' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---This appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Is directed against the judgment dated 23-12-2004, recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu, whereby, having been tried, Rokhan Shah (acquitted accused) and his sons Adnan Ali Shah and Kinwan Ali Shah were convicted under sections 324/34 P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. On three counts, plus fine of Rs.30,000 each or in default whereof, to undergo SI for six months. The appellants were also convicted under section 337-F (iv) P.P.C., and sentenced to four years' R.I. On three counts each and held liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000 each as `Daman'. They were directed to be kept in jail till realization of 'Daman' and to be released on bail after the expiry of punishment of imprisonment and payment of fine. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Rokhan Shah was, however, extended benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.
2. The crime in question is alleged to have taken place on 10-9-2003, at 10-45 a.m., in a vacant plot, owned by Rokhan Shah, acquitted co-accused and the matter was reported to the police, the same day at 11-05 a.m., by complainant Maqsood Jan (P.W.6) at DHQ Hospital, Bannu. The report was recorded by HC Maqsoom Ali Shah (P.W.2).
3. The prosecution story as given in the report, briefly stated is, that on the aforesaid date and time, complainant Maqsood Jan, on hearing noise outside his house, left the house in order to apprise himself of the situation. On seeing him, Rokhan Shah, acquitted co-accused commanded his sons Adnan Ali Shah, Kinwan Ali Shah and Zaidi to open fire, whereupon they acted sharply and started firing at the complainant party, with .30 bore pistols, as a result of which complainant, his son Inamullah and a passerby namely, Sheraz Ali Shah sustained injuries. After the occurrence, accused managed to run away from the spot. Explaining the motive, it was stated that a day prior to the occurrence, an altercation had taken place between Salamullah, son of the complainant and Zaidi, absconding co-accused, over beating of the dog, on account of which Zaidi was nursing grudge against complainant and his sons.
4. HC Maqsoom Ali Shah (P.W.2), recorded the 'murasiala', prepared injury sheets of the victims, and on reaching the site of occurrence, prepared site-plan at the pointation of the eye-witnesses. The blood stained clothes of the injured and one crime empty _ of .30 bore recovered from the spot were sent to FSL Peshawar. The reports were placed on the file. On 30-12-2003, S.-I. Mir Faraz Khan (P.W.3), arrested accused Kinwal Ali Shah and recovered double barrel shotgun with two live cartridges from his possession. On 1-1-2004, Adnan Ali Shah accused appeared before Additional S.H.O. Tajammul Shah (P.W.4). He formally arrested him. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted against the accused in Court.
5. At trial, the prosecution in order to establish its case, produced 12 witnesses in all. Dr. Abdullah Khan (P.W.1) Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Bannu on 30-9-2001 at 11-00 a.m., examined complainant Maqbool Jan and P.Ws. Inamullah Khan and Sheraz Ali Shah. Two fire-arms entry wounds were found on the body of the complainant and one fire-arm entry wound each was noted on the persons of the remaining injured.
6. At the close of the prosecution evidence, accused and acquitted co-accused in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Refuted the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been charged falsely. The led no evidence in their defence.
7. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court believed the prosecution evidence on the basis of ocular account, furnished by complainant Maqbool Jan, Inamullah, Imtiaz Khan and Sheraz Ali Shah, P.Ws., which was supported by medical evidence, motive, recoveries and the abscondence of accused and convicted and sentence the accused as mentioned and detailed above.
