1976 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN, J.‑Shera son of Lal (40), Akbar son of Lal (24), Muhammad Ali son of Mubarak (30), Nasir Ali Shah son of Maddad Shah (28), Sultan Shah son of Noor Shah (46) and Momand son of Shera (22), were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, under section 302/307/148/149, P. P. C. for committing the murder of Ghulam Murtaza deceased and for causing injuries to Muhammad Yar and Khushi Muhammad P. Ws. One Rashid son of Abdul Karim was also named as one of the culprits duly armed with a carbine, who died before the commencement of the committal proceedings in an encounter with the police. By its judgment dated 20‑7‑1974 the learned trial Court found Sham Nasir Ali Shah and Sultan Shah accused guilty under section 302, P. P. C. read with section

34. P. P. C. and sentenced them to death. They have been also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under the same section and were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each in case of default of fine and non, confirmation of their death sentences. The learned trial Court found Nasir Ali Shah, and Shera accused guilty under section 307/34, P. P. C. for causing firearms injuries to Muhammad Yar and Khushi Muhammad P. Ws. and sentenced them to five years' R. I. each. It was further directed that fine if realised in part or whole shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr. P.C. Akbar, Muhammad Ali and Momand accused in this case were given benefit of doubt by the trial Court and have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The three convicts have filed a joint appeal against their conviction and sentences. Shah Nawaz complainant has also filed a revision petition (Criminal Revision No. 343 of 1975) against the acquittal of Akbar, Muhammad Ali and Momand co‑accused, from the charges under sections 302/307/148/149, P. P. C. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 22‑4‑1975 by his Lordship Mr. Justice Abdul Ghafoor Khan and bailable warrants were issued against three acquitted accused. There is also a Murder Reference sent by the learned trial Court under section 374, Cr. P. C. for the confirmation of the death sentences awarded to the three appellants. We propose to dispose of both the appeal, the revision petition and the Murder Reference by a single judgment.

2. The occurrence took place on 17‑8‑1972 at 9 a.m. in gali Bakhshian wali, Mohallah Garrha of Chiniot town, situated at a distance of 2i} furlongs from Police Station Chiniot. An F. I. R. Exh. P. A. was lodged at the instance of Shah Nawaz P. W. 8, the brother of the deceased at 9‑30 a.m. on the same day which was recorded by Ghulam Muhammad M. H. C. (P. W. 5) at Police Station Chiniot.

3. The motive as set up by the prosecution in this case is that about four years prior to the occurrence, Ghulam Murtaza deceased and Zafar Shah, had robbed Sultan Shah appellant of his mare and had also belaboured him. The matter was reported by Sultan Shah appellant to the police. Shera appellant was an eye‑witness of that occurrence. Zafar Shah and Ghulam Murtaza deceased were convicted by the lower Court but were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal. About 5/6 months after the robbery incident. Ahmad the brother of Akbar and Shera (appel lant) was murdered by Zafar and Ghulam Murtaza deceased. All of them were challaned in that murder case but were by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang. According to the prosecution both these incidents motivated the present appellants to commit the murder of Ghulam Murtaza deceased and in that process caused firearms injuries on the persons of Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Yar P. Ws.

4. The events which led to this incident of murder have been narrated by Shah Nawaz P. W. 8 before the police in the following manner :‑ He has stated that he alongwith his deceased brother Ghulam Murtaza was facing trial under section 307, P. P. C. in Court of Assistant Commis sioner, Chiniot. Both the brothers in that case were on bail and were required to attend the trial Court on the fateful day. At 9 a.m. after attending the Court proceedings the complainant alongwith his brother Ghulam Murtaza deceased left the Court premises for Chiniot town and were accompanied by Mushtaq Hussain P. W. 14, Salah Shah (not produced) his relations, Muhammad Yar P. W. 11, Khushi Muhammad P. W. 12 and Khizar son of Noora (not produced). When all the above‑mentioned persons reached gali Bakhshianwali situated in mohallah Garrha in the township of Chiniot, they were confronted Shera, Nasir Ali Shah, Sultan Shah appellants) Akbar. Muhammad Ali Momand (both acquitted accused) and Rashid (since dead), all seven in number with deadly weapons. Sultan shah appellant, Momand and Muhammad Ali (both acquitted accused) were armed with knives while Rahid (since dead) and Nasir Ali Shah appellants were armed with carbines. Shera appellant was holding a revolver and Akbar co‑accused was empty handed. Akbar co‑accused raised a lalkara and declared that the death of his brother Ahmad, will be avenged. Upon this Shera appellant fired a shot with his revolver at Ghulam Murtaza deceased which hit in his neck. Nasir Ali Shah directed two shots from his carbine against Ghulam Murtaza deceased which found target on his right flank and right shoulder. Ghulam Murtaza deceased after receiving all these shots fell on the ground. Taking advantage of this situation Sultan Shah appellant, Momand and Muhammad Ali co‑accused inflicted knife blows on the chest and neck of the deceased. Out of the accused persons Nasir Ali Shah, Rashid (since dead) Shera, opened weapons on Muhammad Yar and Khushi Muhammad P. Ws. Ghulam Murtaza deceased succumbed to his injuries.

