1. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---In support of this appeal, learned counsel submits that chamber of the appellant was attacked by respondents. Further submits that as a result of firing by the respondents, one passerby namely Fayyaz was injured and he appeared before the trial Court.
2. Adds that one Nasir son of Siddique was also injured in this case. Further adds that it was a broad- daylight occurrence and that the reasoning given by the trial Magistrate for acquittal of the respondents are alien to law.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the impugned judgment. According to case of the prosecution, Nasir son of Siddique Khan was injured in the incident but no doctor was produced by the prosecution to prove his injuries. No application was either moved by the complainant of the case or by the present appellant who is now pursuing this appeal for summoning the doctor who examined the so-called injured namely Nasir son of Siddique Khan. There is no mention of Nasir, present appellant being injured either in the F.I.R. Or in the site plan prepared by the Investigation Officer. Same is the position with regard to Siddique, the alleged injured. The present appellant being an Advocate and P.W. Should have himself moved an application before the trial Court for summoning the doctor who allegedly examined him. Had the attack been made upon appellant, he must have received some injury rather according to his admission, he though grappled with the accused but only the accused received injuries. The present appellant neither being an injured nor being complainant, is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Moreover Nasir, Advocate while appearing as P.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that he was involved in cases like attempted murder and abduction etc. He also admitted that criminal litigation was going on between him and the accused. He went on admitting that cases under sections 364, 365 and 307/324, P.P.C. Were registered against him, inasmuch as, his brother Muhammad Akram got a case registered against him under section 307, P.P.C. In cross-examination, Nasir son of Budhay Khan P.W.2 had further admitted that Bashir Baig accused had got a case registered against him under section 324, P.P.C.
3. It seems that he is not having good credentials himself.
4. ' Fayyaz Ahmad an eye-witness (P.W.3) had stated before the trial Court that he did not know the accused persons prior to the present occurrence and came to know about the accused persons about 2/3 B hours after the occurrence. No identification parade was held in this case. One Muhammad Tufail, Advocate has also appeared as P.W.7 before the trial Court. He did not name any of the accused. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Akram S.-I. (P.W.8). According to contents of the F.I.R., both the parties, that is, the present appellant and accused respondents indulged into firing and during that process, Fayyaz received injury. This witness was never declared hostile by the prosecution. Mahmood-ul-Hassan D.S.P. While appearing as P. W.10 stated in his examination- in-chief that during the course of investigation, Nasir Advocate was present in his office and his presence at the spot was not proved. One prosecution witness had also admitted that occurrence had taken place in between the Court of Resident Magistrate and Qayyum Butt, Advocate, Muhammad Raza S.P. (Investigation) while appearing as P.W.11 admitted that out of the accused Nasir and Bashir Baig were injured but he did not investigate as to who injured them.
5. ' In view of what has been discussed above, I find no fault with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court which, is based on correct appreciation of evidence. The appeal being meritless and also that appellant neither being injured nor the complainant is not an aggrieved person with the meaning of section 417(2A), Cr.P.C. Is dismissed in limine.