' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN BUTT, J.---Both the above entitled appeals arise out of a common judgment recorded by the District Criminal Court. Bhimber on June 29, 1998, whereby the appellant Muhammad Tazeem was awarded the sentence of 11 years, rigorous imprisonment and appellant Manzoor Ahmed was sentenced to 3 years, rigorous imprisonment. Muhammad Tazeem and Manzoor Ahmed appellants, through this appeal, have challenged their conviction, whereas the complainant Ahmed Din and the heirs of the deceased in their appeal have sought the enhancement of sentence up to Muhammad Tazeem and Manzoor Ahmed appellants and to pass an order of conviction against the acquitted respondents Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Siddique, Alam Din, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Younus and Muhammad Sadiq. As both the appeals arise out of the same case and the judgment, therefore both shall be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an F.I.R. Was lodged alleging that on 23- 11-1988, at about 7-30 p.m., complainant Ahmed Din alongwith his brother Muhammad Yousuf, deceased, and Muhammad Hanif his nephew were proceeding towards Barotti, on their way to a marriage ceremony when they reached near 'Nullah' of Morha Charrakee, the accused-persons Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Tazeem, Manzoor Hussain, Jamil, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Younus, Muhammad Sadiq, Alam Din and Muhammad Ramzan had waylaid appeared. As soon as they saw the complainant and his companions all accused-persons launched an attack upon them. Muhammad Iqbal, accused, caught hold of Muhammad Yousuf and Muhammad Tazeem, convict-respondent, inflicted an injury with hatchet on the head of Muhammad Yousuf whereas Muhammad Younus, acquitted-accused fired with .12 bore gun.
Muhammad Yousuf succumbed to his injuries while on his way to Bhimber whereas Muhammad Hanif was severely injured by Manzoor Ahmed accused who had also inflicted an injury with hatchet. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Saraj Din, Muhammad Bashir and Mistri Hakam Ali.
3. The motive behind the occurrence has been stated to be registration of a Case No,99 of 1988 which was got registered by Iqbal accused against the complainant party on 26-8-1988
4. On this report a case under sections 307, 341, 147 and 148/149, Penal Code read with section 5/15, Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act, 1974, was registered by Ibrar Haider, S.-I. Police (P.W.16).
5. The accused-persons Muhammad Younus, Alam Din and Muhammad Ramzan were arrested on 24-11-1988 whereas Muhammad Jamil on 26-11-1988, Tazeem, Manzoor Ahmed, Muhammad Siddique on 27-11-1988, Muhammad Sadiq on 30-11-1988 and Muhammad Iqbal on 18-12-1988. The inquest report Exh.P.J. Was prepared by Ibrar Haider, S.-I. Police (P.W.16) on 24-11-1988. After the autopsy the blood-stained clothings of the deceased shirt P-1, Tehband P-2, Suluka P-3 and Pam P-4 were taken into possession by Ibrar Haider S.I. Police (P.W.16) vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B., attested by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Saraj Din (P.W.2) on 24-11-1988, the day of occurrence. On the same day the blood-stained sand and small pieces of the stones were recovered from the spot and secured vide recovery memo. Exh.P.C. In the presence of aforesaid witnesses.
6. On 26-11-1988 Muhammad Azam Patwari (P.W.9) prepared the site plan Exh.P.F. In the presence of eye-witnesses and the police.
7. On 5-12-1988 Muhammad Younus accused led to the recovery of .12 bore gun P-5 from his house, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.E. Attested by Abdul (P.W.6) and Munir Ahmed (P.W.7). On the same day Manzoor Ahmed led to the recovery of hatchet P-6 from his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh.P.E witnessed by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8) (as the recovery memo. Of .12 bore gun and hatchet both have been marked as Exh. P.E., therefore, recovery memo of hatchet, recovered on the pointation of Manzoor Ahmed accused, has been marked as Exh.P.EE., during the course of judgment, which hereinafter to be referred as Exh.P.EE.). On that very day a hatchet Exh.P-7 was also recovered and taken into possession on the pointation of Muhammad Tazeem accused vide recovery Exh.P.D. From his house, attested by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8).
8. Saraj Din (P.W.2) produced a torch alongwith two cells to the police on 20-12-1988 which was recovered and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.G., witnessed by Abdul (P.W.6) and Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8).
9. It has been reported by the Chemical Examiner vide his report Exh.P.H. That the Shirt P-1, Tehband P-2, Suluka P-3, Parna P-4, sand/sma ll pieces of stones and clay were stained with blood.
10. The autopsy of the dead body of Muhammad Yousuf deceased was performed on 24-11-1988 at 10-30 a.m. By Dr. Adil Hamid (P.W.12), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhimber. He noticed three incised injuries on the dead body of the deceased caused by sharp-edged weapon whereby injuries Nos.2 and 3 were found to be fatal to cause death of the deceased. The injuries 1, 2 and 3 are detailed as follows: "No, 1 Incised wound inguinal region at a distance of about 3" from scrotum. Size of the wound is about 1" x 1/4" with clotted blood on it.
'No,2 Incised wound in the right occipital area close to the mid-line. Size is about "3 x 1/6" + bone deep.
'No,3 Incised wound on left occipital area "2 behind injury No,2. Size of the wound is about 1/2" x 1/6" is bone deep with bleeding around it.
11. Dr. Muhammad Yousuf (P.W.13) examined Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) and noticed a lacerated wound "2 long on right perital bone of head close to mid-line vide Medical Examination Report Exh.P.H. According to him, the injuries were simple caused by a blunt weapon.
12. Ahmed Din (P.W.1), Saraj Din (P.W.2), Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3), Hakam Din (P.W.4) and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) testified at the trial as witnesses to furnish the ocular account of the prosecution case.
13. The convict-appellants and the other accused pleaded that they were innocent and falsely involved in this murder case on account of enmity. Their stance was that the deceased had many animuses and he was done to death in the dark hours of night by some unknown assailants. No evidence was produced in the defence.