5. Ghulam Abbas A. S.I. P. W. 15 learnt about this murder while he was on patrol duty in Chauk Asthan Chiniot. He telephoned Police Station Chlniot and contacted Ghulam Muhammad M. H. C. (P. W. 5) and informed him that he had registered a case of this murder and was going to send him a copy of the F. I. R. He reached the spot and took up the investigation in hand. This witness prepared injury statement Exh. P. Z. and inquest report Exh. P. Z./1 in respect of the dead body. He despatched the dead body to the mortuary for postmortem examination under the escort of Fateh Khan and Muhammad Ramzan constables. He also took into possession bloodstained earth from the spot and sealed it into a parcel vide memo. Exh. P. C. He noticed that three '12 bore crime empties P. 1/1‑3 were lying at the spot which he took into possession vide memo. Exh. P. D. He also took into possession from the spot three empties P. 2/1‑3 of .32 bore and made them into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P.E. This A. S. I. drafted two ruqqas Exh

3. P. L./1 and P. M./1 to enquire about the condition of Khushi Muhammad and Muhammad Yar P. Ws. respective ly and secured the report of the doctor Exh. P. M. On the same day Fateh Khan, F. C. handed over to him a phial P. 16 containing pellets, etc. which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. Z./2. On the day of occurrence all the accused were arrested by Tai Muhammad Khan D. S. P. (P. W. 9) with the exception of Rashid (since dead). The D. S. P. who had reached the spot after hearing some gun reports and also learning about the incident, followed the accused persons who were reported to have escaped after committing the crime. When this witness had covered a distance of 1 miles from Chiniot, he noticed one person sitting in the bushes by the road side. He stopped his jeep and Riaz Hussain who was accompanying him, pointed out the accused to him. He challenged the accused who ran away. Leaving Ata Muhammad, F. C. behind as he could not run due to old age, he asked Fateh Muhammad, F. C. to take his rifle which he did and pursued the accused who had crossed the railway line. When this witness noticed that the accused were gaining distance over him he ordered his gunner Fateh Muhammad to fire in the air to terrify the accused. First fire by Fateh Muhammad did not produce any result as the accused continued running. He ordered him to fire second time which had the desired result of terrifying them and they raised their hands, as sign of surrender. As he came near, he secured revolver P. 8 from Shera appellant and on opening it found three live and three missed cartridges in its chamber. The missed cartridges P. 9/1‑3 and live cartridges P. 10/1‑3 were taken into possession and sealed into a parcel vide memo. Exh. P. S. He also recovered the sun‑glasses P. 11 from the person of Shera appellant vile memo. Exh. P. T. He recovered carbine P. 12 from the hands of Nasir Ali Shah appellant which contained cartridge P.

