Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Khawaja Muhammad SharifGhulam Hussain Malik,Abdul Majeed Chishti
2002 Y L R 1735
2002 Y L R 1735
[Lahore]
Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-‑‑Appellant
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1739 of 2001, heard on 11th March, 2002.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 324/336/337‑R/452 ‑‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Accused who criminally trespassed into the house of complainant, burnt precious articles belonging to complainant party and on resistance he fired a shot hitting the prosecution witness resulting in his partial paralysis of left hand and forearm‑‑‑No previous background of enmity existed between the parties and motive furnished by complainant had been proved‑‑Ocular account as furnished by injured prosecution witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence‑‑‑Co‑accused who was acquitted in the case ,was not, mentioned in the F.I.R. as co‑accused, but was implicated in supplementary statement and benefit of doubt was granted ,to him‑‑‑No appeal was filed against acquittal of co‑accused either by State or by complainant‑‑ Accused was armed with fire‑arm and he was proved to have caused fire‑arm injury on person of prosecution witness‑‑ Accused in circumstances was rightly convicted under S. 324, P. P. C.‑‑ Prosecution having proved its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him.
Ghulam Hussain Malik for Appellant.
Abdul Majeed Chishti for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th March, 2002.
JUDGMENT
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal. No. 1739 of 2001 directed against the judgment, dated 30‑10‑2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 452, P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo (sic) years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000 or in default one month S.I. Under section 324, P.P.C. he was sentenced 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000. or in default two months S.I. under section 336, P.P.C. the appellant was sentenced to payment of 1/2 shares of diyat according to section 337/R, P.P.C. and five years' R.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts in brief as narrated by the complainant in complaint Exh.P.A. are that Ali Ahmad injured P.W. was married to Mst. Asia Bibi, but Muhammad Ramzan appellant was not happy for it, as he wanted Asia Bibi to marry with, his brother in law. On the day of occurrence when P.Ws. were sleeping at about 12‑30 , midnight, Muhammad Ramzan armed with pistol 30 bore entered the house after scaling over the wall and awoke Mst. Asia Bibi. He took her in the room, made her to take the clothes out of the boxes and after sprinkling kerosene oil set them on fire. When Ali Ahmad got up and attempted to apprehend the accused, he tired at him, which hit him on the left side near shoulder. The mother of complainant also got up and Ramzan accused gave her butt blows of pistol and caused injuries, at the attraction of other P. Ws. the accused fled‑away with rifle tiring. Later on in the supplementary statement Muhammad Mansha acquitted co‑accused was also implicated in this case.
3. After receipts of information about the occurrence the police completed all the necessary formalities and then A.S.1. Muhammad Akbar proceeded to the spot alongwith his subordinates. He took into possession the burnt utencils, clothes and others house hold articles and kept them in malkhana. He arrested Muhammad Ramzan appellant on 27‑7‑2000 and got recovered from him pistol 20 bore vide memo. Exh. P.B. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to Ghulam Jilani, S.H.O. He took‑into possession all burnt articles which were taken into possession by Muhammad Akbar, A.S.I, vide memo. Exh. P.C./1. He prepared the challan against Muhammad Ramzan and Mansha and submitted the same for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 10 witnesses including Investigating Officers, eye witnesses and other relevant witnesses. On 26‑10‑2001 learned A.P.P. closed the prosecution evidence and thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that on the same evidence Mansha co‑accused has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, that all the P.Ws. i.e eye‑witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses, that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution, that the recovery has been planted on the appellant, that Mst. Sheran Bibi injured had also implicated Mansha the co‑accused but he was acquitted by the learned trial Court. He submits that no blood‑stained earth was taken from the spot, that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to the enmity with the complainant party and that the learned trial Court was wrong in convicting the appellant.
6. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that appellant was named in the F.I.R. specific role was attributed to him. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case appellant criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant party. First of all he burnt the precious articles belonging to the complainant party with kerosene oil and thereafter when resistance was offered he tired a shot hitting Ali Ahmad P.W.2 resulting in partial paralysis of left hand and fore‑arm and injury was declared as Ghayar Jafia Hashmi and Itlaf‑e‑Salahiat‑e‑Udw. There was no previous back‑ground of enmity between the parties whatsoever. The motive behind the present occurrence was that Mst. Asia Bibi the niece of the appellant was married to Ali Ahmed injured P.W.6 as the appellant wanted the hand of Mst. Asia for his brother in law. Motive has been furnished by the complainant and the same has been proved. There are two injured eye‑witnesses in this case namely Mst. Sheran Bibi mother of Ali Ahmed and Ali Ahmed himself. Three eye witnesses were produced by the prosecution i.e. Muhammad Akbar, complainant, Ali Ahmed injured P. W. and Mst. Sheran Bibi also injured P.W. Both the injured P.Ws. were medically examined by Dr. Munir Ahmed Medical Officer, Tehsil Headquarter Depalpur, P.W.6. As far as Ali Ahmed was concerned, he had received one tire‑arm injury on his person which resulted in paralysis of his left hand and fore‑arm. Mst. Sheran Bibi had received three lacerated wounds on her person. Mansha acquitted accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. as co‑accused of the appellant. He was implicated in the supplementary statement of the complainant and benefit of doubt was granted to said Mansha co‑accused and same was done rightly by the learned trial Court. There was no appeal, against the acquittal either by the State or by the complainant against Mansha acquitted co‑accused. As far as injury on the person of Ali Ahmed injured P.W. is concerned the same has been proved by the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt. Learned trial Court in fact was wrong in convicting the appellant under section 452, P P.C. Case of the appellant was covered under section 459, P.P.C. but he was not charged under said section, so the conviction of the appellant under section 452, P.P.C. is maintained.) Appellant was armed with fire‑arm and he caused tire‑arm injury on the person of the injured P.W. Ali Ahmed and he was rightly convicted under section 324, P.P.C. he was an attempt on‑ the part of I the appellant to commit Qatl‑e‑Amd of Ali Ahmed. The other sentences of the appellant imprisonment and payment of share of diyat is also maintained. In my considered opinion, ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. Prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. No case for interference is made out. This appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. H.B.T /M‑1470/L