14. District Criminal Court, Bhimber after the conclusion of trial convicted the appellants whereas other accused were not found guilty by it and they were extended the benefit of doubt vide its judgment, dated 29th of June, 1998. Hence these appeals, as said earlier, one filed by the appellants M. Tazeem and Manzoor Ahmed for setting aside their conviction and the other by the complainant Ahmed Din, Pervaiz. Ahmed and Mst. Rasool Bibi the heirs of the deceased for enhancement of the sentence of respondent No,1 Tazeem and respondent No,2 Manzoor Ahmed and for the conviction of respondents Nos.3 to 8.
15. Arguing the case on behalf of convict-appellants Muhammad Tazeem, Munzoor Ahmed and respondents Nos.l to 8 in the counter-appeal, it was vigorously contended by Mr. Abdul Majeed Mallick, the learned counsel that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. The learned counsel argued that the alleged incident took place at night in darkness in a deserted place, as such, the identification of the accused-persons was impossible. The source of identification, a torch and moon light was conjectural because it was disclosed at very late stage of the investigation. The learned counsel submitted that the alleged F.I.R. Was lodged orally at Police Station, Bhimber which was prepared after post-mortem and the complainant is not an eye- witness. The learned counsel further argued that the F.I.R. Was lodged after a considerable delay as deceased was done to death on 23-11-1988 at 7-30 p.m. Whereas F.I.R. Was lodged on 24-11-1988 at 1-00 a.m., while the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is 14-1/2 miles.
It was submitted by the learned counsel that the delay having not been explained by the prosecution reasonable inference would be that the accused were substituted and as such they were falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel maintained that the eyewitnesses were closely related to the deceased and inimical to the accused-persons as such the witnesses being interested, their evidence was not reliable. The learned counsel contended that the attribution of fatal injury ascribed to appellant Muhammad Tazeem was not proved in evidence. The ocular version was contradicted by the medical evidence. He also argued that according to F.I.R., only two injuries were shown to be inflicted on the person of the deceased but according to postmortem report three injuries were shown to be caused upon deceased. The learned counsel also pointed out that the evidence relating to the injury of Muhammad Hanif ascribed to appellant Manzoor Ahmed was also not worthy of credence. The count of assault given in the ocular version was not corroborated by medical evidence. Duration of injury was described as 4 to 5 hours at the time of Medical Examination whereas according to the prosecution version, the occurrence had already taken place more than 7-1/2 hours earlier to the time of such examination. The learned counsel also pointed out that at the time of the postmortem no information was furnished by the police to the doctor, and relevant part of the post-mortem report is blank. Furthermore, Dr. Adil Hamid (P.W.12) testified before the Court that the police did not supply him any information. The learned counsel pressed into service the submission that the prosecution involved as much as nine accused-persons including the appellants. The acquitted appellants were ascribed the assault on the deceased and the injured witness but no specific overtact was assigned to them. The fact that all these accused were acquitted by the trial Court was sufficient proof in support of the acquittal of the convict-appellants. It was argued with vehemence by the learned counsel that there was no infliction of any injury by firing as alleged in the F.I.R., and in evidence of the prosecution. It was a false attribution; no empty was recovered from the alleged scene of occurrence. The gun, the weapon of offence, was not sent to Ballistic Expert for its examination. Thus, the attribution of gun firing was not proved. Therefore, it will be safe to hold that entire case of prosecution rested on concoction, fabrication and conjectural. The learned counsel argued that the recovery affected on convict-appellants was also false and concocted. According to him, no recovery was made from convict-appellants. Besides the hatchets examined by Doctor containing the description in the report, was different from the hatchets allegedly recovered by police. Furthermore, the evidence of recovery witnesses makes it more doubtful. The evidence of the prosecution according to the learned counsel, suffered from inherent material contradictions and improvements. The trial Court admitted the presence of such material contradictions but failed to take notice of the same. The trial Court has given benefit of contradictions to the prosecution instead of the defence, contrary to law. Thus, the finding of the trial Court was derogatory to the settled principles of administration of justice in criminal cases. The learned counsel submitted that trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and logical perspective. The learned counsel argued that once the trial Court reached the conclusion that the eye-witnesses were not found 'Adil' in purgation it was not permissible to rely on their testimony to record conviction of the appellants and as such the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Furthermore, the alleged eye-witnesses were not the witnesses of the incident and their presence was introduced to strengthen the prosecution case.
There was no plausible explanation available in support of the presence of the alleged eye- witnesses on the place of occurrence, at the relevant time. It was agitated by the learned counsel that the story of the alleged motive was also inconsistent and contradictory. The learned counsel vehemently contended that Hakam Ali (P.W.4) declined to support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but his testimony does not support the case of prosecution, The learned counsel pointed out that the deceased at the time of the alleged occurrence was marked because the column of clothing in post-mortem report and inquest report does not show the presence of any clothing upon the person of the deceased. According to the learned counsel the deceased was involved in illicit relations and was done to death by some unknown persons late at night. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the order of conviction and sentence rested on conjectural evidence as no reasons were extended in support of the conviction. Thus, the conviction was not maintainable. The learned counsel submitted that the convict-appellants remained in prison during the trial and were released on bail on the enforcement of amendment in section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the appellants in the alternative were entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Finally, he prayed that the judgment and order of conviction passed by District Criminal Court Bhimber may be set aside, the convict-appellants may be acquitted and the order of acquittal in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 8 in the counter- appeal be maintained.
' The learned counsel has referred us to the following case-law in support of his contention:---
(i) PLD 1960 SC 223.
(ii) PLD 1960 Karachi 697.
(iii) PLD 1963 SC 17-25-40.
(iv) PLD 1976 Karachi 438.
(v) PLD 1990 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 3.
16. Controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, Ch. Muhammad Afzal, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the prosecution case stood proved against the accused-appellants and other respondents beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, The learned counsel submitted that the accused-persons have been nominated in F.I.R. Which was proved by the testimony of eye-witnesses. The learned counsel vigorously contended that the motive was also alleged and proved. The learned counsel argued that the prosecution story has been proved by ocular version; therefore, corroboratory evidence is not necessary for conviction. According to him, the witnesses were not found 'Adil' in purgation but they were described as better persons. On this account the evidence of the eye-witnesses has to be appraised accordingly and when the evidence of eye-witnesses is evaluated with the help of confirmatory evidence, the offence of murder is proved and for this reason the trial Court has not awarded the sentence of 'Qisas' and the convict-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in 'Tazeer'. The learned counsel maintained that mere relationship per se is no ground for discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses and the minor discrepancies occurring in the prosecution evidence do not destroy the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel criticized the impugned judgment and pressed into service the submission that the trial Court after holding that the offence of murder was proved, erroneously awarded the lesser sentence to Manzoor Ahmed appellant instead awarding him the sentence of death which could be recorded under 'Tazeer' and is the normal punishment for the offence of murder. The learned counsel argued that the main story of the prosecution has not been challenged in cross-examination, thus, it will be treated to be proved. The learned counsel further agitated that if the motive could not be proved even though the death sentence can be awarded to an accused-person when the case of the prosecution is otherwise proved by the ocular version. It was also argued with vehemence by the learned counsel that even if the name of a P.W. Does not occur in site-plan, the testimony of such witness can be relied upon. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution evidence could not be disbelieved in respect of acquitted respondents because all of them are saddled with the responsibility of common intention and could be held responsible for the fatal injury caused by the convict- appellant Muhammad Tazeem. The learned counsel emphasized that the case was proved against the accused persons and no plausible justification has been advanced by the trial Court for lesser penalty to Muhammad Tazeem, Muhammad Manzoor appellants and for the acquittal of the acquitted respondents in the counter-appeal. On the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel prayed that the death sentence may be awarded to Muhammad Tazeem, the sentence of Manzoor Ahmed be enhanced and the acquitted respondents may also be punished.
' In support of his contentions the reliance was placed on the following authorities by the learned counsel for the complainant:---
(i) 1975 PCr.LJ 1188
(ii) PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 96-146.
(iii) PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 23-44.
(iv) PLD 1980 SC 317.
(v) 1980 PCr.LJ 749.
(vi) PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 211.
(vii) 1983 PCr.LJ 1418.
(viii) NLR 1984 Criminal 578.
(ix) PLD 1987 Sh.C.(AJ&K) 47.
(x) 1996 PCr.LJ Sh.C.(AJ&K) 1076.
(xi) 1997 PCr.LJ 1539.
(xii) 1997 PCr.LJ 1522.
' An unreported case titled Mst. Iqbal Begum v. Baniya Amin Criminal Appeal No,5 of 1995, decided on 24-10-1995 by Shariat Court (AJ&K).
17. Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Chaudhry, the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State fully supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the complainant.
18. We have carefully attended to the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the material available on the record. At the very outset, it will be relevant to resolve the point as to whether the F.I.R. Was lodged after a considerable delay which has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and same has seriously prejudiced the case of the defence. It would be sufficient to point out that the occurrence took place on 23-11-1988 at about 7-30 p.m. Whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged at Police Station Bhimber, on 24-11-1988 at 1-00 a.m. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence has been described about 14-1/2 miles. Thus, according to the prosecution story, F.I.R. Was lodged after five and half hours of the occurrence by Ahmed Din (P.W.1). The alleged place of occurrence is 'Nullah' near Morah Charakie. From the evidence of Ahmed Din, complainant, it comes on the record that the deceased alongwith injured P.W. Muhammad Hanif, was carried on cots up to the road side and then after arranging transport they set off for police station but while they were on the way, the deceased succumbed to his injuries at village 'Khumb' Although the complainant has stated that after 15 to 20 minutes of the occurrence he had set off for police station and on the strength of aforesaid deposition, the learned counsel for the appellants vigorously argued that the prosecution failed to explain that how the complainant took five hours to reach to the Police Station at Bhimber. It may be stated here that a considerable time might have been consumed in obtaining the cots and arranging the transport to take away the injured persons at night from the place of occurrence a 'Nullah' towards the road side in the state of grief and mourning which resulted the murder. Ahmed Din (P.W.1) was not cross-examined by the defence on the point that how the complainant took five hods to approach the police station. Had Ahmed Din been confronted the situation he must have explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Therefore, the delay in lodging of F.I.R., is not fatal for the prosecution in the present case.
19. The next question which requires consideration is that as to whether the evidence of interested and inimical witnesses is worthy of credence or confidence-inspiring. The prosecution has produced five eye-witnesses in support of its case. It is adniitted on the record that Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Saraj Din (P.W.2) are real brothers of the deceased whereas Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) is his real first cousin. Muhammad, Hanif (P.W.5) is son of Saraj Din (P.W.2) and nephew of the deceased. Hakim Din (P.W.4) is also closely related to the complainant party. The elder brother of Hakim Din (P.W.4) is husband of the daughter of Saraj Din (P.W.2) who happens to be sister of Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5). The prosecution witnesses have also admitted that they were inimical to the accused persons even before the occurrence. The accused Muhammad Jamil had divorced the daughter of Ahmed Din (P.W.1) whereas accused Iqbal has got registered a case of theft against Saraj Din (P.W.2), Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) and Ghulam Din father of Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) alongwith Suleman and Muhammad Salim. It is further admitted by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) that there is litigation both of civil and. Criminal nature, going on between the complainant party and the accused persons. This position is also admitted by Saraj Din (P.W.2) who deposed that the accused were inimical with the complainant party before the alleged occurrence. In this state of affairs, when the eye-witnesses are not only inter se related but also closely related to the deceased and clearly inimical towards the accused-persons and admittedly involved in civil as well as criminal litigation, the evidence of such witnesses has to be appraised with great care and caution and this evidence must be supported by some independent corroboratory and confirmatory evidence with a view to eliminating the chances of the false implication. In this respect reliance can be placed upon a case titled Wasiullah v. Mirza Ali and others (PLD 1963 SC 25), after a thorough probe it was observed at page 28 as under:--- "In the order of this Court admitting the appeal, it was observed that the High Court judgment had dealt with the case as one resting on interested evidence, with no reliable corroboration to ensure against the false addition of one or more names in the list of accused persons, but the following factors had not been noticed viz.:- ' That the eye-witnesses were all natural witnesses; ' that the results produced were commensurate with the number of persons charged, viz. Six;
(3) that there was visibility, and the trial Court had believed a number of the witnesses after seeing and hearing them; and
(4) that the feud had been dormant for 20 years.
