'RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J.---This appeal with the leave of this Court is directed against the Lahore High Court judgment dated 20-12-1995 rendered by learned Judge in Chambers dismissing appellants' appeal assailing their conviction and sentence under section 302/34, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life.
2. Appellants were tried alongwith four other co-accused namely Munir Ahmad, Shahbaz alias Baza, Sakandar and Muhammad Hayat for the murder of deceased Mukhtar Ahmed which took place on or about 3-3-1991 at about 10.00 a.m. While the appellants were convicted remaining four accused of whom three had reportedly actively participated in the commission of the crime and one had abetted the commission of crime were acquitted.
3. Prosecution case in a nutshell appears to be that on the material day complainant Manzoor alias Mian alongwith Muhammad Hayat, Muhammad Mumtaz and Lala was working in their fields while Mukhtar Ahmed deceased, brother of the complainant was ploughing another field at a distance of six kanals from them when the appellants alongwith Baza, Sikandar, Muhammad Hayat and Munir Ahmed surfaced. Except Munir Ahmed who was empty-handed all others were carrying guns with them. It is alleged that Munir Ahmed caught hold of deceased Mukhtar Ahmed who was forcibly lifted to a place five karams away where appellant Anwar fired from his gun hitting on his chest.. Remaining accused including appellant Khizar Hayat statedly fired shots from their respective weapons at the deceased on different parts of his body. Report of the incident was lodged at 12.30 p.m. The same day. After investigation, appellants were brought to trial alongwith co-accused. The trial ended in conviction of the appellants and acquittal of the four co-accused extending them the benefit of doubt. Appellants' appeal before the Lahore High Court failed, hence this appeal with the leave of the Court.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the State, we have been taken through the material evidence on record which conclusively tends to show that fire-arm injury No,1 on the person of the deceased was directly attributed to appellant Anwar whereas the rest of the injuries could be caused by the remaining accused as stated. Learned trial Court differentiated the case of the remaining co-accused by partly disbelieving the ocular version and proceeded to convict the appellants while accepting the ocular account of the episode duly corroborated by medical evidence as well as the recoveries of incriminating weapons matching with the crime empties found at the spot by the Investigating Officer at the time of inspection.
5. Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court learned counsel for the appellants was at pains to persuade us that the trial Court as well as learned Judge in Chambers in the Lahore High Court having not relied upon the ocular account furnished by P.Ws.9 and 10 namely, Manzoor Ahmed and.
Muhammad Hayat, their version could not be accepted as against the appellants.
6. We have carefully considered this aspect of the case which has also been taken care of by the learned Judge in the High Court with the observation that the ocular account was corroborated by the recoveries of shot-guns P-5 and P-6 from the appellants coupled with the wedding of crime empties P-4/1-4 collected from the place of occurrence with the weapons. We are also of the view that the principle of law "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is no longer accepted by the superior Courts of this country and the Court is under a duty to sift the chaff from the grain and find out as to whether a part of the evidence is reliable and confidence inspiring. In our view the part played by appellant Khizar Hayat appears to be identical to co-accused Shahbaz alias Baza, Sikandar and Muhammad Hayat as no specific injury has been ascribed to his appellant. Mere circumstance of recovery of a gun after two weeks of the incident would not be sufficient to establish the prosecution case to connect him with the commission of the crime and to disentitle him to the benefit of doubt already extended to three co-accused who allegedly took active part in the commission of the murder. His case thus, stands on a different footing from that of appellant.
Anwar and is apparently identical to the case of acquitted co-accused named above.
7. Adverting to the case of appellant Anwar, we are of the view that intrinsic worth and value of the ocular witnesses coupled with specific injury attributed to him conclusively proves his complicity in the commission of the crime. Furthermore, this injury is corroborated by medical evidence, in that, the Medical Officer who performed autopsy on the dead body had noticed a C fire-arm groove shape skin deep with inflamed margin size 8 x 2 c.m. On the left side of chest 5 c.m. Below the left nipple. Admittedly, this injury is on the vital part of the body and contributory towards the Qatl-i- Amd of the deceased. This part of the evidence is further supported and confirmed by voluntary production of a 12 bore shot-gun by appellant Anwar soon after his arrest which obviously tallied with the empties recovered from the spot. A reference was made to the evidence of P.W. Manzoor Ahmed who in his cross-examination made obliging statement to the effect that the Thanedar had fired from guns produced by the appellants to check if the same were in working order. According to him, he did not know about the presence of empties at the spot, therefore, he did not mention this fact in the F.LR. It may be pertinent to note that this witness was not present at the scene of occurrence when it was inspected by the Investigating Officer. Likewise, he was not present at the time of recovery of crime weapons from the possession of the appellants. Admittedly, appellant Anwar is his brother-in-law being the brother of his wife. Thus, the circumstances speak for themselves and do not appear to create a dent in the prosecution evidence. On an overall assessm ent of the evidence we are fully convinced with the propriety of the conviction and sentence of appellant Anwar.
8. Resultantly, the appeal is partly dismissed and partly allowed. It is dismissed so far as it relates to conviction and sentence of appellant Anwar. He is, however, extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Appeal is allowed to the extent of appellant Khizar Hayat who is entitled to equal treatment before law and is hereby acquitted. Impugned judgment to his extent is set aside. He shall be released from custody forthwith if not required to be detained for any other cause.
9. Above are the reasons for the short order passed by this Court at the conclusion of the hearing accepting the appeal to the extent of appellant Khizar Hayat and dismissing the appeal of appellant Anwar maintaining his conviction and sentence.