LIAQAT HUSSAIN and another Versus ULFAT KHAN

MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, C.J .---The above captioned three appeals pertain to one and same matter, therefore, these shall be disposed of through this single judgment.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded ill the F.I.R. is that on 10-9-2004 at 9-00 a.m. P.W.1, Ulfat Khan son of Feroze Din, moved an application before the S.H.O. Police Station Khuiratta, stating therein that on 10-9-2004 at about 7 a.m. he and his nephews Muhammad Katib, Muhammad Rasheed, Muhammad Qadeer sons of Bagh Hussain and a neighbourer Muhammad Akbar son of Fazal Ellahi, caste Jat, residents of Mohra Kanhas Dhamia, were going towards Dhanua from their houses for earning their livelihood, Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed were going ahead, while the complainant, Muhammad Qadeer, and Muhammad Akbar were behind them. Liaqat Hussain son of Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Khan son of Atta Muhammad were sitting, in the way. When Katib and .Muhammad Rasheed reached near them, Muhammad Khan raised a Lalkara to finish them upon which Liaqat Hussain, who was .armed with a pistol, fired a bullet on the chest of Katib. He fell down. His companion Muhammad Rasheed bent down to lift Katib. Liaqat Hussian fired a second bullet upon Muhammad Rasheed, which hit on his right thigh. In the meantime the complainant along with Muhammad Qadeer and Muhammad Akbar rushed towards them. Liaqat Hussein while raising Lalkara and firing ran away along with his father, Muhammad Khan. The blood was oozing from the bodies of Katib and Muhammad Rasheed. When the complainant along with his companions tried to raise the victims, they found Katib dead while, Muhammad Rasheed was alive. They took him towards the hospital but in the way he also succumbed to the injuries. His dead body was lying in the hospital, while the dead body of Katib was lying on the spot. The cause of occurrence was a dispute of affinity on account of which an altercation had already taken place between the complainant and the accused party and a case was registered at Police Station Khuiratta. This occurrence was committed of the abetment of Muhammad Razzaq son of Satter Din, caste Jat, resident of Kanhas and Javed "alias Jaidi son of Muhammad Basher. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant, Muhammad Qadeer, Muhammad Akbar and some other persons.

3. On this complaint, a case was registered against Liaqat Hussain and Muhammad Khan by P.W.22, S.H.O. Police Station Khuiratta. After the registration of case, he proceeded on the spot and prepared the inquest report of deceased Muhammad Katib, Exh.PQ and injury sheet, Exh.PM. He referred the dead body, to hospital for the postmortem. He also prepared the inquest report of Muhammad Rasheed son of Bagh Hussain, Exh.PL and injury sheet, Exh.PK. The dead body of Muhammad Rasheed was also referred to hospital for postmortem. Dr. Muhammad Ishaque, P.W.15, conducted the postmortem on both the dead bodies and handed over the postmortem reports to police. According to Exh.PN (the postmortem report), following injuries were, found on the person of Muhammad Katib:--

"(1) An entry wowed on front of chest just right to midline 11 c.m. below clavicle bone and at level of 4th inter costal space on margins of sternum. It is 0.5 c.m. in diameter.

(2) Ali exit wound on right side of back of chest 17 c.m. below the upper border of sclapula and 8 c.m. lateral to midline. It is 0.9 c. m. in diameters

REMARKS BY MEDICAL OFFICER :

In my opinion death of deceased occurred due to rupture of aorta and excessive bleeding in the chest cavity which contained about 3 litres of blood.

Weapon used is firearm (bullet injury).

Time elapsed -since injury and .death is about less than 10 minutes.

Distance of fire is about 2-1/2 to 3 feet."

According to Exh.PO (the postmortem repot), following injuries were found on the person of Muhammad Rasheed:--

"(1) An entry wound on upper part of right thigh 0.5 c.m. in diameter within averted margins, No tattooing or powder marks present. Wound is 13 c.m. below anterior superior iliac spine.

(2) An exit wound on upper part of left thigh 14 c.m. below the anterior superior iliact spine. It has 0.7 c.m. diameter with averted margins.

(3) Ali entry wound on anteriomedial aspect of left wrist joint 0.5 c.m in diameter.

(4) Exit wound on posteriomedial aspect of same wrist joint 0.9 c.m. in diameter.

