' SH. ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 11-7-1996 passed by Mian Muhammad Sikandar Hayat, Judge, Special Court No,III, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Lahore Division, Lahore, whereby he convicted Rashid Ahmad appellant under section 324, P.P.C.
And sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,10,000 or iii default thereof, to further undergo R.I. For one year.. He further convicted the appellant under sections 337-F(V) and 337-F(VI) P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 4 years on each count and also to pay a sum of Rs,10,000 as Daman on each count. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant.
2. The occurrence took place on 3-2-1996 at 12-15 noon whereas F.I.R. No,60 of 1996 has been lodged on 3-2-1996 at 11-30 p.m. On the statement of Muhammad Yousaf complainant.
3. Briefly stated that facts are that Muhammad Yousaf complainant and his nephew Rizvan Khan cultivated land jointly. On 3-2-1996 at 12-15 Noon, both of them alongwith Shadi son of Jamal-ud- Din and Shaukat Ali son of Muhammad Siddique proceeded to their land where they found that their servant Rehman was not present. They all proceeded to village Chiraghpura in search of Rehman. While they were proceeding to Chiraghpura, Rizvan Khan was going 6/7 Karam ahead of them. When they reached on the turn of street Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheedoo armed with 222 rifle emerged and raised Lalkara that Rizvan would not be allowed to go alive. He fired with his 222 rifle hitting Rizvan Khan on the upper part of his left arm and left thigh, as a result of which who fell down.
4. The motive behind this occurrence is that sister of Rasheed t Sheedoo had eloped with some unknown person about a month ago and he suspected that Rizvan Khan was responsible for her abduction/elopement and as such committed murderous attack to take revenge of that. Besides the complainant, Shadi and Shaukat Ali also witnessed the incident. The complainant removed the injured to Civil Hospital Dipalpur where he was admitted and medically examined. The complainant obtained his M.L.R. And proceeded to police station where F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Was recorded by Muhammad Tufail, S.-I. On his statement at 11-30 p.m. Who started investigation on 4-2-1996. He moved application Exh.P.C. Before the Medical Officer to enquire if the injured Rizvan Khan was fit to make statement, who opined in negative as per report Exh.P.C./1. He then, visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Exh.P.D. On 7-2-1996 Rizvan Khan injured was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. On 11-2-1996 he moved another application Exh.P.E. Before the Medical Officer to enquire if the injured was fit to make statement or not, who gave his opinion in affirmative vide Exh.P.E./1 and as such he recorded his statement. On 12-2-1996 he arrested accused Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheedoo and secured 222 rifle Exh.P.1 and two live bullets Exh.P.2/1-2 vide memo.
Exh.P.B. As the accused could not produce a valid licence so he lodged complaint against him under section 13 Arms Ordinance XX of 1965. He handed over the parcel of 222 rifle and bullets to Khadim Hussain H.C. For keeping in safe custody and after completing investigation got the accused challaned.
5. A charge under sections 324, P.P.C., 337-F(V) and 337-F(VI), P.P.C. Was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case prosecution examined complainant Muhammad Yousaf Khan (P.W.1) who corroborated his version appearing in F.I.R. Exh.P.A. P.W.2 Rizvan Khan, the injured eye-witness, also corroborated prosecution version. P.W.3 Khadim Hussain H.C. Deposed that on 12-2-1996 he was given a sealed parcel containing 222 rifle by the Investigating Officer which he delivered to Khadim Hussain Constable on 26-2-1996 for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. P.W.4 Khadim Hussain Constable corroborated the version of Khadim Hussain H.C. (P.W.3).
P.W.5 Muhammad Saleem deposed about recovery of 222 rifle Exh.P.1 and two live bullets Exh.P.2/1-2 from the accused/appellant, which were secured vide memo. Exh. P . B . P.W.6 Muhammad Tufail S.- I. Is the Investigating Officer whose evidence has already been discussed above. P.W.7 Dr. Muhammad Sharif deposed that on 3-2-1996 he examined injured Rizvan Khan vide M.L.R. Exh.P.G.