' The question was asked whether in view of these factors, corroboration was at all necessary.
' On further examination, it appears that the case is not free from doubts of a general character.
These are caused by (1) the false inclusion of the name of Hassan Ali at the outset, and the circumstances attending its exclusion later, (2) the weakness of the evidence to show recovery of the alleged "crime empties", and (3) the dubious manner of the arrest of five of the accused persons, and of the recovery of weapons and cartridges, both live and empties from them. When such be the case, and the main direct evidence be also that of interested persons i,e,, enemies of the persons charged, it is proper to ask that the evidence in corroboration should be exceptionally strong, almost, if not quite, sufficient by itself to establish the guilt of individual accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt."
' The same view was taken in a case reported as Thoba and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 40), which reads at page 44 in the following manner:--- "It is, thus, clear that the appraisement of the evidence of eyewitnesses was not based upon full consideration and evaluation of all the, circumstances appearing in the case. This was preeminently a case where, in the total absence of physical circumstances to connect the two accused persons with the crime, and there being no proximate motive for the attack, the existence of a fued-based enmity operated as strongly to explain the implication of the two accused persons, as it did to support the allegation of an unprovoked attack by them upon a feudal enemy.
In that situation, ocular evidence, to carry conviction on a capital charge must come from an unimpeachable source, or if such a source be not available, it must be supported by some strong circumstance, such as might serve to overcome the inherent doubt by which such evidence is necessarily, affected."
' We are also fortified by the view taken in the case entitled Sikandar v. The State and Ranjha v.
Abdul Aziz and others (PLD 1963 SC 17).
' From AJK jurisdiction in a case reported as Abdul Hakeem v. The State 2 others (PLD 1990 Sh.C.
(AJ&K) 3), the following principle was enunciated at page 8:--- "In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that it would be unsafe to convict the accused-appellant on the basis of eye-witness account, without any reliable corroborative evidence. It is established from the record and it is even the case of the prosecution itself that there existed long drawn enmity -between the complainant party and the accused before the occurrence despite the fact that the parties were very closely related. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the son of the complainant, Mahmood by name, was got murdered by Abdul Rahman, accused and his party. The complainant party also suspected that Abdul Razaq who was accused of committing the murder of aforenamed son of the complainant in the year 1976 and is brother of the wife of Abdul Hakeem, appellant, was being supported by the accused party during the trial of the case against him. There was also litigation both of civil and criminal nature, going on between the complainant party and the accused, before the present occurrence took place. The complainant, despite being brother of Fazal Ellahi deceased-accused and maternal-uncle of Abdul Hakeem, appellant and Abdul Rehman, absconding co-accused, had strained relations with the accused party to the extent that he and his other family members were not on visiting terms with the accused and their family members, as is evident from the statement of Abbas Ali, complainant himself. Thus, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, no other conclusion than the one that Abbas Ali, complainant and his son, Sohbat Khan who claim to be the witnesses of occurrence, are interested, hostile and inimical witnesses for which reason, the possibility of their falsely implicating the appellant in the murder of Qurban Hussain, deceased is not ruled out. Now it is the established law that it is essential to seek the independent corroboration of the ocular evidence of interested and inimical witnesses before basing the conviction of the accused on such evidence."
20. On the contrary the learned counsel laid great stress on the point that in case of ocular version corroboration is not necessary. In support of his contentions he has referred to us numerous authorities. In Mehrban's case (PLD 1978 SC 96), the interested eye-witness account was corroborated by evidence of independent witness Sufi Said Muhammad, a school teacher belonging to other Baradari. Furthermore, the deceased also indicated accused as person who shot at him with gun. Eye-witness account was further corroborated by medical evidence, motive and other recovery evidence. For these reasons, the prosecution evidence was relied upon.
' In Muhammad Sharif's case (PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 146), it was observed by the apex Court as to whether a witness is to be believed or not, depends on the circumstances and facts of each case and if an interested and partisan witness is a natural witness then the law does not make incumbent upon the Courts to ask for corroboration but the evidence of such a witness, however, is required to be scrutinized with great care and caution in order to eliminate any possibility of doubt and Courts must also determine as to whether or not he is a witness on whose words implicit reliance can be placed without independent corroboration.
' In Mehtab Khan's case (PLD 1979 SC 23), it was held that in case of interested and inimical witnesses Court must be on guard and to cautiously look for some supporting circumstances in order to eliminate chances of false implication especially in case having a background of blood feuds between parties or a chain reaction of retaliatory murders.
' In Niaz Muhammad alias Jaja's case (PLD 1983 SC 211), it was laid down by the Court that the conviction can be based on evidence of interested witnesses provided that if it rings true in the context and circumstances of the case and free from any fault and uncontradicted by any cogent circumstance. However, while considering such evidence Court should be on its guard and would conduct the appraisal of the evidence with utmost care and caution.
' In Mehmood Shah's case (PLD 1987 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 47), it was held that generally in presence of eye- witness corroboration is not necessary but in case of interested witnesses Court should appraise the evidence with great care and caution and the grain has to be shifted from the chaff.
