AMJAD ALI SAHIT O, J.----By this single judgment, I intend to decide aforesaid two Criminal Jail Appeals filed by the appellants Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo and Akhter both bycaste Chandio, impugned the judgment dated 29-09- 2009 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2008 Re. The State Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo and another , for offences punishable under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. bearing Crime No. 84/2007 registered at Police Station Pir Jo Goth, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 265- H(2), Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 302(b), P.P.C. as Ta'zir and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) each to the legal heirs of deceased Bilawal Khan in default whereof to further undergo S.I fur six months more with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr . P. C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Complainant Ali Dino Chandio lodged FIR on 24-10-2007 alleging therein that there was dispute between him and accused Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo Chandio over the possession of land and such cases were pending before the Court of law, but accused persons used to issue threats to complainant party to withdraw from those cases. On the day of report, complainant along with his sons namely Bilawal Khan, Nasrullah and maternal grandson Asadullah had come to Pir Jo Goth for some personal work. At about 1230 hours, when they reached near hotel of Imdad Dayo situated at link road leading to Dargah Sharif, where one motorcycle stopped in front of them, they saw and identified that accused Akhter and Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo Chandio alighted from the motorc ycle, took out TT pistols from the fold of their shawlars and asked Bilawal (son of complainant) that they had reprimanded him for withdrawal of cases, which he had not acted upon, then both the accused made straight fires upon Bilawal Khan, who on receiving fire-shot on his right leg, fell down. Then accused persons escaped away from the place of incident on their motorcycle. The complainant party immediately took the injured Bilawal Khan to Hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries. Ultimately complainant appeared at police station and lodged the above said FIR.
3. After registration of FIR, police visited the place of incident and secured 02 empties of 30 bore pistol and bloodstained earth of deceased. During investigation accused Sharafuddin was arrested on 07-02-2008, who during interrogation voluntarily produced one unlicensed country made TT pistol on 14-02-2008 before the police which was used in the commission of offence while committing the murder of deceased Bilawal. After completing of investigation, I/O submitted the challan on 21-02-2008 by showing accused Akhter Chandio as absconder , who was subsequently arrested.
4. After supplying the case papers to accused Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo and Akhter the charge against them was framed at Ex. 03, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried vide their pleas at Ex. 3 and 4. In order to establish the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW/1 medic al officer Dr. Inayatullah Memon at Ex. 6, who produced dead body examination form at Ex. 7 post mortem report at Ex. 8, PW/2 PC Abdul Jabbar Mahesar at Ex. 10, who produced receipt of delivering the dead body at Ex. 11, PW/3 complainant Ali Dino Chandio at Ex. 12, who produced the FIR at Ex. 13, PW/4 Nasrullah Chandio at Ex. 14, PW/5 Asadullah at Ex. 15, PW/6 Haji Fateh Muhammad Chandio at Ex, 16, who produced mashirnama of examination of dead body at Ex.
17, inquest report at Ex. 18 mashirnama of place of wardhat at Ex. 19 and mashirnama of recovery of clothes of deceased at Ex.
20. He also produced bloodstained earth and empties in sealed parcel as Articles 1 and 2, clothes of deceased as Article 3 and chappal of deceased as Article 4. PW/7 ASI Muhamm ad Nihal Siyal at Ex. 22, PW/8 ASI Muhammad Ali Jatoi at Ex. 23, PW/9 ASI Muzaf far Ali Shahani at Ex. 24, who produced mashirnama of arrest of accused Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo Chandio at Ex. 25 and mashirnama of recovery of TT pistol of 30 bore with magazine as Article 5. PW/10 Inspector Sarfaraz Mangi at Ex. 27, PW/1 1 PC Eid Muhammad Baber at Ex. 28, who produced mashirnama of arrest of accused Akhter Chandio at Ex. 29, PW/12 Tapedar Adam Khan Kanhar at Ex.
30, who produced sketch of place of incident at Exs. 31 and 32. Thereafter learned DDPP for the State closed the prosecution side vide statement at Ex.
