AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J. This judgment shall dispose of the fate of the instant Criminal Appeal filed by the above-named appellants/accused, assailing the judgment dated 07.12.2023, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khipro, in Sessions Case No.231 of 2021 (Re. The State v. Ghulam Ali and others), the outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.39/2021, offence under Sections 324, 452, 336, 337-A(i), 506(ii), 504, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Khipro, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under: Under Section 452, P.P.C.; Accused Ghulam Ali son of Muhammad and Waryam son of Umer are sentenced to undergo R.I for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each and in case of failure of payment of fine, they shall further suffer to undergo SI for three months more.
Under Section 324, P.P.C.; Accused Ghulam Ali son of Muhammad and Waryam son of Umer are sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) each and in case of failure of payment of fine, they shall further suffer to undergo S.I for three months more.
Under Section 337-A(i), P.P.C.; Accused Waryam son of Umer is sentenced to pay Daman Rs.10,000/- to injured Hakim and in case of failure of payment of Daman he shall suffer S.I for two months.
Under Section 336, P.P.C.; Accused Ghulam Ali son of Muhammad is smtenced to pay Arsh Rs.33,78,951/- equivalent to 50% of Diyat to injured Hakim and shall remain S.I till realization the payment of Arsh.
Under Section 336, P.P.C.; Accused Waryam son of Umer is sentenced to pay Arsh Rs.33,78,951/- equivalent to 50% of Diyat to injured Hakim and he shall remain S.I till realization of the payment of Arsh.
All the sentences awarded to appellants/accused named above shall run concurrently. However, the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C is extended to them.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that two years ago the brother of the complainant namely Akram contracted a love marriage with Mst. Hooran, which annoyed Hooran's uncle Ghulam Ali Bhanbhro. On 06-03-2021, in the daytime, the complainant along with his brother Hakim, nephew Shadi, and sister-in-law Mst. Hooran and other family members were at their house and at about 1115 hours, the accused namely Ghulam Ali and Weryam, armed with desi pistols, Daim holding a hatchet, Shahmir with a lathi, and Hamzo with an iron rod, committed house- trespass by entering into the complainant's house. Upon entering, accused Ghulam Ali caught hold of Mst. Hooran by her arm and asked her to go with him, to which she refused. PW Hakim Ali tried to stop Ghulam Ali, during which time accused Ghulam Ali made straight fire intending to commit the murder of Hakim which hit him at his left arm. Accused Waryam also made a straight fire upon PW Hakim intending to commit his murder, which hit him at his face and head. The complainant party then raised cries, and the accused persons, using' abusive language, issued murderous threats and fled away. The injured Hakim was taken to the PS, where they obtained a medical referral letter and then rushed to Taluka Hospital Khipro. He was then referred to Hyderabad for further treatment and later to Karachi. During the course of treatment of the injured in Karachi, the complainant returned and filed an application in court for lodging an FIR, which was lodged against the aforementioned persons.
3. After completion of the usual investigation, the Investigation Officer submitted a report under section 173 Cr.P.C before the competent Court of law and thereafter the case papers were supplied to the accused under receipt.
4. The charge against appellants/accused was framed at Exh.2, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide their plea recorded at Exh.2/A and Ex.2/B respectively.
5. To establish the accusation against the present appellants/accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Complainant Adam at Ex.07 who produced an Order dated 31-03-2021 passed in Crl. Misc.
Application No. 80/ 2021 by the Honourable Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro at Ex.7/A and FIR at Ex.7/B. PW-02/Injured Hakim at Ex.8. PW-03 Shadi at Ex.09. PW-04/Mashir Taj Muhammad at Ex.10 who produced memo. of injuries at Ex.10/A and memo. of site inspection at Ex.10/B respectively.
PW05/Author of FIR, I.O/ASI Mushtaque Ahmed at Ex.11 who produced medical referral letter at Ex.III A, entry No. 11, 13, 21 on one page at Ex. 11/B to 11/D. PW-06/MLO Dr. Sharjeel Khan at Ex.13 who produced provisional and final medical certificates, X-Ray and Radiologist expert opinion along with X-ray film, referred letter dated: 16-04-2021, complete medical file of injured issued by LUMHS with outward letter and Civil Hospital Karachi and letter of Special Medical Board dated: 11-08-2021 at Exs.13/A to 13/H. Thereafter, learned State Counsel closed the side of prosecution vide statement kept on record at Exh.14.
6. The statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C were recorded at Exs.15 and 22 and Exs.16 and 25 respectively and they had denied all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and claimed their innocence. However, they did not examine themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence. Thereafter A.D.P.P filed application under section 540, Cr.P.C which was allowed and then evidence of Associate Professor Dr. Amjad Ali Sehto (Member Special Medical Board) wgs recorded at Exs. 20 who produced DG health letter dated 01-06-2021 at Ex.20/A, board constitution letter No.4416/2022 dated 03-07-2021 at Ex.20/B, letter dated 12-07-2021 at Ex.
