' SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J.---The above titled appeal is directed against the judgment passed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli on 30-4-2005 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 25 years' R.I. Under section 302, A.P.C, 10 years' R.I. Under section 324, A.P.C., Rs,5000 Daman under section 337, A.P.C., one month S.I. Under section 341, A.P.C. And six months' S.I. Under the Arms Act.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the appeal are that a case under sections 302/324, 341, A.P.C. Was registered against the appellant at Police Station, Sehnsa on the complaint of Muhammad Shapal. It was reported that aunt of the complainant Mst. Shafayat Begum was sick for the last 5/6 months. On 10-7-1996 he took her to Ayub Medical Centre Rawalpindi in Jeep of Altaf Khan son of Walayat Khan. On 11-7-1996 at 7-30 p.m. After medical check up, they left for home. Altaf Khan was driving while the complainant and Mst. Shafayat Begum were sitting in front seat. At 10-30 p.m. They arrived at Kalri Check Post, Hollar. A police constable stopped the jeep and after checking allowed them to go. As they came at a short distance from the check post Muhammad Latif, police constable who was standing there in uniform stopped the jeep and saying that he will not let Altaf Khan to go alive as he killed his father, fired with pisiol which hit the deceased at his right shoulder. The bullet crossed the body and also hit the complainant at right side of his neck. Muhammad Latif ran away towards the forest after committing the offence. A. Man in civil dress informed the police present at check post that Muhammad Latif constable ran away after hitting the jeep's driver. Altaf Khan was shifted in police vehicle where he succumbed to the injuries. Motive behind the occurrence was that Altaf Khan was alleged to have killed the father of convict-appellant in 1993.
3. After completion of investigation, the challan under sections 302/324, 337, 341, A.P.C. And 13/20/65, A.A was submitted before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli. On conclusion of the trial, the Court convicted the appellant through the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the occurrence took place during dark hours of the night. Identification of the accused was doubtful. In fact the occurrence was not witnessed by any body. Due to enmity prevailing between the parties he was involved in a false case. The complainant and P.W. Shafayat Begum were closely related to the deceased and were inimical towards the appellant. They made improvements during their statements which were full of contradictions. The independent witnesses were given up by the prosecution. Injury at the person of complainant was not possible in the claimed manner, The recovery of weapon of offence was doubtful as the independent attesters namely Tasleem Qureshi and Khadim Hussain were not produced. The learned counsel contended that the occurrence was not pre-planned. No allegation of conspiracy or premeditation was levelled against the convict appellant. True facts were suppressed by the prosecution. F.I.R. Was lodged after preliminary investigation and a story was concocted to .Rope the appellant in the case. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate evidence on record in a 'judicial fashion. The prosecution story being improbable was not worth consideration, therefore, by accepting the appeal, the appellant may be acquitted of the charge.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the occurrence was witnessed by complainant and Mst.
Shafayat Begum. Their version was supported by police employees deputed at the check post.
Identification of accused was not in doubt as he was known to the prosecution witnesses. Time and place of occurrence was not disputed and presence of the convict appellant, deceased and the witnesses at the place at relevant time was also admitted. The eye account was confidence inspiring and it was supported by absconsion of the convict appellant. Learned counsel pointed out that crime empty seized from the place of occurrence along with .30 bore pistol recovered from the convict appellant was sent to Forensic Science Expert. The report shows that it was fired from the said weapon. Postmortem report and medico-legal report pertaining to the complainant lends support to the prosecution case. Learned counsel contended that prosecution was not bound to examine every witness cited in challan. The witnesses produced in support of the case stood at the touchstone of the test of cross-examination and defence failed to obtain anything favourable. The prosecution successfully proved that due to enmity the convict-appellant killed Altaf Khan and caused injury at the person of complainant with .30 bore pistol. Learned counsel submitted that no contradiction or discrepancy was pointed out by the defence. The prosecution evidence was confidence inspiring and the case was proved beyond any doubt. The trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding lesser punishinent of life imprisonment, thus the impugned judgment needs no interference, therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The ocular version as appears from the deposition of P.Ws. Shapal and Mst. Shafayat Begum that on 11-7-1996 they were coming back from Rawalpindi in a Jeep. Altaf Khan was driving while the others were sitting in front seat. At 10-30 p.m. They reached at Kalri check post. The police stopped them and after checking allowed to go. As they came at distance of about 10 yards from the post, the convict-appellant who was standing there fired at Altaf Khan with .30 bore pistol which hit him at his right shoulder. The bullet crossed the body and also hit P.W. Complainant at right side of his neck. The convict ran away towards the forest. In the meantime the police present at check post came there and shifted Altaf Khan in police vehicle. The victim succumbed to the injuries. Motive behind the incident was that Altaf Khan was alleged to have killed the father of convict-appellant prior to the occurrence.