33. The Statement of the accused Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo and Akhter Chandio were recorded at Exs. 34 and 35 respectively . They both declined to examine themselves on oath or any witness in defense but they stated that the case is false and they are innocent.
5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the material brought on record, awarded the conviction and sentence to the appellants/ accused vide judgment dated 29-09-2009, which the appellants have impugned before this Court by way of filing instant jail appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant due to enmity , which is admitted by the complainant in the FIR; that it has come on record that there were many contradictions in between the ocular evidence and medical evidence but same were not considered; that the motive has not been proved by the prosecution and there is delay in lodgment of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that so far as the deposition of the complainant is concerned he has deposed in his examination in chief that he took the injured to the Hospital who was alive, where they reached at about 2-30 p.m., thereafter , he (complainant) went to police station for lodging the FIR; that when the Bilawal (deceased) was brought into Hospital in injured condition, then how FIR was lodged at 2-30 p.m., which does not touch the common sense; that complainant Ali Dino has deposed in examination in chief that police came at Hospital first then visited the place of incident, but he in his cross-examination deposed that police examined the dead body first and then registered the FIR; that inquest report at Ex. 17 shows the date and time of death tohe 24- 10-2007 at 1350 hours, while column No. 6 of the inquest report shows that police inspected the dead body on 24- 10-2007 at 1535 hours, while the mashirnama of wardhat was prepared by the police at 1630 hours, so it is crystal clear that the FIR was registered after 1630 hours as stated by the complainant, but the investigation was commenced before lodgment of the FIR; that learned trial Court had slip-up in respect of the time of incident as well as the place of incident while framing the charge as the time of incident is shown as 1430 hours and the place of incident is shown near the house of Imda d Dayo, whereas FIR shows the time of incident as 1230 hours and plate of incident is shown as near the hotel of Imdad Dayo; that ocular evidence is false and fabricated as it is contradictory to the medical evidence particularly on the time of death of the deceased; that complainant has deposed in his cross-examination that they reached at Hospital within 15/20 minutes, injured Bilawal was alive at that time, but he expired without receiving any medical treatment, they reached in Hospital at 2-30 p.m., which shows that deceased was alive for about two hours after receiving the injuries; that PW/4 Nasrullah has stated in his examination in chief that they took Bilawal in injured condition to the Hospit al, he was unconscious and in Hospital it was told to them that Bilawal has expired; that medical officer Dr. lnaya tullah at Ex. 6 has deposed that the probable time between injury and death is instantaneously , therefore the ocular evidence is contradictory to the medical evidence; that all the eye-witnesses including the complainant are the chance witnesses and they have failed to give reasonable explanation of their presence on the spot; that complainant and both the eye-witnesses are related inter-se and interested witnesses as the complainant is father of the deceased, eye-witness Nasrullah is brother of deceased and Asadullah is maternal grandson of deceased; that PW/6 mashir of all the recoveries namely Haji Fateh Muhammad at Ex. 16 has deposed that he saw Haji Bilawal was sleeping on the bed of the Hospital and was unconscious; that it has come on record that the deceased has received the injuries at his leg, though it has come on record that the appellants were at the distance of 3/4 feet away from the deceased, had they got any intention to kill him, they would have certainly chosen the vital part of the victim; that leg injury under many circumstances cannot be caused the death of the victim, therefore the charge against the appellants under section 302, P.P.C. and sentence for same section of law is incorrect; that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants and the learned trial Court has also failed to apply judicial mind while appreciating the evidence; that' learned trial Court neither discussed nor considered the lacunas of the case which was arises during the trial; that prosecution witnesses are setup witnesses; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants thus under the abovementioned facts and circumst ances, appellants are entitled to their acquittal. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the cases reported as Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185), Syed Waris Khan v. The State (2018 MLD 422)
(Sindh), Mian Nisar Akhtar and another v. The State (2002 MLD 372), Mubeen alias Haji Muhammad Mube en v. The State (2006 YLR 359) [Karachi], Mumtaz Ali and another v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 367), Muhamm ad Yakoob v. The State (2006 YLR 3147 ) [Karachil, Muhammad Sharif v. The State (PLD 1973 (sic) 365)
[Lahore], Nooh v. The State (2004 YLR 3260 ) [Karachi], Atta Muhammad v. The State (1995 SCMR 599)
Mehmood Ahmad, Muhammad Safdar Nasir Ahmad v. The State and Mian Tanvir Iqbal v. Nasir Ahmad and The State (1995 SCMR 127), Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain alias Mithu (1994 SCMR 1928 ), Attaullah alias Qasis v. The State (PLD 2006 Karachi 206), Siraj Din v. KLA and another (PLD 1964 Supreme' Court 26), Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64), Abdul Rehman and others v. The State (1983 SCMR 958 ) and Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v . The State and others ( 2019 SCMR 956 ).
7. Learned Additional Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State fully supported the impugned judgment and argued that named of the appellants are nominated in the FIR and they have rightly and correctly been identified by the complainant as well as other eye-witnesses during trial before the trial court; that the appellants made straight fires upon son of the comp lainant, who later on succumbed to the injuries and died in the Hospital; that the empties and bloodstained earth was collected from the spot, which were produced before the trial Court; that even the minor contradictions as the same had occurred due to lapse of time; that no any major contradiction has been pointed by the counsel for the appellants; that there is no any conflict in between the medical evidence and the ocular version; all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case and implicated the appellants, therefore appeals are liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available record.
9. On evaluation of the material brought on the record, it appears that the case of prosecution mainly depends upon the ocular testimony furnished by the prosecution in shape of statements of (PW/3) complainant Ali Dino Chandio and eye-witnesses Nasrullah (PW/4) and Asadullah (PW/5), which is corroborated by the evidence of medical of ficer Dr . Inayatullah Memon (PW/1) including circumstantial evidence of rest of witnesses.
10. There can be no denial to legally established principle of law that it is always the direct evidence which is material to decide a fact (charge). The failure of direct evidence is always sufficient to hold a criminal charge as 'not proved' but where the direct evidence remains in the field with test of its being natural and confidence inspiring then requirement of independent corroboration is only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case. Reliance can safely be placed on the case of Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857 ), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that;- "5. It be noted that this Court has time and again held that the rule of corroboration is rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case rather this is settled principle that if the Court is satisfied about the truthfulness of direct evidence, the requirement of corroborative evidence would not be of much significance in that, as it may as in the present case eye-witness account which is unimpeachable and confidence- inspiring character and is corroborated by medical, evidence".
11. The direct evidence, as detailed above, is in the shape of evidence of complainant Ali Nawaz. According to him, this incident took place on 24.10.2007 and on the day of incident he, Bilwal (dece ased), Nasrullah and Asadullah were going to Pir Jo Goth and the, reached near Hotel of Imdad Dayo and at about 1230 noon accused Akhter and Sharafuddin came on motorcycle from eastern side and got down from motorcycle and asked his son Bilawal that they had asked him to withdraw the case but case has not been withdrawn and saying so they took out pistols from folds of their shalwars and fired at Bilawal which hit him on right leg below the knee joint and fell down raising cries.
