' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,239 of 2000 filed by Iftikhar Ahmad, appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Hafizabad vide his judgment dated 19-2-2000 to undergo six years' R.I. And to pay Arsh Rs,1,35,245.82 under section 334, P.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,25,000 or in default six months' R.I. Under section 324, P.P.C. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. Under section 337-F and to pay Rs,10,000 as Daman to the injured. The amount of Ri.1,35,245.82 and Rs,10,000 was ordered to be paid to Muhammad Ashraf injured. He was also convicted and sentenced in the terms that his right hand from very place where Ashraf injured received injury shall be amputated. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellant.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 6-00 p.m. On 18-9-1995 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kassoke at distance of eight miles away while the matter reported to the police on 20-9-1995 at 5-00 p.m. By Abdul Latif complainant and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A/1 was recorded by Muhammad Sharif, MHC.
3. Brief facts of the case are Abdul Latif complainant made a statement before Mushtaq ahmad S.I/S.H.O on 20-9-1995 that on 18-9-1995 at about 6-00 p.m. Muhammad Ashraf injured P.W.And Maaraj Din were sitting at the shop of Muhammad Ashraf, Iftikhar Ahmad and Mithu sons of Siddique caste Teli came there. Iftikhar accused was armed with carbine and Mithu was empty- handed. He was standing outside after coming out of his door. Mithu accused raised Lalkara that Abdul Latif got registered a criminal .Case against them regarding VCR. Iftikhar accused fired twice at Muhammad Ashraf which hit him on right arm and right knee. Both the accused while raising Lalkaras ran away. That the accused committed the offence at the instance of Ashique because Ashique had threatened earlier on the dispute of T.V and VCR.
' The motive for the crime was that he gave VCR and TV on hire. About 21/2 years ago Iftikhar and his mother Mst. Khurshid begum had taken one TV and VCR on hire and they did not return the same and also did not pay the rent and he got registered a case against them.
4. After completion of the investigation, the accused were challanged to face the trial. Ashique accused was acquitted on the written request of Ashraf injured. Firstly case under section 324, P.P.C. Was registered but later offence under section 334, P.P.C. Was also added due to the reason that right arm of Ashraf injured was to be amputated.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced six witnesses in all then the learned Legal Inspector closed the prosecution case, thereafter, statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded.
6. Learned counsel for, the appellant submits that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution, though two eyewitnesses namely Abdul Latif and Ashraf were cited in the F.I.R., that two eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution are real brothers inter see that there was no grievance against Ashraf injured P.W.So there was no necessity on the part of the appellant to have caused him injuries. Adds that if there was any grievance that was against Abdul Latif, who had got a case registered aginst the mother of the appellant about the theft of VCR, that no crime empty was recovered from the spot, that there is no report of firearm expert, that in fact Ashraf injured P.W.Was a person of bad character, that there are material contradictions in the statements of Abdul Latif and Ashraf injured P.W., that as far as, recovery of carbine is concerned, no public witness was asked to join the recovery, that both the recovery witnesses namely Falak Sher and Ijaz are police officials, that there is a clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. That statement of the injured was recorded on 16-10-1995 and he stood the line of his brother namely Abdul Latif complainant, that no case is made out against the appellant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that occurrence had taken place in broad daylight, that there was no previous background of enmity between the injured P.W.And the appellant, that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. They both support the judgment of learned trial Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. In the instant case, appellant was convicted and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Hafizabad on 19-2-2000 as mentioned above. Appellant filed the instant appeal. He filed three applications for the suspension of sentence, earlier two were dismissed but in the last application his sentence was suspended by this Court on 10-5-2001 for the reasons that more than one year had passed but the appeal of the appellant was not fixed for regular hearing. On 19-9-2001, learned counsel for the complainant had submitted an application for withdrawal of the order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court but that application was dismissed, thereafter, appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 1-11-2001, it was stated before as that learned counsel for the appellant was not well so the Cases was adjourned for 2-11- 200L On 2-11-2001 learned counsel for the appellant was not present, he was stated to be busy and application for adjournment was submitted on that ground that learned counsel was busy in some Seminar, as I ordered that appellant should appear on that date but he did not appear so bail granting order was withdrawn, non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him and the matter was adjourned to 8-11-2001. On 8-11-2001 this Court was on leave. After appeal came up for hearing on 19-11-2001, on that date, appellant was not present, a report was submitted by Saif Ullah, A.S.I, that he was avoiding service and he had concealed himself. I had ordered that copy of bail bonds should be sent to the learned trial Court who would proceed against the sureties as required under section 514, Cr.P.C. Saif Ullah, A.S.I. Was directed to execute the same warrants within two days and produce the appellant before this Court in hand cuffs but today.Is the same position, despite repeated calls appellant did not appear. Saif Ullah A.S.I. Present in Court submits that he tried his level best to arrest the appellant but he was not available. I thought it proper to hear the appeal as Rana Mashhood Ahmad Khan, Advocate who has filed his power of attorney on behalf of the appellant, is present.
