1999 P Cr (PLP)

5. In their respective statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. appellants denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. They neither led any evidence in their defence nor examined themselves on oath.

6. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.‑G. on behalf of State and have gone through the material placed on record and R&Ps.

7. Complainant Manzoor, at trial, has deposed that on the day of incident, he, his brother Shahabuddin and Muhammad Hashim had gone to Sijawal Shakh to see level of water and while returning when they arrived near shop of Khadim Hussain Carpenter at about 8 p.m. they saw appellant Haji with gun, Shahban with pistol and Arbab empty handed sitting in the shop adjoining the shop of Khadim Hussain. On the instigation of appellant Haji, Arbab fired at him which hit him on his right leg. Appellant Shahban also fired from his pistol but did not hit and was missed. He further, 'deposed that he identified them on the light of bulb which was lightening at the shop of Khadim Hussain. P.W. Abdul Aziz arrived at the time when appellants were leaving the place of occurrence. In cross‑examination he has stated that all the three were coming together at the time he was fired at by appellant Haji. from a distance of fifteen paces.

8. P.W. Muhammad Hashim while giving the facts of the incident has stated that appellant Haji was armed with gun, Shahban with pistol whereas Arbab with Lathi and were standing near‑the shop of Kahdim Hussain. At the instigation of Appellant Arbab, Haji fired at Manzoor which hit at his right leg. Appellant Shahban so fired but that was missed. In cross‑examination, he has admitted that in 164, Cr.P.C. statement, he had disclosed that they had gone to Sijawal Shakh at about 8 p.m. and also that complainant and Shahabuddin had gone at Tepahri time for rotation of water.

9. P.W. Shahabuddin while giving the facts of the incident has stated that on the fateful day at about 8 p.m. they were accosted by the appellants at the shop of Khadim Hussain, appellant Haji was armed with Shahban with pistol and Arbab empty handed. On instigation of Arbab, appellant Haji fired gunshot at complainant and a pellet hit him at his right leg. Appellant Shahban fired pistol shot which was missed. He has admitted that in 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements he had said that they had gone to Sijawal Shaleh at 8 p.m and that he had not disclosed that they identified the appellants on the light of bulb. He has also admitted that he was facing the trial in a case of injuries of mother of appellant Haji alongwith others before the Court of Civil Judge and F.C.M., Shahdadkot.

10. P.W. Abdul Aziz has deposed that at about 8 p. m. on the day of incident, he saw appellants Haji with gun, Shahban with pistol and Arbab empty handed going towards their houses. It was complainant Manzoor who informed him about the incident. In his further examination, he has said that one month prior to incident, his motor‑cycle, revolver, watch and cash were robbed about which .he had informed the police. He had not disclosed to Police the names of any accused. He further stated that in connection to his robbery, the police had interrogated the appellants as such they had the grudge.

11. According to Medical Officer P. W. Aurangzeb folic swing injuries were found on the person of injured Manzoor Ahmed:‑ (1) Lacerated punctured type of wound 1 /2 x 1 /2 c. m. into diameter over the front of the right lower leg at mid level (wound o if entrance). (2) One lacerated punctured type of wound 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. into diameter over the eight mid of lower leg slightly towards medical size (wound of exit). In cross‑examination, he has shown that the injuries were rest alt of single pellet and was fired from a distance of 8 to 10 feet. Though it v vas suggested that injuries were self‑inflicted or self‑suffered but that was denied.

12. P.W. Muhammad Banaras, A.S. ‑I./Investigating Officer in the cross-examination has said that lie had not secured anything from the place of Wardat. He firstly said that even gun was not recovered from appellant Haji but later on he said that one licensed gun was recovered from the appellant.

13. From what has been discussed above, it is noticed that all the three appellants have been convicted for a single pellet injury on the leg of injured Manzoor Ahmed. Admittedly, appellant Arbab was empty, handed whereas appellant Shahban though fired but his fire did not hit any one, as such, their case is distinguishable from the case of appellant Haji.

14. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, A.A.‑G. frankly conceded that in the circumstances of the case, he has no objection to the acquittal of these two appellants. So far case of appellant Haji is concerned, he is said to have fired gunshot at injured but only a single pellet has hit. Though it cannot appeal to a prudent mind yet it is felt appropriate to reduce his sentence from seven years to one already undergone which would be about one year, four months and 23 days. Irrespective of this, appellants have faced a protracted trial ranging over more than 13 years which even otherwise is sufficient punishment looking to the circumstances' of the case. These, are the reasons of short order, dated 17‑12‑1998. N.H.Q./M‑402/K Order accordingly.