1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- This appeal has been filed by Misri to challenge his conviction under section 5 of the Islamic Tazeerati Qawanin Nifaz Act. Two other persons, Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan and Bashir Ahmad, were also challenged in the case which was tried by Additional District Criminal Court at Kahuta but they were acquitted by the trial Court. Appellant Misri was sentenced to death and his appeal before the Shariat Court also failed. Mst. Sardar Bi, the mother of deceased Soboba, filed cross-appeal before the Sharia Court to challenge the order of acquittal in respect of the other two persons but that appeal also failed. The acquittal of Ahmad Jan and Bashir Ahmad has now become final because no appeal has been filed against them.
2. ' The occurrence took place at about 1-00 p.m. In the night intervening between 21st and 22nd of July, 1991. A case was registered, initially, under section 15 of the Islami Tazeerati Qawanin Nifaz Act.
3. Sooba was grievously injured and died at 7-45 a.m. On 24th July. Then section 5 of the Islami Tazeerati Qawanin Nifaz Act was also added.
4. ' During the time which intervened between the occurrence and his death, Soboba made three statements about the occurrence which have been treated as dying declarations. One of the statements is the First Information Report in the case which was recorded on 22nd July at 2-15 in the afternoon at Civil Hospital Kahuta. In sequence of time this is the last of the three statements.
5. Before taking up merits of the case it would be more appropriate to notice facts in which the statements were recorded.
6. ' First in time is the statement Exh.P.L. Which shows that it was recorded at 1-45 a.m. About two hours after the occurrence. It was recorded at the house of deceased Sooba at village Kacher-Ban, a far flung village in Tehsil Kahuta. It so happened that after the occurrence some people gathered at the place of occurrence and some of them knew that a police party was camping nearby in connection with investigation of another case. Some people went to the police party as a result of which Munshi Gulzar Khan reached the place of occurrence. Sooba was lying there in injured condition but was in his senses and could make a statement. He made the following statement:-- "On being asked, stated that my relations with my wife Mineral Begum are strained. My wife has illicit relations with Misri son of Balla. On 15th of this month I was coming from Kahuta when I came across Misri at Chanjal. Misri threatened me that he will cause me to disappear as he belongs to a big tribe. Strong words were exchanged between us. Tonight at 11-00 p.m. I was sleeping in my 'Pasaar'. My mother was sleeping in another room of the house while Muneera Begum was sleeping in the back room. Assailant inflicted three blows with a Kulhari on my head, right arm and chest and inflicted injuries. On hearing hue and cry my mother Sardar Bi reached there. Kulhari was struck in my chest; I caught hold of it. My mother also caught hold of the Kulhari and snatched it from the assailant. It was thrown inside the house. I identified Misri son of Balla who inflicted Kulhari blows on me. He was accompanied by 2/3 other persons whom I could not recognize because it was night. Misri has caused Kalahari blows on me with intention to murder me and he has done so with the connivance of my wife. My mother and wife Mineral raised hue and cry whereupon Muhammad Siddique Thakur, Ahmad Dar, Faqeer Dar, Gamma and others reached my house. I narrated the incident to them. There is a litigation between me and Ahmad Jan son of Rahim Joo Dar resident of Renji in connection with a piece of land. I suspect that I have been attacked with his consultation due to this litigation. My younger daughter used to sleep with me but for the last two days my wife did not allow her to do so and took the daughter to sleep with her due to which I was sleeping alone outside. My wife has passed on this information that I was sleeping alone. Kalahari which was snatched from the assailant has also been caused to disappear. Due to the attack I am injured and am struggling between life and death." (translated).
7. ' The statement is signed by Gulzar Ahmad and it is also mentioned therein that the statement was recorded at 1-45 in the night. It was duly exhibited at the trial and was marked as Exh.P.L. Gulzar Ahmad appeared as a witness and testified that he recorded it and also that he recorded it correctly.
8. ' In the night no arrangement could be made to carry the injured person to the hospital. After some hours Sooba was removed from the place of occurrence to be taken for treatment at M.D.S. Kahuta.
