MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE

This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 5-4-1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Magistrate with powers under Section 30, Cr.P.C., Khushab whereby appellant was convicted for offence under sections 324, 337-F(iv)(vi), 337-D, P.P.C. and awarded five years' R.I. on each count and a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default of payment of which the convict was to undergo six months' R.I. further. The convict was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as Daman to the victim.

2. According to statement Exh. P.D. made by Shamim Akhtar complainant who is real niece of Muhammad Ramzan accused. She was married to Muhammad Iqbal without consent of her parents and Muhammad Ramzan nourished a grudge against her due to that marriage. On 4-2-1995 Mst. Shamim Akhtar was washing clothes near Canal Bridge, Jabbi, when Muhammad Ramzan accused armed with pistol came there and shouted that he would teach her a lesson for contracting marriage without consent of her parents and fired at her hitting on her left upper arm, a second shot fired by hit on the palm of right hand. Shamim Akhtar started running towards her house when accused fired shots at her hitting her on right buttock, right side of back and left side in the middle of her belly. Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Iqbal reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Muhammad Ramzan fled away from the spot. Formal F.I.R. Exh. P.B. was registered at the Police Station Mitha Tiwana for offence under section 324, P.P.C.

3. Accused was found guilty during the investigation conducted and was challaned to Court of Judicial Magistrate where charge for offence under sections 324, 337(iv), (vi) and 337-D, P.P.C. was framed against him.

4. Ishtiaq Hussain H.C. P.W.1 arrested the accused and recovered pistol Exh. P.2 and two live cartridges Exh. P.2/1-2 from his possession. Ali Nawaz, Constable appeared as P.W.2. Haq Nawaz P.W.3 supported the case of Sharnim Akhtar. Shamim Akhtar appeared as P.W.4 and supported the contents of F.I.R. Exh. P.B. Sultan Ahmad, A.S.I. P.W.5 testified about the registration of criminal case and investigation conducted by him.

5. Mehmood Akhtar, Medical Officer P.W.6 had medically examined Mst. Shamim Akhtar at 5-30 p.m. on 4-2-1995 and noticed following injuries on her person:--

(1) A fire-arm entry wound 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on upper outer quabent of left buttock 12 c.m. left natal cleft, edges blackened, burnt directed forward upward and towards right.

(2) A fire-arm entry wound 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. just above upper part of left buttock on back 5 c.m. left to mid line, directed forward upwards, edges blackened and burnt.

(3) A fire-arm exit wound 0.75 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. on the skin over aymphasis pubia.

(4) A fire-arm exit wound 0.75 c. m. x 0.75 c. m. on the middle of right iliac fossa 15 c.m. right to mid line.

(5) A fire-arm entry wound 0.7 c.m x 0.5 c.m. on the front of middle of left arm directive upward, backward, outward, edges blackened and burnt.

(6) A fire-arm exit wound 0.75 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. on the back of upper part of left arm, edges evened and ragged.

(7) A fire-arm entry wound 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on the front of face of left little finger edges blackened burnt, directed backward.

(8) A fire-arm exit wound 0.75 c.m. x 0.75 c.m. on the back of left finger.

6. After radiological examination, injuries Nos. 7 and 8 were declared as Jurh Ghair Jaifa Munaqilah. Injuries Nos. 5 and 6 were declared as Jurh Jaifa Mutilahima. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were declared as Jurh Jaifa. Exh. P.H. the medical report was tendered in evidence by the witness.

7. In his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution case against him and submitted that he was involved in the case falsely.

8. Learned trial Court believed the prosecution case and then proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as noted above.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Shamim Akhtar and Haq Nawaz were inimical towards the appellant as he had restrained Shamim Akhtar from marrying Muhammad Iqbal and keeping this background in view, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of Shamim Akhtar and Haq Nawaz who were interested and inimical witnesses. It was submitted that ocular account was belied by the medical evidence as the dimension of the injuries was different and apparently different weapons were used in the incident. It was also contended that the case was registered after preliminary investigation and Shamim Akhtar was shot at by some unknown assailants and the appellant deserved acquittal. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.

10. The appellant is maternal-uncle of Shamim Akhtar complainant. Shamim Akhtar had contracted marriage with Iqbal of her own accord and Muhammad Ramzan obviously was annoyed with that marriage. The occurrence took place during day time and question of mistaken identity could not have arisen in the circumstances. The number of injuries on the person of Shamim Akhtar was quite large and she could have implicated any of her enemies in the case but Shamim has reported the matter against her inimical uncle only. That reflected upon the bona fide of the complainant. Shamim Akhtar was injured during incident and had testified at the trial. No A reasons have been shown as to why the appellant was substituted for the real culprit. It was. the appellant who had fired at the victim and the victim had duly testified against appellant. The case of Shamim Akhtar was supported by Haq Nawaz P.W.3 and other physical evidence. The prosecution has been able to prove its case successfully against the accused and the appellant was convicted rightly by the learned trial Court.

11. As far as the quantum of sentence was concerned, learned trial Court had already taken a lenient view in the matter and no further indulgence could be shown to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to apprise the Court whether the appellant was willing to adequately compensate the victim/complainant or not and the learned counsel on instructions submitted that the appellant was not in a position to pay any further compensation to the complainant. Consequently the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is maintained and appeal filed by him is dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-310/L Appeal dismissed.