1987 P Cr (PLP)

Appellant through Jail. Ch. Muhammad Idrees for the State. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987. Bahadar Khan was convicted under section 307, P.P.C. by Mr. Siraj Din, Judicial Magistrate, Mianwali on 8‑10‑1985 and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. with a fine of Rs.3,000 in default to undergo six months' R.I. further. In appeal, the conviction and sentence was maintained with the direction that the convict be allowed the benefit under section 382(b), Cr.P.C. This is convict's revision through jail.

2. Bahadar Khan had a dispute with his brother Subedar Sher Zaman Khan (informant) over the common courtyard of their houses. This was the motive for the crime. Petitioner allegedly fired a rifle shot hitting his brother in the thigh. The bullet went through and through as found by P.W. Dr. Muhammad Hussain, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mianwali. The F.I.R. in this case was made by P.W.1 Subedar Sher Zaman injured. It was supported by the evidence of his son, P.W. 2 Mudassar Khan. Informant's wife was also a witness, she was, however, given up as unnecessary. According to the prosecution after the occurrence, petitioner absconded and was arrested two years later. He was tried in 1985.

3. Denying guilt, petitioner explained that he was in Karachi and was falsely implicated in this case by his brother. He added that his brother had other enemies who fired at him. Further, according to him, the informant had other enemies was borne out from the fact that he has since been murdered by them. Accused led no evidence in defence.

4. I have considered the matter. No doubt the conviction is passed on the evidence of father and son who had property dispute with the petitioner, but I find they are the natural witnesses of the occurrence. On the other hand, there was no evidence in defence to meet the prosecution case. He had also absconded after the occurrence. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the case is overwhelming against the petitioner. His conviction is, therefore, maintained.

5. In so far as the sentence is concerned, it is in evidence that petitioner's brother has since died. The dispute was over the common courtyard of the parties. The petitioner remained in custody for over nine months before his conviction. He has now been in custody since 27‑1‑1986, in all he has served nearly two years sentence. In my view, the sentence already served by him would meet the ends of justice. His sentence of fine is also remitted. He be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. S.A./B‑9.L. Sentence reduced.