1987 PLP 1489 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑ The petitioners were tried and convicted for the murder of Majan alias Abdul Majid their uncle. It was the prosecution case that Ali Gohar developed illicit intimacy with Mst. Mukhtar his wife, and 9 or 10 months before the present incident, at his instance, a recovery warrant was issued pursuant to which Mst. Mukhtar was produced before a Magistrate whose statement was recorded and as a result of which she voluntarily chose to live with Ali Gohar as she proclaimed herself to be his wife. This was the cause of strained relations which resulted in the filing of criminal cases by one party against the other. The trial Court held so while appraising the evidence of two eye‑witnesses namely, Ghulam Hussain (P.W.1) and Sain Dino (P.W.2), the brothers of the deceased. According to Ghulam Hussain (P.W.1), who lodged the F.I.R., he and the deceased, day before the incident, were proceeding to Pano Aqil and while on the way they met Rajo and his sons Liaquat Ali and Ali Murad and thereupon they exchanged abuses and gave blows to Rajo and his sons. Out of fear they decamped from there and while returning to their village on the next day at noon the present incident occurred in which Ali Gohar, Muhammad Hassan and Ali Murad who were armed with hatchets and Muhammad Alam, who held a stick, attacked the deceased, and as the version goes Muhammad Alam gave a 'lathi' blow on the head of Majan while Ali Gohar caused a hatchet blow on his left leg. Ali Murad also gave a hatchet blow on his right thigh while Muhammad Hassan caused blows to the deceased with the blunt‑side of the hatchet. According to the medical evidence the deceased had a contusion and a contused wound on his parietal region and two incises, one on his left leg and the other on his left thigh. The Courts below having held that there was enmity between the parties nevertheless accepted the ocular account furnished by the eye‑witnesses without corroboration as to the individual participation of the petitioners. It was contended that the injuries on the deceased showed that as from their location the two parietal injuries could have been caused by one person and so also the two incised injuries on the left leg by any one of the three persons who were armed with hatchets as it was highly improbable that after causing one blow with a weapon each one of those causing such a blow would have stopped and allowed the others to cause the blows at about the same place. As such the Courts below failed to take into account this important aspect of the matter while holding them guilty of the charge. It was next urged that the earlier version in the F.I.R. further suggests more injuries to have been caused than those which were found on the deceased. Again the assertion about an incised injury having been caused on the right thigh in the F.I.R. militates against the medical evidence as no such injury was found. Lastly, it was urged that even two persons could have caused these injuries armed with two different weapons, or for that matter, only one person could have caused them armed with a hatchet. In the context of these submissions, we consider it necessary to re‑examine the evidence in order to ascertain as to whether the conviction is sustainable having regard to the principles governing the safe dispensation of justice. Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal to the petitioners. S.Q./A‑59/5 Leave granted.