1968 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 27th March 1968. FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑These four petitioners stand convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code on two counts and sentenced to transportation for life under each count for the murders of Nur Muhammad and Sher Muhammad. The deceased and the petitioners were close neighbours in village Kot Nawab Khan in the district of Campbellpur. The incident took place at about digarwela on 22‑5‑65 in a lane leading to the house of the petitioners. The prosecution case was briefly as follows. Due to heavy rains the wall of the cattle‑shed of Muhammad Nawaz, brother of the deceased, fell down obstructing the path‑way of the petitioners. When petitioners Sultan Mahmood and his brother Muhammad Riaz were clearing the path‑way, Muhammad Nawaz asked them not to remove the stones from the fallen wall and they abused him. Shortly thereafter Nur Muhammad came armed with a shot‑gun and a bandolier containing 22 live cartridges and asked the petitioner Ghulam Masud as to why he had abused his brother Muhammad Nawaz. Thereupon, all the four petitioners attacked him, snatched away his gun, gave him blows with hatchets, soti and butt of the gun. He succumbed to his injuries on the spot. As Sher Muhammad came and protested against their conduct they all attacked him with various weapons in their hands and he too died on the spot. Mat. Akbar Sultan, wife of Muhammad Nawaz, her minor daughter, Mst. Shahida and Mst. Hashmat Sultan, their maid‑servant, who were at the door of the cattle‑shed, were injured by a gun‑shot fired by one of the petitioners. In the meantime, Muhammad Nawaz arrived there but as they advanced to attack him, he managed to escape. The doctor who held the post‑mortem examination found two incised wounds and numerous contusion marks on the person of Sher Muhammad, deceased, and 11 contused wounds three contusions on the person of Nur Muhammad, deceased. The doctor who examined the injured found six pellet injuries on Mst. Akbar Sultan, two pellet injuries on minor Shahida and one pellet injury on Mst. Hashmat Sultan. It may also be mentioned that there were no marks of injuries on any of the petitioners. The defence version was that when Sultan Mahmood and Riaz were removing stones from the path‑way, Muhammad Nawaz first came and asked them not to do so. As they abused him he went away and shortly thereafter Nur Muhammad armed with a gun and Sher Muhammad with a knife, came there. Nur Muhammad fired a shot but it missed its mark. As Nur Muhammad re‑loaded his gun and advanced towards them, they grappled with him and Sultan Mahmood gave a stick blow at the barrel of the gun and the gun went off hitting the women folk of Muhammad Nawaz, who were then at the cattle‑shed. Thereafter, the women‑folk of the petitioners threw stones at Nur Muhammad and Sher Muhammad and they also injured him in exercise of the right of self‑defence of person. The defence of the petitioners Fateh Muhammad and Ghulam Masood was that they had been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. The police after arrest of the petitioners took into custody a blood‑stained sati produced bar Ghulam Masood, a blood‑stained hatchet produced by Sultan Mahmood and a hatchet produced by Riaz. Direct evidence in this case was furnished by Muhammad Nawaz, Mst. Akbar Sultan and Mst. Hashmat Sultan. Mr. Peer Bakhsh Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Courts below should not have relied on the evidence of the interested eye‑witnesses without independent corroboration. It has been observed by this Court in a number of cases that the mere fact of relationship of the witnesses does not necessarily make the witnesses account o occurrence subject to doubt. Presence of gun‑shot injuries on Mst. Akbar Sultan and Mst. Hashmat Sultan clearly proves their presence at the time of occurrence. Furthermore, the number of persons accused of the offence is not out of proportion to the nature of attack and the result they produced. Hence, such witnesses are entitled to be believed as against the defence version which is full of improbabilities and absurdities. If really the deceased came to attack the petitioners they would have been able to inflict at least some injuries on them. In these circumstances, we are not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel. We are satisfied that all these four petitioners had taken part in the murders with which they were charged and the learned Judges of the High Court were thus right in convicting them under section 302/34, P. P. C. on two counts. We accordingly dismiss this petition. Leave refused.