9. On the way he was taken to Police Post Kehlar where his statement, subsequently exhibited as Exh.P.J. Was recorded.' The English version of the statement is as follows:-- "On being asked, stated that I am resident of ' Raqba Ban Bahadar' at village Kacher Ban. Tonight at about 11-00 p.m. I was sleeping in the Verandah of my house alone. I was sound asleep when all of a sudden a blow was struck on my arm with a Kulhari then successive blows were inflicted on me.
10. On hearing my cries my mother came out of the house and started raising hue and cry. They left me when my mother arrived. I caught hold of the blade of Kulhari and threw it in the house from where the Kulhari subsequently disappeared. My relations with Misri son of Bali Muhammad Caste Gujjar are strained for the last two years due to the fact that he has developed illicit relations with my wife and he threatened openly at various occasions that he would murder me and get married with my wife. My wife Mst. Muneera Begum sometimes lives in the house and sometimes stays away from it and keeps on quarreling all the time. Misery commits Zina with her and it is a common knowledge in the village. Balli Muhammad son of Noor Ahmad caste Gujjar had also threatened me and it was with his consultation that he was carrying on with my wife and has been committing Zina for long time. Misri has caused injuries on me with the Kulhari. 2/3 other persons were also with him whom I could not identify because it was night time. I own some land in my possession about which there is a case Habib Ullah Khan son of Salman Khan Pathan etc. Raji v. Khawaja Ahmad Jan son of Rahim Dar which is pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, Kahuta. Due to this litigation, I suspect that I have been attacked with their consultation."
11. ' The statement, Exh.P.J., carries the signatures of Head Constable and the thumb-impression of Sooba is also duly affixed on it.
12. ' Sooba was then taken to M.D.S., Kahuta where he was admitted for treatment. In the hospital another statement was recorded this time by Sub-Judge Magistrate 1st Class, Kahuta (Saeed Bashir Butt). The statement carries the thumb-impression of Sooba but it is not in the handwriting of the Magistrate. However, it carries a certificate that the statement had been recorded on the request of the police in the presence of the Magistrate and under his supervision. It was read over to Sooba who acknowledged every word of it to be correct. During the trial the Magistrate explained that he was having headache due to which he did not write the statement in his own hand. Statement was recorded after the Medical Officer certified that Sooba was in a position to make a statement. The statement, which is marked at Exh.P.D., translated in English is as follows:-- "Statement of Sooba son of Manga Caste Gujjar aged 50 years resident of Raqba Ban-Bahadur, Kacher-Ban, agriculturist by profession, time of recording the statement 2-15 p.m. 22nd July, 1991.
13. ' I am in Kahuta Hospital and am in senses. Apart from Doctor Sahib, Prof. Ch. Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Rashid, Incharge Police Chowki are present. Doctor Sahib has been giving me basic medical treatment. In the night between 21st and 22nd of July at about 11-00 p.m. I was sleeping alone in the 'Pasaar' of house owned and occupied by me. My wife was sleeping inside the 'Dera' of the house while my mother was sleeping in the room adjacent to the 'Pasaar'. Meanwhile somebody, in order to murder me, inflicted Kulhari blow on the front of my head on the forehead side and injured me. I raised hue and cry and called my mother. Meanwhile another blow was inflicted on me with the Kulhari which hit me on the right arm in the middle and left arm near the elbow due to which the right arm was almost separated from the body. The elbow of left arm was also injured. Then third blow was inflicted on the right side of the chest. The blade of the Kalahari was stuck in the chest. Meanwhile my mother Mst. Sardar Bi had also reached. I and my mother caught hold of the blade. The assailants ran away. My mother pulled out the blade from the chest and threw away the Kulhari. I could identify two of the assailants, one was Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan son of Rahim Jaoo caste Dar resident of Reji while the other was Misery son of Balla caste Gujjar resident of Kacher Ban. Both of them were armed with Kalahari's with which they attacked me. One Kalahari, which was stuck in my chest was left behind while the other one was taken away.
14. The Kulhari which was left behind also subsequently disappeared. The motive of the attack is that I have a litigation about a land dispute with accused Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan due to which the said accused wants to kill me. Accused Misri is a servant of accused Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan.
15. They tried to attack me with the intention to murder at a previous occasion also but they failed.
16. ' However, since I am a poor man and since I had escaped injury I did not lodge a report. In the day time before the night of occurrence Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan took many rounds of my house. I could not identify the other accused persons.