9. After hearing the parties, it may be mentioned here, that occurrence had taken place on 18-9- 1995 at 6-30 p.m. When the sun had not set in, so it was not the occurrence which took place in dark hours of night, Ashraf injured was medically examined on the same day at 8-30 p.m. Doctor had given the duration between time of injury and medical examination as two hours which is in line with the time of occurrence. The column of name of relative and friend in M.L.R. Shows that it was Abdul Latif first informant who had got his injured brother Ashraf admitted in the Hospital, doctor had also found two injuries on the person of Ashraf injured P.W., one on the right leg and the other on the right forearm, which also corroborates the ocular account. As far as, delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is concerned it has been mentioned in the F.I.R. That there was profuse bleeding from the wounds of the injured P.W., firstly he was taken to DHQ, Hospital, Hafisabad, as his condition was serious, so he was referred to Mayo Hospital and he remained in the Mayo Hospital for 20 days, unfortunately the doctor had to amputate his right forearm, Dr. Captain Khalid Farooq P.W.4 has appeared before the learned trial Court and had mentioned the injuries of the injured Ashraf and has had also mentioned that his right hand was cut and so injury No,2 was "itlaf-I-udw" thus the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Does not help A the appellant in any way. Moreover, the delay itself is not fatal unless and until as the ocular account is of high quality in this case.
'As far as, non-production of an independent witness is concerned, it is a well-known matter that nobody likes to appear in such-like cases so that he may not get the enmity of adverse party, there is no suggestion on the record by the defence that there was any previous background of enmity B between_ the complainant and the appellant. Both Ashraf and Abdul Latif are not interested witnesses, interested witness is that witness who is not only related to the injured or the deceased but also inimical towards the accused person which is lacking in the instant case.
' So far as, the contention of learned counsel that statement of Ashraf injured P.W under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 16-10-1995, this Court has seen the statement of Ashraf injured P.W.Not only Examination-in-Chief but also cross- examination, there is not a single question on this point that when his statement was recorded. Ashraf injured P.W.Is the star witness of the prosecution, if this Court exclude the statement of Abdul Latif complainant then the statement of Ashraf injured P.W. Cannot be exluded, he is the aggrieved person, he is injured man, he is the man, who had lost his right forearm, as no crime empty was recovered from the spot, so there was no question of sending the carbine in this case to the fire-arm expert.
' As far as, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that only Police Officials have been produced by the prosecution as recovery witnesses is concerned, that has no leg to stand for the reasons that police officials are also as good witnesses as the public witness. Moreover, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in this case. In my considered opinion, prosecution has proved its case against the appellant through ocular account which has come from an unimpeachable source and is a credible one and same is corroborated by medical evidence.
' In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. As the sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court as mentioned above but that order was recalled by this Court, therefore, the concerned authorities are directed to arrest the appellant and to send the appellant behind the bars to serve out his remaining sentence.