P L D 1967 Karachi 566 (PLP)

He was going to bring chaff from a nearby village. The Appellant as well as the two acquitted accused appeared on the eastern side of Mangsi minor. The appellant was carrying a gun, whereas Khamiso and Ghulam Haider were armed with hatchets. The injured Sajawal had got down from his cart to repair the axle when he saw the three accused persons. The appellant Ghulam Ali fired at Sajawal from across the minor, hitting Sajawal on the chest. The two women raised an alarm whereupon the assailants ran away from the spot. The women then brought Sajawal back to the village and narrated the whole incident to Sajawal's father Misri (P. W. 1), who lodged the F. I. R. at the Police Station Taluka in the town of Nawabshah at 7‑30 p. m. The report was recorded by S. H. O. Jan Muhammad (P. W. 6).

3. The injury sustained by Sajawal was examined by Dr. Jamilur Rahman Ansari and he found that it was in the nature of a lacerated mound on the left lateral side of chest 1/5' x 1/5' x ' without charring of the margins. On X‑ray, it was revealed that there was a fracture of the 7th rib. The injury appeared to have been caused by a bullet fired from a distance of more than five feet, or by some big pellet being that of S. G. or L. G.

4. The appellant and his co‑accused pleaded not guilty at the trial, asserting that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. They did not, however, produce any defence evidence.

5. The learned trial Judge observed that although there was enmity between the two families, yet there was no inflexible rule that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses should be discarded, or should not be accepted without corroboration. Relying upon the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Niaz v. State (PLD 1960 S C 387), he found corroboration in the fact that the appellant Ghulam Ali had a motive to make an attempt on the life of Sajawal, as the appellant's brother Jaffar had been allegedly murdered by Sajawal's brother Siddique and Miran. The learned Judge further found that the other two accused, namely, Khamiso and Ghulam Haider were not shown to have shared any common intention with Ghulam Ali. On this view of the matter, he convicted the appellant and acquitted the other two.

6. The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellant by Qazi Akhtar Ahmad are that the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses suffers from contradictions, that they are interested and inimical and accordingly they cannot be believed without satisfactory corroboration; and that finally these witnesses having been disbelieved with regard to Khamiso and Ghulam Haider, they could not be relied upon as against the appellant as well.

7. I regret I do not see any substance in these contentions. It is true that the injured person as well as his mother and aunt have stated that the appellant was accompanied by Khamiso and Ghulam Haider, yet no active part was assigned to the acquitted accused. The only person who speaks of instigation by these two accused is Mst. Sattan, but Sajawal and his mother Mst. Jannat do not mention anything regarding the instigation. Thus, the facts narrated by Sajawal and Jannat only go to show that Khamiso and Ghulam Haider were also present across the minor with the appellant Ghulam Ali. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the existence of common intention on the part of Khamiso and Ghulam Haider was not proved. This is far from saying that the witnesses are not worthy of credit in so far as they have implicated Khamiso and Ghulam Haider. This is not a case where the witnesses are being believed as against one accused only and disbelieved as against the majority of the accused.

8. It is true that there is a blood feud between the families of the appellant and the injured Sajawal, but it is precisely for this reason that the appellant Ghulam Ali had a motive to make an attempt on the life of Sajawal. The existence of this motive is obviously a factor to be considered in the light of the obser vations made by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Nazir v. State (P L D 1962 S C 269), while explaining the need for corrobora tion in the case of an interested witness, their Lordships observed that‑ "There cannot be an inflexible rule that the statement of an `interested' witness can never be accepted without corroboration . . . . . . In order, therefore, to be satisfied that no innocent persons are being implicated along with the guilty, the Court will in the case of an ordinary interested witness look for some circum stance that gives sufficient support to his statement so as to create that degree of probability which can be made the basis of conviction. This is what is meant by saying that the statement of an interested witness ordinarily needs corroboration. Corroboration may be afforded by anything in the circumstances of a case which tends suffici ently to satisfy the mind of the Court that the witness has spoken the truth." Their Lordships then further observed that:‑ "Circumstances corroborating the eye‑witness may be such as (1) that the number of culprits mentioned was such as would be required for an attack of the kind which is the subject‑matter of the proceedings; (2) that the persons named as culprits were such as would to expected to join in the attack."

9. It seems to me that in the present case the fact that the appellant's brother Jaffar had been murdered only some months before the present occurrence and the injured person Sajawal's brothers were implicated as the murderers in that case clearly proved the existence of a motive on the part of the appellant. The incident took place in broad‑day light and there could be no question of mistaken identity regarding the person who fired the shot. Similarly, there could be no question of false substitution of the appellant's name for the real culprit.

10. The contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are hardly material. It is submitted, for instance, that in the first information report the case was that on seeing the culprits, Sajawal tried to race his cart but broke its axle; whereas at the trial the story is that the axle had already been damaged and he was repairing it when the shot was fired. It seems to me that the story narrated in the F. I. R. was not stated by an eye‑witness, and was based only on information given to Misri by the two women. At the trial, Sajawal and the two women had struck to the version that the axle had already broken and Sajawal was trying to repair it when he was shot at. The material question in this case is regarding the identity of the person who fired the shot, and it makes no difference whether the shot was fired before the axle had broken or after.

11. Considering the evidence on the record, I am satisfied that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced: There is no justification to interfere in appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.