' Questioned herein is the judgment dated 12.12.2014, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore (District Swabi), whereby appellants (1) Zahir Rehman and (2) Said Rehman, have been convicted and sentenced as under: ' Under Section 324, PPC.--To undergo 05 years RI. Each and to pay a fine of Rs, 20,000/- each or in default thereof to undergo 05 months each, further.
' Under Sections 337-F (iii), PPC.--To undergo 02 years R.I. Each and to pay Daman amounting to Rs, 10,000/- each, and in case of non-payment of Daman to be kept in jail and be dealt within the manner as if are sentenced to simple imprisonment unless daman is paid to the injured- complainant.
' Under Section 427, PPC.-To undergo 01 years R.I. Each and to pay Rs, 30,000/- each or in default thereof to undergo 03 months S.I. Further.
' The Sentences have been directed to be run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to the appellants.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded in First Information Report is that on 04.06.2012 at 1720 hours, Faiz-ur-Rehman complainant, in injured condition, reported to local police that on the fateful day he along with his brother Muhammad Ibrahim, was on the way back in a motorcar from the house of his brother-in-law, namely, Muhammad Zahid, situated in village Tordher and when reached near new Nehar Jehangira on Swabi road, they were intercepted by. Said Rehman and Zahir Rehman (appellants-convicts herein), who chased them in a white colour motorcar and opened fire at them with the intention to commit their murders, resultantly, he got hit on his right arm while his brother PW Muhammad Ibrahim luckily remained unscathed. A money dispute with the accused has been alleged as motive behind the incident. In addition to complainant, the incident is stated to have been witnessed by his brother PW Muhammad Ibrahim.
3. Hanif Ali Khan ASI (PW.6) recorded the report of the complainant in the shape of murasila Exh.PA/1 on the basis of which FIR No, 821 dated 04.06.2012 under Section 324/34, PPC at Police Station Lahor Swabi. He prepared injury sheet of injured complainant Exh.PW.6/1 and referred him to RHC Kunda for medical treatment under the escort of Constable Asif No, 2357. He also arrested accused Said Rehman on 04.06.2012 vide arrest Card Exh.PW.6/2.
4. Dr. Asghar Ali (PW.3) examined injured complainant Faiz ur Rehman and found the following injuries on his person:-
1. Firearm entrance wound on anterio lateral aspect of right arm size about 1/2 x V2 cm in length.
2. Firearm exit wound on the posterior lateral aspect of right arm size about 11/2 x 11/2 cm in length with bleeding.
' After first aid, the patient was referred to DHQ hospital Swabi for X-ray and onward treatment.
After receipt of discharge slip from Male Surgical Ward DHQ, hospital on 19.06.2012, PW.3 furnished his final opinion regarding nature of injuries of complainant to be "Ghyre Jaifah" Mutalahima caused by fire-arm.
5. Fazal-e-Manan Khan ASI (PW.10), conducted investigation iri the case. He proceeded to the spot and prepared site-plan Exh.PB on the pointation of eye-witnesses. During spot inspection he secured blood through cotton from driving seat of motor Car No, LWJ-7008 vide memo. Exh.PW.7/1.
He also took into possession the aforesaid motorcar vide memo. Exh.PW.7/2, placed on file snaps of the motorcar mentioned above Exh.PW.10/2. Vide recovery memo. Exh.PW.1/1 he took into possession blood-stained garments of the injured, formally arrested accused Zahir Rehman after rejection of his BBA on 26.08.2012 vide arrest card Exh.PW.10/3, sent the blood-stained articles to the FSL, report whereof is Exh.PK. He also conducted inquiry on the application of accused Zahir Rahman about his innocence, recorded statements of PWs under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and after completion of investigation handed over case file to SHO, who submitted challan against the accused.
6. On receipt of challan by the learned trial Court, accused/appellants were summoned and formally charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein they denied prosecution allegations and professed their innocence. They however, declined to be examined on oath or to produce evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above, hence, this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that appellants are innocent and have been implicated falsely; that version of the complainant is a cook and bull story which does not find any corroboration from the site-plan, medical evidence as well as other circumstances of the incident; that testimony of complainant-injured is suffering from material contradictions and discrepancies, which cast serious doubt about his credibility therefore, mere presence of injuries on his person cannot be a certificate of his truthfulness; that PW Muhammad Ibrahim is a procured witness because his escape sitting beside the complainant in front seat disturb a prudent mind; that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the incident, the occurrence has not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecution; that nothing in black & white such as technical report or Expert opinion has been brought on record from which the alleged damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant could be determined; that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence, therefore, while extending them benefit of doubt, they be acquitted of the charge.
8. Conversely, learned AAG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that the appellants are directly charged by complainant having stamp of injuries on his person and his version has been corroborated by PW Muhammad Ibrahim; that medico report wherein the injured has sustained fire-arm injuries coupled with the statement of Medical Officer, .As well as recovery of blood from the spot, the blood-stained garments of the injured and positive report of the Serologist support the ocular version; that recovery of crime empties from the spot and the vehicle of the complainant having bullet marks further substantiate the prosecution version. They contended that the impugned judgment being well reasoned and based on proper appraisal of evidence, is not open to any interference by this Court, hence, sought dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have heard the exhaustive arguments advanced from either side and perused the record carefully.
