' Appellant Ali Zar after having been tried by the learned Sessions Judge Bannu, in a case registered against him and his absconding co-accused under section 324/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No.230, dated 21-4-2001, Police Station Mandan for attempting at the life of Muhammad Wali, complainant, by firing at him and thereby injuring him on his left elbow, was sentenced to 7 years R.I. With a fine of Rs.10,000 under section 324, P.P.C. Or in default to undergo six months S.-I. And to pay Arsh of Rs.1,40,000 under section 334, P.P.C., or to remain in Jail, till its payment, vide judgment dated 11-12- 2003.
2. The appellant to assail his conviction filed this appeal while the complainant to seek enhancement of sentence has filed a criminal revision. As both the matters arise out of the same order, they are disposed of by this single judgment.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that where appellant did not repeat fire on the complainant, it alone bears ample testimony to the fact that he never intended to kill him, therefore, the sentence of 7 years shall be too harsh in the circumstances of the case. While assailing the sentence of Arsh, the learned counsel argued that it too was harsh when no material has been brought on the record to show that the hand of the complainant has in fact been crippled because of the injury caused by the appellant.
4. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel - for the complainant, argued that the act of the appellant coming armed to the scene of occurrence and firing at the victim clearly shows that his intention was nothing short of killing him, therefore, he has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. While controverting the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel by referring to the evidence of Dr. Sajjad Masood, M.O. And Dr. Abdur Rehman, Orthopedic Surgeon, District Headquarter Hospital, Bannu who were examined as P.Ws.6 and 8 respectively submitted that it clearly proves that the complainant was not only injured by fire-arrn but his bones and tissues of the right hand were damaged beyond repair.
5. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Complainant who was examined as P.W.3 furnished the ocular account of the occurrence by stating that the appellant on being enraged over an altercation with him went home, came armed therefrom with .303 bore rifle and fired at him with the result that his hand after having been hit was impaired for ever. The testimony of the M.O. And the Orthopedic Surgeon being in line with the ocular account supports the charge to the hilt. The finding of conviction, therefore, was rightly recorded by the learned trial Court.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, vis-a-vis the quantum of sentence, however, is not without substance as the absence of repetition of fire is a factor which will not only discount the intensity and magnitude of the crime but will also call for the discount in criminal liability. I, therefore, by maintaining the conviction, reduce the sentence from 7 years R.I. To 4 years R.I. And of fine from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5000 or in default to undergo 3 months S.I. While the sentence of Arsh as awarded by the learned trial Court is maintained. With the modification hinted to above, this appeal is disposed of.
8. As the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court has been reduced, I do not think, that the criminal revision for enhancement of sentence has any merit which is thus dismissed in limine.
Sentence reduced.