DOONGIRIO Versus THE STATE A.Q. Halepota , M.A.I. Qarni

1. The appellants were tried under sections 302, 307,452,34 P.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, who has convicted and sentenced them under section 302/34 P.P.C. to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default to suffer R.I. for six months more, under section 307/34 PPC R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.3,000, in default of payment to suffer R.I. for six months more, and under section 452/34, P.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 each, in default to suffer R.I. for three months more. The appellants were further directed to pay Rs.10,000 each as compensation to the heirs of the deceased as envisaged by section 544‑A Cr.P.C‑. In default of payment of compensation they were to suffer R.I. for six months more. The sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 23‑5‑1982 one Molio Bhil lodged a report at police station Nauabad, District Sanghar, inter alia alleging therein that he was hari of Din Mohammad Wassan and was residing in a thatched house built in the land of his Zamindar. He, his wife Shrimati Howa, daughter Shrimati Looni aged 13 years, two sons namely Chimon and Girdhari were residing together. In the night his sons used to sleep in the thatched shade which was meant for cattle, while he slept inside the room, his wife and daughter slept on a cot in the courtyard. He had given the hand of his daughter from her childhood to Tamachi Bhil of village Hayat Hingoro in lieu of Shrimati Khatoon who was married with his son Chimin allas Chamon. The marriage of Shrimati Khatoon, sister of Tamachi, was solemnized with his son Chimon, and she was residing with her husband. That his son‑in‑law Tamachi and Doongro s/o Devo Bhil had approached him twice or thrice for allowing his daughter Shrimati Looni to go with them but he told them that his daughter was still minor and when she will become major he will hand her over to him, on which there was exchange of hot words between them and the accused had gone away annoyed. About a week before the incident Tamachi s/o Rahoo, Doongro s/o Devo Bhil, and Dhaloo s/o Rahoo Bhil brother of Tamachi came to his house and asked him to leave Shrimati Looni and they would take her along with them, on which he told them to wait for 5‑6 months till she becomes major and then he would give her hand to them, on which they exchanged hot words with him. On hearing commotion his son Chimon, Girdhari, Saboo, Lakho and other villagers remonstrated the accused saying that the girl was still minor and that they should not fight with each other. The Nikah had been solemnized according to the religion and as soon as she becomes major, they could take her away. On this Tamachi observed that his father‑in‑law was becoming unjust and that he will give her hand to some one else, and will not hand over the girl to him. He further observed that he was .a man of "Ghairat" therefore, he would see him in few days. Thereafter Tamachi took his sister Shrimati Khatoon forcibly and went away to his village along with Dhaloo and Doongro. On the preceding night, as usual, he was sleeping inside the room, his wife Shrimati Hawa and daughter Shrimati Looni were sleeping on the same cot in the courtyard of the house, while his sons were sleeping at the cattle pen. After about mid night he heard cries of "murder murder" of his wife arid daughter suddenly. He immediately picked up lantern which was burning in the room and came out in the courtyard. His sons also came there after hearing cries. They saw Tamachi and Doongro both armed with hatchets, who were causing hatchet blows to his daughter Shrimati Looni and his wife Shrimati Hawa. They challenged the accused not to kill but the accused replied that if they would go near them it will not be better for. them. In the meantime Saboo, Lakho and other villagers came there. They also identified Tamachi and Doongro in the light of the lantern. The accused then ran away. They found that the ladies had number of injuries on their persons and were bleeding profusely. It was further alleged that Tamachi the husband of his daughter had caused hatchet blows to her, while Doongro caused sharp side hatchet injuries to his wife Shrimati Hawa. Both the injured had gone in coma. Thereafter the complainant went and narrated the facts to his Zamindar Din Mohammad Wassan, who advised him to go and lodge report at police station. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station and lodged his report.

