' TARIQ PERVEZ KHAN, CJ.---This single judgment is intended to dispose of Cr. A. No, 104/2006 filed by Rahim Shah against his conviction and sentence awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge Swabi on 4.2.2006. Revision No, 57/2006 is filed by Mst. Tasleem Jana, complainant of the case, for enhancement of the sentence awarded to convict Rahim Shah,
2. On conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted under Section 324, PPC and sentenced to three years' R.I. With compensation of Rs, 15000/- payable to complainant victim within the meaning of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default to suffer three months' S.I. The appellant has further been convicted under Section 337-D, PPC and sentenced to one year's imprisonment as Tazir alongwith payment of 1/3rd of the amount of Diyat to the complainant/victim as compensation, also extending him benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Tasleem Jana reported the occurrence for which FIR No, 711 was.Registered in Police Station Kalu Khan, District Swabi. It was reported by her that she while present in the house alongwith her mother-in-law, Mst. Famoora, and second wife of her husband Mst. Noor Pari were quarreling with each other and. Rahim Shah, her brother-in-law, came and started firing at her with which she was hit.
4. The trial was held against appellant Rahim Shah and in that trial Mst. Tasleem Jana, injured complainant, did not appear because per report of the Process Server her whereabouts were not known. The appellant was then acquitted but in appeal against acquittal bearing No, 628/2004, acquittal was set aside and the matter was remanded back with the direction to the prosecution to procure the attendance of Mst. Tasleem Jana and she be examined.
5. On remand Mst. Tasleem Jana appeared as ARW. 1 where she has charged the appellant for causing her injuries.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Mst. Tasleem Jana is the only witness and her statement is not corroborated by any recovery from the spot; that one empty which was recovered from the spot but the recovery memo. Witness Rooh-ul-Amin has disowned it. He further argued that pistol which was allegedly used in the commission of the crime was sent to the Fire-Arm Expert and the report was in negative. It is argued that there are charring marks around two entry wounds of the complainant whereas in the site plan, the distance between the assailant and the complainant is 5 paces, therefore, when pistol is used, the charring would not occur as charring ranges from a distance of 6 to 9 inches. He next argued that she is not truthful witness as in her "Court statement she has stated that the report was made in the Police Station' though it was recorded on the spot.
7. The testimony of Mst. Tasleem Jana intrinsically rings true for more than one reasons. Not only in her report but in her Court statement also she has explained the so-called delay in making the report. Otherwise too delay in making report assumes importance where either number of accused are enlarged or there is enmity. In the present case, single accused is charged with no previous enmity. Her statement is duly supported by medical evidence that she has received fire-arm injuries on her different parts of the body as given by her in her report. Single accused is charged for crime who is closely related to her, the is brother of her husband.
8. There is a confession made by accused recorded by Mr. Naseem Khan, Judicial Magistrate which is Ex.PW,7/2. In the confession, the appellant has admitted the guilt but somewhat in a different manner by making out an accidental occurrence.
9. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was convicted under Section 324, PPC as well as under section 337-D, PPC but for the latter' offence no separate charge was framed.
10. Section 324, PPC itself contains punishment for attempt to commit offence of Qatl-Amd and also provides if injury is caused, offender shall be liable to punish for the injury caused; therefore, Section 324, PPC has composite offences and no separate charge was required to be framed.
Other wise too conviction recorded on minor offences as against graver would not prejudice the appellant.
11. For the reasons discussed above, this Court believes the statement of Mst. Tasleem Jana to be intrinsically true, therefore, conviction and sentence recorded do not require any interference.
12. Revision for enhancement is dismissed for, the reasons that there is, no previous enmity, betWeen the complainant and the appellant who because of altercation and exchange of abuses between the two women-folk of the house, at the spur of moment, resorted to firing without any previous enmity.
' Therefore sentence awarded does not require enhancement.
' Both appeal and the revision stand dismissed. Conviction/Sentence Upheld/Enhancement of Sentence Declined.