And found four injuries on his person which had been caused by fire arm. P.W.8 Dr. Rana Muhammad Rafique deposed that he had issued X-ray report Exh.P.H. On the basis of X-Ray films Exh.P.H./1-3. P.W.9 Dr. Munir Ahmad deposed that on 4-2-1996 application Exh.P.C. Was moved by Investigating Officer to enquire if the injured was fit to make statement or not upon which he gave his report Exh.P.C./1 in negative. Lastly the learned District Attorney produced Fire Arms Experts report Exh.P.I. And closed the case for prosecution.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution version and stated that he had been involved in this case falsely. He stated that about 20/25 days prior to this occurrence his maternal-sister Mst. Fauzia Bibi was abducted by one Pummay Khan alongwith Rizvan Khan P.W. Who was informed about this abduction by his maternal uncle. He further stated that on the day of occurrence Rizvan Khan P.W. Alongwith two hired bad characters tress-passed into the house of his maternal uncle and forcibly dragged Mst. Fauzia Bibi on whose alarm he was attracted to the spot and challenged Pununay Khan and his friends. To save his own life and the life of his maternal sister Mst. Fauzia he fired at them which hit Rizvan Khan P.W. Who was removed to Hospital by his companions. He stated that he would produce evidence in his defence and consequently examined Mst. Irshad Bibi as D.W.1.
8. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the Trial Court convicted the appellant vide judgment under appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record before us.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that prosecution story is highly improbable and unbelievable, that no independent witness has been examined and the alleged witnesses are inter-related and connected, that medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version and that evidence of recovery is of no legal consequence as the same has been effected in violation of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. He thus, argued that prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the accused/appellant. On the other hand these contentions have been controverted by the learned counsel for the State. His contention is that prosecution version to the extent of time, place and causing injuries on the person of Rizvan Khan P.W. Stands admitted by the accused/appellant vide his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., though in a different manner, that prosecution version further stands corroborated by evidence of recovery as well as medical evidence. He thus, submitted that Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment in accordance with law and appeal merits dismissal.
11. According to the prosecution version the appellant committed murderous assault on the person of Rizvan Khan (P.W.2) and caused him as many as four injuries with his 222 rifle. This contention to the extent of time and place of occurrence stands admitted by the accused/appellant as is evident from his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. There is no doubt that he has given his own reasonings for causing assault upon Rizvan Khan (P.W.2), but the fact remains that occurrence stands admitted. Admittedly, occurrence took place at 12-15 noon, so the question of substitution does not arise. There is no doubt that 222 rifle Exh.P.1 was recovered alongwith two live bullets Exh.P.2/1-2 and were secured vide memo. Exh.P.B. Which has been attested by Muhammad Saleem (P.W.5), yet this recovery is of no legal consequence as no empties were recovered from the place of occurrence to connect the said rifle Exh.P.1 with the commission of this offence. This does not mean that ocular evidence which has come on record through the statements of Muhammad Yousaf Khan complainant (P.W.1) and Rizvan Khan injured eye-witness (P.W.2) should be thrown away or ruled out of consideration. It is clear from the evidence given by eye-witnesses that occurrence had taken place in the manner as given in F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Lodged at the instance of Muhammad Yousaf Khan complainant (P.W.1). The defence version brought on record through the statement of accused/appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Does not appeal to reason.
The stand of the appellant is that as his maternal sister Mst. Fauzia was abducted by Pummay Khan, Rizvan Khan (P.W.2) and two bad characters, so he, in order to save his own life as well as of Mst. Fauzia, fired upon them as a result of which Rizvan Khan (P.W.2) received injuries. There is no force in this contention as admittedly no report regarding the said incident was ever lodged either by the appellant or by the father of Mst. Fauzia, the alleged abdtictee. Thus, it is clear that defence plea is an after thought and is hereby repelled.
12. Since the occurrence stands admitted by the accused/appellant as referred above and Rizvan Khan (P.W.2) received injuries with firearm at the hands of accused/appellant, so prosecution has succeeded in bringing home guilt to accused. He has rightly been convicted and sentenced vide judgment under appeal. We do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and dismiss the appeal.