During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident and that the case is false. It is pertinent to mention her that neither any mala fide has been alleged on the part of witness and nor motive for giving false evidence against the accused has been suggested. PW/4 Nasrullah Chandio and PW/5 Asadullah Chandio who are shown as eye-witnesse s of the incident have also supported the version of the complainant by saying that on 24-10-2007 they along with complainant Ali Dino and deceased Bilawal came from their village to Pir Jo Goth within some private work and they reached near hotel of Imdad Dayo. At about 1230 hours noon time and in the meantime accused Akhter and Sharafuddin came on motorcycle and after getting down, they took out pistols from folds of shalwars and accused gave Hakal to their brother Bilawal as to why he has not withdrawn the case for which they had already asked him and after saying so both accused fired direct shots at I3ilawal who fell down after receiving firearm injuries at the right leg near knee joint and then they gave Hakal to accused, who escaped on motorcycle towards northern; side along with their pistols. The incident had taken place at daylight at about 12-30 p.m. (Noon time). In the instant matter , all these eye-witnesses have sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence as well as each and every event of the occurrence in clear cut manners. Besides this, these eye- witnesses have also explained the mode and manner of taking place the occurrence qua the culpability of the appellants. Although, they were cross-examined by the defense at length, wher ein the learned counsel for the defense asked multiple questions to shatter their confidence and so also presence at the scene of occurrence but could not extract anything from them and they remained consistent on all material points. The parties are known to each other , so there was no chance of mistaken identity of the appellants. I would not hesitate that where the witnesses fall within the category of natural witnesses and detail the manner of the incident in a confidence- inspiring manner then only escape availa ble to the accused is that to satisfactorily establish that witnesses, in fact, are not the witnesses of truth but 'interes ted' one. The reliance in this context is placed upon the case of Abid Ali and 2 others v . The State ( 2011 SCMR 208 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-
21. To believe or disbelieve a witness all depends upon intrinsic value of the statement made by him. Even otherwise, there cannot be a universal principle that in every case interested witness shall be disbelieved or disinterested witness shall be believed. It all depends upon the rule of prudence and reasonableness to hold that a particular witness was present on the scene of crime and that he is making true statement . A person who is reported otherwise to be very honest, above board and very respectable in society if gives a statement, which is illogical and unbelievable, no prudent man despite his nobility would accept such statement.
12. An interested witness is not the one who is relative or friend but is the ode who has a motive to falsely implicate an accused. The reliance can safely be, placed on the case of Lal Khan v. State (2006 SCMR 1846 ) wherein at Rel. P-1854 it is held as ... The mere fact that a witness is closely related to the accused or deceased or he is not related to either party , is not a sole criteria to judge his independen ce or to accept or reject his testimony rather the true test is whether the evidence of a witness is probable and consistent with the circumstances of the case or not.
13. In another case of Farooq Khan v . The State ( 2008 SCMR 917 ) it is observed as:
11. PW.8 complainant is real brother of the deceased who is a natural witness but not an interested witness. An interested witness is one who has motive, falsely implicates an accused or has previous enmity with the person involved. There is a rule that the statement of an interested witness can be taken into consideration for corroboration and mere relationship with the deceased is not "sufficient' to discredit the witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused. The principles for accepting the testimony of interested witness are set out in Nazir v . The State ( PLD 1962 SC 269 ) and Sheruddin v . Allhaj Rakhio ( 1989 SCMR 1461 ).
14. Thus, the mere relationship of these eye-witnesses with the deceased alone would not support the plea of the appellants that their testimonies are not worth believing. In matters of capital punishments, the accused would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute/enmity but would require to bring on record that there had been such a dispute/enmity , which could be believed to have motivated the 'natural witnesses' in involving the innocent at the cost of escape of 'real culprits' . I would like to mention here that where the natural witnesses are blood-relations then normally the possibility of substitution becomes rare. In the instant matter , the complainant is the father of the deceased and PWs Nasrullah and Asadullah are the real brothers of deceased Bilawal, hence it does not appear to be believable that all of them agreed in replacement of real culprits with innocents (appellants) when undeniably the time of the incident is day light. The reference in this conte xt may be made to the case of Zahoor Ahmed v. The State (2007 SCMR 1519 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that:-
6. The petitioner is a maternal-cousin of the deceased, so also the first cousin of the deceased through paternal line of relationship and thus, in the light of the entire evidence it has correctly been concluded by the learned High Court that the blood relation would not spare the real culprit and instead would involve an innocent person in the case. Further , it has rightly been observed that it was not essential for the prosecu tion to produce each of the cited witnesses at the trial.
15. Furthermore, the ocular account furnished by the above said eye-witnesse s is substantiated with medical evidence adduced by the medical officer Dr. Inayatullah Memon, who conducted post mortem of the dead body of deceased Bilawal and found the following injuries:- INJUR Y No. 1. A firearm lacerated wound of measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x circular in shape or diameter as wound of the entrance at the medial side of the upper right knee joint, making the wound through and through measuring 4 cm x 4 cm at the lateral side of the right leg as wound of the exit.
