P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

In the opinion of the doctor all these injuries were ante‑mortem and were about 18 to 24 hours old and death in each case occurred due to shock and haemorrhage.

4. At the trial the prosecution case as to the actual incident as narrated above was supported by the three eye‑witnesses Ali Zaman, P. W. 1, Sachal, P. W. 4 and Muhammad Hashim P. W.

5. P. W. 7 Badal deposed that he reached the scene of occurrence soon after the murder had been committed and he was told by these witnesses that the five accused had killed Ghulam Ali and Zarina. In addition there was the circumstantial evidence of Sobho being found near the two dead bodies with a hatchet in his hand and blood on his clothes and person and similarly of the seizure of blood‑stained hatchet from Gahno and of the finding of blood on his clothes and person. There was also the evidence of the seizure of the hatchet from Zahro and the two lathis from the houses of Jaffar and Kadir Bux. The lathis did not have any marks of blood and upon the hatchet seized from the house of Zahro there were, according to the seizure memo, marks like those of blood. The seizure of the last three Items, ft may be noted, is not‑of much significance.

5. Accused Gahno in his examination, both in the committal and the Sessions Courts, stuck more or less to his confession. He stated that he had killed Ghulam Ali having found him In a compromising position with Mst. Zarina at the cattle pen ; that he also killed Mst. Zarina for the same reason. He, however, stated that be alone had killed both these persons and that none of the other accused were there. He admitted that he had produced the blood‑stained hatchet before the police and that his blood stained clothes were also secured from him. He admitted that he had been produced before the police by Abdur Rahman. In the committal Court he also stated that having found the two persons in a compromising position under the shed, where the bullocks are tethered, he was "gravely provoked and due to `Ghairat' killed both of them with a hatchet." The defence of the other four accused was that of bare denial and they added that they had been involved because of enmity and because Gahno had killed Ghulam Ali and Zarina. They did not examine any defence evidence.

6. The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of the three eye‑witnesses though he observed that except Muhammad Hashim the other two witnesses being relations of Ghulam Ali their evidence in order to be believed would need corroboration. He also observed that he had noticed in that district that prosecution witnesses change quickly and moreover people harbour grievance if they give evidence against each other and commit murders on that account and for that reason the neighbours of the accused in this case would not have come out on the commotion or given evidence for fear of retaliation in future. He did not rely upon the evidence of Badal because his name had not been mentioned in the F. I. R. He further observed that the killing of these two persons was not the act of one man and that the evidence of the eye‑witnesses got full support from the F. I R. which was made at the shortest possible time and was also supported by the evidence of the mashir Muhammad Bux and the Head Constable Muhammad Azim, according to whom there were marks of struggle and dragging in the street out‑side the houses of the accused. He noticed the seizure of the blood stained hatchets and the removing of blood from the person of the accused by means of swab and found this as a piece of corroborating evidence. He disbelieved the confession of Gahno. Upon these conclusions he convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. He found that the murders were premeditated and inasmuch as Gahno and Kadir Bux had dealt the fatal blows with hatchets, he sentenced them to death and the remaining three to transportation for life.

7. Mr. A. K. Brohi, the learned counsel appearing for all the five appellants, contended that primarily the evidence in this case was ocular and that there was no corroboration of it. He urged that the nature of the ocular evidence was not such which should be believed and that in any case the conviction could not be safely based on that evidence. His contention was that considering that Ghulam Ali was being suspected of illicit relation ship with Mst. Zarina he would not go to the shrine which was too near the danger spot. He further argued that the murder did not take place at sunset time but at night in the dark and that Ghulam Ali had gone alone to keep his tryst with Mst. Zarina in the cattle shed. He also argued that the story of Ghulam Ali having been dragged away from his three companions into the shed and killed there was not natural and that the version of Gahno that he had found Ghulam Ali and Zarina together in the shed and killed them both was more natural and in keeping with the general pattern of a sex offence. He further pointed out that in the first information report specific parts were assigned to all the five accused persons, but when the witnesses gave evidence in Court they gave evidence of a general character with regard to the attack and stated that all the five appellants had come out together and they had given lathi and hatchet blows first to Ghulam Ali and then to Mst. Zarina. The argument was that there must have been a certain amount of deliberation before Muhammad Bux started for making his report and it was, therefore, very likely that the name of the other four appellants was added to that of Gahno. He argued that even if it was found that the offence was committed by more than one person, it would not be safe to hold upon the nature of the ocular evidence to determine as to which of the other four persons had taken part in this assault. According to him, this was an unwitnessed crime which had taken place late in the night and as no body had seen the assailant or assailants it was found safe to involve most of the male members of the family.

