2010 PLP 685 (MLD)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this revision petition the petitioners have challenged the order, dated 15-10-1995 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaranwala who had convicted them under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years each with a fine of Rs.20,000 each or in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six ninths each. The appellants then preferred an appeal against their convictions and sentences before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala who vide his judgment, dated 21-12-2009 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were booked in case F.I.R. No.522 registered at Police Station Khurrianwala on 25-5-2007 in respect of offences under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Iftikhar complainant got lodged the above mentioned F.I.R. alleging therein that Ali Raza his cousin was going towards his agricultural land from his house while having his licensed rifle in his hand. When he had reached near the graveyard one Coure No.9864/FSG came there and accused Akbar Ali, armed with pump action, Amjad Ali, armed with repeater, Liaquat Ali armed with double barrel gun, Umar Khattab, armed with .44 bore and Zafar Ikram armed with double barrel gun came out from the car. They caught hold of Ali Raza and snatched his rifle. Meanwhile four accused persons namely Ashraf, armed with repeater, Zafar Iqbal, armed with rifle 8 mm, Akram armed with rifle .44 bore and Shahid, armed with .222 rifle came on two motorcycles. All the accused tried to abduct cousin of the complainant who resisted. At this accused Akbar Ali made a fire with his gun which hit right arm of Ali Raza, Amjad Ali accused made a fire with repeater which it the right side of chest of Ali Raza, third fire was made by Liaquat Ali which hit his right cheek, the accused Zafar Ikram made a fire which hit his right ear through and through. Ali Raza also sustained severe injuries on different part of his body. Muslim and Shahzad Hussain attracted to the spot due to noise of firing. Motive for the occurrence is stated to be a murderous enmity between the parties.

3. After lodging the F.I.R. investigation was conducted, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court, charge was framed and after conducting the trial the learned Magistrate found the case of the prosecution against the petitioners to have been proved and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed above. Then the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there was a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. In fact the injured had received injuries with his own fire-arm. All the injuries, found on right side, had been caused through a single shot. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in this criminal case due to previous enmity between the parties. The prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against the petitioners, hence the convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Courts below against the petitioners are liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to be acquitted.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the record it is noticed that Ali Raza cousin of the complainant had appeared as P.W.S. and deposed against the petitioners. He clearly pointed out accusing fingers towards the petitioners as stated by him in his statement made before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Upon perusal of medical evidence it reveals that the existence and locale of injures mentioned in the F.I.R. were borne out. The doctor who had medically examined Ali Raza injured and the police officials who conducted the investigation had no enmity with the petitioners to falsely implicate them in a case of this nature. Both the learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments after assessing and evaluating the evidence led before the learned Judicial Magistrate section 30, Jaranwala. The conclusions arrived at by both the learned Courts below are such that every Court could have reached the same conclusion upon a fair assessment of the evidence available on the 'record. The minor discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence cannot be made basis for setting aside the judgments and acquitting the petitioners. Even otherwise no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners so as to interfere in the impugned judgments passed against them in this case. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./A-43/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.