JAVED IQBAL, J.--These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment dated 4-4- 2002 passed by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal bearing No,612 of 1997 preferred on behalf of petitioner has been rejected and judgment dated 18- 10-1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, has been kept intact whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to death. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 324/34, P.P.C., with fine of Rs,10,000 and in case of default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the impugned judgment are to the effect that "Farrakh, Shahzad alias Pappi and Ghulam Dastgir accused were challaned by Police Station Thikriwala, District Faisalabad in case F.I.R. No,245 of 1995 dated 1-7-1995 under sections 302 and 324/34, P.P.C. The report Exh.PE was lodged by one Lal Din son of Raheem Bakhsh complainant. The formal F.I.R., Exh.PE/1 was registered on the basis of statement Exh.PE of Lal Din complainant who had stated therein that he is a resident of Chak No,73-GB. On the day of occurrence (i,e, on 1-7- 1995) around 7-00 p.m. He alongwith his son Eid Hussain was proceeding to Masjid Ahl-i-Hadith and when they reached near Masjid Chowk, Farrakh, Shehzad alias Pappi accused armed with carbine 12 bore and Ghulam Dastgir accused empty-handed reached there as a result of premeditation. As soon as they reached there, Ghulam Dastgir raised a Lalkara exhorting his co- accused to teach a lesson to Eid Hussain for insulting them whereupon Farakh Shahzad fired with a carbine hitting Eid Hussain on his head, above the right ear and he fell down. Muhammad Bashir son of Umer Din and Muhammad Shafique son of Abdul Ghani who was carrying a two years' old child named Kashif moved ahead to rescue him whereupon Farakh Shehzad fired again and the pellets of the shot fired by him hit the right shoulder and left rib of Muhammad Bashir P.W. While a pellet also hit Kashif, the child on the hack side of his head. On the alarm raised by the complainant. Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Shafique, Umer Hayat'son of the complainant and Yasin reached there and witnessed the occurrence and got them rescued from the accused and that the accused went away raising "Lalkaras." The petitioner alongwith Ghulam Dastgir (co- accused) was arrested and after completion of investigation sent for trial, on conclusion whereof the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as per details mentioned above while as a result of appeal Ghulam Dastgir (co-accused) was acquitted.
3. Heard Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner who mainly contended as follows:--
(i) On the basis of vague and sketchy evidence no conviction could have been awarded.
(ii) The grave contradictions apparent on record have been ignored which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
(iii) No conviction could have been awarded on the basis of statements of interested witnesses.
(iv) The prosecution evidence has not been relied regarding co-accused. Ghulam Dastgir who was acquitted by the learned High Court and same benefit should have been extended in favour of petitioner.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The entire record has been scanned with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court. We have perused the judgment impugned with care and caution. After having a careful scrutiny of the entire record we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established accusation beyond shadow of doubt by producing cogent and concrete evidence which has rightly been considered and relied upon by the learned trial and Appellate Courts. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not furnish any lawful justification on the basis whereof eye account tendered by Lal Din duly corroborated by Umer Hayat (P.W.11) could be brushed aside. We have perused the statement of Lal Din (P.W.10) who has deposed the details of unfortunate incident culminating in death of his son namely Eid Hussain. He has mentioned in a categoric manner that on the fateful day when he was accompanying his son around 7-00 p.m. And on reaching near Mosque of Ahl-i-Hadees Farrakh Shahzad (petitioner) and Ghulam Dastgir (co-accused) emerged there and Farrukh Shehzad alias Pappi fired with carbine as a result whereof Eid Hussain sustained injury on the right side of his head and fell down. He further deposed that when Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Shafique attempted to intervene Farrakh Shehzad (petitioner) also fired on Muhammad Bashir hitting him on his right shoulder and right rib. He has highlighted the details of episode in a straightforward and simple manner which is free from any dishonest exaggeration. He was subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination but nothing beneficial could be elicited. He is father of deceased and the question of substitution of the real culprit with that of petitioner, which otherwise is a rare phenomena, does not arise. Umer Hayat (P.W.11) has also witnessed the occurrence and supported the version of Lal Din (P.W.10) on all material points and nothing advantageous could be extracted in spite of lengthy cross-examination. Lal Din (P.W.10) and Umer Hayat (P.W.11) have also mentioned the motive for the alleged murder and deposed that