1981 P Cr (PLP)

Two cases were registered against Ali Muhammad one under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for which he was tried separately, but a joint trial was held for offence under sections 382/411, 394/397/307, P. P. C.

3. Prosecution produced nine witnesses in support of its case Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Khan were given up as unnecessary. Dr. Muhammad Ramzan examined Haji Muhammad Nawaz and found three contused wounds, a fire-arm wound and multiple firearm res on radial half of the right hand and right wrist-joint. Muhammad Amir who was examined by the same doctor had Multiple firearm punctures on the front of the chat anal the, skin was scorched. Ali Muhammad appellant suffered six injuries; all were simple and caused by blunt weapon.

4. I do not think it necessary to discuss the prosecution evidence in detail, because of the fact that the appellant confessed before the Magistrate. Nevertheless. I would like to refer to the evidence of the two injured witnesses, i.e. Haji Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Amir. The injuries on their persons were found to have been caused by fire-arm. These witnesses and even the other witnesses were not known to the appellant. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to doubt their testimony nor there is anything on the record to suggest that they were in any way inimical or hostile so as to implicate an innocent person. The appellant, as already observed, was also injured. Although his injuries were simple, but they go a long way to prove that he was apprehended at the spot, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. It was but natural that during the scuffle he must have received some injuries.

5. As already observed by me, Ali Muhammad made a clean breast of his guilt, therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that he had been rightly convicted under both counts. As is evident from the judgment of the trial Court he is also undergoing sentence in a murder case for life imprisonment, nevertheless I think that there appears to be no legal justification to order that the two sentences shall run consecutively. Therefore, while maintaining the convictions under section 307/382, P. P. C. I order that the sentences shall run concurrently. The sentence l under section 307, P. P. C. is reduced to six years. The sentence of fine under both counts is maintained and shall be paid as compensation to the two injured in equal shares. Collector concerned should take necessary steps for realisation of the same. As the amount of fine awarded by the trial Court has been ordered to be paid to the two injured as compensation, therefore, I do not think any further compensation is required. Hence the amount awarded as compen sation by the Magistrate is remitted. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly