' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-5-2000, passed in Criminal. Appeal No, 777 of 1996.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version is that after attending the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Muhammad Akram Cheema, former Vice-Chairman, District Council, Sargodha, Mehr Ghulam Dastgir Lak appellant came back to his house at 2-30 p.m. Mureed Sultan respondent was employed by him as his servant for the last so many years and he used to spend money on the personal work of the appellant/complainant. Few days back the appellant met with an accident and his left hand was fractured. As people used to come and inquire about his health, he had given a sum of Rs,25,000 to Mureed Sultan to spend for medicines as well as other needs. On 23-5-1995, at about 3-00 p.m. The appellant/complainant was taking rest in his bed room and Maqsood Ahmad son of Ahmad Sher, resident of Chak No,55 Shumali and Muhammad Aslam son of Fateh Khan, resident of Chak No,84 Shumali, were sitting with him when Mureed Sultan respondent submitted orally the account of money spent by him. The appellant was not satisfied regarding the statement given by the respondent, therefore, he directed him to come after some time to enable him to take some rest. Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam also went out of the room and sat in the veranda next to the room. Mureed Sultan respondent was told to close the door of the room, but he immediately picked up the licensed Kalashnikov of the complainant and started firing upon him. The appellant caught the barrel of the Kalashnikov but he received injuries on his left leg, thigh and hand. Some of the bullets hit the ceiling and walls of the room. On hearing the firing Maqsood and Muhammad Aslam came inside the room from the Veranda and caught hold of Mureed Sultan respondent with the Kalashnikov in his hand. The appellant tried to get up in doing so got himself injured with the broken glass on his right foot. Maqsood Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam handed over the custody of Mureed Sultan to Phool Khan, resident of 55 Shumali and others, and took the injured to the hospital for medical treatment.
3. Muhammad Masood, S.-I./S.H.O., Police Station Satellite Town, Sargodha, after recording the complaint sent it to the police station for registration of formal F.I.R. And he took in custody medico- legal report produced by Maqsood Ahmad P.W. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the place of occurrence from where Phool Khan and Muhammad Shakil handed over the accused to the custody of the police.
Muhammad Shakil also produced Kalashnikov P-1 alongwith magazine containing five live cartridges P-4/1-5, which were taken into possession. Mureed Sultan was arrested in a case under Arms Ordinance. The Investigating Officer collected eight empty cartridges of the Kalashnikov P- 3/1-8. After getting legal opinion from the D.S.P. (Legal) the Investigating Officer sent the complaint under section 13 of Arms Ordinance XX of 1965 for registration of a case.
4. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the Court. The respondent denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses.
5. 'The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31-7-1996 convicted Mureed Sultan respondent.
Under section 324, P.P.C. For causing murderous assault upon the appellant and sentenced him to suffer 10 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,00,000, in default to further undergo R.I. For two years. He was also convicted under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For 5 years. Through a separate judgment the learned trial Court convicted the respondent under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance XX of 1965, and sentenced him to 7 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For six months.
6. The convict filed two separate appeals in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, challenging his conviction and sentences. A learned Division Bench of the High Court accepted his appeals and acquitted him casting doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version.
7. Vide order dated 10-11-2000 leave to appeal was granted to reappraise the entire evidence in the interest of safe dispensation of criminal justice.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is entirely based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence and is contrary to the facts and law; the prosecution fully established case against the respondent beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt; the impugned judgment of the High Court is based on surmises, conjectures and is contrary to the evidence on record; the complainant is an injured person and his evidence is supported by P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 6, for whom any enmity was not alleged by the accused-respondent; that the eyewitnesses were present in the house of the complainant at the time of occurrence, who had no grudge against the respondent, they apprehended the accused at the spot and handed over his custody to the police.
9. Mian Abdul Qayyum, learned counsel for the accused-respondent, supported the impugned judgment submitting that the respondent was rightly allowed the benefit of doubt by the High Court.
10. Mr. Arshad Ali, learned counsel for the State, adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and did not support the impugned judgment.
11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the material placed on record. The F.I.R. Was lodged very promptly. The role attributed to the respondent as well as the presence of the P.Ws., who apprehended the respondent at the spot, is mentioned therein. The site plan prepared by the police also supports the case of the prosecution, because the police secured blood from the place of occurrence. Mureed Sultan respondent was the servant of the appellant/complainant, who inquired from him regarding the account of expenditure of Rs,25,000 which were handed over to the respondent, but he did not furnish satisfactory reply. On the contrary the respondent was B annoyed for which, he fired at the appellant with Kalashnikov. Maqsood Ahmad (P.W.4) and Phool Khan (P.W.5) also supported the case of the prosecution, which is in conformity with the circumstances of the case: Dr. Tariq Mahmood, Medical Officer (P.W.1) examined the appellant/complainant and found fire-arm injuries on his person. The P.Ws. Has also given cogent reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence. They are quite independent and natural witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent has totally failed to prove on record any bias, grudge or enmity on the part of the complainant as well as the P.Ws., and their evidence was not shaken.
12. We have also gone through the findings of the High Court in the impugned judgment to the effect that "statements of the witnesses, who were present in the house have been properly not recorded and in their place those persons who owe political allegiance and alliance with the complainant have been made witnesses". The learned Judges further observed as under:-- ' "It is an admitted fact that a younger son of the complainant died some days earlier. Complainant himself says that he committed suicide, there is, therefore, some truth in his version which forced the son of the complainant who was student to take his life because of shame and humiliation done to him by the conduct of his father. Since the complainant believed that the debauchery and lecherous conduct was divulged to his son by the appellant, therefore, onslaught was initiated by the complainant and not by the appellant who could have not dared to do so in the very house of the sitting Provincial Minister."
In this paragraph no specific evidence was mentioned ,to base the above conclusion of the learned Judges, which shows that they have passed the impugned judgment on conjectures and surmises.
13. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Mureed Hussain respondent is convicted under sections 324 and 337-F(v), P.P.C. And sentenced to 7 years' R.I. He is directed to .Pay fine of Rs,25,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. For six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to the respondent. The sentences shall run concurrently. The respondent is directed to surrender to his bail bonds to undergo the imprisonment and in case of default the trial Court shall issue non- bailable warrants against the respondent, so that he may be sent to jail to serve out the sentences.