REMARKS BY MEDICAL OFFICER:

In my opinion the death of deceased occurred due to excessive bleeding .from femoral and testicular vessels which injured due to bullet that passed through them (entry wound No.(1) exit (2)]

Weapon used is firearm (bullet injury).

Time elapsed since injury to death is about 1-2 hours. Distance of fire is about 3 feets."

4. The S.H.O. recovered 30 bore pistol at the instance of Liaqat Hussain, which was used by the accused in the incident, in presence of Muhammad Jahangir, P.W.B and, Muhammad Ilyas, P.W.9. He prepared recovery memo. Exh.PH. He also recovered bloodstained clothes of Muhammad Katib, which were handed over to him by the doctor after the postmortem in presence of Muhammad Yusuf Shah, P.W.S, and Muhammad Rafique, P.W.7, and he prepared recovery memo. Exh.PC. He also recovered three empties of 30 bore pistol from the place of occurrence on 10-9-2004 in presence of P.W.4, Muhammad Liaqat, and P.W.6, Muhammad Maqsood, and prepared recovery memo. Exh.PE. On the same day he also recovered bloodstained clay from the place, where the dead body of Muhammad Rasheed was lying. He pecked the clay into a box, sealed the parcel and prepared recovery memo. Exh.PF in presence of aforesaid P.Ws. 4 and 6. He also recovered the bloodstained clay from the place where the dead body of Muhammad Katib was tying. He packed the clay, prepared a parcel in presence of P.Ws. 4 and 6 and also prepared recovery memo. Exh.PG. The bloodstained clay rind clothes of both deceased were sent to Chemical Examiner. According to report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PT, these were stained with blood. Three empties of pistol along with the pistol were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Lahore. According to its report the crime empties of 30 bore marked as `C1' to `C3' were fired from 30 bore pistol recovered from Liaqat Hussain.

5. After the completion of investigation, the police found Muharmmad Razzaq son of Satter Din and Javed alias Jaidi as innocent. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted against Liaqat Hussain and Muhammad Khan for facing trial under sections 302, 34 and 341, APC read with section 13 of the. Arms Act before the District Criminal Court Kotli. The said Court after the conclusion of trial awarded the sentence of twice Qisas; for the double murder to Liaqat Hussain, sentence of one month simple imprisonment under section 341, APC and five dears simple imprisonment under section 13 of the Arms Act, while Muhammad Khan was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under section 302/34, APC along with the sentence of one month simple imprisonment under section 341, APC. A reference was made to the Shariat Court for the confirmation of sentences of Qisas. The convict-appellants, Liaqat Hussain and Muhammad Khan, also filed an appeal before the Shariat Court against their conviction. The Shariat Court vide its consolidated judgment dated 10-6-2005 partly accepted the appeal of Muhammad Khan and converted the sentence of life imprisonment into sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment anal maintained the sentence of twice Qisas awarded to Liaqat Hussain. The instant appeals have been filed against the slid judgment of the Shariat Court. Mst. Raj Bi and others have filed appeal for the enhancement of sentence awarded to Muhammad Khan while the other two appeals have been filed by the convict-appellants for setting aside their conviction.

6. Syed Khalil Ahmed Bukhari, the learned counsel for the convict-appellants, argued that all the eye-witnesses and witnesses of recovery are closely related to deceased and each other. While emphasizing on the said point he submitted that the complainant was real uncle of deceased Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed whereas Muhammad Qadeer was their real brother and Muhammad Akbar was their brother-in-law. Moreover the witnesses of recovery memo. were also closely related to deceased and with each other. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on their evidence and the lower Courts have wrongly placed reliance on such interested witnesses and awarded the sentence of twice Qisas to Liaqat Hussain. The learned counsel further submitted that Ulfat Khan P.W.1, was not a reliable witness as, according to him, the F.I.R, was lodged at about 11 a.m. while according to prosecution the same was lodged at 9 a.m. The learned counsel further submitted that Ulfat Khan stated before the Court that Liaqat Hussain fired two shots. whereas Muhammad Qadeer, P.W.2, and Muhammad Akbar, P.W.3, have stated that Liaqat Hussain fired three bullets. Thus the version of eye-witnesses is inconsistent and is not trustworthy. The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses of recovery do not belong to locality while the witnesses from locality were available so violation of section 103, Cr. P. C. has been committed. The learned counsel further submitted that there are serious contradictions among the evidence of eye-witnesses and there is no unison among them, therefore, the lower Courts have wrongly awarded the sentence of Qisas. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that no overt act was attributed to Muhammad Khan. Only Lalkara was attributed to him. Therefore, both the lower courts have erred in awarding sentence to Muhammad Khan. The learned counsel submitted that the lower Courts hake ignored the fact that in our society if one member of a family commits a crime, then whole of the family members are dragged into the .case. Muhammad Khan is an old man, who has been involved in the litigation without any reason. There is no independent evidence against him and the evidence of prosecution does not inspire confidence to the extent of Muhammad Khan at all. Therefore the sentence awarded to him may be set aside.

7. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the convict-appellants, the learned counsel for the complainant, Ch. Ali Muhammad, argued that Liaqat Hussain committed the murder of two young men with preplanning. He came along with a pistol and waylaid with his father. When Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed reached near him, he immediately opened fire at the chest of Muhammad Katib who fell down. Then he fired second bullet on Muhammad Rasheed and committed slay of two young men. The occurrence was witnessed by Ulfat Khan., Muhammad Qadeer and Muhammad Akbar. Their evidence inspires confidence. There are no major contradictions among them. There is complete concordance among the statements of eye-witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that three empties were recovered from the place of occurrence and the pistol was recovered from Liaqat Hussain. The pistol and the empties recovered from the place of occurrence were sent to Firearm Expert, who reported that these empties were fired from the same pistol. Moreover the story also finds corroboration from the postmortem report. The prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt. The sentence of twice Qisas to Liaqat Hussain along with other sentences was rightly awarded. He submitted that the Shariat Court has wrongly converted the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Muhammad Khan into 10 years' rigorous imprisonment without any reasonable justification. According to him Muhammad Khan was the actual mischief-monger who raised Lalkara and instigated Liaqat Hussain to fire bullets. Therefore he was vicariously liable for the offence of murder.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the relevant record and have given our utmost muse to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

9. In the instant case Ulfat Khan, Muhammad Qadeer and Muhammad Akbar were the eye-witnesses.

10. Ulfat Khan appeared as a witness before the Court on 2-11-2004 and he deposed that he knew the persons present before the Court. The occurrence took place on 10-9-2004 at 7-00 a.m. They were live persons including Muhammad Katib, Muhammad Rasheed, Muhammad Qadeer and Muhammad Akbar. They were going to Dhanna. Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed were walking ahead. Liaqat Hussain and his father Muhammad Khan were sitting in the way. When Katib reached near them, Muhammad Khan raised Lalkara to finish them upon which Liaqat Hussain fired a bullet with 30 bore pistol on the chest of Katib, who fell down. Muhammad Rasheed tried to lift Katib but Liaqat Hussian fired second bullet upon Muhammad Rasheed which hit on his right thigh. They rushed towards them and found Katib dead. Rasheed was alive. They picked him up; put kiln in a jeep and sent to the hospital; while he remained near the dead body of Katib and did not go to hospital. The police received the information and came on the place of occurrence. He went to police station and moved an application, Exh.PA, and fixed his thumb impression on the application as Exh.PA/1. The police registered a case; Exh.PB, which contains his thumb impression Exh.PB/1. Due to dispute of affinity the accused committed the slay. The accused committed murder with the connivance of Javed son of Muhammad Bashir and Razzaq.

11. Muhammad Qadeer appeared as a witness on 3-11-2004 before the trial Court, who deposed that he personally knows the accused persons Muhammad Khan and Liaqat Hussain, who are father and son. The accused persons murdered his two brothers. The occurrence took place on 10-9-2004 at 7-00 a.m. He along with his brothers Katib, Rasheed, uncle Ulfat and Muhammad Akbar was going to Dhanna for earning livelihood. Both the accused were sitting in the way. As soon as Katib and Rasheed reached in front of them, the accused Muhammad Khan raised Lalkara to finish them upon which Liaqat fired a bullet from 30 bore pistol on Katib. The fire hit on the chest of Katib. Katib fell down. Brother Rasheed bent down to pick him up. Liaqat fired a second bullet on Rasheed which hit on his right thigh. He rushed and reached on the spot, then Liaqat tired third bullet which could not hit any one, after which both the accused rail away from the place of occurrence. He along with his uncle Ulfat and Lala Akbar came near the injured persons. Katibwas dead while Rasheed was alive in injured condition. Rasheed was sent to hospital through a Jeep but in the way he succumbed to the injuries. This occurrence was also witnesses by uncle Ulfat and Lala Akbar. The accused committed this occurrence with the connivance of Razzaq and Jaidi.

