' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall decide Criminal Appeal No,203-J of 2006 (Muhammad Saleem v. The State); Criminal Appeal No,666 of 2006 (Muhammad Siddique v. Allah Rakha and others) and Murder Reference No,648 of 2006 sent by the learned trial Court, for confirmation or otherwise, of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant), as all these three matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 14-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C., for the murder of his father Muhammad Sharif (deceased), and sentenced to death with a direction to pay a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) to the legal heirs of the said deceased, as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., and in default whereof he was directed to suffer six months' S.I.. However, a co- accused of the appellant, namely; Muhammad Bashir was acquitted from the charge as the prosecution could not 'prove its case against him, whereas, benefit of doubt was extended to four co-accused of the appellant, namely, Allah Rakha, Mehram Ali, Saleem Bibi alias Nasim Bibi and Muhammad Boota and they were acquitted from the charge. Muhammad Siddique complainant filed Criminal Appeal No,666 of 2006 (Muhammad Siddique v. Allah Rakha and others) against the acquittal of Allah Rakha, Mehram Ali and Saleem Bibi alias Nasim Bibi. The complainant also filed Criminal Revision No,415 of 2006 (Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa), for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court, but the same was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court, on 28-6-2006.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by Muhammad Siddique complainant(P.W.10) in the complaint(Exh.PH), on the basis whereof, F.I.R. (Exh.PF) was registered, are that he and his real brother Muhammad' Sharif (deceased) used to run an Arhat shop in the New Sabzi Mandi, Nowshera Sansi Road, Gujranwala. On the morning of the day of occurrence, both of them came from their house to their Arhat shop in the New Sabzi Mandi. About 24/25 years prior to the occurrence, marriage of 'Muhammad Sharif (deceased) took place with Mst.Naseem Bibi and Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) was born out of the said wedlock. About 4/5 years after the marriage, relations between them became strained, whereupon, his brother Muhammad Sharif (deceased) divorced Nasim Bibi who shifted to her father's house along with her son Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa(appellant). Muhammad Sharif (deceased) contracted second marriage with Nasreen Bibi. Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) had become "Jawan" who started demanding his share of property from his father Muhammad Sharif (deceased).
Four/five days prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa(appellant) and his maternal uncle Allah Rakha came to Muhammad Sharif(deceased) and made demand of the share of the property, whereupon, an altercation took place between them and they left the place while extending threats of dire consequences to Muhammad Sharif (deceased). On the day of occurrence, at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant and his brother Muhammad Sharif(deceased) were present at the -vegetable "Pharri" of their shop, when, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) armed with .30 bore pistol and Allah Rakha empty handed, came there.
Allah Rakha raised a Lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Sharif (deceased) for not giving share of property, whereupon, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) started firing with , his pistol upon Muhammad Sharif (deceased) which fires hit on his front chest, belly and other parts of his body as a result whereof he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the said injuries after a while. According to the complainant, the occurrence was also witnessed by Raza-e- Mustafa and Khushi Muhammad. The accused ran away from the spot while raising Lalkaras.
3. It has come on record through the statement of Mushtaq Ahmad S.-I.(P.W.14) that on 20-1-2003 he was posted at Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala, when file of the case was entrusted to him for investigation. According to him, on 18-11-2003, he got transferred Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) from Kotlakhpat Jail, Lahore, and confined him in the Police Station and then he was transferred from there. According to Saifullah S-I. (P.W.16), investigation of the case was handed over to him on 19-11-2003. During the course of investigation, on 30-11-2003, the appellant led to the recovery of .30 bore Pistol (P1) from the Sem Nala of Iftikhar Colony, which was taken into possession through memo Exh.PD. After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted. The learned trial Court, after observing required legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, framed a charge against Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) and his five acquitted co-accused, namely, Allah Rakha, Muhammad Bashir, Mehram Ali, Muhammad Boota and Saleem. Bibi alias Nasim Bibi, on 18-11-2004, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has produced 16 witnesses, during the trial. The appellant, along with his acquitted co-accused, was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant neither produced any evidence in defence nor opted to depose on Oath as provided under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In an answer to the question "why this case against you and why the P.
