' Appellants Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim, both brothers were tried alongwith three others in case F.I.R. No,108 of 1997, under sections 302, 148, 149, 324 and 449, P.P.C. By Malik Dost Muhammad Khemta, Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan. Three co-accused were acquitted, while appellants were convicted under sections 302(c)/324, P.P.C. Read with section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment of 25 years each for causing Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Sharif. They were further sentenced to 10 years' R.I. Each for attempting Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Iqbal by causing injuries to him. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them. They were also directed to pay compensation of Rs,50,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of Muhammad Sharif deceased, in default, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue or imprisonment for 6 months each. Kaloo, Din Muhammad and Abdul Sattar were extended benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that accused formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object after having armed themselves with deadly weapons and trespassed in a house within the area of Basti Rakhshani on 4-9-1997 at about Maghrib Wela and committed Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Sharif and attempted Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Iqbal by inflicting Sota blows to them. After investigation challan was put up in the Court. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and the prosecution was called to produce evidence.
3. Allah Ditta made statement Exh.P.B. To a police party headed by Imam Bakhsh, A.S.-I. Present at Gagoo Chowk, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal, injured in the occurrence, were produced to him. He registered the complaint under sections 324, 452 P.P.C. And transmitted to the police station. He prepared injury statement of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal and referred them for medical examination. Allah Ditta reported that Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Saleem were present in the house, when some one knocked the door, which was opened by the children when accused emerged on the spot. Abdul Sattar was empty-handed and four others were armed with Sotas. On trespassing the house in prosecution of their common object, Kaloo raised Lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Sharif for purchase of land and a quarrel with them. Din Muhammad asked the companions for attack and to kill Muhammad Sharif.
Muhammad Sharif stood up and intervened, who was grappled by Abdul Sattar. Kaloo inflicted a Sota blow at the front head of Muhammad Sharif. Din Muhammad inflicted a Sota blow at right shoulder of Muhammad Sharif, who fell down unconscious. Muhammad Ibrahim inflicted a Sota blow at left wrist of Muhammad Sharif having already fallen. Muhammad Iqbal stepped forward to save him. Ghulam Yasin gave two Sota blows at the head and front nose/lips of Muhammad Iqbal, who also fell down. The alarm attracted villagers to the spot but the assailants ran away to their homes with respective weapons. The motive as disclosed by the complainant is about a land dispute between the parties.
4. Allah Ditta complainant reported that Muhammad Sharif was being taken to police station alongwith Muhammad Iqbal when he met a police party at Gagoo Chowk. Imam Bakhsh, A.S.-I.
Visited the place of occurrence and prepared its rough sketch. He secured blood-stained earth from the spot. On 5-9-1997, Mohib Ali Balouch, Inspector/S.H.O. Took up the investigation, when he came to know at about 2-00 p.m. That Muhammad Sharif had died. Accompanied by a police party, he reached Nishtar Hospital, Multan and took over the custody of the dead body. After preparing its injuries statement and inquest report. Dead body was autopsied at D.H.Q. Hospital, Dera Ghazi Khan on next day. Last worn clothes of deceased were recovered and taken into possession. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr. P.C. Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim were arrested on 24-9-1997, and the Sotas were recovered from them. The investigation was subsequently transferred to Naseem-ul-Hassan, D.S.P., C.I.A. Staff, Dera Ghazi Khan on 21-10-1997. He verified about the occurrence, recorded case diary and directed the S.H.O.
To challan all the accused by adding an offence under section 452, P.P.C. Ch. Muhammad Akram, D.S.P. Proceeded with the investigation from 28-9-1997 onward. He went to the spot, inquired about the occurrence from the complainant party, accused party and the witnesses. He found all the accused guilty and held that the occurrence took place' in the house of Allah Ditta complainant.
Documents prepared by the Police Officers are as follows:-
(i) Site Plan with Scale (triplicate)Exh. P.A., Exh. P.A/1 and Ex.P.A/2
(ii) Complaint Exh. P. B.
(iii) F. I. R. Exh. P.B/1
(iv) Post-mortem report of Muhammad SharifExh. P.C.