in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner he could not fulfill his desire of unnatural lust which was brought by the deceased to the notice of his elder brother namely Umer Hayat (P.W.11) which resulted into quarrel prior to the occurrence. The oral account also finds support from medical evidence which has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court. It is an admitted fact that Lal Din (P.W.10) and Umer Hayat (P.W.11) are father and brother of deceased respectively but they cannot be labeled as "interested witnesses" having no enmity to falsely involve the petitioner in a murder case. Even otherwise it is well-settled by now that an interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused. The concept of "interested witness" was discussed elaborately in case titled Iqbal alias Bala v. The State (1994 SCM R 1) and it was held that "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).In Khalil Ahmad v. The State (1976 SCM R 161) the testimony of deceased's son aged 15 years was accepted as he was not personally involved in any act of enmity and his statement was consistent, corroborated by the presence of injuries on his person, human blood- stained articles recovered from the accused and supported by two other witnesses. In Allah Ditta and others v. The State (1970 SCM R 734) the testimony of four P.Ws. Out of which two had sustained injuries was accepted although they were related to the deceased because they were natural witnesses, injuries sustained by two P.Ws. Proved their presence and involvement in the occurrence and there was motive on the part of the accused to attack the deceased. Further their evidence found support from the medical evidence. Reference can also be made to Muhammad Akbar v.
Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1988 SC 274) and Shehruddin v. Allah Rakhia (1989 SCM R 1461 at 1465) where testimony of injured witness was accepted. In assessing the value of evidence of eyewitnesses it is necessary to examine whether in the facts and circumstances of the case their presence at the scene of occurrence in such a situation as would make it possible for them to witness it should be believed and further that whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In Din Muhammad v. Crown (1969 SCM R 777) it was observed that to test the testimony of a witness Court should not only consider whether there is consistency in the narrative, but should also consider whether there is consistency its, the narrative, but should also consider whether the version is probable or not.
5. The evidence of Lal Din (P.W.10) and Umer Hayat (P.W.11) has also been examined on the touchstone of criterion as mentioned hereinabove. We are of the opinion that their version was consistent, confidence-inspiring and worthy of credence which has rightly been taken into consideration and by no stretch of imagination they can be labeled as "interested witnesses".
6. We have also dilated upon the contention urged with vehemence that the evidence led by the prosecution was not relied upon regarding Ghulam Dastgir (co-accused) and hence the petitioner could not have been convicted on the same evidence. We are not persuaded to agree with the said contention for the simple reason that the case of Ghulam Dastgir (co-accused) is quite distinguishable and the prosecution has failed to bring convincing evidence establishing the guilt up to his extent. It may be kept in view that Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable in the prevalent system of criminal administration of justice and more so there is no rule having universally applicable that where some accused have not been found guilty the other accused would ipso facto stand acquitted because the Court has to sift the grain from chaff". In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Samano v. The State (1973 SCM R 162), Tawaib Khan v.The State (PLD 1970 SC 13).Abdul Aziz v.The State (1993 SCM R 544) and Muhammad Nawaz v.The State (1969 SCM R 132).
7. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not point out the grave contradictions which were ignored by the learned trial and Appellate Courts which according to him resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. We may point out here that minor contradictions do creep in with passage of time and on the basis whereof no benefit could be given to the petitioner. In this regard reference can be made to the following authorities: Mushtaq alias Shaman v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 46), Roshan v.The State (PLD 1977 SC 557), Aurangzeb v.The State (1992 SCMR 255), Muhammad Yaqoob v.The State (1992 SCM R 1983), Zakir Khan v. The State (1995 SCM R 1793) and Allah Bakhsh v. Ahmad Din (1971 SCM R 462).
8. The defence plea was also kept in juxtaposition which appears to be an afterthought and fabricated. In view of overwhelming evidence which has come on record the plea of denial simpliciter and alleged party faction enmity nature whereof was never disclosed cannot be considered.
9. In the light of what has been stated above it can be concluded safely that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court duly concurred by learned High Court being well-based and unexceptionable hardly calls for any interference. The petitions being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed and .