P L D 1981 S C 635 (PLP)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, 1.-This Appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 26-7-1974, dismissing appellant's appeal in a murder case.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that Muhammad, Ali Muhammad, Allah Ditta and Bakhsha, alongwith two others, namely Boota and Khan, were tried for the murder of Lai Din and making murderou assault on Murid (P. W. 8). The trial Court by its judgment dated 3-6-1972, acquitted the two co-accused but convicted the four appellants for offence under sections 302/34 and 302/34, P. P. C. They were sentenced to imprison­ment for life under section 302/34, and to 7 years' R. I. each, under section 307/34 P. P. C. They filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

3. The occurrence in this case took place at about 12 p. m. on the night between 14/15-7-1970. The matter was reported by Ghulam Rasul, P. W. 7, a son of the deceased, at 5 a.m., to Asghar Ali, S. I. (P. W. 11). The formal F. I. R. was recorded on the basis of that statement at Police Station, Sheikhupura at 5-30 a. m.

4. The parties are closely related to each other. Lai Din is married to Mst. Sattan, sister of Muhammad and Bakhsha appellant, and Khan (acquitted co-accused), Boota (another co-accused) is their first cousin while Allah Ditta (appellant) is the nephew of said Boota. Ali Muhammad, appellant is not related to the other appellants, but is their friend.

5. According to the prosecution version, about a month prior to the occurrence there was an altercation between Lai Din (deceased) and Muhammad, appellant, Bakhsha appellant, Khan and Boota, co-accused, in which Ghulam Rasul, P. W., was also given a beating. The matter was, however, got compromised by the villagers, but the appellants-accused, nursed a grudge against Lai Din and on the night of the occurrence, all six of them variously armed with hatchets, barchhis and Dangs, attacked Lai Din, deceased and his son Murid, P. W. 8, who were sleeping in the bhek situated in the land of Azizur Rehman Khan. They assaulted and caused injuries to Lai Din and Murid P. W. Lai Din received 10 injuries while Murid received about 15 in,~uries. On hearin the noise Lai Din's son Ghulam Rasul, P. W. 7 (the first informant Mehnga P. W. 9 and some other persons also came there and saw the occurrence. The accused them left the spot carrying the weapon of offence with them. 6. ,.During she investigation, Asghar Ali S. I. (P. W. 11), recovered hatchet (P. 1) from Bakhsha, hatchet (P. 2) from Ali Muhammad, appellant, Dang (P. 3) from Allah Ditta appellant, and spear (P. 4) from Muhammad. All these were found to be blood-stained. The blood was subsequently found to be of human origin. The recoveries were witnessed, inter alia, by Mehnga, P. W. 9, who also signed the recovery memo. Asghar Ali, S. I. and Mehnga. deposed about the said recoveries at the trial. In support of its case the prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of Ghulam Rasul, P. W. 7 Murid P. W. 8, and Mehnga P. W.

9. The evidence of the recovery of the blood-stained weapons of the four appellants, and the medical evidence. The prosecution evidence was believed by the trial Court qua the four appellants who were convicted. The High Court also believed their testimony and upheld their conviction and sentences. The appellants then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal. Leave was granted to them by this Court on 31-5-1976, to consider whether the eye­witnesses were not interested witnesses whose testimony required independent corroboration, and whether in view of the fact that the statement of Mehnga, P. W. 9, so far as related to the eye-witness account of the incident had been disbelieved by the two Courts below, his statement with regard to the recovery of crime weapons, from the appellants should not have been discarded and further if the evidence of recovery was disbelieved whether in the absence of contradictory evidence, the statements of Murid. P. W. 8 and Ghulam Rasul, P. W., could be relied upon to maintain the appellants' conviction.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same contentions as were urged by him at the Leave granting stage and stated that one of the witnesses of recovery, i. e. Mehnga, P. W. 9, has been disbelieved as an eye­witness, while the other witness, namely, Asgbar Ali, S.

1. P. W. 11, is a Police Officer and should not, therefore, be believed. As such there is no reliable evidence to prove the recovery of the crime weapons which can, there­fore, be held to have been proved and that in the absence of any independent corroboratory evidence, the testimony of the eye-witnesses who are inimical towards the appellants, could not be believed.

8. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the. relevant portion of the evidence on the record. We feel that the testimony of Ghulam Rasul. P. W. 7, and Murid P. W. 8, is reliable. No doubt, they are three son of Lai Din, deceased, but they are closely related to three of the appellants, out of whom two, namely, Muhammad and Bakhsha, are their real materna uncles. They cannot be expected to falsely involve their own kith and kin in such serious case. Murid, P. W. 8, also suffered numerous injuries During the incident which proves his presence at the spot: Since injuries were cause with weapons like hatchets and dang, he must have had the oppotturtity of seeing his assailants from a very close distance and keeping in view that he knew all of them intimately it is not surprising that he had identified;. them. We are of the view that their testimony could be believed even without corroboratory evidence. However, the same is available in the shape of evidence of recoveries of crime weapons from the appellants. Even if the testimony, of Mehnga, P. W. 9, one of the recovery witnesses, is discarded, the evidence of Asghar Ali, S. I. P. W. 11, is sufficient to prove the recoveries, because as held in a number of cases the testimony of a Policeman cannot ecessarily be disbelieved merely because he is Policeman, Relianvo in this behalf may be placed on Rehan v. The State (1) and Emperor v. Santa Singh (2). The case of Mumtazuddin (3) cited by the appellants' counsel is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as in that case the ocular evidence was of a very week nature. In view of the above discussion we do not find any force in this Appeal, which is consequently dismissed. s. A. H. Appeal dismissed. (1) 1976 S C M R 72 (2) A I R 1944 Lah. 339 (3) P L D 1978 S C 114