' The appellant has directed Criminal Appeal against the judgment, dated 9-12-1997 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad in Sessions Case No,119 of 1988, State v. Ramzan and others under section 302/34, P.P.C., arising out of Crime No,62 of 1987 of Police Station, Dodapur, whereby the present appellant was awarded R.I. For life imprisonment and fine of Rs,50,000, in default he has to undergo two years. The remaining two accused namely Imam Bux and Hakim All were given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
2. The brief facts as narrated by complainant Arbab in his F.I.R. Lodged by him on 25-12-1987 at 9- 00 p.m. Are that on the aforesaid date at 5-30 p.m. Complainant Arbab Ali, his sister's husband Gada Ali, brother Ghulam Rasool and Ghulam Sakina were standing in the courtyard of the house of Gada All when the present appellant Ramzan armed with gun, Imam Bux and Hakim Ali armed with hatchets intruded their house and declared that. Gada Ali had got the house of Sardar All raided through police, who has been convicted by the Court and that they would take revenge of it, and appellant fired at Gada Ali which hit him on his chest. Gunshot and cries attracted co-villagers and the accused escaped from the scene of offence.
3. The police took up investigation of the case and submitted challan against the aforesaid three accused.
4. At the trial, the prosecution examined complainant Arbab Exh.14, P.W. Ghulam Mustafa Exh.15, P.W.
Ghulam Rasool Exh.16, Tapedar Muhammad Alim Exh.17, P.W. Allah Warayo Exh.18, Doctor Muhammad Qabeer Exh.19, S.H.O. Shoukat Ali Exh.21. Consequently, the present accused/appellant Ramzan was found guilty and was convicted by the trial Court in terms stated above.
5. Mr. Ghulamullah Mahoto learned counsel for the appellant has argued that F.I.R. Is belated by about three and half hours and complainant has given no such explanation for such delay. He has argued that complainant and other witnesses are interested and prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness. It is further contended that recovery of gun from present accused/appellant cannot be believed as no empty was found from the Vardat. He criticized the impugned judgment on the ground that two accused Imam Bux and Hakim Ali have been acquitted and present appellant is convicted on the basis of same set of evidence. Learned counsel further asserted that motive is not proved by the prosecution as the judgment whereby Sardar Ali convicted is not brought on record by the prosecution.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases Muhammad lqbal v. State (1992 PCr.LJ 2092), Ghulam All v. State (1992 PCr.LJ 2033) and Iqbal Ahmed v. State (1971 PCr.LJ 127).
6. Mr. Rashid All G. Shaikh learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that accused is nominated in F.I.R. With specific part of fatal injury caused to deceased. The F.I.R. Was promptly lodged and the eye-witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and the same is in line with medical evidence.
7. Perusal of the record shows that this incident had occurred in the courtyard of deceased Gada Ali and was witnessed by the members of his family. Complainant Arbab Ali is brother-in-law whose house is adjacent to the house of Gada Ali. Similarly Ghulam Mustfa and Ghulam Rasool are near relatives of deceased. All the three witnesses have directly implicated the present appellant/accused and the record shows that they have been cross-examined at length. In such situation, the members of the family are the natural witnesses and their testimonies cannot be discredited merely On the fact that they are related to the deceased. The learned counsel was pointed out some minor contradictions.
' The incident had occurred in 1987 and the witnesses were examined in .The year 1995. P.W. Ghulam Mustafa has replied to the cross of defence counsel that they are residing in the houses which had common courtyard. The witness has further replied to the question of defence counsel that the accused had already escaped before arrival of villagers. No enmity has been suggested by the defence to the eye-witnesses. Likewise there is no denial by any suggestion to witnesses that Sardar All was not convicted in a case under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance. Complainant Arbab All has clearly stated that accused fired after saying that deceased had got raided the house of Sardar Ali relative of accused and ultimately he was convicted, therefore, they would take revenge of it. This fact is not denied by way of any suggestion to him that Sardar All was not convicted in the said case. Three eye-witnesses namely Arbab Ali, Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Rasool cannot be disbelieved as they were present in the house of deceased and witnessed the incident, they are natural witnesses and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. No animosity of P.Ws. With the accused is claimed by the defence. The ocular evidence of like nature cannot be ruled out merely because of their relationship with deceased. The reference can be made to a case of lqbal alias Bhala and 2 others v. State (1994 SCM R 1) wherein their lordships have held as under:--- "Mere friendship or relationship does not make a witness an interested one and testimony of such a witness who otherwise seems to be a truthful witness cannot be rejected on such ground. An interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused, is a partisan and is involved in the matter against the accused. Friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused.
The principles for accepting the testimony of even an interested witness are set out in Nazir v. The State PLD 1962 SC 269."
8. However, the evidence of aforesaid three eye-witnesses is corroborated by strong motive as Sardar Ali relative of accused was convicted few days prior to the incident and due to said annoyance they assaulted the deceased and caused his murder.
9. The next piece of evidence is the Vardat which is in the house of deceased and the medical evidence of a doctor. All these pieces of evidence supported the case of prosecution. The further evidence which is brought on record by the prosecution is recovery of the gun from accused.
Although the empty is not recovered. From the Vardat, but yet the fact remains that the unlicensed gun was being possessed by the accused and to that extent it can be said that he had the source of committing murder. The recovery is supported by the Mashir namely Allah Warayo (Exh.18).
10. The argument that because two accused have been acquitted and the evidence of eye- witnesses cannot be believed against the present accused/appellant has no force because, by this time the law is settled that grain is to be shifted from the chaff and the Court has to find out the truth. The witnesses have not been disbelieved in this case but two accused who were armed with hatchets have not committed any overt act and did not use their weapons, therefore, in such a situation as abundant caution, the benefit of doubt is extended to two accused without discrediting the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Ahmed and another v. The State (1997 SCM R 89) wherein their lordships have held as under: "That being so, the credibility of the eye-witnesses could not be said to have been shaken as a result of the acquittal of the said co-accused. Needless to point out that it is by now a settled preposition that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no universal application and not unoften the grain has to be shifted from the chaff. Refer Khairu and another v. The State (1981 SCM R 1176). The learned Judges were, therefore, perfectly justified in replying upon the ocular testimony furnished by the two eye-witnesses finding it worthy of credence and also 'sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of motive, the medical evidence and the attending circumstances' for upholding the conviction of the appellant."
11. The law referred above by learned counsel for the appellant has no bearing and relevance to the facts and circumstances of instant case.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and resultantly the sentence awarded to accused/appellant is maintained and the appeal is hereby dismissed.