INJUR Y No. 2. A firearm lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x circulate in shape or in diameter as wound of entrance at the medial side of the right leg making the wound through and throug h measuring 3 cm x 3 cm at the lateral side of the right leg Tiba and Fibula bones are fractured as wound of the exit.
From the external as well as internal examination of the deceased Bilawal Khan son of Ali Dino medical officer opined that death is due to shock and hemorrhage from all the injuries. In these injuries (main sciatic artery Femoral artery injury) and whole blood is loss, therefore, blood loss is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. All these injuries are ante-mortem in nature. All these injuries are caused by firearm. The probable time between injury and death is instantaneously and in between death and post mortem is about 3 hours. Thereafter he issued such postmortem report, which he produced at Ex. 8 and said that it is same, true, correct and bears his signature. The medical officer was cross-examined and deposed that distance of fire may be three or four feet and fire was made from right lateral side and one from medial side.
16. The prosecution has also examined ASI Muhammad Ali Jatoi who conducted initial investigation of the case has deposed in his examination in chief at Ex. 23 that on 24-10-2007 he was posted as ASI in Investigation Branch of Police Station Pir Jo Goth. On that day FIR No.84/2007 was received in the officer of investigation Branch and since SIO Sarfraz Mangi was not available, hence he started initial investigation. He along with complainant visited Civil Hospital Pir Jo Goth and examined the dead body of deceased Bilawal and prepared dead body examination form which he saw at Ex. 7 and say that it bears his signature. He prepared inquest report in presence of mashirs Fateh Muhammad and Iqbal. He saw inquest report at Ex. 18 and said that it is same, true and correct and bears his signature. He handed over the dead body to PC Abdul Jabbar for post mortem. Then he accompanied the complainant proceeded to place of wardhat and prepared the mashirnama of wardhat. He secured two empties of TT pistols and bloodstained earth from the place of wardhat. He saw blood stained earth as Article-1 and say that it is same, property which was secured by him. He saw empty bullets as Article 2 and said that it is same property which was secured by him. He recorded statement of PWs Asadullah and Naseer at place of wardhat, again said he recorded statement of PW Nasrullah. He saw the mashirnama of place of incident at Ex. 19 and said that it is same, true, correct and bears his signature. Mashir of place of wardhat were Fateh Muhammad and Iqbal. PC Abdul Jabbar brought the clothes of deceased which he secured under the mashirnama prepared in presence of same mashirs. He saw mashirnama of recovery of clothes of deceased at Ex. 20 and said that it is same, true, correct and bears his signature. PC Abdul Jabbar handed over dead body to Nasrullah and gave such receipt to him. I recorded statement of PC Abdul Jabbar . He then handed over the case papers to SIO Sarfraz Mangi for further investigation. SIO Sarfraz Hussain Mangi who effected recovery from accused Sharafuddin has deposed in his examination in chief that on 14-02-2008, accused Sharafuddin disclosed during interrogation that he had concealed weapon used by him in this crime near the MASSAN of HINDUS (the place where Hindus were burnt) and on such offer he took the accused Sharafuddin along with HC Zaffar and PC Muhammad Nawaz and PC Abdul Jabbar in private vehicle and they left PS at about 1230 hours, vie entry No. 11 and they reached pointed place at about 1245 hours and accused Sharafuddin voluntarily produced from under the bushed on eastern side of MASAN of HINDUS one TT pistol and disclosed that it is same pistol with which he committed murder of deceased Bilawal Khan. He further deposed that he secured the pistols and sealed it on the spot and prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs PC Muzaf far and PC Abdul Jabbar . Thus, from the above evidence, it suffices to say that the death of deceased Bilawal Khan was unnatural at the hands of the appellants. In this context, the reliance is placed upon the case of Ali Bux and others v. The State (2018 SCMR 354), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that; "3...in the FIR lodged in respect of the incident in question the present appellants had been nominated and specific role has been attributed to them therein. The ocular account of incident has been furnished before the trial Court by three eye-witnesses namely Ali Akbar complainant (PW-01), Ghulam Shabir (PW-02) and Bilawal (PW-03) who had made consistent statements and had pointed their accusing fingers towards the present appellants as the main perpetrators of the murder in issue. The said eye-witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in a case of this nature and the medical evidence had provided sufficient support to the ocular account furnished by them".
