1987 PLP 1220 (SCMR)

2. According to Allah Ditta complainant IP.W.6 on 23‑4‑1977 he alongwith his nephew Ghulam Shabbir deceased had gone for collecting the wheat of Sardar Fateh Muhammad Khan Jalbani, resident of Pir Chah Areywala. At about sun‑set time he was returning to his village. The deceased alongwith Muhammad Aslam P.W.7 was ahead of him. He alongwith Ghulam Yasin and Gul Muhammad P.W.8 were following them busy talking. When the deceased and Muhammad Aslam reached near the Saiban Nala Bridge, the deceased shouted for help and ran towards him. He was followed by Muhammad Ramzan, Allah Diwaya sons of Sawan, Ata Muhammad, Sher Muhammad and Ghulam Hassan the accused /appellant, out of whom Ghulam Hassan Ata Muhammad and Sher Muhammad caught the deceased while Allah Diwaya and Muhammad Ramzan gave Chhuri blows to the deceased. On the alarm raised by the complainant and the other witnesses, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Afzal and Wahid Bakhsh, who were busy working in the nearby field, reached the spot. The accused, after injuring the deceased, ran away.

3. According to the complainant about 3.1/2 year ago Ghulam Hassan the accused /appellant had abducted Mst. Zainab, wife of Ghulam Shabbir deceased. She had filed two suits for dissolution of marriage against the deceased but both the suits were dismissed. She again filed a similar suit. Ghulam Hassan threatened the deceased and asked him to divorce Mst. Zainab but the deceased did not oblige him. Hence, this murder.

4. Dr. Capt. Farhat Hussain P.W.9 performed the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Shabbir deceased and found 8 incised and stab wounds and two scratches on the body. Out of which injuries Nos. (iv) and (v) were found grievous. The cause of death, according to the doctor, was shock and haemorrhage on account of injury to vital organs like liver, intestines and lung which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

5. Allah Wasaya P.W.5 witnessed the recovery of Kati P‑6 blood stained Chaddar P‑7 and shirt P‑8 at the instance of Ramzan accused. Allah Diwaya accused led to the recovery of Kati P‑9, Allah Ditta P.W.6, Muhammad Aslam P.W.7 and Gul Muhammad. P.W.9 gave ocular account of the occurrence.

6. When examined the accused denied the charge. They, however, produced no defence stating that they were charged falsely in the case. Accused /appellant Ghulam Hassan also denied the abduction of Mst. Zainab and so did Muhammad Ramzan and Allah Diwaya. Ghulam Hassan, however, tendered in evidence copies of the documents relating to the abduction of Mst. Zainab wherein an order of acquittal has been recorded in his favour.

7. The learned trial Court placed reliance on the ocular testimony of the three eye‑witnesses namely Allah Ditta P.W.6, Muhammad Aslam P.W.7 and Gul Muhammad P.W.8 and recovery of the incriminating articles. The learned trial Judge observed as under: "There must be a prior meeting of minds, in the instant case. I find that there has been a previous concert and prior meeting of minds between all the accused persons inter se

In the instant case there has been both common intention and community of object. All the accused persons in the present case had a common intention to do an act and they actually accomplished that act." Consequently, the learned trial Court, as stated above, convicted all the five accused and sentenced Muhammad Ramzan, Allah Diwaya and the accused /appellant Ghulam Hassan to death; and awarded life imprisonment to Ata Muhammad and Sher Muhammad. The learned High Court acquitted Ata Muhammad and Sher Muhammad and confirmed the death sentence awarded to Muhammad Ramzan, Allah Diwaya and the accused /appellant Ghulam Hassan.

8. The learned High Court Judges while examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants held: "The relationship of the three eye‑witnesses with the deceased was admitted on record. Allah Ditta complainant was uncle and father‑in‑law of the deceased Wahid Bakhsh. The statements of the eye‑witnesses could not be rejected on the sole ground of relationship. The three eye‑witnesses were cross‑examined at length. We have not come across any material contradiction in the statements of the three eye‑witnesses. Major grievance was against Ghulam Hassan appellant. But the complainant and eye‑witnesses did not attribute any injury to him although it could be done conveniently keeping in view the large number of injuries on the deceased. This fact further showed that the eye‑witnesses were truthful. Their statements were free from inherent defects."

9. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any contradiction in the statements of the above‑named witnesses in order to succeed in his arguments regarding the improper appraisal of the evidence by the Courts below. He, however, submitted that the two co‑accused namely Allah Diwaya and Muhammad Ramzan, who were also condemned to death, have been reprieved by the Government and they have been set at liberty. This statement was made by the learned counsel at the bar. He further contended that the appellant Ghulam Hassan has not been attributed the role of causing any injury to the deceased, and, he is stated to have held the deceased by his hair which fact is also omitted in the F.I.R. It was further contended by the learned counsel that against the accused /appellant Ghulam Hassan the only fact which has weighed with the learned High Court Judges is that he had a direct motive for causing the death of the deceased. He submitted that this fact alone would not be corroboration of his intention to cause the death of the deceased. The learned counsel argued that intention must not be confounded with motive; intention shows the nature of the act which the man believes he is doing, motive is the reason which induces him to do the act which he intends to do and does.

10. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. Motive for the crime, while it is always a satisfactory circumstance of corroboration when there is a convincing evidence to prove the guilt of an accused person, could not supply the want of reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the commission of the crime with which he is charged. We consider in this particular, case that Ghulam Hassan accused/ appellant was empty handed and has caused no injury to the deceased. His holding the victim by his hair is also not mentioned in the F.I.R. As he is not the author of any of the injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased, therefore, we consider that imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only), in default, six years R.I., would meet the ends of justice. Fine if recovered, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. We order accordingly. Appeal dismissed with the modification in the sentence noted above. M.B.A./G‑20/S Order accordingly.