' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 6 of 2008 titled Noor Ayaz Khan v. The State and Criminal Revision No,16 of 2008, titled Siraj Khan v. Noor Ayaz Khan, as both have arisen out of the same judgment, dated 27-2-2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Bannu in case F.I.R. No,337, dated 6-7-2006 registered under section 324, P.P.C. At.Police Station Saddar Bannu.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by Siraj Khan complainant in injured condition in the emergency room of Civil Hospital Bannu is to the effect that on the eventful day at 1615 hours he was present in front of the house of Muhammad Shehryar Khan when meanwhile Noor Ayaz Khan armed with Kalashnikov came and opened firing at him with which he was hit and fell to the ground. Motive for the offence was given to be that the accused forcibly wanted the hands of sister of the complainant for marriage.
3. After his arrest and completion of investigation, challan was put in Court against the accused for trial where he did not plead guilty to the charge, professed innocence and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution recorded the statement of Mohammad Tahir Shah Sub-Inspector Investigation as P.W.1. Who had submitted complete challan against the accused under section 512, Cr.P.C. Taj Ali A.S.-I. Was examined as P.W.2. Who had registered the case. Muhammad Ayub A.S.-I. Was examined as P.W.3. Who had recorded initial report of the injured victim in the shape of murasila Exh.PA/1, while Wali Ayaz Khan was examined as P.W.3 who is marginal witness to the recovery memo. Exh.PR vide which the Investigating Officer has taken into possession the bloodstained shirt (P-1) of the injured victim. Safdar Zaman and Faidullah Khan P.Ws. Were abandoned being unnecessary. Gul Faraz Khan Sub-Inspector was produced as P.W.5 who had submitted supplementary challan; P.W.6 Abdul Karim DFC was entrusted with the warrant under section 204, Cr.P.C. Against the accused; P.W.7. Dr. Jawaid Khan had medically examined the injured/complainant on 6-7-2007; P.W.8 Azad Khan had escorted the injured to the doctor while the complainant Siraj Khan was examined as P. W.9 who had affirmed his narration put forth in the first report and Muhammad Salim A.S.-I. Was examined as P.W.10. Who had prepared the site plan Exh.P.B.; recorded statement of the P.Ws and received the FSL report Exh.P.K., whereafter statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who neither wished to be examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor opted to produce defence evidence. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the materials brought on record that hearing pro and contra evidence found the accused guilty of the offence charged with and thus on conviction sentenced him under section 324, P.P.C. To undergo seven years' R.I. And to pay fine of Rs, 50,000, in default to further suffer one year simple imprisonment. He was further convicted under section 337-D, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years' R.I. And to pay Arsh equal to 1/3rd of Diyat which on recovery was payable to the victim/complainant. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however, given to the convict and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, vide judgment, dated 27-2-2008. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentences through the criminal appeal while the complainant Siraj Khan has prayed for enhancement of the sentences so awarded to the convict through the criminal revision mentioned above.
5. I have carefully scrutinized record of the case and considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The prosecution case rests on the ocular testimony of the complainant Siraj Khan who himself got injuries in the occurrence. The testimony of the an injured witness cannot be discarded slightly unless it is shattered by the defence which in the case in hand is lacking. The appellant is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. And the accusation is duly supported by motive. The appellant has remained in abscondence with no plausible explanation and the medical evidence and site plan prepared in the case are in line with the ocular account of the complainant. The prosecution has thus successfully proved the guilt of the appellant in the crime and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge is based on correct legal footing which needs no interference.
7. The quantum of sentence, however, seems to be harsh. The minor dents in the case of the prosecution that no empty or blood-stained earth was recovered from the spot goes in favour of the appellant to be awarded lesser punishment.
8. Resultantly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the sentences each under sections 324 and 337-B, P.P.C. Are reduced from seven years to five years and the benefit under section 382- B, Cr.P.C. Shall remain intact. With the above modification, the criminal appeal as well as the criminal revision is dismissed and the remaining sentences of imprisonment and fine are kept intact.
' Above are the reasons for any short order of even date.