' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1850 of 2000 filed by Liaquat Ali, appellant who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his judgment dated 31-10-2000 as under:-- "Imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. And two years' R.I. With the further direction to pay 'Daman' amounting to Rs,2, 000 under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C. In default thereof to undergo S.I.
For three months on three counts. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
' Criminal Revision No,929 of 2000 filed by Nazir Begum complainant for enhancement of sentence of convict shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 7-00 a.m. On 29-5-1998 at a distance of five miles from Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura while the matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Sharafat at Bus Stop Rana Town, at 8-00 a.m. On the same day through Exh.P.K. And the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.K./1 was recorded by Ijaz Ahmad, H.C.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that at about 7-00 a.m. On 29-5-1998, Muhammad Ashiq father of the complainant, proceeded from his house to the office of property dealer at Lagpat Road, Shahadara. At that time, the complainant, Nazar Hussain and Arshad Ali were present in front of their house and when Muhammad Ashiq was 100/150 yards away from the house in Square No,30, Acre No,24 owned by Shahid Ali etc. Liaquat Ali armed with .12 bore gun, Mubarak Ali armed with Sota, Muhammad Arif, Zulfiqar Ali and Barkat Ali all armed with Sotas were ambushed under the tree of Bairi. Muhammad Arif and Fayyaz raised Lalkara that Muhammad Ashiq to be taught a lesson for getting a case registered and be done to death. Upon this, Liaquat Ali fired with his .12 bore gun hitting on the left side of abdomen of Ashiq who fell down on the ground. The complainant alongwith Nazar Hussain and Arshad ran to save Ashiq, upon which Liaquat Ali etc. Started beating them with their respective weapons and Sotas, inasmuch as Liaquat Ali injured Nazar Hussain with the butt of his gun.
' The motive behind the occurrence was that in 1990 Muhammad Ashiq was injured, his legs were broken by Liaquat Ali, etc. Upon which Muhammad Ashiq got registered a case against Liaquat Ali etc. Hence the instant occurrence.
4. Investigation of the case was taken over by Abbas Ali, S.-I. P.W.12, who after registration of the case proceeded to the place of occurrence, took into possession blood-stained earth vide memo.
Exh.P.A. Also secured four pellets vide memo.. Exh.P.B., then prepared injury statement Exh.P.E. And inquest report Exh.P.M. In respect of dead body of Ashiq deceased, also prepared injury statement of Nazar Hussain Exh.P.N. And Exh.P.O. Was the injury statement of Sharafat. Liaquat Ali, Zulfiqar and Mubarik All accused were arrested on 22-6-1998 while on 25-6-1998 Liaquat All accused got recovered 12 bore gun which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. After completion of the remaining formal investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was prepared.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses in all then the learned A.D.A. Tendered in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.P. Report of Serologist Exh.P.Q.
And closed the prosecution case thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded innocence. After conclusion of the trial, apart from his co- accused, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the motive set up by the prosecution is not believable and has not even been proved by the prosecution. Further submits that the name of Fayyaz Ahmad accused was not mentioned in the earlier part of the F.I.R. But was introduced in later part thereof. Adds that the present appellant did not cause any injury with fire-arm either to any of the injured P.W. Or the complainant. According to learned counsel it seems that it was friendly quarrel between the parties because no revengeful action was taken by the complainant party against the appellant at the spot. Learned counsel argues that section 109, P.P.C. Was deleted by the Investigating Officer and that the case of prosecution is full of doubts. Concluding his submissions, learned counsel submits that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibnus is applicable in the instant case.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant who has filed criminal revision for the enhancement of sentence submits that it was a case of promptly lodged F.I.R., there are two injured witnesses besides the deceased, ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. They both support the judgment of the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at 7-00 a.m. On 29-5-1998 while the matter was reported to the police at Bus Stop Rana Town, at 8-00 a.m.
On the same day and the formal F.I.R. Was recorded at 8-20 a.m. Though the distance between the place of occurrence and police station was five miles, so it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. The names of the accused persons, the weapon of offence they were carrying and the roles they played are mentioned in the F.I.R. In details. Besides the deceased, there are three injured witnesses namely, Nazar Hussain and Rashid who also appeared before the learned trial Court. Nazar Hussain has got four injuries while Rashid two injuries and Sharafat had also got two injuries on his person.
The deceased had one injury on his person with fire-arm.
9. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence furnished by Dr. Irshad Ullah P W.3 who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 3-15 p.m. On 29-5- 1998. The duration given by him between the death and postmortem report coincide with the time of occurrence given by the prosecution.
' The motive in this case was that in year 1990 Muhammad Ashiq (now deceased) was injured by Liaquat Ali etc. His legs were broken for which a case was got registered against them and due to this grudge Muhammad Ashiq was done to death. This shows the highhandedness on the part of the appellant. Earlier, they broke the legs of the deceased and this time killed him with fire-arm.
' It was a broad daylight occurrence having taken place in month of May, 1998 when the sun rises between 5-30/6-00 a.m. The weapon of offence was recovered from the appellant. In my view, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant to its hilt rather already a lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court by not awarding the normal penalty provided under the law with which at this stage, I would not like to interfere. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the convict appellant is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court is maintained. Criminal Revision No,929 of 2000 filed by Nazir Begum complainant for the enhancement of sentence against the appellant is also dismissed.