Yara petitioner was convicted under section 307, P. P. C., with a sentence of R. I. For two years for making an attempt on the life of his wife, Mst. Amiran P. W.
1. His appeal having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, he has approached this Court through a petition under section 439 of the Cr. P. Code questioning the correctness of the judgments of the two Courts below on the ground of mis-appreciation of the prosecution evidence and the nature of the offence. A notice was, there--fore, issued to the State but on perusal of the record with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties I find no ground to interfere with his conviction except for some modification in the sentence in view of the specific circumstances of the case as also the nature of the injuries suffered by her in this incident.
2. It was disclosed from her initial statement before the police Exh. P. A., forming part of the file as the F. I. R., that the petitioner had turned her out of his house due to her ignoble activities but after returning to the house of her parents she had instituted a suit for dissolution of her marriage without feeling any remorse or expressing any regrets for he conduct or indicating any intention to change her ways of life. It appears that on receipt of the notice from the Court he had gone to her house on the eventful day to prevail upon her for the withdrawal of the suit but she seems to have paid no heed and ran out to join her father in the nearby field which had provoked Yara petitioner and taking out his pistol he fired one or two shots at her from behind without any intention to kill her. The reports of these shots attracted her father Farid P. W. 2 and their neighbour Shakoor P. W. 3 to the spot and on seeing them arrive he made good his escape. They rushed her to the hospital where Dr. Wasim Akhtar P. W. 4, examined her and found six pellet wounds on her person, four on the back of her head and two on her shoulder, which were declared simple on X-Ray examination.
It seems that she was hit by the shots from a sufficiently long distance and the pellets failed to cause any substantial damage as in the opinion of the doctor she was quite normal at the time of her examination and the resultant injuries were not dangerous to her life.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously challenged the evidence of the above- named witnesses and has only concentrated on the nature of the offence involved in this background. Isis contention was that the petitioner had acted under provocation caused to him by the attitude of his wife and had pulled out the pistol in bare frustration and fired the shots at her without intending to take her life, He, however, conceded that he could not escape the responsibility for knowledge that he might have caused her death by these shots and in these circumstances his offence could not go beyond the provisions of section 308 of the P. P. C., B I am inclined to agree with him to this extent in view of the opinion of the medical witness about the nature of the injuries suffered by her and this unpleasant background of the desertion of the petitioner by his wife the complainant. His conviction is accordingly altered to that under section 308, P. P. C. With a reduction of one year in his sentence and with this modification his appeal shall stand dismissed. Reduction warrants to issue.