2002 SCMR 1170 (PLP)

SPED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30‑11‑2001, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2000.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Umar lodged a report on 8‑9‑1996 with Police Station Harbanspura, Lahorc, alleging therein that he alongwith his brothers Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Younus was present near the shop of Khalid Hardware in Main Bazaar of Kotli Pir Abdul Rehman and were talking with each other; one Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Mushtaq were also standing with them. All of a sudden accused Ehsan alias Qadri came from the side of Tangawala Adda and passed from the .complainant. Thereafter, while returning towards the complainant accused‑petitioner Ehsan alias Qadri, who was armed with fire‑arm weapon, fired two shots which hit on his buttocks and after receiving the same the complainant fell down on the ground. The brothers of the injured tried to apprehend the accused but he fled away. According to the complainant, the accused had committed the crime in connivance with Haji Akbar, Shahid Nazir Butt and Mehar Jehangir alias Samdo.

3. The motive behind the occurrence was that the abovesaid three accused had fired at the brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Az am, and F.I.R. No.87 of 1996 was registered on 29‑4‑1996 in Police Station Harbanspura under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. According to the complainant, this occurrence was also witnessed by Muhammad Yaseen, Muhammad Younus, Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Ashfaq.

4. The injured was rushed to the hospital. After finalization of the investigation, charge‑sheet was filed against the culprits before the Court of Law, and the trial Court through judgment dated 13‑6‑2000 acquitted Ehsan alias Qadri. 5: Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Umar complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2000 in the Lahore High Court, which was allowed and the respondent was convicted vide impugned judgment dated 30‑11‑2001. Hence, this petition by the accused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the High Court did not appreciate the evidence on record and convicted the petitioner, which resulted in the miscarriage of justice; and that the prosecution did not prove its case against the petitioner beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and his acquittal under the circumstances should not have been set aside by the learned High Court.

7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely examined the record. The prosecution examined the injured complainant, who received the injuries at the hands of the a petitioner, which are supported by the medical evidence. The Medical Officer was also examined during trial. No doubt, Muhammad Ashfaq and Ilyas P. Ws. were given up by the Inspector Legal on the ground that those witnesses were won over. The two brothers of the complainant Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Yaseen were also given up finding them to be unnecessary. In this case the defence did not allege any malice or ill‑will with the injured complainant. The defence has not been able to show any reason so that the accused‑petitioner may be implicated in this case.

8. We have also perused the judgment of the trial Court, which shows that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its proper perspective and the same was rightly set aside by the learned High Court in appeal. The learned High Court has properly analysed and examined the evidence available on record. The impugned judgment is based on the proper appreciation of evidence. We do not find misreading or non‑reading of evidence or jurisdictional error. It would be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:‑‑ " .. It may be stated here that Muhammad Umar complainant was cross‑examined by the learned counsel for the defence on 15‑2‑2000 and he himself got proved through cross‑examination that there were two injuries on his person, one on his buttock and other one near his testicles. As far as statement of P.W. 3 recorded in Urdu is concerned, I would like to refer the same below:‑‑ For the above facts and reasons this petition has no merit, which is ID hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. N.H.Q./E‑11/S Leave refused.