' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,785 of 1998 filed by Sharafat Ali and Muhammad .Boota appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment dated 21-7-1998 as under:-- "Sharafat Ali, appellant under .Section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. To death with the further direction to pay Rs,25,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default six months' R.I.
' Muhammad Boota, appellant under section 302(b)134, P.P.C. Imprisonment for life with the further direction to pay Rs,25,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default six months' R.I. With the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' Murder Reference No,322 of 1998 for confirmation of death sentence of Sharafat Ali appellant or otherwise shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place after Jumma Prayer on 26-8-1994 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jaranwala, District Faisalabad at a distance of 11 miles away while the matter was reported to the police on the same day by Taj Din complainant through complaint Exh.P.C. At 5-30 p.m. And the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was recorded by Manzoor Ahmed M.H.C. On the same day at 5- 50 p.m.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 26-3-1994 at 5-30 p.m. Taj Din, complainant made his statement Exh.P.C. Before Manzoor Hussain Khan S.I. P.W.7 stating therein that his son Muhammad Arif was working in Cresent Mills near Shahkot, who had come to the house due to Friday and went to village Mosque for Namaz-e-Jumma. After saying Jumma Prayer he came out of the Mosque in the Bazar. At the time, the complainant was standing near his house and saw that Sharafat Ali alias Eida, Muhammad Boota, both armed with Churries, Charagh and Siraj empty-handed came there.
On - coming there, Charagh and Siraj raised. Lalkara to Sharafat Ali and Muhammad Boota that Muhammad Arif should not be escaped, he be taught a lesson for causing injuries to Liaqat Ali.
Upon this Muhammad Arif ran towards his house. Sharafat and Muhammad Boota followed him..
When Muhammad Arif reached near cattle shed of Muhammad Iqbal Barbar, Sharafat Ali inflicted Churri blow upon Muhammad Arif hitting near the left arm-pit. Muhammad Arif entered into the cattle-shed of Iqbal Hajjam, who was followed by Sharafat Ali and Muhammad Boota. The complainant alongwith Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Akbar reached there and witnessed the occurrence. Within their views, Sharafat Ali and Muhammad Boota inflicted repeated Churri blows to Muhammad Arif hitting on his chest towards right side; left arm-pit and right side of lower abdomen. The complainant alongwith companion beseeched the accused not to commit cruelty, who after causing serious injuries to Muhammad Arif fled away while waiving the Churries.
Complainant alongwith Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Anwar lifted Muhammad Arif in an injured conditions and reached in his house when Muhammad Arif succumbed to the injuries.
4. Motive behind the occurrence was that about 7/8 months ago, Muhammad Arif deceased had caused injuries to Liaquat Ali brother of Sharafat Ali accused which matter was patched up by respectable but Sharafat All accused nourshed grudge and due to the said grievance, Sharafat Ali, Muhammad Boota, Siraj and Charagh accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, committed the qatl-e-amd of Muhammad Arif deceased.
5. After registration of the case, investigation of the case was taken over by Manzoor Ahmed P.W.7, who reached at the place of occurrence, inspected dead body of Muhammad Arif deceased, prepared injury statement Exh.P.G. And inquest report Exh.P.H., collected bloodstained earth vide memo. Exh.P.D., recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, C.P.C. On 30-8-1994 he arrested Sharafat Ali accused, who while in police custody on 7-9-1994 led to the recovery of Churri vide memo. Exh.P.W.6/A. On 1-10-1994 he arrested Muhammad Boota accused and on his pointation on 15-10-1994 he recovered Churri P.4 which was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh.P.E. After completion, of the remaining formal investigation the accused were challaned to face the trial.
6. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 8 witnesses in all, thereafter, tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.W.7/C, that of the Serologist Exh.P.W.7/D and closed the prosecution case, then, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
In which they pleaded innocence.
