1997 PLP 1322 (MLD)

5. The motive for this murder was stated to be a blood feud between the two families. A few months earlier, Nazir Ahmad son of Abdul Rehman appellant was murdered and Shakil was an accused in that murder case which was pending trial.

6. According to the prosecution, the murderous assault was started by Abdul Aziz absconder who fired the first shot and hit Abdul Rahim deceased on the chest, the next shot was fired by Abdul Majid absconder and hit Jalil in the abdomen, the third shot was fired by Abdul Rehman appellant and hit Abdul Rahim deceased on the right side of the chest, next shot was fired by Abdul Aziz absconder and hit Jalil on the left shoulder while the last shot was fired by Kaloo and hit Abdul Rahim on the right side of the chest. Both the victims died at the spot.

7. Dr. Azhar Hussain P.W.4 performed the autopsy on both the deceased persons on the 3rd of August, 1991. The doctor found four gunshot wounds on the person of Jalil Ahmad deceased, out of which, two were wounds of entry while the other two were wounds of exit. Four fire‑arm wounds were found on the person of Abdul Rahim deceased, out of which, three were wounds of entry while there was one wound of exit. The cause of death in both cases was sever haemorrhage and shock which resulted in death instantaneously. According to the doctor, the shots were fired from at a distance of about 3 to 5 feet.

8. One spade (Kassi) P.1 was found near Jalil's dead body and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. PL. Blood‑stained earth from near the dead body of Abdul Rahim was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PJ. Blood‑stained earth was also taken into possession from near the dead body of Jalil Ahmad deceased vide recovery memo. Exh.PK. These three recoveries were effected by S.I. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8 and witnessed by Nazar P.W.7 and one Hafeezullah, who was given up as unnecessary.

9. Abdul Rehman and Kaloo appellants were arrested on the 30th of September, 1991 by S.I. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8. Rifle P.9 alongwith cartridges P.10/1‑7 were recovered from Abdul Rehman's house and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PO. Rifle P.11 alongwith cartridges P.12/1‑5 were taken into possession from Kaloo's residence vide recovery memo. Exh.PP. Both the recoveries were made on the 11th of October, 1991 by S.I. Muhammad Ramzan P.W.8 in the presence of the same witnesses.

10. However, the weapons in question were not sent to the Fire‑arm Expert ostensibly for the reason that no empties were recovered from the place of occurrence, which is not a valid reason for not sending the weapons in question to the Fire‑arm Expert because yet another question remained unanswered i.e. whether the weapons in question were in working condition at all or not and since that vital question remained unanswered it can, if at all, be answered only in favour of the accused persons, because all doubts have to be resolved in favour of the accused persons. Be that as it may, the alleged recovery of weapons in question was again made by the same set of witnesses namely; one of the eye‑witnesses Nazar Hussain P.W.7 and Hafeezullah (given up) and admittedly, an interested and inimical witness cannot corroborate his own testimony by his own testimony. Whenever, a witness is inimical, on account of an admitted blood‑feud corroboration is required and that corroboration has to be from an independent source.

11. The appellants pleaded total denial and false implication due to enmity.

12. The occurrence admittedly took place at mid‑night time and site plan clearly reveals that the visibility was further impaired on account of the place of occurrence being surrounded by trees. It is also in the evidence of the Revenue Officer who prepared the site plan Muhammad Yusuf P.W.2 that the land belonging to Abdul Rahim deceased is five squares away from the place of occurrence towards south and the indications are that as a matter of fact, only the two deceased (father and son) had actually gone to the place of occurrence when the occurrence actually took place and nobody else was there. At any rate, the ocular account which is given by the witnesses whose very presence at the spot is a matter of serious doubt, does not find any independent corroboration.

13. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the appellants are acquitted of the charge giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./A‑84 Appeal accepted.