12. Muhammad Akbar appeared as a witness on 4-11-2004. He stated that the, accused were known to him. Their names are Liaqat Hussain and Muhammad Khan and they are father and son. On 10-9-2004 he was going on his work. The accused Liaqat anal Muhammad Khan were sitting in the way. They stood up. Muhammad Khan raised Lalkara to Finish them upon which Liaqat Tired bullet from .3b bore pistol which hit on the chest of Katib, who feel down. Rasheed was trying to pick him up. Liaqat fired second bullet on Rasheed which hit on his right thigh, Rasheed also fell down. Liaqat fired third bullet which could not hit any one after which both the accused ran away. Katib died on the spot while Rasheed was alive, who was seat to hospital through a Jeep. He did not accompany Rasheed. He and Ulfat remained with the dead body of Katib. Later on they came to know that Rasheed had also died. The cause of occurrence was a dispute of affinity.

13. A perusal of the statements of aforesaid witnesses shows that the complainant, his nephews Muhammad Katib, Muhammad Rasheed and Muhammad Qadeer, sons of Bagh Hussain, and a neighbour, Muhammad Akbar son of Fazal Ellahi, were going towards Dhanna for earning their livelihood. Liaqat Hussain and Muhammad Khan were sitting in the way. When Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed reached near them, Muhammad Khan raised Lalkara to finish them upon which Liaqat Hussain fired a bullet directly on the chest of Muhammad Katib which is the most vital part of body and it shows the basic intention of Liaqat, Hussain to commit murder. He came at the place of occurrence armed with a pistol. When Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed reached near him, then he opened firing. He fired first bullet on the chest of Muhammad Katib. It would not be out of place to mention here that when after sustaining injury Muhammad Katib fell down, then Muhammad Rasheed tried to lift him and at that time there was no resistance from Muhammad Rasheed or any other but despite this without any justification Liaqat Hussain fired a second bullet on Muhammad Rasheed in order to murder him as well. He fired bullet on his right thigh which is a vital part of the body. All these acts of Liaqat Hussain reveal that he had made up his mind to commit the murder of both Muhammad Katib and Muhammad Rasheed. Muhammad Katib died on the spot while Muhammad Rasheed succumbed to the injuries while he was on the way to hospital.

14. There is complete unison among the three eye-witnesses regarding the time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence. According to them, Liaqat Hussain fired a bullet on the chest of Muhammad Katib who fell-down and died but despite this, he could not quench his thirst and fired a second bullet on Muhammad Rasheed who had bent down to lift Muhammad Katib. The version narrated by the aforesaid three witnesses finds corroboration from the Postmortem reports. According to postmortem report, Muhammad Katib sustained injury on the front of chest and exit would on the right side of back of chest. The story narrated by the witnesses regarding the firing on the chest of Katib finds lull corroboration from the postmortem report. Similarly the story narrated by the witnesses regarding Muhammad Rasheed that he sustained injury on the right thigh also finds corroboration from the postmortem report and the statement of Dr. Muhammad Ishaque, who was an independent witness. There is complete agreement among the witnesses regarding their presence at the time of occurrence. There is no contradiction among them regarding presence of any witness. It is also pertinent. to note' that them is also complete .concordance among them regarding the manner of firing of bullets by Liaqat Hussain as all of the witnesses stated that the first bullet was fired by Liaqat Hussain on the chest of Muhammad Katib and the second bullet was fired by him on the right thigh of Muhammad Rasheed. We have gone through the evidence minutely and did not find any contradiction among the aforesaid three witnesses on the aforesaid point. Even the learned counsel for the convict-appellants was confronted to explain whether there is any contradiction among the three eye-witnesses on the aforesaid point but he could not point out any such contradiction.

