' This appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 6-10-1998 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 307/34, P.P.C. To suffer R.I. For seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default to undergo further R.I. For two months each.
2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 2-6-1985 complainant Manzoor Ahmed, his brother Shahabuddin and Muhammad Hashim had gone to Sijawal Shah in order to see the rotation of water and while returning back to their village when they arrived near the shop of Khadim Hussain at about 8 p.m. They came across appellants Haji, Shahban and Arbab. Haji was armed with gun, Shahban had pistol whereas Arbab was empty-handed. Appellant Arbab instigated others not to spare the complainant party upon which appellant Haji fired from his gun which hit complainant on his right leg whereas appellant Shahban fired from his pistol which was missed as complainant party ducked down. On fire reports and cries P.W. Abdul Aziz, maternal- uncle of complainant and other villagers got attracted and on their Hakals and on appearance, appellants decamped. The motive narrated in the prosecution case was that few days earlier motorcycle of P.W. Abdul Aziz was stolen away and appellant Haji was required by police which creates suspicion in their mind. After usual investigation, appellants were arrested and set up to face trial.
3. Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed their trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Manzoor P.W.1, Muhammad Hashim P.W.2, Shahbuddin P.W.3, Abdul Aziz P.W.4, Ali Nawaz P.W.5, Dr. Aurangzeb P.W.6, S.H.O. Ghulam Kadir P.W.7 and S.H.O. Muhammad Banaras P.W.8
5. In their respective statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. appellants denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. They neither led any evidence in their defence nor examined themselves on oath.
6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G. On behalf of State and have gone through the material placed on record and. R & Ps.
7. Complainant Manzoor, at trial, has deposed that on the day of incident, he, his brother Shahabuddin and Muhammad Hashim had gone to Sijawal Shakh to see level of water and while returning when they arrived near shop of Khadim Hussain Carpenter at about 8 p.m. They saw appellant Haji with gun, Shahban with pistol and Arbab, empty-handed sitting in the shop adjoining the shop of Khadim Hussain. On the instigation of appellant Haji, Arbab fired at him which hit on his right leg. Appellant Shahban also fired from his pistol but did not hit and was missed. He further deposed that he identified them in the light of bulb which was lightening at the shop of Khadim Hussain P.W. P.W. Abdul Aziz arrived at the time when appellants were leaving the place of occurrence. In cross-examination he has stated that all the three were coming together at the time he was fired at by appellant Haji from a distance of fifteen paces.
8. P.W. Muhammad Hashim while giving the facts of the incident has stated that appellant Haji was armed with gun, Shahban with pistol whereas Arbab with Lathi and were standing near the shop of Khadim Hussain. At the instigation of appellant Arbab, Haji fired at Manzoor which hit at his right leg. Appellant Shahban also fired but that was missed. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in 164, Cr.P.C. Statement, he had disclosed that they had gone to Sijawal Shakh at about 8 p.m. And also that complainant and Shahabuddin had gone at "Tepahri" time for rotation of water.
9. P.W. Shahabuddin while giving the facts of the incident has stated that on the fateful day at about 8 p.m. They were accosted by the appellants at the shop of Khadim Hussain, appellant Haji was armed with gun, Shahban with pistol and Arbab empty-handed. On instigation of Arbab, appellant Haji fired gunshot at complainant and a pellet hit him at his right leg. Appellant Shahban fired pistol shot which was missed. He has admitted that in 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. Statements he had said that they had gone to Sijawal Shakh at 8 p.m. And that he had not disclosed that they identified the appellants on the light of bulb. He has also admitted that he was facing the trial in a case of injuries of mother of appellant Haji alongwith others before the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M., Shandadkot.
10. P.W. Abdul Aziz has deposed that at about 8 p.m. On the day of incident, he saw appellants Haji with gun, Shahban with pistol and Arbab empty handed going towards their houses. It was complainant Manzoor who informed him about the incident. In his further examination, he has said that one month prior to incident, his motor-cycle, revolver, watch and cash were robbed about which he had informed the police. He had not disclosed to police the names of any accused. He further stated that in connection to his robbery, the police had interrogated the appellants as such they had the grudge.
11. According to Medical Officer P.W. Aurangzeb followings injuries were found on the person of injured Manzoor Ahmed:--
(1) Lacerated punctured type of wound 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. Into diameter over the front of the right lower leg at mid level (wound of entrance).
(2) One lacerated punctured type of wound 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. Into diameter over the right mid of lower leg slightly towards medial size (wound of exit).
' In cross-examination, he has shown that the injuries were result of single pellet and was fired from a distance of 8 to 10 feet. Though it was suggested that injuries were self-inflicted or self-suffered but ,that was denied.
12. P.W. Muhammad Banaras, A.S.-I./Investigating Officer in the cross-examination has said that he had not secured anything from the place of Wardat. He firstly said that even gun was not recovered from appellant Haji but later on he said that one licensed gun was recovered from the appellant.
13. From what has been discussed above, it is noticed that all the three appellants have been convicted for a single pellet injury on the leg of injured Manzoor Ahmed. Admittedly, appellant Arbab was empty-handed whereas appellant Shahban though fired but his fire did not hit any one as such their case is distinguishable from the case of appellant Haji.
14. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.-G, frankly conceded that in the circumstances of the case, he has no objection to the acquittal of these two appellants. So far case of appellant Haji is concerned, he is said to have fired gunshot at injured but only a single pellet has hit. Though it cannot appeal to a prudent mind yet it is felt appropriate to reduce his sentence from seven years to one already undergone which would be about one year, four months and 23 days. Irrespective of this, appellants have faced a protracted trial ranging over more than 13 years which even otherwise is sufficient punishment looking to the circumstances of the case.
' These are the reasons of short order, dated 17-12-1998.