' Muhammad Saleem appellant was convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 11-10-2000 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge Pakpattan Sharif and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 to the heirs of Muhammad Hanif deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprismiment for six mouths. The benefit under section 38243, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant. Through the same judgment the learned trial Court had acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Jamil and I have been informed that his acquittal llad not been challenged before this Court by the State or by the complainant. Muhammad Saleem appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2000 which has been heard by me along with Criminal Revision No.335 of 2000 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement. Of the appellant's sentence. I propose to decide both these matters together through the present consolidated judgment.
2. .According to the prosecution's case Muhammad Hanif deceased was done to death at 7-45 p.m. On 8-2-1998 by the, appellant by firing at him from his pistol when the deceased was passing through Street No.7, Mohallah Sharifpur, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif along with some witnesses. The motive for the said-purder was stated to be a dispute over the Nikah of Muhammad Hanif deceased's daughter namely of Mst: Bushra Bibi. F.I.R. No.48 was registered in respect of the incident at Police Station City, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif at 9-10 p.m. On. 8-2-1998 in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. After completion of the investigation a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court which framed a charge against the appellant and his co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
3. During the trial the prosecution produced ten witnesses in support of its case against the appellant and his co-accused, Muhammad Iqbal complainant (P.W.7) and Muhammad Nasir (P,W.8) provided the ocular account of the incident in question and also deposed about the motive. Noor Ahmad (P.W.4) stated about recovery of a pistol .12 bore from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence was provided by Dr: Sagheer Ahrnad Chaudhry (P.W.6). Muhammad Ghani, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.9) stated about the various steps taken by him,, during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less formal in nature. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant and his co-accused denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. They, however, opted not to make statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not produce any witness in their defence. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Jamil but, after finding the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it convicted and sentenced the appellant was mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected revision petition before this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the record of this, case belies the claim of the eye-witnesses regarding witnessing the alleged occurrence; the motive set up by the prosecution had been disbelieved by the learned trial Court; the alleged recovery of a pistol from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case had been discarded by the learned trial Court; and, therefore, the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt entitling the appellant to acquittal by this Court.
As against that the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have maintained that the guilt of the appellant had successfully been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and thus, his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the complainant has categorically stated that he does not press the revision petition filed by the complainant.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance it has straightaway been observed by me that although the occurrence in this case had taken place after dark yet in the F.I.R. As well as the statements of the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution it had clearly been asserted that electric light was available at the spot at the relevant time. The site-plan of the place of occurrence also clearly show that points where such electric light was available at the spot. The F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with reasonable promptitude and the present appellant has specifically been nominated therein as the principal perpetrator of the alleged murder. The place of occurrence was a populated area and it is not readily believable that after firing at the deceased the culprit could have gone away unnoticed and unidentified. It is of critical importance to mention here that Muhammad Hanif deceased was a maternal uncle of the present appellant and the appellant happens to be a maternal cousin of Muhammad Iqbal complainant (P.W.7). Even Muhammad Nasir (P.W.8) is related to the appellant inasmuch as the said witness is a brother-in-law of the complainant and a nephew of Muhammad Hanif deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out anything on the record to show that the eye-witnesses produced in the case by the prosecution namely Muhammad Iqbal complainant (P.W.7) and Muhammad Nasir (P.W. 8) had any reason to falsely implicate the present appellant for the murder of Muhammad Hanif deceased. Both the said eye-witnesses had made consistent statements before the learned trial Court vis-a-vis the main occurrence and no serious or material discrepancy has been found by me in their statements in that regard. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to some contradictions regarding the width of the street, the base of the road and the place of making to the first statement by the complainant before the police but such contradictions have not been found by me to be serious enough to warrant. Discarding of the statement of the eye-witnesses regarding the main occurrence. Both these, eye-witnesses might have been strained relations with Muhammad Hanif deceased on account of their close relationship with one Jan Muhammad but there is nothing available on the record to suggest that these eye-witnesses had any animus or hostility towards the present appellant so as to falsely implicate him on a capital charge and that too regarding the murder of the complainant's father and the other eye-witness's uncle. The statements made by these eyewitnesses regarding the main occurrence had inspired the confidence of the learned trial, Court and I have also found no reason for not placing implicit reliance upon the same.
6. The learned trial Court has been found be me to be quite justified in holding that the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established. The alleged recovery of a pistol from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case was legally inconsequent as no crime-empty had been recovered from the place of occurrence so as to connect the recovery pistol with the alleged murder. Therefore, the learned trial Court was again justified in discarding the said recovery. Both these factors have, however, not been found by me to be relevant to the question whether the above-mentioned eye-witnesses should or should not be believed regarding the main occurrence itself.
7. The medical evidence had provided full support to the ocular account inasmuch as the date and time of occurrence, the weapon used and the locale of the injury stated by the eye-witnesses had all been confirmed by the medical evidence. The ocular account had thus, received ample support from the medical evidence. The promptness of the F.I.R. And nomination of the appellant therein have been found by me to be additional circumstances which provided corroboration to the ocular account.
8. For what has been discussed above I have arrived at a confident conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2000 is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld and maintained.
9. Criminal Revision No.335 of 2000 has not been pressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, thus, the same is dismissed as having not been pressed.