8. It was further contended by Mr. Brohi that in offences of this kind the true witnesses, who are not connected with the accused, do not want to be involved and do not, therefore, come forward to give evidence and, therefore, when the evidence of relatives and interested persons is brought forward it should be looked upon with suspicion. It was, therefore, strongly urged that there should be independent corroboration of such evidence and that such corroboration was wanting in this case.

9. The first important point to be determined in this case is as to the time when the incident took place. According to the prosecution it took place when the sun was about to set. The sunset time would have been somewhere about 5‑45 p.m. The report was made by Muhammad Bux at 8 p.m. at the Police Station which, according to the entry in the column of the F. I. R. is four miles and according to the evidence of Head Constable six miles from the place of the occurrence. Some time must have elapsed before Muhammad Bux started for the Police Station and considering that the report was lodged at 8 p.m. it would appear that the time of the occurrence given by the prosecution is correct. It was put to the Head Constable Muhammad Azim in cross‑examination whether it was not a fact that Muhammad Bux had made the first information report after midnight and that he reached the scene of offence in the morning. This, of course, he denied. This suggestion was made because it was the case of the defence which was put to Muhammad Bux, P. W . 6, that the murder had taken place at night and that no body had seen it. Now, if this was so the prosecution would be taking a great risk in fixing the time of the murder at sunset because it could have been easily established by independent evidence of persons living nearby or those who may have gone to the mosque for prayer which is also not far from the scene of offence that the murders had not been committed at sunset time and that they had learnt about it the next morning or very late in the night. The entries at the foot of the F. I. R. would show that a copy of the report was sent to the Magistrate First Class, Mirpur. The next entry is that the S. H. O. was out having gone to the S. D. M., Robri and the last entry is that the Head Constable along with the police party was proceeding to the scene of offence for investigation. There is no good reason to suspect the genuineness of these entries or of the time when the report is shown to have been recorded. It must also be remembered that there is no allegation of enmity between the two parties in this case nor was this a case of a fight between two factions. This was a case of kayo kari which frequently happens in this part of the country and in which a certain amount of pride is claimed by those who kill the Karo or Kari. Having regard, therefore, to the time when the report was made and the distance of the Police Station, it is reasonable to hold that the incident took place at about the sunset time.

10. The question then arises whether Ghulam Ali would go at such a time within the enclosure where the accused lived and attempt the sexual act under the shed which would be open to the view of any one in the lane which abuts the enclosure. In fact, it is very unlikely that Ghulam Ali would enter the enclosure at all even a little late in the night. The argument of Mr. Brohi that the dragging of Ghulam Ali from the lane inside the enclosure in broad‑day‑light was not a plausible story, is not devoid of force. But the other story which was given by the defence that Ghulam Ali was found in a compromising position with Zarina under the shed would be far more difficult to believe. There is also the factor, as we have pointed above, that it is considered a matter of honour that a Karo and a Kari should be killed and those who perform this self‑imposed duty feel quite proud about it. In fact, in the words of Mr. Brohi such a person considers himself in the position of a hero. That being so and also considering that when such a charge is made and vengeance is attempted other people do not generally interfere, it is not difficult to believe the version that Ghulam Ali was dragged away from the street. Some mark of struggle was noticed in the street and this would appear from the mashirnama and also from the evidence. This was not challenged in cross‑examination. We have no doubt that there were certainly more than one person in this case, and if Ghulam Ali was surprised and pulled away by persons armed with hatchets and lathis, a resistence by him would not have been very effective. His alleged companions who have come forward as eye‑witnesses would not interfere, firstly, as they say, they were unarmed and were afraid and secondly because Ghulam Ali had been declared a Karo. It was argued as to why it was necessary to drag Ghulam Ali inside the shed. Why not kill him straight away in the lane where he was found. The reason is not difficult to see. If Ghulam Ali had been killed in the lane the defence of grave and sudden provoca tion on his being found in the shed in a compromising position with the woman would not be available. Cases have been known and which have come to Court where the man is killed somewhere else and then brought to the house of the woman or near about it and then the woman is killed and placed side by side with the man so as to make it possible to plead grave and sudden provocation. It is even known that where a murder is committed out of enmity and not for the reason of illicit liaison a woman is killed so as to give it an appearance of a sex crime, again for the purpose of pleading grave and sudden provocation. Therefore, the story that Ghulam Ali was dragged from the lane inside the enclosure and the shed and killed there and that Mst. Zarina was brought out also in the shed and killed, is not an unlikely one because of this unfortunate and wild concept of vindication of honour and which is invariably followed rightly or wrongly by a plea of provocation. The dead body of Zarina was found only half afoot away from that of Ghulam Ali. It is difficult to believe that if the two of them had been murdered in the manner alleged by the defence, and that too, as alleged by the defence, by one man, namely Gahno that the two bodies would be found so close to each other. In fact, Gahno himself realised this difficulty and said that after he had given a hatchet blow to Ghulam Ali the woman began to run and he then gave her a hatchet blow and then turned to Ghulam Ali and the woman got up and came and fell by the side of Ghulam Ali. Such close nearness of the two bodies in, the circumstances of the case supports the prosecution version that the woman was brought out from the house and was placed there and butchered.

