' MOHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.---Through instant Criminal appeal, appellants Irfan alias Irfoo, Ghulam Jabir and Allah Dito have impugned the Judgment dated 03.10.2013, passed by learned II- Assistant Sessions Judge Khairpur, in Sessions Case No, 23 of 2012, Re-State v. Irfan alias Irfoo and others, whereby the appellants/accused were convicted for offence punishable under section 324, P.P.C. Read with 337-F(iii), 337-F(v)-148, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For 07 years each and to pay Rs,10,000/- each as Daman to injured Yousif Ali and for offence under section 148,. P.P.C. To suffer R.I. For one year with fine of Rs,5000/-. In case of default in payment thereof, they shall suffer S.I. For six months more. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with extension of benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case is that complainant Sabir Hussain used to cultivate the lands of Tanveer Hussain Lashari. On 12.01.2012 he and his brother Yousif Ali went to the Otaq of landlord Tanveer Hussain for taking Fertilizer where Tanveer Hussain was present. At about 11.30 a.m. The complainant party saw two motorcycles whereupon appellant Irfan Ali alias Irfoo,
2. Ghulam Jabir alias Jabroo,
3. Allah Ditto and two unknown persons armed with pistols appeared there. The unknown persons started aerial firing. Appellant Allah Ditto instigated others that Yousif Ali had exchanged harsh words with Ghulam Jabir, hence kill him. Complainant party remained silent due to fear of weapons. In the meantime accused Irfan Ali alias Irfoo made fires at Yousif Ali which hit on his left arm, accused Ghulam Jabir alias Jabroo and Allah Ditto fired at Yousif Ali which also hit him on his both legs, who fell down. The villagers went there on cries but accused persons seeing them went away on their motorcycles along with their weapons. Having arranged conveyance, complainant took injured td Police Station, got letter for treatment and went to Government Hospital Faiz Gunj but the Medical Officer referred injured to Nawabshah Hospital. Complainant leaving his brother at Nawabshah Hospital went at Police Station where he lodged his FIR. The police arrested the appellants and during interrogation appellant Irfan Ali produced unlicensed pistol. After completing investigation the Police submitted challan in the Court of law.
3. After completing all formalities the learned trial Court framed Charge against accused at Exh. 02 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide their pleas at Exh.2-A to 2-C respectively.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW-1 complainant Sabir Hussain at Exh.03, he produced FIR at Exh.03-A, PW-2 Mohammad Yousif Ali at Exh.04,. PW-3 Tanveer Hussain at Exh.5, PW-4 Farman Ali at Exh.6, he produced mashirnama of injuries of injured Yousif Ali at Exh.6-A, mashirnama of place of incident, at Exh.6-B, mashirnama of recovery of clothes of injured Yousif Ali at Exh.6-C, mashirnama of arrest of accused Irfan at Exh.6-D, mashirnama of imaginary arrest of accused Irfan and recovery of TT pistol, at Exh.6-E, SI Wazir Ali Shar at Exh.7, PW-6 SIP Khan Mohammad at Exh. 8, who produced roznamcha entry No,13 at Exh.8-A, PW-7 Dr. Ali Gohar at Exh. 9, he produced police letter, Radiologist opinion, X-ray plates, final medical certificate at Exh.9-A to 9- I, and then prosecution side was closed by learned ADPP vide statement at Exh.10.
5. The statements of accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, in which they denied the allegations by pleading their innocence, however, neither they examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defense.
6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants as stated above and they being aggrieved and dissatisfied have filed the instant appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with ulterior motives; that there is inordinate and unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR; that place of incident is a well-populated area and many persons gathered there on fire arm reports but no independent person has been cited as witness, even the mashirs are close relatives of complainant; that the statements of PWs are contradictory in nature which create doubt in the prosecution case. He further contended that medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony, as per prosecution case the accused persons fired from their pistol at injured but as per medical evidence injury No,3 and 4 are caused by some hard and blunt substance which are not explained by the prosecution; that no crime weapon has been recovered from appellant Allah Ditto and Ghulam Jabir while appellant Irfan has been acquitted from the charge under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance. He further contended that all injuries are on non-vital parts and there is no allegation of repetition of fires at injured which itself shows that appellants had no intention to kill injured, therefore, he submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, hence they deserve acquittal. He relied upon case of Ghulam AbbaS and others v. The State reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 762 and case of Mohammad Akram alias Laloo v. The State reported in 2008 PCr.LJ 1569.
8. While controverting the above submissions made by learned Counsel for appellants, the learned Counsel for complainant contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt; that three eye-witnesses have been examined who have fully supported the case of prosecution and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence and the delay in FIR is also explained by the complainant. He further submitted that no doubt some minor contradictions have come on record due to lengthy cross examination of learned Counsel for the appellants but the same would not spoil the case of prosecution as all the eye-witnesses have unanimously assigned the role of firing to the appellants. In support of his arguments he relied upon case of Mohammad Ismail v. The State reported in 2014 PCr.LJ 279.
