QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J:-Atta-ur-Rehman, 20, henceforth referred to as the deceased, was shot dead at 6:00 a.m. on 22-03-2016 within the area of Bahadur Khan situating at a distance of four Kilometers from Police Station Hazroo District Attock; his father Sahib Zareen (PW-7), himself an injured witness, reported the incident through statement (Ex.PC) recorded by Sikandar Hayat, SI (PW-9) 9:20 a.m. at THQ Hospital Hazroo.
According to the complainant, on account of enmity of murder, he alongside his family members migrated in the Province of Punjab and settled at Dera of Hameed Khan in Tehsil Hazroo. During the night preceding fateful morning, the family was surprised by Dilawar Khan appellant accompanied by Gujjar Khan co-accused alongside an unknown person at 6:00 a.m; the appellant repeatedly shot the deceased and as the complainant came forward to intervene, he too was shot on his right knee. The accused decamped while brandishing the weapon.
Motive for the crime is murder of appellant's son at the hands of the deceased.
Dr. Zakir Hussain Farooqi (PW-1) condu cted autopsy same day at 9:20 a.m. and noted six entry wounds, on different aspect of the chest as well as right arm; the projectile exited, they ruptured pleura, lungs and heart, generating massive shock leading to immediate death; interregnum between death and postmortem was estimated as 3 to 4 hours; Sahib Zareen (PW-7) medically examined same day at 6:50 a.m. was noted to have an entry wound on right knee joint with corresponding exit.
Spot inspection by Sikandar Hayat S.I. (PW-9) includes seizure of blood with seven crime empties of .30 caliber (P-7/1-7). Arrested on 16-10-2016, the appellant led to the recovery of .30 caliber pistol (P-5); Gujjar Khan, co- accused stayed away from law. Indicted on 16-1-2017 by the learned Sessions Judge Attock, the appellant claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses; of them Sahib Zareen (PW-7) and Aziz-ur-Rehman (PW-8) furnished ocular account. On forensic side, earth secured from the spot was found stained with blood of human origin whereas the casings did not tally with the pistol recovered at appellant's disclosure, albeit found in working order. The appellant confronted the prosecution evidence with a denial by citing his false implication. Unimpressed by the plea, the learned Sessions Judge, however, vide impugned judgment dated 30-01-2017 proceeded to convict the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(i) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him as under:- i. Under Sections 302(b)/34 PPC to imprisonment for life as Tazir. He shall pay an amount of Rs.100,000/- (one lac) to legal heirs of deceased as compensation under sections 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof he shall further undergo six months S.I. ii. Under Sections 324/34 PPC to undergo five years R.I. with a fine of Rs.25000/- (twenty five thousand), in default thereof he shall further undergo three months S.I. iii. Under Sections 337 F(i)/34 PPC to pay an amount of Rs. 25000/- as Daman to Sahib Zareen he was extended benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vires whereof, are being challenged by the appellant through Crl. Appeal No.200 of 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant, appointed at State expense, contends that prosecution case is fraught with doubts, contradictions and improbabilities and as such reliance cannot be placed on the inherently flawed statements of the witnesses, otherwise inimical towards the appellant; that in fact it was an un-witnessed occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of previous murder enmity and that occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the crime report; the bottom line is that prosecution's case is not free from doubt and thus, it would perilously unsafe to maintain the conviction. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment on the ground that prosecution has successfully driven home the charge beyond a reasonable doubt with the assistance of natural witnesses i.e. inmates of the house, whose presence cannot be doubted, particularly in view of receipt of injuries by PW-7, there is no space to entertain any hypothesis of appellant's innocence as the family had no axe to grind against the appellant.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Prosecution case is firmly structured on ocular account, furnished by the witnesses, viewed from any angle, natural and trust worthy; of them the complainant sustained fire shot wound, extensive in nature and, thus, marking his presence at the crime scene beyond doubt. Duration of the injury coincides with the fatality that befell the deceased; wounds both of the deceased as well as the injured are consistent with the weapon used and allegedly recovered, negative forensic report notwithstanding. Both the witnesses are in comfortable unison on all the salient aspects of the incident as well as details collateral therewith. Cross-examination remained inconsequential inasmuch as nothing adverse could be solicited from the witnesses except for a volley of suggestions, vehemently denied. Motive though a double edged weapon, nonetheless, incises the appellant more abrasively; as his son was done away , allegedly by no other than the deceased and as such he had a vendetta to quench. These various pieces of evidence are inexorably pointed upon the appellant with no space to entertain any hypothesis of innocence or substitution and, thus, view taken by the learned trial Judge, being most conscionable does not warrant interference. Quantum of sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has also been settled prudently . Crl. Appeal No.200 of 2017 fails. Appeal Dismissed .