This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 252-J of 2001 filed by Sajjad appellant, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, vide his judgment dated 18- 7-2001 to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 1,00,000 under section 544-A Cr.P.C, in default six months' R.I under section 302(b), P.P.C. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 11-30 a.m. on 21-2-2001 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajana, District, Toba Tek Singh at a distance of six miles away while the matter was reported to the police by Abid Ali Abid complainant through complaint Exh.P.D on the same day at 2-30 p.m. and the formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/1 was recorded by Muhammad Rasheed M.H.C. on the same day at 2-50 p.m. in police station.
3. According to the F.I.R. the facts of the case are that on 21-2-2001 at 11-30 a.m. Mansoor Ahmad father of Abid Ali Abid complainant was going towards his house from Mill Morr. When he arrived near the house of Javed Masih, Ghulam Rasool, Sajjad armed with pistol .30 bore, Falak Sher empty handed came behind him on a cycle and they encircled his father. Ghulam Rasool and Falak Sher accused raised the Lalakara to teach him a lesson for teasing them. On hearing the noise, the complainant, Shamsher Ali and Sher Muhammad P.Ws, who were present in the village rushed towards the road. Within their view Sajjad fired with pistol at his father hitting on his right flank. His father fell down on the road and the accused on seeing them fled away from the spot while raising Lalkaras. He and his companion took his father in an injured condition to Civil Hospital, Kamalia.
Then the doctor after providing the first aid referred to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, hence the F.I.R.
Exh.PD/1 was lodged under section 324/34, P.P.0 but on 13-3-2001, Manzoor Ahmad deceased succumbed to the injured in the hospital, therefore, section 302, P.P.0 was added.
4. After registration of the formal F.I.R. Akbar Ali, S.-I, P.W.10 reached at the spot recorded the statements of two P.Ws, inspected the place of occurrence, secured blood-stained earth which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PE. On 2-3-2001 he arrested Sajjad Ahmad accused and on his pointation he recovered pistol .30 bore P.1 alongwith three live bullets P.2/3 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PF, he also prepared injury statement Exh.PB and inquest report Exh.PC. On 18-4-2001 he arrested Falak Sher accused and Ghulam Rasool accused and on the same day, he took into possession cycle P.3 from Falak Sher accused vide memo. Exh.PG and after completion of the investigation the accused were challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11 witnesses in all, theteafter, learned A.D.A tendered in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PP and that of Serologist Exh.PQ and closed the prosecution case then the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, in which they pleaded innocence. After conclusion of the trial, Falak Sher and Ghulam Rasool were acquitted while the present appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above by the learned trial Court.
6. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, that most independent witness Javed Masih was given up by the prosecution, had he been produced before the learned trial Court then the prosecution could have stated that case has been proved against the appellant, that both the eye-witnesses, namely Abid Ali Abid P.W.4 and Sher Muhammad P.W.5 are son and nephew of the deceased that they were not resident of the place of occurrence, that no crime empty was recovered from the spot so recovery of pistol is no avail to the prosecution, that motive if any was against the two acquitted co-accused, that appellant had no grudge against the deceased so there was no question on the part of the appellant to fire at the deceased, that two co-accused of the present appellant on the same evidence has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, that there is no independent corroboration of these interested eye-witnesses, that Sher Muhammad P.W.5 had admitted that police had not recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and he is entitled to acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that appellant is named in the F.I.R., specific role is attributed to him, ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and already a very lenient view has been taken by the, learned trial Court by not awarding the death sentence to the appellant. He supports the judgment of the 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. Occurrence in this case took place on 21-2-2001 at 11-30 a.m. matter was reported to the police through complaint on the, same day at 2.30 p.m. formal F.I.R. was lodged at 2-50 p.m. on the same day while the distance between the place of occurrence, and the police station was six miles, ii was broad-daylight occurrence there was only one injury on the person of the deceased, that was attributed to the present appellant. As far as, acquitted accused are concerned, no injury was attributed to them, though Abid Ali Abid complainant and Sher Muhammad P.W. are son and nephew of the deceased but they had got no enmity whatsoever against the appellant, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses because they were not inimical towards the appellant, Court has to see the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. As far as, the answer of Sher Muhammad P.W.4 during cross-examination to the effect that his statement under section. 161, Cr.P.C, was not recorded by the police and has demolished the prosecution case is concerned, that has no legs to stand because usually police after recording the F.I.R. records the statement of the eye-witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C, in lines with the F.I.R. ocular account in this case is fully corroborated by .medical evidence, there was no reasons on the part of the complainant party to falsely implicate the present appellant and in fact appellant is the only accused, who caused fatal blow on the person of the deceased so there was no question of false implication of the appellant in the instant case. It is not believable that son and close relations of the deceased would spare the actual culprits and involved the present appellants falsely in this case.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties I am fully convinced that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained.