' LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Takht Bhai dated 7-7-2010 vide which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-- ' Under section 324, P.P.C., 3 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,20,000, in default SI for six months.
' Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C., one year's R.I. And Rs,50,000 compensation, payable to the complainant with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. On 24-8-2009 at 22:15 hours Jamshed son of Mira Jan complainant, in. Injured condition, reported to the police in Civil Hospital Mardan to the effect that on the eventful day after Aftari he was standing in front of his home when at the relevant time his brother Taj Muhammad (the appellant), Gul Wahid and Shaukat son of Gul Wahid came there duly armed; that the appellant Taj Muhammad fired at him as a result of which he sustained injury. Motive for the offence is dispute over house.
3. The murasila is Exh.PA/1 on the basis of which F.I.R. (Exh.PA was recorded. The complainant was medically examined vide Exh.P.W.7/1 and a fire-arm injury with corresponding exit on the right buttock was .Found on his person.
4. During spot inspection blood-stained earth was recovered from the place of complainant vide memo Exh.P.W.1/1. The appellant was arrested on 6-12-2009.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that three accused are charged in the F.I.R.; that the site plan was prepared at the instance of one Faqir Taj who was not produced during the trial; that there is contradiction between the statements of P.Ws. About the arrival of the I.O. To the spot and that the appellant has been charged falsely.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant is the real brother of the appellant, hence no question of false implication arises; that he has specifically been charged for effective firing and that the site plan was verified by the complainant.
' The learned State counsel also opposed the appeal.
7. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. The evidence produced during the trial would show that the appellant is charged by the complainant (P.W.1). The remaining two accused have not been assigned the role of effective firing.
Being brother, identity of the appellant cannot be doubted. The venue is established as blood- stained earth has been recovered from the (spot. After the commission of offence the appellant absconded and warrant under section 204, Cr.P.C. And proclamation under section 87, Cr.P.C. Were issued against him. The medical evidence confirms that the injury sustained by the complainant was caused with fire-arm. The matter has been reported within reasonable time in the hospital.
' From the evidence produced, particularly the statement of complainant (P.W.1), has properly been appreciated by the learned trial Judge and conviction is well-reasoned. This appeal, ' as such, stands dismissed.