' QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, J.--- Darya Khan appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment, dated 11-6-2003 of learned Special Judge, Lakki Marwat whereby he was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to seven years with a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default thereof, to undergo further S.I. For six months. He was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. For causing hurt of the kind of Jaifah to Mst. Akhya Bibi and sentenced to seven years' R.I. And pay an amount of Rs,90,000 as Arsh to her on in default of payment of Arsh, he was ordered to be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The story of prosecution, in brief, is that on the day of occurrence, complainant Gul Zali Khan alongwith Amir Khan was sitting in front of their shop whereas Mst. Akhya Bibi, a minor girl was busy in playing when accused Darya Khan appeared there duly armed with kalashnikov and started firing at them. They luckily escaped unhurt whereas Mst. Akhya Bibi was injured.
3. After completion of usual investigation, the appellant was sent to face trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Lakki Marwat where the prosecution produced eight P.Ws. Accused- appellant was also examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. But he neither appeared on oath nor desired to produce defence. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which have not properly been appreciated by the learned trial Court; that no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence nor any bullet mark was found on the wall by the Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection; that the injured P.W. In her statement has not charged the appellant for firing at her, hence, conviction of the appellant was not warranted under the law.
5. The learned counsel for the State opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses is consistent and they have fully charged the appellant for the offence; that though the injured P.W. Has not charged the appellant in her statement but the eye-witnesses have very much charged him; that the medical evidence also supports the case of prosecution.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
7. The perusal of evidence of the material P.Ws. Shows that there are material contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses. According to Gul Zali (P.W.3) the victim was taken in a jeep to Police Station Daddiwala where police was not present, hence, the report was lodged at Michankhel and thereafter the victim was taken "to D.H.Q. Hospital, Bannu for treatment. He further stated that injured Mst. Akhya Bibi was playing in front of them at a distance of 120 paces. Amir Jan (P.W.4) in his statement stated that they took the victim to police station in a jeep and latter on she was taken to hospital at Bannu. In cross-examination, he admits that he was not accompanying the victim to Bannu nor he accompanied the complainant to the police station. He also admitted that they had previously charged the accused for committing theft which case is still pending disposal.
P.W.5 had never charged any person for firing and said that Gul Zali and Amir Jan came to her and took her to Bannu for treatment. Statement of Investigating Officer (P.W.7) indicates that no incriminating article was recovered from the spot. He stated that the accused was arrested from his house while present there. (P.W.8) Abdul Aziz No,83 stated that during the days of occurrence, he was posted in Police Station Dadiwala. On 24-11-2000 Mst. Akhiar Bibi alongwith complainant Gul Zali lodged a report and Investigating Officer referred to him the injured Mst. Akhiar Bibi to take her to the hospital for treatment. He took her to the hospital and after providing her necessary treatment, he left her in the Civil Hospital, Serai Naurang, who referred her to D.H.Q. Hospital, Bannu for further treatment.
8. The above statements if read together, appear to be inconsistent with each other. The case of the prosecution is thus, full of contradictions and discrepancies creating doubts in the prosecution's case, the benefit of which shall always go to the accused.
9. In view of the above, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. He be set free forthwith from jail if not required in any other cas.