1983 P Cr (PLP)

The stomach contained semi‑digested food. According to this medical officer death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 2 and 3 which were caused by sharp‑cutting weapon such as hatchet and were sufficient individually to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time of death was about 13 hours.

11. Dr. Khalid Latif, Medical Officer Ranipur had received the dead body of Ghulam Hyder on 18th July, 1975 at 10 p. m. for post‑mortem examination. He found following injuries on the person of this deceased :‑ (1) A lacerated wound l " x " x skin muscle bone deep, at the left eye the frontal bone of skull with the bone of arbitul fossa fractured. (2) A lacerated wound 2 " x 3" x 2" at the middle of both the nasal bone down to the tip of the nose, the both nasal bones and the maillary bones of left and right side fractured, the 2 incisors and 2 canines teeth of upper gum, but, were torn from upper gum. (3) A bruise 11" by " at the front of the chest. (4) A bruise 10" x " at the front of the chest below the 3rd injury. (5) A lacerated wound " x " x skin and muscle deep at the upper part of right hand middle finger. (6) A lacerated wound " x " x skin deep at the front of left leg. (7) A lacerated wound " x " x skin muscle deep at the front of lower part of right knee‑joint. (8) An incised wound 1 " x " x skin muscle deep at the upper part of right leg (on front). (9) An incised wound 1 " x " x skin and muscle deep at the middle of right leg below the 8th injury. (10) An incised wound " x " x skin deep at the lower part of front of right leg below the 9th injury. (11) An incised wound " x " x skin deep at‑the lower part of front of right leg, below the 10th injury. On internal examination following damage was found: ‑ (1) A part of scalp of frontal part of scalp of left side, slightly above the eye‑brow was cut. (2) Skull frontal bone on left side above the left eye‑brow with both nasal bones and both maxillary bones fractured. (3) Membranes of brain contained confused blood in its left frontal part. (4) The stomach was empty. Some parts of the digested food were present in small intestine. In his opinion death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent upon intro cranial concussions due to injuries Nos. 1 and

2. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 appeared to have been caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi. These injuries were grievous in nature and were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries Nos. 3, 4. 5, 6 and 7 appeared to have been caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Injuries Nos. 8 to 11 appeared to have been caused by sharp‑cutting weapon such as hatchet.

12. It is, therefore, proved that Ghulam Hyder and Suleman had died as a result of hatchet and lathi injuries which they had received at mid‑night between 16th and 17th of July, 1975. The only direct evidence to prove the connection of the respondents with this crime is the word of the three witnesses Ghulam Farid, Saifal and Rasool Bux who are related inter se and are admittedly on inimical terms with the respondents due to abduction of their relative Mst. Sehat. They claim to have identified the four culprits at mid‑night in the light of a lamp. They further stated that their cousin Ali Gulab had arrived later who was informed about the incident. Ali Gulab himself has been examined as P. W. 6 (Exh. 10) and he has stated that on hearing cries he had reached the scene of offence where Suleman and Ghulam Hyder were lying injured and that Ghulam Farid, Saifal and Rasool Bux had informed him that the three res pondents and the absconding Gaman had caused lathi and hatchet injuries to the two injured persons,

13. Enmity between the parties is admitted. In this behalf the com plainant has made following admission in his deposition :‑ Mst. Sehat and Mst. Hajul are the daughters of Dhani Bux, who is alive. Mst. Sehat's husband Mubarak also is alive. Dhani Bux and Mubarak live in our village. Dhani Bux also was not inclined to give the hands of his daughters and has refused them. Mubarak had filed a case against Gaman of abduction of Mst. Sehat. But I do not know as to where he had filed such case. Mubarak had filed a case of abduction of his wife Mst. Sehat against Gaman in the Court of the District Magistrate, but I was not witness in that case, Mubarak and Gaman had settled their differences in the case of the abduction of Mst. Sehat. Mubarak is nephew of Dhani Bux. It is not a fact that Mubarak had divorced his wife Mst. Sehat and with the consent of his parents was given to Gaman. Shah Nawaz is son of Dhani Bux. It is correct that there has been Nikah of Mst. Husna, daughter of Gaman with Shah Nawaz son of Dhani Bux. It is correct that Mubarak had taken Rs. 5,000 as compensa tion for divorcing his wife Mst. Sehat. It is not a fact that Gaman had given his daughter to Shah Nawaz in exchange of his wife Mst. Sehat. Gaman had given hands of his daughter Mst. Husna and Wasand's sister Mst. Bhagul in exchange of Mst. Hajul and Mst. Husna Bhagul were given in marriage to‑the sons of Dhani Bux, namely Shah Nawaz and Makkan respectively. The deceased Suleman was my cousin and Salo. P. W. Saifal also is cousin and Salo of deceased Suleman P. W. Rasool Bux. is brother of Suleman. P: W. Belo is cousin of deceased Suleman. Ali Gulab is cousin of deceased Suleman. P. W. Ghulam Shabeer is distant cousin of Suleman. Dhani Bux is distant cousin of the deceased Suleman. Deceased Ghulam Hyder was Puphat of my father. P. W. Saifal is son of Ghulam Hyder's cousin‑sister. P. W. Ijaz is brother of deceased Ghulam Hyder from mother side. P. W. Ghulam Shabeer is distant cousin of deceased Ghulam Hyder Mashir Ashraf is distant cousin of deceased Ghulam Hyder.