(v) Injuries diagram of Muhammad SharifExh. P.C/1 and Exh.
P.C/2
(vi) Inquest report of Muhammad SharifExh. P.C/3 (vii)Injuries statement of Muhammad SharifExh. P.C/4 (viii)Last worn clothes of deceased blood-stained shirt P.1 and Chadar P.2.Exh. P. D.
(ix) MLC of Muhammad Sharif Exh. P. D/A
(x) MLC of Muhammad lqbal Exh. P.D/1
(xi) MLC of Muhammad Ibrahim Exh. P. D/2
(xii) MLC of Ghulam Yasin Exh. P. D/3 (xiii)Recovery memo. of Sotas produced by Yasin and Muhammad IbrahimExh. P. E and Exh. P. F
(xiv) Rough sketch of place of occurrenceExh. P. H
(xv) Recovery memo. of blood- stained earthExh.P.J (xvi)Report of Chemical ExaminerExh. P. L (xvii)Report of Serologist. Exh.P.M
5. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Imam Bakhsh (P.W.10) stated that he recorded complaint at Gagoo Chowk on 4-9-1997, which was thumb-marked by Allah Ditta complainant in token of its correctness. He initially investigated the case, prepared rough site plan, took blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence. Mohib Ali Balouch (P.W.11) testified that he prepared injuries statement and inquest report of Muhammad Sharif deceased and secured his last worn clothes.
He recovered weapon of offence Sota (P.3) and Sota (P.4) from Yasin and Ibrahim accused on 24- 9-1997. Naeem-ul-Hassan (P.W.12) directed the S.H.O. To challan all the accused by adding section 452, P.P.C. Ch. Muhammad Akram (P.W.13) stated that he found all the accused guilty in view of inquiry from the parties and the witnesses who were examined on the spot on 2-11-1997 and 5-12- 1997. Allah Diwaya, Moharir (P.W.2) recorded formal F.I.R. In accordance with complaint sent at police station from the place of occurrence. He further testified that a parcel containing blood- stained earth was handed over to him on 4-9-1997, which was kept intact and delivered to Ghulam Mohae-ud-Din, Constable on 16-9-1997. Ghulam Mohae-ud-Din, Constable (P.W.5) deposed that he received parcel of blood-stained earth from Allah Diwaya, Moharrir on 16-9-1997 and it was safely delivered in the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore, on 18-9-1997, Abdul Shakoor, Constable (P.W.4) escorted the dead body of Muhammad Sharif to Nishtar Hospital, Multan to D.H.Q. Hospital, Dera Ghazi Khan. He further stated that Medical Officer gave him last worn clothes of the deceased alongwith post-mortem report, which were handed over to' Investigating Officer. Abdul Majeed (P.W.6) identified the dead body of Muhammad Sharif. He also attested recovery memo. Of blood- stained shirt P.1 and blood-stained Chadar P.2 of the deceased. Muhammad Asif Patwari (P.W.1) prepared the site plan in triplicate. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Leghari (P.W.3) conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of Muhammad Sharif. He noted external injuries as under:--
(1) A wound measuring 3 x 1.5 c.m. In size, stitches present, situated on the right frontal region of skull. The wound was longitudinal present and was about 13 c.m. Above the upper level of the pinna slightly on front. When stitches removed, the wound was lacerated and scalp deep.
(2) A bruise about 0.5 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. In size situated on the antero-lateral surface of right shoulder; the colour was almost black.
(3) An abrasion about 0.3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. In size obliquely present on the antero-lateral surface of the distaled 1/3 of the left forearm.
' He deposed that scalp, skull, membrane, brain and spinal card were found injured. The injury in the skull was a fracture on left parietal bone about 10 c.m. In length. There was V-shaped fracture of left frontal bone connected with first fracture. Corresponding parts of brain and membrane in the skull-fractured area were severely injured with a big clot underneath. Other parts of the body were healthy. The Medical Officer stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem and caused with blunt weapon whereas injury No,1 at a vital organ proved fatal which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that probable time between the injuries and death was about fourteen hours whereas the probable time intervening death and postmortem examination was about twenty-five hours. He testified in respect of correctness of post-mortem report and the fact that he signed documents Exh.P.C/1, Exh. P.C/2, Exh.P.C/3 and Exh.P.C/4.
