facts and operative part of the evidence of the following witnesses:-

(i) Complainant Mst.Shadul Khatoon (PW-01) in her evidence deposed that 05.06.2009; she alongwith her husband Dhani Bux, Mst.Shabana, the wife of her son, Muhammad Shahban, her grandson were working at their land at about 09.00 a.m. Accused Wahid Bux came there and challenged her husband Dhani Bux as to why he is working in the land, to which her husband replied him that he is working at his own land. Thereafter, accused Wahid Bux fired with Kalashnikov upon her husband Dhani Bux which hit on left side shoulder as well as arm of her husband. Accused Khawand Bux fired with his gun which hit her husband on his left side of body and abdomen. Accused Awal Khan fired with his gun which hit her husband on his chest, accused Aitbar also fired upon her husband, which hit on his right shoulder, resulting her husband fell down raising cries. On seeing these two unidentified accused also fired with their gun upon her husband, which also hit him and thereafter all the accused escaped away towards eastern side while firing in the air. She saw her husband Dhani Bux expired then and there. The complainant produced on record copy of F.I.R at Ex.4-A. In her cross-examination, the complainant stated that their house is situated at distance of about two hundred paces away from place of vardat; the place of vardat is towards southern side from their house. The accused resides at distance of about 50 paces away from their house. Nobody except them was available at the time of incident.

(ii) Eye-witness Mst. Shabana(PW-02) in her evidence deposed that incident took place on 05.6.2009. The complainant Mst.Shadul Khatoon is her mother-in-law and on same day she alongwith complainant Mst.Shadul, her father-in-law Dhani Bux and nephew Muhammad Shahban were working in their land at morning time. The land where they reside was given to them in inheritance and accused Wahid Bux and others used to reside towards eastern side of their house, usually say them to leave the land and they had also lodged so many cases against her father-in-law and others in this regard. On 05.6.2009 they were working at their land at about 09.00 a.m they saw accused Wahid Bux with Kalashnikov, Khawand Bux and Awal Khan armed with guns and Aitbar son of Wahid Bux armed with gun came there alongwith two unidentified culprits armed with guns from eastern side. The accused Wahid Bux challenged her father-in-law Dhani Bux as to why he is working in the land, though he has forbidden him, to which her father-in-law replied that he is working at his own land. Thereafter, accused Wahid Bux fired with his Kalashnikov upon her father-in-law Dhani Bux with intention to kill him, which hit him on left shoulder and arm of his body. Accused Khawand Bux fired with his gun, which hit his father-in-law Dhani Bux on his left side of the body as well as abdomen. Accused Awal Khan fired upon her father, which hit on his chest. Accused Aitbar fired upon her father-in-law which hit him on right arm. Her father-in-law Dhani Bux fell down and expired on the spot. In her cross-examination PW Mst. Shabana deposed that place of vardat is at distance of about two hundred paces away from their house towards southern side. The accused were at distance of about ten paces away, when they fired upon her father-in-law.

(iii) Tapedar Qurban Ali (PW-03) in his evidence deposed that about two years back he visited the place of incident on pointation of complainant Mst.Shadul and prepared such sketch of place of vardat which he produced at Ex.6-A.

(IV) SIP Ubhayo Mirani(PW-04) in his evidence deposed that on 05.6.2009 he while posted as SHO was duty officer at Police Station Miani @ Badani, complainant Mst. Shadul came at police station at 2030 hours and narrated the facts of cognizable offence. He recorded the F.I.R of complainant, read over its contents to her and thereafter she put her RTI on it. Thereafter, he handed over the copy of F.I.R to investigation team for investigation purpose and on 18.8.2009, he arrested accused Khawand Bux in this case and secured SBBL gun from his possession. He prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs H.C Alamgir and PC Sikander Ali, which he produced at Exh.7-A. He also produced Entry No.14 and 18 at Ex.7-B. He identified accused Khawand Bux present in Court to be the same. In his cross-examination he deposed that complainant came at police station alone; the dead body was not with the complainant, when she came at police station for lodging the report.

(iv) Medical Officer Dr. Abdul Aziz (PW-05) in his evidence deposed that on 05.6.2009, he was posted as medical officer at BHU Badani. On the same date, he received dead body of Dhani Bux son of Meenhon Shaikh through PC Shabir Ahmed Channa of P.S Miani @ Badani for postmortem and report. He started postmortem at 11.00 a.m. and finished at 12.00 noon on the same date. On external examination, he found the following injuries on his person:

1. Seven lacerated punctured wounds 1 cm
measuring each, scattered over left shoulder x tissue deep, edges inverted wound of entrance.