3. The above report was recorded by S.H.O. Abdul Ghafoor and the same has been produced as Ex.7. After recording the F.I.R., S.H.O. proceeded to the place of wardat which was pointed out to him by the complainant. He prepared mashirnama of wardat in presence of mashir Noor Ahmad and Mitho. He secured blood‑stained earth from the wardat and sealed the same. He' also found Shrimati Looni and Hawa lying injured on the cots at the vardat. The mashirnama of vardat has been produced as Ex.15. He also prepared mashirnama of injuries on the person of Shrimati Hawa and Shrimati Looni in presence of the same mashirs, and the mashirnama has been produced as Ex.l6. He then referred the injured ladies to Medical Officer, Sanghar, through H.C. Ali Asghar for treatment and certificate. Shrimati Looni died on the way while she was being taken to hospital. He proceeded to Civil Hospital, Sanghar and prepared inquest report of the dead body of Shrimati Looni in presence of mashirs Din Mohammad and Mitho. The inquest report has been produced as Ex.38. He also prepared mashirnama of dead body which has been produced as Ex.17. He thereafter converted the offence from section 307, P.P.C, into one under section 302, PPC. He then handed over the dead body to P.C. Soofan Shah for post‑mortem and report. He then examined P.Ws Chiman, Girdhari and Saboo in the hospital. On 17‑6‑1982 he arrested accused Doongro in presence of mashirs Soomar and Photo, and prepared such mashirnama which has been produced as Fx.33. On 22‑6‑1982 after interrogation accused led him and mashirs Imam Ali and Allah Jurio to his house situated in village of Kiryas, took out hatchet, Shalwar and shirt from the top of roof of his Chaubra (thatched hot), and produced the same before him. The hatchet appeared to be washed but contained blood stains thereon. The Shalwar and shirt also appeared to have been washed. He sealed the hatchet and clothes and prepared such mashirnama. The mashirnama has been produced as Ex.19. On 22‑6‑1982 he examined Shrimati Hawa. On 24‑6‑1982 he produced P.Ws. Chimon, Girdhari and Saboo before Honorary Magistrate, Sanghar, and got their statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. He had sent the incriminating articles to the Chemical Analyser for examination, and the report has been produced as Ex.41. He then challaned accused Doongro while Tamachi was shown as absconder. On 27‑11‑1982 appellant Tamachi was arrested by Umed Ali Samejo ASI Nauabad.

4. A formal charge was framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. At the trial prosecution examined complainant Molio P.W.1, Shrimati Hawa injured P.W.2, Girdhari P.W.3 Dr. Najamuddin P.W.4, Noor Ahmad mashir P.W.5, Imam Ali mashir P.W.6, Chimio P.W.7, Saboo P.W.8, Din Mohammad P.W.9, Allah Jurio P.W.10, Saboo P.W.11, Dr. Mohammad Aslam P.W.12, Mohammad Soomar P.W.13, Mohammad Ashraf Tapedar P.W.14, Manoo P.W.15, Abdul Ghafoor 1.0. P.W.16, Syed Soofan Shah P.W.17 and Umed Ali ASI P.W.18.

6. The complainant Molio has supported the contents of his F.I.R. in Court, and further deposed in cross examination that they have only two houses of their family. The Punjabis and Machhis do not reside in their village. His wife Mst. Hawa had step‑son namely Tiko from her earlier husband. She had also step‑daughter namely Surma. The step‑son of his wife was not living with them at the time of incident. He denied a suggestion that Tiko was not happy over the marriage of Shrimati Looni with Tamachi and he wanted that she should be married with Poonio. He denied a suggestion that on the night of incident his step‑son was present in their house as guest. He has also denied a suggestion that Tiko along with Poonio had come on that night to take away Shrimati Looni and they were the real culprits. The village of Din Mohammad Wassan was at a distance of 4 acres from their house. He admitted a suggestion that Din Mohammad Wassan had gone alongwith him to the police station and he had narrated the whole story to the S. H .0. at the police station. He has admitted that P.Ws Lako and Saboo were related to him and P.W. Lakho was his cousin. He denied a suggestion that he did not see the accused, and before he arrived at the scene of offence the accused had already run away. He denied a suggestion that he lodged the report against the accused in order to save his step‑son Tiko. He has admitted that it was a dark night but he was holding a lantern. He admitted that he did not lodge report at police station when his daughter‑in‑law was taken away forcibly from his house during the day time.

7. Shrimati Hawa P.W.2 has deposed that incident took place about one and half years back. The incident took place at about mid night. She and her daughter Shrimati Looni were sleeping in the courtyard of their house while her husband was sleeping inside the room. Her sons were sleeping at some distance from them. Accused Doongro and Tamachi came and tried to take away her daughter Shrimati Looni earlier but they were told that she was too young and that she will be sent after two months. They again came and asked for Shrimati Looni and on their refusal they forcibly took away her daughter‑in‑law. On the night of incident accused Tamachi came and tried to take way Shrimati Looni whereupon she (witness) raised cries, on which accused Tamachi gave hatchet blow to Shrimati Looni, and Doongrio gave blow to her. On receipt of injury she fell down and went unconscious, and did not know what happened thereafter. On her cries her husband came out along with lantern. She remained in hospital for about three months. She did not remember whether police had recorded her statement or not. In cross‑examination she has deposed that it was correct that she was not in senses for about three months. She denied a suggestion that she received hatchet blow suddenly and thereafter raised cries. She admitted that Tiko and Surma are her son and daughter from her earlier husband. She denied a suggestion that her son Tiko was unhappy over the marriage of her daughter Shrimati Looni. She denied a suggestion that she did not identify the accused at the time of incident. She also denied a suggestion that her husband was sleeping in a shop.

8. Girdhari P.W.3 has deposed that on the night of incident he and his brother were sleeping near the cattle. His father was sleeping in the room of his house. His mother and sister were sleeping together in the courtyard of the house. They woke up on the cries of their mother and sister. They rushed towards their house from where they had heard cries. His father also came out of the room having lantern in his hand. He and his brother gave Hakkals to accused Tamachi and Doongrio who were trying to take away their sister Shrimati Looni on which they gave hatchet blows to their sister and mother. Thereafter they ran away. In cross‑examination he has denied a suggestion that his statement was recorded by police after 10‑I1 days of the incident. According to him his statement was recorded on the next day of the incident. They had no enmity with accused Doongrio prior to the incident. He denied a suggestion that his mother was still not in proper senses right from the day of incident. He denied a suggestion that he and his step‑brother Tiko had committed house breaking in the house of accused Doongrio 5‑6 months prior to the incident. According to him the night of 'incident was dark. He denied a suggestion that he had not seen the incident with his own eyes. He has denied a suggestion that his step‑brother was unhappy over the marriage of his sister Looni with Tamachi.

9. The evidence of P.W. Chimon is more or less similar to that of P.W. Girdhari. He has further deposed in cross‑examination that he did not state before the Magistrate or police that accused had tried to take away his sister Looni at the time of incident because he had forgotten to state so. He admitted a suggestion that he had stated before the Magistrate that he saw that the accused were giving blows to Looni and his mother who were sleeping on the cot. That there are about 6/7 houses within their hedge. He denied a suggestion that it was Poonio who had given blows to the two ladies. The night of incident was dark. The police had come at the vardat at 5.00 a.m. Shrimati Looni had already died. He resides in village Din Mohammad Wassan which consists of about 30/40 houses. There is Liskani village at a distance of one Athas from his village. There are about 30/40 houses in that village. He has further deposed that his father was not doing any work and remains in the house. That they had seen the incident for about a minute during which the blows were given by the accused to his sister and mother. Din Mohammad Wassan, Hot Wassan, Dhano Wasan had also come at the place of wardat.