11. It will now be convenient to examine the confession of the accused Gahno, according to which it was he alone who killed both Ghulam Ali and Mst. Zarina and that the other accused were not there. If this confession and the statement made by Gahno in Court in his examination under section 342 can be found to be reasonably true it must naturally react against the whole prosecution case. The story of Gahno in the confession and which was substantially adopted by him in his statement in Court is that at Tipahri time he came back to the land where they lived, with the pair of his bullocks and when he went to leave the bullocks it had become dark. He tied them under the shed and at that time he heard some "creeping sound." He then noticed that at a distance of two paces from the place where he was tying his bullocks he found that a man and a woman were naked and were in a compromising position. The rest of the story may be reproduced in his own words :‑ "I was provoked and I gave hatchet blow to the man who fell down. The woman tried to run away. She ran for about two paces. I gave her hatchet blow. She also fell on the Bandur. She got up and came near the man where she fell down. Here I again gave her hatchet blow. Her neck was cut and it was attached with the skin only I gave two more hatchet blows to `Karo' and his neck was also cut and attached with the skin. Thereafter I recognised them. `Kari' was my cousin Zarina and `Kayo' was Ghulam Ali Larik. At that time no one came. I took the hatchet end went to Haji Allah Bux, Chairman of Daharki. I narrated him the whole incident and requested him to take me to the Police Station. He said (I have fever. My nephew will accompany you). His nephew Abdul Rehman Khan said to me (it is night now, lie down and we shall go in the morning). The people said that police had come in Naokot. Abdul Rehman brought me there and handed over to police. I narrated the whole incident to police. I produced the blood‑stained hatchet. My blood stained clothes were secured by the police too."

12. There are certain inherent improbabilities in this story. Firstly, if Gahno was reaching the shed along with his bullocks and had come so near as two paces away, the man and the woman would not continue to remain in the compro mising position. The story that they were naked is falsified by the mashirnama and the evidence of the mashir and the Head Constable. The clothes of both the deceased persons were found intact. Then it seems rather extraordinary that the mere sight of two unknown persons in a compromising position should so provoke Gahno as to chop off the head of both of them. He himself states that it was later on that he found that the woman was Mst. Zarina, his brother's wife and the man Ghulam Ali. It is also extremely difficult to believe that Gahno alone would have been able to inflict all the injuries which were found upon the bodies of Ghulam Ali and Mst. Zarina and particularly the two contused wounds on Ghulam Ali side by side with inside wounds on Ali first Mst. Zarina would naturally run away and in fact he admits that she attempted to run and it was then that he gave her the hatchet blow, but she was found lying only half afoot away from Ghulam Ali. That he explains by saying that after receiving the injury she got up and came near bhulam Ali and fell down by his side. This story is too poetic to merit credence. Lastly, if he had gone to Allah Bux Chairman of Darhaki straightaway after having killed these two persons, he would have been produced before the police the same night when they arrived on the scene. On the contrary, it is in evidence that he along with three other accused, namely Jaffar, Kadir Bux and Zahro, was produced the next morning by Abdul Rahman,. the nephew of Allah Bux. If Gahno had gone straight and made this confession to Allah Bux or to Abdur Rahman, one would have expected that the prosecution would have produced these witnesses in support of the confession which, as has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, was not made until the 5th day of the occurrence. For the reasons given we reject this confession as not being a true version of the incident.

