1969 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.‑This is an appeal by our leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated 16th of August 1957, by which the conviction of the appellant under section 301 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code, was maintained, though the sentence of death passed by the trial Court was commuted to one of transportation for life. Leave was granted to examine the record to see if the prosecution evidence which was held to be of "interested" nature was corroborated by any material circumstance to warrant conviction. This necessity arose in view of the finding that "the evidence that Umar gave hatchet blows to Attur is an afterthought after the witnesses knew that the clothes of accused Umar were blood‑stained". On 9th of September 1956, Maluk and his son Attur were murdered. According to the prosecution, the deceased, in the company of Pathan and his mother Mst. Basran, after having their paddy husked at Ratodero, were returning to their village. Near Dayo's watercourse, seven persons were seen standing of whom the appellant was one and was armed with a pistol. They challenged Maluk to stop and to answer for the murder of Amin (a nephew of the appellant said to have been murdered 17 or 18 days before by the relations of Maluk). The woman and her son Pathan fled towards the east ; Attur ran in the opposite direction. They saw Maluk being killed by Jumo and others. Attur was chased and killed by the appellant and others. Cries were raised. No one reached for help and the assailants quietly escaped. Pathan went to the village, leaving his mother to guard the dead bodies and informed Loung of what had happened. Loung and other people came to the spot and a report at the police station was lodged by Loung the same evening. The eye‑witnesses being the near and dear of the deceased and with a recent enmity, the learned Judges of the High Court did not consider it safe to register a conviction without satisfying themselves that the account given by the prosecution was true. A circumstance that impressed them the most was the recovery of the blood‑stained turban and the loin cloth from the appellant. This was not allowed to be challenged by the learned counsel A for the appellant as it was a finding of fact which the High Court had reached on evidence. Since the appellant was stated to be carrying a pistol, a subsequent improvement at the time of the trial that he got a hatchet from another person and caused injuries, was looked upon with suspicion. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses.They have consistently maintained that the appellant was one' of the persons who had run after Attur and taken part in murdering him. He may or may not have caused injuries with the hatchet, but his presence is undoubtedly established by the human blood discovered on his clothes the following morning and for which no satisfactory explanation beyond a g bare denial was forthcoming. The appellant's complicity in the crime is, therefore, proved and his conviction under sections 302/149 cannot be said to be improper. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.