MAMOON KAZI, J.---By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos.300 of 1994, and 301 of 1994 and Jail Petition No,160/94 as all the three of them have been filed against the same judgment dated 2-3-1994 passed by the High Court.
2. Appellants Sher Bahadur and Pervaiz Iqbal were earlier tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Attock alongwith their co-accused Mumtaz Khan under section 302/34, P.P.C. All the three accused were found guilty and convicted accordingly. Accused Pervaiz Iqbal was sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs,20,000. In default of payment of the fine, he was further sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. Accused Sher Bahadur and Mumtaz Khan were, however, sentenced to life imprisonment and each one them was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,20,000 and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 2 years. In case of recovery of fine from the accused, half of the same was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The accused were also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C.
3. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 31-3-1990, accused Pervaiz Iqbal and Sher Bahadur had been admonished by the deceased for drinking liquor in the Holy month of Ramzan. On the next day, when at about 4 p.m. The deceased, who was a student of third year, had gone towards the fields. Baz Khan (P.W.7) who was a servant of Malik Saddullah Khan, the father of the deceased, informed P.W.6, Abid Hussain, the brother of the deceased, that the three accused had attacked the deceased and caused knife injuries to him. The complainant on receiving the news rushed to the place of occurrence where the deceased, who was still alive narrated the story to him. The deceased succumbed to his injuries thereafter on his way to hospital.
4. A formal F.I.R. In respect of the incident was registered on the same day at about 8.30 p.m. At Police Station Pind Sultan, District Attock. The information had earlier been supplied by P.W.6, Abid Hussain, to Muhammad Anwar, S.H.O.(P.W. 11) at about 0400 p.m., when he was on patrol duty which was taken down by him vide Exh. PA. The case was then investigated by Muhammad Anwar, P.W.11.
5. The accused pleaded not guilty at the trial and denied the said allegations.
6. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. According to Dr. Shahid lqbal P.W.3. The deceased had received the following injuries on his person:- "(1) An abrasion mark 5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. On left side of four head. I c.m. Above left eye below.
(2) A stab wound 4.25 c.m. x 2 c.m. Into chest cavity deep on left lower front of chest, 15 c.m. Below nipple, 10 c.m. Above and towards left of umbilicus.
(3) A stab wound 3 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x chest deep on right lateral and front side of chest, 11.5 c.m. Below and towards right of right nipple and 15 c.m. Below the right arm pit.
(4) A stab wound 3 c.m.
1.5 on front of right thigh. 20 c.m. Below right interior superior iliac spine (bone). Wound was into skin and facie deep.
(5) A stab wound 4 x 2 c.m. Into muscle deep, 4 c.m. Below the injury No,4 on right thigh.
(6) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. On right front of leg 10 c.m. Below the right knee bony prominence lower limit.
(7) An incised wound 5 x 0.25 c.m. Into skin facie deep 14 c.m. Below the injury No,6."
In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to heamorrhage and shock on account of Injury No,2 which was grievous and dangerous to life and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.
7. Besides the medical evidence, the prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses Baz. Khan (P.W.7) and Waris Khan (P.W.8). According to the evidence of both the witnesses, they were present near the place of occurrence from where they saw the said incident. The witnesses fully supported the prosecution case.
8. Although, the learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence in regard to motive but it found that there was ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses which was further supported by the evidence in regard to dying declaration made by the deceased before Abid Hussain, P.W.6. The alleged crime weapons were also recovered from the accused and such evidence having been found sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused, all the three accused were convicted and sentenced, as pointed out earlier. However. When the case was heard by the learned High Court, it disbelieved the evidence regarding dying declaration and the alleged recoveries of the crime weapons. It nevertheless found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reliable in respect of accused Sher Bahadur and Parvaiz Iqbal. Consequently, while giving benefit of doubt to co-accused Mumtaz Khan, the conviction awarded by the trial Court to the remaining two accused was maintained. The sentence of death awarded to appellant Sher Bahadur was, however, converted into that of life imprisonment.
9. Leave was granted by this Court to consider, inter alia, whether the High Court was justified in maintaining the conviction of the appellants on the uncorroborated evidence of the two eye- witnesses.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Advocate- General on behalf of the State.
11 . After going through the eye-witness-account furnished by P.Ws. Baz Khan and Waris Khan, we find that both the P.Ws. Were the natural witnesses of the incident as they resided in the same village. The scene of occurrence was only at a distance of about one-and-a-half furlong away from their houses. Their explanation that they were whiling away their time near the scene of occurrence just before Mar also appears to be plausible as people in villages generally do not have much to do at such time. There is also nothing to suggest that the said witnesses were interested witnesses and had any motive to implicate the accused falsely in the case. No doubt Baz Khan, according to his own admission was a servant of the deceased's father, but for such reason alone, his evidence cannot be ruled out of consideration.
12. We, therefore. Find that the view taken by the High Court in regard to the evidence of the two eye-witnesses does not appear to be open to exception. Both P.Ws. Baz Khan and Waris Khan appear to be independent witnesses who had no reason or motive to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Consequently. Even if the other corroboratory evidence has not been relied upon by either of the two Courts below, the evidence given by the two eye-witnesses inspires confidence and conviction could be based on the sole testimony of the said witnesses.
13. So far as the case of co-accused Mumtaz Khan is concerned. The observations made by the High Court in this regard show that the only role attributed to him in the occurrence was that he had held the deceased in his "jepha" when the co-accused inflicted knife blows on him.
Consequently, the High Court held that absence of injuries on the person of co-accused Mumtaz Khan eliminated any chance of his active participation in the crime in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the said accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the High Court.
14. In our opinion, the view taken in this regard by the High Court appears to be correct.
Consequently, we do not find force in any of the appeals.
15. In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed and the judgment of the I High Court is maintained.