13. This brings us to the most important part of Mr. Brohi's argument, namely that the evidence of the three eye‑witnesses namely Ali Zaman P. W. 1, Sachal P. W. 4, and Muhammad Hashim P. W. 5, was such which could not by itself be a safe basis 0f conviction. Mr. Brohi contended that apart from his general criticism with regard to the manner in which the occur rence is said to have taken place according to these three witnesses, there was the important fact that though in the first information report definite parts had been assigned to all the accused, the evidence given by them in Court was of a general nature namely that all the accused gave blows with lathi and hatchet to both Ghulam All and Zarina. It was pointed out that admittedly there was no mark of any lathi injury upon the person of Just. Zarina. It was also stressed that two of the three eye‑witnesses were relations of Ghulam Ali. It may, however, be noted that Sachal himself does not admit relationship but only that he belongs to the same caste as Ghulam Ali. With regard to Muhammad Hashim, P. W. 5, it was urged he does not live in that village and the reason he gave that he had come to sell his chickens and had left his horse at the house of the stock purchaser was not a convincing one.

14. We have answered the general criticism of the learned counsel as regards the manner and time of the incident in the earlier part of the judgment. With regard to his criticism of the three witnesses it cannot be said that they are devoid of all force and we have also noted that the learned Sessions Judge has himself said that the evidence of Ali Zaman and Sachal, who are related to Ghulam Ali, would need corroboration We are of the view that merely because these two witnesses were related that by itself would not make their evidence unworthy of credit without material corroboration. Apart from the criticism of the three eye‑witnesses as recorded above there is also the factor that no independent witnesses of the locality came forward to give evidence in support of the prosecution story, may be out of fear and the nature of the offence, and there are as many as five accused persons and also because the learned Sessions Judge himself said that the evidence of the two main eye‑witnesses would require corroboration, we are of the opinion that it would be unsafe to base the conviction of the accused without some material corroboration. We shall now proceed to deal with this aspect of the matter.

15. With regard to the accused Gahno there is the produc tion by him of the blood‑stained hatchet, the presence of blood on his clothes and on his body which was removed by a swab and has been found by the chemical examiner to be human blood. There is also his admission in Court though we do not believe that part of it in which he says that he alone had killed both Ghulam Ali and Zarina or that he had found them in a compromising position. There is thus enough corroboration of the evidence of the eye‑witnesses with regard to the guilt of Gahno.

16. With regard to accused Sobho there is the circumstance that he was found with a blood‑stained hatchet in his hand by the two dead bodies when the Head Constable Muhammad Azim, P. W. 9, reached the scene at 9 p.m. He has stated that he found accused Sobho "standing over the two dead bodies under the shed". 'To the same effect is the evidence of the mashir Muhammad Bux son of Masu, P. W.

8. Sobho was arrested at 9 p.m. and both according to the evidence of the Head Constable and Muhammad Bux and the mashirnama Exh. 15, the clothes of the Sobho as well as his person had blood on them. Tht mashirnama clearly states that there were blood marks on the right foot and fingers and thumb of accused Sobho. This is supported by the evidence of the Head Constable and the mashir Muhammad Bux. According to the evidence of the eye‑witnesses, Sobho had a lathi and had used it. This would find support from the medical evidence that there were two contused wounds on the person of Ghulam Ali. We cannot agree with the contention of the defence that these might have been caused by a fall. Having regard to the location of the two injuries Ghulam Ali would have to fall twice before he got these injuries in consequence thereof. The fact that Sobho was found with a blood‑stained hatchet and not a lathi in his hand when the police arrived is not difficult to explain. It has to be remem bered that the other four accused had disappeared. They had not been found by the Head Constable during the night. They were produced the next day by Abdur Rehman. We have already observed that the bodies were placed together in order to set up the defence of grave and sudden provocation. It is, therefore, easy to understand that somebody should keep a watch over the dead bodies so that they were not set apart and Sobho had to perform this function and it would be most natural for him to get hold of one of the hatchets and hand back his lathi. There is nothing unusual in Sobho being found there when the police arrived because if these people considered this act of killing as a "heroic act", to quote Mr. Brohi, it would be natural for them or for one of them to stand by the side of the trophy. There would be the additional purpose of keeping a guard over the dead bodes for the purpose indicated above. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Muhammad Azim, P. W. 9, and Muhammad Bux, P. W. 8, supported, as they are, by the mashir nama, Exh. 15, that Sobho was found by the two dead bodies with a blood‑stained hatchet and blood on his person and also on his clothes.

17. Amongst the l I articles sent to the chemical examiner there were, apart from the clothes, three hatchets and four match boxes containing blood stained swabs. The opinion of the chemical examiner in respect of these 11 articles is as follows :‑ "Only articles Nos. 1 and 10 are stained with human blood. Blood stains on all the remaining articles are disintegrated so their origin cannot be determined." With regard to the three hatchets, one of them that is article I1 is described in this report as being, that of Zahro accused. That leaves two hatchets, namely items 1. and

6. Human blood has been established upon the hatchet item No.

1. It is not clear from this report or from any other evidence as to from whom this hatchet, item No.. 1, was seized. It could have been therefore either of Gahno or of Sobho because it was from these two persons that the blood‑stained hatchets were seized apart from that of Zahro. Then with regard to the boxes containing blood swabs, these are described at items 5 and

10. Item 5 is described as two match boxes containing blood swabs of Sobho son of Jaffar, whereas item 10 is described as two match boxes containing swabs. It would, therefore, appear that the swabs of item No. 10 which were established to contain human blood were those with which blood had been removed from the body of accused Gahno. We are, therefore left with the evidence of blood‑stained swabs from the body of Sobho, the origin of which blood has not been traced to a human being because the blood had disintegrated. Likewise, the blood upon the clothes both of Gahno and Sobho had disintegrated, We are, however, of the opinion that merely because the origin of the blood on the swabs of Sobho could not be traced as being from a human body, this does not C deprive it entirely of its evidentiary value. It is not merely that these swabs contained blood but this has to be examined in the light of other circumstances firstly, that Sobho was found with a hatchet in his hand by the bodies of the two murdered persons. He was arrested promptly by the police at 9 p.m. Blood was found on his clothes as well as upon his body. This has been clearly described in the mashirnama and is deposed to by the police officer as well as the mashir in their evidence. Sobho gave no explanation of it at all. On the oth6r hand, he denied all this. Mr. Brohi contended that when the blood on the swab o Sobho and those upon his clothes were not traced to human origin by the chemical examiner there can be no evidentiary value whatever of these. We are unable to agree. The report of the chemical examiner shows that these clothes and the swabs and o the hatchets were blood‑stained. It is only that the origin of that blood could not be traced except in the two articles due to its disintegration. It may be that the mere presence of blood upon the clothes of a person may not by itself have any appreciable evidentiary value, but that is not the case here. The presence off blood on the clothes and the body and upon the hatchet found with Sobho have to be read together along with the other circum stances just referred to by us. This question has received the attention of the Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. State Criminal Appeal No. 85/62, decided on 25th March 1963. We would like to reproduce the relevant observations of the learned Chief Justice who had delivered the judgment in the case The judgment of the High Court contains no treatment of one piece of evidence led against the accused. On the 13th September he had shown the police the place where the weapon of offence, namely, his knife, was hidden. This was done in the presence of witnesses. It was extracted from a heap of stones lying by a road side. When it was sent to the chemical examiner, blood was found on it, but owing to disintegration the origin of the blood could not be determined. For this reason, the trial Judge had thought that this piece of evidence was of no use to the prosecution and this, perhaps, explains why the learned Judges in the High Court did not see fit to consider this evidence. In our opinion, the mere fact that the origin of the blood could not be traced scientifically does not deprive the evidence that the knife was blood‑stained of all evidentiary value. Knives do not always bear stains of blood, and there being evidence that the crime weapon was a knife, the fact that the accused person produced a blood stained knife has, by itself, value as evidence, even if it be not as much as it might have been, if the stain could have been proved to be of human blood. Faced with this weighty and clear pronouncement Mr. Brohi cited an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalu v. State (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 258 at 267). The following portion of the judgment was relied upon by the learned counsel "The evidence regarding the recovery of this loin‑cloth is clearly conflicting. But even if it were a good deal stronger than it is, the simple fact that the origin of the blood could not be determined, is by itself sufficient for depriving this recovery of any evidentiary value whatsoever. The recovery was allegedly made within a few hours of the occurrence, and disintegration through natural causes within so short a time was hardly likely to have taken place. Having regard to the conditions of life in villages, there would be nothing extraordi nary about the presence of stains of blood of animals or birds on the clothes of agriculturists. We consider that the proof afforded by the chemical examiner's report in regard to the alleged loin‑cloth of Lalu is completely without effect in regard to the prosecution case against Lalu."