14. All the alleged eye‑witnesses and even the mashirs are, therefore, highly interested. Their evidence is not to be relied upon unless it is corroborated in material particulars. In support of this view reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the case of Bagh Ali v. The State (P L D 1973 S C 321) in which it has been laid down as under: ‑ "The appraisement of the evidence of eye‑witnesses has to be based upon a full consideration and evaluation of all the circumstances appearing in the case where there is a total absence of physical circumstances to connect the accused person with the crime, and there is a background of enmity. In such a situation the ocular evidence must, in order to carry conviction on a capital charge, come from an unimpeachable source. If such a source is not available, then it must be supported by some strong circumstances which would enable the Court to overcome the inherent doubt which such evidence must necessarily create." Learned defence counsel has further relied on the case of Lashkari and 4 others v. The State (P L D 1981 Kar, 1) in which a D. B. of this Court held as under: ‑ "It would thus be seen that the three eye‑witnesses are deeply interest ed and inimical to appellants Lashkari, Guloo and Murad Ali. The rule in regard to corroboration of the evidence of the interested and inimical witnesses, although a rule of caution has virtually ripened into a rule of law. The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, stated the rule and cautioned against acceptance of such testimony without corroboration for the reason that false implication is not very rare in this country. One has no hesitation in saying that murder in such society infuses in the mind of the family of murdered person a desire to avenge and thus a series of murders had taken place. When feelings between the parties become embit tered false implication or inflation in the number of accused very often is resorted to. It is precisely for such reason that the Courts are to be on guard and normally look for some corroboration lending an assurance to the evidence of witnesses." The above observations are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. All the eye‑witnesses including Ali Gulab who had reached the scene of offence later, are highly interested and had a motive to implicate the respondents in a false case because absconding accused Gaman, who is related to other respondents, had abducted their woman Mst. Sehat.

15. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever. Ali Gulab cannot be treated as a witness of corroboration because he himself is related to other P. Ws. Hence tainted evidence of one interested witness cannot be taken as corroboration of tainted evidence of other interested witnesses.

16. So far as the evidence of mashirs Uris Exh. 16 and Mr. Rounaq Ali Exh. 17 regarding recovery of hatchets is concerned, it is also not of any help to the prosecution because none of the hatchets was found to be stained with human blood. Thus, this is a case in which corroboration of the evidence of interested witness is completely lacking.

17. We are, therefore, of the view that the case against the respon dents has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The incident had taken place in the dark night. P. W. Rasool Bux was not on the spot at the time of incident. His presence at the rotation of water to the land where he has claimed to be working, is doubtful, because the land was irrigated by a tube‑well. This fact is admitted by Rasool Bux himself. If the land was irrigated by the tube‑well, then the question of rotation of water does not arise. His presence at the spot is, therefore, doubtful. Moreover four persons have been involved in this case who belong to the party which is hostile to the complainant's party. Possibility of exaggeration also cannot be ruled out. In such cases innocent persons are usually implicated alongwith the real culprits with a spirit of vengeance. More over it is doubtful if in the light of a lamp, the witnesses could have identi fied the culprits with certainty: For all these reasons we are of the view that the case against the respondents is not free from doubt. The respon dents have, therefore, been rightly acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑I agree with conclusions. Appeal dismissed.