1980 PLP 231 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Sharif sons of Hayat, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1976 and Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1976, before us, were tried together under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P. P. C. for the double murder of Amir Hussain and Shaukat Ali sons of Suba and the attempted murder of P. Ws. Suba, Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan and were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge Gujranwala of the charges giving them the benefit of doubt on 22‑3‑1971. But the State went up in appeal against their acquittal, which was accepted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 31st of May, 1976 and the four accused were convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. on each count for the double murder. Anwar accused who gave the fatal blow to both the deceased was awarded the death sentence on both counts and fine of Rs. 2,500 on each count, while the remaining three were sentenced each to undergo life imprisonment on each count and fine of Rs: 2,500 each on each count. In these circumstances, the appellants have filed these appeals to this Court against their convictions and sentences. The background and motive for these gruesome murders was supplied by Suba P. W. in the F. I. R. lodged at his instance. He alleged that Mst. Sharifan, sister of appellant Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din, was married to one Abdullah elder brother of Suba (P. W. 6) and a daughter Mst. Sardaran was born out of this wedlock. Abdullah had died while his daughter was still a minor. After his death Mst. Sharifan contracted a second marriage with Suba (P. W. 6) but she too died afterwards. Amir Hussain and Shaukat deceased were the sons of Suba from his first wife Mst. Naziran. It was alleged that Mst. Sardaran was married to Anwar accused by her maternal uncle Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused against his wishes. On the death of Abdullah a mutation for land measuring five or six killas left by him had been sanctioned in the name of Suba P. W. to the exclusion of the daughter. After his marriage, Anwar accused along with others started making a demand on him for a share due to his wife in the estate of her father. But Suba P. W. refused to entertain the demand. It is further alleged that two days before this occurrence Anwar accused accompanied by Nazir Din P. W. and Islam Din son of Ghulam Hussain (not produced) again called to him (Suba P. W.) to press for this demand but on his refusal, Anwar accused left after delivering a threat that he shall no more allow his sons to enjoy the benefits of this ill‑gotten land. According to the prosecution version Suba P. W. has his dera at Chah Methallanwala, Police Station Qilla Didar Singh. It is situated in the area of village Noor Par, District Gujranwala and is at a distance of about one mile towards the north of village Jiwan. On the night between the 24th and 25th June 1968, as usual, he along with his two sons, namely Amir Hussain and Shaukat deceased, Bahawal and Inayatullah son of Sultan P. Ws. were sleeping at their dera keeping a watch on their cattle tethered there. His two sons were sleeping together on a cot placed towards the north of the chah, while he himself along with Bahawal were sleeping on another cot placed at a distance towards south‑west at the dera where Inayat son of Sultan (P. W. 8) was also sleeping next to them on a separate cot. At dawn, on the fateful morning of the 25th June 1961, at about fajjar prayer time, all of a sudden he (Suba) along with Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan (P. Ws.) woke up on hearing the shrieks of his two sons Amir Hussain and Shaukat Ali deceased and ran towards their cot and saw all the four accused present near their cot, while Akbar and Sharif sons of Hayat (accused) had secured the two (deceased) persons by their arms on the cot, Anwar accused inflicted repeated toka blows to both of them at their necks. At the time Sharif son of Muhammad Din (accused) stood by with a revolver in hand. As he (Suba) along with his companions tried to advance in order to rescue the deceased, he shouted at them and ineffectively fired twice at them. On this, out of fear, they ran to the south towards the village covering a distance of about 5/6 killas. On the alarm raised by them Inayat son of Allah Ditta and Bashir (given up as won over) came to their rescue. All of them thus forming a party returned to the dera at Chah Mathallanwala to find that the two deceased were missing from the cot on which they had been sleeping. In the meantime Muhammad and Inayat sons of Sardar (P. Ws. 9 and 10) also arrived there and they informed them that while they were patrolling the nearby watercourse to supervise, the turn of water for the irrigation of their fields, they had seen from a distance, all the four accused taking away the dead body of Amir Hussain deceased. On seeing them the accused threw the dead body at the Khaal and ran away towards their dera. On this Suba (P. W.) accompanied with others went there to find the dead body of Amir Hussain deceased lying there. They then returned to the dera and noticed a trail of marks of dragging at the spot leading to the well. On this Inayat son of Allah Ditta (not produced) was sent down into the well from where the dead body of Shaukat Ali deceased was recovered and taken out. Thereafter Suba along with Inayat son of Sardar went to the Police Station, Qila Didar Singh situated at a distance of about five miles to have reached there at 6‑00 a.m. The report (Exh. P. A.) about this occurrence was made by Suba (P. W.) and was recorded by P. W. 12 Chaudhry Ali Muhammad, S. I. of the Police Station. Ch. Ali Muhammad, S. I., the Investigating Officer, arrived at the place of occurrence at 7‑30 a.m. to complete the formalities at the spot. He inter alia prepared the inquest reports (Exhs. P. L and P. K) of Amir Hussain and Shaukat Ali deceased respectively, removed the two dead bodies from their respective places and despatched them under escort to the mortuary for the post‑mortem examination. He also took into his possession the blood‑stained cot (Exh. P. 3) and the blood‑stained earth under it. He also got the site plan (Exh. P. 1) prepared. He searched for the accused who were not readily available. Three of the accused namely Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Akbar sons of Hayat and Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din appeared before him on the 27th of June 1968. At the time Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Hayat produced his licensed revolver (Exh. P. 12) its licence (Exh. P. 14) and '12 live cartridges (Exhs. P. 13/1‑10) which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer who sealed them into a separate parcel. On secret information received by him he held a nakabandi at the bridge of Rajbah Noor Pur on the night of 29th of June 1968, and arrested Anwar accused in the presence of Inayat son of Sardar (P: W. 10) and Inayat son of Sultan (P. W. 8). At the time an unlicensed rifle, four live cartridges and a blood‑stained chaddar on his person were recovered from him in the presence of witnesses. On the 30th of June 1968, he also led to the recovery of the blood‑stained toka (Exh. P. 2) from a heap of turri at the kur of Suba P. W. near the place of occurrence. According to the reports submitted by the experts the blood stains on the chaddar on examination were found to have