MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The appellant Ghulam Murtaza was booked in case FIR No.343 dated 17.08.2010 registered under sections 302/324/452 of the Pakistan Penal Code, (P.P.C.) read with section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 at Police Station Saddar , District Hairpur . As per FIR, the complainant- Farman Ali, reported to the police to the effect that on 17th August 2010, he, after breaking his fast, came out of his house to the street where he met Rashid, his nephew , and they started chatting while his wife Mst. Rukhsana (PW.7) and Mst. Saima Bibi, his daughter-in-law , were busy inside the house in taking their iftari. In the meanwhile, Ghulam Murtaza, cousin of the complaina nt, the present appellant, duly armed with pistol, entered into the house in a rash manner and fired at Mst. Rukhsana (PW.7), wife of complainant, and daughter-in-law Mst. Saima Bibi. On hearing fire shots, the complainant along with Rashid (PW.8) rushed to the house and saw that the appellant, having pistol in his hand, decamping from the spot and on seeing them he also fired at complainant and Rashid (PW.8) as a result, Rashid (PW.8) also sustained injury on his left knee. Inside the house, they saw that Mst. Saima Bibi, smeared with the blood, was lying on the ground. She was taken to the hospital but succumbed to her injuries.
2. After investigation, the appellant was sent to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Haripur to face trial. After a regular trial, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 14th October 2011, convic ted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with payment of compensation of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two lac) under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months. He was also convicted under section 458, P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years with fine of Rs.3000/- (rupees three thousand) and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month. However , the appellant was acquitted of the charge under sections 324/337- F(i), P.P.C. The sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. The appellant, being aggrieved, challenged his conviction and sentences before the Peshawar High Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.160-A/2010 whereas Crim inal Revision No.7-A/2012 was filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentences of the appellant. The High Court while altering the conviction and sentence of the appellant from sections 458 to 459, P.P.C. dismissed the appeal and revision of both the parties respectively . Hence the instant appeal with the leave of the Court granted on 23rd April 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the parties as well as the complainant, in person, was heard and record of the case was perused.
The record reveals that the appellant is the only nominated accused in the FIR by the complainant. He has been attributed the role of effective firing at the deceased Mst. Saima Bibi. We have obse rved that the eye-witness of this case namely Mst. Rukhsana (PW.7) has given the ocular account of the incident. She deposed that on the day of occurrence, her husband left his house after taking Iftari and she along with her daughter-in-law remained inside the house when in the meanwhile the appellant, duly armed with pistol, came there and fired at deceased-Mst.
Saima Bibi, who sustained injuries and fell down. Her evidence gets corroboration from the contents of the FIR and the site plan, which was prepared on her pointation, wherefrom the crime empties and blood stained cloths were recovered by the investigating officer. We have observed that she was the natural witness of the occurrence as being inmate of the house she was supposed to be present there. Her presence in the house, in the given circumstances, cannot be doubted. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing detrimental to the case of the, prosecution was recovered from her statement. Although the deceased-Mst. Saima Bibi is the daughter-in-law of the eye-witness Mst. Rukhsana (PW.7) but it has been settled by this Court that mere relationship of a witness with the victim would not discard her/his evidence if it is otherwise confidence inspiring and trustworthy . Besides, the medical evidence also supports the prosecution version. We have observed that besides the crime empties, the weapon of offence i.e. .30 bore pistol was recove red from the possession of the appellant. These were sent to the FSL, for analysis and the report in this regard is positive which is available on file as Exh.PW .14/8.
4. We have observed that there is lack of motive in the case in hand and what happened prior to the scene of occurrence or what prompted the appellant to take away the life of the deceased Mst. Saima Bibi are the circumstances which have rightly been considered by the Courts below as mitigating circumstances and thus, the appellant has rightly been dealt with by the Courts below .
5. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal, having no merit, is dismissed.
The above are the reasons for our short order of even date which reads as under:- "For reasons to be recorded later , the instant criminal appeal is dismissed."