Appellant Rahim Shah son of Israil Shah, stood trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Charsadda under Section 324 PPC for causing fire arm injuries to PW Akbar Khan complainant. The learned trial Court therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 324 PPC to suffer five years R.I. with fine of Rs, 10,000/- or in default to undergo three months S.I. He was also convicted under Section 337-F (v) PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for two years R.I. with fine of Rs, 5000/- as Daman or in lieu thereof to suffer three months S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was given to the accused-appellant.
2. The accused appellant, feeling aggrieved, has filed instant Cr.A. No, 611/2003 challenging his conviction and sentences. Complainant Akbar Khan PW has also filed the connected Criminal Revision No, 17/2003 for enhancement of the 'sentences of the accused-appellant. Both the matters shall be decided through this single judgment.
3. Story of the occurrence in brief is that on the fateful day at 12.30 p.m. complainant Akbar Khan PW was busy in throwing `dhairan' in his fields situated in `Salgiro Koroona' when his co-villager Rahim Shah duly armed arrived there and started firing at the complainant, on account of which the complainant sustained injuries on his right hand and thigh. A dispute over path was stated to be the motive for the incident.
4. Complainant Akbar Khan was brought in injured condition to police post Ziam. He made a report which was recorded by ASI Fazal Mir Khan PW.6. The witness in hand prepared injury sheet Ex. PM/I and sent the injured to Tehsil Headquarter Hospital Tangi. He proceeded to the spot on the following day of occurrence and prepared site-plan Ex. PB at the instance of Sikandar Shah PW. He recovered two empties of 12 bore am; blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo Ex. PC witnessed by Sikandar Shah PW. The accused appellant was arrested on 10.11.2002. After completion of the investigation complete challan was submitted in Court.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses in all and abandoned Muslim Khan and Afsar Khan as unnecessary.
6. Dr. Anwar Saeed (PW.5) Medical Officer Tehsil Headquarter Hospital Tangi on 16.2.2002 at 1.45 p.m., examined complainant. Akbar Khan and noted the following:--
1. A fire-arm entry wound of size 1/4" x 1/4" on the right thigh 4" below the right hip joint on the lateral aspect.
2. A fire-arm entry would of size 1/4" x 1/4" on the right thigh half inch below the wound No, 2, on the lateral aspect of the thigh.
3. A fire-arm entry wound on the right thigh half inch below the wound No, 3 of size 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral aspect.
4. A fire-arm entry wound of size 1/4" x 1/4" on the lateral aspect of the thigh slightly medical to wound No, 2.
5. A fire-arm entry wound on the right side of thigh 1/4" x 1/4" slight medial to wound No, 4.
6. A fire-arm exit wound on the medial aspect of thigh in the groin of size 1/2" x 1/2" fracturing the femour.
7 A fire-arms entry wound of size 1/4" x 1/4" on the dorsal aspect right to wrist joint.
8. A fire-arm exit wound on the lateral aspect of right rest joint of size 1/2" x 1/2".
The nature of injuries was found grievous caused by fire-arm within probable duration of 1/2 to 1 hour.
7. The accused-appellant in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been charged falsely on account of mere suspicion.
He also stated that he did not abscond and on learning about his involvement in the case, he voluntarily appeared before the police. The accused-appellant did not appear in his defence as envisaged by Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in defence.
8. The learned trial Judge, acting on the material on record, proceeded to hold that prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. He convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted above.
9. Barrister Zahurul Haq, appearing on behalf of the appellant, mainly contended that the prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and improvements; that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of crime; that the motive put forward in the FIR has not been proved; that the site-plan has been prepared on the following day of the incident at the pointation of Sikandar Shah PW who is not an eye-witness to the occurrence; that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account of the incident; that it is not a case of attempted murder but a case of causing grievous injury on non-vital part of the body, as a result of single shot with a shotgun, and that charge was framed under Section 324 PPC and the learned trial Judge had no legal justification to convict and sentence the appellant under Section 337-F(v) PPC. He placed reliance on Ramzan appellant vs. The State respondent (1975 P.Cr.L.J. 1210 Karachi) and Najeebullah Khan vs. The State and others (2002 MLD 872 Peshawar).
10. Mr. Jamshed Khan Advocate, learned State counsel assisted by Mian Qamar Gul Kakakhel, Advocate for the complainant, supported the impugned judgment and maintained that the appellant is directly nominated in the promptly lodged report for the commission of crime; that the solitary statement of the complainant is sufficient to form basis for the conviction of the appellant and that there is no reason to discard or disbelieve the prosecution story, duly corroborated by the supporting evidence on record.
