MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Revision No.17928 of 2020, filed by the petitioner , namely , Allah Yar against his conviction and sentence. The petitioner was tried in case FIR No. 96 dated 13.04.2017 registered at Police Station, Mitha Tawana, District Khushab offences under Sections 324/337 F(vi) of P.P.C., by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Khushab and after conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 02.10.2019, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:- Under Section 324 of P.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and. fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I for one month.
Under Section 337-F(vi) of P.P.C. to pay daman in the sum of Rs.50,000/-to the complainant/injured, namely , Allah Yar son of Ahmad Khan and also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 05 years as Ta'zir.
2. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently . The benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C., was also extended to the petitioner . Feeling aggrieved with the aforementioned judgment of the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeal, whereas, Allah Yar son of Ahmad Khan complainant filed revision petition regarding the enhancement of the sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab vide the consolidated judgment dated 26.02.2020, dismissed the crimin al appeal, filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence, and the criminal revision, filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence of the petitioner hence, the instant criminal revision petition before this Court.
3. As per prosecution case set forth in the FIR (Ex.PH), on 13.04.2017 at about 08:30 p.m., when Allah Yar son of Ahmad Khan (complainant) reached in front of the house of Muhammad Ameer , Allah Yar son of Khuda Bakhash petitioner while armed with pistol .30 bore came there and made fire shots at the complainant. First fire shot made by the petitioner hit at the left knee of the complainant. Second fire shot made by the petitioner also hit at the left knee of the complainant. The petitioner thereafter , made third fire shot which landed at the left thigh of the complainant. PWs attracted at the spot on hearing the firing and shifted the complainant to BBC Mitha Tawana.
Motive behind the occurrence was that the petitioner had suspicion that the complainant had illicit relationship with his (petitioner's) sister .
4. After completion of investigation, the challan was submitted before the Court. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner under Sections 324/337F(vi) of P.P.C. on 11.09.2017, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced seven witnesses during the trial. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence in the shape of Exh.P A to Exh.PJ and closed the prosecution evidence.
6. The statement of petitioner under section 342 of Cr.P.C, was recorded. The petitioner refuted all the allegations leveled against him and professed his innocence. While answering to a question that "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you" , the appellant, replied as under:- "Complainant had feud enmity with Rub Nawaz and Ramzan. Haq Nawaz is real brother of above said Haq Nawaz.
Said Haq Nawaz was married with the sister of complainant. Rub Nawaz and Haq Nawaz had intention to kill the complainant due to inheritance dispute of their land above said Rub Nawaz and Haq Nawaz injured the complainant while making firing but comp lainant twisted the story and substituted me while saving the skin of Rub Nawaz and Haq Nawaz and to save the house of Mehr Khatoon sister of the complainant. PW is close relative of the complainant. Sister of the complainan t was married with the son of PW Sher Muhammad. Due to above said reasons complainant (sic) false case against me while subsisting the actual culprits and PWs deposed falsely against me with the consent of the complainant."
The petitioner neither made his statement under section 344(2) of Cr.P.C., in disproof of the allegations leveled against him nor he produced any evidence in his defence.
7. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 02.10.2019, found the petitioner Allah Yar son of Khuda Bakhash guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above. The petitioner preferred appeal against his conviction and sentence, whereas, the complainant filed revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab and the said Court vide impugned consolidated judgment dated 26.02.2020 dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner , and revision petition, filed by the complainant and the judgme nt of the learned trial Court was upheld and maintained hence, the petitioner filed the instant criminal revision before this Court against his conviction and sentence.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner , in support of this petition, contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case; that the impugned judgments of conviction of the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the record; that there is conflict in the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution; that ingredie nts of offence under section 324 of P.P.C. are not attracted in this case because injuries are on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant; that the complainant had enmity with Rab Nawaz and Haq Nawaz, who are his (complainant's) relatives and had earlier litigation with each other and in fact the aforementioned persons injured the complainant and the complainant while twisting the real facts implicated the petitioner in this case with mala fide intentions; that this petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charge.
9. On the other hand; learned Addl. Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the judgments of conviction of petitioner of both the Courts below have been passed after appreciating evidence of the prosecution and the same do not call for any interferences this Cour t; that the learned trial Court and the learned lower Appellate Court have already taken lenient view regarding the sentence of the petitioner; that the instant petition has no substance therefore, the same may be dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner , passed by both the Courts below , may be upheld and maintained.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. I have noted that the role attributed to the petitioner of causing three firearm injuries on the body of the complainant has fully been supported by the medical evidence of the prosecution produced through Dr. Ghulam Hussain Qasmi (PW-3). There were three entry and exit wounds on the left knee and left thigh of Allah Yar complainant. There is nothing on the record to establish that the said injuries were self-suf fered or were caused by friendly hands. Although learned counsel for the petitioner put the plea that the complainant has alleged that he was first caught hold by the petitioner from his neck and thereafter , he (petitioner) made fire shots at the body of the complainant, whereas; there was no burning or blackening around the entry wounds of the complainant which has contradicted the prosecution story but it is noteworthy that Allah Yar complainant was not a static object and he could have changed his position at the time of occurrence. Moreover , Dr. Ghulam Hussain Qasmi (PW-3) has categorically mentioned that Allah Yar complainant was wearing blood stained green colour shalwar/qameez and bunyan at the time of examination and A corresponding holes were present on his shalwar . Under the circumstances, when Allah Yar complainant was wearing clothes and-corresponding holes were present on his shalwar then absence of burning and blackening around his entry wounds is quite natural. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that ingredients of offence under . Section 324 of P.P.C. are not attracted in this case because the petitioner caused injuries on the non-vital parts of the body of the complainant but I have noted that the petitioner repeated firearm injuries and caused, as many as, three entry and three exit total six wounds on the body of the complainant. It was good-luck of the complainant that the repeated fire shots made by the petitioner did not hit on the vital part of his body and as such there is no substance in the abovementioned argument of learned counsel for the petitioner . Learned counse l for the petitioner lastly argued that the complainant was injured by Haq Nawaz and Rab Nawaz with whom he had earlier enmity of criminal cases and he (complainant) has also admitted the said fact during his cross-examination but it is not understandable that if the complainant had enmity with the abovementioned Haq Nawaz and Rab Nawaz then as to why he (complainant) would let off the real culprits and would falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. Injuries on the body of Allah Yar complainant are the stamp of his presence at the spot at the relevant time.
12. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, I am of the view that the learned trial Court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner and the said conviction and sentence has rightly been upheld and maintained by the learned, Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab vide impugned consolidated judgment dated 26.02.2020 which does not call for any interference by this Court. Resultantly , there is no substance in this criminal revision, filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence therefore, the same is hereby dismissed , and the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 02.10.2019 and upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Khushab vide consolidated judgment dated 26.02.2020 is hereby upheld and maintained.