' IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHEEMA, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 17-12-1996 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, whereby he convicted Muhammad Tariq, Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtaiq-ur-Rehman accused persons under section 302/34, P.P.C. For causing the intentional death of Muhammad Anees (deceased) and sentenced Muhammad Tariq accused to death and Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtaiq-ur-Rehman accused to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,20,000 each and in default thereof to undergo six months' R.I. Each. The learned trial Judge also convicted the aforesaid accused persons under section 324/34, P.P.C. For making a murderous assault upon Umar Farooq P.W., causing him fire-arm injury and sentenced Muhammad Tariq accused to ten years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs,20,000 and in default thereof to undergo six months' R.I. And Tassaduq Hussain and Ishitaq-ur-Rehman accused persons to five years' R.I. Each plus a fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default thereof to undergo a further period of six months' R.I. Each.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded from the F.I.R. Is as under:-- "Anees deceased and Umar Farooq (P.W.) are real brothers. They are the sons of Muhammad Hanif who is the real brother of Muhammad Mubin complainant. Muhammad Saghir is the son of their 'Khala'. He is the son of Muhammad Ibrahim who is the real paternal uncle of Mubin complainant.
Thus, all of them are closely related inter se. The rival factions i,e, the complainant party and the accused party belong to village Mouza Roda Singh, District Bahawalnagar. In 1993 Tassaduq accused got registered a criminal case against Mubin complainant, Saghir, Abdur Rauf and others and they were challaned. An Ihata measuring 16 Marlas situate in the same village was also a bone of contention between the parties. As per the version of the complainant Muhammad Saghir and Rafaqat (who are closely related to the complainant and the deceased) were in possession of that Ihata since 1947. The aforesaid Saghir and Rafaqat collected some bricks for the construction of a boundary wall around Ihata. Muhammad Tariq, Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman, appellants who had a counter-claim over the same proclaimed that they would not permit Saghir and Rafaqat to raise any construction over there and on the fateful day i,e, 24-3-1994 at about 4- 00 p.m. The aforesaid accused persons emerged on the spot with deadly weapons. Muhammad Tariq was armed with a .12 bore double-barrel gun, while Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtaiq-ur- Rehman were armed with Lathis. Muhammad Tariq raised a Lalkara addressing Umar Farooq (P.W.) who was sitting in a chair, outside his shop that he should recite 'Kalma Sharif' and be ready to face death' on hearing this he got up with a view to escape when Muhammad Tariq opened fire at him with his gun hitting on his left thigh. He took shelter in his shop in order to save his life. Thereafter, the appellants went to the wheat crop of Muhammad Bilal Joyia and took up positions in the field.
Meanwhile Muhammad Mubeen complainant who was coming from Haroonabad and proceeding towards his house, when reached in front of the wheat field where the appellants had waylaid Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtaiq-ur-Rehman accused, abetted their co-accused Muhammad Tariq to kill him whereupon Muhammad Tariq fired at Muhammad Mubeen complainant with his .12 bore gun hitting on his chest. Muhammad Anees deceased fell down from his cycle. He crawled forward and was able to reach the Ihata of Muhammad Saghir where he succumbed to his injury. Abdur Rauf and Muhammad Yousaf (P.Ws.) who had meanwhile arrived there also witnessed the occurrence. The appellants then ran away from the spot taking their respective weapons with them. Muhammad Mubeen complainant leaving Muhammad Yousaf and Abdur Rauf (P.Ws.) with the dead body proceeded towards Police Station Dunga Bunga for lodging the report and met Akhtar Hussain, Inspector/S.H.O. On the way and told him all about the occurrence. He recorded his statement Exh.P.A. Which was read over to him and he signed the same in token of its correctness.
After recording the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. The said Thanedar left for the spot, prepared injury statement Exh.P.N. And inquest report Exh.P.L. Of the deceased and despatched the dead body for autopsy under the escort of a constable. He then inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Exh.P.M.
(without scale), collected bloodstained earth and 5 crime-empties P.1 to P.5 from the place of occurrence and took them into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. And Exh.P.E. Respectively and made them into separate sealed parcels. The said Thanedar recorded the statements of the P.Ws. He also took into possession bicycle P.8 of the deceased and a book P.9 from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.G.