21. From the survey of above case-law ii has become crystal clear that the evidentiary value of the testimony of a witness is to be judged from its intrinsic and inherent value. The credibility of witness should flow from his deposition. Nature and quality of the statement of a witness should evoke confidence and trust and in case of interested and inimical witnesses, their evidence requires thorough scrutiny with regard to their authenticity and if such witnesses have motive to falsely depose against the accused, strong corroboration of their testimony is required for the safe dispensation of justice. In the instant case, as it has been held above, the eye-witnesses are not only related inter se but also closely related to the deceased. Furthermore, they are inimical towards accused-persons and the parties are admittedly involved in civil and criminal litigation. In this view of .The matter, it has become very important to seek independent corroboration of the ocular version of interested and inimical witnesses before basing conviction on the account of such evidence. Therefore, we are persuaded to evaluate the prosecution evidence on the basis of above-noted principles. ##TE#
22. It will be noticed that F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Was lodged orally and only one head injury was shown by Police at the time of the examination of the dead body and at the end one more injury was also recorded.
23. Ahmed Din (P.W .1), complainant, testified that they were going to participate in function of 'Mehndi' of the sons of Muhammad Din, but Saraj Din (P.W.2) deposed that they had gone to participate in marriage ceremony. Ahmed Din (P.W.1) further stated that Younis accused was also armed with hatchet but this is not the prosecution case as prosecution version is that Younis accused fired with a gun which did not hit 'anybody from the complainant party. He further deposed that Saraj Din (P.W.2), Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) and Hakim Din (P.W.4) reached at the spot after 15 minutes of the occurrence. All of them asked him about the occurrence and then he told them the details of the occurrence. According to him, the occurrence was not witnessed by the abovementioned P.Ws. The story of the participation of marriage ceremony has also become doubtful from the fact that according to Saraj Din (P.W.2) the ladies had not accompanied them.
According to the tradition of our society the ladies do participate in marriage ceremony especially in 'Mehndi' function. Furthermore. This story becomes more suspicious from this fact that all of them, Went to participate in the marriage ceremony after taking their meals at home.
24. Ahmed Din (P.W.1) deposed that first of all accused party raised a 'Lalkara' then accused Muhammad Younis made a fire but Saraj Din (P.W.2) neither testified about raising a 'Lalkara' from the accused party nor he stated anything about making a fire by accused Muhammad Younis.
Saraj Din (P W.2) also introduced the presence of a torch on the scene of occurrence for the first time in his statement which was produced by him to the police on 20-12-1988 after 27 days of the occurrence to substantiate the prosecution story.
25. Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) deposed that he set off at 6 0' Clock from the house of Noor-dad which is situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place on 7-30 p.m. But the witnesses took one and half hour to cover the distance of half furlong, thus, the version of Muhammad Bashir cannot be accepted.
Furthermore, he deposed that after the occurrence he went back home and did not accompany his real uncle and first cousin to the hospital which is again against the human conduct. Saraj Din (P.W.2) deposed that he witnessed the occurrence but Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) testified that when he with Saraj Din (P.W.2) and Hakim Din (P.W.4) reached nearby Yousuf deceased, the accused persons fled away. It will be pertinent to note here that Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) did not mention the name of Iqbal and Siddique as accused persons in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., although accused Iqbal is very important accused according to the prosecution story, who allegedly caught hold of Muhammad Yousuf deceased when appellant Tazeem inflicted an injury with hatchet upon the deceased.
26. Hakim Din (P.W.4) was declared hostile, who deposed that he neither witnessed the occurrence nor the accused-persons. The question arises when Hakim Din did not witness the occurrence how it was possible for his companions Saraj Din (P.W.2) and Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) to witness the occurrence. This fact lends more support from the statement of Ahmed. Din (P.W.1) whereby he has stated that Saraj Din (P.W.2), Muhammad Bashir (P.W.3) and Hakim Din (P.W.4) reached at the spot after 15 minutes of the occurrence. They asked from him about the occurrence and then he, Ahmed Din (P.W.1) told them the details of the tale. Furthermore, he (Hakim Din) did not mention anything about raising the Lalkara and making a fire by accused Muhammad Younis. He only deposed that he had seen Ahmed Din running away at the scene of occurrence and at that time it was darkness.
27. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) is a very important witness of the occurrence who was allegedly injured during the occurrence but his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded on 3-12-1988 after 10 days of the occurrence but no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution for such delay. According to Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) he became unconscious on the spot and came into senses on the next day. It will be strange to note that according to the medical examination report Exh.P.K. He received a simple injury. He was medically examined on 24-11-1988 but medical report was issued on 12-12-1988, and delay in this respect was never explained by the prosecution. It will also be very important to observe that according to the report of Dr. Muhammad Yousaf (P. W . 13) Exh.P. , Muhammad Hanif received a simple injury by a stick. It will also be relevant to point out that the injury report of Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) Exh.P.K.
Prepared by the police reveals that Muhammad Hanif received injuries by hatchet and stick and this explanation was sought from the doctor on 2-11-1988, say, 21 days before the day of alleged occurrence. The Medical Examination Report on the back page of Exh.P.K, was firstly written then withheld for unknown purpose When all these circumstances are coupled together, the ultimate result is that the deposition of Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) is not worthy of any credence.
28. It will not be out of place to mention here that the statement of said Muhammad Hanif was recorded by the police after ten days of the occurrence which cannot be relied upon. In this respect we are fortified by a case-law reported as Qabil Shah and others v. The State (PLD 1960 Karachi 697). Wherein the statements of eye-witnesses were recorded after 48 hours of the occurrence, therefore, not relied upon. Again same proposition cropped up in a case titled Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State (PLD 1960 SC 223) Where an eye-witness did not choose to go to the help of his friend whom he found being attacked with a knife, that he did not disclose what he had seen to any person for nearly 24 hours which clearly militates against allowing the least value to his evidence but in the instant case the real nephew of the deceased, Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) did not come forward to help his deceased uncle and did not record his statement for pretty long ten days. No explanation was given by the prosecution for such delay; therefore, his evidence does not inspire any confidence and cannot be relied upon. The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited a case reported as Alam Sher and 5 others v. The State (1975 PCr.LJ 1188), wherein the statement of the injured eye-witness was recorded after 1-3/4 months and was not disbelieved but the facts of the case are also different because in this case Lal Khan P.W. Was asked to first go to the hospital and got himself treated who after that went to the Civil Hospital. Duniyapur and then to Nishtar Hospital, Multan. The police could not therefore, record his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C,, until his return from his village in District Sargodha but in the instant case Civil Hospital. Bhimber is situated at a distance of less than one kilometre from the Police Station Bhimber and the residence of the injured witness about 14 miles from Police Station.