17. ' This statement of mine is correct because I am fully in control of my senses due to the medical aid I have received. My statement has been recorded before the Sub-Judge. When my previous statement was recorded at Police Choke Kallar I was not fully in my senses."
18. ' The statement carries the thumb-impression of Sooba. Apart from the certificate of the Magistrate, it also carries a certificate of identification of Prof. Ch. Muhammad Hussain, resident of Hotar.
19. ' All the three statements have been admitted in evidence being relevant under section 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. Leaving aside its evidentiary value a dying declaration is recognized by law as evidence, if proved. These three statements have been duly proved.
20. ' Mst. Sardar Bi, mother of the deceased, appeared as a prosecution witness. Her examination-in- chief may be summarized thus. She was sleeping inside of the house while her son was sleeping in the "Pasaar". At 11-00 p.m. She heard hue and cry: "Oh! Mother, I am being butchered". She got up and fell on the deceased. There were Misri and Ahmad Jan, both of them having Kulharis in their hand. A Kulhari was stuck in the chest of Sooba and his hand was its blade. Both the accused persons were trying to pull gut the Kulhari. A third person was with them but she could not identify him. She took out Kulhari from the chest of Sooba and threw it inside the house and started running after the accused. There was moon light in which she had recognized the accused persons. The right arm of Sooba was almost cut off from the body. One injury was in the head and one in the chin. Other injuries were in the chest from which Kalahari had been taken out. The reasons why the accused persons injured Sooba were litigation about land because Misri and Misri's proposal of marriage (name not mentioned). When she ran after the accused persons they threw stones on her. She raised hue and cry that somebody had murdered Sooba. First of all Ahmad Dar reached.
21. Some other people also subsequently arrived. They included Gamma and Jamal Din. Soboba told them that they should take his statement and that he had been murdered by Ahmad Jan and Misri. Then four people from the family went and brought Moshi Gulzar with them. He recorded Soboba's statement who stated that Ahmad Jan and Misri had murdered him. She was with Sooba till his death and the statement recorded by the Judge was correct.
22. ' In cross-examination Mst. Sardar Bi stated that the story about illicit relations between Misri and Mst. Muneera was not correct.
23. ' In the first statement made by Sooba, which was recorded by Munshi Gulzar, Sooba stated that after the occurrence Muhammad Siddique Thakkar, Ahmad Dar, Faqeer Dar, Gamma and some other persons arrived at the scene. In her Court statement Mst. Sardar Bi mentioned the names of Ahmad Dar, Gamma and Jamal Din. The names of Ahmad Dar and Gamma are common. They are among those who appeared as prosecution witnesses. Gamma's real name is Ghulam Hussain.
24. Summary of the statement of Ahmad Dar is as follows:-- "I and my other family members live in the house of Ahmad Jan. When the occurrence took place I was awakened by Sooba's wife Mineral who told me that somebody has thrown stones on Sooba.
25. She asked me to come immediately. When I came out Soboba's mother Sardar Bi addressed me by name and asked me to reach immediately I switched on the torch and reached the place of occurrence and saw Soboba in injured condition. He was in his senses and was talking. Since there was darkness I could not move out much and came back and lighted a 'Dhinee'. In Dhinee's light I saw injuries on the person of Sooba. He was saying that he has been got killed by his wife. Misri had killed him. He did not name Ahmad Jan, Bashir or any other person."
26. ' This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined. Prosecution witness Glulam Hussain alias Gamma is the husband of Soboba's sister. In his Court statement he narrated the incident and said that Soboba had stated that he identified Misri and Ahmad Jan who inflicted injuries with Kalahari. He also stated that Vardar Bi had told him that she snatched a Kalahari from Misri and Ahmad Jan. Both of them did not identify the third assailant.
27. ' Two inmates of the house, wife of the deceased and one daughter did not appear as witnesses.
28. Noor Johan, the daughter of the deceased, appeared as a witness. She stated that she reached the place when the assailants had already left. She was told by her grandmother that Ahmad Jan and Misery were the assailants while the third one looked like Bashir but could not be properly identified.
