1974 P Cr (PLP)

7. The fact that the deceased Hussain Bux was killed by means of knife injury does not admit of any doubt. This point is also not dispute by the learned counsel for the appellant. Furthermore, Dr. Abdul Maji conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He in his deposition in the committal Court which was brought on record of the trial Court as Exh. 31 states that on the external examination of the dead body of the deceased he found the following injury ore it‑‑ "Incised wound about ' x ' x chest deep. On the front of the cheat 4' below sled medial to the, left nipple and 6' below mannhirum storm and above the middle opigastrium.'

8. On the internal examination of the dead body he found the following damage done to it:‑‑‑ "No. 4‑‑Seventh costal cartilage was partially cut. No. 2.‑-Chest full of blood. No. 3.--The pericardium was pierced. No. 4.‑‑‑Anterior surface ref the heart eras pierced, 1, e. verticular surface by right side."

9. According to the doctor all the injuries we're anti‑mortem and appeared to have been caused by a sharp‑edged weapon such as a knife. The doctor also opined that the external injury causing the internal injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature as it was dangerous. He lastly said that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent upon the injuries on his person.

10. There is no reason to doubt this evidence of the doctor which has not been challenged by any one. We also see no reason not to rely upon it. We, therefore, fend that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased Hussain Bux was killed by means of a knife injury.

11. The prosecution case rests on the ocular testimony of two witneses, namely, P. Ws. Francis and Abdul Majid as allegedly corroborated by the production of blood‑stained knife by the appellant Out Mohammed.

12. P. W. Francis has deposed to the same facts as are detailed in the narrative of the prosecution story given above and the same need not be repeated. So much may be said that although he had seen, according to him, the deceased being killed by appellant Gul Mohammed with a knife while appellant Mohammad Hanif had held him from his back still after the Incident this witness went straight to his house without reporting the matter to the police arid returned to the scene of offence on the next day in the morning when he found police there on the spot.

13. P. W. Abdul Majid the next alleged eye-witness has substantially deposed that he was living in Bungalow No. 114; Depot tines, Karachi since 1962. He, was living in a servant quarter within the compound of this bungalow. On the day of incident he was in his house in the evening at about 7‑30 or 7‑45 pm. he was prepared for Namaz when he heard a noise in the street. The street is a Kutcha lane with bungalows on both the sides. He anent out: of the gate and found that one boy was crying for help while another man had caught hold of another man by his hands from the back. The person who had caught hold of the hands was appellant Mohammad Hanif, whom this witness already knew as he used to visit the compound where this witness lived in order to see appellant Gulloo who also lived in the same compound. According to this witness appellant Gulloo had taken out a knife from his pocket. This witness shouted at Gulloo hot to stab the man but he stabbed the man who was in the grip of appellant Mohammad Hanif The injured person cried and ran towards Bungalow No. 1 24 and entered its compound. The rather bony who was companion of the injured and was crying for help also followed the injured person This witness did not know the companion of the injured person before; Later on; he came to know that his name was Francis. This witness then went to the mosque fear prayers and did not report the matter to police or any one else. In the morning when lie was going to bazar he found the police at the scene of offence and he was called by the police at the pointation of P: W. Francis and his statement was recorded.

14. From what is stated above it will be seen that the alleged two eye witnesses to the incident have not reported what they saw to any one particularly not to the police. These witnesses belonged to Karachi city and not to the Mufasil so that different considerations would have applied to their case if they had not reported the, matter to the police and kept silent for the whole night of the incident and on the next morning when they came to the scene the police recorded their statements. At Karachi telephones are frequently available at bungalows and at other places like restaurants, etc. and it would not have been difficult for any of these alleged eye‑witnesses to have reported the matter to the police which it was their duty to do. Sine they have not revealed the incident to any one and they have kept quiet, therefore, their evidence does not inspire confidence in us and as such no implicit reliance can be placed upon what they now alleged in Court about having seen the incident. Looking to the circumstances and the facts a doubt arises in our mind that perhaps the two alleged eye‑witnesses are telling lies and they have not come out with the truth. There is also lave on the point that an eye‑witness who keeps silent after having seen the incident ought not to be relied upon and this law‑need not be reproduced here. We are, therefore; of the opinion that the two alleged eye‑witness produced by the prosecution are not reliable at all and their testimony h to be kept out of consideration, The ocular evidence having been discarde what the prosecution is left with is the only alleged production of blood stained knife by appellant Gulloo. This evidence even if it is believed to be true would not advance the prosecution case so that it can be said that it has proved its case beyond a reasonable, doubt against the appellant Gulloo. Production of the knife by, appellant Gulloo by itself, therefore, is not a circumstance which can avail tire prosecution side in its case.

15. For the foregoing reasons we find that the prosecution has failed to establish their case against both the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt as such we hold both the appellants to be not guilty. Their appeal is allowed.

16. We had pronounced the above conclusion at the close of the arguments of counsel for parties and have now set out the reasons therefore. Appeal allowed.