DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, J.-- This is an appeal against the order , dated 1.2.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jhang whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 PPC and sentenced to five years R.I. And under Section 337-F(v) PPC and sentenced to three.Years R.I. And also convicted under Section 337-L (ii) PPC and sentenced to one year R.I. All the sentences were ordered to ran concurrently. It was also ordered that the appellant shall pay compensation of Rs. 10.000/- to the victim and in case of non-payment to undergo S.I. For one year which was ordered to run consecutively.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that seven days prior to the occurrence marriage of complainant's nephew Haji Ahmad was solemnized with Mst. Manzooran. Haji Ahmad and complainant went-to the parent's house of Mst. Manzooran to bring her to their house and on the day of occurrence Haji- Ahmad. Mst. Manzooran and the complainant started their journey to their house and when they reached near the Dheri of Rajab at about 8.30 a.m. The appellant Muhammad Rafique armed with a carbine suddenly came out of the wheat crop and fired at Haji Ahmad which hit on his left palm and finger and thigh. Haji Ahmad tried to catch the appellant but the appellant gave blow from the reverse side of the Carbine which also hit on the left had of Haji Ahmad. The fire shot attracted Muhammad Ramzan and Khuda Bakhsh who were cutting the wheat crop in the nearby field but the appellant managed to escape by issuing threats that any one who came near him will be done to death. The motive as alleged is that complainant suspected previous illicit intimacy of appellant with Mst. Manzooran and the assault upon Haji Ahmad was to remove him from the scene. After the medical examination the matter was reported to the police where after necessary investigation the appellant was challaned to the trial Court.
3. The prosecution examined six witnesses namely Mahmood (PW.1). Haji Ahmad (PW. 2), Muhammad Ramzan (PW.3), Dr. Muhammad Riaz (PW. 4), Mst. Manzooran (PW. 5) and Bashir Ahmad ASI (PW. 6).4. The appellant in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the incident, however, he stated that the PWs had suspicion,that he had illicit relations with Mst. Manzooran before her. Marriage with Haji Ahmad and on that ?Count they have deposed falsely against him.
No evidence was produced in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned_ order of conviction and sentence on the grounds that all the prosecution witnesses are interested and inimical towards the appellant and that he was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. On the other had the learned counsel for the state has submitted that the witnesses are natural witnesses and that the accused has availed the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides and have also gone through the trial Court record and the police file minutely.
7. PW. 1 Mahmood is the complainant who lodged the FIR. He has given the safne statement as is recorded in the FIR. PW. 2 who is the victim in this case has also deposed the same facts. Similarly, PW. 3 Muhammad Ramzan supported the FIR without any dent, in it. PW. 4 is the Medical Officer who noted the following injuries on the person of injured PW Haji Ahmad:-
(i) A fire arm enterance wound 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm on back of left little finger at proximal one third clinically there is crepitus of fractured bone ends of 1st phalynx of left little finger. X-ray is advised for documentary record.
(ii) A fire arm .w- wound 1.3 cm x 1. c.m. On lateral aspect of left, little finger at proximal part.-
(iii) A fire arm enterance wound 1.1 cm x 0.6 cm on medial aspect of left ring finger at junction of proximal and middle one third.
(iv) A fire arm exit wound 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm on lateral aspect of left ring finger at middle one third.
(v) A lacerated wound 0.7 cm x 0.2 cm on front of left index finger at distal one third.
(vi) A fire arm enterance wound 0.6 cm x 0.5 cm on anteromedial aspect ofleft thigh at middle. .
(vii) A fire arm exit wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm on postero lateral aspect of left thigh at upper pan. This injury is 2 cm higher than injury No. 6.
(viii) A fire arm enterance wound on medial aspect of right thigh- at middle part. A had foreign body is pelpated at anterior aspect of right thigh at level of this injury.
He was of the opinion that injuries No. 1,2,3,4,6,7 and 8 were by fire arm and he declared them grievous injuries. While injury No. 5 was with a blunt weapon. Injuries No. 3,4,6,7 and 8 were kept under observation. After X-ray examination injury No. 1 was declared grievous while injuries No. 3,4,6,7 and 8 were declared as simple.
8. PW. 5 Mst. Manzooran has also fully supported the complainant PW. 6 Munir Ahmad ASI while posted at Shorkot (City) inspected the spot and prepared the site plait (Ex.PJ) took into possession blood stained garments Shirt (P.3) and Shalwar (P.4) vide memo of possession (Ex. PC),' effected recovery of carbine vide memo (Ex. PD), prepared site plan, vide memo (Ex.PK). The accused- appellant was examined under Sections 342 and 340.(2) Cr.P.C., who. Denied the whole incident and took the stand that he has been involved due to suspicion of PWs' that he was having illicit relations with, Mst. Manzooran PW prior to the Marriage with Haji Ahmad PW, The record shows that full opportunity was given to the appellant to cross examine the witnesses and even to produce his on witnesses in defence and he did cross examine the PWs but not dent could be made in the prosecution case and the ocular evidence and the medical evidence fully testified the prosecution case. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the sentence imposed is to harsh, the use of the carbine which is a firearm by the appellant and inflicting of injuries on thigh and had clearly shows that the appellant, had the intention and knowledge that his act might cause fatal injuries to the victim. Though out of eight .Injuries only injury No. 1 was declared grievous. The other injuries after x-ray report have been found simple and no fracture had been caused. The appellant was arrested on 7.5.1991 and was granted bail by the trial Court on 21.8.1991. He was again arrested on 1.2.1995 and is in jail since then and this has already undergone'more than three years imprisonment that has met the ends of justice.
9. Keep in view all the circumstances the conviction of the appellant is maintained but' sendee awarded to the appellant is altered to the sentence already undergone by him with a fine of Rs.
5000/- which if realised shall be paid to the injured. In case of default of payment of fine he shall undergo six months simple imprisonment.