6. Dr. Fayyaz Karim Leghari (P.W.7) medically examined Muhammad Sharif accused, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner, Muhammad Ibrahim and Ghulam Yasin (appellants) on 4-9-1997. He authenticated their MLCs Exh. P. D/A, Exh. P. D/1, Exh. P. D/2 and Exh. P. D/3. The injuries and external examination was as follows:-- MUHAMMAD SHARIF
(1) A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep vertically placed on top of right side of head.
(2) A bruise with swelling 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. On right shoulder.
(3) A swelling 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. On outer aspect of left forearm.
' His pulse was 66 per minute. Blood pressure was 90/50. Patient was in comma grade three.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL
(1) A swelling 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the lower part of nose. The middle of upper lip was also swollen and it had tear inside.
(2) A bruise 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the lower part of back on right side.
' His injury No,1 was kept under observation whereas injury No,2 was declared simple. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
(1) A lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep on forehead on left side, the wound was profusely bleeding.
(2) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep on back of head in the middle.
' His injuries were kept under observation.
MUHAMMAD YASIN
(1) A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bone was exposed on right side of top of head.
(2) A lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep just back to injury No,l.
(3) A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On top of left side of head.
(4) A skin tear with swelling 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. On left elbow area.
' Injuries to Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ibrahim and Yasin were with blunt weapons and within duration of six hours.
7. Allah Ditta (P.W.8) is an eye-witness and the complainant. He reiterated the facts of the complaint. He specifically mentioned that the occurrence took place inside boundary wall of the house. He reiterated the version set up in the F.I.R. And testified that Muhammad Sharif deceased purchased land from Murtaza, situated near the house of Kaloo accused; that the accused murdered Muhammad Sharif and injured Muhammad Iqbal on account of aforesaid motive. He further deposed that police collected blood-stained earth in his presence.
8. Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.9) is an injured witness. He supported ocular account deposed by Allah Ditta (P.W.8). He is also witness of recovery of Sotas effected from Yasin and Ibrahim accused.
9. Prosecution gave up Muhammad Saleem, Ghulam Haider and Tahir Mehmood Qureshi P. Ws. As unnecessary, tendered in evidence Exh.P.L. And Exh.P.M respectively by the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist and closed the case.
' The accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Kaloo, Din Muhammad and Abdul Sattar refuted the fact of participation in the occurrence and allegations made against them. They completely expressed ignorance about the occurrence and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They declined to appear in their defence. Yasin and Ibrahim opted to produce evidence in defence and declined to appear on oath. They denied the recoveries of Sotas from them. Relevant portion of their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below: ' Yasin stated as under:-- "On the day of occurrence I had come from D.G. Khan and alighted from the bus near juice factory where I was told by Khalid Chadi that the family of Sharif deceased had a quarrel with the boys of our family. Qaiser son of Kaloo accused came there and told me that Sharif, Majeed and Allah Rakha had given beating to him. I went to the house of Sharif deceased for protest. I knocked at the door of Sharif deceased whereupon Hanif son of Sharif came out and I asked him to send his father but he did not come out. After waiting five/ten minutes I was coming back, when Sharif and Iqbal came out of their house armed with Sotas and started giving me Sota blows and asked why I had come to them for protest. I picked up a brickbat and threw the same upon Sharif and Iqbal.
Ibrahim, my brother was present nearby sugarcane field and came running towards the place of occurrence. Sharif and Iqbal gave Sota blows to Muhammad Ibrahim. In the meantime, people of the locality came there and separated us. I and Ibrahim were being taken to the police station and in the way we met the police officer who recorded our statements and sent us in the company, of Constable to D.H.Q Hospital, Dera Ghazi Khan for medical examinations but we were made accused in this case by the police with connivance of the complainant party. The police as well as complainant party suppressed the facts and challaned us under section 302, P.P.C. No other accused was present at the spot.
