Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 31st March, 1972 of the ex officio Additional Sessions Judge and Judge Small Causes Court, Karachi, whereby appellant was convicted under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced to - suffer R-. I. For 3 years, has preferred the above petition on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
2. The appellant jumped the bail and consequently proceedings for recovery of the surety bond amount were taken against the surety.
3. The above appeal came up. For hearing on 24th May, 1982, when at the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, the above appeal was,adjourned to 30th May, 1982.
4. The above appeal in view of the above order came up for hearing today and I. Have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant as well as the State Counsel and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court and taken into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant as well as the State Counsel. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under :- Appellant and *P. W. Babar Ali are known to each other. On 17th .April 1970 at about 6 p. m., Babar Ali was standing at the Panshop of Zaki D. W. In P I B Colony, on the main road. The appellant came there and demanded Rs. 10 from, him. Babar Ali told him that he had money, upon which the appellant said "Give me the money otherwise I would kill you:" As injured Babar Ali did not give money to the appellant, the latter took out knife from his pant and assaulted the injured with it. The appellant stabbed the injured on right side chest. He gave another blow, which fell on the left side arm of the injured. The incident was witnessed by several persons.- The injured Babar Ali fell down on the ground bleeding from his injuries. The appellant disappeared from that place.
6. 'the injured was removed to Civil Hospital by. Muqtadar Khan Warsi P. W. And others for treatment. He was medically examined by Dr. Moosa Ibrahim P.W.
6. The information was given to the New Town Police Station on telephone. The message was received by H C Mushtaq Hussain.
This message was entered at serial No. 39 of station diary. The doctor issued medico-legal certificate Exh.
13. This certificate was sent to the police. The original entry in the station diary is Exh.
28. Copy of this entry is Exh.
29. The original entry was also signed try Duty Officer. i'
7. A. S. I. Badshah Gul, P. W. 10 proceeded to the Civil Hospital and contacted the C. M. O. At that time the injured was in the Surgical Ward. The A.-S. I. Recorded the statement of the injured, which is Exh.
5. This statement was sent by A.-S I. With Constable Mohammad Younus to New Town Police Station for registration of the case.
8. The A. S. I. Met Muhammad Zaki and Muqtadar. Khan Warsi in the hospital. He recorded their statements. They brought him to the place of occurrence, which was in front of the shop of Muhammad Zaki. The A. S. I. Inspected the scene. Of offence in the presence of mashirs Asalt Khan and Muhammad Rafi. He saw indistinct marks of blood-stained there. He prepared mashirnama Exh. 10 and recorded the statements of Mashirs. Thereafter he returned to the police station.
9. On the following day he made a search for the appellant, but would not find him anywhere.
10. On 3rd June, 1970, investigation papers were handed over to A.. S.I. Bashir Ahmad by S.H.O.
Farooq Lodhi. On 2nd July, 1970 appel- lant was before the Sessions Judge, where he bad moved the bail applica--tion. The appellant was arrested, after his bail application was rejected. The appellant was challaned in the Court of Mr. Fateh Muhammad Memon, A. C. M., Karachi on 6th July, 1970. He was committed to the Court of Session on 24th August, 1971.
11. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted, that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P. W. I Babar Ali (complainant) and. P. W. 2 Muqtadar Khan and P. W.
Salamat Khan, as they are interested witnesses, without any independent corroboration. In support of this contention the learned Advocate for the appellant reiied upon case reported in PLD 1965 Kar.
31. The learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted, that P. W. 2 Muqtadar Khan and P. W. Salamat Ali Khan were not put to indenti--fication test and as such their evidence has no value. In view of this the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the appellant.
12. The learned Advocate appearing for, the -State on the other hand submitted, that prosecution has established its case beyond reason--able doubt by the statements of P. W. I Babar Ali (injured), complainant and P: W. 2 Muqtadar Ali Khan and P. W. Salamat Ali Khan, indepen--dent eye- witnesses of the incident as well as by medical evidence on record. In view of this the learned Advocate for the State submitted, that he fully supports the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, which is based on cogent reasons.
I find that the prosecution case rests on the ocular evidence of P. W. 1 Babar Ali (injured) complainant, and his statement is straightforward and convincing and is fully corroborated by the evidence' of .P. W. 2 Muqtadar Khan and P. W. Salamat Khan, who are A independent eye-witnesses of the incident as well as by medical evidence of P. W. 6 Dr. Moosa Ibrahim. I find from the statement of P~ W'I Muqtadar Khan and Salamat Ali, that they knew both complainant as well as appellant by faces, but did not know their names prior to the incident and learnt about their names at the time of the incident. In view of this, the question of putting these witnesses to the identification test, in my opinion, did not arise and as such I see no force in the contention of the learned Advocate forthe appellant in this connection. The evidence of all these three eye-witnesses is straightforward and convincing and hasl not been shaken at all in their cross-examination. The appellant has' alleged no enmity with any of these three eye-witnesses and consequently) I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion and findings of the learned trial Court, by which their evidence has been believed. The appellant examined D. W. Zaki, who was originally cited as P. W., but the evidence of this witness in no way supports the con. Tention of the appellant, as this witness in his statement has stated, that be did not see the incident and did not know, who stabbed the complainant P. W. Babar Ali nor he saw the appellant present at the time of the incident. The second D. W. Examined by the appellant namely Muhammad Rafiq in his statement has also stated, that he did not see the incident in question and as such his evidence is of no help to the appellant. I find that the statements of P. W. 1 Babar Ali, the complainant, who was injured in the incident in question, has been fully corroborated by the statement of P. W. 2, Muqtadar Khan and P.
W. Salamat Ali Khan, who were both independent eye-witnesses and as such p I find no force in the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellapt before me, that no reliance can be placed on their statements. The case cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant is not at all , applicable to the facts of the present. Case, as the said case is based on com--pletely different facts. I see no reason to disagree with the conclusions and findings of the learned trial Court.
13. Therefore, I find no force in the above appeal, which is con--sequently dismissed, The learned trial Court is directed to issue non--bailable warrant against the appellant and on his arrest, appellant be remanded to judicial custody to serve out the remaining unexpired period of his sentences.