MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE Hassan Jaffar , A. K. Jatoi for the State.,Imdad Hussain Kazi

ORDER

1. Appellant Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad was charged and tried alongwith Ahmad, Muhammad Hussain and Bilal under sections 302, 307, 34, P.P.C. before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi for having committed murder of one Muhammad son of Allah Bachayo, and caused injuries to Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad and Jumman son of Muhammad, who has convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 and in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for two years. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as envisaged by section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. as compensation and in default to suffer further R.I. for one year, while the co‑accused were acquitted vide judgment, dated 31st March, 1987.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 2‑5‑1984 Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad Mari lodged a report at P.S. Gadap inter alia alleging therein, that he resides alongwith his parents at village Soomar‑Kundi, Malir Karachi. That there was enmity between them and Muhammad and Ahmad sons of Ali Muhammad over dispute of land. Vadera Ali Muhammad had tried to settle the dispute but Muhammad did not agree. Today morning at 6‑45 a.m. his father Muhammad came out of the house for doing labour and when he reached at a short distance from the house, Muhammad and Ahmad sons of Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain son of Ahmad and Bilal son of Ahmad were standing there duly armed with hatchets, and started abusing his father just after seeing him. On commotion complainant, his brother Jumman too came out of the house. They saw that Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad gave hatchet blow on the head of father of the complainant, who fell down and died on the spot. Brother of the complainant tried to rescue him on which the above persons gave him injuries and the complainant was also injured. The people from the village came there on which the accused ran away. Thereafter the complainant went to the police station and lodged his report at 8‑15 a.m. The F.I.R. was recorded by A.S.I.P. Muhammad Younus of Gadap, P.S. The copy of F.I.R. was sent to Sikandar Hayat S.H.O. for investigation. On receipt of the copy of F.I.R., S.H.O. proceeded to the place of vardat and prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs Muhammad Hussain and Nabi Bux, the mashirnama has been produced as Exh.

23. He then prepared inquest report of the dead body, and the same has been produced as Exh.

24. He then referred the dead body for post‑mortem. He recorded statements of P.Ws. Mushtaq Ali, Muhammad Yakoob, Jumman, Nabi Bux and others. He arrested accused Muhammad, Ahmad and Muhammad Hussain and prepared such mashirnama, which has been produced as Exh.

25. Accused Bilal was not available and was absconding. Accused Muhammad son of Ali Ahmad pointed out a place in his Jhugi situated in village Soomar Gadyani from where a hatchet was recovered in presence of mashirs Muhammad Yakoob and Mushtaq Ali the mashirnama which was produced as Exh. 14 was the same. He had sent the hatchet and the blood‑stained clothes to the Chemical Analyser for report. The Chemical Analyser's report was not available in the police papers. On 8‑5‑1984 he arrested accused Bilal. On 15‑5‑1984 after due notice to the accused he got the statements of P.Ws. Jumman, Muhammad Yakoob, Pir Bux and Mehboob Ali recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation he challaned the accused on 15‑5‑1984. He has produced two hatchets as Articles A and B and blood‑stained clothes of the deceased comprising of Shirt, Shalwar and Cap as Articles C, D and E.

3. A formal charge was framed against the accused but they pleaded not guilty.

4. At the trial prosecution examined complainant Ali Muhammad P.W.1, he has produced the F.I.R. as Exh. 9‑A, eye‑witness Jumman P.W.2, eye‑witness Mehboob Ali P.W.3, Pir Bux, eye‑witness P.W.4, Mushtaq Ali an eye‑witness P.W.5. He also acted as mashir of recovery of hatchet from arrested of accused Muhammad, and the mashirnama has been produced by him as Exh. 14, A.S.I.P. Muhammad Younus .P.W.6, he had recorded the F.I.R. which has been produced as Exh. 9‑A, P.C. Zaffar Iqbal P.W.7, who had taken the F.I.R. from P.S. and delivered the copy to S.H.O. Sikandar Hayat. Dr. Khalil Ansari P.W.8, he has produced the post‑mortem report of deceased Muhammad as Exh.

