1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through instant Criminal Appeal filed under section 408, Cr.P.C., the appellants have assailed the Judgment dated 26-11-2010 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi in Sessions Case No,417 of 2003 whereby he convicted the appellants and sentenced each of them under section 324, P.P.C. To suffer R.I. For a period of five years and pay fine of Rs,50,000, under section 337-F (Shajjah-i-ghayri-Jaifah damiyah) to suffer R.I. For a period of one year and under section 337-F (Shajjah-i-ghayri-Jaifah badi'ah) to suffer R.I. For a period of three years. The appellants were, however extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. And sentences awarded, to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.
2. ' The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that one Muhammad Gul lodged F.I.R. At Police Station Quaidabad on 5-11-2003 stating therein that he resides along with his family. About six months ago he got engaged his daughter Mst. Farzana with one Dildar Ahmed son of Gill Zar Khan whereupon Dildar's brothers namely Mukhtar Ahmed and Umar Khitab were annoyed. On the said date at about 2-00 p.m. Mukhtar's wife and her brother-in-law came to the house of complainant and started abusing and beating his wife stating as to why hand of Mst. Farzana was given to Dildar, however matter was settled. On the same day at about 9-15 p.m. When the complainant was present in his house, his son Rahib Gul and his brothers-in-law namely Nazir-ulHaq and Nazir Gul came there in injured condition and stated that when they were coming back from duty and reached at Rohri Road near Anwar Shah Block Thalla, accused Umar Khitab, Noor Khitab, Zar Khitab and Gul Aftab all sons of Khudad Khan and Mukhtar Ahmed son of Gul Zar Khitab attacked them with knife and tokas with the result complainant's son received injury over the left shoulder whereas his brothers-in-law Nazeer-ul-Haq and Nazeer Gul sustained injuries on left ear/arm and left side of chest respectively.
3. ' After usual investigation challan was submitted against the accused persons, however during the trial one accused Mukhtiar Ahmed was acquitted under section 345(6), Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 23-11-2004. A formal charge was framed against the accused as Exh.2 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. ' At the trial prosecution examined P.W.1 Nazeer Gul as Exh.3, P.W.2 Nazeer-ul-Haq as Exh.4, P.W.3 Rahim Gul as Exh.5, P.W.4 Muhamamd Gul as Exh.6 who produced copy of F.I.R., memo of place of wardat, memo of arrest and memo of recovery as Exh.6/A to 6/D, P.W.5 Dr. P. Jesrani as Exh.7 who produced three medical certificates as Exhs 7/A to 7/C, final medico report as Exh.7/D to Exh.7/H, P.W.6 Syed Saleem Abbas as Exh.8, P.W.7 Shahid Kareem as Exh. 9, P.W.8 Samad Khan as Exh.10, P.W.9 ZakirUllah as Exh.11 and thereafter prosecution side was closed vide statement Exh.12.
5. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. As Exh.13 and Exh.14.
6. After recording evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above, hence this appeal.
7. ' Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to enmity; that the case has been registered against the accused as a counterblast of F.I.R. No,43 of 2004 lodged against the complainant as well as the alleged injured persons; that there are material contradictions in the version of the complainant and that of other witnesses; that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants in the commission of the alleged offence; that section 324, P.P.C. Has wrongly and malafidely been inserted as from the medical reports the ingredients of the said section are not attracted at all; that no incriminating articles were recovered from the appellants; that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt benefit whereof should be given to the accused. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and acquittal of the appellants.
8. ' Conversely, learned A.P.-G. Appearing for the State contended that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and in accordance with the law. He submitted that there are three eye-witnesses who are also injured, as such their testimony carries weight: that motive is also available in the shape of enmity on account of engagement of complainant's daughter with the brother of accused. In the circumstances, he supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and prayed for maintaining the same.
9. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.G. And perused the material available on the record.
10. It appears that Nazeer Gul, Nazeer-ul-Haq and Rahab Gul are eye-witnesses of the incident who allegedly received injuries at the hands of the accused persons. They all deposed in categorical terms that accused inflicted knife and toka injuries to them. Nazeer Gul received injuries on the vital part of the body i.e, right side of the chest. During cross-examination, their testimony could not be shaken materially. So far as minor discrepancies in their evidence are concerned, the same are to be ignored and no importance could be attached thereto. Needless to emphasize that contradiction means negation of prosecution version, merely discrepancy in the detail of the facts does not amount to contradiction. If any case-law is needed, reference can be made to PLD 2005 Peshawar 166 and PLD 1993 FSC 25.
11. ' It is worth-mentioning that accused got examined a witness namely Hamash Gul in their defence.
12. He deposed that on 5-11-2003 at about 9-30 p.m. He and both the accused were sitting in the street when two persons grappled with the accused who started running towards their house. Two persons apprehended the accused persons at, the outer door of their house and started beating them. The said witnesses and other mohallah people attempted to resolve the dispute. Thereafter the accused went to their house in injured condition. After 4/5 days accused persons visited his house and requested him to give evidence in their favour. He, however, asserted that he did not know as to where the accused persons had received injuries. He also admitted that on the day of the incident accused approached him to give evidence. In his cross-examination he admitted that he knew the accused persons for last eight years.
13. From the bare perusal of his evidence, it appears that he is an interested witness and had given the evidence at the instance of the accused persons, even on the day when his evidence was to be recorded, he was approached by the accused persons to give evidence. It is also strange that although he claims to have seen the incident but he does not know as to on which part of the body the accused sustained injuries. In the circumstances, his evidence cannot be said to be trustworthy, voluntary and impartial, hence cannot be relied upon.
14. ' Medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence. Besides, there is also strong motive as it has come in evidence that due to engagement of complainant's daughter with the brother of accused, there was rivalry between the parties.
15. ' The upshot of above discussion is that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such appeal merits no consideration. Consequently the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction is upheld.