2. One lacerated punctured wound 8 cm x 3 cm x
chest cavity deep, edges inverted at left clavicle fractured, wound of entrance.

3. Lacerated punctured wound 10 cm x 3 cm x
chest cavity deep, edges inverted, 3 cm below the injury No.2.

4. Four lacerated punctured wounds each measuring 1 cm in diameter x chest cavity deep, edges inverted on right chest front, wound of entrance.

5. Seven lacerated punctured wounds each
measuring 1 cm in diameter edges inverted scattered over the area of epigastria region of abdomen, wound of entrance.

6. Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x 1 cm x
tissue deep, edges inverted on right arm medially wound of entrance.

7. Two lacerated punctured wound 2 cm in
diameter, each edges inverted on left forearm upper part back, wound of entrance.

8. Lacerated punctured wound 8 cm x 4 m, edges
disturbed fracturing the bone on lower part of left fore-arm, wound of entrance as well as exit.

9. Five lacerated punctured wound each measuring 1 cm in diameter, scatted at the area of right lumbar region back.

10. Lacerated punctured wound 1 cm in diameter x tissue deep at right elbow joint.

11. Lacerated punctured wound fracturing the little finger and right finger of right hand, edges disturbed, wound of entrance as well as exit.

On internal examination, he found the both lungs, both intestines, stomach, spleen, liver and left shoulder joint fractured, left ulna radius bones, left 3rd, 4t^h and 5t^h ribs fractured, left clerical bone fractured. Medical officer has further deposed that from the external and internal examination of the deceased he is of the opinion that dead is due to shock and hemorrhage is the result of injuries caused by discharge from firearm. Injuries 1 to 3 are by rifle (such as Kalashnikovs) rest all injuries by discharge from shot gun. All injuries are antimortem in nature and individually and collectively are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death instantaneously. Time between death and postmortem within four hours. He issued such postmortem report and produced at Ex.8-A. In his cross-examination the medical officer deposed that deceased Dhani Bux received firearm injuries at standing position. The fire shots hit to deceased Dhani Bux at the distance of about 10/15 feet. The injuries caused to deceased from various directions.

(vi) Investigation officer/ SIP Bashir Ahmed (PW06) in his evidence deposed that on 05.6.2009, he was posted as S.I.O at police station Miani @ Badani. On the same day, he received the copy of F.I.R of Crime No.16/2009 under Section 302 P.P.C for investigation purpose. The dead body of deceased Dhani Bux was also brought at police station, he saw the dead body and prepared such mashirnama of seeing the same in presence of two mashirs, namely Subhan and Mst.Shabiran. He produced such mashirnama at Exh.9-A. There were seven injuries on the dead body of deceased Dhani Bux; he prepared Danistnama of dad body in presence of same mashirs, which he produced at Ex.9-B. He also prepared Lash Chakas form of dead body and produced the same at Exh.9- C. Then the dead body of deceased Dhani Bux was sent to Badani hospital through PC Shabir Ahmed for its postmortem. He recorded statements of P.Ws on 06.6.2009 under Section 161 Cr.PC. He also visited the place of vardat on the pointation of complainant and prepared such mashirnama in presence of same set of mashirs. He secured three empty cartridges of 12 bore, five empty bullets of 7.62 bore and blood stained earth from place of vardat and sealed the same and prepared such mashirnama in presence of same mashirs, which he produced at Ex.9-D and after usual investigation challaned the case. In his cross-examination the I.O of the case deposed that, the complainant as well as mashirs were with the dead body. The dead body was brought at police station at 10.30 a.m. He proceeded to place of vardat. The empties were lying at the distance of about 20 paces away from blood of the deceased in scattered manner.

