' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.752 of 2003 directed against the judgment, dated 27-3-2003 passed by the learned Judge Special Court under Juvenile System Ordinance, 2000, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C.
And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000 as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default thereof six months' S.-I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The co-accused of the appellant was acquitted.
2. The facts of the instant case in brief as narrated in the F.I.R. Exh.P.C. By the complainant are that on the day of occurrence at about 4-30 p.m. Mazhar Hussain alias Kala deceased was coming home whereas Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Aslam P. Ws. Were following him at a distance of about 20 yards. When they reached near the street of Muhammad Ali Shamsher alias Shamoo appellant while armed with a .12 bore gun, fired at Mazhar Hussain alias Kala on his back who fell down and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused/appellant fled away from the spot.
The motive behind the present occurrence was that 4/5 days before the occurrence a quarrel and altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant when they were playing Volley Ball outside the village and threats were extended by the appellant and Muhammad Hussain to deceased.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities and then Allah Ditta S.-I. Along with his subordinates proceeded to the place of the occurrence. He prepared injury statement Exh.P.G. And the inquest report Exh.P.H. He also took into possession the blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.D. Last-worn clothes were also received by him vide memo. Exh.P.J. He arrested the appellant who while in police custody got recovered .12 bore gun P.1 along with live cartridge P.2. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted two separate challans in the court as the accused/appellant was juvenile.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 10 witnesses including 1.0., eye-witnesses, Doctor and other formal witnesses. After tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.L., report of Serologist Exh.P.M. And report of FSL Lahore Exh.P.H. Learned D.A. Closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded his innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the whole record available on the file and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night and not at 4-30 p.m. As has been stated by the complainant in the F.I.R., that the complainant is father of the deceased while Ghulam Abbas and Muhammad Aslam are paternal and maternal uncles of the deceased respectively, that Muhammad Aslam P.W. Is not resident of the same village while Ghulam Abbas P.W. Is resident of another street. He submits that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution, that F.I.R. Was lodged after due deliberation and consultation, that complainant had stated before the learned trial Court during cross-examination that he reached at the spot 2/4 minutes after the occurrence, that the name of the complainant was not mentioned by the draftsman in the site plan Exh.P.K., that time of lodging the F.I.R. Is different to that of complaint. He further submits that eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are closely related with each other and also to the deceased. Adds that Doctor has stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence could have taken place at 6-30 p.m. He further submits that appellant was declared as juvenile offender so he was awarded life imprisonment.
Adds that if the case of the appellant is covered under the Juvenile Justice System, 2000 then he can be convicted under section 308, P.P.C. And not under section 302(b), P. P. C .
6. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that appellant is named in the F.I.R. With specific role. Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Occurrence had taken place at 4-30 p.m. On 7- 1-2001. Matter was reported to the Police at 6-30 p.m. While formal F.I.R. Was lodged at 7 p.m. On the same day. Appellant is the only accused in this case. There was no previous background of enmity between the parties, neither it was alleged during the trial by putting any question to any of the P.W. Though, P.Ws. Were closely related to the deceased but they have no animous whatsoever against the appellant. As far as the possibility, as stated by the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination, that occurrence could have taken place at 6-30 p.m. Is concerned, the Doctor had conducted the postmortem examination at 10-50 a.m. On 8-1-2001. The occurrence had taken place on 7-1-2001 at 4-30 p.m. And the duration given by the Doctor between the time of death and postmortem examination is 16 to 20 hours which totally fits in with the prosecution time of occurrence. Gun was also recovered on the pointation of the appellant. As far as non-recovery of crime empty is concerned, as single fire shot was made so there was no question of falling any crime empty at the spot. Seat and nature of injury has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of gun which was found in working condition by the Fire-arm Expert.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available on the file, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out. This appeal is dismissed.