1. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,317 of 2001 filed by Qadeer Ahmad appellant. He was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal vide judgment dated 25-9-2001 as under:-- ' Death and to pay a compensation of rupees one lac in default six months' S.I. Under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing the Qatl-eAmd of Hassan Abbass.
2. ' Murder Reference No,661 of 2001 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of convict appellant shall also be replied through this single judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 10-30 a.m. On 26-6-2001 within the revenue estate of Mangwal which is at a distance of 15 miles from Police Station Neela while the matter was reported to the police by Mst. Yasmeen at 3-30 p.m. At village Wandray and formal F.I.R. Exh.PC was recorded by Khizar Hayat H.C. P .W .3 at 5-00 p.m.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Exh.PC are that on the fateful day at about 10-30 a.m. The complainant Mst. Yasmeen was present in her house along with her mother Mst. Rashida Begum and brother Qadeer Ahmad; the said Qadeer Ahmad was taking food while sitting on a cot; Hassan Abbass child of the complainant was standing near to the cot where Qadeer was taking food; Hassan Abbass asked for food from Qadeer Ahmad upon which Mst.
3. Rashida Begum went inside the room to bring food when in the meanwhile Qadeer Ahmad took out the pistol from his dub and tired a shot which hit on the upper lip and nose of the child Hassan Abbass making its exit from the backside of the neck.
4. ' The motive given in the F.I.R. Was that Qadeer Ahmad used to quarrel with the complainant and due to that grudge, he murdered her son Hassan Abbass.
5. ' Aziz Ullah A.S.-I. (P.W.10) took over the investigation. He after receipt of information proceeded to village Wandray where he recorded statement of Mst. Yasmeen, complainant, sent the same to police station for recording of the formal F.I.R. The investigator took into possession dead body of the deceased; prepared injury statement Exh.PF, inquest report Exh.PG and secured blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.PH. A crime empty of .30 bore pistol was taken into possession vide memo.
6. Exh.PJ. The accused was arrested on 3-2-2001 and while in custody led to the recovery of pistol P.3' which was taken into possession vide Exh.PD. After completion of the formal investigation, the accused was sent to face the trial.
7. ' At the trial prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all. Mst. Yasmeen, complainant P.W.4 furnished the eye-witnesses account. Doctor Haroon Iqbal P.W.l conducted postmortem examination on dead body of the deceased. After closing prosecution evidence, the learned DDA tendered in evidence, report of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.PM) report of the Serologist (Exh.PN), report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PO) and closed the case of prosecution. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded false implication. On conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
8. ' Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is conflict between ocular account and the medical evidence inasmuch as according to case of the prosecution, the shot was fired from a distance of 2 feet while the. Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found no blackening around the wounds. Further submits that except Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar, complainant who is real mother of the deceased, no other eyewitnesses was produced and the alleged eye-witness namely Mst. Rashida Begum whose name was mentioned in the F.I.R. Was given up. Adds that the house where the occurrence had taken place was inhabited by many persons but none was produced before the trial Court. Further submits that Muhammad Bashir P.W.6 who had allegedly seen the accused coming from the house of the deceased cannot be believed.
9. ' According to learned counsel, the recovery of fire arms was planted upon the appellant. Towards the end of his arguments, learned counsel submits that if the submissions made by him do not find favour with the Court then there are mitigating circumstances for lesser penalty, such as, it is a case of single shot and motive is shrouded in mystery. Learned counsel has relied upon 2005 YLR 220 and 2006 YLR 994.
10. ' Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellant being real brother of the complainant , there was no question of false implication especially when the ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence and positive report of the Fire-arms Expert.
11. ' The learned A.A.-G. Supports the judgment of the trial Court and toes the line of arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
12. ' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the evidence on record with their able assistance. The relationship of the deceased, complainant and the victim is very crucial. The complainant Mst. Yasmeen is real mother of the deceased Hassan Abbass aged three years while the convict appellant is her real brother. The question of false implication thus does not arise. The ocular account furnished by the real mother of the deceased is fully corroborated by medical evidence. The medical evidence is hot a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot prevail or given preference over the eye-witness account if it is confidence-inspiring.
13. The complaint being real mother as also being inmate of the house where the occurrence had taken place, her presence at the spot cannot be denied. How a real mother would leave the actual killer of her minor son and falsely implicate her real brother. We have thus no reason to disbelieve her testimony.
14. ' There is also evidence of having seen the appellant coming from the house of the complainant with a pistol after the occurrence, furnished by Muhammad Bashir, P.W.6.
15. ' The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that Mst. Yasmeen was the only eye-witness produced by the prosecution and there was no independent corroboration to her statement, has no legs to stand for the reason that the general principle of law is that even in a murder case, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if the Court is satisfied that he is reliable. In other words the Court has to see the quality and not the quantity of evidence. For this view, we are fortified from a judgment of the apex Court reported as 2003 SCM R 884.
16. ' On 26-6-2001, the Investigator took into possession from the spot a crime empty of .30 bore pistol while the appellant after his arrest got recovered the weapon of offence on 6-7-2001 but the report of the Fire-arms Expert Exh.PO is positive. It also lends support to the case of prosecution.
17. 'The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of single shot and that the motive remained shrouded in mystery as concluded by the trial Court is devoid of force because in the case of Syed Hamid Mukhtar Shah v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others (2005 SCM R 427) their lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court have ruled that insufficiency of motive or motive being shrouded in mystery, the occurrence having taken place at the spur of the moment and case being of single shot, are no grounds even for lesser sentence.
18. ' After having gone through the prosecution evidence and attending to the submissions made by learned counsel from both the sides as also the learned law officer, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case successfully against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and even there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant for lesser sentence.
19. ' The citations relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant proceed totally on different facts and are not applicable in the instant case.
20. 'The appeal filed by the convict appellant is dismissed, the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court vide impugned judgment is maintained in toto; the death sentence is Confirmed and Murder Reference is answered in the Affirmative.