1984 P Cr (PLP)

2. The convicts have appealed to this Court.

3. The occurrence in which Khan Muhammad was alleged to have been murdered took place on 23rd July 1979 at about 11 p.m. in his house situate in village Aino which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Mitha Tiwana, District Sargodha.

4. F. I. R (Exh P. H) was lodged by Matah Muhammad brother of the deceased. It was recorded by S.I. Muhammad Hussain.

5. Twenty years ago, Bukhtawar father of Muhammad Khan was alleged to have been killed by the deceased and his party. This was the motive for the murder of Khan Muhammad.

6. Prosecution produced Matah Muhammad and Mst. Fateh Bibi as eye witnesses. Other evidence consists of the post-mortem of the deceased and the recovery\of Wahola from Muhammad Khan and hatchet from Muhammad Aslam. Wahola was found to be stained with human blood. The hatchet did not contain any blood.

7. Matah Muhammad deposed that his brother Khan Muhammad was sleeping in the courtyard of his house alongwith his wife Mst. Fateh Bibi. He was living separately. At about 11 p.m. he and Ramzan were present at the Dera of one Noor Muhammad. They were smoking Hukka. They heard alarm from the house of Khan Muhammad. They rushed to the spot and saw the accused there. Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Khan had Waholas and Muhammad Aslam a hatchet. They were giving blows to the deceased. Fateh Bibi begged them to spare him. At that time a lantern was there. It was lit. On the alarm of Matah Muhammad and Ramzan, the three accused ran towards their houses. Muhammad Khan was fatally injured.

8. Mst. Fateh Bibi is widow of the deceased. She said that she and her husband were sleeping in the courtyard on separate cots. A short while before the occurrence she woke up on hearing footsteps of the accused. She identified them in the light of lantern. Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Khan were armed with Wahola and Muhammad Aslam had a hatchet. She blamed them for giving injuries to Khan Muhammad while he was lying on the cot. On her alarm Matah Muhammad and Ramzan reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence.

9. On 25th July, 1979, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Aslam were arrested. They produced Wahola (P.5) and hatchet (P.6) respectively. These were taken into possession vide memo. P.F. and P.G

10. On 24th July, 1979, Dr. Muhammad Afzal conducted post-mortem examination of Khan Muhammad deceased. He found nine injuries. Eight were incised wounds 15 cm x 3 cm x brain deep on the head left parietal region 3 cm from left ear; 14 cm x 5 cm x bone deep on the head left temporal region-lower half of the ear was cut; 22 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the left side of neck extended up the face; 10 cm x 5 cm x compound fracture of the humerous bone the outer side of the left shoulder; 12 cm x 7 cm x compound fracture of the left humerous bone 7 cm below to injury No.4; 10 cm x 4 cm x compound fracture of humerous bone on the backside of left elbow joint; 10 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on front side of chest, just below the left nipple; 6 cm x 3 cm x bone deep 1 cm below to injury No.7. The lower 3rd phalanx of index and middle fingers were cut through and scattered of the right hand.

11. All injuries, according to the doctor, were ante-mortem and caused by heavy sharp-edged weapon. First three injuries were fatal In the opinion of the doctor death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to these injuries which were sufficient to cause depth in the ordinary course of nature.

12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that it was a night occurrence. There was no lantern. learned counsel submitted that had the lantern been there, it would have :been taken into possession at the time the spot was inspected by the Investigating officer and not on the following day i.e., 25th July, 1979.

13. Learned counsel submitted that there was no motive for the accused to kill because twenty years passed without any unpleasant incident. He submitted that the deceased was sleeping alone; his wife was with her parents far away from the place of occurrence. Nobody saw the The witnesses are interested inasmuch as one is brother of the deceased and the other his widow.

14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Evidence has also been examined. The mere fact that two witnesses are relatives of the deceased is no ground to straightaway reject their testimoney. They have given satisfactory explanation of their presence at the spot. Their deposition finds corroboration from the medical evidence which shows that the injuries received by the deceased could be caused by a weapon like Wahola. Therefore, so far as the appeal of Muhammad Khan is concerned that is to be dismissed because the case against him has been proved beyond any doubt. I order accordingly.

15. The case against Muhammad Aslam is not free from doubt. In his case there is no corroboration of the ocular version. The hatchet had no l blood. Therefore, this recovery is not incriminating. He is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. He shall be set free, forthwith, if not required in any other case. M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.