(vii) Mashir Subhan Ali(PW-07) in his evidence deposed that he was made mashir of seeing the dead body on 05.6.2009 at police station Miani @ Badani, the police saw the dead body of deceased Dhani Bux and prepared such mashirnama and co-mashir was Mst.Shabiran. Police prepared Danistnama of dead body in their presence. The police also saw place of vardat in their presence on pointation of complainant and prepared such mashirnama. The police secured blood stained earth, three empty cartridges and five empty bullets of Kalashnikov from place of vardat and sealed the same on the spot. Police also saw the footprints marks of four persons at the place of vardat. The case property secured from place of vardat available in the Court, is same. In his cross-examination he deposed that police saw injuries on dead body of deceased at police station. The empties cartridges and bullets were lying near the footprints marks of the culprits in scattered manner. They stayed at place of vardat for about 15/20 minutes. The S.I.O took the articles from the place of vardat and also prepared mashirnama
simultaneously.

13. There can be no denial to legally established principle of law
that it is always the direct evidence which is material to decide a fact (charge). The failure of direct evidence is always sufficient to hold a criminal charge as ‘not proved’ but where the direct evidence holds the field as well stands well with test of its being natural & confidence inspiring then requirement of independent corroboration is only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case. Reliance can safely be placed on the case of Muhammad Ehsan vs. the State (2006 SCMR-1857), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that;-

“5. It be noted that this Court has time and again held that the rule of corroboration is rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case rather this is settled principle that if the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of direct evidence, the requirement of corroborative evidence would not be of much significance in that, as it may as in the present case eye-witness account which is unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring character and is corroborated by medical evidence”.

14. The direct evidence, as detailed above, is in shape of evidence of complainant and Mst. Shabana. The complainant is wife while eyewitness Mst.Shabana is daughter-in-law of deceased Dhani Bux, who

man despite his nobility would accept such statement.

15. In the instant matter, both the eye-witnesses have sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence as well as each and every event of the occurrence in clear cut manners. In addition to this, both the eye-witnesses have also explained the mode and manner of taking place the occurrence qua the culpability of the appellants Khawand Bux and Wahid Bux. Although, they were cross examined by the defense at length, wherein the learned counsel for the defense asked multiple questions to shatter their confidence and so also presence at the scene of occurrence but could not extract anything from both of them and they remained consistent on all material points. The parties are known to each other, so there was no chance of mistaken identity of the appellants. I would not hesitate that where the witnesses fall within category of natural witnesses and detail the manner of incident in a confidence inspiring manner then only escape available to the accused is that to satisfactorily establish that witnesses, in fact, are not the witnesses of truth but ‘interested’ one.

16. An interested witness is not the one who is relative or friend but is the one who has a motive to falsely implicate an accused. The reliance can safely be placed on the case of Lal Khan v. State 2006 SCMR 1846 wherein at Rel. P-1854 it is held as :

... The mere fact that a witness is closely related to the accused or deceased or he is not related to either party, is not a sole criteria to judge his independence or to accept or reject his testimony rather the true test is whether the evidence of a witness is probable and consistent with the circumstances of the case or not.

In another case of Farooq Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 917 it is observed as: 11. PW.8 complainant is real brother of the deceased who is a natural witness but not an interested witness. An interested witness is one, who has motive, falsely implicates an accused or has previous enmity with the person involved. There is a rule that the statement of an interested witness can be taken into consideration for corroboration and mere relationship with the deceased is not “sufficient’ to discredit the witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused. The principles for accepting the testimony of interested witness are set out in Nazir v. The State PLD 1962 SC 269 and Sheruddin v. Allhaj Rakhio 1989 SCMR 1461.

In another case of Zulfiqar Ahmed & another v. State 2011 SCMR 492, it is held as:-

...It is well settled by now that merely on the ground of inter se relationship the statement of a witness cannot be brushed aside. The concept of ‘interested witness’ was discussed elaborately in case titled Iqbal alias Bala v. The State (1994 SCMR 1) and it was held that ‘friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused.

Thus, mere relationship of these eye-witnesses with the deceased alone would not support the plea of the appellants that their testimonies are not worth believing. In matters of capital punishments, the accused would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute / enmity but would require to bring on record that there had been such a dispute / enmity which could be believed to have motivated the ‘natural witnesses’ in involving the innocent at the cost of escape of ‘real culprits’. I would add that where the natural witnesses are blood-relations then normally the possibility of substitution becomes rare. In the instant matter, the complainant is the ‘wife’ of deceased while other eye-witness is daughter-in-law of deceased hence it does not appear to be believable that they both agreed in substitution of real culprits with innocents (appellants) when undeniably the time of incident is broad day-light incident and these witnesses are falling within category of