disintegrated and its origin could not be found while toka was shown to be stained with human blood. Dr. Aftab Ahmad (P. W. 1), on the 26th of June 1968, at 5‑00 p.m., performed the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Amir Hussain deceased. He found that it had four incised wounds caused with a sharp- edged weapon on the upper part of the body. One of the injuries was an incised wound 3 " x 1 " bone deep (trachea, oesophagus and 5th cervical vertebra cut) across the front of back, oblique in direction, below the Adam's apple and the internal examination revealed that 5th vertebra, trachea, larynx and oesohagus cut and spinal cord was also injured under this injury. Similarly, on the 26th of June 1968 at 6‑00 p.m. he performed the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Shaukat Ali. It had four/ five incised wounds besides a scratch mark on it at the neck and shoulder. It had an incised wound 6 " x 1" bone deep (5th vertebra cut) starting on the outer side of left back passing across the front of neck on the outer side of right neck at the level of Adam's apple (trachea, oesophagus and carotid blood vessels cut). The incised injuries were caused with sharp edged weapon and were sufficient in the normal course of nature to cause the death of the two victims. Suba (P. W. 6), Bahawal (P. W. 7) and Inayat son of Sultan (P. W. 8) gave prosecution version narrated above. In brief they asserted to have seen all the four accused killing the two deceased. According to them Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused had fired at them in order to scare them away. They also spoke about the arrival of Muhammad and his brother Inayat sons of Sardar (P. Ws. 9 and 10) at the spot to inform them about the dead body of Amir Hussain deceased thrown by the accused at the Khaal. Suba P. W. also deposed to the motive behind these murders and his testimony on the point was supported by the statement of Naseer Din (P. W. 11). The accused when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied the prosecution allegations. Muhammad Anwar accused however, admitted that he was married to Mst. Sardaran, a niece of Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused and that Mst. Sharifan after the death of her husband Abdullah had married Suba P. W. According to him she did not at all inherit any land from Abdullah who had died without leaving any land. He denied to have made any demand for a share in the land on Suba P. W due to his wife in the inheritance of her father for the simple reason that he did not leave any land. Accused Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Sharif sons of Hayat also made similar statements. Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused stated before the Committing Magistrate that Abdullah had died about 20 years ago without leaving any land' and that Mst. Sardaran, his daughter was married to Anwar accused that he did not have any hand in arranging the marriage. In the trial Court he admitted that his niece Mst. Sardaran was married to Anwar accused under police help as Suba P. W. did not like it. The accused did not produce any evidence in their defence. ‑ As to the motive for these murders the learned Sessions Judge observed that according to the defence Abdullah had died after the creation of Pakistan in the lifetime of his own father and Mst. Sardaran, his daughter, was not at all entitled to succeed to any land from him. In spite of this he was inclined to accept the statement of Suba P. W. that Anwar accused had been making demands from him for a share in the land for his wife, Mst. Sardaran. His statement on the point was corroborated by the impartial testimony of Naseer Din P. W. According to him 2/3 days before this occurrence, Anwar accused took him to Suba and had made this demand on him who refused to give any land to his wife. On this Anwar accused had threatened him with dire consequences. In the opinion of the trial Court this refusal by Suba P. W. to Anwar accused to part with the land in favour of his wife Mst. Sardaran had impelled him to kill Suba P. W. or his sons. As such he had a clear motive to kill them. Accused Muhammad Akbar and Sharif sons of Hayat are his brothers. His wife is the sister's daughter of Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused who naturally had sympathies towards her against Suba P. W. In these circumstances, in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge all the four accused had motive to kill the deceased. But in the opinion of the trial Court the presence of motive by itself was no ground for holding the accused guilty. The learned Sessions Judge next proceeded to analyse the evidence of the three eye‑witnesses, Suba P. W. 6, Bahawal P. W. 7 and Inayat son of Sultan P. W. 8 examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Bahawal p. W. admitted that he did not own any land under his cultivation at Chah Mathallanwala where he was allegedly sleeping at the time. He however, explained that he used to tether his cattle at the Chah as he was alone and had thought it safer to tether his cattle‑heads at that place where he used to keep a watch together with the others. But in the opinion of court it was rather odd to find that leaving his own lands aside, Bahawal would go there and keep his cattle on the well of another person. According to Inayat son of Sultan P. W. he had taken two killas of land for cultivation from Suba on Chah Mathallanwala prior to the occurrence and out of it had cultivated tobacco in ten marlas at the time. He however, admitted that he had about 19 killas of land on lease from another refugee at a distance of about 5 killas from this place. It was elicited from him in his cross‑examination that the girdawari of both these lands was entered in his name only after these murders and not prior to it. On this admission, therefore, according to the learned Sessions Judge his cultivation at Chah Mathallanwala prior to these murders could have been procured .to make his presence probable at the time of this occurrence. In his opinion therefore, it was not easy to accept that Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. were actually sleeping at Chah Mathallanwala on the fateful night and he was not fully satisfied about it. Indeed, the‑ learned Sessions Judge was further of the opinion that their presence at the spot was rendered all t' the more doubtful on adverting to the respective inquest reports (Exhs. P. K and P. L.) of Shaukat Ali and Amir Hussain deceased prepared by the Investigating Officer. According to the summary of the facts entered in the two reports Suba had stated that he was also sleeping alongwith his sons when the murders were committed. At the time he did not mention that Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. were also sleeping at the Chah for the night alongwith him. In the opinion of the Court there was hardly any reason for Suba to have missed to mention their names in case the two witnesses were actually sleeping and present at the spot on the fateful night. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the immediate account of the occurrence given by these two witnesses was in conflict with that given by Suba P. W. According to Suba when he got up on hearing the shrieks of his two sons he saw the accused in action and went towards them alongwith these two witnesses. He however, ran back as he was fired at twice while proceeding towards the accused to the spot. But in this connection according to Bahawal P. W. as he got up from the cot he heard the reports of gun shots and just then he alongwith Suba and Inayat P. Ws. ran away from the spot towards the south. He did not say that he or any of the other witnesses had at first gone towards the direction of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the distance between the cots on which the three witnesses were sleeping from the place where the two murders were committed was about 15 karams and in case the statement of Bahawal on the point is accepted then it could not have been possible for them to have identified the accused from that distance in the darkness of the night. In forming this opinion he discarded the prosecution version to the effect that the occurrence had in fact taken place at dawn, after the day break, when the visibility was not so poor. In arriving at this conclusion he did not rely on the testimony of Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. and was influenced by the observations in the summary of facts entered in the two inquest reports (Exhs. P. K and P. L). In them a naive attempt had been made by overwriting, additions and alteration in changing the context in this behalf. In his opinion in its original form the time of this occurrence in both the reports had been given as having happened during the preceding night but it was afterwards changed by dubious interpolations introduced in the context purporting to show that the occurrence had taken place at about dawn in the morning of the 25th of June 1968. The learned Sessions Judge also did not fail to deal with the evidence of Suba P. W. 6, Muhammad (P. W: 9) and his brother Inayat sons of Sardar P. W.

10. As to the testimony of the last mentioned two witnesses, he observed that according to them they happened to be present nearby to the place of the occurrence, taking a round of the watercourse supervising the flow of canal‑water for irrigation of their lands at the time. In that connection Muhammad P. W. was specifically questioned about the turn of their water. He stated that according to Pacca warabandi the turn to their lands used to start at 9‑00 p.m. on every Thursday and lasted for about nine hours. But the occurrence in question took place sometime during the night between the Thursday and Friday or say towards the dawn of Friday at the latest on the 25th of June 1968 which was a Thursday. This fact alone, in the opinion of the learned trial Court, was sufficient to discard the testimony of these two witnesses in that on their own showing they had no occasion to be present in the vicinity at the time of this occurrence. Moreover, according to them the lands held by them were situated at a distance of about six or seven killas towards south of the place of the murders and it was rather unusual for both the brothers to have gone together to supervise the flow of the water to the lands. Generally. while on person remains in the fields the other goes along the watercourse to supervise its flow to the fields. The two witnesses had also deposed that they did not hear any report of the gunshots at the time to contradict the prosecution case that two shots had been fired by Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused at the time of the occurrence with a view to scare away the three eye‑witnesses. This would how that either these two witnesses were not present at the Khaal as asserted by them or that the shots were not at all fired at the scene of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. In either case, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution version on the point was rendered suspicious. The learned Sessions Judge was also not sure about the very presence of Suba at the spot at the time of the occurrence. According to him the prosecution case itself was that the three of the accused sons of Hayat had their dera at a distance of about eight killas towards the west of the place of murders. These murders took place on the 29th of the lunar month when there was no moon during the night. If at all they wanted to kill the two deceased persons, they would have preferred to do so in the darkness of the night and not selected the dawn time for the commission of the offence, because in summer by that time the cultivators and usually around their fields ploughing their lands. In forming this opinion the Court also relied on the two inquest reports of Amir Hussain and Shaukat Ali (Exhs. P. K and P. L) and the material alterations and interpolations made in them by the Investigating Officer who had tried to in prove upon the matters in the attempt to show that the occurrence did not take place during the night but at dawn ‑in the morning. In this connection the learned Sessions Judge also entertained a lurking suspicion in his mind that even the F. I. R. in the case was most probably drawn up sometime after the inquest reports had already been prepared and in the circumstances the mere mention of the names of the eye‑witnesses given in the F. I. R. did not guarantee for their presence at the time of the occurrence. According to the trial Court even if Suba P. W. was present and steeping at a distance of 15 karams from his sons to keep a watch over the cattle tethered at the Chah, it would not have been possible for him to have seen and identified the four accused during the pitch darkness of the night from a distance. The Court also entertained its doubt about the prosecution version as put that only one of the four accused gave the toka blows to the two deceased persons. In the meanwhile two of them, namely Akbar and Sharif sons of Hayat who were empty handed and were stated to have secured the two victims by pressing them and the fourth accused Sharif son of Muhammad Din stood nearby with the revolver. In the opinion of the Court in case all the four accused had come to kill the two deceased persons knowing that there were other persons also present who were keeping guard, then it was highly improbable that two of them would have come empty banded. Moreover, there was no reason for Sharif son of Muhammad Din who came armed with a revolver to have used in killing the deceased persons then and there. All this, according to the learned Sessions Judge showed that the allegations about the participation of Akbar and two Sharif accused could not be easily accepted. It was brought out in the statement of Suba P. W. that Sharif son of Muhammad Din had married Mst. Sardaran to Anwar accused against his wishes and therefore, had a motive to falsely implicate him. Similarly, the other two accused, namely Sharif and Akbar are the real brothers of Anwar accused and as such they were involved in the affair on that score and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the statement of Suba about the participation of Akhar and Sharif accused could not be easily accepted. In the end the Court also disbelieved the recovery of toka and blood stained chaddar frorn Anwar accused who was arrested on the night between the 28th and 29th June 1968 in a Nakabandi in that it was highly improbable that he was roaming about with the blood‑stained chaddar on his person at the time. Similarly, the recovery of the toka made at the instance of the accused from a kur from near the place of murders in itself appeared to be suspicious and did not appeal to reason. Even. otherwise according to Inayat son of Sardar P. W. the toka was recovered on the same day on which the Anwar accused was arrested. On the other hand according to the Investigating Officer it was not recovered on the same day but on the next following day. Thus the two recovery witnesses produced by the prosecution were not at one about this recovery of the toka. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the recovery evidence did not inspire confidence and could not be relied upon. The eyewitnesses as well as the recovery witnesses were closely connected with the complainant and their testimony could not be accepted in the absence of any adequate independent corrobora tion above suspicion. In conclusion the learned Sessions Judge in passing observed that, may be that Anwar and some of his relatives were responsible' for these gruesome murders, but on the basis of the evidence on the record, it could not be held positively beyond reasonable doubt that the four accused had in fact committed the double murder. In the result the Court acquitted all of them of the charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P. P. C. giving them the benefit of doubt. But these findings were reversed on appeal of the State by a Division Bench of the High Court. According to the High Court the motive for these murders was believed by the trial Court and the learned counsel for the accused‑respondents before the High Court did not also dispute it, but that, according to him, it was only against Anwar accused and not the other three accused. The evidence of Suba P. W. on the point was adequately supported by Naseer Din P. W. The Court was, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution had established the motive in the case against all the four accused and endorsed the finding of the trial Court in this behalf. The High Court however, rightly proceeded to observe that the fate of the case mainly rested upon the acceptance or rejection of the ocular evidence. According to the High Court except for. the dispute with Muhammad Anwar accused regarding the land of his elder brother Abdullah, there was no other dispute between Suba P. W. and the accused persons. He had, there fore, "no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons." Suba P. W. was subjected to lengthy cross‑examination and in spite of this the defence was not able to shake his credit. His presence at the spot at the time was natural, as people in the village during the summer season keep their cattle outside at their deras and it was their practice to sleep around their cattle at different places in order to guard the cattle from being stolen or otherwise going astray. The High Court was therefore, satisfied that Suba complainant was present at the spot at the time of the occurrence and observed that even the trial Court "admitted" the presence and sleeping of Suba P. W. on the spot during the night of the occurrence. The High Court repelled the observations by the trial Court that Saba P. W. could not have identified the assailants as he was sleeping at a distance of 15 karams from his sons and the night was dark as there was no moon during the night. In forming this opinion the High Court accepted the prosecution version that this occurrence had taken place at Fajarwela, when there was no darkness and reversed the finding by the trial Court that these murders were committed sometime in the darkness of the night. The High Court further observed that on hearing the shrieks of his sons Suba P. W. along with his companions had "rushed towards his sons and, therefore, must have covered some distance out of 15 karams" and from such close distance must have identified the accused persons who were already known to him. The High Court also did not agree with the observation of the trial Court that in case the accused persons wanted to kill the deceased they would not have selected the dawn time for the commission of this offence and would have launched the attack earlier during the darkness of the night. In repelling these observations the learned Judges of the High Court observed that it was not denied that it is difficult to read the mind of the assailants in such matters and that their mentality is not the same as of an ordinary person and sometimes they do behave in an abnormal manner. Moreover, according to the High Court the learned trial Judge was not justified in drawing his own inference from the two inquest reports that in the beginning the information which had been supplied to the police was that this occurrence had taken place during the night but that finding the identification difficult at that time on account of absence of the moon, a plan was conceived subsequently to bring the time of occurrence to dawn. The High Court observed that the inquest reports were prepared by S. H. O. Ali Muhammad P. W. but no question was put to him by the defence in his cross‑examination about the alleged additions or interpolations made into them and consequently no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution in that behalf. In this connection in the course of the hearing of the appeal the learned State counsel suggested that the said interpolations or additions in the inquest reports might have been made at the instance of the accused party as they alone could benefit by it and that this possibility could not be altogether excluded. According to the High Court the F. I. R. in the case was itself recorded at 6‑00 a.m, by the S. H. O. Ali Muhammad P. W. in which the time of occurrence .is clearly mentioned as (kareeb Namaz Fajar)" and a reference to this F. I. R. by its number is also clearly mentioned in the two inquest reports prepared at 9‑30 a.m. and 10‑00 a.m. In the face of this positive evidence it was not proper on the part of the learned trial Court to have inferred that this occurrence took place during the dark hours of the night and not at dawn time as mentioned in the F. I. R. The Court also did not agree with the observation of the trial Court that most probably the F. I. R. was drawn up sometimes after the inquest reports had already been prepared. The High Court was clearly of the view that Suba complainant was present on the spot at the relevant time and had witnessed the occurrence which took place at fajarwela and had lodged the F. I. R. promptly at 6‑00 a.m. According to the Court Suba complainant was present at the spot to have witnessed the occurrence. Bahawal P. W. deposed that he and Suba p. W. had slept on one cot towards the south of the dera where the cattle were kept. On hearing the shrieks from the side of Shaukat Ali and Amir Hussain deceased persons he alongwith Suba complainant and Inayat "rushed to that direction" and had seen the occurrence. The mere fact that the witness was related to Suba was not sufficient to discard his testimony because the defence was not able to show any enmity or motive on his part to falsely implicate the accused. Although he had no lands of his own near the place of occurrence, yet he gave his reasons for his presence at the spot because he used to keep his cattle at the well of Suba complainant who was related to him. He had two minor sons of tender ages and he could not properly look after his cattle all alone by himself on his own land, and therefore, used to keep his cattle at the dera of the complainant. The third eye‑witness, namely Inayat son of Sultan is not related to the complainant and is his tenant. The defence was n6t able to show any enmity or motive on his part to falsely implicate the accused persons. He too was sleeping on a separate cot near the cot of Suba and Bahawal P. Ws. and had seen the occurrence and fully supported the prosecution case. According to the High Court the main reason assigned by the trial Court in