20/C, letter dated: 25-08-2021 at Ex.20/D, letter at Ex. 20/E, five films of CT scan of injured along with ultrasound of eye at Exs.20/F to 20/J, final medical opinion of Special Medical Board at Ex.20/K.
Thereafter, again State Counsel closed the side of prosecution vide statement at Ex.14.
7. The learned trial court on evaluation of the evidence and after hearing the counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused vide Judgment dated 07.12.2023, which they have impugned before this Court by preferring instant Criminal Appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case; that the present appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant; that the complainant and eye-witnesses are related inter-se and inimical towards the appellant; that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of contradictions and discrepancies, which are fatal to the prosecution case. That Section 324, P.P.C. is not applicable in this case, as the accused persons have not repeated the fire upon the complainant party; that the conviction so recorded by the learned trial court under Section 324, P.P.C. is against the law; that there is matrimonial enmity between the parties and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case, and P.W/injured Hakim has not supported the case of the prosecution; Learned counsel lastly prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Prosecutor General for State and learned counsel for the complainant argued that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants in this case falsely; that the appellants named in the FIR with the specific role of making direct fires of the pistol up on the injured/witnesses with the intention to kill them; that the ocular testimony furnished by complainant and injured is corroborated with medical evidence.
They further argued that the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence while recording the conviction and sentence of the appellants in accordance with the law, thus they lastly prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.
11. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that PW Hakim received the firearm injuries at the hands of the accused/appellants only on the ground that he has contracted marriage with Mst.
Haroon. The said marriage was an outcome of love and affection between the parties which annoyed the appellant's parties, however, they attacked the complainant party resulting in PW/injured Hakin became serious injured and he had lost his one eye. It is settled that no one could be granted the licence to take the law into his own hands and start executing culprits instead of taking him/her to the court of law. A Muslim marriage is a union between two individuals, guided by Islamic principles and laws. The marriage is conducted with the consent of both the parties. In the instant case, there was no complainant from Mst. Hooran that the complainant party had abducted her and contracted forcefully marriage- with her. But due to Ghariat the accused party entered into the house of the complainant party and this unfortunate incident took place.
12. The complainant, injured witness, and other PWs have deposed that on 06.03.2021, the complainant along with his brother, nephew Shadi, and sister-in-law Hooran were at their house, and the above-mentioned accused persons duly armed with deadly weapons viz: pistols, hatchets, and lathies in their hands, along with other accused persons, appellant Ghulam Ali held Mst.
Hooran from her arm to, take her back, upon which she raised a cry. Her brother Hakim tried to rescue her, and then Ghulam Ali made a straight fire upon PW Hakim intending to kill him, hitting him in his left arm, and appellant Waryam also made a straight fire upon PW Hakim, hitting him in his face and forehead. After the incident, the injured was brought to the PS Khipro by one Saleem, where ASI Mushtaque Ahmed perused the injuries and prepared a memo. of injuries in the presence of two PWs, namely Taj Muhammad and Ashraf. The injured was referred to Taluka Hospital Khipro, and thereafter to Hyderabad for treatment. The doctors, after examining the injured, referred him to Karachi for further treatment. The complainant produced the FIR at Ex.7/B.
The prosecution also examined injured witness Hakim, who specifically assigned the role of the accused persons. PW Hakim deposed that on 06-03-2021, accused Ghulam Ali and Waryam of being armed with pistols, Daim armed with a hatchet, accused Hamzo armed with an iron rod, and accused Shahmir being armed with a lathi entered his house. Accused Ghulam Ali holding his niece Mst. Hooran by her arm to take her back, and then the accused made a straight fire which hit him in his left arm. Accused Waryam also caused a fire, and he sustained pellet injuries on his forehead, fell down, and lost consciousness. PW Shadi also supported the version of the complainant so also injured the witness. In cross-examination, PW2/injured witness Hakin admitted that he was unconscious' and his brother Adam informed him about the registration of the FIR after 15/20 days.
13. The prosecution examined mashir Taj Muhammad, who deposed that in his presence, the memo. of injuries was prepared, and so also the memo. of the place of the incident. He and co- mashir Ashraf signed the memos prepared by ASI Mushtaque Ahmed. The injured witness and other witnesses have supported the version of the complainant, which is also supported by medical evidence. The prosecution also examined retired ASI Mushtaque Ahmed. He produced a medical referral letter at Ex. 11/A, entry Nos. 11, 13, 21 at Exs.11/B to 11/D.