29. P.W. Abdul Ghani is one of those persons who reached the place of occurrence on hearing hue and cry. He stated that Sooba had said that his wife Muneera had got him killed and he stated that he suspected Misri. This witness was also declared hostile and admitted in cross-examination that Sooba had clearly mentioned Misri to be one of the assailants. P.W. Jamal Din, who also reached the place of occurrence along with other persons said in the Court statement that Sooba named Misri as the man who had injured him with a Kulhari and he also named Ahmad Jan. He stated that the same statement was made by Mst. Sardar Begum to him. P.W. Muhammad Akbar was also told by Soboba that Misri had injured him.
30. ' P.W. Muhammad Siddique said that during the days of occurrence he was posted at the First Aid Basic Dispensary. At about 12'0 Clock in the night uncle Hameed came and told him that Soboba was lying in injured condition. He went to Soboba's house and gave him first aid. Soboba requested him then to bring paper and pen to record his statement because he was about to die. He requested him to write a divorce for Mineral Begum so that she did not inherit anything from his property. He said Mineral Begum had got him killed. Sooba told him that he was attacked by Misri.
31. He did not mention any other name. This witness also gave other details of the injuries etc. There are formal witnesses also. They include Khawaja Saeed Bashir Butt, Sub-Judge Magistrate 1st Class, appeared to the third dying declaration to prove statement. Gulag, Selection Grade Head Constable, appeared to prove the first statement made to him.
32. ' Appellant Misri, Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan and Bashir were challenged. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned members of the Additional District Criminal Court at Kahuna accepted the prosecution's story in so far as it related to appellant Misery and sentenced him to death under section 5 of the Islamic Maserati Gawain Nifaz Act by way of ' Taser' Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan was given benefit of doubt while Muhammad Bashir was acquitted. In the judgment under appeal a Division Bench of the Sharia Court has rejected the appeal and has upheld the findings recorded by the trial Court.
33. ' In support of the appeal filed by Misri, Mr. Glulam Mustafa Mughal, the learned counsel for the appellant, addressed arguments at some length. He took us through the three dying declarations, the prosecution evidence as well as the judgment under appeal. The learned Advocate-General, Raja Shiraz Kayani, appeared on behalf of the State.
34. ' Before adverting to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant we may point out that reappraisal of evidence is not a function of this Court. This position has summarized in Shabbir Ahmad v. The State and another 1997 PCr.LJ 1539 as follows:-- "(7) Re-appraisal of evidence is not a function of this Court. On it is settled that there has been proper appraisal of the evidence this Court does not even draw conclusion different from those drawn by the First Appellate Court and the trial Court. However, this Court does examine evidence to see whether there has been any gross misreading or non-reading which may have resulted in miscarriage of justice."
35. ' However, we have gone through the evidence and would be discussing it with a view to find out whether there has been any gross misreading or non-reading of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant in his elaborate arguments discussed the evidence and raised some legal and factual objections to which we will be presently adverting. His main contention was that there is no direct evidence and the available evidence suffers from inherent contradictions. He also pleaded that this doubtful evidence cannot form the basis of conviction on a capital charge.
36. ' It was argued by Mr. Glulam Mustafa Mughal that the question of identification has not been properly attended to. He submitted that admittedly the occurrence took place at about 11-00 p.m.
37. In the night when there was no artificial light in the house or near about as it was a far flung village.
38. He submitted that it was not possible for Soboba deceased to have identified the assailants due to darkness. He vehemently contended that it is in evidence that subsequently "Dine" light was made available for seeing accused properly. It was also contended that some of the witnesses stated that the sky was overcast. The Courts below have attended to this point and have reached the conclusion that in spite of the fact that occurrence took place at night time, the deceased and his mother were able to identify the accused due to moonlight. The occurrence took place on 9th of Muharram when there is moonlight at 11 p.m. It may be pointed out that the occurrence took place in the Verandah of the house and not in a room. The conclusion that it was possible in the moonlight to identify a person is supported by the fact that the assailant was able to see the victim. Deceased in one of his dying declarations stated that his wife had informed Misery that Soboba slept in the Verandah alone. Even if the assailant knew that Soboba was sleeping on a cot in the Verandah he had still to reach the victim and then to inflict the injuries on him. In total darkness he could not have been able to do that. That he succeeded in doing so successfully shows that light was enough. Soboba and Misri were known to each other and were, in fact, related to each A other. It makes identification easier. Therefore, the Courts below have not committed any error on this point.