15. It is well-settled principle of law that where ocular testimony is reliable and satisfactory then the conviction can be recorded merely on such evidence alone without any further corroboration. This view finds support from a case reported as Muhammad Hanif v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 225 wherein it has been held as follows:--

"???.If the Courts come to the conclusion that the witness is a natural witness then in the case of testimony of such a witness, law does not make incumbent upon the Courts to ask for corroboration before relying on the testimony of such a witness. Evidence of such a witness, however, is required to be scrutinized with great care and caution in order to eliminate any possibility of doubt."

The aforesaid report clearly contains that if the Court reaches on the conclusion that the witness is a natural witness then it has not to seek any further corroboration for relying on the testimony of such witness but the evidence of such witness is required to be scrutinized with great care and caution in order Co eliminate any possibility of doubt.

16. Although P.W. Muhammad Akbar, during the cross-examination stated that it is correct that Liaqat Hussain had lodged a case against them and in that case he, Ulfat and Qadeer were accused persons but that case was false. On the basis of aforesaid statement of Muhammad Akbar, it could be said that the eye-witnesses were not having good relations with the convict-appellants. There was some acrimony between them and the convict-appellants. Now the question emerges that while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses what measures should be taken by the court'? All which is necessary is that the evidence of such witnesses should be considered very carefully and it should be scrutinized with utmost care and .caution. If after such scrutiny, the testimony of such witnesses is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may be sufficient in the circumstances of a particular case to base conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down yet in most of the cases while evaluating the evidence of an inimical, interested or partisan witness, the Court has to be more cautious and it should focus its attention on the question whether the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence at the lime was probable, If so, then whether substratum of story narrated by the witnesses; being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human event, the surrounding circumstances anti inherent probability of the case, is such which will carry conviction with the prudent person? If the answer is in affirmative and the evidence of witnesses appears to the Court to be almost flawless and free from suspicion, it may accept such evidence.

17. In the instant case, .the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses inspires confidence and is free from suspicion and it finds corroboration from the postmortem report, evidence of doctor, recovery of pistol, empties and from the report of Fire-arms expert. Therefore it could safely be said that the evidence of three eye-witnesses along with the aforesaid corroborative evidence is sufficient for recording conviction. As Par the substitution of accused in a criminal case is concerned it is a very rare .phenomenon and one who alleges substitution must lay foundation for the same. If at all the complainant party was criminal or some of the eye-witnesses were having some enmity even then it was the basic duty of the defence to lay foundation for proving substitution of accused persons, but there is nothing such like on the record.

8. It is well-settled principle of appreciation of evidence that mere fact of witnesses being related inter se to deceased is not sufficient to discard their testimony outrightly if such witnesses otherwise found to be witnesses of truth. The witnesses found to be interested and inimical in sense of having a motive to falsely implicate innocent person from other party must be scrutinized very carefully and cautiously by the Court in order to eliminate the chances of false implication. This view finds support from a case reported as Mehtab Khan v. the State PLD 1979 SC(AJ&K) 23 which reads as under:--

"After studying these authorities and. considering the arguments, we have come to the conclusion that:--

(a) The mere fact that the witnesses are related inter se or related to the deceased is not sufficient to discredit outright their testimony if otherwise such witnesses are found to be witnesses of truth.

(b) But where the witnesses are found to have been interested and inimical in the sense that they have a motive to implicate falsely the innocent persons from other party, the Court should be on guard and cautiously look for some supporting circumstance with a view to eliminating the chances of false implication especially in cases where there is a background of blood-feuds between the parties or a chain reaction of retaliatory murders. "

19. In the instant case, as stated in the earlier part of this judgment, the evidence of all the three witnesses inspires confidence. Moreover it finds full support from postmortem report. Although these witnesses are related to deceased but at the same time there is nothing on the record on the basis of which. it could be said that they were so much inimical towards the accused persons and their enmity was of such a nature that the- complainant had .falsely .implicated .them for the commission of offence of double murder: Moreover there are sufficient supporting circumstances anal evidence in the shape of (i) postmortem report, (ii) recovery of empties, (iii) recovery of pistol and' (iv) report of Fire-arm Expert which eliminate the chances of .false implication. There is no background of blood feuds between the parties or a chain of reaction of retaliatory murders.

20. The learned counsel for the convict-appellants pointed out some minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses but let us make it clear that such minor contradictions, which do not lead to any doubt or on the basis of which no inference can be drawn regarding innocence of accused, are purposeless. Existence of such minor contradictions is quite natural.