8. M/s Abdul Latif Khan Baloch and Khawaja Nawaz Khan, Advocates, representing the appellants, attempted to argue that the prosecution has miserably failed to produce trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence against the appellants; that the whole prosecution case is shrouded in mystery and full of doubts appearing at every step; that on the basis of such a shaky evidence, which cannot be believed at all, trial Judge had no reason to award conviction to the appellants and that mere presence of injury on the person of prosecution witness is not sufficient to declare him a truthful witness, if the same is not believable from the other circumstances available on record. As far as medical evidence is concerned, the learned counsel added, it being in nature of confirmatory evidence, cannot be considered corroborative evidence. With regard to abscondence, learned counsel, submitted that where otherwise evidence on the record is not credible and worth reliance, the mere fact that an accused remained absconder cannot remedy the defects and infirmities, firstly because in the prosecution case, sometimes even innocent persons become fugitive from law due to fear and harassment and victimization at the hands of police and secondly, because abscondence as its best can be taken as corroborative and not evidence of the charge. Reliance in this regard was placed on Akhtar Jan and another appellant v.
State and another respondents (2005 PCr.LJ 1459 Peshawar).
9. Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif, learned D.A.-G. Appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate for the complainant, while controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and had successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence. The prosecution witnesses had no malice or against the appellants to falsely implicate them in the instant case. The findings of the learned trial Court could not be shown to have been passed on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The trial Coda has appraised the evidence existing on the record thoroughly. The judgment is based on correct application of law and proper evaluation of evidence.
10. After having considered the matter from all angles, with reference to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, I have observed that the ocular account of the incident had been proved before the trial Court by complainant Maqsood Jan and Inamullah, Imtiaz Khan and Sheraz Ali Shah P.Ws. In view of the stamps of injuries on the person of complainant and Inamullah and Sheraz Ali Shah, P.Ws. Their presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be disputed. The F.I.R. In this case has been lodged with reasonable promptitude and both the appellants had been specifically nominated therein as perpetrators of the alleged offence along with their abscondence co-accused Zaidi. Learned counsel for the appellants have failed to point out any background of or bitterness between the witnesses so as to prompt the former to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature. The judgment returned by the trial Court is a fair judgment, based on proper, just and legal appreciation of the evidence on record. Needless to emphasize that if a version suffers from a taint of exaggeration or does not fit in with the surrounding circumstances, it will not merit blind and uncritical credence simply because it flowed from the mouth of a witness, who has no interest or enmity to falsely implicate the accused person but in the instant case, position is altogether different. The complainant and his witnesses, have given a straightforward and honest account of the incident in a truthful manner charging the appellants and absconding co-accused for the commission of the crime. The faced the test of cross-examination successfully. Though there are some minor discrepancies in their statements but these are quite natural, due to the lapse of a period of almost three years of the occurrence. It is well-settled that mere relationship of witness is no reason for disbelieving his version until and unless it is established that he had enmity against the accused and had motive for false implication. No doubt, it is true that burden to prove the offence/offences levelled against the accused always is heavily on the prosecution in a criminal case and in case doubt arises qua the evidence on record, its benefit per force has to go to the accused but in the instant case the prosecution has succeeded to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence.
11. The acquittal of co-accused Rokhan Shah does not detract the credibility of ocular version provided by complainant and P.Ws. Co-accused was acquitted on the ground that only role of proverbial 'Lalkara' was attributed to him and the main role of firing was assigned to the appellants and absconding co-accused.
12. Adverting to the arguments that medical evidence is in conflict with ocular version, it may be observed that the medical evidence is in complete harmony with the ocular testimony and no conflict could be pointed out to demolish the prosecution.
13. It may be noticed here that immediately after the occurrence, appellants disappeared from the village and remained in hiding for sufficient long time. This piece of evidence was specifically put to the appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And they could not offer any tenable explanation. When no reason is put forward by the accused, then this circumstance coupled with other evidence weighs heavily against the accused as held in Shamsud Doha appellant v. The State and another (2005 PCr.LJ 788).
14. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there were some serious lapses in the process of investigation, which had vitiated the trial. However, they have not been able to point out any so-called serious defects in the investigation, other than certain minor lapses which do not affect the validity of the trial.
15. I, as a result of the above discussion, have been constrained to hold that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
The defence has miserably failed to extract any material discrepancies or contradictions from the statements of the witnesses. The appeal is destitute of force. The same is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment is maintained.