Haq, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot for the murder of a co--- villager Muhammad Saleem under section 302/148/149, P. P. C. After forming an unlawful assembly with the object of murdering the deceased on the 6th January 1967, in the sugarcane field of Ghulam Hussain and Fazal Hussain in the area of village Gohad--pur, Tehsil and District Sialkot. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Abdul Karim and Fazal Haq by judgment dated the 29th May 1968 but convicted the petitioner and his two brothers Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar and his cousin Muhammad Iqbal under sections 302/34, P. P. C. And sentenced each of them to death. This order was chal--lenged in Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 1968 in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. A Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court, by judgment dated the 22nd January 1969, acquitted the petitioner's brothers Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar and his cousin Muhammad Iqbal but maintained the conviction and sentence of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks special leave to file an appeal against the said judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that on the 6th January 1967 at Shahwela, the deceased Muhammad Saleem was going to his field to fetch sugarcane. When he reached near the village dera, the petitioner and his cousin Muhammad Iqbal tauntingly said to the deceased that "the moustaches of this man should be removed". Muhammad Saleem protested which resulted in exchange of abuses between the parties. They also grappled. Muhammad Siddiq P. W. 10, brother of Muhammad Saleem deceased, who reached on the scene, separated them. It is further alleged that the 6th January 1967, was Juma-tul-wida of Ramazan. After Juma prayer, Muhammad Siddiq P. W. Complained to Abdul Karim, uncle of the petitioner and Muhammad Iqbal against their behaviour. Abdul Karim replied that what has happened is nothing and that much worse is to follow.
3. Muhammad Siddiq then went to his house and from there went to Chah Chambewala in order to pay Rs. 60 to Ghulam Hussain and Fazal Hussain. At about that time, i.e. At about 3-00 p.m. On the 6th January 1967, Muhammad Saleeni went to the sugarcane field about two furlongs from the abadi to cut sugarcane. Muhammad Siddiq, Ghulam Hussain and Fazal Hussain who were sitting and talking, saw the petitioner armed with a sua, Muhammad Iqbal armed with a dagger, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar armed with kulharis and Abdul Karim and Fazal Haq empty-handed. They saw Abdul Karim and Fazal Haq exhorting their nephews to attack Muhammad Saleem. Muhammad Ashraf and Muham--mad Anwar gave hatchet blows to Muhammad Saleem on his head and neck. The petitioner gave sua thrust in tile abdomen of Muhammad Saleem. Muhammad 1qbal inflicted injuries on his left arm and back. Muhammad Saleem fell down. Thereupon, Muhammad Siddiq, Fazal Hussain and Ghulam Hussain raised an alarm and came to rescue Muham--mad Saleem. By the time they reached near the deceased, the assailants had escaped towards their well. Muhammad Saleem succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Muhammad Siddiq P. W. 10, after leaving his brother Bashir Ahmad to guard the dead body of the deceased, accompanied by Subedar Faqir Muhammad Aziz P. W. 2 proceeded on a tonga to the Police Station Sadar, Sialkot about three miles from Gohad--pur. The First Information Report was lodged at 4-15 p.m. And was recorded by S. 1. Choudhry Rehmatullah P. W.
13. The S. I.
4. Reached at the spot at 5-20 p.m. He took into possession blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence vide Exh. P. B. All the accused persons except Abdul Karim and Fazal Haq were arrested on the 7th January 1967. Petitioner and his brother Muhammad Ashraf bore injuries on their persons. On the 10th January 1967, the petitioner and Muhammad Ashraf offered to lead to the recovery of their weapons of offence. At the instance of the petitioner, sua, Exh. P.1 was recovered which was lying concealed in bhoosa stack in the kothri of the kurh of his well. Muhammad Ashraf also got recovered hatchet, Exh. P. 2, which was lying concealed under monchitty stack at the said well. Both the recoveries were attested by Muhammad Inam P. W. 8 and Abdul Aziz P. W.
3. The sua was found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist. The blood on the hatchet was found to be disintegrated and, therefore, its origin could not be determined.
5. The defence of the petitioner is that the alleged occurrence did not take place and the alleged recoveries are false. His plea is that he has been implicated out of enmity.
6. The conviction of the petitioner is based on the statement of P. W. Muhammad Siddiq, P. W. Ghulam Hussain and P. W. Fazal Hussain. According to the learned Judges of the High court as these persons were related to the deceased person and there was enmity between the parties for safe dispensation of justice it was necessary that their statements should be corroborated by other reliable evidence. The high court found no corroborative evidence against the other accused persons. They however found corroborative evidence against the petitioner in the recovery of Sua, Exh. P.I in this connection they observed as under: "Sua Exh. P. I. Was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Ali. The recovery is fully established by the statements of Muhammad Inam and the Investigating Officer. Abdul Aziz while making statement before the committing magistrate supported the said recoveries. We disbelieve his statement in the Court of Sessions and prefer to rely on the state--ment- of Muhammad Inam. This sua has been shown by the Serologist to be stained with human blood. This evidence may be pressed into service to corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses.
7. Mr. M. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that there are various discrepancies in the statements of the eye-witnesses and the occurrence in the case did not take place at 3-00 p.m. But sometime in the morning. The discre--pancies pointed out by the learned counsel are of very minor nature and nothing hinges on them. So far as the taking place of the occurrence is concerned, the High Court was per--fectly justified in observing that "had the death occurred in the morning prior to Juma prayer, this fact would have be--come well known in the village and Muhammad Siddiq would not have taken the risk of mentioning in the F. I. R. That it occurred after Juma prayer." . The contention of the learned counsel that the F. I. R. Could not be lodged at 4-15 p.m. Is also not well founded. The filing of the F. I. R. Within a span of 90 minutes is not an impossibility.
8. After going through the evidence on the record, it is quit clear that the prosecution witnesses were interested persons. There was enmity between the parties. In these circumstances, the High Court was fully justified in holding that their (e.i)--dence could be accepted only in case there was some other corroborative reliable evidence. The recovery of the sua was rightly held to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. It was found by the Serologist as blood-stained. Considering the eye- witnesses' evidence in the light of this corroborative evidence, the High Court was perfectly justified in convicting the petitioner for the murder of Muhammad Saleem. We are satisfied that the High Court has appreciated the evidence pro--duced by the prosecution in a proper manner. The sentence in this case is also proper. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.