JUDGMENT KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, whereby, after having tried the appellant, he was convicted under section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 544-A, Cr.P.C, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo SI for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C, was extended to the appellant. Criminal Revision No. 795/2003 was filed by the complainant for enhancement of the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. Both these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by the complainant Mushtaq Ahmad (PW 1) in the FIR enter that they are three brothers, on the fateful day and time, he alongwith his younger brother Muhammad Hussain was going to Noorpur, when they reached near the shop of Shabhir Machhi, Muhammad Ahmad armed with rifle, Nazir Ahmad armed with rifle came there, on Lalkara raised by Muhammad Ahmad, Nazir Ahmad fired a shot on his left thigh his second fire hit him brother on his left knee who fell down, Muhammad Ahmad (PO) fired a shot which hit him on his right ear, his second fire hit him on delicate parts of the body of his brother, on his hue and cry PWs attracted to the spot and motive was that the deceased was helping the enemies of the accused persons.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challari was submitted against the accused before the learned Trial Court, the accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced twelve witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the appellant has falsely been involved in this case; that the eye-witnesses of the case have failed to prove their presence at the place of occurrence; that in fact it is an unwitnessed occurrence and the complainant was not present at the spot; that according to the Investigating Officer, he received information of the occurrence at 8.00 a.m. But according to the FIR, the occurrence had taken place at about 9.00 a.m. While the FIR was lodged at 10.30. a.m.; that the injuries attributed to the appellant are on the non-vital parts of the body of deceased; that the fatal injury is attributed to co-accused Anwar (PO); that although the occurrence had taken place at a busy place but the natural witnesses were neither cited nor produced during the trial; that the appellant was involved at the instance of a landlord of-the area Ameer Bodla; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant, who had also filed Criminal Revision; submits that it is a broad-day-light occurrence; that the ocular account in this case was corroborated by the medical evidence; that both the eye-witnesses in this case are independent having no background of enmity between the parties; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 1.8.2000 at about 9.00 a.m., the matter was reported to the police at 10.00 a.m; while formal FIR was recorded in the Police Station at 10.30 a.m.
And the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is ten and a half Kilometers, In other words, it is a promptly lodged FIR.
It is a broad-day-light occurrence. No previous background of enmity existed between the parties.
No question for false implication arises either. There are number of injuries on the person of the deceased. Two injuries are attributed to the appellant i.e. One on the thigh and other 0n the knee.
Both the said injuries did exist in the medical report, so, the ocular account against the appellant is corroborated by the pidical evidence.
The occurrence in this case had taken place on 1.8.2000 while the appellant was arrested on 15.2.2002 meaning thereby that he was arrested after one and a half year of the occurrence and during said period he remained absconder. Thus the said long abscondence of the appellant is a further corroboration to the ocular account.
7.The appellant also led to the recovery of a rifle which was taken into possession by the police which is Exh. PB/1 on the record. Both the eye-witnesses of the occurrence are brothers and first cousin of the deceased. But mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot discard the testimony of the said eyewitnesses whose testimony otherwise is confidence inspiring and trustworthy. Especially, when the said eye-witnesses had no enmity or strong motive to falsely depose against the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was involved in the case by a landlord of the area, namely, Ameer Bodla, is not believable.
8. After having sifted grain from the chaff and after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is pf the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against the appellant. The learned Trial Court has delivered a well-reasoned judgment to convict the appellant which does-not call for interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the learned Trial Court had already taken a lenient view and this Court see no reason to take a further lenient view qua the quantum of sentence of the appellant. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed after having maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment, in toto. For the afore-referred reasons, Criminal Revision No. 795/2003 filed by the complainant has no merit which is hereby dismissed.