18. He has also produced injuries certificates of injured Ali Muhammad as Exh.

19. Muhammad as Exh. 20, Ahmad son of Ali Muhammad as Exh. 21, S.H.O. Sikandar Hayat P.W.9, he had carried on the investigation. P.Ws Muhammad Yakoob, Muhammad Amin, Vabi Bux, Ali Muhammad, A.S.I. Muhammad Yousuf, A.S.I. Muhammad Bashir, Faryad Hussain and Chemical Examiner were given up by the prosecutor vide application dated 22‑2‑1987, which is Exh. 26.

5. After the close of prosecution case statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations. Appellant Muhammad further stated that he was innocent and was injured by the deceased. Accused Ahmad also stated the same thing in his statement. Accused Muhammad Hussain has stated that he was innocent and was reading Holy Qur'an in the mosque of his locality where he came to know about the above incident. However, he declined to examine any witness in his defence. Accused Bilal has further stated that he had left for open sea in a launch for catching fish on 27‑4‑1984 and returned back to Karachi on 7‑5‑1984. He was innocent.

6. Accused Bilal and Muhammad examined themselves on oath. Accused Muhammad has produced photostat certified copy of the Direct Complaint filed by him as Exh.

36. Accused Ahmad also examined himself on oath. The accused also examined Ali Muhammad Rajai D.W.1, Mir Wazir Sultan D.W.2, Muhammad Hussain accused in their defence.

7. The learned trial Judge while relying upon the above evidence has convicted the present appellant while the co‑accused were acquitted. The present appeal is directed against the above judgment of conviction.

8. Complainant Ali Muhammad has deposed that deceased Muhammad was his father. He knew accused present in Court. He also knew Ahmad brother of accused Muhammad. They had a dispute with the accused over land. The disputed land bras in possession of Ali Muhammad resident of Gadap, and the same belongs to the village. About 18 months ago on 2nd May he was present in his house along with his brother and father. At about 6‑45 a.m. his father left the house for going for labour, when he went about 4‑5 paces away from the house, he heard cries. He and P.W. Jummo went out on the commotion and saw accused Muhammad and Ahmad sons of Ali Muhammad, Hussain son of Muhammad accused son of Ali Muhammad, gave hatchet blow‑to his father on his head who fell down and died. He and, and his brother Jummo intervened but they also received injuries at the hands of accused. Thereafter, all the accused ran away. Other villagers also came there. Thereafter, complainant and his brother Jummo, went to P.S. Gadap where complainant lodged his report. He has produced F.I.R. as Exh. 9‑A. He took the police to the place of vardat and showed the same to the police. He was referred to hospital. But in cross‑examination he has deposed that he received injury on his head. He was not referred for medical treatment.'

9. P.W. Jumman has deposed that deceased Muhammad was his father. Ali Muhammad complainant is his brother: He knows the accused present in Court. On 2‑5‑1984 at about 6‑45 a.m. he, his brother Ali Muhammad and their father Muhammad was present in the house. His father left the house for going for labour, when he went out they heard commotion and abuses. He and his brother Ali Muhammad went outside and saw Muhammad Ali, Muhammad, Bilal, Ahmad and Hussain armed with hatchets and were giving blows to his father. Accused Ali Muhammad and Muhammad had given blows to his father, on which he fell down. Again stated that accused Muhammad only had given hatchet blows to his father who fell down. He and his brother Ali Muhammad went and intervened on which accused Ahmad, Ali Muhammad, Hussain and Bilal caused them injuries. He received hatchet injuries on his head so also his brother. His father died at the spot. On commotion many other villagers came there namely, Mehmood, Ahmad, Wallu, Siddik and others, Thereafter, the accused ran away. Thereafter, his brother Ali Muhammad went to the police station and lodged his report. The motive behind this murder was dispute over land between them and accused Muhammad and Ali Muhammad. Police came at the place of incident and examined him. He was referred to hospital.

10. P. W. Mehboob Ali has deposed that about 3 years ago he left his house,' at 6‑30 a.m. He saw that accused Muhammad, Ahmad, Bilal and Muhammad Hussain who were armed with hatchets and were giving blows to deceased Muhammad son of Allah. Bachayo in front of his house in open ground in Malir City. Many villagers were attracted and came at the vardat. Ali Muhammad and Jumma sons of deceased also came at the vardat. All the four accused inflicted hathcet blows to them and they were also injured. Thereafter, the accused ran away. Police came at the scene of offence. Injured were sent by the police to hospital. He was examined by a Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. Accused had killed deceased Muhammad due to dispute over a plot.

