1986 P Cr (PLP)

(3) Vertically oblique stab wound 3 x 1 c.m. at the front lower left chest at 7 o'clock position of left nipple and 7 c.m. below it. This injury was 126 c.m. above left heel. (4) Transverse stab wound 4 x 1.5 c.m. at the outer mid left chest 15 c.m. below and outer to the left nipple at the 5 o'clock position 126 c.m. above left heel. (5) Transverse stab wound 4 x 2 c.m. at the front lower right chest at the 5 o'clock position of the right nipple and 7 c.m. away, 126 c.m. above left heel. (6) Transverse stab wound 5 x 1.5 c.m. just above the umbilicus at the 12 o'clock position. This injury entered the abdomen to cut the omentum 126 c.m. above left heel. (7) Vertically oblique stab wound 3 x 1 c.m. at the front lower abdomen 10 c.m. below it and at the 6 o'clock position, of umbilicus. This injury entered the abdominal cavity to cut a lower small intestinal loop. (8) Incised wound 4 x 2 c.m. at the back upper right forearm communicating with injury No.9 which is an incised wound 3 x 1.5 c.m. at the front upper right forearm, both muscle deep. (10) Incised wound 6 x 2 c.m. at the left ring finger cutting the flexortendo. (11) Incised wound 4 x 1 c.m. cutting into the web between the left thumb and forefinger. (12) Incised wound 2.5x 1 c.m. at the inner lower left forearm muscle deep. (13) Incised wound 4 x 1.5 c.m. at the outer upper left forearm. (14) Stab wound 1 x 1 c.m. at the outer upper left ‑thigh. (15) Stab wound 1.5 x 1.5 c.m., 6.5 c.m. away from the spinal midline, at the back of the right waist, muscle deep (16) Incised wound 10 x 2 c.m. at the top of head. (17) Incised wound 8 x 1.5 c.m. at the back of head. (18) Abrasion 1.5 x 1.5 c.m. at the front right forehead. (19) Circularly arranged multiple abrasion 5 x 4 c.m. at the front upper right chest. (20) A circular entry wound. 5 c.m. diameter at the outer upper left thigh, a deshaped lead pellet recovered from the thigh muscles. According to the Medical Officer the stomach contained 6 ounces of partially digested food consisting of lady fingers. The small intestines contained chyme. The large intestines contained gas and faeces. The bladder was empty. In his opinion all the injuries were ante‑mortem. Injuries Nos.1 to 17 were caused by a sharp‑edged weapon while injuries Nos.18 and 19 were caused by a blunt weapon and injury No 20 was caused by a fire‑arm. Injuries Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to excessive blood loss because of the injuries already stated. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate. He also medically examined on 18‑6‑1983 at 2.30 p. m. Muhammad Jamil appellant and found on his person a scabbed linear abrasion at the palm of right hand and a linear abrasion at the inner side of left forefinger as well as a scabbed abrasion on the left thinner eminence. All the injuries were simple caused by a blunt weapon and were one to two days old. In the cross‑examination he stated that injury No.18 on the person of the deceased could be caused by striking against a hard surface. Injury No.19 could be the result of a Dang blow as the injury had consisted of multiple abrasions which could be one or more than one Dang blows or the same could be the result of a fall on the bushes or it could be caused by a push of a Danda.

9. The Trial Court observed that the ocular testimony furnished by Muhammad Latif P.W.3 and Din Muhammad P.W.8 stood corroborated by the motive, the medical evidence and the recoveries of incriminating articles from the spot and the appellants. In consequence the appellants were convicted and sentenced as described above.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the ocular and recovery evidence having been furnished by the close relations of the deceased is interested and was, therefore, not worthy of credence. The motive was obscure and remote having no direct bearing on the occurrence. Further, that two of the co‑accused namely Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Ashraf had been falsely involved by the prosecution who were found innocent by the police during investigation and the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not relied upon against them.

11. No doubt Muhammad Latif P.W.3 and Din Muhammad P.W.8 are brother and father respectively of the deceased but this fact by itself is not sufficient to discard their testimony. They stand corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstances. According to them sharp, blunt and firearm were used for causing injuries to the deceased. In the post‑mortem examination stab incised wounds, abrasion and circular entry wounds were found on the person of the deceased and from one injury a de shaped lead pellet was recovered by the doctor. The recoveries of revolver P.8 containing empties and blood‑stained clothes from the person of Muhammad Jameel lend further corroboration to the ocular testimony. The clothes of Muhammad Jameel were found to be stained with human blood while the crime empties recovered from the revolver were also found to have been fired from it by the firearm expert. Likewise Chhuri P.12 recovered at the instance of Muhammad Abbas appellant was also found to be stained with human blood. Shamas Din P.W.11 who deposed about these recoveries stands corroborated by S.I. Fazal Ahmad Masood P.W.12. According to the eye‑witnesses Muhammad Jameel had suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased. They stand corroborated by the medical evidence because three injuries were found on the person of Muhammad Jameel appellant. The duration of his injuries was almost the same as that of the deceased. He failed to give any satisfactory explanation of the presence of injuries on his person and denied that any injury was found on his person adding that there might have been a slight abrasion received during daily routine working. In the circumstances narrated above we find no reason to doubt the participation of the appellants in the crime. Being first cousins inter se they could have shared the common intention of doing away with the deceased. Furthermore the number and nature of injuries of the deceased is quite commensurate with the number of the accused.

12. As regards motive the prosecution case is that for the last 10/11 years the complainant party had a dispute over a house with Muhammad Sharif father of Muhammad Jameel appellant. They also had a hot contest over obtaining lease of some land with Muhammad Sharif aforementioned. About 1‑3/4 years before, an incident is said to have been taken place in the village mosque in which Nazir brother of the deceased on one side and Mukhtar uncle of Muhammad Jameel on the other side had been injured resulting in the registration of two cross -cases. Thereafter the deceased is said to have had an altercation with the appellants. However, later on the parties effected a compromise. Despite this, the appellants are alleged to have continued nursing a grudge against the deceased. The present occurrence took place on 17‑6‑1983 while the earlier cross‑cases were registered on 8‑10‑1981. In none of the earlier cases Muhammad Rafiq deceased was directly involved. He was neither the victim or a witness in the said cases. According to the prosecution those cases had been compromised by the parties. Furthermore, no details of the alleged contest between the parties for obtaining lease of land have been brought on record by the prosecution. The prosecution version that the relatives of the deceased' were apprehensive about him and did not allow him to move about with the appellants does not appeal to reason. These circumstances show that the real and immediate cause of murder of Muhammad Rafiq deceased is shrouded in mystery. But this would not have any adverse hearing on the direct evidence and other evidence relied on by the prosecution because it is a settled proposition of law that such evidence, if credit worthy can form valid basis for conviction notwithstanding the obscurity, of motive. In such circumstances the maximum benefit that can be extended to the accused is the award of lesser punishment provided for the offence with which they are charged. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants we alter their sentence to that of imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. With this modification in the sentence the appeal is otherwise dismissed.

12. The death sentence of Muhammad Jameel and Muhammad Abbas appellants are not confirmed. S. A. Appeal dismissed.