' Ibrahim stated as under:-- "I was present nearby sugarcane field and came running towards the place of occurrence. Sharif and Iqbal gave Sota blows to me. In the meantime, people of the area came there and separated us. I and Ghulam Yasin were being taken to the police station and in the way we met the police officer who recorded our statements and sent us in the company of Constable to D.H.Q Hospital, D.G. Khan for medical examination but we were made accused in this case by the police in connivance of the complainant party. The police as well as complainant party has suppressed the facts and challaned us under section 302, P.P.C. No other accused was present at the spot."
11. The accused examined Ahmad Khan Chadhar, (Retired) S.S.P., Dera Ghazi Khan, who investigated the occurrence on 24-12-1998 and recorded case diary No,33, dated 7-1-1998. He deposed that the fight took place at the gate of house of Muhammad Sharif deceased which started on account of a quarrel of children of both the parties. He further deposed that initially the complainant confronted with Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim; then they altercated and had a fight by exchanging abuses and participation of the injured persons from both the parties.
Din Muhammad and Abdul Sattar came running to the place of occurrence when the injuries have already been sustained by the participants, whereas Kaloo reached the spot when the fight was over. He stated that the parties used brickbats in the occurrence.
12. Learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence, relied upon the statements of appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And convicted them in the terms indicated above, while three co-accused Kaloo, Din Muhammad and Abdul Sattar were acquitted vide impugned judgment dated 31-5-2001, against which the instant appeal has arisen.
13. Malik Muhammad Saleem, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court disbelieved prosecution evidence relied upon partly on the statements of the accused recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The statement of accused was to be believed or disbelieved in entirety.
Partial reliance on such statements is not permissible under the law as laid down in 1991 SCM R 61 (Ghulam Qadir v. Esab Khan and others), PLD 1995 SC 343 (Shabbir Ahmad v. The State), 1995 SCM R 1377 (Shamoon alias Shamma v. The State) and 1992 SCM R 2047 (The State v. Muhammad Hanif and 5 others). He has further argued that appellants exercised the rights of self-defence. They received 6 injuries from the complainant side. Prosecution completely suppressed injuries on the person of appellants during investigation as well as during trial. Appellants are not guilty of any offence and as such the impugned conviction is not sustainable.
14. Learned State Counsel has supported the impugned judgment.
15. Heard. Record perused.
16. Learned trial Judge disbelieved prosecution witnesses, held that it consists of inimical witnesses, not based on true facts. Injuries on the person of appellants were suppressed. F.I.R. Was recorded after preliminary investigation. Complaint by Din Muhammad (acquitted accused) was not properly investigated. Occurrence was not reported correctly to the police by Allah Ditta (P.W.8), Kaloo, Din Muhammad and Abdul Sattar were found to have been falsely implicated, however, Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim were convicted relying upon their partial statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein they raised plea of self-defence, mainly on the ground that they concealed the facts of snatching Sota and then causing injuries to. Muhammad Sharif deceased and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.9). He further observed that right of self-defence automatically terminated when they disarmed Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal, whereby Muhammad Sharif expired, which established intentional murder and attempt of Qatl-i-Amd.
However, in the given circumstances, he observed that it is difficult to determine attribution of injury No,1 of Muhammad Sharif to either of Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim. The offences under sections 148, 149, 449, P.P.C. Were not proved, they were acquitted. The offences under sections 302/324 P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Stood proved against the appellant and accordingly they were convicted under sections 302(c), 324, 34, P.P.C. And sentenced as indicated above.
17. The findings of learned Sessions Judge about snatching of Sotas by the appellants from Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad lqbal and then causing injuries to them is against the record.