13. He also recovered four live cartridges P. 14/1‑4 from his pocket wide memo. Exh. P. U. The sketch of carbine P. 12 was drawn by him on the relevant memo. Similarly sketch of revolver P. 8 was drawn on the relevant memo. He also recovered blood‑stained knife P. 5 from Muhammad Ali accused and made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. N. The sketch of the knife was also drawn on the memo. The blood‑stained shirt P. 15 was got removed from the person of Muhammad Ali co‑accused and was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. V. Blood stained knife P. 6 was recovered from Sultan Shah appellant and was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. Q on which its sketch was also drawn. He also recovered blood‑stained knife P. 7 from the person of Momand co- accused and made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. R. He found Akbar and Rashid accused empty handed at that time. He prepared site plan Exh. P. X. of the place where the accused where arrested and the above mentioned recoveries had taken place. Nasir Ali Shah and Shera appellants could not produce any licence for their revolver and carbine recovered from them respectively. Therefore, separate case under the Arms Ordinance was registered against them. Ghulam Abbas A. S. I. P. W. 15 recorded the statements of Muhammad Yar and Khushi Muhammad P. Ws. on 19‑8‑1972 at Civil Hospital, Lyallpur. He also found stains of blood at the place where the deceased had fallen and upto the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Three '12 bore crime empties and three .32 bore crime empties were sent to the Fire Arms Expert followed by two .12 bore shot pistols and one .32 bore revolver for examination and report. Exh. P. W. 13/A revealed that 12 bore crime empty C. 1 and C. 2 had been fired from .12 bore shot pistol recovered from Rashid (since dead), .12 bore crime empty C. 3 had been fired from .12 bore shot pistol recovered from Nasir Ali Shah appellant and .32 bore crime empty C. 4 to C. 6 had been fired from revolver recovered from Shera appellant. The pieces of scraping from knives, earth and stained cloth cutting were sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist for their opinion and report. Vide his report Exh. P. C. C. the Serologist found all these articles and scrapings sent to him stained with human blood.

5. Taj Din dispenser has appeared as P. W. 10 and has identified the signatures of Dr. Tajammal Hussain (who had left the service and gone abroad (Saudi Arabia), on the: post‑mortem report and medico legal reports.

6. According to Dr. Tajammal Hussain he conducted post‑mortem examination on 17‑8‑1972 at 5 p.m. on the dead body of Ghulam Murtaza deceased and found the following injuries on his person :‑ (1) An incised wound 3/4" x 1/6" x skull bone partially cut on right head top 4" above right ear, oblique. (2) An incised wound 1 " x " x muscle deep on left face just in front of left ear, oblique. (3) A firearm wound of entrance 1" x 1" on left neck lower part 3" below lobule of left ear. It injured the gullet, the wind pipe extensively, big blood vessels on left side and two pellets (big round) were found on right side of neck at the same level. A wadding was removed from the wound of entry. (4) A firearm wound of the entrance " x " on left chest (collar of shirt having a mark on it a bullet was found) Pronto‑lateral aspect " above, the left nipple. It fractured the the rib underneath. A bullet was found in the right ventricle of heart after perforating its lateral frontal wall (mark on shirt was present). (5) An incised wound 2" x 1 /2" x chest cavity, front of left chest 1" below left nipple, oblique. Rib underneath was fractured. It penetrated the anterior wall right ventricle (cut on shirt was present). (6) Six in wounds of entrance varying from 1/3" x 1/3" to " x " in the middle in front and lateral aspect of right chest wall. Those went along the muscular layer of chest wall, ecchymosis guided) and appeared as four wounds of exit on the slight bark; aspect of the lateral side of left crest. Two pellet were removed from just deep to skin. Wounds of exit were about 1" x 2" from those of the entry slightly at a lower level (shirt had holes). (7) A firearm wound of enterance 1/3" x 1/3" on left deltoid region with a wound of exit 1/3" x 1/3" at a distance of 1 " from it on the back part at slightly lower level (shirt had holes). (8) A firearm wound of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" on front of left upper arm, middle, with wound of exit 1" below, inner to it making wound of exit 1/3 " x 1/3" (shirt had holes). (9) Two incised wounds, each 2" x 1 /2" x muscle‑deep both 1/2" apart parallel on back of left elbow joint (marks on shirt were present). (10) An incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep on front of left thumb oblique. (11) A firearm wound of entrance 1/3" x 1/3" or, left fore‑arm front aspect 1 " below left elbow joint. It appeared as wound of exit on the back aspect 1 " from the wound of entry (shirt had marks corresponding to those). In his opnion injury Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 were caused by a sharp-edged weapon while the rest were caused with firearms. Injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature which resulted in shock and haemorrhage to the deceased. The time between injuries and death was immediate whereas between death and post mortem examination about 89 hours. Dr. Tajammal Hussain also medically examined Muhammad Yar P. Ws. 11 on the same day and found the following injuries on his person :‑ (1) a fire arm entrance wound with lacerated margins on left upper lip "x "x " corresponding to third and fourth left upper teeth. Third upper tooth was shattered and missing. Fourth left upper tooth was broken near the neck and the terminal part was missing (Root was present). There was bleeding from mouth. A foreign body (suggestive of bullet metal was seen in the X-ray) with a swelling 1 " x 1 " in the right upper neck front. (2) A lacerated wound of firearm/entrance 1" x 1 " x muscle deep on back of left chest, middle part. It was slanting from left to right and ecchymosis swelling was present along a line in transverse direction 3 " x 2". X‑ray suggested presence of a metallic body. All the injuries were caused by firearms. Similarly, Khushi Muhammad P.W.12 was medically examined by Dr. Tajammal Hussain, on 17th August 1972, who found three firearms injuries on his person. Dimension of which was " x " x muscle deep. " x " x chest wall on lower left chest front 4" below left nipple and wound of entry " x " x muscle wall on left side of truck 4" below left axilla, respectively.

