Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J.--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st May 2011, passed by the Sessions Judge. Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali, whereby appellant Ali Bakhsh son of Ghulam Ali was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) of the PPC to suffer life imprisonment as Ta'zir and to pay an amount of Rs, 100,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand only) as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Jabbar, in default whereof to further undergo SI for six (06) months, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Cr.P.C.
2. The concise facts, arising out of the instant appeal, are that on 14th February 2006. a case vide crime No, 20 of 2006, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the PPC, was registered at Police Station Manjhoo Shoori District Naseerabad, on the report of Sain Dad (PW-1), wherein he alleged that his younger brother Abdul Jabbar went on bicycle to Goth Abdul Khaliq Gola in order to meet his relative. It was 6:30 p.m., he (complainant) was present in his house and on hearing fires report from the house of Ali Bakhsh, he came out of the house and saw that Ali Bakhsh and Nabi Bakhsh sons of Ghulam Ali were making fires upon his brother with pistols, due to which his brother, after sustaining injury, fell down. On his hue and cry, his cousin Hidayatullah also came there hurriedly, whereupon they both rushed towards the site, where, on seeing them, the accused persons fled away and since they were empty handed, therefore, could not chase them, while his brother succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The motive behind the incident was disclosed exchange of harsh words between his deceased brother and accused Ali Bakhsh about 3/4 days back.
Resultantly, the aforesaid FIR was registered.
3. After registration of FIR, PW-8 Gul Hassan, the then SI/SHO, started investigation. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared site inspection memo. and site sketch Ex.P/8-A, examined the dead body of the deceased, prepared its inquest report Ex.P/8-B and sent the dead body to hospital for post-mortem examination and report. He secured blood-stained earth and crime empty from the place of occurrence vide memos., prepared its sealed parcel, sent the bloodstained earth and clothes to FSL, obtained post-mortem examination report and recorded the statements of PWs.
Since the accused persons could not be arrested, therefore, he prepared incomplete challan Ex.P/6- C. On receiving FSL report regarding blood-stained earth and clothes Ex.P/6-D, SI/SHO Shumman Ali prepared supplementary challan Ex.P/6-E.
On merger of police area into levies area, further investigation of the case was carried out by PW-9 Ali Muhammad, Tehsildar, who arrested the appellant on 3rd June 2010 and during course of investigation, the appellant made disclosure regarding commission of the offence and after completion of the investigation, he prepared incomplete challan Ex.P/9-A and the appellant was sent up to face the trial.
4. On the stated allegation, a formal charge was framed and read over to the appellant, to which he did not plead, guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the accusation, produced nine witnesses. PW-1 Sain Dad is complainant of the case, who produced his FIR as Ex.P/1- A. PW-2 Hidayatullah. PW-4 Minthar Khan and PW-6 Liaquat Ali, alleged to have seen the occurrence. PW-2 is also witness to the site inspection memo. Ex.P/2-A and collection of crime empties from the place of occurrence vide memo. E4/2-B. PW-3 Amir Bakhsh Mengal is Naib Risaldar levies, in whose presence the appellant made alleged disclosure, at which disclosure memo. Ex.P/3-A was prepared. PW-5 Muhammad Qasim, HC, is witness to the recovery of bloodstained clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.P/5-A.
PW-7 Dr. Mehmood Khan Umrani, ADHO, examined the dead body of the deceased and issued medico legal certificate Ex.P/7- A. PW-8 Gul Hassan, the then SI/SHO and PW-9 Ali Muhammad, Tehsildar are the Investigating Officers of the case. Then the prosecution closed its side.
5. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution accusation and claimed to be innocent. He did not opt to record his statement on oath as provided under Section 340(2) of the Cr.P.C, nor produced any witness in defence. The trial Court, after close of the parties' evidence, vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned hereinabove, hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the available record with their valuable assistance. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, this appeal warrants acceptance with a resultant acquittal of the appellants. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of appellant to the hilt and therefore, the present appeal deserves dismissal.
7. On 14th February 2006, PW-7 Dr. Mehmood Khan Umrani, ADHO Rural Health Center, Manjoo Shoori, conducted the external examination on the dead body of deceased Abdul Jabbar and furnished the detail of injuries observed by him on the corpse of the deceased. As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was severe loss of blood due to damage of vital organs and in this regard he produced and placed on record medico legal certificate Ex.P/7-A. Even otherwise, the defence has not seriously disputed the homicidal death of deceased Abdul Jabbar on account of fire-arm injuries.