Allah Ditta (P.W.8) has not stated that the appellant snatched Sotas from Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal and caused injuries to them, thereafter, he has completely suppressed injuries on the person of Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim in his examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, when asked about the scuffle of appellant with Muhammad Sharif, he replied: "It is incorrect that Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim had a scuffle with Muhammad Sharif deceased". He further stated: "It is incorrect that Muhammad Sharif inflicted injuries to Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim with Sota on a road. It is incorrect that Muhammad Sharif gave beating to the children of Yasin. It is incorrect that Yasin came to Muhammad Sharif with a complaint and they started beating him. It is incorrect that Muhammad Ibrahim also came to the spot who was also given beating by them with Sota".
The statement of P.W.8 shows that no scuffle took place between the deceased, P.W.9 and the accused at all and the occurrence according to him took place in the manner stated by him in examination-in-chief that accused party all of a sudden emerged Kaloo gave Sota blow on head of Muhammad Sharif deceased. Din Muhammad raised Lalkara, Abdul Sattar caught hold of P.W., whereas Muhammad Ibrahim gave Sota blow, which hit left arm of the deceased. Yasin gave two Sota blows to Muhammad Iqbal P.W. There is no mention in his statement either in examination-in- chief or cross-examination that appellants snatched Sotas from Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal and after disarming them gave blows with Sotas to them on their respective parts of the body. Similarly, in the statement of injured (P.W.9) Muhammad lqbal, he stated in cross-examination that they all were empty-handed, did not cause any injury to accused. He denied the suggestions regarding this fact while saying that it is incorrect that Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim had a scuffle with Muhammad Sharif deceased. It is incorrect that Muhammad Sharif caused injuries to Yasin and. Muhammad Ibrahim with Sota on a road. This witness has also not deposed that Sotas were snatched by accused from deceased and Muhammad Iqbal and thereafter caused injuries to them. The finding of learned Sessions Judge that deceased and P.W.9 were injured by the appellant after snatching Sotas from them, therefore, the right of self-defence is not available is not based on any evidence on record. Prosecution suppressed injuries on the person of appellant who were admitted in the same hospital on the same day when deceased and P.W.9 were under treatment and a specific plea was raised by Din Muhammad co-accused for registration of cross-case against the complainant party. Their injuries were suppressed in the F.I.R., during investigation as well as trial. Evidence consists of inimical witnesses. True facts have not been brought on the record. Prosecution failed to prove its case, therefore, Kaloo accused who was attributed a fatal blow, was acquitted alongwith Din Muhammad and Abdul Sattar and the appellants were convicted merely on the basis of their statement which was to be believed or disbelieved in toto, They specifically pleaded that in exercise of right of self-defence brickbats thrown by Yasin hit deceased and P.W.9. The prosecution case having been disbelieved, statement of accused was to be believed or disbelieved in toto as laid down in 1991 SCM R 61 (Ghulam Qadir -v. Esab Khan and others) and 1992 SCM R 2047. (The State v. Muhammad Haneef and 5 others). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para. 7 of latter judgment that where the prosecution evidence stands rejected in its totality, the statement of the accused has to be accepted in totality and without scrutiny. The first judgment on the point coming from the Supreme Court is that of Faiz and another v. The State 1983 SCM R 76 wherein at page 79 the following observations were made:-- "The judgment of the High Court makes it abundantly clear that the ocular evidence was totally discarded and the only material utilized by the Court for determining the guilt of the appellants was 'defence version'. There were no proved or established facts to test the defence version. This distinguishes the decision in Imamuddin's case 1975 PCr.LJ 948 which had proved or established facts. In Balmakund's case AIR 1931 All. 1 a reference to Full Bench of the High Court became necessary because the Judges hearing the case found the exculpatory part of the statement of the accused to be so unworthy of belief that no Court could act upon them.
' The Full Bench noted that during the last one hundred years the following two rules of criminal jurisprudence have been consistently observed without any attempt to engraft as exception:--
(a) Where there is other evidence a portion of the confession may, in the light of that evidence, be rejected while acting upon the remainder with the other evidence.
(b) Where there is no other evidence, the Court cannot accept the inculpatory element and reject the exculpatory element as inherently incredible.