7. Shera appellant denied his participation in the crime as well as disowned the recovery of revolver from his person. He attributed his involvement in the following manner :‑ "Shah Nawaz P. W. has got me and my brother Akbar (involved in this case because I and my relatives had got involved Shah Nawaz and his brother Ghulam Murtaza deceased in a case under section 307, P. P. t:. Shah Nawaz had a grudge against me on account of that prosecution." He also denied his arrest as stated by the D. S. P. (P. W. 9) and claimed that he was arrested later to the afternoon from his house in Laliani situated at distance of 14 miles from the place, of occurrence. Sultan Shah appellant pleaded innocence and disowned the recovery of knife P.6 from his person and stated that Shah Nawaz P.W. had registered a case of ejectment against him regarding the land which was allocated to him during the consolidation proceeding. This land allocated to him by consolidation department had some houses on it which Shah Nawaz claimed to be their own. He attributed his involvement due to this nudge which Shah Nawaz had nurtured again him. The case of Nasir Ali Shah appellant was that of denial simpliciter he disowned the recovery alleged to have been made against him and stated that Shah Nawaz P.W. and his family load residential houses in Killas Nos 1 and 2 of square No. 17, while in consolidation proceeding this land was given to him. The appellant alongwith his family took up ejectment proceedings against Shah Nawaz which caused him annoyance as he wanted to retain the possession under all circumstances. According to the appellant this case has been engineered against him so that he should keep these houses in his possession. According to him Shah Nawaz has achieved his object by keeping him in the jail for the, last two year:. 8. the learned trial Court while not relying on the recovery evidence in this case, has based the conviction of the appellants oil the following categories of evidence:- (i) the evidence of motive (ii) the ocular testimony and (iii) the medical evidence

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the complainant in Criminal Revision No. 343 of 1975 and the learned counsel for the State. We have gone through the entire record of the case carefully with their assistance. (10) The learned Counsel for the appellants while accepting the presence injured witnesses namely Muhammad Yar P. W. 11 and Khushi Muhammad P. W. 12, at the place of occurrence, has submitted that the appellants were absolutely unknown to those P.Ws. and therefore. Shah Nawaz P. W. g was culled upon to notify the identity of the appellants. By this submission he by implication has also challenged the presence of shah Nawaz P.W. at the place of occurrence. He has also laid lot of emphasis on the discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws. regarding the seat of injuries attributed to the firing of the appellants. It has been further submitted by him that the appellants had no motive whatsoever for attacking Muhammad Yar and Khushi Muhammad P. Ws. who were not their enemies. Finally he was urged that as shah Nawaz P.W., was inimical towards the appellants therefore he persuaded the injured P. W's. to involve the appellants and their friends, whereas, actually they were attacked by the relations of one Ahmad Sipra in whose murder case Khushi and Muhammad Yar P.Ws. alongwith one Mukhtar figured as accused peons.