17. Another reliance is also placed won the case of Zahoor Ahmed v. The state (2017 SCMR 1662 ), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has field that;-- "4. The ocular account, in this case, consists of Muhammad Khan complainant (PW-06) and Shahbaz (PW-07).
They gave the specific reasons of their presence at the place of occurrence as, according to them, they along with the deceased were proceeding to harves t the sugarcane crop. Although they are related to the deceased but they have no previous enmity or ill-will against the appellant and they cannot be terme d as interested witnesses in the absence, of any previous enmity . They remained consistent on each and every material point. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel are not helpful to the defense because with the passage of time such discrepancies are bound to occur . The occurrence took place in broad day light and both parties knew each other so there was no mistaken identity and in absence of any previous enmity there could be no substitution by letting off the real culprit specially when the appellant alone was responsible for the murder of the, deceased. The evidence of two eye-witnesses was consistent, truthful and confidence-inspiring. The medical evidence fully supports the ocular account so far the injuries received by the deceased, time which lapse between the injury and death and between death and postmort em. Both the Courts below have rightly convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P .P.C.
18. Moreover , nothing has been brought on record by the defence while enjoying the opportunity of cross- examination as well leading, defence, which could make it believable that there had been such a grave reason for 'father' to involve the appellants falsely at the cost of the safe escape of killer of his real son. The appellant Sharafuddin in his defence simply denied the recovery and he has not tendered any reason for such foist and bold denial is not sufficient to shatter the evidence already found believable. Appellant Akhter Chandio claims that he was not in the knowledge of this case but no such suggestion. was given to PW/10 Investigation Officer Sarfraz Hussain Mangi, who deposed that he could not arrest the accused. Nothing has been brought on record which may reflect that the deep-rooted enmity was existing between the parties. Thus, I have not found any substance in such plea of the appellant that he has been implicated in this case due to enmity .
19. The minor discrepancies in statements of all these eye-witnesses are not enough to demolish the case of prosecution because the discrepancies always occur on account of lapse of time which call well be ignored. The reference is made to the case of Zulfiquar Ahmed and others (2011 SCMR 492). It is not the discrepancy or discrepancies which could be pressed for an acquittal but the defence has to bring on record the contradictions which too should be of a nature to cut at the root of the prosecution towards their presence and manner of the incident. Reference is made to the case of Ravi Kapur v. The State of Rajhistan (2013 SCMR 480) wherein it is observed as:- It is a settled principle that the variations in the statements of witnesses which are neither material nor serious enough to af fect the case of the prosecution adversely are to be ignored by the court.
It is also a settled principle that statemen ts of the witnesses have to be read as a whole and the court should not pick up a sentence in isolation from the entire statement and ignoring its proper reference, use the same against or in favour of a party . The contradictions have to be material and substantial so as to adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Reference in this regard can be made to ....
20. Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the humble view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the present appellants through ocular account furnished by complainant Ali Dino Chandio (PW-03) and eye-witnesses Nasrullah (PW-04) and Asadullah (PW-05), which is corroborated by the evidence of medical officer Dr. Inayatullah Memon (PW-01) as well as empties recovered from the place of incident and subsequently arrest of the appellants Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo and Akhter and later-on during interrogation one unlicensed pistol was recovered on the potation of appellant Sharafuddin alias Sharfoo. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality or serious infirmity committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment, which is based on the appreciation of the evidence and same does not call for any interference by this Court. Thus, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by learned trial Court are hereby maintained and the instant appeals filed by the appellants merits no consideration, which are dismissed accordingly .
21. The case law relied by learned counsel for the appellants, is quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, therefore, the same is not helpful while deciding the instant appeals.