10. Saboo P.W.8 has deposed that the incident took place at mid night. He was sleeping in his house. He woke up on the cries of Molio and rushed to the spot. He saw Chimio, Molio, Girdhari and Lakho present there. Accused Tamachi gave a hatchet blow to Shrimati Looni while Boongrio gave hatchet blows to Shrimati Hawa. They threatened the witnesses not to come near. The accused then ran away after causing injuries to Looni and Hawa. He had recognized the accused because lantern was burning there. Shrimati Looni was lying on the cot. Shrimati Looni died before sunrise. Prior to the incident accused and the parents of Shrimati Looni had fought with each other twice or thrice as Tamachi wanted to take away his wife Looni to his house but her parents were not prepared to send her as she was under age, and, therefore, accused were annoyed and committed this crime. He has stated in cross‑examination that the name of his father is Mevo and not Khakoo. The other persons of the village had come in the morning. Shrimati Looni had gone to the house of her husband twice or thrice after her marriage. Her mother had accompanied her. Complainant Molio is his brother‑in‑law. As soon as he arrived accused ran away after giving blows. He saw the accused at the distance of 10 paces. The accused had already given blows to the injured and deceased. He only saw them running away. He tried to chase them out but he was threatened not to come near. Cattle pen is situated on the back side of house of Molio.

11. Din Mohammad P.W.9 has deposed that he knows Chimio, Girdhari, Saboo and Lakho. They are his haris. Incident took place about one and half years back. At the time of incident he was sleeping in his house, when one Molio came to him at 12 or 1.00 mid night and informed him that Doongrio and Tamachi had killed his daughter Looni and had caused injuries to Shrimati Hawa. He then went to the place of vardat and saw Shrimati Looni in a pool of blood but she was alive. He also found Shrimati Hawa present with injuries and was crying. He then went along with the complainant to police station to lodge report. According to him, he understood that this incident took place on account of some "Sanga‑Bandi" between the parties. Police had recorded his statement. In cross‑examination he has deposed that he knew the accused prior to the incident. He did not remember the name of father of accused Doongrio though he knew him. He did not know the name of father of Sahiboo. According to him Shrimati Looni and Hawa were lying on the ground. There were about 4/5 cots lying in the courtyard. The cots were lying at the distance of 4‑5 paces from the door of their house. The other villagers were also present. There was another village of Liskanis near his village.

12. Dr. Najamuddin P.W.4 has deposed that on 23‑5‑1982 he was posted as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Sanghar. On that date Shrimati Hawa wife of Molio injured was brought before him by H.C. Ali Asghar of P.S. Nauabad, for examination, treatment, and report. lie examined her and found the following injury on her person:‑--

(1) Incised wound 17 c.m. x 3 c.m. x bone deep on lateral aspect of left parieto occipital region, extending from the upper limit of left ear to the occipital region. Parietal bone of left side was fractured.

13. According to him the injury was grievous in nature and was caused by a sharp‑cutting weapon such as hatchet. The duration of injury was about 3 to 4 hours at the time of examination. He has produced the medical certificate as Ex.11. The injured was admitted as indoor patient in the hospital. In cross‑examination he has deposed that he had examined the injured at 7.00 a.m. He admitted a suggestion that such an injury could have been caused to the injured in the lying position.

14. Dr. Mohammad Aslam P.W.12 has deposed that on 23‑5‑1982, he was posted as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital; Sanghar. On that day he received a dead body of Shrimati Looni from P.S. Nauabad, through P.C. Soofan Shah for post‑mortem examination and report, ‑at about 11.00 a.m. He started post‑mortem on the dead body at 11.45 a.m. and completed at 1.50 p.m. On external examination of the dead body he found the following:‑

(1) Incised wound 13 c.m. x 25 c.m. x brain deep starting from vertex obliquely left to right side of occipital region.

15. On internal examination of the dead body of the deceased he found that the membrane and brain matter were cut and damaged.

16. From external as well as internal examination of the dead body of deceased Looni he was of the opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of external injury No.1 which was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury was ante‑mortem and appeared to have been caused by sharp‑cutting weapon. Time between injury and death was 2 to 3 hours, while time between death and post‑mortem was about 20 to 23 flours. He has produced the post‑mortem report as Ex.31. In cross‑examination he has deposed that it was possible that the injury may have been caused to deceased while she was in lying position.