10. This incident took place on 04.06.2012 at 1700 hours, which has been reported at 1720 hours i,e, within 20 minutes. Injured-complainant Faiz ur Rehman has directly charged both the appellants with specific role of firing at him and his brother PW Ibrahim. During trial, injured complainant Faiz ur Rehman appeared as PW.8. In his examination-in-chief lie reiterated the same story as set forth by him in his initial report. PW Muhammad Ibrahim appeared as PW.9 wherein he supported the version of the complainant. Admittedly, in hurt cases, statement 9f injured witness, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient for recording conviction, provided it rings true and is trustworthy, in view of its intrinsic worth. As per medico legal report Exh.MLR/1, injured Faiz ur Rehman has sustained a single entrance wound on anterio later aspect of right arms with corresponding exit, for which he has charged the two appellants. He has not attributed the single injury to any of the two appellants rather general role of firing has been attributed to them, but perusal of the site-plan reveals that appellant Said Rehman has been shown at Point No, 4 i,e, towards right side of injured complainant while appellant Zahir Rehman at Point No, 3 i,e, in front of motorcar of the injured- complainant. The snaps shots of the motorcar of the complainant has also been brought on record, wherein the bullet marks are available on right side of the motorcar i,e, towards driving seat while there is no bullet mark on wind screen of the vehicle of complainant, which proves that injured complainant sustained injury from the firing of the accused who was towards his right side i,e, appellant Said Rehman. Had appellant Zahir Rehman, fired at the complainant party, in such situation the injured complainant should have received injuries on his front and the wind screen of the motorcar should have been broken or at least there should have been bullet marks, but such is not the case herein. Similarly, as stated earlier, as per medical evidence the injury of the injured is from right side. Besides, PW Muhammad Ibrahim who was sitting in front seat towards left of the injured complainant had not sustained any injury, because the firing was from right side which hit the complainant on driving seat and some bullets hit the motorcar of the complainant from side.
Had appellant Zahir Rehman participated in the commission of crime then he being in front of the vehicle of the complainant could easily target them but there is not a single bullet mark on the vehicle from front side. The recovery of blood from driving seat of the injured complainant, his blood-stained garments and positive Serologist report Exh.PK corroborate the prosecution version but only to the extent of appellant Said Rehman.
11. In light of the evidence available on record, the prosecution has proved the guilt of appellant Said Rehman up to the hilt while there is nothing on the record to prove participation or common intention of the appellant Zahir Rehman in the commission of offence. By now the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, has been done away with, rather the Courts while appreciating evidence, apply the principle of sifting the grain from the chaff and in light thereof it can be safely concluded that it was the appellant Said Rehman, who attempted at the life of the complainant and caused him fire-arm injury. This principle has been laid down by the apex Court in case titled, "Tawaib Khan and another vs. The State" (PLD 1970 Supreme Court 13) in the following words: "The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has all along been discarded by the Courts in this country. Similarly, the rule that the integrity of a witness is indivisible, despite its normal virtue has not been endorsed by the superior Courts of this country without reservation and cannot be accepted as one of universal applications. In the last analysis, as stated in some of the eminent judicial decisions, "the grain has to be shifted from the chaff" in each case, in light of its own particular circumstances."
' The 'same principle has been reiterated by the apex Court in case titled, "Bakka v8. The State" (1977 SCM R 150), in the following words: "The principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has long since ceased to be applied by the Courts in this country, and they have always endeavored to separate the grain from the chaff'.
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same view in plethora of judgments, some of which are referred as titled, "Muhammad Haleem and G. Safdar Shah JJ Khairu and another vs. The State (1981 SCM R 1136), "Ghulam Sikandar and another vs. Mamaraz Khan and others" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11), "Irshad Ahmed vs. The State" (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 138), "Sarfaraz alias Sappi and 2 others vs. The' State" (2000 SCM R 1758) and "Ziaullah vs. The State" (1993 SCM R 155).
12. From the bare reading of the judgments (supra), what can be congregated is that if the Courts found that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to the other accused in the same occurrence, but if the testimony of such witness is corroborated by very strong and independent circumstances regarding the other, then reliance can be placed on the same witness for convicting the accused.
13. In the instant case, the ocular account get strong corroboration from other circumstances of the case such as presence of appellant Said Rehman on right side of the injured as shown in the site- plan, direction of injury on right side of the injured, bullet marks on his vehicle from same direction coupled with recovery of blood from the driving seat, positive Serologist report in respect of blood- stained articles as well as no bullet marks from the front seat, which squarely prove that it was appellant Said Rehman who attempted at the life of injured complainant and caused his fire-arm injury, therefore, he has rightly been held guilty of the offence by the learned trial Court. Conviction of the appellant/convict Said Rehman recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 324. And 337-F (ii), PPC, are maintained, however, he being first offender, I while taking lenient view, reduce his sentence under Section 324, PPC from five years R.I. To 02 years R.I. And under Section 337-F (iii), PPC from two years R.I. To one year R.I. The sentence of fine and Daman under the above Sections recorded by the learned trial Court is, however, maintained. As there is nothing in black and white to show examination of the vehicle of complainant through mechanic or technical Expert nor is there any shred of evidence, from which the damage allegedly caused to the vehicle of the complainant could .Be determined, therefore, appellant Said Rehman is acquitted under Section 427, PPC. The sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended to him by the trial Court is kept intact. With the above modification in the sentence of the appellant Said Rehman, this appeal to his extent stands dismissed.
14. As regard the findings of the learned trial Court qua guilt of appellant Zahir Rehman, the same is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, not sustainable. Consequently, this appeal is partially allowed to the extent of appellant-convict Zahir Rehman. His conviction and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court under Sections 324/337-F (iii)/427/34, PPC, vide impugned judgment dated 12.12.2014, in case FIR No, 821 dated 04.06.2012, registered under Sections 324/34, PPC, at Police Station Lahore, are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
Appellant Zahir Rehman is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
15. These are reasons of my short order of even date.