' 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, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. And under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. And sentenced to three years' R.I. And also convicted under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C. And sentenced to one year's R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was also ordered that the appellant shall pay compensation of Rs,10,000 to the victim and in case of nonpayment 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 Dhari 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 Ahmed 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 hand of Haji Ahmad. The fire shot attracted Muhammad Ramzan and Khuda Baldish 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 (P.W.1,) Haji Ahmad (P.W.2), Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.3), Dr. Muhammad Riaz (P.W.4), Mst. Manzooran (P.W.5) and Bashir Ahmad A.S.-I. (P.W.6).
4. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the incident, however, he stated that the P. Ws. Had suspicion that he had illicit relations with Mst. Manzooran before her marriage with Haji Ahmad and on that account 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 hand 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. P.W.1 Mahmood is the complainant who lodged the F.I.R. He has given the same statement as is recorded in the F.I.R. P.W.2 who is the victim in this case has also deposed the same facts. Similarly, P.W.3 Muhammad Ramzan A supported the F.I.R. Without any dent in it. P.W.4 is the Medical Officer who noted the following injuries on the person of injured P.W. Haji Ahmad:--
(i) A fire-arm entrance wound 0.8 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. 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 exit wound 1.3 c.m. x 1 c.m. On lateral aspect of left little finger at proximal part.
(iii) A fire-arm entrance wound 1.1. c.m. x 0.6 c.m. On medial aspect of left ring finger at junction of proximal and middle one-third.
(iv) A fire-arm exit wound 1.5 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. On lateral aspect of left ring finger at middle one-third.
(v) A lacerated wound 0.7 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. On front of left index finger at distal one-third.
(vi) A fire-arm entrance wound 0.6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. On anteromedial aspect of left thigh at middle.
(vii) A fire-arm exit wound 1 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. On postero lateral aspect of left thigh at upper part. This injury is 2 c.m. Higher than injury No,6.
(viii) A fire-arm entrance wound on medial aspect of right thigh at middle part. A hard foreign body is pelpated at anterior aspect of right thigh at level of this injury.
' He was of the opinion that injuries Nos.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 Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were kept under observation. After X-Ray examination injury No,1 was declared grievous while injuries Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were declared as simple.
8. P.W.5 Mst. Manzooran has also fully supported the complainant. P.W.6 Munir Ahmad, A.S.-I. While posted at Shorkot (City) inspected the spot and prepared the site plan (Exh.P.J.) took into possession blood-stained garments Shirt (P.3) and Shalwar (P.4) vide memo. Of possession (Exh.P.C.) effected recovery of carbine vide memo. (Exh.P.D.), prepared site plan vide memo.
(Exh.P.K.). 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 had been involved due to suspicion of P.Ws.
That he was having illicit relations with Mst. Manzooran P.W. Prior to the marriage with Haji Ahmad P.W. The record shows that full opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses and even to produce his own witnesses in defence and he did cross-examine the P.Ws.
But no 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 too harsh. The use of the carbine which is a fire-arm by the appellant and inflicting of injuries on thigh and hand 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 has 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 thus has already undergone more than three years' imprisonment that has met the ends of justice.
9. Keeping in view all the circumstances the conviction of the appellant is maintained but sentence awarded to the appellant is altered to the sentence already undergone by him with a fine of Rs,5,000 which if realised shall be paid to the injured. In case of default of payment of fine he shall undergo six months' simple imprisonment.