11. Before we enter into the comments regarding the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants and the evidence produced on the record by the prosecution in support of its case, it will be advantageous to point out at this stage that the learned trial Court has, believed the triode of arrest of the appellants and recoveries by Taj Muhammad Khan D. S. P. P. W.

9. It has declined to place reliance on the statement of Mushtaq Hussain P. W. 14 despite the tact that he was named out by the other witnesses as the person who was present at the time with the crime was committed the learned trial Court while dealing with recoveries of crime empties from the spot has considered this piece evidence as of no consequence and therefore, has not considered to discussed evidence of Gulsher Muhammad Malik F. W. 13 and S. Q. Raza P. W. 16 worth his while as according to the learned trial Court this evidence offence was of no avail against the appellants as the entire evidence of recovery and arrest was discarded by it. We have gone through the reasoning advanced by the learned trial Judge in this respect which he recorded in detail in paragraphs Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 22 of his judgment alongwith paragraph No. 21 which pertains to the evidence of Mushtaq Hussain P.W.14. We are fully satisfied with the reasoning so advanced and are in agreement with his decision regarding this part of the evidence.

12. While looking at the F. I.R. it. Exh. P. A. we find that this was lodged by Shah Nawaz P. W. 8 after 30 minutes of the occurrence. The time of occurrence has been given as 9 a.m. while the time of report by Shah Nawaz P. W. is recorded as 9‑30 a.m. This fact itself will show that shah Nawaz was immediately available to make this report. He has given a plausible reason to be present with his brother Ghulam Murtaza deceased has come on the record that he alongwith Ghulam Murtaza deceased had gone to attend the Court at Chiniot as accused persons in a case under section 307, P.P.C. If this would not have been so, it web open to reference to controvert this claim by producing the record of the case under section 307 P. P. C. They could also summon any official of that Court in which these two brothers were facing trial, to snow that in fact they 'ere not required to attend tile Court on the day of occurrence of the defence to belie this assertion of Shah Nawaz P. W. leads to irrefutable result that Shah Nawaz P. W. and Ghulam Murtaza decease,; :re together on the fateful day. The presence of Muhammad Yar P. W. 11 and Khushi Muhammad P.W. 12 has been accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants anti has no alternative but to do so in view of the fact that they sustained fire arms injuries during the occurrence. But we do not and anything in their statements or in the cross‑examination to which they were subjected that these witnesses did not know the appellants and were strangers to the parties. Muhammad Yar P. W. 11 has claimed that he knew Ghulam Murtaza deceased since two years. No suggestion of any sort was made to him that he was a stranger and the appellants were not known to him. The only suggestion shade to him was that he was actually attacked by some relations of Ahmad Sipra, for whose murder he figured as an accused, but the same was denied by him, w. nothing but an institution. The case of Khushi Muhammad P. W. 12 is still on better footing as far as his knowledge about the appellants is concerned. He has claimed that he was in service of Shah Nawaz P. W., when there was a case about the murder of Ahmad the brother of appellant and Akbar co-accused, against Shah Nawaz etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that he would not be knowing the earstwnile enemies of his masters Both these witnesses are unconcerned and independent witnesses against whom nothing has been brought on the record to show that they had any personal malice, rancour or animus against the appellants so as to falsely implicate them in this case. We also do not find any substance in the hypothesis of the defence that these two witnesses were victim of aggression by some relative of Ahmad Sipra and have substituted the real culprits with the present appellants at the instance of Shah Nawaz P. W. It is a well settled law that substitution is a rare phenomenon and whosoever pleads it has to lay foundation for it. We are in agreement with the learned trial Court that the occurrence has positively been witnessed by these two injured witnesses arid they had correctly identified the appellants as the assailants.

13. Much has been said about the discrepancies which do occur in the evidence of Shah Nawaz P. W. 8, Muhammad Yar P. W. 11 arid Khushi Muhammad P. W. 12, regarding the seat as the injuries attributed to the appellants by them. It has been argued that in the F. I. R. complainant Shah Nawaz P. W. 8 stated that fire of Shera appellant bit the neck of the deceased but while making a statement before the trial Court, he has shifted the locale from the neck to the chest. Similarly the same discrepancy has, been pointed out the statements of Muhammad Yar P. W. 11 and Khushi Muhammad P. W.