Ws. Have deposed against you", the appellant, in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., stated as under:- "I have been falsely implicated in this case. Muhammad Sharif deceased was my father who had divorced my mother about 20/22 years prior to this occurrence. Since my childhood, I used to reside with my mother, while my father was working in Saudi Arabia and remained there for about 20 years. On return of my father, he purchased a lot of property and he remarried Mst.Nasreen Bibi at the age of more than 50 years. Since Mst.Nasreen was a young woman of 17/18 years, she had developed illicit intimacy with my real uncle Bashir and both of them in their connivance hatched a conspiracy to usurp the property of deceased and according to conspiracy hatched, my father was done to death by unknown persons. Since my uncle Bashir remarried with my step mother, soon after the occurrence, they had all the means to involve myself and my family in this heinous offence. Polio during the course of investigation, declared all co-accused being innocent, but said Bashir could manage to challan myself under hand being in league with local police. As my mother who works as maid servant in different houses wa unable to rescue -myself being woman of no means. During the course of investigation said Bashir was challaned under section 109, P.P.C. But the complainant in order to get share of the property left by my father avoided to make statement against him. My involvement in this case is only with an intent to get rid of myself being the only legal heir who could claim the inheritance of property being son of the deceased. I am innocent".
' However, after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as detailed above.
5. Canvassing acquittal, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that both the witnesses of ocular account, namely, Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) and Raza-eMustafa (P.W.11), have made material and dishonest improvements in their statements which were made before the learned trial Court; that in the F.I.R. It was the case of the complainant that the appellant along with Allah Rakha came at the spot, Allah Rakha raised Lalkara whereupon the appellant fired shots with his pistol which hit on the different part of the body" of Muhammad Sharif(deceased); that the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Salman Rahim (P.W.3) who noted nine firearm entry wounds, besides five injuries with blunt means, on the person of Muhammad Sharif(deceased), whereas, while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant has made a different statement by stating that the appellant came at the spot along with Mehram Ali and Allah Rakha on a motorbike, Allah Rakha raised a Lalkara whereafter appellant made a fire shot which hit the deceased on his chest which was followed by a shot tired by Mehram Ali which landed on the belly of the deceased and then both the accused persons made firing which fires hit on the different parts of the body of Muhammad Sharif (deceased); that both the these witnesses have further stated before the learned trial Court that thereafter all the accused persons gave fists and kicks blows on the body of Muhammad Sharif (deceased) and while making aerial firing, decamped from the spot; that the complainant was duly confronted with his previous statement (Exh. PH) and improvements were brought on record; that, similarly, the other witness, namely, Raza-e-Mustafa (P.W.11) also made material and dishonest improvements in his statement before the learned trial Court and the improvements made by him were also brought on record while confronting his previous statement (Exh.DA); that the complainant has admitted in his examination-in-chief that he signed the Complaint (Exh.PH) on the basis of which F.I.R. (Exh.PF) was registered but, therefore, stated that after two days of registration of the F.I.R., he moved an application before the SSP Gujranwala for implicating the other accused persons but no such application was found on the record during the trial and even he did not tile any Private Complaint; that the motive alleged in the F.I.R. Was that the mother of the appellant was divorced by the deceased about 24/25 years ago and the appellant was demanding share of property from the deceased which demand is not probable because share could only be claimed after the death of a person and moreover the complainant has admitted that the relations between the deceased and the appellant were cordial; that the alleged abscondence of the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law because Shafqat Rasheed Inspector (P.W.15) has admitted that the proceedings were completed within four days; that even otherwise, merely on the basis of abscondence, conviction of an accused on a capital charge cannot be maintained as the same at the most can be considered as a supporting piece of evidence; that the alleged recovery of firearm from the appellant has become immaterial because no crime empty was taken into possession from the spot; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Muhammad Farooq and another v. The State (2006 SCMR 1707), Abdul Khaliq v. The State (2006 SCMR 1886), Muhammad Fazil v. Bashir Ahmad and another (2009 SCMR 1382), Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State (2010 SCMR 385) and Rohtas Khan v. The State (2010 SCMR 566).
