Ali Muhammad and his brother Shera, were tried under sections 380/411, 307/394/397, P. P. C. By Magistrate Section 30, Jauharbad District Sargodha. The trial Magistrate by his judgment dated 15April 1979, acquitted Shera. Ali Muhammad was convicted under section 307, P. P. C, and sentenced to seven years' R. I. And fine of Rs. 5,000 in default of payment thereof to one year R. I. He was further convicted under coon 382, P. P. C. And sentenced to six years' R. I, and fine of Rs. 3,000 in default to one year R. I. The sentences were to run consecutively. In addition, the convict was ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 each to Haji Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Amir P. Ws. Or in default to under go six months' R. I. The convict has filed this appeal through Jail.
2. Prosecution case is that on the night of 26th and 27th of January, 1978, Muhammad Altaf left his Yamaha motor-cycle No. 2003/S. G. In the verandah of his dera situated in the area of Mauza Rathana and himself went to sleep. When he got up in the morning he found his motor-cycle missing. He made efforts, but no clue of the motor-cycle gas found. As a last resort on the same day at about 6 p. m., he reported matter to Habibullah A. S. I. At Canal Bridge, Langarwali. On his statement Exh. P. J., F. I. R. No. 99/ 78 was registered.
It is alleged by the prosecution that on the same day Haji Muhammad Nawaz, maternal uncle of Muhammad Altaf came to know of this occurrence. At about evening time he alongwith Amir P. W.
Muhammad Feroze and Muhammad Aslam went to Muhammad Altaf for enquiring about the theft.
After getting the details all of them were returning on the Tractor, when at about 9 p. m., they reached Adda Chavewala, Muhammad, a shopkeeper told them that he saw two persons holding a motor-cycle. They were walking. Muhammad further said that when he asked them as to where they were going, they threatened him and told him not to come close to them. On this information,th Haji Muhammad Nawaz drove his tractor, chased them and after covering a short distance and the two persons standing under a shesham tree alongwith the motor-cycle. They stopped the tractor, kept the light on and in that light identified the two persons to be Ali and his brother Shera, Haji Muhammad Nawaz and Amir tried to apprehend All accused. He fired a pistol shot. Haji Muhammad Nawaz was hit on his right hand and right arm and Amir on .His chest. Nevertheless, Haji Muhammad Nawaz succeeded in overpowering Ali. Shera was apprehended by Aslam anti Feroze. Meanwhile, Ali tried to escape. Haji Muhammad Nawaz asked Aslam and Feroze to help him they joined him, as a result of that Ali Muhammad could not run away from there. He was, therefore, apprehen--ded at the spot. Pistol and three cartridges were also recovered front his possession. Ali Muhammad also sustained some injuries during the scuffle.
Two cases were registered against Ali Muhammad one under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for which he was tried separately, but a joint trial was held for offence under sections 382/411, 394/397/307, P. P. C.
3. Prosecution produced nine witnesses in support of its case Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Khan were given up as unnecessary.
Dr. Muhammad Ramzan examined Haji Muhammad Nawaz and found three contused wounds, a fire-arm wound and multiple firearm res on radial half of the right hand and right wrist-joint.
Muhammad Amir who was examined by the same doctor had Multiple firearm punctures on the front of the chat anal the, skin was scorched.
Ali Muhammad appellant suffered six injuries; all were simple and caused by blunt weapon.
4. I do not think it necessary to discuss the prosecution evidence in detail, because of the fact that the appellant confessed before the Magistrate.
Nevertheless. I would like to refer to the evidence of the two injured witnesses, i.e. Haji Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Amir. The injuries on their persons were found to have been caused by fire-arm. These witnesses and even the other witnesses were not known to the appellant. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to doubt their testimony nor there is anything on the record to suggest that they were in any way inimical or hostile so as to implicate an innocent person.
The appellant, as already observed, was also injured. Although his injuries were simple, but they go a long way to prove that he was apprehended at the spot, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. It was but natural that during the scuffle he must have received some injuries.
5. As already observed by me, Ali Muhammad made a clean breast of his guilt, therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that he had been rightly convicted under both counts. As is evident from the judgment of the trial Court he is also undergoing sentence in a murder case for life imprisonment, nevertheless I think that there appears to be no legal justification to order that the two sentences shall run consecutively.
Therefore, while maintaining the convictions under section 307/382, P. P. C. I order that the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence l under section 307, P. P. C. Is reduced to six years.
The sentence of fine under both counts is maintained and shall be paid as compensation to the two injured in equal shares. Collector concerned should take necessary steps for realisation of the same.
As the amount of fine awarded by the trial Court has been ordered to be paid to the two injured as compensation, therefore, I do not think any further compensation is required. Hence the amount awarded as compen--sation by the Magistrate is remitted.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.