39. ' The learned counsel then raised objections about dying declarations and also cited some case- law. His basic contention was that recording of three dying declarations was a highly unusual happening and it destroyed the value of each one of them. He then contended that there are serious discrepancies in the dying declarations. These discrepancies have already been highlighted while reproducing the three dying declarations. On the point of dying declaration the learned counsel pressed into service the following case-law:-- ' In Sher Bahadur and another v. The State 1972 SCM R 651 it was held by Supreme Court of Pakistan that a dying declaration was undoubtedly a statement of interested person and in the facts and circumstances of that case it required corroboration. It was not laid down for all cases that dying declaration must be corroborated if it is to be accepted. It is only the circumstances of the case which was before the Supreme Court in which this observation was made. The circumstances in which corroboration was laid down as a requirement may be reproduced below:-- "As regards the dying statement of the deceased, it also suffers from the infirmity that the motive now attributed to the appellants was never mentioned therein. As a matter of fact reading the dying statement and the First Information Report one gets the impression that the real culprits were the three acquitted persons. ..."
40. ' In Zarif Khan v. The State PLD 1977 SC 612, it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that a dying declaration is weaker evidence compared to the evidence of a witness who has been subjected to cross-examination. It was also held that a dying declaration could be challenged on any ground available to challenge the evidence of a witness, e.g. Enmity. These are the two observations on which Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal has relied. Whoever, in the same judgment two important principles of law have been laid down. Firstly that conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration, and secondly, that sanctity attached to dying statements by law has to be respected unless clear circumstances show that it is not reliable.
41. ' In Muhammad Ashraf v. The State PLD 1977 Lah. 520 it was held by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court that the declarant himself was interested, partisan and hostile towards the accused party, therefore, it would not be safe to rely on it unless it is corroborated by strong circumstances.
42. This observation was made in the background of a blood feud between the parties.
43. ' In Latif v. The State PLD 1978 Lah. 1337 dying statement was found to have been based on tutoring and there was intervening period of nine and half hours between the occurrence and recording of the dying declaration. In these and some other circumstances the accused was acquitted.
44. ' In State v. Mst. Gulab Jan and 4 others 1987 PCr.LJ 1769 Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, C.J.
45. Speaking for the Court, laid down the following principle about appreciation of dying declaration:-- "(9) The primary evidence against Mst. Gulab Jan in the case is the dying declaration of the deceased. What is the value of dying declaration? The law is that conviction can be based on dying declaration alone. But since the dying declaration does not stand the test of cross- examination, utmost care is always taken by the Courts in recording conviction on dying declaration alone. To find out truth or falsity of a dying declaration, a case is generally considered in all its physical environments and circumstances. It is necessary to find out how far the evidence or its different parts fit in with the circumstances and possibility that can safely be deducted in a particular case. Hence, in order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that such statements are made in the absence of an accused who has no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross- examination. But once, the Court comes to the conclusion that the dying declaration is the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death, conviction can be recorded on such dying declaration alone. However, as a matter of prudence the Courts invariably insist for independent corroboration of such a declaration for recording the conviction.
(10) If the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, comes to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that that infirmities make the dying declaration alone as insufficient to record conviction. Surrounding circumstances, in such cases, weigh heavily to accept or reject the dying declaration."
46. ' In the present case the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate was recorded after about twelve hours which is an adverse factor. Meanwhile Sooba had met many persons. There is an allegation made in the cross-examination of witnesses that Prof. Ch. Muhammad Husain tutored him. He was present when' the statement was recorded by the Magistrate. There are three factors which reduce the evidentiary value of the declaration. Firstly delay, secondly, chances of tutoring and, thirdly, the fact that when this statement was recorded Soboba said that he had been given medical aid and he was now fully in his sense. It shows that he was now hoping to survive. In the first statement recorded by Moshi Gulag he seemed to be under imminent apprehension of death.