9. Learned APG adopted the arguments of learned Counsel for complainant and further added that the acquittal of appellant from the charge of 13 (e) AO had no bearing on the decision recorded in present case. He relied upon case of The State v. Khan Mohammad alias Khanan and others reported in 2005 PCr.LJ 811.
10. I have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record minutely with the able assistance of learned Counsel. The occurrence in this case took place on 12.01.2012 at 11.30 a.m., i.e,, broad daylight and the parties are known to each other, therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity. All the three eyewitnesses including the owner of Otaq have nominated the appellants with specific weapon and role of firing from their weapons at the injured Yousif Ali. The presence of the eye-witnesses has been proved and in spite of lengthy cross- examination, the learned defence counsel failed to shatter their credibility. The Medical Officer has supported the prosecution case and deposed that injured Yousif All was brought at RHC Faiz Gunj he was sustaining 08 fire arm injuries on left arm and both legs. Apart from that the mashir and Investigating Officer have also supported the case of prosecution.
11. Adverting to the arguments of learned Counsel for appellants that there was unexplained delay of 04 days in lodging the FIR, the record reflects that after the incident immediately the injured was taken to P.S.'where at 1230 hours his injures were inspected and he was sent to RHC Faiz Gunj for treatment but the Medical Officer referred him to Nawabshah Hospital and the complainant took him to Nawabshah and after getting him admitted in Hospital he went to PS and lodged the FIR. It may be stated that in such like case, the prime consideration is to save the life of person who received fire arm injuries which has been done in the instant case. In view of above, it appears that delay in FIR has been explained. Another contention of learned Counsel for appellants is that all PWs are interested, complainant and injured are brothers and Tanveer Hussain is their landlord and no independent person has been cited.. It is Settled law that mere relationship is no ground to discard the evidence of witness related to deceased/injured if it is otherwise worthy of reliance and is corroborated by other evidence. In the case in hand PW Yousif Ali is injured, his brother complainant was with him and PW Tanveer Hussain is an independent and natural witness as the incident took place in his Otaq and he was present there whereas the villagers came on firing reports and seeing them accused persons went away, this shows that the villagers were not eye- witnesses of the incident. In this respect I would like to rely upon case of Muhammad Mansha v. The State reported in 2016 SCM R 958, in which it has been held by honourable Supreme Court that: ' "Brother of deceased as eye-witness of the occurrence--- B Evidence of such eye-witness, reliance on---Scope---Evidence of eye-witness (brother of deceased) corroborated by recovery and medical evidence, and also matching evidence of other independent eye-witness---Eye- witness account given by deceased's brother could be safely relied upon in such circumstances."
12. So far the contention of learned Counsel for appellants that there are material contradictions in evidence is concerned I have gone through the depositions of the eye-witnesses minutely but could not find any C material contradiction, the discrepancies pointed out by learned Counsel are minor and those can be overlooked in presence of direct evidence of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence.
13. Adverting to the contention of learned Counsel for appellants that injury Nos.3 and 4, ,dused by hard and blunt substance, are not - explained. It is stated that all the three witnesses have deposed that after sustaining fire arm injuries the injured fell down on the ground D therefore, possibility of sustaining these injuries while falling on some hard ground cannot be ruled out, further more as per medical evidence injury No,3 is simple and skin deep while injury No,4 is a contusion.
14. Now I am coming to the contention of learned Counsel that appellant Irfan has been acquitted from the charge of 13(e) Arms Ordinance. It is stated that acquittal of the accused in the case under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance, in a separate trial has no bearing on the evidence and decision recorded in present case. In this respect reference can be made to the case of The State v. Khan Muhammad and another cited supra.
' The facts of the case of Mohammad Ismail v. The State under sections 324, 337-F(iii) and 337-F(iv), P.P.C. Relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant are identical to the case in hand in which this Court has declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to accused by learned trial Court and observed as under: ' "Delay in lodging FIR was fully explained and testimonies of eye-witnesses and medical officers remained unshaken and had given straight forward evidence in very natural way completely unperturbed and High Court declined to brush aside only on the ground that they were related inter se. Even an interested witness could be a truthful witness, depending on the circumstances of the case. Accused received relevant documents in which injuries and nature of injuries were clearly mentioned, hence accused was not taken by surprise or misled. High Court declined to interfere with conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the trial Court. Appeal was dismissed in circumstances"
15. The facts and circumstances of the case laws relied upon by learned Counsel for appellant are distinguishable.
' In view of above discussion and case laws, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellants and I see no merit in the appeal, which stands dismissed.