6. While opposing this appeal, the learned D.P.-G., assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, contends that the date, time and place of occurrence is not disputed; that the matter was promptly reported to the police because the occurrence took place on 7-8-2000 at about 9- 30 a.m., whereas, the matter was reported to the police on the same day at about 10-15 a.m. At New Sabzi Mandi, Nowshera Sansi, Gujranwala which rules out the preliminary inquiry, deliberation or consultation on the part of the complainant party; that so far as role of Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant)is concerned, he is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing firearm injuries on the person of Muhammad Sharif (deceased) which proved fatal and he died as a result of those injuries; that, in order to prove its case against the appellant, the natural eyewitness account has been furnished by the prosecution in the form of statements of Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) and Raza-e-Mustafa (P.W.11) which inspires confidence; that although Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) and Raza-e-Mustafa (P.W.11) are real brothers and paternal nephew, respectively, of Muhammad Sharif (deceased), but, at the same time, both these witnesses are real paternal uncle and paternal cousin, respectively, of the appellant, therefore, no question for false implication of the appellant arises in this case; that even the complainant has stated before the learned trial Court that all the accused which were implicated by him in his statement made before the Court, were not mentioned by the police in his statement (Exh.PH) and in this regard he submitted an application before the SSP but the police with mala fide intention did not attach the said application with the file; that the appellant was arrested in this case on 18-11-2003 and his abscondence is proved on the record through the statements of Muhammad Saleem A.S.-I. (P.W.2) and Shafqat Rasheed Inspector (P.W.15) coupled with the fact that the appellant has not been able to give any explanation for his non-appearance before the police for a period of more than three years; that so far as the role attributed to the appellant is concerned, both the witnesses are consistent, whereas, the alleged improvements made by the complainant and the other witness, pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, are not fatal to the ptosecution case so far as the role assigned to the appellant is concerned; that the prosecution case, to the extent of the appellant, is fully supported by the medical evidence; that, even otherwise, in such like cases substitution is a rare phenomenon; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and that the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence be dismissed. Learned counsel for the complainant, who has also filed Criminal Appeal No,666 of 2006 (Muhammad Siddique v. Allah Rakha and others) against the acquittal of Allah Rakha, Mehram Ali and Saleem Bibi alias Nasim Bibi, contends that the learned trial Court has' wrongly acquitted these accused persons from the charge, therefore, they are also liable to the convicted and sentenced, as they are fully connected with the commission of the offence, as well.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given anxious consideration to their respective arguments and have also scanned the record with their able assistance.
8. This unfortunate incident, wherein, Muhammad Sharif (deceased) lost his life, as per F.I.R. (Exh.PF) registered on the basis of complaint (Exh.PH), took place on 7-8-2000 at about 9-30 a.m. In the area of New Sabzi Mandi, Nowshera Sansi, Gujranwala, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Saddar Gujranwala, the matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) at about 10-15 a.m. At New Sabzi Mandi, Nowshera Sansi, Gujranwala through Complaint (Exh.PH), the formal F.I.R. Was registered on the same day at about 10.45 a.m., while the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was about 09 miles.
9. In the Complaint (Exh.PH), on the basis whereof, F.I.R. (Exh.PF) was registered, Muhammad Siddique (P.W.10) has stated that he and his real brother Muhammad Sharif (deceased) used to run an Arhat shop in the New Sabzi Mandi, Nowshera Sansi Road, Gujranwala. On the morning of the day of occurrence, both of them came from their house to their Arhat shop in the New Sabzi Mandi. He has further stated that about 24/25 years prior to the occurrence, marriage of his said brother Muhammad Sharif (deceased) took place with a daughter of Malik Billu, namely, Mst.Naseem Bibi and from the said wedlock Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) was born. According to the complainant, about 4/5 years after the marriage, relations between them became strained, whereafter, his brother Muhammad Sharif (deceased) divorced Nasim Bibi who shifted to her father's house along with her son Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant).
The complainant has further stated that his brother Muhammad Sharif (deceased) contracted second marriage with Nasreen Bibi daughter of Umer-ud-Din. Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) had become "Jawan" who started demanding his share of property from his father Muhammad Sharif (deceased). The complainant has also stated that four/five days prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) and his maternal uncle Allah Rakha came to Muhammad Sharif (deceased) and made demand of the share of the property, whereupon, an altercation took place between them and they left the place while extending threats of dire consequences to Muhammad Sharif (deceased). On the day of occurrence, at about 9-30 a.m., when the complainant and his brother Muhammad Sharif (deceased) were present at their shop of "Pharri" vegetable, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) armed with .30 bore pistol and Allah Rakha empty handed, came there. Allah Rakha raised a Lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Sharif (deceased) for not giving the share of property, whereupon, Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) started firing with his pistol upon Muhammad Sharif (deceased) which fires hit on his front chest, belly and other parts of his body as a result whereof he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the said injuries after a while. The complainant has further stated that, besides him (complainant), the occurrence was also witnessed by Raza-eMustafa and Khushi Muhammad and thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot while raising Lalkaras.
10. But, while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant has made the following statement (examinationin-chief):-- "On 7-8-2000, I alongwith Muhammad Sharif, Razzay Mustafa and Khushi Muhammad were present at the Thara of our shop, situated at New Sabzi-Mandi, Gujranwala, at-about 9-30 a.m. At that time, Salim Iqbal alias Billa, Maharrum Ali son of Muhammad Rafique, Allah Rakha son of Qadir Bukhsh reached there on a motorcycle. They alighted from their motorcycle and accused Allah Rakha raised a Lalkara to teach a lesson to Muhammad Sharif in grudge of divorce his sister and not giving The share of property to Salim Iqbal alias Billa. Salim alias Billa made a fire shot with his pistol upon Muhammad Sharif which landed on the chest of Muhammad Sharif. The second fire shot was made by Muharrum Ali accused which landed on the belly of Muhammad Sharif.
