' JAVED IQBAL, J.---Review of judgment dated 23-4-2009 has been preferred on behalf of Mobashir Ahmad (petitioner).
2. Heard Mr. Aftab Farrukh, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court at length. It is worth mentioning that while arguing the appeal on 14-4-2009, the learned senior counsel had confined himself to the last seen evidence, recovery of deceased's car, extra judicial confession, discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses specially Shabbir Ahmad (P.W.8) and Sher Muhammad (P.W.9), deposition of Investigating Officer and non-issuance of proclamation for the arrest of Mobashir Ahmad (petitioner) under sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. All the above mentioned contentions have been dealt with in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned (paragraphs No,11 and 13) which being well based cannot be reversed without any lawful justification which is lacking in this case. There is no cavil to the proposition that reversal of conclusion earlier reached by this Court, after full consideration of the question is not possible in the exercise of the review jurisdiction as a review cannot be granted for merely re used in the commission of alleged offence as affirmed by the positive report of FSL. It is also submitted that prosecution has proved the motive which can be taken as additional, supporting and corroboratory factor.
5. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of appellant and for the State, scrutinized the entire prosecution evidence by keeping the defence version in juxtaposition and perused the judgments of learned trial as well as the appellate Courts carefully.
After having gone through the entire evidence we are of the view that prosecution has established the guilt to the hilt by producing forthright and convincing evidence. In this regard the statements of Muhammad Ali (P.W.3), Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.7), Muhammad Shafique (P.W.8) and Mst. Anwar Mai (P.W.11) can be referred. It is worth mentioning that incident was witnessed by the above named witnesses by whom specific role of firing has been attributed to Khadim Hussain who was armed with a rifle and fired at Abdul Latif, (deceased) and Muhammad Shafique and Mst. Anwar Mai who sustained injuries. In spite of lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination of the eye- witnesses nothing beneficial could be elicited rendering any help to the case of appellant. We have not been persuaded to agree with the prime contention of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of appellant that the ocular version could not be substantiated by any corroboratory material being devoid of merit for the simple reasons that ocular version finds full support from the medical evidence as is indicative from the nature of firearm injuries received by Abdul Latif, deceased. Besides that Muhammad Shafique (P.W.8), Mst. Anwar Mai (P.W.11 and Muhammad Akram had also received firearm injuries as per medical evidence as furnished by Dr. Anwar-ul- Haq, P.W.17. It is worth mentioning that two crime empties of .222 bore rifle were recovered from place of occurrence and the rifle used in the commission of alleged offence was got recovered at the pointation of appellant himself. The report of Firearm Expert (Exh.P.5) shows that the two crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence have been found to have been fired from .222 rifle.
In view of medical evidence, factum of recovery and positive FSL report it cannot be said that ocular version has not been corroborated. It is worth mentioning that no enmity whatsoever was alleged against Muhammad Ali (P.W.3), Muhammad Sadiq (P.W.7), Muhammad Shafique (P.W.8) and Mst. Anwar Mai (P.W.11) and their statement being free from any ambiguity, exaggeration and dishonest omissions have rightly been taken into considering by the learned trial Court determination whereof has been upheld by the learned Division Bench of the High Court.
6. We heave also adverted to the contention of learned ASC that various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have not been taken into consideration causing serious prejudice against the appellant. It has been held time and again by this Court that minor contradictions do creep in with the passage of time and can be ignored safely.
7. It is an admitted feature of the case that eye-witnesses were related to deceased but on this score their statements could not have been discarded. It is well-settled by now that merely on the basis of inter se relationship the statements of prosecution witnesses who stood firm to the test of cross-examination cannot be discarded especially when sufficient corroboiatory material is available. It is to be noted that only for the safe dispensation of justice corroboration is necessary in certain given circumstances but the scope of this principle cannot be extended to D the case of ancillary facts testified by the witness. (Riaz Hussain v. The State 2001 SCM R 177). It is the intrinsic value of the statements of prosecution witnesses which is to be examined and not the relationship.
There is no cavil to the proposition that "in such like cases the Court is required to look for some circumstances that give sufficient support to his statement so as to create that degree of probability which can be made the basis of conviction and this is what is meant by saying that the statement of an interested witness ordinarily needs corroboration". In this regard reference can be made to case titled Riaz Hussain v. The State 2001 SCM R 177, Devi Prasad v. State AIR 1967 All. 64, Niaz v. State PLD 1960 (Pak.) 387, Nazir v. The State PLD 1962 SC 269. As mentioned hereinabove "friendship or relationship of a witness with the deceased is not sufficient to discredit him particularly when he has no E motive to falsely involve the accused in a heinous offence like murder." In this regard reference can be made to cases titled Manawar Ali v. State 2001 SCM R 614, Muhammad Amin v. The State 2000 SCM R 1784, Iqbal alias Bhala v. State 1994 SCM R 1, Nazir v. The State PLD 1962 SC 269, Khalil Ahmad v. The State 1976 SCM R 161, Allah Ditta v. The State 1970 SCM R 734, Muhammad Akbar v. Muhammad Khan PLD 1988 SC 274.
8. We have also examined with care and caution the defence version which is nothing but denial simpliciter on account of false involvement but no evidence could be led to show the nature of enmity which was never alleged. The appellant even did not record his statement on oath under section 340(2). Cr.P.C. Insofar as the plea of grave and sudden provocation is concerned that appears to be without any substance. It is well-entrenched legal proposition that before pressing into service the plea of grave and sudden provocation which is to be shown distinctly not only that the act was done under the influence of some feeling which had taken away from the accused all control over his actions but that feeling had an adequate cause which is lacking in this case. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Muhammad Rafique v. State 1977 SCM R 457Muhammad Ismail v. Khushi Muhammad PLD 1974 SC 37, Riaz Hussain v. State 2001 SCM R 177.
9. In the light of what has been discussed hereinabove we are of the view that prosecution has substantiated the guilt by producing worthy of credence and confidence inspiring evidence which has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial and appellate Courts. The judgment impugned being free from any illegality or irregularity does not call for any interference. This appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.