He took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased P.10 to P.12 on 29-3-1994, he arrested Tariq appellant who produced his licensed gun P.6 and its licence which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. On 7-4-1994, he arrested Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtiaq-ur- Rehman accused. On 8-4-1994 while in police custody, Ishtaiq-ur-Rehman got recovered Lathi P.14 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.J. On the same day, Tassaduq Hussain led to the recovery of Lathi P.13 from his house which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.I. The said Thanedar then deposited all the sealed parcels with the Moharrir. He recorded the statements of the P.Ws., completed the investigation and put the challan in Court.
3. Dr. Rao Muhammad Iqbal, Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital (P.W.4) conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Muhammad Anees on 25-3-1994 at 8-00 a.m. And found the following injuries on his person:
(1) A rounded shape wound measuring 0.8 x 0.8 c.m. Over the left side of sternum 8 c.m. Medical and above the left nipple of chest.
(2) Only clotted blood was present on the chest.
(3) Blood was present in both the mostrals. Corresponding tear was present over the left side of shirt.
' In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to Injury No,1 which led to perforation of left lung and major blood vessel of chest. This injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course nature. The injury was ante-mortem in nature and caused by fire-arm. One pellet was recovered from the body of Muhammad Anees deceased which was sealed in a phial and handed over to the police. The duration between injuries and death was within half an hour and between death and post-mortem examination within 24 hours. Exh.P.C. Is the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem examination while Exh.P.C./1 is the diagram showing the location of injury. The post- mortem report and diagram bear the signatures of the doctor.
4. On 24-3-1994 at 9-00 p.m., Dr. Muhammad Mukarram, Medical Officer Rural Health Centre, Dunga Bunga, medically examined Umar Farooq (P.W.6) and found the following injuries:--
(1) 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Oval shape punctured wound on the antero-lateral surface of the left thigh. Margin of the wound was inverted. Bleed profusely. Burning around the wound was present. Depth not probed. Injury was 18 c.m. Above the left knee joint. This was the wound of entry.
(2) 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. An oval shape punctured wound on the posterior surface of the left thigh at the same level. Margin of the wound was inverted. Bleed profusely. This was the wound of exit.
'These injuries were declared 'Ghayr Jaifah Mutalahimah'. The injuries were caused by fire-arm with the duration of 24 hours. Exh.P.B. Is the correct carbon copy of the M.L.R. Which is in his hand and bears his signature. Exh.P.B./1 and Exh.P.B./2 are the X-ray films.
5. The accused-persons took the plea of denial simpliciter. They denied the prosecution story and pleaded false implication due to their enmity with the complainant party. Muhammad Tariq appellant asserted that the deceased was done to death by some unknown persons and that he and his brother had no hand in the murder of Anees deceased. The accused persons did not produce any evidence in their defence nor they appeared in the witness-box as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
6. The prosecution case chiefly rests on motive, ocular evidence, medical evidence and recovery.
The trial Judge believed the motive part of the prosecution story given by Muhammad Mubeen (P.W.5). He also believed the ocular evidence of Muhammad Mubeen (P.W.5), Umar Farooq (P.W.6) and Abdur Rauf (P.W.7). The learned trial Judge discarded the objections raised by the learned defence counsel with regard to the testimony of the aforesaid eyewitnesses. He believed the medical evidence and recovery of weapons (gun and Lathis) and on the basis of aforesaid pieces of direct and circumstantial evidence convicted Muhammad Tariq accused/appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. For causing the death of Muhammad Anees and sentenced him to death.
Muhammad Tariq appellant was also convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. For making a murderous assault upon Umar Farooq (P.W.6) by giving him fire shot injury on his back and sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. Plus fine in the tune of Rs,20,000. In case of default the accused was ordered to undergo six months' R.I. Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman appellants had not caused any injury to the deceased and Umar Farooq (P. W.6). Anyhow they were held vicariously liable under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment each plus a fine of Rs,20,000 each and in default thereof to undergo six months' R.I. Each. They were further held vicariously liable for making a murderous assault upon Umar Farooq P.W., whom their co-accused Tariq had caused a gunshot injury and convicted under section 324, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. Each plus a fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default thereof to undergo six months' R.I. Each, vide the impugned judgment, dated 17-12-1996.