17. Mashir Noor Mohammad P.W.5, has deposed that he was made mashir of wardat by the police. Two ladies were lying injured at the wardat. The police had also secured blood‑stained earth from them, the mashirnama has been produced by him as Ex.15. He has further deposed that the police had prepared mashirnama of injuries on the person of Shrimati Looni and Shrimati Hawa, the mashirnama has been produced by him as Ex.16. That the police had prepared mashirnama of dead body of Shrimati Looni in his presence and the same has been produced as Ex.17.

18. Mashir Imam Ali P.W.6 has deposed that he was made mashir of securing hatchet from the accused about two years back. The accused was holding hatchet in his hand when the police had arrested him. Police had also secured clothes from the person of the accused which he was wearing at that time. The hatchet and clothes were not blood‑stained. He has produced the mashirnama as Ex.19. The hatchet present in Court had a different handle, while the clothes were same. He was declared hostile and was cross‑examined by the learned A.P.P. He has denied a suggestion that accused while under arrest had produced hatchet and clothes from his house, and that he was arrested in his presence. He has denied a suggestion that the accused was his hari. He has also denied a suggestion that accused Doongrio was his hari.

19. Mashir Allah Jurio P.W.10 has deposed that he was made mashir in this case about two years ago. Police did not secure Shalwar any hatchet from the possession of accused Doongrio in his presence. Police also did not secure Shalwar and shirt of accused Doongrio in his presence. The mashirnama Ex.19 bears his signatures. The contents were not read over to him. He was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the D.P.P. He has deposed that he had signed the mashirnama in English. He was a Matriculate. He knows Sindhi as well as English. He can read and write both. The mashirnama was prepared first and then his signature was obtained thereon. Mashirnama Ex.19 is written in Sindhi. He did not care to read the mashirnama. He is a Government servant and works as Dispenser at Medical Dispensary Minhal Wassan, taluka Sinjhoro. He owned land. He denied a suggestion that accused Doongrio was his hari and therefore, he was not supporting. He did not know co‑accused Tamachi.

20. Mashir Saboo P.W.11 has deposed that he was made mashir in this case about two years back. Police had arrested accused Tamachi in his presence and prepared such mashirnama, which he has produced as Ex.28. Police had also secured a hatchet from the possession of accused Tamachi and had prepared such mashirnama in his presence which he has produced as Ex.29. The hatchet in Court was the same. In cross‑examination he has deposed that he resides at a distance of about two miles from the place where accused Tamachi was arrested. Accused was arrested after six months of the incident. Police had sent for him to act as mashir. The place from where accused Tamachi was arrested was about half acre away from village Hayat Hingoro. This village Hayat Hingoro is a big village. He denied a suggestion that the name of father of accused Doongrio is Odhio, but his name is Devo. He admitted a suggestion that his name is Sabibo. The name of his‑ father is Khakoo. The complainant party was related to him. He denied a suggestion that accused was not arrested in his presence nor he produced any hatchet before him.

21. Mashirs Mohammad Soomar P.W.13 has deposed that on 17‑6‑1982 S.H.O. Abdul Ghafoor had arrested accused Doongrio in his presence and had prepared such mashirnama, he has produced the mashirnama as Ex.33. In cross‑examination he has deposed that accused was arrested at Bus Stand Bobi. He resides in Nauabad. He was present near bus stand Bobi at the time he was made mashir. He had gone to the Bus Stand for his personal work. Distance between Bobi bus stand and Nauabad may be 6/7 miles through Katcha Road. The distance between Nauabad and Bobi bus stand through pucca road may be 9 miles.

22. Tapedar Mohammad Ashraf P.W.14 had prepared sketch of the wardat which he has produced as Ex.35.

23. Mashir Manoo P.W.15 has deposed that police had prepared inquest report of the dead body in his presence and he has produced the inquest report as Ex.38.

24. P.C. Soofan Shah P.W.17 was a police constable and was handed over the dead body for delivering the same to the Medical Officer for post‑mortem and report.

25. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.16 has deposed that he was posted as S.I. at police station Nauabad at the relevant time. He had recorded the FIR and had carried on the investigation which has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. In cross‑examination he has deposed that in the FIR Devo is shown as father of accused Doongrio, and in challan name of father of accused Doongrio is shown as Odio. He denied a suggestion that Doongrio son of Odio and Doongrio son of Dewo were different persons. Both injured were on one and the same cot. The distance between the cot where injured were lying and the house was not mentioned in the mashirnama. He did not remember the time when he reached at the Wardat, but he had reached at the wardat during day time. According to him complainant had not stated in the FIR that accused Doongrio and Tamachi were pulling Shrimati Looni from his wife Shrimati Hawa who was embarcing Looni. He denied a suggestion that he had foisted crime weapon on accused Doongrio. He admitted that he had mentioned in mashirnama Ex.19 that there was no blood on the hatchet. He admitted that Shrimati Hawa had not stated before him that Doongrio and Tamachi tried to take away Shrimati Looni forcibly, nor P N' Girdhari had stated this fact in his police statement.

26. Umed Ali ASI P.W.18 has deposed that on 27‑11‑1982 he arrested accused Tamachi in presence of mashirs Saboo Bhil and Budho. He has produced the mashirnama as Ex.28. That the accused voluntarily led him and the mashirs to his house and produced hatchet from the hedge enclosure of his house. It was not blood stained. He secured the same prepared mashirnama which has been produced as Ex.29. In cross‑examination he admitted that mashirs resided at a different place than the place from where the accused was arrested.

27. After close of prosecution case the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations. However, they were not examined on oath as envisaged by Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. They examined one Kevro in their defence who has deposed that he knows complainant Molio. Shrimati Hawa is his wife. Shrimati Looni was daughter of Molio. Tiko is son of Hawa. Deceased was killed 41 years back. The deceased was married with Tamachi accused. The hand of Shrimati Looni was demanded for Kanji son of Poonio by Tiko step‑son of complainant. But she was not given to Kanji and was given to accused Tamachi in exchange. Shrimati Khatoon sister of Tamachi was married in exchange to P.W. Chimia. The marriage took place about two years back. The deceased had remained with Tamachi for four months and thereafter her parents took her away, while Khatoon remained with her husband Chimio. He attended the marriage of deceased but Tiko did not attend the marriage and had threatened that he will see afterwards. Kanji and Tiko were against the said marriage. Tiko used to reside with Molio but he left the village on the day of marriage. Tiko started living in village Ghulam Hyder with Poonio and Kanji. There was no ill‑will between that he did not know the month in which the present incident took place. He could not say if it was winter or summer. He denied a suggestion that he was brought by the accused to give false evidence at the instance of the accused.

28. The learned trial Judge while relying upon the ocular evidence, motive and recoveries has convicted and sentenced the appellants as described above. The present appeals are directed against the above judgment of conviction.

29. I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. M.A.I. Qarni learned counsel appearing for the State, and have gone through the R & P of the case.

30. It was contended by Mr. A.Q. Halepota that the ocular evidence was interested, inimical, absurd, unnatural and unreliable. That the night of incident was admittedly dark, and looking to the number of injuries caused to Shrimati Looni and Shrimati Hawa the incident must not have taken long time and the claim of the witnesses that they came on cries and saw the accused /appellants causing injuries to the injured ladies was false. He has further contended that looking to the medical evidence the deceased and the injured Shrimati Hawa must have received blows while they were sleeping and, therefore there was no question for Shrimati Hawa to have identified any of the assailants. That the claim of the witnesses that they had identified the assailants in the light of the lantern which was burning inside the room and was brought out by Molio complainant is false, inasmuch as no such lantern was either secured by the police or produced by complainant party before police. That the motive is a double edged weapon and it appears that the appellants have been implicated due to suspicion and enmity. That the mashirnama of recovery and the admissions made by the investigating officer Abdul Ghafoor and ASI Umed Ali coupled with the fact that mashir Imam Ali and Allah Juries have not supported the prosecution, the recoveries cannot be relied upon. That the witnesses have made improvements in their evidence at the trial inasmuch as it was not their case in the FIR as well as in 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements that the accused had come to kidnap/abduct Shrimati Looni and that Shrimati Hawa had embraced her and, therefore, even on this score their evidence could not be relied upon.

31. Mr. M.A.1I. Qarni learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that of course there was no corroborative evidence but there was ocular evidence of 5 witnesses which was sufficient for the purpose of conviction of the appellants.

32. As far as the first contention of Mr. A . Q. Halepota is concerned it is an admitted position that deceased Shrimati Looni was daughter of the complainant Molio, Shrimati Hawa is his wife, Chimio and Girdhari are his sons, and P.W. Saboo has admitted that complainant Molio is his brother‑in‑law. P.W. Din Mohammad was Zamindar of P.Ws. Girdhari and Chimio. It is also an admitted position that the relations between the parties were strained, as on one hand the complainant had been avoiding to allow his daughter Shrimati Looni to go with appellant Tamachi, on the other hand accused Tamachi is said to have taken away his sister Shrimati Khatoon forcibly from the house of P.W. Chimio. It is further admitted in examination‑in‑chief by Saboo P.W.8 that prior to the incident accused and the parents of Shrimati Looni had fought with each other twice or thrice as Tamachi wanted to take away his wife Looni to his house but her parents were not agreeable, to send her with Tamachi as she was under age. Therefore, in view of the fact that the witnesses are closely related/ connected to each other, and the fact that there was enmity between the complainant party and the accused /appellants, their evidence required strong corroboration. Moreover, the conduct of the witnesses was most unnatural inasmuch as they were kith and kin of the deceased and Shrimati Hawa, but they did not try to intervene to save the ladies or even chase the accused. Even according to the prosecution there were five persons namely, Molio, Chimio, girdhari, Saboo and Lakho present who are said to have come on cries but none of them made an effort to save the ladies. According to the P.Ws complainant Molio was sleeping inside the room, while Girdhari and Chimio were sleeping in the cattle pen which was on the back side of the house, while P.W. Saboo and Lakho came from their houses on cries. That the medical evidence shows that the two ladies had only one injury each, and it would have been a matter of seconds to cause such injuries and, therefore, the claim of the witnesses that they got up on the cries of the ladies, came to the place of incident and saw the accused causing injuries to the ladies appears to be absurd. It appears that realising this difficulty the witnesses had to make an improvement in their evidence at the trial and deposed that accused Doongrio and Tamachi were found pulling Shrimati Looni from Shrimati Hawa who was embracing Shrimati Looni. Perhaps, this improvement was made in order to show that it took some time for the accused /appellants to remain at the Wardat because Shrimati Hawa was embracing Shrimati Looni, and, therefore, they could not take her away. This is further supported by the admission of Saboo P.W.8 who has deposed in examination‑in‑chief that when he went to the house of complainant he found accused Tamachi giving blows to Shrimati Looni while accused Doongrio gave hatchet blows to Shrimati Hawa. But in cross‑examination he has deposed that the accused had already given blows to the injured and the deceased, he only saw them running away. In view of the above improvement made in the evidence of the witnesses and the fact that none of the witnesses, mashirs and investigating officer have stated that any lantern was secured from the place of Wardat, the only logical conclusion would be that no lantern was burning at the time of the incident and it was introduced with a view to show that the witnesses had an opportunity to see the accused, in the light of the lantern. In the case of Ghulam Rasool v. The State P L D 1983 Lahore 195, it was held:‑-

33. "The fact that no lantern was taken into possession only shows that there was no such lantern burning at the spot outside the Kotha of the deceased at the relevant time. It was further observed that the conduct of the witnesses at the scene of offence appears to be unnatural. Two of the witnesses were real brothers and one was maternal cousin of Mst. Saleema deceased, yet none of them made any attempt to either intervene or to apprehend any of the appellants."

