2001 PLP 1668 (YLR)

4. Mr. Amanullah Kanrani, Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner/complainant argued that prosecution has succeeded to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly he has been convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C., only while no punishment has been awarded for the injuries caused to the petitioner/complainant. He next argued that the trial Court has not awarded passed proper conviction to the appellant for the offence alleged against him and the same requires to be dealt with in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mengal learned Assistant Advocate‑General appeared for the State and supported the impugned judgment of trial Court. He was of the opinion that proper sentence has been awarded by learned trial Court in the circumstances of the case.

6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. P.W.1 Muhammad Ilyas complainant/injured deposed that on 10‑5‑1996 the appellant alongwith his brother Khushal, his relative, at 3‑00 a.m., came to his house and after taking meal they desired him to accompany them to Kuchlak Bazar, all of them boarded a Suzuki Car, when they reached near Killi Samli at 4‑30 p.m. the appellant Pashtoon Yar stopped the car, when they got down from the vehicle the appellant and co‑accused after firing at him with Revolvers made their escape good from the spot in the said car. One Haji Muhammad Hassan and Muhammad Ashraf alias Jalat Khan took him to Civil Hospital where the complainant gave his statement and F.I.R. Exh.P/1‑A was lodged. The complainant deposed that he received 9 bullet injuries. The complainant was cross‑examined by suggesting that he had blocked the way of appellant being armed with Pistol and tried to snatch the vehicle, Khushal tried to apprehend him and due to scuffling revolver went out and fires were made, hitting him on his body. After going through the suggestion given in cross‑examination it has come on record that the occurrence has not been denied by the appellant and causing of bullet injuries by means of Pistol has also not been disputed so there is no need of re‑appraisal of rest of the prosecution witnesses as the place of incident has also been admitted by the appellant. The plea was introduced that petitioner/complainant blocked the way of appellant and tried to snatch the vehicle by show of force from them, while brother of appellant Khushal apprehended him the fires were made from the Pistol having in the hand of complainant hitting him on his body. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant as to why he remained absconder and did not report the matter with police authorities for the alleged offence committed by the petitioner/complainant. The plea which was taken by the appellant remained un proved while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the Question Nos.3, 4 and 5 were again altogether denied. Even the appellant did not opt to record his statement on oath or to produce any defence witness in support of the alleged plea. What has been discussed hereinabove, I am not inclined to accept this appeal as nothing has been brought on record to believe the evidence has been misread or wrongly appreciated by the trial Court. However, the trial Court has not delivered the judgment in accordance with law. Once it was found that offence alleged against the appellant has been proved under section 324, P.P.C. then he should have been convicted for the injuries caused to the complainant apart from 324, P.P.C. to bring the judgment in conformity with law, I would like to re‑produce the relevant section as under:‑‑ "

324. Attempt to commit Qatl‑i- Amd.‑‑‑ Whoever does not act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act caused Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl‑i‑Amd, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall in addition to the imprisonment and fine as aforesaid be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused. Provided that, where the punishment for the hurt is Qisas which is not executable, the offender shall be liable to Arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years." Dr. Manzoor Hussain appeared as P.W.4 and got recorded his statement as per certificate Exh.P.4 the following injuries were found on the body of complainant which (1) Bullet entrance on anterior surface of right hypochondrium 5 c.m. in diameter (No exit): (2) Bullet entrance on lateral side of right iliopsoas region 5 c.m. in diameter (No exit). (3) Bullet entrance on anterior aspect of right thigh 5 c.m. (4) Bullet exit on medial surface of right thigh 1 c.m. in diameter. (5) Bullet entrance on another aspect of left high thigh 1 c.m. in diameter. (6) Bullet exit on enteromedial aspect of left thigh 1 c.m. in diameter. (7) Bullet entrance on right luber region 5 c.m. in diameter (No exit). (8) Bullet entrance on 3 below the wound No.5.5 c.m. in diameter (No exit). (9) Bullet entrance on backside of left iliopsosas 5 c.m. in diameter (No exit). The injuries Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 9 caused to the complainant fall under section 337‑C, P.P.C. which were found extended to the body cavity of the trunk and provided punishment under section 337‑D, P.P.C. as imprisonment for either description for a term which may extend for 10 years as Tazir and accused shall be liable to pay amount of Arsh which shall be 1/3rd, of Diyat. Since the offence under section 324, P.P.C. has been proved against the appellant, therefore, he is also convicted and sentenced under section 337‑D, P.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 3 years and also to pay Arsh amounting to Rs.94,953, to the injured. Since co‑accused Khushal was convicted and sentenced under section 324, P.P.C. by this Court for 5 years' R.I. on the same allegations therefore, law of consistency require that the appellant be also awarded the same punishment provided to the co‑accused Khushhal Khan. As such the sentence of convict/appellant awarded by trial Court under section 324/34, P.P.C. for 7 years' R.I. is reduced to that of 5 years' R. I. Both the convictions and sentences shall run concurrently with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. With the above modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed and revision petition accordingly disposed off. N. H. Q. /74/Q Order accordingly