12. We have taken this aspect of the; case into considera tion and find that such like discrepancies do occur due to pandemonium and turmoil which take place as a natural result of a firing, and therefore it would be expectation too much from them to give precise and accurate detail of the result of the shots fired by the accused. We do not attach much importance to such like discrepancies which are natural to our in cases of this nature. The learned trial Court was fully justified to ignore these small matters which in no way impair the substance of the case against the appellants.

14. The motive in this case is so outstanding that it connects the appel lants fully with the murder of Ghulam Murtaza deceased. Ghulam Murtaza deceased, as proved on the record, was responsible for the murder of Atimad the brother of Shera appellant. As he, alongwith others, was acquitted in that murder case, therefore, it was natural for Shera appellant to destroy his enemies sooner or later. It would not be improbable to say that due to animosity and hate the men of these Illaqas ,consider their vendetta as a family heir loom and band it over from father to son like a sacred trust. Therefore a period of four years cannot be considered a period which would have healed the wounds so inflicted by the deceased by killing Ahmad the brother of Shera appellant. Sultan shah and Nasir Ali Shah appellants had their own reasons against Shah Nawaz P. W. and Ghulam Murtaza deceased for attacking them as on their instance a case was registered aainst Shah Nawaz and the deceased under section 307, P. P. C. for making‑ murderous assault on them. Therefore, it seems reasonably probable that both the appellants joined hands with Shera appellant in the commission of this crime.

15. In the light of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the appellants had sufficient motive to commit the murder of Ghulam' Murtaza deceased and in that process Muhammad Yar and Khushi Muhammad h. Ws, also received firearm injuries at their hands and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them. As far as the sentence of death visited upon the appellants is concerned, we are persuaded by the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that this was actually a case of revenge of tile death of the brother of Shera appellant which resulted in the murder of Ghulam Murtaza deceased. In support of his contention he has relied on Ajun Shah v. State (P L D 1967 S C 185) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that "A man is after all a creation of his environments. His action therefore, must be judged in the background of the society to which he belongs. Though be may not be entitled to rely on doctrine of provocation still the above circumstance may be taken into considera tion for not imposing the extreme penalty. We would however, make it clear that we are not suggesting, for a moment, that private revenge is a mitigating circumstance. What we are really pointing out is that question of sentence in each case must depend on the facts of the case and in this particular case the criminality is not of a kind which should be visited with extreme penalty." While dismissing the appeal of the appellants as being without any force, we alter their sentences from death to that of imprisonment for life. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon them will remain undisturbed. The conviction and sentences will run concurrently.

16. The sentence of death awarded to Shera, Sultan Shah and Nasir Ali Shah appellant, is not confirmed.

17. We now take up Criminal Revision No. 343 of 1975 filed by Shah Nawaz complainant against the acquittal of Akbar, Muhammad Ali and Momand (acquitted accused)/respondents. We find that the judgment of the learned trial Court acquitting these three accused/respondents is well considered judgment. While dealing with the case of Akbar respondent the evidence against him only attributes a part of lalkara. Of course he was brother of Shore appellant but it is also on the record that he was empty handed and no overt act has been attributed to him by any of the P. Ws. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the arrest/capture of all the accused including Akbar respondent in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. B Therefore, there is no evidence of any corroborative value to connect him with this crime. The possibility of his being involved in this case for being the brother of Shera Uppellant, cannot be excluded. Therefore, we do not feel that his acquittal was in any way unjust. In the case of Muhammad Ali respondent, the prosecution has failed to bring on the record any reason which actuated or motivated this respon dent to join hands with Shera appellant and others. No specific injury has been assigned to him and it has been just said that he also gave knife blows on the person of Ghulam Murtaza deceased. In face of the fact that the recovery of knife and the mode of his capture has been ‑ rightly discarded by the learned trial Court, there is no evidence on the file to connect him with the part so attributed to him by the witnesses. We also cannot overlook the tendency of the witnesses in that country to widen their net as far as possible. We are in accord with the learned trial Court that the case against Muhammad Ali respondent was not free from doubt. Similarly the case of Momand respondent is at par with that of Muhammad Ali respondent and suffers from the same infirmities as pointed out above. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Akbar, Muhammad Ali and Momand respondents have been rightly acquitted by the trial Court.

18. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.