34. Even otherwise the witnesses being closely related with each other and inimical to the accused /appellants their evidence required strong corroboration. Reliance is placed on Lashkari and 4 others v. The State P L D 1981 Kar. 1 in which it was held that:‑

35. "The rule in regard to corroboration of the evidence of the interested and inimical witness, although a rule of caution has virtually ripened into a rule of law. The Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, stated the rule and cautioned against acceptance of such testimony without corroboration for the reason that false implication is not very rare in this country".

36. As far as the motive was concerned, it is admittedly a double edged weapon. It could be motive to kill Shrimati Looni. Likewise it could also be a motive for false implication of the present appellants. However, in view of my discussion and conclusions on point No.1 it appears that the witnesses had not seen the incident and the incident was an unwitnessed incident. Shrimati Hawa being a woman, and as it appears from the medical evidence she sustained injury while she was sleeping, and it is her own case that on receipt of blow she went unconscious. Therefore, the complainant party being hostile to the appellants might have implicated them due to suspicion and enmity.

37. As far as the recoveries are concerned, mashir Imam Ali has deposed that the hatchet and clothes recovered from accused Doongrio were not stained with blood. Even the mashirnama Ex.19 shows that the hatchet was thoroughly examined and found that it had been washed and there were no blood stains on the hatchet, likewise there is nothing mentioned in the mashirnama to show that the clothes recovered from accused were blood stained. The evidence of mashir Allah Jurio shows that the police did not secure any hatchet from the possession of accused Doongrio in his presence nor any clothes were secured from him. Mashir Saboo P.W.11 has supported the recovery of hatchet from accused Tamachi but he also does not say that it was blood stained. Even mashirnama of recovery of hatchet Ex.29 does not show that the hatchet recovered from Tamachi was blood stained. The evidence of Abdul Ghafoor investigating officer shows that accused Doongrio was arrested on 17‑6‑1982 and he had led the police and the mashirs to his house on 22‑6‑1982 and produced hatchet and clothes from the top of the roof of his "thatched hut" and that the hatchet appeared to have been washed but contained blood stains thereon. The shalwar and shirt also appear to have been washed. In cross examination he has admitted that mashirnama of recovery of hatchet from accused Doongrio Ex.19 shows that there was no blood present on the hatchet. The evidence of ASI Umed Ali shows that he had arrested accused Tamachi and had secured hatchet from him but the same was not blood stained. However, the Chemical Report shows that one hatchet with handle was sent to the Chemical Analyser on 10‑8‑1982 (about one and half months after its recovery) and the same was found to be blood stained. Be that as it may, in view of the clear evidence of the mashirs, mashirnamas, and the admissions of investigating officer Abdul Ghafoor and ASI Umed Ali, no reliance can be placed on the Chemical Report that the hatchet was blood stained.

38. As far as the prosecution case regarding attempt to kidnap/abduct Shrimati Looni was concerned, it was afterthought and was ail improvement over the case initially set up before the police. The FIR as well as 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses do not disclose that the accused /appellants had attempted to take away Shrimati Looni, and it is further clear from the fact that no such charge was framed against the appellants. Even investigating officer Abdul Ghafoor has admitted in cross‑examination that this fact was neither stated by the complainant in FIR nor by P.W. Shrimati Hawa in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. P.W. Chimio has admitted in cross-examination that he did not state before the police and the Magistrate that accused had tried to take away his sister Looni at the time of incident because he had forgotten to state so. In view of this position their evidence with regard to attempted abduction /kidnapping was clearly an improvement over their earlier evidence and, therefore, could not be relied upon. Reliance is placed on Hadi Bux v. The State P L D 1963 Kar. 805 in which it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that:‑--

39. "Witness improving his version to strengthen prosecution case, statement subsequently made cannot be relied upon."

40. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the ocular evidence was interested, inimical and unreliable. It was not corroborated from any quarter, and the motive under the circumstances could not be relied upon as a corroborative evidence. Even otherwise the evidence of witnesses being unreliable, no amount of corroboration could rehabilitate it. I am therefore of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. The appeal is therefore; allowed, the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

41. S.G.D./D‑15/K Appeal allowed.