' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Complainant Noor Mali Khan, brother of deceased Yaqoob Khan through instant appeal has challenged the judgment, dated 29-1-2004 passed by Mr. Muhammad Younis Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu whereby Mir Shah Jehan respondent, one of the accused persons charged under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,536 dated 5-12-2002 of Police Station Cantt. Bannu was extended benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge. The respondent is accused of having in furtherance of his common intention with Surat Khan and Inayatullah, absconding co-accused, caused the murder of Yagoob Khan and attempted murder of complainant Noor Mali Khan and Nizam Khan P.Ws. On 5-12-2002 at 11-00 hours in the precincts of Police Station Cantt. Bannu. At conclusion of the trial, prosecution evidence was disbelieved by the learned trial Judge and respondent was acquitted of the charge with observation:-- "Perusal of the case file would reveal that so far as the role of the accused facing trial is concerned, he according to the prosecution story was equipped with DB shotgun at the time of occurrence and at least to his extent, no empty of .12 bore shotgun has been recovered from the spot and similarly no pellet has been recovered from the dead body of deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. Moreover, the effective role of firing at the person of deceased at the hands of accused facing trial has also not been established from the mouth of the two eye-witnesses. Thus, at least to the extent of accused on trial the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge leveled against him befitting his conviction.
2. Feeling aggrieved, Noor Mali Khan, complainant/appellant has tiled instant Criminal Appeal No,23 of 2004 under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of acquittal.
3. Mr. Naimtullah Jamal, Advocate for the appellant in support of the appeal vehemently contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the independent ocular as well as circumstantial evidence fully supporting and corroborating the prosecution story; that the ocular account of the incident furnished by eye-witnesses remained sufficiently consistent and no material discrepancy could be brought on record during fairly lengthy cross-examination; that their testimony is fully corroborated by the medical evidence in addition to the recoveries, motive and abscondence of the accused. The learned counsel added that immediately after the occurrence, the respondent disappeared from the village and was subsequently apprehended.
This piece of evidence was specifically put to him and he could not offer any tenable explanation, whatsoever. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel submitted that plea of alibi taken by the respondent after about 18 days of the occurrence should not have weighed with the trial Court and made basis of acquittal of the respondent:
4. We have given mature consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in the light of the material on file.
5. To convict a person on a capital charge, evidence should be of very high quality and good standard which is unfortunately not available in this case. The eye-witnesses have not specifically charged the respondent for firing at the deceased. There are major discrepancies in the statements of witnesses which have been .Rightly taken into consideration and made basis for acquittal of the accused. The non-recovery of empty of D.B. Shotgun from the spot and the report of Firearm Expert to the effect that two kinds of weapons were used in the commission of crime indicate that the respondent had no hand in the commission of crime.
6. Standards of assessing evidence in appeal against acquittal are quite different from those laid down for appeal against conviction. There is a marked difference between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction and in the appeal against acquittal. In the appeal against conviction, appraisal of evidence is done strictly and in the appeal against acquittal, the same rigid method of appraisement is not to be applied as there is already finding of acquittal given by the trial Court after proper analysis on record. In the acquittal appeal, interference is evidence which amounts to miscarriage of justice. The ordinary scope of made only when it appears that there has been gross misreading of appeal against acquittal of respondent is considerably narrow and limited, as held in Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 498 and The State v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1995 SCM R 635.
7. There is no gain in saying that the evidence furnished by interested witnesses ordinarily cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they had relationship with the deceased, however, for safe administration of justice, it becomes the duty of the Court to look forward for corroboration of such evidence from independent source with a view to explore truth for the purpose of reaching at a just conclusion. In the instant case, unfortunately no such corroboration is available.
8. Needless to emphasize that the abscondence at the most can be taken as corroborative of the charge and not the evidence of the charge in absence of any other corroborative evidence, this evidence even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant the conviction of the accused person on a charge of murder as held in Aminullah v. The State PLD 1976 SC 632.
9. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was quite, justified in acquitting the respondent by extending him the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment is perfectly correct being based on proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference.
10. The appeal being meritless is dismissed in limine.