disbelieving Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. was that their names were not mentioned in the inquest reports (Exhs. P. K. and P. L.) which are however, not required to contain all the details of the prosecution case in the brief summary of facts given at their end. The two inquest reports were prepared at about 10‑00 a.m. whereas the F. I. R. was lodged earlier at 6‑00 a.m. on the same day containing the names of all the eye‑witnesses. In this connection the High Court observed that the Investigating Officer was "not asked by the defence regarding the omission of these names from the inquest reports otherwise he would have offered some explanation", and the mere omission of their names in the inquest reports did not show that the witnesses did not see the occurrence. In conclusion the High Court was of the opinion that the testimony of the three eye‑witnesses was consistent about the part attributed to each accused and there was no reason to discard their testimony in the absence of any enmity alleged on their part to falsely implicate the accused. The Court further observed that even if, out of abundant caution, the testimony of Bahawal and Inayat P. Ws. was kept out of consideration, still there was sufficient material available on the record in proof of the prosecution case against the accused. The presence of Suba P. W. "on the spot has not been disputed even by the trial Court". He. had witnessed the accused persons killing his two sons. His testimony as corroborated by the presence of the motive, recoveries, and the medical evidence. The recovery of toka (Exh. P. 21 at the instance of Muhammad Anwar accused was witnessed by Inayat son of Sultan (P. W. 8) in addition to the Investiga ting Officer, both of whom had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. It was found to be stained with human blood. The eye‑witness account was also supported by the medical evidence as to the time of this occurrence. According to the post‑mortem report the stomachs of the two deceased persons were empty and bearing in mind the time when they were supposed to have taken their last evening meals, these were expected to be empty at about the time when the occurrence took place and they were done to death at fajarwela round about 4‑30 a.m. In the opinion of the High Court the prosecution version was also supported by the testimony of Muhammad (P. W. 9) and his brother Inayat (P. W. 10) sons of Sardar Khan and that the learned trial Court was not justified in dissuading their evidence merely on the ground that their turn of water to their lands used to start at 9‑00 p.m. on every Thursday for nine hours ending at about 6‑00 a.m. on Friday, whereas this occurrence had taken place on the 25th of June 1968 which was a Tuesday. In that connection although the Court observed that Muhammad P. W. might have by mistake mentioned his turn of water as falling on Thursday, nonetheless at the same time the Court allowed the benefit of doubt to the accused for it. In this connection the Court further observed that Muhammad P. W. admitted in his cross‑examination that he and his brother Inayat P. W. did not hear the report of any gunshots before they saw the accused persons. According to the Court it was possible that the two witnesses might have been at some distance and did not hear the two fire shots. In conclusion, however, the High Court was not inclined to believe these two witnesses. The High Court then adverted to another reason advanced by the learned Sessions Judge against the prosecution case to the effect that two of the accused could not have come to the spot empty‑handed to kill the two deceased persons and further that if Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din was armed with a revolver, then he should have used the same to kill the deceased persons and this would have facilitated their killing in the shortest possible time. In repelling this argument the High Court observed that it was difficult to read the mind of the assailants at such ail occasion and it was not possible for them to know their plans to kill and the role assigned to each of them. In conclusion the High Court was of the opinion that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt through the testimony of three eye‑witnesses corroborated by the evidence of motive, the recovery of the blood‑stained toka and the medical evidence and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. In this case the two Courts have greatly differed in their findings about the time of this occurrence. In this connection the learned Judges of the High Court agreed with the prosecution version in holding that this occurrence had taken place on the 25th of June 1968 at about morning prayer time (fajarwela) as mentioned in the F. I. R. But according to the learned Sessions Judge this occurrence must have taken place much earlier than that, during the darkness of the preceding night of the 25th of June 1968, which corresponded to the 29th of the lunar month, when there was no moon. In arriving at this conclusion he has referred to the two inquest reports (Exhs. P. K and P. L) of Shaukat Ali and Amir Hussain deceased respectively. According to him a look at these inquest reports, particularly that of Amir Hussain deceased which was said to have been prepared first, showed that at first, in the summary of the facts in the two inquest reports it was recorded that the occurrence had taken place during the night but that sub sequently the word "subah" was inserted just before the word "shab" and by overwriting and interpolation the word shab was changed into guzhishta in Urdu in the two reports. It was not by a sheer coincidence that the two identical additions and alterations had been made into the two inquest reports. In this connection the learned Sessions Judge, was of the opinion and had observed that : "It can be said that there was some omission in one of the inquest reports but when we examine the inquest report of Shaukat Ali, we again find interpolation of the word "alas‑subha" and the word "shab" changed into the word "guzasltta". This would show that in the beginning the information which teas supplied to the police was that the occurrence took place during night but finding the identification difficult at that time, on account of absence of moon a plan was thought subsequently to bring the time of occurrence to dawn. In the F. I. R., however, the time of occurrence is mentioned as about the morning prayer time. If it was true that this F. I. R. was recorded first, as asserted by the prosecution, and the inquest reports were drawn up afterwards, then we could not have expected the interpolation of the word "alas‑subah" in the inquest reports. The time of the F. I. R. is 6 . a.m. The proper word to be used would have been "aaj subha" and not "alas‑subha guzashta". It appears that as the word "shab" had already been recorded in the inquest reports so the word "guzashta" was introduced to change "shab" into "alas‑subha guzashta". I have examined these words with magnifying glass also, though it is apparent to the naked eye as well that the dot of `be' is present in both the inquest reports under the words "guzashta" which clearly shows that the original word was "shab" which has been charged into "guzashta". All these things go to show that the Investigating Agency has tried to improve matters. A lurking suspicion is left in the mind that the F. I. R. in this case was most probably drawn up some time after the inquest reports had already been prepared." In repelling this part of the case the learned Judges of the High Court have found themselves to be unable to agree with the trial Court and observed as under : "We have very minutely and carefully examined these two document (Exhs. P K and P. L.). In both these documents in the fifth line of bawakt alsubha guzhishta the words mukhtisar halat mukadma are written. According to the trial Court, the word "alsubha" has been inserted before the word "shab" and the word has been converted into "guzhishta" and the inference drawn by the trial Court is that in the beginning the information which was supplied to the police was that the occurrence took place dur ing the night, but finding the identification difficult at that time on account of absence of the moon, a plan was thought subsequently to bring the time of occurrence to dawn. We have given our anxious thought to this aspect of the case, but find ourselves unable to agree with the trial Court. These inquest reports were prepared by S. H. O. Ali Muhammad P. W. No question was put to him by the defence in cross‑examination about the alleged addition or interpolation. It is not denied even by the learned defence counsel that he was the proper person to explain the same. If he had done so, then he could give the reason or explanation for the same. The learned State counsel suggests that the said interpolation or addition may be done at the instance of the accused party as they alone could be the beneficiary of it. In the absence of any question put to Investigating Officer, the possibility of the accused party making such interpolations etc. cannot be altogether excluded. It may be mentioned that there is positive evidence available on the record to show the time of occurrence. The F. I. R. was recorded at 6 a.m. by S. H. O. Ali Muhammad P. W. In this report the time of occurrence is clearly mentioned as kareeb Namaz Fajar". The number of this F. I. R. is clearly given in both the inquest reports. The writing time shown in these two inquest reports is 9‑30 a.m. and 10 a.m. respectively. At that time the Investigating officer knew the time of occurrence given in the F. I. R. recorded earlier at 6 a.m. At about 10 a.m. he could not make a mistake about the time of occurrence in the inquest reports. If he had been asked this question, he would have offered some explanation for the same. In the absence of any such explanation, it is not proper to infer that the occurrence took place during the dark hours of the night and not at dawn time as mentioned in the F. I. R. As regards the observation of the trial Court that the proper word to be used should have been "aaj subha" it may be observed that the inquest reports were written at about 10 a.m. and at that time the dawn time could be described as part of the night, as the "shab starts after the sunset and continue till sunrise. Further we do not agree with the observation of the trial Court that the F. I. R. was most probably drawn up sometime after the inquest reports had already been prepared, because we find that the F. I. R. was promptly recorded containing the names of all the accused persons and specific role attributed to each of them." We have devoted our anxious consideration to this part of the controversy and after having minutely and carefully examined the two documents in question, we are inclined to agree with the view formed by the learned Sessions Judge for good reasons assigned by him on this aspect of the case. In the two inquest reports in question (Exhs. P. K and P. L) of Shaukat Ali and Amir Hussain deceased respectively, especially in the latter one, in the column under the brief summary of the facts of the case (mukhtisar halat mukadma) in mentioning the time of this occurrence in the 5th line there are obvious additions and interpolations visible to a naked eye. In doing so an attempt appears to have been made at changing the time of this occurrence from bawakt shab as originally mentioned in the context into bawakt alsubha guzishta . This was achieved, by inserting the word "alsubha" between the words "bawakt" and "shab" and changing the word shab" by interpolation and over writing. These changes in the context of the two reports are obvious to a naked eye even. In fact the learned Judges of the High Court do not seem to have disputed these additions, alterations and interpolations as they evidently appear in the two inquest reports. It was however, suggested before them on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that these might have been made at the instance of the accused party as they alone could be the beneficiaries under it. This suggestion appears to have prevailed with them in observing that in the absence of any question put to the Investigating Officer in this behalf, the possibility of the accused party having made such interpolation etc. could not be altogether excluded. They laid emphasis on the fact that no question in this behalf was at all put to the Investigating Officer who was himself the author of these reports and consequently no inference could be drawn adversely against the prosecution in the circumstances of this case. In this connection, however, we are constrained to observe that in arriving at this conclusion the learned Judges of the High Court seem to have ignored the fundamental principle in the safer administration of criminal justice that the onus of proof in this behalf all along rested on the prosecution and the benefit of doubt, if any, should be allowed to the defence. In the instant case these additions, alterations and interpolations in the context of the two inquest reports are obvious enough to at once catch the naked eyes of a discerning reader and abhorrent to them and arouse suspicions about the genuineness of the context on the face of the record. These are so striking that no reasonable man can just ignore and slip over them. It was not by sheer coincidence that these had been made in the two reports. As already stated the onus all along rested on the prosecution to prove its case and dispel all reasonable doubts about it. In these circumstances it had devolved upon the prosecution and the Investigating Officer to have tendered an explanation for the satisfaction of the Court and to have set at rest and dispelled all initial doubts disturbing the judicial mind of the Court. Indeed in this connection, if we may say so with respect the observations by the High Court that the possibility of the party having made these interpolations etc. could not be excluded, are to say the least based on mere surmises and conjectures and on no evidence. It was for the prosecution and the Investigating Officer who was the author of these reports in question to have furnished some explanation as to how these unauthorised interpolations had crept into the inquest reports in their custody. Even otherwise this suggestion seems to be wholly unintelligible. As already discussed, in the two inquest reports by these additions and alterations, the time of the occurrence as originally shown in the context, was changed from "bawakt shab" to bawakt alsubha guzishta" and not vice versa. So that this change had been made to suit the prosecution version and not for the benefit of the accused. As observed by the learned Sessions Judge the words " bawakt alsubha guzishta as existing in the two reports were not compatible in the context. If indeed the occurrence had taken place as stated in the F. I. R. at about the morning prayer time (kareeb Namaz Fajar) it was simple enough for the Investigating Officer in mentioning it in the two inquest reports by saying " Aaj subha " instead of an inapt and a somewhat difficult and round about phraseology used by him viz. bawakt alsubha guzishta . The laborious explanation by the High Court for use of these doubtful words in the context of the two inquest reports is doing violence to the simple Urdu language and is untenable. Before parting with this subject it is necessary to deal with another circumstance. In this connection the High Court was in no small measure impressed by the fact that, according to it, the F. I. R. in the case had been recorded earlier at the police station at 6‑00 a.m. in which the time of this occurrence had already been mentioned as "kareeb Namaz Fajar" and the two inquest reports were prepared afterwards by the Investigating Officer at the spot at 9‑30 a.m. and 10‑00 a.m. containing this reference to the F. I. R. already recorded at the police station. A bare look at the first line of the writing in the column meant for (mukhtasir halat mukadma), the brief summary of the facts of the case further shows that the words "bahawala report ibtidai number 59 dated 25-6-1969 were inserted after wards in the context in the space left blank in the first line of the relevant column of the two inquest reports in the identical circumstances. The flow in the writing, the juxtaposition and the spacing of the words in the first line, not merely in one but in both the reports, has fortified us in the belief that this reference to the F. I. R. was just an after insertion in the context. This would show that actually in point of time the F. I. R. had been prepared only after the Investigating Officer had already visited the spot and prepared the two inquest reports. In this connection the learned Sessions Judge has rightly entertained a lurking suspicion in his mind that most probably the F. I. R. in the case was drawn up some time after the inquest reports had already been prepared. In forming this opinion we are further fortified by the fact that in the two inquest reports (Exhs. P. K and P. L) it is stated that according to Suba informant he along with his two sons Shaukat Ali and Amir Hussain deceased were present at Chah Mathallanwala when this incident had taken place and there is no mention in them that in addition to them two other witnesses namely Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. had also witnessed the occurrence at the time. This lends support to the contention that in all probability the other two witnesses were not present at the spot at the time otherwise Suba could not have failed to mention their names at the first opportunity in the two reports and that mention of their names in the F. I. R., which was actually prepared afterwards, was made only as an after thought and as an improvement only. But in the opinion of the High Court the inquest report is not required to contain all the details of the prosecution case and that the Investigating Officer was not asked by the defence regarding the omission of the names of the two witnesses in the two inquest reports. However, we are least impressed by both these reasons. In our opinion this failure to mention the names of two out of the three eye‑witnesses in the inquest reports could not be said to be so unimportant a detail which could have been left out. The Investigating Officer admitted (page 49 of the paper book) in his corns‑examination that this was omission on his part to mention the names of the two other eye‑witnesses in the inquest reports for which he did not offer any explanation. In this respect the High Court appears to have misread the evidence in observing that the Investigating Officer was not asked by the defence regarding this omission of their names in the inquest reports. In his cross‑examination he admitted. that in the summary of the facts, at the end of the inquest reports, he had not mention the names of any of the eye‑witnesses except Sub, P. W. He however, denied the suggestion put to him that he had introduced the names of these witnesses afterwards. In this connection in the final analysis the High Court deemed it necessary out of "abundant caution" to keep the testimony of the two eye‑witnesses out of consideration. The immediate account of the occurrence given by Suba P. W. is in conflict with the version provided by Bahawal P. W. According to Saba P. W. when he got up on hearing the shrieks of his sons he saw the accused and went towards them along with the two witnesses and then ran back for fear of life when they were fired at by Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused. On the other hand, according to the testimony of Bahawal (P. W. 7) when he woke up on hearing the shrieks, Suba and Inayat son of Sultan were still on the cot and got up after him. On hearing the shrieks he also heard the report of gunshots from the side of the two deceased persons and on this he ran away towards south from that place. Suba and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. also ran alongwith him. This version sufficiently belies the testimony of Suba P. W. that on hearing the shrieks they had gone forward towards their sons and had to run away from there after the shots had been fired. Evidently the High Court has failed to read the entire evidence bearing on the point in observing the Suba on hearing the shrieks of his sons alongwith his companions must have rushed towards his sons and must have covered some distance and must have identified the accused persons from a close distance. This finding seems to have been based on conjectures and not on an appreciation of the entire evidence on the record. Even otherwise we find ourselves in considerable doubt about the very presence of the two witnesses at the spot during the night. According to Bahawal (P. W. 7), he cultivates his own lands measuring about 8,19 killas situated at distance about one mile towards the north of the village. In discussing the evidence of Suba P. W. the High Court had at another place itself observed that his own presence at the spot at the relevant time was natural "as people in the village during the summer season generally keep their cattle outside at their fields". In the face of this generally accepted practice prevailing amongst the zamindars, there was hardly any reason for Bahawal P. W. not to have tethered his cattle on his own lands situate, at a considerable distance from the scene of this occurrence. According to Bahawal P. W. he had two minor sons and his residential house was situated in the abaci of the village. In those days he had no servant with him to help him in his cultivation and he used to keep his cattle at the well of the Suba P. W. for the reason that he was alone and had thought that his cattle would be well guarded and safer, if kept at Chah Mathalllnwala. But in the absence of any other evidence on the point it is difficult to accept his explanation for his presence at the spot during the night sleeping away from his family and minor sons or his own lands. As such his presence at the spot was not free from doubt. Similarly, according to Inayat son of Sultan (P. W. 8) he did not own any land belonging to him in the village. He stated that he had taken two killas of land from Suba P. W. at the Chah for cultivation sometime before these murders and hay cultivated tobacco on 10 marlas of the land out of it. He however, admitted that the girdawari for the tobacco crop was done only after this occurrence. There is no documentary evidence to prove his presence at the spot prior to or during the right of this occurrence. Even apart from this in