11. P.W. Pir Bux has deposed that he resides in village Soomar Kandani which is situated in Malir. P.W. Mehboob Ali also resides in his village. On 2‑5‑1984 at about 6‑30 a.m. or 6‑45 a.m. he came out of his house as usual. He saw all the four accused present in Court duly armed with hatches and surrounded deceased Muhammad son of Allah Bachayo behind the house of deceased Muhammad in front of Octroi Post. The deceased was crying "save, save". Accused Muhammad gave hatchet blow on his head, and he fell down on the ground. His sons Ali and Jumma reached at the place of incident. The accused tried to attack P.W. Ali and Jumma also. He then went to his house and left for duty. The accused after killing deceased Muhammad ran away. Number of Mohallah people were attracted at the place of incident. Police also came there. Police had examined him. He was also examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. The accused had killed deceased Muhammad on account of dispute over immovable property.

12. P.W; Mushtaq Ali .has deposed that he is living in village Soomar Kandani since his childhood. He "did not know the accused present in Court. About two years ago he got up at about 6 a.m. or G‑30 a. m. for going to his duty after hearing commotion‑he went out of the house and saw that accused were surrounding, deceased Muhammad. He could not name the accused but by face he could say that the accused present in Court surrounded the deceased. Accused Muhammad had a hatchet in his hand. Witness points out towards accused Bilal and Muhammad Hussain and stated that they were armed with Dandas. He did not know what weapon fourth accused was holding. Accused Muhammad inflicted a hatchet blow on the head of deceased. P.Ws. Ali and Jumma tried to save deceased. Some one of the accused gave Danda: blows to them. All the villagers collected at the scene of offence. Muhammad died at the spot in front of his house, and the accused ran away. He could not give names of the villagers who had collected at the scene of offence. Injured P.Ws. Jumma and Ali Muhammad went to police station. Police came to the vardat at about 8 a.m. on the same day. Police arrested the accused and secured hatchet from accused Muhammad. Police prepared such mashirnama and the same‑has been produced by him as Exh.

14. He has further deposed that the signed in English, Exh. 14 does not bear his signature. The hatchet was bfkd‑stained. The hatchet shown to him in the Court was not that hatchet. He was then shown another hatchet and he stated that hatchet of accused Muhammad was like this hatchet. Only one hatchet was secured by police in his presence. The accused were not arrested in his presence. He has deposed in cross‑examination that he stayed at the place of occurrence upto 8 a.m. The police did not come to the vardat upto 8 a.m. Accused and complainant party had grappled at the time of occurrence. He could not say as to who caused injury and to whom. He denied a suggestion that he had not stated anything in' police statement regarding the part played by each accused. He denied to have stated before police that at 7 or 7‑15 a.m. he came to know that persons of his Bradari had a fight. He did not know whether accused Muhammad and Ahmad were injured. He denied a suggestion that police did not recover hatchet from accused Muhammad. He denied a suggestion that he was not present at the vardat and had not witnessed the incident.

13. A.S.I. Muhammad Younus P.W.6 has deposed that on 2‑5‑1984 he was posted as A.S.I. and duty officer at Police Station Gadap. At 8‑15 a.m. complainant came to the P.S. and lodged his report which he recorded under sections 302, 307, 34, P.P.C. Exh. 9‑A was the same and bears his signature. He referred complainant and his brother to G.P.M.C. Hospital as both of them had injuries. In cross‑examination he has deposed that whatever was stated by the complainant he incorporated the same in F.I.R. He did not mention in F.I.R. in verification clause the nature of injuries on complainant and his brother and his observation. He denied a suggestion that accused Ahmad and Muhammad had reached P.S. while he was writing F.I.R. He denied a suggestion that accused Ahmad and Muhammad had sustained injuries and they approached him to lodge report against complainant party. He did not refer these two accused for treatment to hospital because they were not arrested till night. He had sent the copy of F.I.R. through P.C. to I.O. Sikandar Hayat at his residence which was situated at Police Headquarters about 15 miles away from the P.S. Gadap. I.O. had proceeded to the vardat directly from his house.

14. P.C. Zaffar lqbal P.W. 7 has deposed that he was posted as police constable at P.S. Gadap; on 2‑5‑1984. A.S.I. Muhammad Younus registered the F.I.R. at 8‑15 a.m. and handed over the same to him for delivery to I.O., S.H.O. Sikandar Hayat at his 'residence. He delivered the F.I.R. to S.H.O. at 9‑30 a.m. He then returned to P.S. at about 11‑15 a.m. F.I.R. Exh. 9‑A was the same. In cross‑examination he has deposed that he had gone to the house of I.O. and returned from there on motor‑cycle. He had left the house of I.O. soon after delivery ‑of F.I.R. He did not know when Raja Sikandar Haya‑ S.H.O. left his house.

15. Khalil ansari Medical Officer P.W.8 has deposed that he is posted as doctor/ Assistant Police Surgeon in G.P.M.C. Hospital, Karachi. He knows Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Rajput who had performed the post‑mortem No. 150 of 1984. He was well‑conversant with the handwriting and signature of the above doctor. Nowadays the above doctor was on Ex‑Pakistan leave. The said doctor had carried on the post‑mortem on the dead body of deceased Muhammad and had found the following external injuries on his person: ‑‑

(1) Incised wound 9" x 1" x cavity deep from mid parietal region, to left cheek.

(2) Incised wound 4" x 1" cavity deep, right shoulder blade 3" below right shoulder.

16. He can definitely say that all the injuries were ante‑mortem. On internal examination, he found the following injuries: ‑‑

17. On removing scaple a fracture of left parietal and frontal bone seen. On opening skull brain cut into two half, brain congested, maningies congested. On opening chest there was fracture on right fourth, fifth and sixth ribs with cutting scapula. Both lungs were found pale. Heart both sides contains small quantity of blood. On opening abdomen stomach empty. Mucu‑scapale. Small and large intestine loaded with its contains. Liver, spleen, kidneys plae. None of the visceras were retained for chemical examiner's Opinion, Spinal cord not opened.

18. Opinion to the probable cause of death in his opinion, death of deceased occurred due to coma, haemorrhage and shock, leading to cardiorespiratory failure, resulting from acute head injury and injury to chest due to sharp and heavy substance, could be an axe. He has produced the post‑mortem report No. 150 of 1984 as Exh.

18. It is same, correct and bears the signature of Dr. Zulfiqar.

19. He also examined one Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad, aged about 25 years on 2‑5‑1985, at about 12‑20 p.m. The patient came with the history of assault with the police letter from S.H.O. Gadap. Mark of identification is mole on right side of chest. On examination he found the following injuries: ‑‑

20. Lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" x skin deep. Left parietal region. The nature of injury was simple and was caused by hard and blunt substance. The probable duration of injury was fresh. The Medical Legal No. is ZA‑2645. He has produced the same as Exh. 19.

21. On the same day at about 12‑25 p. m. he examined Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad aged 35 years, male with the police letter from Gadap P.W. with the history of assault. ,On examination he found the following injuries: ‑‑

22. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep mid parietal region. The mark of identification of the patient smallpox marks on face. The injury was simple in nature and was caused by hard and blunt object. The probable duration of the injury was fresh. The Medico‑legal certificate bears No. 2A‑2646. He has produced the same as Exh. 20.

23. On the very same day he also examined Ahmad son of Ali Muhammad, aged 50 years, at about 12‑20 p.m. He came with the police letter of P.S. Gadap with the history of assault. On examination there was a lacerated wound 2" x 1/4" skin deep. Left parietal region.

2. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" mid frontal region. The injury was simple in nature and was caused by some hard and blunt object. Probable duration of injury was fresh. His mark of identification was mole on right chest. The certificate bears M.L. No. ZA‑2647. He has produced the same as Exh.

21. In cross‑examination he has admitted that the nature of injuries was fresh and was within 12 hours from the time of examination.

24. S.H.O. Sikandar Hayat P.W. 9 has deposed that on 2‑5‑1984 he was posted as S.H.O. Gadap. He received copy of F. I.R. No. 38 of 1984 for investigation. The F.I.R. was recorded by A.S.I. Muhammad Younus. He then proceeded to the place of vardat, and rest of the investigation carried on by him has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment.

25. We have heard Mr. Hassan Jaffar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi for the complainant, Mr. A. K. Jatoi for the State and have also gone through the R & P of the case.

26. It has been contended by Mr. Hassan Jaffar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there were counter‑cases between the parties and the appellant had also gone to*the police station for lodging the report but the police did not record the same dishonestly, therefore, he had filed a direct complaint against Ali Muhammad, Jumma, Hashim and Urs under section 307/34, P.P.C. which is still pending. That the complainant party has failed to explain injuries on the person of appellant Muhammad and his brother Ahmad, which shows that they had no respect for truth. That there were serious contradictions in the evidence of the P.Ws. they were interested and inimical towards the appellant and his relations and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on their evidence. That three co‑accused having been acquitted, the appellant could not be convicted without having independent corroboration. That the recovery of blood‑stained hatchet could not be relied upon on the ground that the mashir of recovery did not support fully the prosecution case and that chemical report was not produced by the prosecution and, therefore, the presumption was against the prosecution. That the motive was a double‑edged weapon and it could not corroborate the prosecution case. That admittedly many villagers had come at the vardat but not a single independent person has been examined as a witness.

27. Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that the ocular evidence is corroborated by motive and medical evidence. Even otherwise the ocular evidence was enough to uphold conviction of the appellant.

28. Mr. A.K. Jatoi, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the case was mishandled by the police and that the complainant party had suppressed the injuries caused to the accused. However, he was of the view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant.

29. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. It has been stated by the complainant that there was dispute between them and the accused over land. In cross‑examination he has denied a suggestion that there was no dispute between them and the accused over land. He has admitted that lands belong to village and Government. He could not say whether the civil suit is pending between the accused and the Khaskhelis in respect of the land. He could not say whether the case was still pending before the Board of Revenue. Even the accused had stated in their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. that the P.Ws. are related to the deceased and that held had old enmity with them. From the above discussion it is crystal clear that there was a long‑standing enmity between the parties.

30. From the medical evidence it is clear that on the side of complainant deceased Muhammad had received two incised injuries, complainant Ali Muhammad had received one lacerated injury which was opined to be simple in nature, while on the side of accused, accused Muhammad had received one lacerated injury on mid parietal region which was simple in nature, while his brother Ahmad had received two lacerated injuries, one on left parietal region and the other on mid frontal region. The injuries were simple in nature. From the above medical evidence it is clear that two persons were injured from each side. Unfortunately the complainant Ali Muhammad, P.W. Jumman, Mehboob Ali, Pir Bux and Mushtaq Ali have failed to explain the injuries received by the accused. The case of the appellant was that they had received injuries at the hands of the deceased and his sons and that they had a right of private defence, which was specifically suggested in cross‑examination. The accused have also produced the photostat certified copy of the direct complaint filed by appellant Muhammad against complainant Ali Muhammad, Jumma, Hashim and Urs with regard to the same incident. In such a situation each party tries to minimise role played by it in the incident. It has been held by our superior Courts from time to time that when there are counter‑cases between the parties and witnesses of one case are accused in the other case, their evidence should not be relied upon unless it is corroborated in material particulars. In Saban Shah and another v. The State 1968 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal p. 1637 it was observed by this Court that: ‑‑

31. "It is of course usual in counter cases between two rival parties, that each faction tries to minimise one's part in the incident, but yet the settled principle of law in such type of cases is that the Courts have to draw their own inferences and conclusions that properly flow, not only from the evidence read as a whole but also the circumstances of each case."

32. From the above circumstances since there were counter‑cases between the parties and the prosecution witnesses have not been relied upon in respect of three co‑accused it was necessary to have independent corroboration of the ocular evidence in the present case. In Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others P L D 1985 S C 11 it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that: ‑‑

33. "However, as a matter of convenience a rule has been developed in Pakistan since the famous case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown propounded by late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir that where it is found that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to the other accused in the same occurrence. But if the testimony of such a witness is corroborated by very strong and independent circumstances regarding other the reliance might then be placed on the witness for convicting the other accused."

