1968S3215 (PLP)

FAZAL-E‑AKBAR, C. J. This petition for special leave to appeal is from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi, affirming the conviction of these petitioners under section 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 13(d) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The prosecution case briefly was that at about 1‑00 p.m. on 6‑3‑1965, when Sharif, Wazir, Yaqoob and Mino were sitting outside their kotha, the accused, Khanan and Mewo, along with 8/9 others, came armed with guns, pistols and hatchets and started firing at them. They ran inside the kotha and then Sharif and Wazir picked up their guns and opened fire at the accused -party. Seeing others coming to the place of occurrence the accused‑party ran away. The complainant party then found that accused, Khanan, was lying injured and Mewo was trying to take him away. They after securing them relieved them of their gun and pistol. The incident was reported to the Police Station at 3‑00 p.m. The version of Khanan and Mewo was that when they were passing through a field, which was at a distance of about 2/3 furlongs from the village, the complainant party opened fire at them injuring Khanan. They then took Khanan and Mewo to the kotha of Wazir and concocted a false case against them. Defence of the other accused was that they had been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. It may be mentioned at the outset that the Police did not find any blood at the place where, according to the accused, the occurrence took place. On the contrary, there were innumer able pellet marks on the wall of the kotha of Wazir and blood was also found in front of the kotha. The Additional Sessions Judge, relying on the evidence of eye‑witnesses, convicted and sentenced these two petitioners and gave benefit of doubt to other three accused. The learned counsel has criticised the evidence of the eye witnesses. He has further contended that as their evidence was not accepted with regard to three of the accused, it would not be safe to base the conviction of the petitioners on the same evidence. It seems that, as a matter of abundant caution, the Additional Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to three accused, because no recoveries had been made from them. Hence it cannot be said that the eye‑witnesses are not truthful witnesses. These two petitioners were secured at the spot and their gun and pistol were taken away from them. Both the Courts below have found that the prosecution case, a summary of which is given above, has been proved by good and reliable evidence and that the defence version was unfounded. We are not impressed with the halting criticism of the evidence adduced in this case on behalf of the prosecution and accepted by the Courts below. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Leave refused.