7. Feeling aggrieved the accused persons (hereinafter -ailed the appellants) have filed the instant Appeal No,147 of 1996. Reference has been sent by the trial Court for the confirmation of death sentence and we propose to dispose of this appeal alongwith Murder Reference No,23 of 1996 together because both relate to same case.
8. The prosecution case chiefly rests on motive, ocular evidence, medical evidence and recovery and we propose to discuss these pieces of evidence in seriatim.
9. As regards motive, it has come in the evidence of Muhammad Mubeen (P.W.5) that an Ihata was a bone of contention between the parties. Saghir and Rafaqat from the complainant side were claiming its title on the ground of their continuous possession which was denied by the accused party. In order to strengthen their claim Saghir and Rafaqt wanted to construct a boundary wall around Ihata and the accused persons opposed this move but when they started collecting bricks, they (the accused) resorted to violence. Another milestone on the road to enmity was that in the year 1993, Tassaduq Hussain accused got registered a criminal case against Mobeen complainant, Saghir and his brother Abdul Rauf under sections 148, 447, 458, 149, P.P.C. And complainant was challaned in that case. The disputed plot might have been the cause of the above criminal litigation between the parties. Anyhow, we are convinced that bad blood did exist between the parties and they had not buried the hatchet till the fateful day on which this unhappy episode took place.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the motive offered by the prosecution is false and far-fetched. The parties were litigating since long. Saghir and Abdul Rauf were in possession of the disputed Ihata as per version of the prosecution and on their own showing the accused persons never resorted to violence before hence it does not appeal to reason that they would kill Anees deceased and injure Umar Farooq (P.W.) by giving them fire-arm injuries for the simple reason that Saghir and Abdul Rauf had collected bricks for the construction of boundary wall. There was some sinister motive which the prosecution has concealed.
11. We do not see any merit and substance in the above argument. It is the case of the accused/appellants that Tassaduq Hussain accused got registered a criminal case against the complainant, Saghir and Abdul Rauf etc. And they were prosecuted in the case. This fact goes a long way to establish that relations between the complainant and the accused party were strained and bitter since 1993 and their dispute over the possession of the aforesaid Ihata might have aggravated their hostility for each other. However, the fact remains that relations between the parties were not cordial and friendly. They were at daggers drawn and could resort to violence at any time over a trivial matter.
12. It is indeed true that they had never took arms against each other before but "it is too much to say that the aforesaid bitterness between the parties could not possibly form a motive for the occurrence. The variation in human nature being so vast, murders have been committed for much lesser motive and it is a general experience that in rural areas the possession of Ihatas have led to many a tragic and unhappy episodes like the instant one. (See PLD 1976 SC 51(c)). The statement of Muhammad Mubeen (P.W.5) on the point of motive stands unrebutted which is further fortified by the testimony of Abdul Rauf (P.W.7). Even otherwise the weakness of motive or its complete absence would be wholly immaterial if the prosecution is able to prove its case through ocular evidence of unimpeachable character. See PLD 1975 SC 160 (165). The objection with regard to motive raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, overruled.
13. The prosecution case chiefly rests on the statements of Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5), Umar Farooq (P.W.6) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7). Muhammad Mubin (P.W.) is the author of the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. And paternal uncle of the deceased and Umar Farooq (P.W.). He reiterated what he had deposed in the F.I.R. His statement stands fully corroborated by the evidence of Umar Farooq (P.W.6) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7) on all material particulars. These eyewitnesses were subjected to a searching cross- examination but there is nothing on the file which may tend to discredit their testimony.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant had vehemently contended that the aforesaid eye- witnesses namely Muhammad Mubin, Umar Farooq and Abdul Rauf are interested and inimical witnesses. Their evidence cannot, therefore, be accepted without corroboration which is not forthcoming in this case.
