' Ghulam Abbas, 21 years of age, was sent up for trial by Police Station Mankera, District Bhakkar, for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, at the conclusion of the trial vide his judgment, dated 10-2-1990 convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,10,000, or in default one year's R.I. It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, one-half of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The convict was further directed to be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The convict has appealed. Complainant Fateh Sher has also filed a criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence of Ghulam Abbas. Both the matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, as given in F.I.R. Exh.P.G., lodged by Fateh Sher, P.W.7, was to the effect that his son Muhammad Ramzan was a tenant of one Muhammad Khan. On 3-7-1989 at about 6- 00 a.m., his. Sons Muhammad Ramzan and Sher Zaman alongwith Sardar Khan, son of Muhammad Ramzan, went to their land for ploughing. They saw Ghulam Abbas accused had let loose his cattle in the land of Mir Fazal. Muhammad Ramzan forbade Ghulam Abbas and asked him to take his cattle away, at which both of them exchanged hot words. Commotion attracted the first informant as well as Khan Baig who came to the spot. Ghulam Abbas went away taking his cattle while threatening that he would deal with Muhammad Ramzan. The first informant and others were still there when at about 8-30 a.m. Ghulam Abbas armed with 7 m.m. Rifle, came and fired, which missed. He fired a second shot which hit Muhammad Ramzan who fell down. Muhammad Ramzan was taken to hospital but he expired before he could reach the hospital.
' F.I.R. Exh.P.G. Was lodged by Fateh Sher, father of Muhammad Ramzan deceased, on 3-7-1989 at 12-30 noon with the police station with regard to the occurrence which had taken place the same day at 8-30 a.m. Within the area of Rakh Mojgarh, 12 miles from Police Station Mankera.
' Amir Abdullah Khan, S.H.O. P.W.10, after recording F.I.R. Exh.P.G., came to the hospital and prepared inquest report Exh.P.B. And injury statement Exh.P.H. Of the deceased. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. From the spot he secured blood-stained earth and crime empty P.4 vide memo.
Exh.P.E. And got the same attested from the witnesses. He got prepared site plan Exh.P.D. And Exh.P.D./1 from Patwari and gave his notes in red ink thereunder. On 17-7-1989 he arrested the appellant. Thereafter, he was transferred. Muhammad Ishaq, S.I., P.W.9, took over the investigation and recovered rifle P.5 with two bullets P.6/1-2 with licence P.7 from appellant's house at his instance, which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.F.
3. Dr. Nisar Hussain, Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Bhakkar, P.W.1, on 3-7-1989 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ramzan and found the following injury:--
(1) There was a roughly circular wound of size 2 x 1 c.m. On the left side of the upper chest and was 18 c.m. Below the tip of left shoulder. There was no blackening of the wound.
' In his opinion, the death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by fire-arm injury, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. Prosecution in support of its case produced 11 witnesses in all. P.W.3 Azhar Hussain, Revenue Patwari, had prepared the site plan Exhs.P.D. And P.D./1 on the pointation of the witnesses. Ahmad Hayat, P.W.4 had witnessed the recovery of blood-stained earth and crime empty P.4 from the spot. Asmat Ullah Khan, P.W.5 had witnessed the recovery of rifle P.5 with two live bullets P.6/1-2 at the instance of the appellant. He had signed the recovery memo. Ocular account was furnished by Fateh Sher and Sardar Khan, P.Ws.7 and 8, respectively. Investigation was concluded by Muhammad Ishaq, S.I. P.W.9, and it was initially conducted by Amir Abdullah, S.I./S.H.O., P.W.10. The rest of the witnesses are of formal nature, therefore, need not be discussed. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, appellant made his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded his innocence. He further stated that he had been involved falsely in the case because of enmity with the complainant party.
5. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was very doubtful. Submitted that the occurrence had taken place in a broad daylight at a thoroughfare yet no independent witness was produced. Submitted that both the eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased, therefore, should not have been relied upon. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence with his assistance. The prosecution had relied upon the ocular account and sought corroboration from recoveries. The eye-witnesses Fateh Sher and Sardar Khan, P.Ws., had supported the prosecution case as given in the F.I.R. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be brought on record which could even remotely suggest that they were not present at the spot or the occurrence had not taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. They had frankly conceded their relationship with the deceased. P.W.7 Fateh Sher was father of the deceased, and Sardar Khan, P.W., was his son. After going through their statements, which inspire confidence, it can safely be held that in the instant case mere relationship with the deceased would not make their statements doubtful. The occurrence had taken place near the house of the witnesses and, in such circumstances, their being at the spot would be most natural. Sardar Khan, P.W., was with the deceased to help him in his work. He even used to live with his father. Their statements further find corroboration from the recovery of rifle P.5 produced by the appellant and the recovery of crime- empty P.4 from the spot. The report of Ballistic Expert Exh.P.K. Indicates that crime empty P.4 was fired from the rifle. Recovery witness Ahmad Hayat, P.W.4, and Asmat Ullah, P.W.5 were put to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could be brought on the record to indicate that they were tutored witnesses or had not witnessed the recoveries. In these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt.
' The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the appellant should have been awarded death sentence is not acceptable. The reasons given by the learned trial Court for awarding lesser sentence are just and legal, to which no exception can be taken. The argument that the sentence of fine should be increased to Rupees one lac is also without substance because nothing has been brought on the record to show that the appellant is a man of means who is capable of paying so much fine. In these circumstances, the revision filed by the complainant also fails.
' The upshot of the discussion is that the appeal of Ghulam Abbas, appellant, as well as the criminal revision filed by Fateh Sher, complainant, fail, which are dismissed.