14. The medical certificate of the injured Hakim was produced by Dr. Sharjeel Khan (PW-06) also proves that the injured was referred to him on the date of the incident; he examined him on the same date and found multiple firearm injuries on his body. Dr. Sharjeel Khan deposed that he was posted as Incharge Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital Khipro on 06.03.2021 when the injured, namely Hakim, appeared in the hospital along with a police letter for his treatment, after examining the injured, referred him to LUMHS Hyderabad for expert opinion. He received the medical files of the injured from LUMHS Hyderabad and Karachi on 21-03-2021, and then the injuries were declared by him as Shujjah-i-Khaffifah, Ghayr-Jaifah Damiyah, and Ghayr-Jaifah Mutlamiyah. He issued the Final Medical Certificate, confirming that the kind of weapon used was a gunshot (pallets). He produced the medical certificate of the injured Hakim as Ex.13/A to Ex.13/H, which also proves that the injured were referred to him on the date of the incident, viz: 06.03.2021. Thereafter, the prosecution examined Associate Professor Dr. Amjad Ali Sehto (Member Special Medical Board) at Ex.20, who produced certain documents including the final medical opinion of the Special Medical Board. The injuries were declared by him as Shujjah-i-Khaffifah. Injuries Nos.2 to 6 were declared as Itlaf-i-Salahiyat Udw. During the examination, he also got a CT scan of the injured along with an ultrasound of the eye. Finally, it was declared by the doctors that the injured Hakim had lost his one eye due to a firearm injury.
15. So far the plea raised by the counsel for the appellants that Section 324. P.P.C. is not applicable in this case as accused persons have not repeated fire upon the injured witness. It is suffice to say that once an accused person presses the trigger of his firearm, Section 324, P.P.C. comes into action. Section 324, P.P.C. consisted of two parts i.e. commission of an act with intention or knowledge to commit Qatl-e-amd, and in the second part, there is effect of the act done.
Application of Section 324, P.P.C. has to be judged in the background of the number of the accused persons, the weapon carried by them and the opportunity available to them to complete the intended offence. In the instant case, when the injured was present in his house along with the complainant and other witnesses, the appellants duly armed with desi pistols along with co- accused duly armed with hatchets/lathis appeared at the place of incident and tried to kidnap the wife of injured Hakim on which he has offered his resistance consequently he received multiple pallets injuries on the different part of the body, hence ingredients of S. 324, P.P.C. are very much applicable in this case.
16. In the instant matter, the complainant, injured witness as well as all other eye-witnesses of the incident has fully explained the date, time, place of incident, manner of occurrence, and involvement of the appellants. There can be no denial to the legally established principle of law that it is always direct evidence that is material to decide the fact and to prove the charge.
Insufficient, contradictory, discrepant direct evidence is deemed adequate to hold a criminal charge as not proved but where direct evidence remains in the field with that of its being natural and confidence-inspiring then the requirement of independent corroboration is only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case. Reliance may be placed upon the case of Muhammad Ihsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) wherein the Apex Court 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."
17. From the perusal of the evidence of the injured/ eye-witnesses and other private witnesses, it appears that they cannot be termed as chance witnesses but rather would all within the category of natural witnesses. From the appreciation of evidence, it is crystal clear that the prosecution remained successful to bring cogent and unimpeachable direct evidence well supported and corroborated by the medical version against appellants Ghulam Ali an Waryam. The evidence of the witnesses and injured witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are close relatives inter-se particularly since their presence at the place of occurrence was obvious as the incident took place in the house of the complainant party and in broad daylight.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, which in my observation are not adequate to grip that the case of the prosecution is doubtful. It is settled by now that, wherein the evidence, the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confident inspiring evidence supported by the medical and circumstantial evidence then if there may some minor contradictions which always are available in each and every case, such may be ignored, as it has been held by Honourable Supreme Court in case of Zakir Khan v. The State (1995 SCMR 1793). The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:- "13. The evidence recorded in the case further indicates that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported each other on all material points. However, emphasis has been laid by Mr. Motiani upon the improvements which can be found by him in their respective statements made before the Court and some minor contradictions in their evidence were also pointed out. A contradiction, unlike an omission, is an inconsistency between the earlier version of a witness and his subsequent version before the Court. The rule is now well established that only material contradictions are to be taken into consideration by the Court while minor discrepancies found in the evidence of witnesses, which generally occur, are to be overlooked. There is also a tendency on the part of witnesses in this country to overstate a fact or to make improvements in their depositions before the Court. But a mere omission by witness to disclose a certain fact to the Investigating Officer would not render his testimony unreliable unless the improvement made by the witness while giving evidence before the Court has sufficient probative force to bring home the guilt to the accused."
19. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I have concluded that the prosecution has successfully established its case against appellants Ghulam Ali and Waryam, through ocular account furnished by the complainant and eye-witnesses/injured witnesses which is corroborated by the medical evidence coupled with circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any material irregularly or serious infirmity committed by the learned trial Court' while passing the impugned judgment, which in my humble view is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the same does not call for any interference of this Court. Thus, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants/accused named above through impugned Judgment dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Khipro in Sessions Case No.231/2021 (The State v. Ghulam Ali and others), arising out of Crime No.39/2021, for offence Under Sections 324, 452, 336, 337-A (i), 506(ii), 504, 147, 148 and 149 P.P.C. of PS Khipro is maintained.