16. We have given our anxious consideration to the above argument and see no force in it. It is indeed true that Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5) is the uncle of the deceased and Umar Farooq (P.W.). In addition to his close relationship with the deceased he had frankly admitted his previous enmity with the accused party in his cross-examination. Abdul Rauf (P.W.7) also stands on the same footing because of his involvement in a criminal case got registered by Tassaduq Hussain accused under section 148/447/448/4587149, P.P.C. Against Mubin complainant (P.W.5), Abdul Rauf (P.W.7) and others, hence their enmity with the accused is an open secret. They are, therefore, interested and inimical witnesses But it is now well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even relationship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting for rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence and we cannot help borrowing a very wise observation of the Supreme Court made in Abdul Rashid v. Umid Ali and 2 others PLD 1975 SC 227 (237) which reads as under:-- " Although as a rule of prudence, the Courts have more often than not insisted on independent corroboration before placing reliance on the testimony of interested witnesses yet it is not an inflexible rule to be rigidly and unexceptionally applied. There might be cases in which the witnesses related to the deceased might be otherwise quite natural furnishing direct evidence of a convincing nature unless there are reasons to believe that they have an animus against the accused and are giving a rather distorted or exaggerated account which does not inspire confidence. Even their corroborated testimony may be implicitly relied upon of course in the context of other relevant circumstances of each case."
' A similar view is expressed in Jahan Khan v. State PLD 1959 SC 488), Niaz v. State PLD 1960 SC 387, Nazir and others v. State PLD 1962 SC 269 and Muhammad Ismail v. Khushi Muhammad and 7 others PLD 1974 SC 37, Muhammad Ahmad and others v. State 1997 SCMR 101.
17. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of a particular case, to base conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet in most cases, in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question whether the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime at the material time was probable. If so, whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness, being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case, is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answer to these questions be in the affirmative, and the evidence of the witness appears to the Court to be almost flawless, and free from suspicion, it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. Since perfection in this imperfect world is seldom to be found, and the evidence of a witness, moreso of an interested witness, is generally fringed with embellishment and exaggerations, however, true in the main, the Court may look for some assurance, the nature and extent of which will vary according to the circumstances of a particular case, from independent evidence, circumstantial or direct, before finding the accused guilty on the basis of his interested testimony. We may again emphasise that these are only broad guidelines which may often be useful in assessing interested testimony, and are not ironcased rules uniformly applicable in all situations.
18. Now let us apply this broad test to the evidence of Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7).
19. At the outset we would like to say that the house of Muhammad Yousaf where Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7) were present at the relevant time is at a small distance from the shop of Umar Farooq (P.W.6) where he was sitting when he was fired at by Tariq accused.
Keeping in view their close relationship the presence of Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7) in the house of Muhammad Yousaf who is real brother of the deceased and Umar Farooq injured P.W. Is quite probable, and in spite of lengthy cross-examination the defence could not elicit anything which may tent to show that these P.Ws. Have perjured in Court by giving an eye-witness account. It is also significant to note that Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5) is the author of the F.I.R. Exh.P.A.
Which contains all the necessary details of the occurrence. Had he not witnessed the incident he could not have narrated all these details. Last but not the least, that the testimony of Muhammad Mubin (P.W.5) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7) finds corroboration from the evidence of Umar Farooq (P.W.6) who being an injured witness, having received a gunshot injury, during the same occurrence, his presence at the spot at the relevant time is, therefore, doubly assured. Learned counsel for the appellant has frankly admitted his presence on the spot at the relevant time and conceded that he had no direct enmity, hostility or to falsely implicate the accused (Tariq). He had no personal axe to grind against him.
