This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.2054, Criminal Appeal No.1955 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No.151 of 2001, directed against the judgment, dated 30-11-2000 passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Gujrat whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with further direction to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Payable to the legal heirs of the deceased while four co-accused of the appellant were acquitted.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Exh.P.D. Lodged on 15-5-1999 at 7-30 p.m. Are that he (Abdul Khaliq) on 15-5-1999 at about 5-30 p.m. Alongwith Sana Ullha and Ijaz Ahmad was sitting on a cot in front of his Baithak. Muhammad Iqbal deceased was standing near his cattle when all of a sudden accused Maqsood Ahmad armed with 222 bore rifle, Imran armed with 222 bore rifle, Asghar armed with 7 mm rifle, Sohail and Irfan armed with 30 bore pistols came there and raised Lalkara on which Muhammad Asghar, Imran, Irfan and Sohail accused started tiring with their weapons while encircling the deceased Muhammad Iqbal. Maqsood appellant fired with his 222 bore rifle hitting left flank of Muhammad Iqbal deceased who fell on the ground. The accused fled away from the spot and the deceased was removed in injured condition to the hospital where after medical aid he succumbed to the injuries. The motive behind the present occurrence was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on playing cricket.
3. After getting information the local police completed all the necessary formalities and then Masud Ahmad, S.-I. Alongwith his other police officials proceeded to the hospital. He prepared injuries statement Exh.P.J. And inquest report Exh.P.K. Thereafter the Investigating Officer proceeded to spot. He secured the blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.A. Last worn clothes of the deceased were also received by him through memo. Exh.P.C. He arrested Maqsood Ahmad and Imran Asghar accused and thereafter the investigation of this case was transferred from him to Tahir Farooq Cheema S.-I./S.H.O. On 2-6-1999 Maqsood Ahmad appellant got recovered 222 bore rifle which was taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.B. On the same day Imrari Asghar accused also got recovered 222 bore rifle which was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. The Investigating Officer ultimately completed the investigation and while mentioning the names of Maqsood Ahmad and Imran Asghar in Column No.3 and names of other accused in Column No.2 of his report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Challaned all the accused and sent them behind the bars to face their trial.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 16 witnesses including Doctor, I.Os., eye-witnesses and other relevant persons. After tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.N report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.P.O. And report of Serologist Exh.P.R, learned ADA closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And claimed their innocent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that on the same evidence four co-accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of weapon from the appellant, that both the eye-witnesses are related closely to the deceased as Abdul Khaliq is real uncle and Sana Ullah is first cousin, that there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence for the reason that it was a case of the prosecution that all the accused while encircling the deceased fired at him but there is no blackening or burning on the wound of the deceased, that no crime empty was recovered from the spot, even no lead bullet was recovered from the injury because there was no exit wound. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that deceased was a man of bad character and was involved in so many cases, that the investigation was dishonest one, that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
6. On the other hand learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellant is the main accused. Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight.
Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. There was no previous background of enmity between the parties. They both support the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Occurrence had taken place in this case on 15- 9-1999 at 5-30 p.m., matter was reported to the police at 7-30 p.m. In the Police Station. It was month of May so it was a case of broad daylight occurrence. As far as acquittal of four co-accused of the appellant by the learned trial Court is concerned, no injury whatsoever was attributed to them. It is the appellant who caused fatal injury on the vital part of the deceased. Though the two eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are closely related to the complainant but they are natural and independent witnesses. The occurrence had taken place in front of their house, that there was no previous background of enmity whatsoever. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view by not awarding death sentence for the reason that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence. The co- accused who were acquitted by the learned trial Court were not attributed any injury whatsoever caused on the person of the deceased. Unfortunately there is a tendency in our society to rope in as many persons especially close relatives of the real culprits as the prosecution wants so for this reason the number of accused were implicated in this case. The principle laid down by the apex Courts to sift the grain from chaff is fully applicable in this case. Learned trial Court was right in acquitting four co-accused.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available on the file, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant.
The eye--witnesses produced by the prosecution are natural and independent eye-witnesses. In this view of the matter, this appeal is found to be merit-less and the same is dismissed. Even the connected matters, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 151 and Criminal Appeal filed against acquittal bearing No. 1955 of 2000 are dismissed.