case he had sown tobacco on 10 marlas of land there was no occasion for him to have slept at this Chah at the time or to have tethered his cattle, if any, at the place. The learned Sessions Judge on tae analysis of the evidence rightly observed that it was not easy to accept the Baliawal and Inayat son of Sultan P. Ws. were actually sleeping at the Chah on the fateful night. In his opinion their presence at the spot was rendered all the more doubtful on finding that according to the two inquest reports (Exhs. P. K. & P. L.) Suba P. W. was also sleeping at the Chah along with his two sons at the time of murders, but that they do not mention that Bahawal and Inayat son of Sultan. (P. Ws.) were also sleeping at the Chah at the time to witness the occurrence. As discussed above the immediate account of the occurrence given by these two witnesses was also in conflict with that given by Suba P. W. The distance between their cots and that of the deceased persons was 25 Karams and if the account given by the two is accepted that all the eye‑witnesses ran away from their cots in the opposite direction towards the south, then it could not have been possible for them to have identified the accused from that distance during the darkness of the night. In this connection learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the prosecution version that this occurrence had taken place about dawn time. He observed that according to Muhammad and his brother Inayat son of Sardar (P. W. 9 and 10) at the time of this occurrence they were together taking a round of the nearby Khal to supervise the irrigation of their own fields when they saw the four accused carrying the dead body of Amir Hussain deceased which was thrown by them at the bank of the khal on seeing them. But it was elicited in the cross‑examination of Muhammad P. W. that, according to the pacca warabandi, their turn of water starts at 9 p.m. on every Thursday and lasts for about nine hours only. This did not coincide with the day of the occurrence on 25th of June 1968 which was a Tuesday. Moreover, according to Muhammad and Inayat sons of Sardar (P. Ws. 9 and 10) they did not hear any gunshot reports in the night at the time when they were supervising the flow of canal water through the nearby khal to, their lands. This would show that these two witnesses were not present there or else the prosecution version that Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused had fired any shots at the time. Even in the inquest reports there is no mention that any such shots had been fired. In either case the prosecution version on the point becomes suspicious. According to the learned Sessions Judge the presence of Suba (P. W.) himself at the, spot at the time of the occurrence was highly suspicious. Three of the accused had their deras at a short distance of about eight killas towards the west of the place of murder... This occurrence took place on night of the 29th of the lunar month when there was no moon at all. In the circumstances, in case. the accused wanted to commit the two murders, they would have done so during the darkness of the night and not selected the dawn time for the commission of these offences, because during summer by dawn, at about the ploughing time the people are usually around. This circumstance coupled with the additions, alterations and interpolations made in the two inquest reports, as discussed above, go to show that the prosecution has tried to improve upon the matters. Even Suba P. W. had not seen the occurrence or else he was not a truthful witness and had deliberately made the improvements. In case all the four accused had gone to the spot with the premeditation to kill, then it was improbable that two of them namely Akbar and Sharif should be empty‑handed. Moreover, if at all, Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused came armed with a revolver to kill there was no reason for him in not having used it effectively against the deceased or the eye‑witnesses and to have spared Suba (P. W.) their only target against whom they had the direct motive. These circumstances render the participation of the three somewhat doubtful. In this connection the explanation furnished by the High Court was hardly convincing that it was often difficult to read the mind and behaviour of accused which was not easily predictable. The High Court has erred in observing that the presence of Suba P. W. at the spot was not disputed by the trial Court even. It was also not justified in assuming that there was no enmity with the three eye -witnesses for them to have falsely implicated the accused. Muhammad Suarif son of Muhammad Din in his statement as an accused stated in the trial Court that Kist. Sardaran, a niece of Suba P. W. was married to Anwar accused under police help as he did not like the marriage. It was brought out in the statement of Suba P. W. that she was married to Anwar by Muhammad Sharif son of Muhammad Din accused against his wishes. After the marriage Anwar accused started making a demand on him on behalf of his wile for a share in the inheritance of her father but in vain. Bahawal and Suba P. Ws. are collaterals. According to the prosecution .P. W. Inayat son of Sultan was a tenant and a Kameen of Suba P. W. under his influence. In these circumstances, especially after considerable doubts have been expressed about the testimony of Suba P. W., it shall not be safe to base any conclusion on it in the absence of independent corroboration. In this connection reliance was placed on the blood‑stained chaddar recovered from Anwar accused when he was arrested on the night between the 28th and 29th of June 1968 in a naka. He then led to the recovery of a blood‑stained Toka from a "kurh" of Suba near the place of occurrence. In that connection according to the learned Sessions Judge it did not stand to reason that while the culprits threw one of the dead bodies at a distance of about 21 killas from the place of murders, they should have kept the Toka in the "kurh" of Suba. Moreover, Inayat son of Sardar (P. W. 10) stated that the Toka was recovered on the same day on which Anwar was arrested but according to the Investigating Officer this recovery was made not on that day but on the next day. The two recovery witnesses are not unanimous on the point. Babawal P. W. was a collateral of Suba P. W. His niece is married to Muhammad P. W. a brother of Inayat, the recovery witness. We have already expressed our grave doubt about authenticity of the two inquest reports and the F. I. R. and it does not appear that investigation into this case was made honestly. All these facts taken together we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about this recovery made in the case. It is also not easy to believe that Anwar accused was roaming for over three days wearing the blood‑stained chaddar recovered from his persons on the night between 28th and 29th of June 1961. In these circumstances we fully agree with the learned Sessions Judge in discarding these recoveries. In the absence of any such recoveries we find that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the case against the accused was not free from reasonable doubt. In the result the conviction of the appellants by the High Court cannot be sustained. We therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgment delivered by the High Court and restore that of the trial Court acquitti4g the appellants giving them the benefit of doubt. They may be set at liberty at once if not wanted in any other case. Appeal accepted.