18. It is important to remember the context in which the above observations were made. The Supreme Court in that case was considering whether there was any distinction between the case of the accused Lalu, whose confirmation half been upheld by the High Court and the case of the co‑accused Hakim Ali who had been acquitted by its and against which acquittal the State had preferred an appeal. The learned Judges of the High Court had held that the direct evidence could not be accepted in that case unless there was corro boration by other evidence. Such corroboration in their view was found in the case of Lalu in the recovery of the blood stained loin‑cloth from his person. The Supreme Court in holding that the cases of Lalu and Hakim Ali were not distin guishable and that their participation in the crime was proved beyond reasonable doubt upon the basis of direct evidence and not that in the case of Lalu it had been aided by the recovery of blood‑stained loin‑cloth on his person, the origin of which blood had not been traced as being from human body. It is also important to note that it was noted that the evidence regarding the recovery of the loin‑cloth was clearly conflicting. We do not, therefore, think that the weight of the observation in the case of Sadiq v. State quoted earlier is negatived by the judgment relied upon by Mr. Brohi. We asked Mi. Brohi that if immediately after a murder a man was found running away from the place of the, occurrence with a knife with blood dripping from it but upon this knife being sent to the chemical examiner the blood on it could not be traced to human origin, could it be said that the fact of that person having been found with a blood‑stained knife was devoid of all evidentiary value merely because the origin of the blood had not been traced? Mr. Brohi replied : "But that would be different". Now, why it would be different? Obviously because the fact of the presence of the blood on the knife would be considered in the light of the circum stances which we gave of the hypothetical case, we, are, therefore of the opinion that merely because the origin of the blood is not traced by the chemical examiner., because he says that though blood is there but it has disintegrated, the presence of it upon a weapon of attack or upon the body of the accused cannot be entirely destroyed. What is important is that the circumstance of the case and in which the blood‑stained weapon or the blood stains upon the accused have been found, have to be taken into consideration along with the other circumstances to determine the extent of the value of such a find. The Supreme Court in the case of Hamida Bano v. Ashiq Hussain (1) have pointedly warned against the indiscriminating use of an observation which may have been made by them in a judgment in a criminal case, because that must be understood with reference to the facts of that particular case. Their Lordships were deprecating the manner in which support had been sought by the High Court from two judgments of the Supreme Court in criminal cases. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant passage because it seems to us to be clear that the use of a general observation from a judgment isolated from the facts of the case may well result in miscarriage of justice. This is what their Lordships said :‑ "They have supported this opinion by reference to two recent pronouncements of this Court in the cases of Rahmat v. The State P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 109 and Niaz v. The State P L D (1) P L D 1963 S C 109 1960 S C 387 and the citation indicates that, speaking with due respect, the learned Judges have not borne in mind the principle the consideration of which governs the use of the decision in one case as guidance in another. Everything said by this Court in a judgment, and more particularly, in a judgment in a criminal case, must be understood with great particularity as having been said with reference to the facts of that particular case. Upon the facts of the case before us we are of the opinion upon the circumstances narrated by us that the finding of the blood upon the person and clothes of accused Sobho and his possession of a blood‑stained hatchet clearly provide material corroboration to the ocular evidence against him.

19. With regard to the other three accused, namely, Jaffar, Kadir Bux and Zahro, we have not been able to find any corro boration of the ocular evidence against them. We cannot accept view of the learned Sessions Judge that the mere mention of they names in the first information report which was promptly made constitutes corroboration such as is required by law. We are 1a having regard to all the circumstances of the case, of the opinion: that it would be unsafe to base the conviction of these three persons without some corroboration. This is lacking. We would, therefore, give them the benefit of doubt.

20. In view of our conclusion we maintain the conviction of Gahno and Sobho. In view of our finding with regard to the circumstances in which these two murders had taken place we are clearly of the opinion that this was not a case of grave and sudden provocation. Ghulam Ali and Zarina had not been found together, much less in a compromising position. Both of them had been butchered and the poor woman had been dragged out of the house and laid on the ground and slaughtered. We, therefore, confirm the sentence of death passed on accused Gahno. We also uphold the sentence of transportation for life passed on Sobho. We dismiss their appeals. We allow the appeal of the appellant Jaffar, Kadir Bux and Zahro and acquit them. They shall be set at liberty unless required in connection with any other case. S. Q. Order accordingly.