' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1142 of 2002 filed by Saif Ullah, appellant who was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000 in default three months' S.I.
With the benefit of section 382. B, Cr.P.C. By learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide judgment dated 30-5-2002.
' Criminal Revision No.677 of 2002 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence of the convict shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 31-8-1998 at about noon time, when Shahbaz (deceased) reached near the Haveli of Bakari, Saifullah armed with a double barrel .12 bore gun emerged, raised Lalkara and fired a shot which hit on the joint of abdomen and right leg. Shahbaz succumbed to his injury at the spot.
4(sic). The investigation of the case was conducted by Ijaz, S.-I. (P.W.10). He after registration of the formal F.I.R., went to the spot, prepared injury statement Exh.PL, inquest report Exh.PM, took into possession the blood stained earth vide memo Exh.PM and prepared the rough site plan Exh.PQ.
Raja Muhammad Latif Inspector (.P.W.8) also partially investigated the case. Saif Ullah, the present appellant was arrested on 18-2-2001 and after his arrest, he led to the recovery of .12 bore gun on 19-2-2001 which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PG. After completion of the remaining formal investigation, the accused Saif Ullah was challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11 witnesses in all. The learned D.D.A.
Tendered in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.PM, report of the Serologist Exh.PN and closed the case of the prosecution. The accused in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Claimed innocence. After conclusion of the trial, the accused Saif Ullah was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the witnesses cited by the prosecution are not related to the deceased but were inimical towards him and though the occurrence had taken place in a village, but none from the surrounding was cited to have seen the occurrence. According to learned counsel, Bakari was the natural witness of the occurrence, but the prosecution did not produce him which creates doubt with regard to veracity of the prosecution story. Similarly, the prosecution did not produce Ahmad. Further submits that no reasons for the presence of Nazir and Zafar P.Ws. At the time and place of occurrence has been given by the prosecution. As to motive part of the case, it is submitted by learned counsel that prosecution has not given any evidence to show as to in what manner the deceased was pursuing the motive case. Learned counsel argues that a positive suggestion was put that the deceased had gone to the house of Bakari in order to commit sexual intercourse and that the dead body of the deceased was also found in the house of Bakari but there is no trail of blood between point No. 1 and 2 as according to case of the prosecution, the deceased received injury at point No.1 while his dead body was lying at point No.2.
' Learned counsel lastly submits that on the same set of evidence, two co-accused of the appellant have been acquitted so the appellant is also entitled to acquittal.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General, after going through the impugned judgment and the record supports the judgment of the trial Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In the instant case, three accused namely Saif Ullah, Mukhtar and Ghulam Ali were mentioned in the F.I.R. The present appellant Saif Ullah absconded so his trial was separated from his co accused. Mukhtar and Ghulam Ali, both were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation vide judgment dated 21-7-2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. No injury having been attributed to Mukhtar and Ghulam Ali, both were acquitted by this Court in Cr. Appeal No.1135 of 2000.
9. It was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. The occurrence took place at noontime while the postmortem was conducted on the day of occurrence at 4 p.m. The time given by the doctor between the death and postmortem was within seven hours which, coincide with the time of occurrence, given by the prosecution. It was the appellant whose shot hit Shahbaz deceased and he died at the spot. The motive to kill the A deceased also laid with appellant because he was injured by three persons from the side of the complainant party and Shahbaz the deceased, according to F.I.R. And statements of the witnesses before the trial Court was pursing that case.
Both the parties were known to each other being resident of the same village. The occurrence had also taken place in broad-daylight. Though the witnesses are related but not inimical towards the appellant and even mere relationship of a witness with the B deceased or the complainant is no criteria to discard his testimony.
The occurrence took place on 31-8-1998 but the appellant was arrested on 18-2-2001, that's about 2 years after the occurrence. Recovery of 12-bore gun was also effected from him. No crime empty was recovered from the spot and it was for the reason that unless the gun is reloaded the empty does not eject.
The ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence, the motive also laid with the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased, recovery of fire-arm was also effected from him and the appellant remained absconder for more than 2 years, all the facts taken D together, I am fully satisfied that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant to its hilt. Already a lenient view has been taken by the trial Court by awarding imprisonment for life.
' Resultantly, the appeal filed by the convict is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the trial Court is maintained in toto.