Therefore, the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the complainant does not render any help to him. Besides we are of the view that the judgments in criminal cases generally apply to the facts on which those are given and it cannot be held that such law commands an authority for every case of that nature. Therefore, we find little force in the plea of the .Learned counsel of the complainant and accordingly repel it.
29. Therefore, it follows that the ocular version suffers from inherent material contradictions which go to the root of the case and the prosecution evidence has not come from an unimpeachable source. The eye-Witnesses are not natural witnesses and their evidence does not ring true in intrinsic and inherent value. It does not inspire confidence and trust, therefore, strong corroboration of their testimony is required for the safe dispensation of justice. On this account the testimony of such eye-witnesses could not be explicitly relied upon without independent and strong corroboration. Now, we advert to discuss whether the ocular version of interested and inimical eyewitnesses have been corroborated by some independent corroboratory and confirmatory evidence or not. Before doing this, it will be useful to note here that what corroboration means? It is now settled law that the corroboration does not necessarily mean the evidence of any independent witness but anything in the circumstances which tends to satisfy the Court that such interested witnesses have spoken the truth. The idea behind seeking extraneous support is that no innocent person is implicated.
30. The prosecution has produced the evidence of recovery of hatchet Exh.P-7 which was allegedly recovered from appellant-Tazeem vide recovery memo. Exh.P.D. Testified by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8). Ahmed Din (P.W.1) is real brother whereas Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8) is son of the deceased. According to recovery memo. Exh.P.D. The size of the blade of recovered hatchet is 4" x 4-1/4" but according to report Exh.P.I., Dr. Adil Hameed (P.W.12) has described the size of the blade of the hatchet as 5-1/2" x 4-3/4". Dr. Adil Hameed (P.W.12) also deposed that the blade of axe brought by the police for examination was 5-1/2" x 4-3/4" in size. Thus, the blade of recovered hatchet and the blade of hatchet produced to doctor are all together different, therefore, the hatchet Exh.P-7, weapon of offence seems to be substituted. Furthermore, during the course, of evidence hatchet Exh.P-6 was shown to Ahmed Din (P.W.1) who deposed that the deceased was done to death by, hatchet Exh.P.6 but Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8) testified that deceased was murdered by hatchet P-7 which was recovered and taken into possession at the instance of appellant Tazeem.
In such state of affairs, it is yet to be proved as to whether hatchet P-6 was taken into possession or P-7 and by which hatchet the deceased was killed. Thus, the matter of recovery of weapon of offence has become suspicious which does not render any support to the prosecution tale.
Furthermore, the hatchet Exh.P-7 was not stained with blood at the time of the recovery, thus, it carries no evidentiary value (1984 PCr.LJ 486). It is pertinent to note that the alleged recovery was made on 5-12-1988 after 12 days of the occurrence and no respectable of the locality was associated with the recovery, especially when a person named Yateem was found in the neighbourhood of Tazeem appellant. Another piece of evidence produced by the prosecution is evidence of recovery of a hatchet P-6 recovered at the instance of accused Manzoor Hussain, through recovery memo. Exh.P.EE. Which was also witnessed by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8). As it has been recorded earlier, that both the marginal witnesses of recovery memo. Are brother and son of the deceased, respectively. Ahmed Din (P.W.1) testified that the hatchet P-7 was recovered at the instance of appellant Manzoor Hussain whereas Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8) deposed that hatchet P-6 was recovered from Manzoor Hussain appellant. Hatchet P-6 is also not stained with blood and was also taken into the possession on 5-12-1988 after 12 days of the occurrence; therefore, it looses all its confirmatory value. It will be important to note here that during the course of judgment recovery memo. Exh. P.E. Was marked as Exh. P.EE.
' Medical Evidence:
31. The evidence of recovery of .12 bore gun Exh. 1?.5 was also produced by the prosecution which was allegedly recovered from Muhammad Younis accused vide recovery memo. Exh. P.E. Testified by Abdul (P.W.6) and Munir Ahmad (P.W.7). Abdul (P.W.6) is brother-in-law of the deceased whereas Munir Ahmad (P.W.7) is his maternal nephew, even though both the witnesses did not corroborate each other on the point of recovery. Abdul (P.W.6) deposed that the police met them in a Kuss' then police asked to accompany them to the residence of Younis accused but Munir Ahmed testified that when he and Abdul reached at the place of recovery, the police personnel were already present there. The recovery was effected on 5-12-1988 like the recovery of hatchet P- 6 and P-7 after 12 days of the occurrence and no local respectable of the locality was associated with the recovery at the relevant time. According to the prosecution Muhammad Younis accused also shot a fire but no empty was recovered from the scene of occurrence and no explanation was given by the prosecution in this respect, therefore, this recovery also cannot be relied upon and does not lend any support to the case of the prosecution. The recovered rifle P-5 was also not sent for the examination of the Balistic Expert.
32. Another incriminating evidence, brought on record by the prosecution, is recovery of blood- stained sand and small pieces of stones recovered vide recovery memo. Exh. P.C. Attested by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Saraj Din (P.W,2) but these articles were not sent to the Serologist for determination of origin of blood and blood group, thus; the recovery is of no avail to the prosecution.
