KHAMISANI, J: The appellant Ramzan has been convicted under sections 302 and 307, P. P. C. And sentenced to transporta--tion for life and fine of Rs. 500 or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500 or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months more respectively. The sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has filed this appeal.
2. The facts of the prosecution case briefly are that Bahawal had borrowed a bullock from the appellant for slaughtering the same on the occasion of his brother's marriage. He, however, did not slaughter it but left it with Yousuf in trust for being sold subsequently. The appellant probably felt annoyed because he thought that the bullock had been fraudulently taken from him on the pretext of being slaughtered on the occasion of his brother's marriage. He, therefore, went on 12th September 1965 at about noon time armed with his licensed gun to the house of Yousuf and asked him to give him back his bullock. Yousuf told him that he could not return the bullock as Bahawal had left it with him in trust. The appellant, however, insisted on getting back the bullock and even threatened Yousuf for taking it away forcibly. Because Yousuf refused to hand over the bullock to him, the appellant tried to untether it and take it away. Yousuf and Uris prevented the appellant from taking away the bullock on which the appellant fired his gun at Yousuf as a result of which Yousuf, although not hit, fell down on the ground either out of shock or on account of protecting himself from further shots being fired apt him. The; appellant, when he saw that Yousuf had fallen on tire ground, probably thought that he had been hit. He, therefore, started running away and was followed by Moula Bux and others with a view to catch him. The appellant then fired another-- shot at Moula Bux on account of which he fell on the ground and subsequently d. Information was thereafter given by Yousuf --to Sanaullah the Nekmard of the locality. Yousuf then went to Daulatpur Police Station which was at a distance of 16 miles from the scene of offence and lodged his first information report-- Exh. 10, on the same day.
3. The police during the course of investigation visited the scene of offence and prepared its mashirnama. They also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The appellant was then arrested on 13th September 1965. He produced a gun, .18 live and two empty cartridges which were secured under mashirnama, Exh. 24, in the presence of mashir Gul Muhammad P. W.
8. The two empty cartridges produced by the appellant and the gun secured from him were sent to the Ballistic Expert whose opinion was to the effect that the crime empties were found to have been fired from the gun produced by-the appellant. After the usual investigation was concluded, the appellant was challaned.
4. The appellant, when questioned, denied the allegations, made against him and alleged that a false case had been filed against him on account of enmity. He has not examined any witness in defence.
5. The question whether Moula Bux sustained injuries and died on account of them is not disputed.
The evidence of Dr. Anwarul Haq Exh. 34 also establishes that the injuries appearing on the person of the deceased were ante-mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The evidence of the witnesses has also established this issue beyond doubt.
6. The only question, therefore, that needs to be: examined in this case is whether the appellant caused injuries to-- the deceased on account of which he died. The prosecution for the purpose of proving their case have relied upon the evidence of Yousuf P. W. 4, Barkat P. W. 5, Uris P. W. 6 and Pir Bus: P. W.
7. The evidence of all these witnesses unanimously is that the appellant came to the house of the deceased and insisted upon getting back the bullock left by Bahawal with him. They have also stated that on Yousuf refusing to give him back the bullock, the appellant untethered it and forcibly tried to take it away on which Yousuf and others prevented him and tried to, catch him.
They have also stated that the appellant then fired at Yousuf from the licensed gun that he had in his possession on account of which Yousuf, though not hit fell on the ground. They have further stated that the appellant was then pursued by Moula Bux and others when he fired another shot from his gun which hit the deceased and brought about his death. The evidence of these witnesses is not shaken on any account. They are the natural witnesses and have seen the incident in the broad daylight. We have considered the evidence of these witnesses and we are of the view that there is nothing on the record to show as to why their evidence should not be believed. The evidence of these witnesses is also supported by the evidence of Sanaullah State P. W. 3 who is completely a disinterested witness. His evidence is that Yousuf reported to him about this incident immediately after it had occurred and gave him the entire details of the incident as well as the name of the appellant. The evidence of the witnesses also receives support from the fact that the appellant produced his gun, 18 live and two empty cartridges which were secured under Mashirnama Exh. 24 in the presence of mashir Gul Muhammad e. W.
8. The evidence of Shah Jehan Khan, to whom the gun and the two empties produced by the appellant had been sentshows that the two empty cartridge were found to have been fired from the gun produced by the appellant.
7. The evidence of the witnesses supported by the circumstantial evidence, in our opinion, liar established the case against the appellant fully. We consequently see no merit in his appeal and hence dismiss it. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.