' This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 16-12-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh in case F.I.R. No,358 of 1996, dated 11-11-1996 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:-- ' CONVICTION AND SENTENCE: ' Life imprisonment under section 302(b), P.P.C. With a fine of Rs,20,000 in case of default of payment of the said fine to further undergo two years' R.I. And amount of Rs,20,000 was also directed to be paid under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. As compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default of payment whereof to undergo R.I. Six months. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant/convict.
' Whereas two co-accused were acquitted.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 10-11-1996 at about night time people of the locality were celebrating the marriage of Bashir son of Naseer by dancing in the light of electric bulb in the Ihata of Dhollar Sher, meant for tethering cattle. Muhammad Nawaz deceased was also standing there enjoying dancing whereas Gulla complainant alongwith Shehbaz, Shamas-ul-Din and Mehraj P. Ws. Were sitting on the nearby cots and seeing the dancing. It was bout 9-30 p.m. When the accused Muhammad Anwar, appellant armed with .12 bore gun, Shahadat accused armed with 7 mm rifle and Wagh accused armed with .12 bore gun emerged at the spot whereupon Shehbaz accused raised a Lalkara that Muhammad Nawaz be done to death. Subsequently Muhammad Anwar, appellant fired from his gun hitting Muhammad Nawaz, deceased at his back, who consequently fell down. Soon after the occurrence the accused persons were also alleged to have made firing in the air and decamped from the place of occurrence. The said incident resulted into registration of the abovesaid criminal case.
3. Motive behind the occurrence is stated to be that Muhammad Nawaz deceased had a suspicion that his mother Mst. Ghulan Bibi was having illicit relations with Muhammad Anwar, appellant due to which reason the deceased had fired at Muhammad Anwar, appellant hence the appellant had apprehension that Muhammad Nawaz deceased would attack his Wife.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the ocular account produced by the prosecution is not confidence-inspiring and worthy of reliance. He further contends that Gulla complainant P. W.8 is real father of the deceased and has admitted enmity between him and the appellant's family. He is an interested witness and cannot be relied upon without any corroborative piece of evidence. He further contends that P.W.9 Shammas is not resident of the locality and he has made a false statement that he is resident of the same locality as during the cross- examination he admitted that he had no land in village Mauza Sultankey. It is further contended that he also admitted during the cross-examination that graves of his forefathers locate in the graveyard situated in Village Muradkey Kathia, District Sahiwal and he failed to produce sufficient explanation that he is resident of Village Sultankey Bhagiala, the place of occurrence, whereas he is resident of Village Muradkey Kathia and cannot be relied upon for the conviction under the capital charge and he has tried to conceal the true facts and has put forth a false story. It is further contended that the recovery of weapon from the appellant does not provide any corroboration to the ocular account as the empties sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory before the recovery of gun were found as having been fired from the gun allegedly got recovered by the police. It is further contended that on the basis of the same evidence of both the eye-witnesses the co- accused, namely, Shahbal has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The appellant also is entitled to have the same treatment on the same evidence. Learned counsel further contends that the motive has not been proved, hence in the absence of any corroborative evidence the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures and is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that it is actually an unseen occurrence and due to the enmity, the appellant has been involved in this case.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this appeal on the grounds that the prosecution has succeeded in making out a case under section 302(b), P.P.C. Against the appellant. The evidence is sufficient to prove guilt of the appellant as the same is not inimical towards the appellant and is trustworthy of credence. The sentence passed against the appellant is justified. Hence the appeal merits dismissal.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and I have also carefully perused the record.
Gulla P.W.8 is father of the deceased and had got lodged the F.I.R. After 9 hours of the occurrence but the delay is not sufficient to cause any doubt in the prosecution case and it cannot be said that the story has been concocted and fabricated and false and frivolous facts have been introduced in the prosecution case in order to involve the appellant in this case. Both the eye- witnesses have supported the prosecution version. I have noticed that there are no contradictions on the material points in their statements. Both the eye-witnesses are consistent that the appellant was armed with a gun .12 bore and has fired on the deceased. They had seen the occurrence in the light of bulb and from the other circumstance it has been proved that the light was available at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. From the bare perusal of the cross-examination of the witnesses regarding enmity between the complainant and the appellant it has become crystal clear that the complainant had no direct enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in such a heinous offence which is punishable under the capital charge. Whereas it has been proved that the complainant had other enemies and if he had intention to falsely implicate anybody due to enmity he could do so that he had not and has only involved the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any reason for discarding statements of the complainant Gulla P.W.8. Mere relationship of the complainant with the deceased 'is not sufficient to disbelieve his statement which is otherwise confidence-inspiring and worthy of reliance. Similarly statement of Shamas Din is fully corroborated by the statement of P.W.8. His name was mentioned in the F.I.R. As an eye-witness and he has supported the prosecution version during the investigation and during the trial, when he appeared as P.W.9. Though he admitted during the cross-examination that he does not own any land in Village Mauza Sultankey Baghaila but he voluntarily made a statement that he cultivates agricultural land on lease in the afore-mentioned village. He also denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness. He insisted that he is resident of village in which the occurrence took place. Statement of the complainant P.W.8 cannot be discarded on the basis of reasons advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. His statement is consistent and he was determined on the point that he had seen the occurrence. He has fully supported the prosecution story. I have also no reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W.9. Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution have fully supported the prosecution version. They are natural witnesses and their statements are worthy of credence, confidence-inspiring and the same are reliable. Moreover, their statements are capable to be treated as sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of crime imputed to him. The prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant and the learned Trial Judge has rightly held the appellant guilty and convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. While passing the abovesaid sentence. Hence this appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed.