' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.----This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-11-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V Bannu, in case F.I.R. No, 25 dated 13-4-1990 of Police Station Kakki, District Bannu, registered under sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C., whereby the appellant Muhammad Iqbal was convicted under sections 302/149 P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life, with payment of compensation amounting to rupees fifty thousand to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default to suffer six months simple imprisonment. He was further convicted under sections 307/149 P.P.C. And sentenced to five years R.I. For attempts to commit the murders of the complainant Shafqatullah and P.W. Fakhar Zaman along with fine of Rs,5000/- each, in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment on each count. He was also convicted under section 148 P.P.C. And sentenced to six months simple imprisonment. Benefit under section 382-B Cr.P.C. Was, however, given to the convict/appellant.
2. According to the first information report lodged by Shafqatullah Jan on 13-4-1990 at 1630 hours, facts of the case are that on the fateful day at 1530 hours, the complainant along with his brother Fakhr Zaman and cousin Sajjad Khan were present in their baithak where Muhammad Fayyaz son of Habib Khan and Khurshed Khan son of Falak Sher Khan also came. Meanwhile, Jamil Khan, Rauf Khan, Iqbal Khan, Samad Khan sons of Mir Khuban and Zahid Khan son of Gui Zar Ali duly armed with topaks came there and simultaneously fired at them. That with the firing of Jamil accused, Sajjad was hit and fell down, while with the firing of others, the complainant and his brother Fakhr Zaman were injured, whereafter they fled away from the spot. Muhammad Fayyaz and Khurshid Khan were, however, escaped unhurt. Motive for the offence was given to be political rivalry besides that the accused were suspecting the killing of their father Mir Khuban with the connivance of the complainant. The occurrence was alleged to had been witnessed by Fakhr Zaman, Muhammad Fayyaz Advocate and Khurshid Khan besides the complainant.
3. After the occurrence, except the appellant, the remaining accused went into hiding and thus proceedings against them under section 512, Cr.P.C. Were initiated. However, the appellant was arrested the same day, i.e, 13-4-1990.
4. After completion of investigation, challan was put against him in the Court, where he was formally charge sheeted and the provisions of section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Were complied with. However, he did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
4A. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused/appellant, produced and examined ten witnesses and closed its evidence. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. But he denied the allegations levelled against him in toto.
However, neither he produced any defence evidence nor wished to examine himself on oath under section 340(1), Cr.P.C.
5. The learned trial Judge, on evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, found the accused/appellant guilty of the offence charged with and thus on conviction sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that:-
(i) Firstly that the impugned judgment of conviction is against facts, law and in violation of the golden principles of the administration of criminal justice;
(ii) Secondly; that the medical evidence is in conflict with the alleged eye witness account;
(iii) Thirdly; that there is no independent corroboration to substantiate the charge against the appellant;
(iv) Fourthly; that the material evidence has been abandoned and withheld in order to create doubt and presumption that it was not supporting the prosecution case;
(v) Fifthly; that as is evident from the F.I.R. Itself and statements of the witnesses, neither the deceased was hit with the firing of the appellant nor the complainant or the PW, therefore, the impugned conviction and sentences awarded to the convict/appellant are not sustainable in the eyes of law;
(vi) Sixthly; that the site plan prepared in the case is not supporting the prosecution version;
(vii) Seventhly; that no specific weapon of offence was attributed to any of the accused charged in the F.I.R. But after perusing the medical report, different weapons were assigned to the accused which makes the prosecution case false and frivolous and; (viii)Lastly/Eighthly; that the case of the prosecution is replete with grave doubts and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is the result of misreading/non-reading of material evidence brought on record which is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it was vociferously submitted by the learned counsel for State and complainant that the accused /appellant is directly charged by the complainant in the promptly lodged report for sharing common intention with the absconding co-accused in the brutal murder of the deceased; that he had effectively fired at the complainant and P.W. Fakhar Zaman with which they were injured; that the accusation gets support from the ocular, medical and recoveries made from the spot; that the presence of the appellant is established from the fact of his lodging cross-report; that the appellant had remained fugitive from law for a long and unexplained period, and that his co-accused are still at large. Therefore, according to them, the appellant deserves no leniency and the appeal deserves outright dismissal.
8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire record of the case and anxiously considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that the case of the prosecution rests upon the eye witness account furnished by P.Ws. 5 and 6, namely Shafqatullah and Fakhr Zaman, medical evidence, recoveries, abscondence of the appellant soon after the occurrence and motive.
10. As mentioned above, the ocular account was furnished in this case by P.Ws., Shafqatullah and Fakhar Zaman, who had also received injuries in the incident. Both these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but their testimony could not be shattered. Thus their presence on the spot at the relevant time was duly proved. Besides, the presence of the appellant on the A spot at the relevant time was further proved from his lodging of cross-report vide F.I.R. No, 26 dated 13- 4-1990 under sections 307/34 P.P.C. Against the complainant party.
11. Though in the initial report, the complainant had attributed the injuries received by the deceased Sajjad to the absconding co-accused Jamil, but the vicarious liability of each of the accused charged in the case can be gathered from the circumstances of the case. Five accused who are closely related inter se are charged for commission of the offence over a common motive and had formed an unlawful assembly duly armed, had come B together to the spot and launched attack on the complainant party and thus their common object in the crime was duly established. In such circumstances, the objection that the deceased was not hit with the firing of the convict/appellant is not sustainable.
12. The appellant was attributed double barrel shotgun at the time of occurrence and during spot inspection an empty of the same bore was recovered beside two wades and two pellets. The C medico-legal report of the injured Fakhar Zaman indicates that he had received firearm wounds of the size of 1/8 x 1/8 which were proved to have been fired from .12 bore shotgun.
13. As mentioned above, the appellant was arrested on the day of occurrence, i.e, 13-4-1990, whereafter he moved for his release on bail but could not succeed up to this Court. Thus on fresh ground, he was admitted to bail by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The complainant party filed application for cancellation of his post-arrest bail before the Sessions Judge Bannu, where he failed to appear and thus his bail was recalled. The prosecution on completion of investigation submitted challan against the said accused but he did not appear and thus proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C.
Were carried out against him and vide order dated 26-5-1992 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu, he was declared proclaimed offender. However, he was arrested on 23-6-2005, i.e, after about fifteen years of the occurrence, which is a strong corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant.
14. As stated above, the Medico-legal reports of the injured witnesses, the ocular account of the eye witnesses, the long and unexplained abscondence of the appellant for about fifteen years soon after the occurrence, the recoveries made in the case, the lodging of cross-report on the same day against the complainant party and the motive fully connects the convict/ appellant with the commission of the crime. Therefore, he was rightly found guilty by D the trial Court for commission of the crime in furtherance of common object with the absconding co-accused.
15. From whatever angle we see, the prosecution had successfully brought home guilt against the convict/appellant for which he has been rightly awarded the impugned conviction and sentences.
16. Consequently, we find no substance in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.