1. ' Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 12th October, 1977 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, in Sessions Case No, 324/76, by which appellant has been convicted under section 307, P. P. C. And sentenced to suffer R. I, for two years and to pay fine of Rs, 500 or in default to suffer further R. I. For six months, has preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds :- ' Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are, that on 26th July, 1976 at 6-30 p. In complainant Hamal lodged the F. I. R. At Police Station City, Jacobabad which reads as under :- "1 reside in Jafferabad and ply donkey-cart to earn my livelihood. Today on 26th July, 1976 at 6.30 p. m. I was standing on road with my relations Shah Murad and Ali Nawaz both sons of Muhammad Usman Talani in front of the dispensary of Dr. Lakho. Mal as I had come to take medicine for Mir Gul son of my maternal uncle. Muhammad Yousif son of Ghulam Hyder Brohi resident of Muhammad Ali Brohi came there on motor cycle. On seeing me he stopped motor cycle, got down and declared "that I have lived long and he would murder me. He aimed his revolver and fired. But I avoided and fell down. In the meanwhile I saw a constable who caught hold of Muhammad 'Yousif.
2. P. W. Shah Murad and Ali Nawaz also grappled accused. The constable who disclosed his name Asrar Ahmad Lashari of P. S. City immediately snatched the revolver from the accused. The complainant along with above-named witnesses brought the accused and the revolver to the police station and produced him before police and lodged the F. I. R. About 20 days before accused Muhammad Yousif had fought with my "Masat" Muhammad Nawaz and such case was registered at P. S. Saddar. Because of previous incident the accused attempted to cause my murder by firing revolver shot at me."
3. ' D. S. P. Imtiaz Ahmad who was incharge S. H.
0. P. S. City recorded the F. I. R. For the offences punishable under sections 307, 506 (2)/188, P. P. C.
4. Against the appellant. He arrested the appellant and secured the revolver alongwith its bandolier containing 4 live, one empty bullet of 32 bore produced by P. S. Israr Ahmad. On personal search of the appellant, he secured onel icence No, 1250, dated 2nd June, 1976 for the revolver in the name of appellant and a purse containing Rs, 65, in presence of Mash irs Lal Bux and Muhammad Sharif under Mashirnama Exh.
7. He proceeded to the vardat, which was shown by the complainant and secured a 50 c. c. Honda Motor Cycle without number in presence of mashirs Israr Ahmad son of Wali Muhammad and Jaffar under mashirnama Exh.
9. He then recorded the statements of P. W. Shah Murad, Ali Nawaz and P. C. Israr. Thereafter he handed over the papers to S. H.
0. Siraj Ahmad on 7th August, 1976, appellant was challaned in the Court of Civil Judge and F. C. M.
5. Jacobabad. Due to enforcement of law reforms the case came before the lInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jacobabad for trial of the appellant. After perusing all the relevant record the charge for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 188, P. P. C. Was framed read over and explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and intended to lead no defence.
6. ' The prosecution had examined P. W. 1 complainant Hamal, P. W. 2 P. C. Israr Ahmad, P. W. 3 Mashir Lal Bux, P.W. 4 Mashir Israr, P. W. 5 Shah Muhammad and P. W. 6 D. S P. Imtiaz Ahmad. The learned A.
7. P. P. Then closed his side vide statement Exh.
8. 12.
9. ' The case of the appellant is of total denial of the prosecution allegations. He stated that P. C. Israr had taken out the revolver, bandolier, bullets and the licence from the bag of property and produced him before police. He admitted that Rs, 65 were secured from his personal search.
10. ' He has further stated, that no P. W. Had deposed against him, except P. C. Israr Ahmad with whom he has enmity over matters of children and police has involved him in order to oblige P. C. Israr Ahmad. Appellant had not lead any defence.
11. ' The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced, convicted and sentenced the appellant abovenamed as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
12. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under
(a) That all P. Ws. Except P. W. 2 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
(b) That even complainant in his statement before the learned trial Court stated, that appellant was not the same person, who fired.
13. ' The learned counsel for the appellant in view of above facts on record, submitted, that the learned trial Court has come to conclusions which are not at all warranted by evidence on record and consequently impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
14. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgment in view of the facts mentioned by learned Advocate for appellant, which are on record.
15. ' I have carefully gone through the R & P of the learned trial court and through impugned judgment and taken into consideration the submissions of the learned Advocates made before me.
16. It is admitted position, that not a single prosecution witness has supported prosecution case against appellant except P. W. 2 Israr Ahmad and P. W. 6 Imtiaz Ahmad, on the basis of whose evidence learned trial Court has convicted the appellant.
17. ' Appellant has suggested enmity against P. W. 2 Israr Ahmad. No doubt this was denied by said P.
18. W. Keeping this in view and the fact, that even complainant before learned trial Court stated, that appellant was not same Muhammad Yousif, against whom he had lodged F. I. R. B in question, it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of P. W. 2 Israr Ahmad, without independent corroboration. The learned trial court for this purpose has relied upon the statement of P. W. 6 Imtiaz Ahmad Dy. S. P., who had recorded F. I. R. And conducted the same inquiry and convicted the appellant. It may be noted, that recovery of scooter by P. W. 6 Imtiaz Ahmad is not supported by mashir P. W. 4 Israr, who was declared hostile. Evidence of P. W. 4 was not at all shaken in his cross- examination. Even P. W. 2 Israr Ahmad has given no description of the scooter and/or that it bad no number plate on it, in his statement before the learned trial Court and as such it would be unsafe to relay on the statement of P. W. 6 alone for alleged recovery of such motor cycle, without corroboration, as P. W. 4 mashir of the alleged recovery has denied such recovery. In view of this in my opinion statement of P. W. 6 also required independent corroboration, which is not at all available in present case.
19. Keeping in view above facts on record and my observations about prosecution evidence, in my opinion prosecution has failed to establish c its case against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt.
20. ' Therefore, I allow the above appeal and set aside conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to him by the learned trial Court and D acquit him by giving him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by the appellant in above appeal.