20. Keeping in view their close relationship inter se and past litigation of Mubin (P.W.5) with Tassaduq Hussain accused we have minutely examined the evidence of Mubin (P.W.5), Umar Farooq (P.W.6) and Abdul Rauf (P.W.7). They have emerged from a lengthy and protracted cross- examination as truthful witnesses and nothing of any significance was elicited from them which would in any way detract from the massive weight of their testimony. The genuineness of their version is also spelt out from the fact that they could attribute second fire shot injury to Tassaduq Hussain with whom Muhammad Mubin complainant had a previous enmity but the P.Ws. Attributed both' the fire shots to Tariq accused and struck to reality and truth. They did not deviate an inch from the true course of events, although they could very easily rope in Tassaduq Hussain accused by attributing him an active role instead of assigning him mere "Lalkara" and abetment. We have carefully scanned and examined the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses and are convicted that they have made consistent and convincing statements at the trial which inspire confidence and we are satisfied that Muhammad Mubin, Umar Farooq and Abdul Rauf (P.Ws.) are witnesses of truth and the occurrence has taken place in the manner as alleged by them. It is also significant to note that their oral testimony receives corroboration from recovery of weapon of offence i,e, gun P.6 at the instance of Tariq accused/appellant.
21. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of an admission of the Doctor who medically examined Umar Farooq P.W. And made a mention in his M.L.R. That there was burning around injury No,1, vehemently contended that burning can only be caused if the victim is fired at from a close range while Umar Farooq P.W. Has unambiguously stated in his cross-examination that he was fired at from a distance of 2/3 furlongs. Had he been fired from such a long distance there could not have been any sign of burning around the said injury. There is, therefore, irreconcilable conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence and this fact per se is sufficient to render the evidence of Umar Farooq P.W. Absolutely doubtful.
22. Having given our careful consideration to the aforesaid argument we do not see any force in it.
We are convinced that Doctor has introduced this fact merely to oblige the accused party for monetary and mundane gain. Had the accused fired at Umar Farooq P.W. From a close range, why should he conceal this fact. Even otherwise, simple burning without charring or blackening does not support the doctor's version that the injured P.W. (Usman Farooq) was fired at from a close range.
This objection is without substance which is accordingly overruled.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis on a few discrepancies, which we find here and there but we should take guidance from very wise observation of an English Judge who while confronted with an identical situation observed as under:-- "In the deposition of witnesses there are always formal discrepancies, however, truth there may be.
These discrepancies are due to formal errors of observation, formal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock or terror at the time of occurrence and the like."
24. The prosecution evidence no doubt suffers from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is shortcoming from which no criminal case is free main thing which is to be seen is whether those inconsistencies etc. Go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities in the evidence. In the latter however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases and in the instant case the learned defence counsel has not been able to elicit any material discrepancy which may render the prosecution story doubtful or which may tend to discredit the testimony of P. Ws. The objection with regard to discrepancies is, therefore, overruled.
25. The recovery of crime-empties P.1 to P.5 from the spot stands proved to the hilt by Abdul Rashid (P.W.9) and Akhtar Hussain Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.11). The said empties were recovered on 24-3-1994 and were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. And were made into a sealed parcel which was deposited with Moharrir Head Constable of Police Station Dunga Bunga. Likewise, the recovery of gun P.6 at the instance of Muhammad Tariq accused on 29-3-1994 while he was in police custody also stands fully proved from the testimony of aforesaid P.Ws. The said gun was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. And was made into a sealed parcel. The said parcel was also deposited with Moharrir Head Constable (Ghulam Ghaus P.W.2) who gave the said parcels to Muhammad Ashraf Constable (P.W.8) for their onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore and the said Constable delivered the said parcels in the said office intact. The report of the Fire-Arm Expert has unambiguously opined that the said empties P.1 to P.5 had been fired from the right and left barrel of the aforesaid gun P.6, thus, the recovery of the weapon of offence serves as a strong piece of corroboration to the ocular testimony of the aforesaid P.Ws.
26. The learned defence counsel has not assailed the recovery of the empties P.1 to P.5 from the spot and gun P.6 at. The instance of the accused seriously before us. Thus, this material piece of circumstantial evidence has its own corroborative value. It is also significant to note that the recovery of gun P.6 and its licence P.7 is not disputed by the accused (Muhammad Tariq) who has alleged in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he had produced the same before the Investigating Officer.
27. Muhammad Tariq accused has taken the plea of denial simpliciter and false implication alleging that the deceased was murdered by some unknown persons and that he had been substituted for the real murderer because the complainant party knew that he had a licensed, gun.