21. Now the next question emerges whether the evidence of eye-witnesses is corroborated by ally evidence. As tar as the corroboration is concerned, it does not mean that the corroboration should be from an independent witness but anything in the circumstances, which tends to satisfy the Court that each interested witness has spoken truth. The corroboration need not necessarily be of the same probative force. The corroboration can be from any circumstance satisfying the Court. This view finds support from above referred case of Mehtab Khan.

22. In the instant case, as stated above, the story narrated by the eye-witnesses finds full corroboration from the postmortem reports. It would also not be out of place to mention here that three empties were recovered from the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence and later on the pistol was recovered at the instance of Liaqat Hussain, convict-appellant. The pistol and empties were sent to Firearm expert, who has reported that these empties were fired from the same 30 bore pistol. It is a strong corroborative evidence. The prosecution has proved that the bullets were fired from that pistol which was recovered at the instance of Liaqat Hussain. The empties recovered from the place of occurrence were fired from this pistol. It is also pertinent to note that as far the recovery of pistol at the instance of Liaqat Hussain is concerned, the pistol was recovered in presence of Muhammad Jahangir and Muhammad Ilyas, P.Ws.8 and 9. We have gone through the statements of both the witnesses of recovery very minutely and did not find any contradiction between them regarding the time of recovery, place of recovery and manner of recovery. Even no such cross-examination was conducted by the defence. Even on one witness of recovery, no question was, put regarding recovery of pistol. Moreover, the Investigating Officer who recovered the pistol also appeared before the court and deposed as such but there is no contradiction between two witnesses of recovery and the Investigating Officer who recovered .the pistol. Therefore, it was proved beyond any doubt that the pistol was recovered at the instance of Liaqat Hussian and the empties, recovered from the place of occurrence were fired from this pistol as reported. by Forensic Science Laboratory.

23. As far the contention of the learned counsel for the convict-appellants is concerned that the witnesses were closely related to deceased therefore no reliance could be placed on them, it has no substance for the reasons that it is well-settled principle of law that mere relationship of witnesses is no ground for discarding the evidence unless and until enmity with the accused person is established. As far the witnesses of recovery memo. of pistol and empties are concerned, it was objected by the learned counsel for the convict-appellants that they were not respectable persons of-the locality. Therefore no reliance could be placed on them statements and violation of section 103, Cr.P.C . has , been committed by the trial Court. Such like proposition arose before the Supreme Court of AJ&K in a case titled Abdul Rashid and others v. Abdul Ghaffar and others 2001 PCr.LJ 524 wherein it was observed as under:--

"The reasoning-given by the Shariat Court that the recoveries of empties and gun were not witnessed by independent witnesses of the locality and as such the same cannot be considered against the accused-respondent is also not correct. It has. been held in a number of cases that strict compliance of section 103, Cr.P.C. is not necessary in case of recoveries or seizure memos made by the police. Similarly mere relationship of the witnesses of the recovery memos is not a ground to reject their testimony dubbing the same as doubtful."

24. It is to be noted that the bloodstained clay and bloodstained clothes of both the deceased were also recovered and sent to the Chemical Examiner, according to whose report these articles were stained with blood. It is also a corroboration of the fact that the clothes, which were recovered from the bodies of deceased and the clay where the dead bodies were lying were stained with blood.

25. It will be useful to mention here that there is another circumstance corroborating the presence of convict-appellants and their Firing at the place of occurrence. In this respect Muhammad Razzaq and Ahmed Khan appeared before the court and stated that they knew the accused persons whose names were Muhammad Khan and Liaqat Hussain. They committed the murder of Katib and Rasheed. The occurrence took place at 7-00 a.m. on 10-9-2004. Muhammad Razzaq was present in the house of Mehboob son of Allah Ditta. He heard the sound of firing and came out. He saw Katib and Rasheed lying in the way and the accused Liaqat and Muhammad Khan were running away. Liaqat Hussain was firing. Similarly Ahmed Khan also stated as such. In this way both Muhammad Razzaq and Ahmed Khan also saw the accused persons running away and firing just after the occurrence and they also saw Katib and Rasheed in injured condition. Their statements also corroborate the fact that the appellant Liaqat Hussain was firing with a pistol at the place of occurrence and running away with Muhammad Khan. While the dead body of Muhammad Katib and injured Muhammad Rasheed were lying in the way.