34. The following cases were relied upon by their Lordships in support of the above observation:‑‑

35. Tawaib Khan and another v. The State P L D 1979 S C 13, The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad P L D 1973 S C 418, Muhammad Shaft and others v. The State 1974 S C M R 289, Bakka v. The State 1977 S C M R 150, Khairu and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 1136, Ahmad etc. v. The State 1982 S C M R 1049, Aminullah v. The State P L D 1982 S C 429 and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1984 SCMR 190.

36. It was further observed in the above case by their Lordships that: ‑

37. "Mst. Allm Khatoon is clearly inimical witness and was the most likely person to have falsely implicated one or the other accused. Therefore, it was absolutely essential to seek corroboration against each one of 'them."

38. In Khalid Mehmood alias Baboo v. The State 1985 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal 1040 it was observed that: ‑‑

39. "If a witness perjured himself on material particulars his assertion would not be given any consideration with regard to certain other aspects of the matter. Once a, person is proved to be a liar on one particular point his evidence on other points also becomes debatable. It is an established fact that the accused appellant did receive injuries in the transaction but the same are neither explained in the F.I.R. nor through the evidence produced at the trial. From whatever angle we may approach this matter we are but to hold that this is a case of no evidence at all."

40. It was further observed in the above decision that: ‑‑

41. "Two versions brought forward by prosecution and defence, each side claiming other to be aggressor, possibility of defence version apparently appearing to be' true, accused, held, were entitled to acquittal."

42. In view of the above discussion it was clear that on one hand there was enmity' between the parties and on the other hand the complainant and P.Ws. were not relied upon in respect of the co‑accused who are acquitted. That the injuries sustained by the appellant and his brother were not explained by the P.Ws. and, therefore, it was necessary to have independent corroboration of the ocular evidence. P.W. Mushtaq Ali did not know the accused, and no identification test was held through` him and, therefore, even on this score his evidence could not be relied upon implicitly regarding' identity of accused. Reliance is placed on Kak alias Abdul Razak v. The State PLD 1985 Kar. 31.

43. As far as recovery was concerned mashir did not support the recovery of hatchet fully. Moreover, tile prosecution has failed to produce the chemical report, and therefore, the only logical conclusion which can be drawn from the above circumstances is that the hatchei was not blood‑stained and, therefore, this recovery could not be relied upon as corroborative piece of evidence, and the same is excluded from consideration.

44. So far as motive was concerned, admittedly there was long‑I standing enmity between the parties but there is no evidence to show the immediate cause of attack, and both parties claim 'to have been attacked by the other side. Moreover, the motive is a double edged weapon and therefore it could not be used as corroboration in the present case. In the case of Lashkarj and four others v. The State P L D 1981 Kar.1, a Division Bench of this Court has held that: ‑‑

45. "No doubt in law motive can oftenly be used as corroboration but in cases of this nature motive is just a second name of enmity and in relying on such motive which is borne of enmity the trying Judge followed a wrong process of appreciation of evidence. This is not one of those cases where only one side had a grievance."

46. In Ahmed Ali etc. v. The State 1974 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal Note 169 p. 104 it was observed by Aslam Riaz Hussain, J. that: ‑-

47. "Prosecution witnesses injured during the incident and their presence at spot established such witnesses, however, not giving correct version of incident and giving twist to the story to make it appear that accused launched attack on complainant party, witnesses, held, had no respect for truth and their testimony cannot be accepted."

48. In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that on one hand the prosecution evidence was interested, inimical and unreliable, and on the other, hand it was not corroborated from any independent quarter. The version advanced by the appellant was also probable and, therefore, while giving benefit of doubt to the appellant. I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

49. Before parting with this case I would like to observe that since there were counter‑cases between the parties, it would have been proper and appropriate for the learned trial Judge to proceed with both cases simultaneously and to decide them on the same date in order to avoid conflict of decisions.

50. M.Y.H./M‑384/K Appeal allowed.