7. After having read the entire prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material available on record, learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are closely related to the deceased, i,e,, Taj Din complainant P.W.3 is father while Muhammad Anwar P.W.6 is nephew of the deceased, that no independent witness was produced by the prosecution, that in fact, it was an unwitnessed occurrence, that there is a conflict between ocular and medical evidence. While elaborating his arguments, he submits that there is no injury near the left arm pit, that there were 30 to 35 "Namzies" but none of them was cited or produced by the prosecution to prove its case, that the person in whose presence the occurrence had taken place was not produced by the prosecution, that the eye-witnesses had not produced their blood clothes which surely had become smeared with blood as they had put the deceased in the vehicle in order to take him to the hospital, that there is no distinction between the role of Sharafat Ali and Muhammad Boota appellants, while Sharafat Ali was awarded death sentence and Muhammad Boota was awarded life imprisonment, that recoveries of knives were planted on the appellants, whilp explaining this argument, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the occurrence had taken place on 26-8-1994 while the recovery was effected from Sharafat Ali appellant on 7-9-1994. As far as, recovery from Muhammad Boota is concerned, the same was allegedly effected 1-1/2 months after the occurrence, that Muhammad Boota, appellant is brother- in-law (URDU TEXT) of Sharafat Ali appellarit and for this reason he had been falsely implicated in this case alongwith Sharafat Ali appellant, that as far as, the motive is concerned, the compromise between the parties had already been taken place; that there was no reasons to have committed the murder of Muhammad Arif deceased by the appellants. He further submits that if the motive is not proved then, how this occurrence could have taken place. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the appellants are named in the F.I.R. And specific roles are attributed to them, that ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence; that according to the report of Chemical Examiner (knives) which were recovered on the pointation of the appellants were found to be stained with human blood. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record very minutely with their able assistance. In the instance the occurrence had taken place after Jumma Prayer on 26-8-1994, the complaint Exh.P.C. Was lodged on the same day at Pull Shehruana at 5-30 p.m. While the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was recorded at 5-50 p.m. On the same day. It was a case of broad daylight occurrence. It was also a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. Two co-accused of the appellants, namely, Siraj Din and Chirag Din were acquitted by the trial Court and rightly so, because they were empty-handed at the spot at the time of occurrence and no overt act was attributed to them. Both Sharafat Ali Muhammad Boota were armed with knives. Dr. Muhammad Akram Medical Officer was examined as P. W.1, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27-8-1994 at about 8-30 a.m. He found 12 injuries on the person of the deceased, 10 injuries are with sharp edged weapon while two are abrasions. The abrasion can be the result of fall on the ground after receiving the injuries by the deceased from the hands of the appellants. The duration given by the doctor between the death and postmortem examination is 15 hours. Number of injuries are coincide with the number of accused. The large number of injuries on the person of the deceased suggest that these were caused by more than one assailant. Parties are known to each other. There was no previous background of enmity between the parties so there was no question of false implication of the appellants in the instant case. Mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased is no criteria to discard their testimony. They cannot be termed as interested witnesses because interested witness is that who is not only closely related to the deceased but also inimical towards the appellants. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants, that there was a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence had no legs to stand for the reasons that Injury No,3 on the person of the deceased according to the post-mortem report is on the chest upper part below the right arm-pit and the Court has to see the intensive value of the statements of the eye- witnesses, which is available in the instant case and has been furnished by the independent witnesses and same has come through an unimpeachable source. In our considered view, the eyewitnesses were present at the spot at the time of occurrence, they had witnesses the occurrence and they deposed against the appellants before the learned trial Court. There are no such material contradictions in the ,statements of the witnesses which can be brushed aside so, we hold that the eye-witneses were present at the spot and witnessed the occurrence.
10. As far as, the motive is concerned, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the compromise has taken place between Sharafat Ali and Liaqat Ali brother of the deceased, so there was no reasons to commit his murder. The motive is always in the mind of the accused persons. If the Court is of the opinion, that the eye-witnesses account is fully corroborated by medical evidence and the eye-witnesses are trustworthy witnesses, who can be relied upon, then there is no need of any other corroboration either from the motive or from the recoveries on the pointation of the accused persons. In this regard, the reliance is placed on a case title as Waris Khan v. The State reported in 2001 SCM R 387 in haed note "B" is as under:-- ".....S. 302--Motive--Sentence--Weakness or absence of motive or failure to prove the same--- Effect---Where the eye-witness account was worthy of credence, unimpeachable, confidence inspiring and accusation was established beyond any shadow of doubt, weakness of motive or its absence of where alleged but no proved would hardly make any difference in awarding the death sentence and would not constitute mitigating circumstances."
11. The contention of learned counsel was that the case of Sharafat Ali appellant cannot be distinguished from Muhammad Boota appellant has no legs to stand for the reasons that the motive was attributed to Sharafat Ali and not to Muhammad Boota appellant. So the learned trial Court was right in awarding death sentence to Sharafat Ali appellant and life imprisonment to Muhammad Boota appellant because in our view Muhammad Boota who is brother-in-law (URDU TEXT) had acted under the influence of Sharafat Ali his brother-in-law (URDU TEXT). As far as, the recoveries of knives are concerned, the same were found to be stained with human blood according to the report of Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist. For the sake of arguments, if the recoveries are not believed in this case, then there is sufficient material on record against the appellant in the shape of ocular account and medical evidence and the same connects the present appellants with the commission of offence.
12. After having analyzed the case from all angles, we are of the considered opinion, that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Resultantly the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant is maintained. Death sentence awarded to Sharafat Ali appellant is confirmed. Murder Reference to his extent is replied in affirmative.