11. It may be observed that prosecution case mainly rests on the solitary statement of complainant Akbar Khan. The victim has fully supported the prosecution version and charged his co-villager Rahim Shah for causing him fire-arm injuries. The complainant was subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to shatter his testimony. No doubt there are some minor discrepancies in his statement but those are inconsequential and not fatal to the case. The most significant feature of the case is that the occurrence has taken place at 1230 hours while the report has been made at police post Ziam at 1300 hours after 30 minutes of the occurrence without much delay and the appellant was specifically named. This factor by itself would rule out the possibility of false implication. It needs no reiteration that the rule of corroboration is applied as an abundant caution and is not a mandatory rule to be always and necessarily insisted in each case. The requirement of corroboration depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in the nature of evidence in the said case. If the evidence does not suffer from any major or significant contradiction, the corroboration is not insisted. It is no doubt true that the prosecution case largely depends on the solitary statement of the complainant but it is equally true that the conviction can be awarded on the basis of solitary statement of the victim provided it rings true and inspires confidence. It is the quality of evidence and not quantity which is to be considered. In this view of the matter I am fortified by Mali vs. The State (1969 SCM R 76), Muhammad Siddique alias Ashraf alias Achhi and 3 others vs. The State (1971 SCM R 659), Allah Bakhsh vs. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 Supreme Court 225) and Riaz Hussain vs. State (2001 SCM R 177).
12. It has been contended with force by learned counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular version of the incident and the number of wounds sustained by the complainant, clearly tends to suggest that the same were the result of single shot with a shotgun and the complainant has suppressed material facts from the Court. The submission of the learned counsel is not tenable. The complainant alleges to have sustained fire-arm injuries at the hands of the accused appellant. During the medical examination carried out immediately after the occurrence, fire-arm injuries grievous in nature, were found on the person of the victim.
The learned counsel has not been able to persuade me to hold that the medical evidence is in conflict with the prosecution story and the victim has concealed material facts from the Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that site-plan in this case was prepared on the following day of the incident at the instance of PW Sikandar Shah who is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and the complainant was not associated with preparation of site-plan even after his discharge from the hospital which cuts the root of the prosecution case. I regret, the submission of the learned counsel does not carry weight. Preparation of site-plan on the following day at the pointation of PW Sikandar Shah or non-association of the complainant is not fatal to the prosecution case. Two empties of 12 bore and blood-stained earth have been recovered from the spot. This fully establishes the venue of occurrence.
13. The crime in question is alleged to have taken place on 16.2.2002. The accused appellant was arrested on 10.12.2002. No doubt abscondence by itself is not sufficient to convict an accused person but is a strong piece of corroborative evidence of the direct and circumstantial evidence in the case. In the instant case, the accused appellant remained fugitive from law for about 10 months without any plausible and reasonable explanation. His conduct after the occurrence was indicative of his guilty when considered in conjunction with the ocular and circumstantial evidence in the case. Mst. Roheeda vs. Khan Bahadur and another (1992 SCM R 1036).
14. In addition to conviction under Section 324 PPC the accused appellant has also been convicted under Section 337-F (v) PPC. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused appellant that conviction under Section 337-F(v) PPC is illegal and not sustainable. The submission is devoid of merit. The complainant in addition to receipt of injury on the right hand also sustained injury on his thigh, resulting into fracture to femur. For this reason the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 337-F (v) PPC and rightly so. The mere fact that no charge under Section 337-F(v)
PPC has been framed but sentence has been awarded there under is inconsequential and provides no ground for upsetting the impugned order of conviction.
15. A strong motive i.e. dispute over path, has been set up in the FIR. The motive has been successfully proved. No case for false implication has been made out.
16. The overall assessm ent of the evidence made by the learned trial Judge and the findings arrived at by him apparently do not call for an interference by this Court and as such it cannot be said that a grave miscarriage of justice has accrued and/or that the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The sole testimony of the complainant has rightly been relied and made basis of conviction of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality by way of misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the learned trial Court warranting interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. The authorities cited on behalf of the appellant are distinguishable and speak of the different situation. The appeal fails which is hereby dismissed.
17. Adverting to the connected Criminal Revision I find that no case for enhancement of sentence has been made out. The submission of learned State counsel that the impugned order qua sentence of the accused appellant is bad in the eye of law and is not sustainable, does not carry weight. The accused appellant has been awarded legal sentence which is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and hardly calls for interference. The Criminal Revision fails which also stands dismissed.