This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 31st August, 1981 of Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu at Kotri, whereby he convicted the appellant Gul under section 307, P.P.C. And sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. He has further been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000, to Mst. Lal Khatoon by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default of payment of fine he shall suffer further R.I. For six months.
2. The facts of the prosecution case briefly stated are that on 6-11-1980, Hap Dur Muhammad alongwith his brother's were Mst. Lal Khatoon, uncle Muhammad Urs and others came at the village Bharai Jamshoro to attend marriage ceremony. On 7-11-1980 the marriage ceremony held when one Rab Rakhio the brother of Mst. Lal Khatoon came and took her to his house. At about 12 noon two fire shots were heard from the house of Rab Rakhio on which Dur Muhammad went there and found Mst. Lal Khatoon lying injured and was bleeding. Gahi and Urs informed Dur Muhammad that on hearing fire shots they came and saw that Gul Muhammad was running out from the room of house of Rab Rakhio having a pistol in his hand. Dur Muhammad brought Mst. Lal Khatoon to Jamshoro hospital and then went and lodged report on the same day i.e. 7-3-1983, at. 12-50 at Police Station Jamshoro, District Dadu. The, case was registered under section 307, P.P.C.
3. Ghulam Shah A.S.I. After recording F.I.R. Went to hospital and prepared Mashirnama of injuries of Mst. Lai Khatoon Exh.8/A. She was not in a position to make statement, therefore, he proceeded to Wardat and prepared Mashirnama Exh.8/B. He recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses Muhammad Urs, Gahi Khan, Rab Rakhio and Allah Ditto. On the next day appellant voluntarily appeared before police and produced revolver containing five fired bullets and one misfired bullet in its chamber. The appellant was arrested. He could not produce the licence, therefore, a separate case under section 13-D was registered. A.S.I. Handed over case papers to S.H.O. Muhammad Shafi who challaned the accused in the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M. Kotri and then case was sent up to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge who heard the case and convicted the appellant as stated above.
4. The prosecution at the trial examined P.W.1, Haji Dur Muhammad Exh.5, P.W.2, Mst. Lal Khatoon Exh.6, P.W.3, Urs Exh.7, P.W.4, Mashir Shadi Khan Exh.8, P.W.5 Mashir Ghulam Muhammad Exh.9, P.W.6 A.S.I. Ghulam Shah Exh.11, P.W.7 Additional S.H.O. Shahdad Khan Exh. 13, P.W.8, Dr. Allah Obhayo Exh.14, and P.W.9, Gahi Exh.15.
5. Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution. He alleged that he was involved in this case under suspicion due to enmity as a result of the marriage of Mst. Lal Khatoon with Hap Din Muhammad. He has not examined any witness in his defence.
6. Hap Dur Muhammad complainant has supported the case of the prosecution as disclosed by him in the F.I.R. He has stated that at about 12 noon while he and others were busy in wedding feast.
Rab Rakhio brother of Mst. Lai Khatoon took her to his house which was near the place of wedding.
He stated that P.W. Gahi and Urs came and informed him that appellant Gul after shooting Mst. Lai Khatoon ran away. He went and found Mst. Lai Khatoon bleeding but she was in senses and she informed him that her uncle Gul had fired a pistol shot. He went and lodged report and has produced the F.I.R. As $xh.5. This witness is not an eye-witness of the incident and there are some minor contradictions in his evidence. P.W. Injured Mst: Let Khatoon has deposed that on the day of incident at about 12 noon her brother Rab Rakhio took her to his house from the wedding place and he went out to bring food for her. She has further stated that appellant Gul who is her uncle came there and shot at her with a pistol as a result of which she received injuries on her chest and head and she fell down but she was in senses, on cries, Gahi and Urs came and she narrated the incident and gave the name of the appellant then she lost her senses. Dr. Allah Obahyo Exh.14, deposed that on 7-1-1981 he was Registrar of Ward No.4, Liaquat Medical Hospital Jamshoro when Mst. Lai Khatoon was referred to him. He examined' her and found following injuries:- "(i)Two wounds (R) side of Mandible I" in size each surrounded by blakish spots.
(ii)Single wound 1" in size one scalp with bleeding.
(i.e)Single wound --" in size (L) side of mandible.
(iv)Bleeding from mouth present.
