1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 30th June 1972, upholding the conviction and sentences recorded against the 'petitioner under sections 307 and 333 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial Court had sentenced the petitioner to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on first count, and to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on the second count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Multan, upheld the petitioner's conviction on both the counts but reduced the sentence of three years under section 307, P. P. C. To two years. He also set aside the sentence of fine on both the counts. After reviewing the evidence brought on the record, the. High Court has refused to interfere in revision. .
2. The relevant facts may briefly be stated. The petitioner was serving as a Head Constable in the District Police Lines, Rahim Yar Khan. It is alleged that on the' morning of the 15th September 1969, after a general parade, tile petitioner was present in the Police Lines at Rahim Yar Khan along pith other police Officers including D. S. P. Murid Hussain (P. W. 3) and A. S. I Mumtaz A.I Mazari (P. W. 11j.
3. The D. S. P. Noticed that the petitioner was holding the loaded rifle of F. C. Yar Mohammad (P. W. 5) who had been sent away to fetch tea for the Police Officers. The D. S. P. Ordered the petitioner to deposit the weapon, but instead of carrying out this direction the petitioner aimed the rifle at the D.
4. S. P. And fired. The bullet hit A. S. I Mumtaz A.I Mazari. In the meantime, ,'F. C. Yar Mohammad rushed up to snatch the rifle from the petitioner, and put hip hand on the muzzle of the rifle, whereupon the petitioner fired a second shot which pierced the palm of Yar Mohammad. A scuffle followed, during which the petitioner was overpowered and the weapon as well as the bandolier containing rifle bullet were snatched from him.
5. It is said that the petitioner behaved in this manner as he was inimical towards the D. S. P. And the A. S. I. Mumtaz A.I Mazari on account of certain service incidents which had taken place in the recent past.
6. All the Courts below have believed the-evidence of the two Police Officers who were injured, namely, A. S. I. Mumtaz A.I Mazari and F. C. Yar Mohammad as well as the other Police Officers who were present in the Police Lines and had witnessed the occurrence. They are D. S. I P. Murid Hussain, Inspector Ch. Abdul Rahman, and Lines Officer Mirza Iftikharuddin. The Courts below have disbelieved the plea of the defence that the rifle went off accidentally when it ,was being held by F.
7. C. Yar Mohammad. The defence evidence given in this behalf as well as the concessions made by two of the prosecution witnesses were rejected as being unworthy of credit.
8. It is submitted. By Raja Mohammad Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that---
(a) there has been grave prejudice to the petitioner on account of the fact that a material witness like F. C. Yar Mohammad was not permitted to be cross-examined, and was not recalled for this purpose-;
(b) although medical evidence contradicted the ocular account of the incident inasmuch as no charring was found on the hand of F. C. Yar Mohammad, yet the benefit of this contradiction has not b-.En given to the petitioner ; and
(c) the Courts below have erred-in not placing reliance on the favourable statements made in cross-examination by two prosecution witnesses, namely, P. W. 4 and P. W. 13.
9. After heading the learned counsel and examining .The available record we are of the view that these submissions have no merit.
10. As regards the question of cross-examination, we find that it is specifically recorded by the trial Court that opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross-examination but it was not availed of.
11. There is no, indication on the record, nor is the learned counsel able to enlighten us on this point, as to the reason why the witnesses were not doss-examined at the time they appeared to give evidence before the trial Court. It appears, however, that some of the witnesses were recalled by the Court for cross-examination, but there is no assertion that any such application was made in respect of F. C. Yar Mohammad. It will be seen, therefore, that if this particular witness has not been cross-examined, the fault must lie with the petitioner or his counsel, and on that account no question can arise of holding that he has been prejudiced for this reason.
12. As regards the contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account, it is correct that the doctor did not find any charring on the hand of F. C. Yar Mohammad, which would have been the case if the witness had indeed put his hand on the muzzle of the rifle before the petitioner fired the second .Shot, but the Courts below are right in saying that this contradiction does not have any material effect on the essential ,features of the case, namely, that Yar Mohammad did sustain a bullet injury on his hand, the bullet having pierced through the palm. It appears, therefore, chat Yar Mohammad must have tried to prevent the petitioner from doing damage with the second shot and in that effort he received bullet on his palm, whether lie had put his hand right on top of the muzzle or in front of at a short distance. This apparent contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account was, therefore, rightly treated as being immaterial for the purpose of fixing the guilt of the petitioner.
13. The last contention raised by the learned counsel regarding the treatment of the evidence of P. W.
14. 4 and P. W. 13 is not a matter which can be raised in the present proceedings, for we can--not substitute our own appraisal of the evidence of 'these witnesses; unless it can be shown that the Courts below have committed a grave error of procedure or principles in appreciating their evidence. No such element is present here.
15. The petition according fails and is hereby dismissed.