' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This appeal filed by the convict/appellant Raeep Khan son of Nekum Khan through the Superintendent Jail Bannu is directed against the judgment, dated 3-12-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Bannu in case F.I.R. No,37, dated 23-2-2003 of Police Station Cantt: Bannu, whereby on conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs,One lac, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has also been extended to the convict/appellant.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by the injured/complainant Mst. Amrozia, wife of Amjad Khan aged about 17/18 years in injured condition in the emergency room of civil hospital Bannu is to the effect that on the eventual day at 1100 hours when she came out of the residential Kota after serving meals to her mother-in-law saw the appellant Raeep Khan, who is her father-in-law, duly armed with Kalashnikov standing outside the said Kota and fired at her with which she was hit and fell on the ground. Thereafter, the appellant followed up his wife with intent to kill her but she ran away and thus escaped the attack. The motive for the offence was stated to be that the convict/ appellant was annoyed over the complainant Mst. Amrozia as to why she had served his wife with meals and why his wife had not taken the meals herself.
3. Initially the report of complainant was reduced into writing in the shape of murasila (Exh.PA/2) which was subsequently incorporated into F.I.R. Exh.P.A., whereafter the Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot and prepared the site-plan Exh.PB at the instance of the eye witnesses, took into possession blood-stained earth, eleven empties of 7.62 bore in scattered position vide recovery memo. Exh.PR and sealed it into separate parcels. The injury sheet (Exh.P.M./1) of the injured complainant Mst. Amrozia was prepared in the hospital and her medico legal report is Exh.P.M./3, whereafter she succumbed to the injuries, thus her inquest report Exh.P.M./2 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and her dead body was shifted to the mortuary for post- mortem examination which is Exh.P.M. The accused was arrested after two days of the occurrence, i,e, on 25-2-2003. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the P.Ws. And after receipt of the Arms Expert report Exh.PK/1 and blood report Exh.PK, complete challan against the accused was submitted in Court for trial.
4. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution produced and examined twelve witnesses in all whereafter the accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Where he professed innocence and false involvement in the offence. However, neither he opted to be examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing arguments pro and contra found the accused guilty of the offence charged and consequently on conviction sentenced him as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
5. We have carefully examined entire record of the case and anxiously considered the arguments advanced at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, Mst. Amrozia had herself lodged the report in injured condition in the emergency room of civil hospital Bannu where she has directly charged the convict/appellant for attempting at her life with Kalashnikov. It is also proved on record that she was in full senses at the time of lodging the report whereafter she died in the hospital. There does not appear (sic.) was put to P.W.
Mst. Behram Jana that in fact Mst. Amrozia was done to death by her husband and in order to save the skin of her son she had put the blame on the present accused, but it was emphatically denied by the said P.W. By stating in her cross-examination that the husband of Mst. Amrozia belong to Tableeghi Jamat and on the eventual day had gone to District Karak for selling Tomatos. There does not appear ary twist or bend and doubt in the story narrated by Mst. Amrozia who had directly and singularly charged the convict/ appellant for effectively firing and attempting at her life which in all A probabilities is nothing but a dying declaration from her mouth. Her assertion is further fully supported by her mother-in-law P.W. Behram Jana without any contradiction by charging her own husband with no concession at all. The house where the offence was committed is jointly occupied by the family members of the accused and thus, the presence of Mst. Behram Jana P.W. At the time of occurrence cannot be doubted which was quite natural and cannot be dislodged by any stretch of imagination. According to the opinion of Lady Doctor Zartaja (P.W.11.), the probable time that elapsed between the injures and death was 10 to 12 hours. No suggestion was put to this P.W. During her cross-examination that the injured/deceased was not in a position to narrate the incident and thus it follows that she could talk coherently. The dying declaration of the deceased-then-injured was having the strong support of the ocular account of Mst. Behram Jana P.W. Whose presence in the house at the time of occurrence was fully established.
7. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive part of the case was not proved at the time of trial and thus the appellant deserved outright acquittal. Motive is a double edged weapon and it cuts both the ways. No strong reason was forthcoming to falsely implicate the convict/appellant in the case instead of real culprits. The E ocular testimony was confidence inspiring and unimpeachable and was corroborated by the medical evidence. Absence or weakness of motive also could not make the prosecution case false or doubtful in presence of the strong, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence on record. No material inconsistencies are coming into conflict with the material probabilities militating against the credibility of witnesses justifying rejection of their testimony had been pinpointed by the learned counsel for the convict/appellant. Motive is always the state of mind of the accused which cannot be proved by ocular testimony as a number of such incidents appear to occur without any motive to the knowledge of the victim in view of the dicta handed down in the case of Haroon Rasheed and 6 others v. The State and another (2005 SCM R 1568). Perusal of the record shows that the accused was arrested after two days of the occurrence, i,e,, 25-2-2003 along with the weapon of offence.
Though report of the Ballistic Expert reveals that the eleven crime empties recovered from the spot were not matching with the weapon of offence, but it would not react upon the case of the prosecution, because the accused being arrested after two days of the incident had ample opportunity to substitute the weapon of offence with another one. Thus, in view of the direct charge by the deceased then injured in her dying declaration supported by the ocular account of P.W. Mst.
Behram Jana, medical evidence of the deceased and the recovery, his involvement in the offence was fully proved.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we are firm in our view that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the convict/appellant and thus, the learned trial Judge has rightly appraised the evidence brought on record by drawing the impugned conclusion which cannot be interfered with by this Court.
9. Resultantly, we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.