The defence version appears to be absurd and ridiculous. It was a daylight occurrence. The accused was previously known to the complainant party. His identity was not at all doubtful. His name is mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I.R. And it does not appeal to a judicial mind that the relatives of the deceased (his children and brothers) would screen out the real murderer and instead rope in an innocent man with whom they had no personal axe to grind. Even otherwise, it is now well-settled that substitution is a rare phenomenon and one who alleges substitution must lay the foundation for it. The defence version is neither spelt out from the prosecution evidence nor any evidence was led by the accused to substantiate it during the trial. We are, therefore, convinced that the defence version is false and afterthought which is accordingly discarded.
28. The upshot of the above discussion, therefore, is that prosecution has fully established the guilt of Muhammad Tariq accused for causing the intentional death of Muhammad Anees deceased.
We, therefore, uphold his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. As regards the sentence the learned defence counsel has not been able to plead any mitigating circumstance for imposing the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The accused (Muhammad Tariq) has committed a cruel and wanton 'act by taking the life of an innocent man for the possession of an Ihata. The deceased Muhammad Anees was, a poor school teacher. He had no direct enmity with Muhammad Tariq accused. Even in previous litigation he was not involved. We, therefore, see no extenuating or mitigating circumstance for altering the death sentence. Rather we are convinced that only the sentence of death can meet out the ends of justice. The death sentence awarded to Muhammad Tariq accused is accordingly confirmed and the Murder Reference No,23 of 1996 is answered in affirmative. The charge under section 324, P.P.C. Against Muhammad Tariq accused for making a murderous assault on Umar Farooq P.W. Also stands proved as discussed above. His conviction under section 324, P.P.C. Is, therefore, upheld. As regards the sentence we affirmed the sentence of imprisonment; i,e, 10 years' R.I. Plus fine of Rs,20,000 which is maintained. In case of default in the payment of fine he shall further undergo six months' R.I.
29. As regards Tassaduq Hussain and Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman accused persons, they on the prosecution's own showing did not cause any injury to Muhammad Anees (deceased) or Umar Farooq P.W. They were allegedly armed with Sotas. Had they shared the community of intention with their co-accused Muhammad Tariq they would have certainly resorted to violence and caused some injury/ injuries to the deceased or the P.W. But no overt act is attributed to them except that they abetted and exhorted their co-accused Muhammad Tariq to kill the deceased and to fire at Umar Farooq P.W. This part of the prosecution story appears to be an exaggeration.
Muhammad Tariq accused neither needed any moral support from their co-accused nor any abetment or exhortation for killing the deceased. Their participation in the aforesaid crime, therefore, appears to be doubtful. It is highly inconceivable that Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman and Tassaduq Hussain accused, who were allegedly armed with Lathis went to the spot alongwith the principal accused (Tariq) with a preconcert and with common intention to eliminate their enemies would assume the role of a silent spectator. If they had not to use their weapons why should they go to the spot and cultivate enmity and bad blood with the complainant party. If they wanted the deceased and Umar Farooq P.W. To be wiped out they could achieve this object even while sitting in their house in camera as is customary in our society and in rural areas some innocent persons are dragged and implicated alongwith the guilty ones in order to prolong the agony of the accused party and innocent persons are generally assigned the role of abetment, Lalkara, Japha etc. We are, therefore, not convinced about the participation of Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman and Tassaduq Hussain appellants in the affair. Even the recoveries of Lathis at their instance is of no avail to the prosecution because these were not stained with blood because the accused had not used them during the occurrence. Moreover, these sticks were of common use and easily available in almost every house of a Zamindar. We are, therefore, left in no doubt that the prosecution case to the extent of Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman and Tassaduq Hussain appellants is absolutely doubtful. They, therefore, cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of their co-accused Muhammad Tariq under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. (for the murder of Muhammad Anees deceased) and under section 324/34, P.P.C. For the fire-arm injury caused to Umar Farooq P.W. By their co-accused Muhammad Tariq. We, therefore, giving them the benefit of doubt acquit them from the said charges. They are in jail. They should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.