' In PLD 1995 SC 343 (Shabbir Ahmad v. State) it was observed that the statement of accused should have been accepted or rejected in toto and reliance should not have been placed only on a portion for corroborating the ocular account and in last judgment 1995 SCM R 1377 it was held that if Court decides to convict accused on the basis of his confessional statement or his plea under section 342, Cr.P.C. It is not open to Court to accept a part of the statement and reject another part for the purpose of convicting him. The plea of the accused in toto was believed by the Court and the conviction was converted under section 304, P.P.C. Yasin appellant in the instant case in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Reproduced above stated that on the day of occurrence he had come from D.G. Khan, alighted from the bus near Juice Factory where they were told by Khalid Chadi that the family of Muhammad Sharif deceased had quarrel with the boys of our family.
Qaiser son of Kaloo accused came there, told them that Muhammad Sharif, Majeed and Allah Rakha had given beating to him. Appellants went to the house of Muhammad Sharif deceased for protest. After knocking the door, whereupon Muhammad Hanif son of Muhammad Sharif came out.
He asked him to send his father but he did not come out. Appellants were coming back when Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal came out of their house armed with Sota started giving them blows and asked why they had come to them for protest. Accused picked up a brick-bat and threw the same upon Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal. Muhammad Ibrahim my brother was present near sugarcane field, he came running towards place of occurrence. Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Iqbal gave Sota blow to Muhammad Ibrahim. In the meantime, people of the locality came there and separated us. I and Muhammad Ibrahim were being taken to the police station and in the way we met the police officer who recorded our statement, sent us in the company of Constable to D.H.Q. Hospital, D.G. Khan for medical examination but they were made accused in this case by police with the connivance of complainant party. Police as well as complainant party suppressed the facts, challaned them under section 302, P.P.C. No other accused was present at the spot. Muhammad Ibrahim adopted the statement of Ghulam Yasin and stated that Muhammad Iqbal gave Sota blow to him. The statements of accused seen in the light of injuries received by them clearly show that the complainant party was aggressor.
Muhammad Sharif received one injury measuring 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. In size, on the right frontal region of skull. Injuries Nos.2 and 3 were only bruises. Muhammad Iqbal P.W. Received two injuries; one swelling 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the lower part of nose and bruise 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the lower part of back on right side. Appellant Muhammad Ibrahim received two injuries, a lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m.
Muscle deep on forehead on left side. Injury No,2 a lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep on back of head in the middle. Muhammad Yasin appellant received four injuries; (1) a lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. Bone was exposed on right side of top of head, (2) a lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Muscle deep just back to injury No,1, (3) a lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On top of left side of head and (4) a skin tear with swelling 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. On left elbow area. The comparison of the injuries received by appellants and the complainant side shows that more damage was done to the appellants who received 6 injuries and on the side of prosecution deceased received one lacerated wound and Muhammad Iqbal P.W. Had a swelling and bruises only. Plea raised by the appellants considered in the light of medical evidence and other circumstances of the case clearly shows that they were injured by complainant party during the occurrence. They have not exceeded right of self-defence. The statement of accused was to be considered in totality. Trial Court against the facts on record disbelieved part of it and relied upon the remaining portion and illegally convicted them in violation of the law laid down in the above-referred judgments.
18. P. Ws. 8 and 9 are only eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Muhammad Iqbal P.W. Admitted that he is son-in-law of Muhammad Sharif deceased who was his uncle also. Allah Rakha brother of Muhammad Iqbal is brother-in-law of Allah Ditta (P.W.8) both the eyewitnesses admitted their enmity with the accused. They suppressed injuries on the person of the appellants. Sotas were recovered after 20 days from appellants, which were not blood-stained. Evidence of interested and inimical witnesses is not corroborated by any independent source. Medical evidence contradicts the prosecution version. The prosecution miserably failed to prove case against the accused/appellants. After going through the entire record I am convinced that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court also disbelieved the prosecution evidence and relied upon part of the evidence of Yasin and Muhammad Ibrahim. The statement of accused was to be believed or disbelieved in toto. Accused could not be convicted by believing a part of the statement and disbelieving other part. Impugned judgment is, therefore, illegal and is set aside. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed, conviction of the appellants is set aside. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.