1968 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Younas Shah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nur Ahmad Khan, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing t 29th March 1948, FAZAL-E‑AKBAR, J.‑‑The petitioner stands convicted for the attempted murder of the complainant Yar Muhammad. The prosecution case was that on 12th June 1966, at about peshi time, when Yar Muhammad, accompanied by his wife, was on his way from his village to village Zanga, he saw the petitioner Gul Bahadur and his son Farhad coming from the opposite direction. Farhad then fired a shot which hit him ore the left side of his back and Gul Bahadur fired a second shot which hit him on the right side of his back. The assailants then ran away. The injured was removed to the Police Station and there he lodged the first information report of the incident. The complainant besides himself, examined one, Izzat Khan, who was grazing his cattle at a distance of 15/20 paces from the spot. The Magistrate relying on their evidence convicted both Farhad and Gul Bahadur under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.

200. On appeal, their convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. They then moved a revision in the High Court and a learned Single Judge who heard the revision petition found that it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of Irzat Khan because sometime before Izzat's son was charged in a criminal case and the convict Gul Bahadur appeared as a witness against him as a result of which his son was convicted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case he further held that. Yar Muhammad had falsely implicated Farhad, a boy of 13/14 years, in this case. He, however, saw no reason to doubt the complainant's story so far as Gul Bahadur was concerned. 1n this view of the matter he maintained the conviction of Gul Bahadur but acquitted Farhad. The learned counsel has contended that it would not be safe to base a conviction on the evidence of Yar Muhammad alone who was inimical towards the accused and when part of his story relating to Farhad was found to be a concocted one. We think, for the safe administration of justice the evidence in this case should be re‑examined. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Prayer for bail is refused. Leave granted.