' KHAWAJA MUHAMMD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No 740 of 2002 directed against the judgment, dated 4-4-2002 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 308, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo 14 years' R.I with diyat amounting to Rs, 3,00,000 (three lacs) payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. Benefit of section 382-B Cr .P.0 . Was also granted to the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the instant case as narrated by Manzoor Ahmad complainant on 13-8-2000 in the F.I.R., are that on 12-8-2000 at about `Shamwela" the complainant along with Abdul Ghafoor his brother, Karamat Ali P.W., his son and Maqsood Ahmad deceased was sitting in the Havaili/cattle shed in the light of electric bulb. All of a sudden Aman Ullah armed with .30 bore pistol Muhammad Amin armed with .30 bore pistol while raising lalkara came there. Kamaish accused who was standing outside was also raising lalkara that they be taught a lesson for their insult. In the meanwhile Maqsood Ahmad tried to hold Aman Ullah and Muhammad Amin upon which Aman Ullah fired with his pistol two shot hitting on the abdomen of Maqsood Ahmad. Then Muhammad Amin fired which hit on the right wrist/arm of Maqsood Ahmad who fell on the ground. On the hue and cry raised by the complainant and P.Ws., the accused fled away from the spot and the deceased died at the spot. The motive behind the present occurrence was an altercation which had taken place between Aman Ullah accused and the complainant party on money transaction.
3. After getting information, the local police completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter, the investigation of the case was handed over to Mahmood Mustafa S.-I. Who along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot. He prepared the inquest report Exh.P.I and injury statement Exh.P.H. He also took into possession the blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.E. Last worn clothes were also received by him vide memo. Exh.P.A. He arrested the accused Aman Ullah and Muhammad Amin on 18-8-2000. On 20-3-2000 Aman Ullah accused got recovered pistol .30 bore vide memo. Exh.PC. On 21-8-2000 Muhammad Amin got recovered pistol vide memo.
Exh.P.C/1. He also arrested Kamaish accused on 4-9-2000 while Inam Ullah accused was arrested by Kafayat Ullah Bajwa, Inspector on 13-10-2000. Ultimately after completion of investigation the challan was submitted against the accused under sections 302/ 109/34, P.P.C. But later on when Aman Ullah accused was declared minor. His challan was got separately prepared under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 12 witnesses including Doctor, Investigating Officers, eye-witnesses and other formal witnesses. After tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner, Exh.P.K, report of the Serologist Exh. P. L and report of Forensic Science Laboratory as Exh.P.M. Learned ADA closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of belated F.I.R. That the occurrence had taken place on 12-8-2000 at "Shamwela" but the matter was reported to the police on 13-8-2000 at 4-00 a.m. No plausible explanation has been given in the F.I.R. Learned counsel submits that both the eye-witnesses Manzoor Ahmad and Karamat Ali who are father and brother of the deceased made a dishonest improvement by changing the time of occurrence from "Shamwela" to 10-30 p.m. Learned counsel submits that prosecution has failed to produce any evidence regarding the motive as mentioned in the F.I.R. Both the eye-witnesses have admitted that when the motive occurrence took place they were not present. Learned counsel submits that so far as evidence of conspiracy is concerned that was not furnished by the prosecution before the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that as there was no conspiracy so there was no occurrence as suggested by the prosecution. Both eye-witnesses are related to the deceased and are inimical towards the appellant. Learned counsel submits that according to the prosecution fire was shot within range of 6 feet but there was no blackening on the wounds of the deceased.
6. The recovery witnesses are related with the complainant so there is clear violation of section 103 Cr.P.C. That the recovery of the pistol has been planted on the appellant'.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State submits that the motive is attributed to the present appellant because he had quarreled with the deceased over some money matter. That the ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. That both eye-witnesses though related to the complainant but are independent witnesses. Report of fire-arm expert is positive in nature. He has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record. In the instant case four accused including the present appellant were named in the F.I.R. Three of them were acquitted. Ameen is not related to the appellant. Kamaish is father and Inam Ullah is real brother of Kamaish. As far as Kamaish is concerned no overt act was attributed to him except Lalkara. As far as Ameen is concerned he was attributed an injury on the wrist of the deceased but there is no injury on the wrist of the deceased even according to report of Doctor. Appellant was tried separately being a juvenile offender. While Ameen, Kamaish and Inam Ullah were tried separately and they were acquitted by the learned trial Court. As far as the appellant is concerned he was attributed two injuries on the umbilicus of the deceased. Both these injuries are present in the post-mortem report. Occurrence had taken place in the Haveli of the complainant party. They are most natural witnesses. According to the F.I.R. An electric bulb was on. In both site plans one prepared by the Investigating Officer and the other by Patwari, electric bulb has been shown. There is not an iota of evidence on the record that there was any enmity between the appellant and the complainant party. Appellant had taken the plea before the trial Court in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he has been falsely implicated due to enmity but he could not bring on record a single instance about the enmity between himself and the complainant party. It is correct that F.I.R. Was lodged with the delay of 12 hours but if one should place himself in position of father and brother whose brother has been murdered before his own eyes such delay can be occurred. Now it has become a case of singly accused so there is no question of substitution as it is a rare phonomena. The real father and real brother will not let off the actual and main accused and would involve an accused falsely. Four crime empties were recovered from the spot. Recovery of pistol was also effected from the appellant and two crime empties C-1 and C-2 were matched with the pistol of the appellant. Not only ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence but also this circumstantial evidence is very big piece of corroboration to the prosecution version.
Already appellant has been dealt with the leniency for the reasons that he is a juvenile offender.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also going through the evidence on the record I am satisfied that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. In this view of the matter there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.