26. The case of prosecution is supported by evidence of three eye-witnesses and as stated above their statements find full corroboration from the postmortem reports, recovery of pistol, empties, bloodstained clay and bloodstained clothes. The prosecution has therefore proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against Liaqat Hussain.

27. In the instant case these are three eye-witnesses who have seen the occurrence. As stated above, their evidence finds sufficient corroboration from the other evidence mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. It is therefore a clear case of Qisas because Allah the Almighty ordained in Holy Qur'an in Sura Al-Baqara, Paara 2, Verse 178, as udder:--

The aforesaid verse of Holy Qur"an clearly conveys that Allah the Almighty has ordained that the sentence of Qisas is obligatory. It is the basic duty of every Muslim to obey the orders of Allah the Almighty. It would not be out of place to mention here that in Verse 179 of aforesaid Sura, Allah the Almighty has said as under:--

While interpreting the aforesaid Verse in Tafhim-ul-Qur'an Vol. I, Syed Abul-Ala-Modoodi, an eminent scholar slated as under:--

It is also pertinent to note that whenever the sentence of Qisas will be awarded to-any offender, then it shall also create a deterrent in the society due to which no other person shall dare to commit the offence of murder. If in any case, while taking the lenient view, the sentence of Qisas is not enforced, then the peace and tranquility of society shall be jeoperdised and it shall be enjoinder of debacle of peaceful and harmonious atmosphere. In the instant case, as said earlier, the trial Court and the Shariat Court have rightly awarded the sentence of twice Qisas along with other sentences for the murder of two young men. The appeal filed by Liaqat Hussian has therefore no substance and it is hereby dismissed.

28. As far the case of Muhammad Khan is concerned, according to entire evidence of prosecution, only the allegation of Lalkara is attributed to him. He was not armed with any kind of weapon. There is nothing on the record which could show that he was aware of the fact that his son Liaqat Hussain was armed with a pistol. It also could not be ignored that the society, in which we are living if one member of a family commits a crime, then whole of the family members are dragged into the ease. This view finds support from a case reported as Hidayat Ullah and others v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1067 wherein it has been held as follows:--

"------However, no specific part was attributed to Sh. Hidayat Ullah who allegedly carried a revolver but did riot use it. The prosecution attributed him only a proverbial Lalkara. In the safe administration of criminal justice, we consider it fit to give him benefit of doubt and acquit him."

In the instant case Muhammad Khan is an old man and only the allegation of Lalkara is attributed to him. There is nothing on the record on the basis of which it could be said that any overt act was attributed to him. It would not be expedient to award him punishment of life imprisonment or 10 years rigorous imprisonment merely on the basis of Lalkara. In a case reported as Muhammad Latif and 4 others v. The State 1976. PCr.LJ 1151 one. Murad, appellant therein, was an old man of 71 years and was attributed only a usual Lalkara. In" the circumstances of the case, the Court felt persuaded to give him benefit of doubt as a matter of abundant caution and acquitted him. The aforesaid view also finds support from another case titled Muhammad Shafi and another v. The State 1970 PCr.LJ. 868 wherein it has been observed as under:--

"The question now left is whether Abdul Hamid accused was guilty of the offence' charged. The only part attributed to him, was the proverbial Lalkara. If he was to participate in the assault he would not have gone there empty-handed. We know that such allegations, are frequently made to implicate innocent persons. Assuming that Abdul Hamid had a direct motive to kill the deceased for having got his allotment cancelled, it was hardly necessary for an elderly man like him to personally assault him or even to be present at the relevant time when his nephew was prepared to carry out his behest. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not consider it safe to convict him merely on the basis of a Lalkara and would rather acquit as a matter of abundant caution. His appeal is accordingly accepted. He may, therefore, be released from jail if not required in any other case."

29. Thy nub of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by Liaqat Hussain is hereby dismissed and the sentence awarded to him by the lower Courts is maintained. The appeal filed by Muhammad Khan is accepted and the sentence awarded to him by the lower Courts is hereby set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not involved in any other case or offence. Thee appeal filed by Mst. Raj' Bi and others for the enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Khan is dismissed."

N.H.Q./12/SC(AJK) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.