33. The prosecution has also "cited medial evidence in support of its tale. It has been alleged that Muhammad Tazeem, appellant inflicted three injuries with hatchet upon the person of Muhammad Yousuf deceased whereas Manzoor Hussain inflicted an injury of hatchet upon the head of Muhammad Hand (P.W.5). As it has -been recorded earlier, that the F.I.R. In the present case was lodged orally by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) whereby it was alleged that appellant Tazeem inflicted an injury which was later on changed into two injuries. The word (URDU TEXT) seems to be chanced in word (URDU TEXT). The police firstly examined one injury upon the head of Muhammad Yousuf, deceased and later on at the end of F.I.R. Another injury was found upon the upper side of right inguinal. A perusal of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Also reveals that Tazeem appellant has been ascribed only one injury of hatchet allegedly inflicted upon Muhammad Yousuf, deceased but it transpires from the injury report of the deceased, not proved by the prosecution and is available on page 37 of the file of trial Court, that three injuries were allegedly inflicted upon the person of deceased. The post-mortem report Exh.P.I. Also confirms the three injuries but again column No,20 of the inquest report Exh.P.J. Speaks about one head injury of the deceased which became cause of his death. It is also pertinent to note that F.I.R., number is not mentioned in the injury form. It will be relevant to discuss the argument of the learned counsel for the defence at this stage whereby he vigorously contended that it is an unseen occurrence and the deceased was killed and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) was injured by Rehmat and Allah Ditta because of the illicit relations of the deceased and Muhammad Hanif with their wives. The contention appears to be well-founded and requires serious consideration because this version of the defence was put to the P. Ws. By the defence and furthermore, the deceased was found naked at the time of his death. Our this view gets support not only from the inquest report Exh.P.J. But also from the post-mortem report Exh.P.I.
And from the statement of Dr. Adil Hameed (P.W.12). First of all we discuss the inquest report which does not speak of any F.I.R. Number. The column No,7 which pertains to clothing etc., is blank and again it transpires from the post-mortem report that no information was furnished by Police to Dr. Adil Hameed who conducted the autopsy. In column of 'external appearance', in the item of 'clothing' Dr. Adil Hameed (P.W.12) has not mentioned about the clothing of the deceased.
Moreover, Dr. Adil Hameed has not deposed about the clothing of the deceased in his statement. It is the prosecution case that Dr. Adil Hameed handed over the clothing of the deceased Shirt P-I, Tehhand P-2, Suluka P-3 and Parna P-4, to S.H.O., vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B, testified by Ahmed Din (P.W.1) and Saraj Din (P.W.2) but witnesses of recovery memo Exh.P.B. Did not state that the clothes of the deceased were handed over by Dr. Adil Hameed rather they tried to prove that the clothes were taken into possession by Ibrar Haider, S.-I. Police (P.W.16), Investigating Officer, who cannot be relied upon because of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. It may be mentioned here that the alleged blood-stained clothes of the deceased were not sent to the Serologist for the determination of origin of blood and blood group, therefore, it will never be safe to draw a conclusion that the stains of blood are of the deceased because it could be of an animal or a bird. Thus, these blood stains, as described by the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.H. Are of no evidentiary value. There is another element in the case which creates even great difficulty that the deceased' was done to death in darkness of the night and the accused persons were implicated on suspicion. At the very late stage of the investigation a torch, missing one cell was produced by Saraj Din (P. W. 2) on 20-12-1988 at police station vide recovery memo. Exh.P.G. Allegedly in presence of Abdul (P.W.6) and Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8). Abdul (P.W.6) is brother-in-law of the deceased whereas Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8) is son of the deceased but Abdul (P.W.6) did not speak a single word about this recovery whereas Javaid Iqbal (P.W.8) testified that in presence of Abdul a torch Exh.P.P.8 was produced by Mistry Saraj Din on 20-12-1988 at the police station and he further deposed that no parcel of the torch was made.
34. Dr. Adil Hameed (P.W.12) has admitted that the depth of injuries was not recorded by him and the size of axe does not correspond with the injuries attributed to appellant Tazeem. The direction of weapon was not specified and doctor P.W. Also deposed that injury No,1 could be inflicted while the victim was standing but contrary to it the prosecution version is that when the deceased fell down then appellant Tazeem inflicted an injury upon his abdomen. It was also admitted by doctor that he did not prepare notes but recorded the post-mortem report at his own after 6 days of the postmortem. It is admitted on the record that post-mortem was done on 24-11-1988 whereas post- mortem report was written on 30-11-1988 after 6 days and it is again admitted by Dr. Adil Hameed himself that after 6 days memory of a person becomes weak. The post-mortem report was handed over to police on 14-12-1988 after 20 days but no explanation was extended by the prosecution in this matter. We again advert to the size of blade of hatchet P-7 allegedly recovered by Tazeem appellant. According to the prosecution the blade of hatchet is 4" x 4-1/4". Ibrar Haider.
S.-I. Police (P.W.16) also described the size of the blade of hatchet P-7 as 4" x 4" but according to Doctor Adil Hameed (P.W.12), the size of hatchet which was produced before him for examination was 5-1/2" x 4-3/4" according to his report Exh.P.I. In this view of the master the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution story. It might be useful to mention here that the medical evidence can be used only to prove in what manner and with what weapon, the injury was caused but not to corroborate as to which accused caused the injury. Medical evidence can never name the accused and from the injuries alone it cannot be said who inflicted these injuries (PLD 1993 SC 251).
