1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-On state appeal against the acquittal of the petitioner the Peshawar High Court set aside the judgment of the City Magistrate Peshawar dated 30th July; 1979 and by its judgment dated 13th December, 1982 convicted the petitioner under section 324, P. P. C. And sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonnent for six months and to pay a fine of Rs, 1,000, in default of which to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment more. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against this judgment of the Peshawar High Court.
2. ' The prosecution case, in brief, was that on the 4th of April, 1975 Javed Gul complainant (P. W. 1) had gone to the college ground for playing football at about 5.30 p.m. As he reached near the gate he found the petitioner Iftikhar and his co-convict Inayat Khan there. When he reached nearer Inayat Khan fired at him a number of shots while the petitioner inflicted injuries on his person with a rasor. Previous enmity between them was given as a reason for this attack. The complainant was removed to the Lady Reading hospital where he made a report to Sakhi Muhammad A. S. I. (P. W. 4) on which a case was registered at 7.10 p. m. At police station Hasht Nagri Peshawar. The complainant was found by Dr. Jalilur Rehman to be having the following injuries on his person-
(I) A fire-arm wound of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" on the front of upper 3rd of right side.
3. (2)A fire-arm wound of entrance 1/4" x 1/4" on back of upper third of right thigh.
4. (3)An incised wound 3" x 1/2" on the upper third of left thigh on the lateral side.
(4) An incised wound x 1/1 on the right frank 1" above the entrance super Ciualiacspen. Patent is conscious X-Ray right thigh advised. In the first round of trial the petitioner and his co-accused were both discharged by order of the Magistrate dated 1-1-1976. On revision the Sessions Judge on 15th June, 1976 remanded the proceedings and on 30th July 1979 the City Magistrate acquitted both of them. It was in this background that State preferred an appeal against their acquittal. The High Court by the impugned judgment accepted the appeal against acquittal and the petitioner was thereby convicted under section 324 and sentenced as described above. His co-accused was convicted under section 307 and sentenced accordingly.
5. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was the solitary statement of Javed Gul with regard to the occurrence and the implication of the petitioner and he was not a truthful witness, for he had not made true disclosures with regard to his being a student, to the motive which accounted for the occurrence and to various other matters. It was also contended that his statement did not find any support from the medical evidence. The medical evidence on the contrary repudiated the prosecution case inasmuch as it clearly established that the shots could not have been fired at the complainant from a distance of two paces to cause injuries which were found on his person and further the assailant and the victim could not have been in the same position or facing each other at the same level. There being absolutely no corroboration for the statement of the complainant the petttioner and his companions were rightly acquitted, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner and their conviction and sentence could not be maintained.
6. ' We have enquired and have been told that Inayat Khan has not sought leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence recorded by the. High Court by its judgment reversing his acquittal by the City Magistrate. It is only the petitioner who has sought leave to appeal. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the complainant was inimical to the petitioner or that there was any reason or occasion for the complainant to charge falsely or implicate the petitioner for his injuries. The fact that the occurrence had taken place in broad day light at 5-30 p.m. Near the football ground is established by the recovery blood-stained earth and 32 bore empty. The time and the venue having been established beyond any reasonable doubt, the identification could not be a matter of any difficulty. The complainant had been attacked from close distance because the injuries by razor could only be inflicted from close quarters presenting no difficulty at all in identification. The statement of the complainant therefore with regard to the identity of the assailants has to be accepted unless there be some material defect in such a statement. There is no contradiction with regard to the motive or events which led to this attack on him. According to the first information report it was the previous enmity. At the trial the complainant when questioned further explained that he had obtained a camera from one Ashaq and when the petitioner and his companion wanted its return he refused to do so on which they felt annoyed and inimical towards him. We do not find that the motive is such as to be discrepant and insufficient for the occurrence.
7. As regards the apparent discrepancy between the injuries and the statement of the complainant it is more because of the result of certain clarifications obtained from the doctor. For example, the doctor stated that the fire-arm injuries could not have been caused from two paces while it was the statement of the complainant that he was fired at from two paces. The description of the distance or its estimate may not be very accurate and one cannot expect in such a situation a very exact description of the distance as was noted by the High Court also. The posture of the complainant must have changed after receiving the injuries and that could account for one injury being on front and the other on the back of the thigh. As regards the level of the assailant and the victim with regard to the injuries other than the first one it would be difficult for the very posture of the victim after he received the first injury would be indeterminate.
8. In the circumstances we find that the statement of the complainant was duly corroborated from the injuries received which showed that more than one weapon and more than one person had attacked and injured him. Such corroboration was sufficient in the absence of any serious earlier enmity inspiring a false charge. We find that the High Court has not committed any legal error in applying the law or appraising the evidence before it. Leave to appeal is therefore refused.