' DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--- These are two connected Jai'. Criminal Appeals one filed by Chanaser alias Chanoo son of Gul Muhammad Khaskheli and the other filed by Murtaza son of Patasho Khoso. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20-1-2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar whereby he has convicted and sentenced both the appellants as mentioned hereunder:-- ' Under section 397, Seven years' R.I. Each P. P.C .
' Under section 324, P.P.C Ten years' R.I. Each. Fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default 6 months' R.I. Each.
The appellants were directed to pay Arsh to the injured according to injuries received by him.
' The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to them.
2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution as disclosed in F.I.R. Recorded on the statement of Muhammad Hanif on 10-3-2000 at 1700 hours is to the effect that his nephew Muhammad Akhtar who deals in contracting berry garden went along with him on his Motorcycle bearing No,NHB- 3072, to look after the gardens. When they were returning towards city. They suddenly saw two persons, on both sides of the road, who signalled them to stop the motorcycle. Accordingly Muhammad Akhtar stopped his motorcycle. Thereafter one of the accused on pistol point asked us to hand over the motorcycle to therm On resistance to do so. One of the accused fired pistol shot' which. Hit Muhammad Akhtar on right, leg and on account of fear they deboarded from their motorcycle. Both the accused after riding and driving the motorcycle went away. The complainant alleged that he could identify them. He took the injured Muhammad Akhtar to hospital for treatment and, leaving him over there, lodged the report. Subsequently, both the appellants/accused, after their arrest, were challaned to face trial. They were formally charged.
They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
3. At the trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. P.W.1 is Dr. Arshad Ali. On 10-3-2000, he medically examined the injured Muhammad Akhtar and made the following observations:-- "(1) One circular lacerated wound about 1 c.m. In diameter blacking and charring round the wound margins inverted on the medial aspect of right lower leg (wound of entry).
(2) One circular lacerated wound about 1.5 c.m. In diameter margins everted on the back and medial side of right lower leg (wound of exit).
(3) One circular lacerated wound about 1.5 c.m. In diameter margins everted on the back of right lower leg (wound of exit).
(4) Small laceration about 0.3 c.m. On the front of right lower leg.
(5) Diffuse swelling on the middle of the head.
(6) Abrasion about 2.5 c.m. Circular on the right knee joint." He issued Medico-legal report (Exh.6/B) to this effect. P.W.2 is Muhammad Hanif. He is complainant who reiterated his statement as mentioned hereinabove. P.W.3 is Muhammad Akhtar. He is nephew of the complainant. He was accompanying the complainant on his motorcycle to visit berry gardens when the occurrence took place and he got injured on receiving pistol shot injury. He supported the version made by P.W.2 Muhammad Hanif. P.W.4 is Fazal Haq, S.H.O. He investigated the case. On 7-4-2000, he arrested the appellants/accused Chanaser from Police Station Mangli where he was already arrested in connection with some other crime. He also produced him for identification before Judicial Magistrate, Sanghar on 10-4-2000 where he was identified by the complainant as well as Muhammad Akhtar as their culprit. On 13-4-2000 on pointation of appellant/accused Chanaser, the snatched motorcycle was recovered from Pun situated on the eastern side of Bhaji-mori of Jamrao Canal. He prepared Mushirnama (Exh.9/B) in presence of Nek Muhammad and Shabaz in this respect. Subsequently, the statement of appellant/accused Chanaser under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Was recorded wherein he disclosed that accused Murtaza Khoso was also with him at the time of incident. On completion of necessary investigation formalities, he submitted challan against the accused. P.W.5 is Kewro Khan, Sub-Inspector. He recorded formal F.I.R. (Exh.7/A) on the statement made by the complainant. He prepared Mushirnama of Vardat (Exh.10/A) and also referred injured P.W. Muhammad Akhtar for examination, treatment and certificate at the Taluka Hospital Sinjhoro and prepared Mushirnama of injuries (Exh.10/B). He also took into possession photostat copy of documents of motorcycle produced before him by the complainant. P.W.6 is Allah Dino. Constable.
In his presence S.H.O. Fazl-e-Haq arrested the appellant/accused Chanaser on 24-7-2000. He signed the Mushirnama prepared in this respect. P.W.7 is Nek Muhammad. He is witness to the recovery memos. Pertaining to the place of Vardat, injury statement of Muhammad Akhtar and recovery of motorcycle.
4. Both the appellants/accused made statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. The appellant/accused Chanaser while responding to question No,10 made statement in the following words:-- "I am innocent and is the victim of enmity with one Nek Muhammad Sheikh, resident of Sinjhoro Town on the lease of berries garden as the lease was already taken by one Yaroo Khaskheli but by offering the huge amount he got the lease of said garden. Yaroo is my cousin, so I have been implicated in this case through police by Nek Muhammad Sheikh."
5. The appellant/accused Murtaza Khoso in reply to question No,6 stated as mentioned hereinunder:-- "I am innocent. I have been implicated by police because of when I was residing with my brother and other family members in Village Khuda Bux Khoso, Taluka Shandadpur, where D.S.P ' I produce cuttings of newspaper, Mehran Hyderabad, dated 27-2-2001 as Exh.13/A. I pray for justice."
6. I have heard the learned counsel for appellants as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General for State and perused the record with their assistance. At the outset learned counsel for the appellants submitted that she does not press the appeals on merits but only requests for reduction in the sentences awarded to the appellants on the ground that both are young, first offenders, sole bread-earners of their families and highly repentant. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has no objection to reduction in the sentences.
7. I have thoroughly appreciated the evidence brought on record. It transpires that the case of prosecution against the appellant/accused is established by the evidence of prosecution witnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye-witnesses as well as victims of offence. P.W.2 is the complainant and P.W.3 got injured during the occurrence. P.W.3 Muhammad Akhtar received fire- shot injuries and he was referred to the hospital by P.W.5 Kewro Khan, S.-I. Where P.W.1 Dr. Arshad Ali examined him and issued Medico-legal certificate. Contents of M.L.C. Are reproduced hereinabove.
The F.I.R. Was lodged promptly. There is absolutely no background of any grudge or motive for false implication. The defence plea is not substantiated by any cogent piece of evidence both the victims of offence i,e, P.W.2 and P.W.3 identified the accused before Judicial Magistrate. Recovery of the snatched motorcycle was effected on pointation of appellant/accused Chanaser. Mushirnama in respect of the same was duly prepared and one of the marginal witnesses namely P.W.7 Nek Muhammad attested the same. Both P.W.2 and P.W.3 are inter se related but both being natural eye-witness of occurrence their relationship inter se has no adverse effect on the prosecution case.
Therefore, the case of prosecution against the appellant/accused is established beyond any reasonable doubt. However, keeping in view of the circumstances of the case brought on record and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, I am inclined, in the interest of justice to reduce the sentences awarded to the appellants on both counts.
8. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, I maintain conviction of appellants Chaneser alias Chanoo son of Gul Muhammad Khaskheli and Murtaza son of Patasho Khoso passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar on 20-1-2004, under sections 397 and 324, P.P.C. 1 also maintain the order in respect of sentence of payment of Arsh to Muhammad Akhtar as passed by the trial Court, order in respect of the sentence of Rs,10,000 is also maintained. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall further suffer six months' R.I. Each. However, I reduce the sentences of their imprisonment on both counts, to five years' R.I. Each. The sentences of their imprisonment shall run concurrently. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended to them by the learned trial Court shall remain intact.
9. With these modifications in the sentences of imprisonment these appeals are dismissed.