1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--Brief facts giving rise to the present appear are that on 24-1-1992 the P.W.l complainant Daulat was returning from Wada Mahesar to Kadan Maitlo village after closing his shop. At 5-00 p.m. He reached near the house of Soomar with whom his sister deceased Mst.
2. Shahzadi was married. P.Ws. Talib and Allah Wassayo were standing on the road. In the meantime his sister deceased Mst. Shahzadi came out from her house on enquiries she told the complainant that she was going to his house to bring some flour and then she went there. After some time she was returning with flour towards her house. When she reached near then the appellant, his four brothers came there and surrounded the deceased. Thereafter the appellant Panjal fired from his pistol which hit the deceased, she after receiving the injuries on her abdomen fell down on the ground. Thereafter the accused ran away. Leaving behind the P.Ws. The complainant went to police station and lodged the report at 7-00 p.m. The police arrested the appellant, produced him before the Magistrate for recording his judicial confession, where his confession was recorded and after completing the investigation challaned him in the Court of law.
3. ' The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur tried, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 (b), P.P.C. And'sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,25,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For one year with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. Under the impugned judgment dated 19-2-2004.
5. ' I have heard the Advocate for the appellant, A.A.-G. For the State and perused the record of this case very carefully.
6. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that ocular testimony is contradictory to each other; that one of the eye-witnesses P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case; that P.W. 2 gave a different time of incident as he stated that the incident took place when there was dark and that he has not disclosed the source of light to identify the appellant; that the ocular evidence is conflict with the medical evidence.
7. ' Conversely the learned A.A.-G. Has stated that the case rests upon only ocular testimony; that complainant and P.W.2 have supported the case, therefore it is sufficient to convict the appellant.
8. ' I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the evidence with the assistance of the Advocate for the appellant and found that the case rests upon only ocular testimony consists of three witnesses viz. P.W.l complainant Daulat, P.W.2 Talib and P.W.3 Allah Wassayo.
9. ' The complainant gave the same details of the incident as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, therefore need not to be repeated. According to the complainant he came alone from his shop, when he reached on the road he met with P.W.s Talib and Allah Wassayo and that the incident took place at 5-00 p.m. Therefore he has tried to show that the incident took place during the day light. Whereas his statement is not supported and corroborated by P.W.2 Talib as he deposed that on the date of incident after sunset time he along with complainant Daulat and P.W.3 Allah Wassayo came together from village Wada Mahesar and reached near their village where the darkness had fallen. Thus according to this witness the complainant did not come alone from Wada Mahesar but he, complainant and P.W.3 came together. From his evidence the incident took place after sunset time when the darkness had fallen. However, the evidence of both these witnesses has neither been supported and corroborated and P.W.3 as he did not state that he along with the complainant and P.W.2 came together from Wada Mahesar or he and P.W.2 were standing on the road when the complainant came there but he categorically stated that he was present in the mosque and was making ablution for MAGHRIB prayers when he heard the cries and then went to the place of incident where he saw the deceased lying dead, whereas the complainant and other villagers were standing there. He also excluded the presence of P.W.2 at the time when he reached the place of incident. However, P.Ws.l and 2 deposed that within their sight the appellant and his four brothers came out from the house they surrounded the deceased and then the appellant fired at her. They specifically stated that at that time the P.W.3 was with them and he witnessed the incident but the P.W.3 did not support them as clear from his statement mentioned above. Thus the ocular testimony is not free from doubt on the above aspects of the case.
10. ' Furthermore, the complainant disclosed that the appellant fired from a distance of about 5 or 6 feet at the deceased whereas P.W.2 disclosed that the appellant fired from his pistol by putting his pistol on the abdomen of the deceased. Thus the statements of both these witnesses on the above aspect of the case are not in conformity with each other. Furthermore their evidence is not corroborated by medical evidence as according to the medical officer he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "8. Circular tire-arm wounds of entrance 1 c.m. In diameter scattered over the outer aspect of the right side of the abdomen and right side of back of the abdomen."
11. I ' The medical officer further deposed that the deceased had received firearm shot from a distance of about 15 feet. The presence of 8 circular fire-arm wounds clearly shows that the pellets had spread in the air after fire to the extent that 8 pellets caused 8 separate wounds of 1 c.m. Each. This can only be possible when the fire-arm having cartridge was fired from a distance as suggested by the medical officer. Thus the deceased had not received the injuries from a distance as mentioned by both the P.Ws. As such the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical evidence. There is no other evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of this crime.
12. ' After considering the material available on the record, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful against the appellant, therefore he is entitled to the benefit of doubt, which was accordingly given to him while passing the short order dated 29-8-2006. These are the reasons of the said short order.