1. SHAHABUDDIN, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, by which the convictions and sentences of death imposed for the murders of Muhammad Yar and Dost Muhammad on the appel--lants, Muhammad Khan, Amir Khan and Saleh Muhammad were confirmed, and their appeal was dismissed.
2. The case for the prosecution was that on the morning of the 27th September 1956, while deceased Dost Muhammad was ploughing a field and deceased Yar Muhammad was attending to its ridges the three appellants along with four others, who were also convicted by the trial Court but were acquitted by the High Court, came to that field, two of them, appellants Muhammad Khan and Saleh Muhammad armed with pistols or revolvers, and the other accused with guns. Seeing them the two deceased persons ran towards north and the seven accused started firing at them while pursuing them. After having run a distance of about 13 karams deceased Muhammad Yar fell down, while Dost Muhammad fell after covering three more karams and scaling a stonewall, when appellant Muhammad Khan went up to him and standing on the wall fired two pistol shots. Both the deceased persons died at the spot and the appellants then ran away. This, in brief, was the case for the prosecution while the defence was one of false implication unsupported by any evidence. The trial Court held that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a convic--tion of all the accused. Out of the seven accused one Chiragh, who was acquitted by the High Court, had been committed to the Sessions in a committal enquiry separate from that which related to the other six accused; but all of them were tried jointly. It was contended before the High Court that this joint trial contravened section 239 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the medical evidence did not support the version of occur--occurrence given by the alleged eyewitnesses and their presence at the time of the occurrence was not satisfactorily established, and that the accused had no strong motive to commit the crime. The learned Judges while repelling these contentions entertained a doubt as to the guilt of the four acquitted accused not because they did not believe the presence of the eye-witnesses but because two of those accused were referred to in the first information as unknown persons and the evidence about their identification was not satisfactory.
3. As for the other two acquitted accused they took the view that the identification of one of them was also not satisfactory, while the remaining acquitted accused being 80 years old was too infirm to handle a fire-arm like a gun. They, there--fore, confirmed only the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants.
4. Special leave was granted in this case to consider only the first two contentions raised before the High Court namely ((PLD 1955 FC 113)) whether the joint trial of the accused who were committed for trial under separate commitment orders was legal and (2) whether the High Court was right in accepting the evidence of eye--witnesses in the face of the medical evidence which was contended to be in conflict with it. Mr. Shafi appearing for the appellants, however, did not press the first point in view of the decision of this Court in Ibrahim Banik's case. As regards the second point he contended that while according to the eye-witnesses five men armed with guns continued to fire on the two deceased persons, the High Court found that only three of the injuries inflicted in the occurrence i.e., injuries 1 and 2 on the person of Dost Muhammad and one on deceased Muhammad Yar were caused by gunshot and that therefore it was clear that the accused were recklessly and falsely implicated. He also argued that the learned Judges of the High Court had observed that there was no doubt that some of the shots had been fired from a very close range and that there was also no doubt that some of the shots were not fired when the deceased were running, while the eye--witnesses did not state that the assailants were in "the charring range of the victims".
5. On close examination of the medical evidence it is very clear to us that there is no material conflict between it and the evidence of the eye-witnesses. As stated above, ocular evidence was to the effect that the two deceased persons were running and the accused were firing at them while pursuing them. It is true that one of the eye-witnesses stated in cross-examination that Dost Muhammad was fired at from a distance of ten karams but it is not reasonable to take this distance as accurate as anyone witness--ing an occurrence of this kind can at best from only a very rough idea of the distance between the victims and assailants asfluctuate because both keep on running.
6. The description of injuries on Dost Muhammad shows that) only three out of the 15 injuries sustained by him were charred. The learned Judges have with reference to an observation in a Book by Major Sir Gerald Burrard (the Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics, page 58) come to the conclusion that these injuries were caused from very close range, but the observation quoted from that textbook refers only to cases of scorching or burning, and in this case there was no scorching. As for the distance from which a charred wound could be inflicted it is stated in Taylor's Book on Medical Jurisprudence, Vol 1, 10th Edn. At page 441 that "As a rule there is little trace o burning beyond a yard, but traces of powder marks may be found up to four yards or more". The observation of the learned Judges that these injuries were inflicted from very close range cannot therefore be accepted as correct. As for the observation that only three of the injuries were gun- shot injuries it seems to be based on the fact that the wounds have been described as of 1/2X3/4 diameter, but on that account it cannot be definitely said that they were not pellet injuries as the use of large pellets could result in such injuries. Therefore there is no force in the contention that while five men were said to have used their guns only three gun-shot injuries were found on Dost Muhammad. It was also contended that if the injuries were caused as stated by the prosecution witnesses they should have all be on the back, whereas there were injuries on the side and front also ; but even the injuries on the side could have been caused from the back and as regards injuries C on the front side it is possible that the deceased while running turned back, as it is quite natural for one trying to escape from a chasing crowd to turn round to see if there is any direction not covered by the persons chasing him so that he may run in that direction. The medical evidence cannot, therefore, be said to conflict with or in any way diminish the value of the direct evidence which has been believed by the Courts below after a careful consideration.
7. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with these convic--tions and dismiss the appeal.