(v)Bleeding from scalp wound.
(vi)Patient conscious and pupils not dilated and reacting to light."
The injury No-1, was grevious and injury No.2, was corresponding to injury No.1. He further stated that Doctor Afzal Leghari hail taker bullets from this wound while one bullet was" still lying in the neck of the injured which was not removed. According to him the injuries were caused by bullets. P.W. Gahi Exh.15, has deposed that on the day of incident he heard cries and saw 8 to 10 persons present in the house of Allah Rakhio there he came to know that appellant Gul had caused injuries to Mst. Lal Khatoon, but he could not see her due to crowd. P.W. Urs Exh.7, has deposed that he heard fire-arm report and cries. He rushed to the house of Rab Rakhio and saw Gul there with a pistol in his hand who asked him not come and then he left place of incident. They went inside and found Mst. Lal Khatoon lying injured on a cot. She was in senses and she informed them that her uncle Gul had caused her injuries. She then lost her senses just then Dur Muhammad came to the place of incident who was also informed about the name of the accused. P.W. Shadi Khan Exh.8, is a Mashir of injuries Mashirnama is at Exh.8/A and Exh.8/B, is 11 Mashirnama of Wardat. Mashir Ghulam Muhammad Exh,9, has stated that he and Haji Siddik came at Police Station Jamshoro where the saw Gul in custody of the police and revolver' was lying on that 'table of the S.H.O. Who opened its chamber and found 5 fired bullets and one misfired bullet in it. The Police told him that they had secured the said revolver from accused who has himself produced the revolver before the Police.
He has produced Mashirnama Exh.9/A, and states that it is same correct and bears his signature.
P.W. Ghulam Shah Exh.11 A.S.I., Kotri is an Investigating Officer and .His evidence is that he registered the case and also arrested the accused. His evidence has already been discussed in preceding para. Of this order. P.W. Shahdad Khan Exh. 13, was S.I.P. At Jamshoro. He had examined injured Mst.
Lal Khatoon in the hospital on 20-11-1980 and then handed over papers to S.H.O. Muhammad Shafi who challaned the case.
7. I have heard Mr. Syed Ali Madad Snah learned Advocate for the appellant. He has argued that the witnesses are interested and recovery has not been believed by trial Judge. He has also contended that the pistol was not sent to the Ballistic expert. On this point he has relied upon 1982 P Cr. L J 271, 1983 P Cr. L J 1034, 1982 NLR Cr. 161.
Mr. Rashid Tariq Khan, learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that the witnesses though closely related are natural and truthful witnesses: The presence of P.W. Gahi who has tried to help the appellant cannot. Be disputed at the place of incident and incident took place in broad daylight in which the appellant has specifically been named.
8. It is an admitted position that appellant Gul is uncle of injured Mst. Lal Khatoon and Dur Muhammad complainant is her brother-in-law while prosecution witnesses Urs and 6ahi are uncles of Dur Muhammad. There is absolutely nothing on the record to show that prosecution witnesses have enmity or motive to falsely implicate the appellant Gul when Mst. La1 Khatoon who is niece of the appellant has fully implicated A her own uncle. This piece of evidence itself is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. The presence of witnesses Urs and Gahi at the place of the incident cannot be doubted. Gahi though tried to oblige the appellant but in spite of that he has stated that he went to the place of incident immediately where he came to know that appellant Gul caused injuries, to Mst. Lal Khatoon. P.W. Urs has supported the case of prosecution and stated that he saw appellant Gul with a pistol at the place of incident. The minor contradictions cannot help the appellant, and Court disbelieve the entire prosecution version. The medical evidence fully supports the ocular testimony. Mashir of arrest and recovery Ghulam Muhammad has not supported on the point of recovery but admits the contents of Mashirnama.
A.S.I. Ghulam Shah has fully supported the prosecution case and in my view the learned trial Court should have taken into consideration the evidence of the Police Officer Qs it has been held in number of cases that evidence of Police Officer is as good as evidence of other witnesses. On this point, I refer to PLD 1981. SC 637, PLD 1969 SC 114 and 1982 PCr.LJ 543, and so many other cases.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that case again appellant Gul under section 307, P.P.C. Has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail granted by this Court, vide order, dated 13-1-1981. He may be remanded to custody to serve out the remaining sentences.