8. The prosecution examined Ghulam Rasool Constable No,2693, Muhammad Younis Head Constable No,1103 and Hassan Wazir Afridi, Assistant Sub-Inspector Police in support of the case. A careful consideration of their depositions shows that on 11-7-1996 the police patrol party came at the Kafiri Check Post. Hassan Wazir Afridi A.S-I., ordered Ghulam Rasool constable to check the vehicles. At 10-30 p.m. Altaf Khan came there in a Jeep. A boy and a lady were sitting in the front seat. After checking they were allowed to go. Few yards from the post the jeep stopped and they heard the sound of fire. P.W. Muhammad Younis told others that a woman was saying that Latif accused fired and ran away towards forest. Upon this the witnesses came at the place and searched him but failed. They shifted the victims and Mst. Shafayat Begum in police vehicle where Altaf Khan succumbed to the injuries.
9. It is important to note here that a prosecution witness namely Muhammad Jamil Constable No,2237 who was given up was produced, in defence. As per his deposition he was present at the check post. Latif accused was also sitting with them. A Toyota Wagon came from the side of Kotli and its driver told them that a woman sitting in a vehicle was weeping. Upon which they came at the place and saw Altaf Khan injured. The Chowki Officer asked the woman about any enmity and as she took name of Muhammad Latif, he ran away.
10. The aforesaid circumstances clearly indicate that time and place of occurrence was not disputed. There was no quarrel on the point that the convict-appellant, deceased and prosecution witnesses were present at the place of occurrence at relevant time. It was admitted that when police party came at the spot Altaf Khan was injured and P.W. Mst. Shafayat Begum was sitting in front seat of the jeep. It was also established that convict-appellant ran away from the place of occurrence.
11. It may be stated here that on 12-7-1996 a crime empty of .30 bore pistol was seized from the place of occurrence. The convict-appellant was arrested on 17-7-1996 and weapon of offence was recovered at his instance in presence of Muhammad Farooq, Shahid Mahmood, Tasleem Qureshi and Khadim Hussain. During trial Muhammad Farooq and Shahid Mahmood were examined by the prosecution. They proved that the convict was arrested, weapon of offence .30 bore B pistol was recovered from the belt of his Shalwar. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the convict- appellant that Tasleem Qureshi and Khadim Hussain were independent witnesses. They were not willing to make false statement, therefore, they were given up by the prosecution merits no consideration as it was clear from the statement of Mirza Zahid Hussain, Sub-Inspector Police that Tasleem, Qureshi and Khadim Hussain were close friends of convict-appellant and also deposed that the accused was arrested from this house.
12. It will be worth mentioning that ascertainment of truth is primary duty of the Courts. It is well settled law that witnesses are to be believed or disbelieved on the basis of their own testimony. To persuade a Court to disbelieve eye witnesses it must be shown that they suppressed true facts, their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful, they had reasons for false implication and were interested in prosecution and conviction of an accused, the eye account was in conflict with proposed corroboratory evidence and not supported by surrounding circumstances. It may be added here that the statements otherwise inspiring confidence could not be outrightly rejected on the sole ground of relationship.
13. In the present case, presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time particularly in view of the injury found at the person of the complainant leaves no doubt. It was further supported by police employees who came at the place from a distance of about 10 yards.
Corroborative material in shape of Postmortem report Exh.PN and Forensic Science Expert's report Exh.PR was also brought on record. The ocular version was confidence inspiring however, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased was alleged for killing father of the convict which might have provoked him for commission of the offence, thus, sentence of life imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Awarded to him by the trial Court was sufficient in the circumstances.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment being correct and in accordance with law needs no interference, therefore, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.