1977 P Cr (PLP)

(4) Eight circular lacerated wounds with black margins each with dia of 1/6" scattered on right neck. In his opinion injuries No. 1 and 2 appeared to have been caused with some sharp‑cutting weapon like hatchet while Nos. 3 and 4 with some fire‑arm like gun. The injuries Nos. 1 and 2 individually were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and

2. Deceased Ali Bux.‑(i) Incised wound 2" x ? ' bone deep with fracture of right scapula on right scapular region. (2) Incised wound 1" x ? scalp deep on right occipital region. (3) Oval lacerated wound 3/4' x ? bone deep with the black margin on right occipital region and extending on back of right ear. (4) Three circular lacerated wounds with black margins with dia of 1/6" deep to the right lung and fracture of right clavical bone. In his opinion the injuries Nos. 3 and 4 appeared to have been caused by some fire arm like a gun and the rest by some sharp‑cutting weapon like a hatchet. The injures Nos. 3 and 4 individually were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased. The death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage and intracranniel haemorrhage due to injuries Nos. 3 and

4. Appellant Suleman.‑(1) Incised wound ? " x 1/12 x skin deep on left fore?head. (2) Incised wound 1?" x ?" x bone deep with suspected fracture of left parietal region. (3) Incised wound 1" x ?" x muscles deep on left lateral chest. (4) Incised wound 1" x ?" skin deep on back of left elbow joint. All the injuries appeared to have been caused with some sharp‑cutting, weapon such as hatchet and were about 12 hours old at the time of examination. Injuries Nos. 1 and 4 were simple in nature and 2 and 3 were also simple. Appellant Shah Nawaz.‑‑(1) Incised wound 3/4' x 1/12' x ?" scalp with extension of liner superficial incision ?" on each side of the wound. (2) Linear incision superficial ?" adjacent to injury No.

1. Both injuries were simple in nature and were caused by some sharp‑cutting weapons like blade or knife. These injuries could rot have been caused by the hatchet and appeared to be self‑suffered." Besides the above, P. W. 5 Bakhshal deposed about the recoveries mock: from the place of incident by P. W. 9 A. S. I. Mohammad Moosa. The presence of a bullock cart with the pair of bullocks at the place of incident also corroborates the version of the two eye‑witnesses that deceased Haji Habib had brought the cart, which has been given in charge of child Ghulam Hussain. Additionally the presence of a hatchet by the side of dead body of Umer, corroborated the version of the eye‑witnesses that appellant Suleman had been injured by deceased Umer. There is no material on record to give any substantial reason for disbelieving the evidence and the trial Court rightly came to this conclusion that the two eye‑witnesses appear to be true witnesses of the occurrence. These witnesses also deposed to the existence of motive for the murders; which was not challenged in cross‑examination. The murder of Haji Rahim and the pendency of a case against deceased Sikandar and Umer for that' murder was even admitted.

5. So far as recoveries made from the four appellants are concerned, P. W. J, Bakhshal, the mashir and P. W. 9 A. S.

1. Mohammed Moosa were examined. They deposed about the arrest for appellant Suleman whose clothes were secured and they appeared to be blood‑stained. But as appellant Suleman was himself injured the trial Court rightly held that these blood stains on his clothes had little value as corroborative evidence against him. Similarly appellant Shah Nawaz alias Shaho had also two injuries on his person at the time of arrest and the blood stains on clothes secured from him at the time of arrest were therefore not of much significance. But appellant Shah Nawaz had produced a hatchet from his house, which as per Chemical Analyser's report was found to be stained with human blood and wag positive evidence against him, which supports the eye‑witnesses' account. Appellant Piral had produced a hatchet in the presence of the same witness, but before his arrest, and according to the witness it was not blood‑stained. The Chemical Analyser reported the blood on this hatchet as disintegrated, and thus its origin could not be determined. When arrested his clothes were secured but they were also of not much corroborative value as although according to the witness they were blood‑stained, the Chemical, Analyser's report showed that the shirt and the loin cloth had no blood stains while the blood on the silken head cover bad disintegrated.