47. Under section 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat a dying declaration is relevant even if the person is not under expectation of death but the absence of apprehension in the circumstances of the present case reduces the evidentiary value of this statement when it is compared with the earlier two statements. We have already noted the variations between the statements. The first statement recorded by Gulzar and the second statement recorded at Kehlar Police Chowki are substantially different from the third statement except about guilt of appellant Misri. In the first two statements only Misri was said to have been identified while the others were not identified. In the two earlier statements, he with great force mentioned that there were illicit relations between the appellant and Mst. Muneera and this was the reason which had prompted Misri to kill Sooba. However, in the third statement he changed his version and stated that he also identified Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan. He also did not mention the story about the illicit relations and instead laid emphasis on the land dispute with Ahmad Jan. He also stated that the statement recorded at Police Choke Kehlar was not correct. In light of the principles mentioned above by the learned counsel for the appellant, the statement made to the Magistrate reduces its evidentiary value and that is the reason why Ahmad Jan and Bashir were acquitted. The earlier statements, particularly the first statement made to Gulzar, were free from the blemishes mentioned above. The statement by Gulag was recorded at a time when Sooba appeared to be under immediate apprehension of death. It is important to point out that even before the recording of statement by Munshi Gulag, Sooba had made the same statements, one after the other, to Ahmad Din, Gamma, Abdul Ghani etc. All these statements are also relevant under section 46 of Qanoon-e- Shahadat and they are also dying statements. He even told P.W. Muhammad Siddique, who gave him first aid, that he was about to die and he requested him to write a divorce deed in respect of Muneera Begum before death. All these statements ring true and inspire confidence. Even otherwise it is well-settled that substitution is rare. If attack on him had been made by some other person, there is no reason why Sooba should have spared him. Sooba stated that he saw three persons but he identified only one. If he wanted to implicate innocent persons he could have easily done so by also naming other persons.
48. These factors lead us to the conclusion that there is neither gross misreading or non-reading of any part of the two dying declarations which have been implicitly believed by the Courts below.
49. ' Now is the question of corroboration. As held in Gulab Jan's case by this Court the need for corroboration of a dying declaration arises where it is not free from infirmities of such a nature that a dying declaration alone is rendered insufficient to record conviction. In the present case no such situation exists. All the same corroboration also is available. The occurrence took place in a house at 11-00 p.m. The nature witnesses were inmates of the house. Mother of the deceased appeared as a witness. She named Misri and Ahmad Jan as the assailants. Ahmad Jan has been acquitted and his case is not before us. Mst. Sardar Bi fully corroborates the version of the dying declaration that Misri was one of the assailants. Being the inmate of the house Sardar Bi was a natural witness and her version is to be accepted if not otherwise disbelieved for some reasons.
50. ' About Mst. Sardar Bi there is an important aspect which needs special attention. It was said about Sooba that he was inimical to appellant Misri because of the latter's (alleged) liaison with former's wife but in her Court statement Vardar Bi described the story about the alleged liaison as untrue.
51. Apart from that it is in evidence that in fact Sardar Bi got Muneera Begum bailed out when she was implicated in the present case. It follows that Mst. Sardar Bi had no against Misri and she had no reason to falsely implicate him. This gives more weight to the statement of Mst. Vardar Bi whose testimony, even otherwise, carries weight as a natural witness. Therefore, her statement against the appellant is corroboration of a natural witness.
52. ' Another point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved qua Ahmad Din alias Ahmad Jan and Bashir and it is against the principles of safe administration of justice that the prosecution evidence be believed in respect of the appellant.
53. The principle of law "falsies in Uno falsies in omnibus" has since long been discarded by Courts. The prevalent rule is that truth has to be shifted from falsehood.
54. ' Objection was also raised by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal about quantum of sentence. It was contended that two adult male eye-witnesses were not available in the case with the result of sentence of "Qisas" could not be awarded to the appellant. Therefore, he has been awarded death penalty by way of Tazeer. It was contended that death penalty was not called for by way of Tazeer.
55. We do not find any force in this contention. It is laid down in section 24 of the Islami Tazeerati Qawanin Nifaz Act that if the proscribed number of witnesses is not available any other sentence mentioned in section 3 may be awarded to an accused person. Sentence of death is included in the sentences which can be awarded with reference to section 3. Death is a normal sentence in case in murder. Therefore, the appellant has been rightly sentenced to death.
56. No case for interference of this Court having been made out, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.