8. However, the question arises that as to who has caused injuries and was responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased? In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW-1 Sain Dad (complainant), PW-2 Hidayatullah and PW-6 Liaquat Ali, who claimed to have seen the occurrence. PW-1 Sain Dad and PW-2 Hidayatullah, in their Court-statements, stated that the incident took place on 14th February 2006. On the day of incident at about 6:30 p.m., they were present at their houses and on hearing fire shots, they came out of their houses and saw appellant Ali Bakhsh and his companion Nabi Bakhsh were making fires upon Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbal with TT pistols, in result whereof Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbal received fire-arm injuries and fell down, whereas the culprits fled away from the place of occurrence. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the defence failed to create any dent in their veracity, except a few discrepancies, which are immaterial and not fatal to their evidence, as their statements were recorded before the Court after a considerable period of about four years of the incident i,e, in the year 2010. They are residents of the same village and the incident took place adjacent to their houses and that the parties are known to each other, as such, in such circumstances, their presence at the time and place of occurrence could not be doubted being natural witnesses and no question of mistaken identification arises at all. Their evidence is not suffering from any material contradiction, discrepancy or inherent infirmity and is consistent with the probabilities, materially fitting in with the other evidence, more particularly the medical evidence.
9. No doubt, PW-1 Sain Dad is real brother, whereas PW-2 Hidayatullah and PW-6 Liaquat Ali are cousins of deceased Abdul Jabbar, but only on account of their relationship with the deceased, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses for the reasons that they had no direct animosity with the appellant, who has been nominated in the promptly lodged FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of 'Muhammad Akhtar Ali v. The State reported in 2000 SCM R 727 held as under: "Moreover, we find that none of the two eye-witnesses could be termed as, interested witnesses because none had any previous ill-will or grudge against the petitioner. Merely, because P. W. 4 is father of the deceased and P. W, 5 belongs to the "Baradari" of the deceased, would not make them interested as they had no reasons to substitute the petitioner for the real killer."
Even otherwise, the statement of a witness, who is natural, truthful and whose presence at the place of occurrence could not be doubted, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is .a related and interested witness, though the Courts, by way of abundant caution, look for corroboration from other ocular or circumstantial evidence.
10.In the instant case, as already observed, the statements of these witnesses are not only corroborated by the medical evidence, but' also by the alleged motive. The motive behind the occurrence is mentioned in FIR Ex.P/1-A, as 3/4 days prior to the alleged incident, an altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased. The same motive has been deposed'by the complainant Sain Dad during trial in his deposition before the Court recorded on 11th August 2010, which prompted the appellant to commit the murder of deceased Abdul Jabbar. By holding this view we are fortified from a case of "Gulli u. The State" reported in 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1179 [Karachi], the relevant portion Is as under: "Where motive was specifically pleaded in the F.I.R and was deposed at trial by the complainant against an accused person and corroborated by another prosecution witness, the same was proved against the accused person."
11.Reverting to the contention of learned counsel regarding' non-recovery of crime weapon from the possession of the appellant, we are of the opinion that such contention is without any substance, as appellant Ali Bakhsh, after the occurrence, had remained absconder for a considerable long period of more than four years and had ample opportunity to part with the crime weapon. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that recovery of weapon of offence or empties is not the mandatory requirement of law, but is a circumstantial piece of evidence, which tends to corroborate the other pieces of evidence i,e, ocular account, motive, medical evidence and any other circumstance, which may deem relevant. In the presence of direct evidence, credibility of which has withstood the test of challenge through cross-examination, the absence of this corroborative evidence would not be fatal.
12. It may be noted that the appellant, after commission of the offence, absconded and remained fugitive from law. Though the abscondence by itself is not sufficient to convict an accused person, yet it is a strong piece of corroborative evidence of the other direct and circumstantial evidence in the case. As the convict/appellant is fugitive from law since long, therefore, his conduct, after the incident, is indicative of his guilt, when considered in conjunction with the other ocular and circumstantial evidence. In this regard, reference can be made to a case of "Amanullah Khan u. The State" reported in 2002 P.Cr.L.J page 1934, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: "Yet another important circumstance which has immense corroborative value is the absconsion of Mirza Khan and Muhammad Ajmal appellants. It is in evidence that they remained fugitive to law and were apprehended after a period of more than 3 years. This piece of evidence was specifically put to both of them and they could not offer any tenable explanation whatsoever. When the absconsion is proved on record, through proceedings under Sections 87-88, Cr.P.C, and if no explanation. which appeals to reason is put forward by the accused then this circumstance coupled with other evidence on record weighs rather heavy against the accused."
13. The fact that the FIR was promptly lodged, wherein the appellant was nominated, shows that the complainant has narrated truthful account of the incident. The promptness of FIR and the fact that the complainant had gone alone to the police station, situated at a distance of about 9/10 kilometers from the place of occurrence, further proves that prior to lodging of FIR, no deliberation or consultation was made, nor was there any time for him to concoct the story.
For the aforesaid reasons, we have arrived at a confident conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, thus, the appeal, being without substance, is, accordingly, dismissed.