1988 PLP 500 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL. J. --This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Akram petitioner and is directed against the judgment, dated 4th February. 1984 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur. The eleven respondents alongwith their three companions were tried under section 302/1 8/149. P. P. C. , and the trial Court vide judgment, dated 3rd November, 1977 sentenced each of the present respondents under section .;02/149, P.P.C. to life imprisonment plus fine on two counts as there are two deceased in the instant case, namely, Habibullah and Sher Muhammad. They were also convicted to two years' R.I. under section

148. P . P . C . Their three other companions were acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal by the eleven respondents all of them were acquitted by the Lahore High Court. Bahawalpur Bench vide the impugned judgment. As has been stated above, there are two deceased in the instant case namely Habibullah and Sher Muhammad who are brothers. The occurrence took place on 22nd June, 1976 at 1-00 p.m. in village Mud Adil, District Rahimyar Khan. There are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Muhammad Akram P.W. who is Khala Zad of both the deceased as well as husband of their sister. The other eye-witness is Allah Diwaya P.W.6 whose sister is married to the brother of Muhammad Akram P.W. The background is that in 1974 Jindwadda brother of Allah Bakhsh, Pir Bakhsh and Khuda Bakhsh respondents was murdered. In that case both the deceased were challaned but had been admitted to bail. On the day of occurrence both of them alongwith Muhammad Akram P.W. came to bargain the sale of their land. The accused parry came to know about it and while the eleven respondents were armed with hatchets whereas their three acquitted co-accused were armed with Dangs, encircled the two deceased, and murdered therein. The eye-witnesses in this case have been considered interested and inimical and therefore disbelieved. The recovery evidence has!" been rejected as not of any corroborative value. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the two eye-witnesses should have been believed in this case and that furthermore the recovery evidence in respect of the eleven respondents was of corroborative value and there was no justification to reject the same. We note that in this case the two eye-witnesses being admittedly interested their testimony required corroboration but the position respecting the recoveries in this case is as follows: Respondents Rashid Ahmad, Ahmad Bakhsh, Abdul Hamid son of Allah Bakhsh and Abdur Razzaq were arrested on 23rd June, 1976. On the day after their arrest human blood-stained hatchets were stated to have been recovered from them. So far as the remaining respondents were concerned including the three acquitted co-accused, recoveries of hatchets and Dangs which were stated to be human blood-stained was made after one month. Dangs recovered from the three acquitted co-accused after one month were also stated to be human blood stained. There are mainly incised injuries on the persons of the two deceased and only a few bruises. Therefore, the three co-accused from whom human blood-stained Dangs were recovered were given benefit of doubt and acquitted. To the aforesaid four respondents, from whom human blood-stained hatchets were recovered a day after their arrest, no specific part has been attributed in the commission of crime by the eye-witnesses and only general part has been ascribed to them, whereas specific parts had been attributed to the remaining respondents as well as acquitted co-accused from whom human blood-stained weapons of offence had been recovered one month after the occurrence. In that view of the matter in our considered opinion the High Court was justified in not considering the recovery evidence as of any corroborative value. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner but in our view no case is made out for the grant of leave. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.Q./M-315/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.