5. From appellant Abdul Karim a country‑made pistol and a live cartridge were secured which he produced after his arrest, in presence of P. W. 4 Mohammad Qasim, mashir and P. W. 10 Allahdino, S. H. O, This pistol also contained an empty shell of a cartridge. He had no licence for any of these alms. The pistol was a country‑made one. P. W. 1 Mukhtar Ahmed, the Ballistic Expert was examined, as he had given his opinion that one empty had been fired from each of the arms sent to him i. e. the rifle and the country‑made pistol. But as rightly concluded by the trial Court, the prosecution failed to establish that the empties actually secured from the vardat has been so fired, this evidence was not sufficient to connect the arms with the occurrence. As both the pistol and the rifle are alleged to have contained one empty each, at the time of production by the appellants, it was necessary to prove the above fact will: clarity and beyond doubt.

6. The case set up by the appellants was that of denial about anything to do with the occurrence. They denied having produced any arms and even the securing of the clothes from these persons. Although each one of them admitted the fact of murder of Haji and the case in the Court at Mehar, they denied that they had arty motive to commit the murders. it was alleged that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity, but the details of the said enmity were not disclosed. Appellant Fir Bux stated that Ali Sher complainant suspected hire of illicit intimacy with his wife and he had therefore been implicated by Ali Sher. No such question was put to Ali Sher in cross‑examination. Appellant Shah Nawaz claimed to be a relation of Pir Bux and said that he was implicated falsely by Ali Sher. He also claimed to be an enemy of the appellants Suleman and Abdul Karim as his relation Sidik Janwari had filed a case against them.

7. Obviously in this case in corroborative evidence, examined by the prosecution relating to recoveries of clothes and arms is not of much value. The hatchet produced by appellant Shah Nawaz alone could be used as art incriminating piece of evidence against him. However, the account given by the two eye‑witnesses does show that they are the real witnesses of the occurrence. The appellants were previously known to these witnesses and belong to the same village. They are not shown to be interested so as to falsely implicate them for murder. The F. I. R. was promptly filed giving names of all tire appellants. The medical evidence and other circumstances fully support them. In this state of evidence, and also for the conclusion reached by the trial Court, that the four murders were committed by these four appellants in furtherance of their common intention, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to demolish the effect of this evidence, by pointing out the discrepancies therein and contended that they may not be believed on that account. These discrepancies are with regard to the number of blows inflicted and the manner of causing injuries by the accused, which do not appear to be so material as to make the witnesses discreditable. Four persons were murdered in an attack which was unexpected and in which fire‑arms were used. This must have caused excitement and at such times witnesses are not expected to count the blows with accuracy; nor can they give a detailed and the accurate account of the manner of causing such blows. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that although in the F. I. R. it was stated that a gun was used by appellant Abdul Karim, the witnesses in Court changed their description of the same, as a pistol only to fall in line with the discoveries made during subsequent investigation. It is true that the pistol used by appellant Abdul Karim was mentioned as a gun by the complainant in the F. I. R. but his explanation in Court moms quite plausible and acceptable, when he stated that it was a country‑made pistol and rustic people can make no difference between them. The learned counsel for the appellants then made a feeble attempt to distinguish the case of appellant Pir Bux on the ground that he was of a different caste than the other appellants and because there had been a case against appellant Suleman under sections 450, 511 and 307, P. P. C. for having injured Siddik, the cousin of appellant Piral in which appellant Suleman was actually convicted by judgment of Sessions Court dated 7‑2‑1970 produced as Exh. 58, there could be no possibility of appellant Piral joining appellant Suleman to commit these murders. In the first place it has not been brought on record that the relations between the appellant Suleman and Piral were not cordial or continued to be inimical after the said case, and on the other hand P. W. Ali Sher deposed at the trial that Haji son of Bakhir was also related to appellant Piral. This statement remained unchallenged. The complainant thus had clearly pointed out that appellant had a common motive, and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant Piral could mot possibly have any common intention with others in committing this crime.

8. Although the arms secured from the possession of appellants Suleman and Abdul Karim have not been successively proved to have been used for the commission of the offence, their possession without licence stands proved. The conviction of the two appellants under section 13‑D of Arms Act and also the respective sentences are therefore proper and are upheld.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that in the circumstances o the case, the two eye‑witnesses appear to be the true and natural witness of the murders and their evidence is proved to be believable. This appeal is 4 therefore dismissed and the conviction and sentences passed against the appellants are upheld. The reference is also accepted accordingly and the ‑sentence of death is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.