35. The site-plan Exh.P.F. Was prepared by Muhammad Azam Patwari (P.W.9) but it does not disclose the presence of Ahmed Din, complainant. It does not specify the place where Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) was allegedly injured. It also does not speak about the accused persons who had allegedly inflicted an injury upon the person of Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) or a 'place wherefrom the accused persons allegedly launched an attack upon Yousuf deceased. The side and distance between the victim and assailant was also not shown. The place wherefrom Yousuf accused allegedly shot a fire was not mentioned in the site-plan. It is significant to note that according to Muhammad Azam Patwari (P.W.9) only one injury of hatchet was inflicted by accused-persons. On the above premises of reasoning the evidence about the site-plan Exh.P.F is inconsistent with the prosecution story. The learned counsel has pressed into service the submission that an omission to indicate the position of eye-witnesses in site-plan cannot lead to an inference that such witnesses were not present on the scene of occurrence. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1980 SC 317. There can be no cavil with the principle enunciated by the apex Court but it was observed in this case that when the Court reaches the conclusion that the presence. Of a witness is at the time of the incident and at the place of occurrence would be natural in the circumstances of the case, then the omission of their position in the site plan does not matter. In this case the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of one Nawab where the presence of the relations of the deceased was natural but in the instant case the alleged occurrence took place at night in darkness in a deserted place and the presence of the eye-witnesses was not proved to be natural at the spot.
36. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the prosecution miserably failed to produce some independent or strong corroboratory and confirmatory evidence in support of the ocular version which comes from closely related and interested witnesses who were not only inimical to the accused but are also engaged in civil and criminal litigation with them prior to the occurrence, furthermore not found 'Adil in 'purgation'. Therefore, the prosecution evidence is not confidence inspiring and cannot be relied upon. (1999 SCMR 1030). It is golden rule of the law of evidence that finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from the evidence in a given case. Finding of the guilt should rest surely and firmly on the evidence produced. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof, otherwise, the golden rule of benefit of doubt will be reduced to a naught (PLD 1970 SC 10).
37. The learned counsel for the complainant has strenuously contended that P.Ws. Were not cross- examined on material part of the prosecution story, therefore, the prosecution tale has been admitted by the defence. With all our efforts we could not find any such material infirmity in cross- examination, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel has no force which is accordingly repelled.
38. We may take the note of this fact that the prosecution has involved as much as nine accused persons including the convict-appellants. The acquitted accused were ascribed the assault on the deceased and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) but no specific overtact was assigned to them. The trial Court acquitted all of them. This fact at the stage of appeal has to be considered that when the prosecution lodged a false case against seven persons, they can easily rope in the convict appellants on mere suspicion on account of the past quarrel
39. The story of alleged motive was also inconsistent and contradictory and the prosecution failed to establish motive set up by it which cannot be upheld. We are cognizant of the fact that absence of motive does not detract the accused person with commission of the offence which if otherwise is proved. However, if motive is not proved, the absence of motive may assume importance.
40. The learned counsel has cited many authorities on the point that the normal sentence of the offence of murder is death. In support of his contention he kept reliance upon Eid Wali's case (PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 44), Muhammad Nawaz's case (NLR 1984 Criminal 578), Manzoor Hussain's case (1980 PCr.LJ 749), Muhammad Hussain's case (PLD 1983 Sh.C. (AJ&K) 18) and Muhammad Ramzan's case (1997 PCr.LJ 1522). Suffice to note that there can be no quarrel with the principles enunciated in the above-cited cases but the death sentence was awarded to the convicts in the given circumstances and in the light of the facts of each case because every criminal case has to be judged in its own facts and circumstances and one case cannot command an authority upon all other cases. It is settled law that normal sentence of a murder is death provided if a case of murder is proved against the accused-persons. The facts of the above case-law are quite distinguishable and are of no help to the learned counsel for the complainant. For instance, Manzoor Hussain's case is of triple murder whereby instead of life imprisonment the sentence -of death was awarded. In Muhammad Nawaz's case, the occurrence took place in a Bazzar in broad daylight whereas in the present case the deceased was allegedly done to death in dark hours of the night.
41. We have carefully examined the judgment of the trial Court and arrived at the conclusion that the trial Court in our view did not determine the guilt of the convict-appellants on totality of the evidence available on the record but the trial Court failed to attend this aspect of the case that all the P.Ws. Were not only interested and inimical to the accused, furthermore, they were chance witnesses, neither they were resident of the area nor have any business to go on the spot and could not be expected in the area in the normal circumstances. The P.Ws. Failed to show satisfactory explanation of their presence on the scene of occurrence at the relevant time.
Ordinarily the evidence of a chance witness cannot be considered worthy of credence especially when a chance witness is highly interested in deceased and inimical to the accused. The prosecution witnesses have a highly improbable story and they have a motive to make a false statement against the accused persons, therefore, it will be wholly unsafe to rely upon their deposition. In this case a single independent person has not been cited or produced in the support of the prosecution version. Hakim Din (P.W.4) refuted the prosecution story. The statement of Muhammad Hanif injured (P.W.5) was recorded after 10 days of the occurrence. The alleged occurrence took place in darkness of the night in a deserted place. The absence of clothing on the person of the deceased at the time of his death, false inclusion of the names of the acquitted accused persons, material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses, inconsistent and not trustworthy confirmatory evidence, non-recovery of an empty from spot, non-examination of rifle P-5 from Ballistic Expert, introduction of torch at the belated stage of investigation with the absence of one cell of the torch, material contradictions in size and dimension of the hatchet P-7 allegedly recovered from Tazeem appellant and the fact of the eye-witnesses being not 'Adil' in purgation, when kept and considered in a juxtaposition with the version of the defence, the defence plea seems to be more probable, reasonably possible and could be true. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring the guilt home to the accused persons and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside to the extent of the convict-appellants which was derogatory to the settled principles of administration of justice in criminal cases. It is celebrated principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused persons as well they are entitled to acquittal and not of short sentence as passed by the trial Court.
42. So far as the case of respondents Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Siddique, Alam Din, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Younis and Muhammad Sadiq is concerned, the benefit of doubt extended to them by the trial Court appears to be based on cogent reasons and we uphold the same. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused respondent Nos.3 to 8 beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. These accused respondents did not inflict any injury to the deceased.
43. The upshot of the above discussion is that we accept this appeal presented by appellants Muhammad Tazeem and Manzoor Hussain and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by District Criminal Court, Bhimber, on 29-6-1998 and acquit the appellants with the charge. The other appeal filed by the complainant and the heirs of the deceased also fails and stands dismissed.