Thereafter, both the accused made firing upon Muhammad Sharif which hit on different parts on the body of Sharif. Muhammad Sharif fell down after receiving the injuries. Thereafter, all the accused gave, him fist and kicks blows on the body of Muhammad Sharif. The accused had also made aerial firing and decamped from the scene of occurrence on the same motorcycle.
Muhammad Sharif succumbed to the injuries at the spot".
After the perusal and comparison of both the statements i,e, the facts given by Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) in the Complaint (Exh.PH) on the basis whereof F.I.R. (Exh.PF) was recorded and the statement made by him before the learned trial Court, we have noted following contradictions/improvements:--
(i) In the F.I.R. (Exh.PF), Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) has only stated that Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) while armed with .30 bore pistol, came at the spot along with Allah Rakha (acquitted co-accused), whereas, in his statement made before the learned trial Court, the complainant has stated that the appellant along with Allah Rakha and Mehram Ali came at the spot on a motorcycle.
(ii) In the F.I.R., the allegation of firing at Muhammad Sharif (deceased) was alleged only against Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant), whereas, in his statement made before the learned trial Court, the complainant has stated that the shot fired by the appellant hit on the chest of the deceased, whereafter, second shot was fired by Mehram Ali (since acquitted) which landed on the belly of Muhammad Sharif (deceased) which was followed by firing by both the accused persons which fires hit on the different parts of the body of the deceased.
(iii) In the F.I. R. , the complainant has not levelled any allegation of giving fists and kicks blows to Muhammad Sharif (deceased) against any of the accused persons, whereas, while appearing before the learned trial Court, he has stated that after the firing, the accused persons gave fists and kicks blows on the person of the deceased coupled with further allegation that the accused persons also resorted to aerial firing while leaving the place of occurrence. The complainant has simply stated in the F.I.R. That on the Lalkara raised by Allah Rakha (acquitted co-accused of the appellant), Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) caused firearm injuries on the person of Muhammad Sharif(deceased). Dr. Salman Rahim (P. W .3), after postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Sharif (deceased), prepared Postmortem Report (Exh.PC), wherein, he has noted 09 firearm entry wounds and 05 injuries with blunt means. It appears, the complainant has made this improvement to make his statement in line with the medical evidence.
11. The Site Plan (Exh.PG) was prepared by Masood Ahmad Bhatti'(P.W.8) on the pointation of Muhammad Siddique complainant (P. W .10), Raza-e-Mustafa (P.W.11) and Khushi Muhammad (not produced), wherein, names of Muhammad Saleem Iqbal alias Billa (appellant) and his acquitted co-accused Allah Rakha are mentioned, whereas, the same is silent qua the name of Mehram Ali (since acquitted).
12. Qua taking different stands, the complainant has offered the following explanation in his examination-in-chief, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-- "On the following day, I went to the police station, where I came to know that the police had not nominated my all accused in the F.I.R. On the third day, I made an application to the SSP, Gujranwala for implicating my all accused in this case. On my said application, police had joined all the accused in the investigation".
13. But before offering this explanation, the complainant has categorically stated in his examination-inchief that Exh.PH was the statement which contained his signatures and the same was made by him before the police. Relevant portion whereof reads as under:-- "I was in my way to the Police Station, I met, the police and I narrated the whole incident to the police, who reduced into writing and I signed the same as a token of its correctness. Exh.PH is my same statement".
14. We have perused the statement (Exh PH) of Muhammad Siddique complainant (P.W.10) which does contain his signatures. This statement of the complainant was recorded by Munawar Hussain Inspector who appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.12 and was never declared hostile.
While appearing before the learned trial Court, he has stated in his examination-in-chief that "Muhammad Siddique complainant appeared before me there and got recorded special statement Exh.PH and put his signatures under it. I recorded karwai police upon it and sent the special statement through constable Riaz to Police Station for recording formal F.I.R.". Moreover, we have not been able to find out any addition or alteration etc. In the said statement. We have also noted that the complainant did not file a private complaint, which he could, if he had any grievance against the police, but he has not done so, therefore, the explanation offered by him is neither convincing nor reliable.
15. In the circumstances, we are constrained to observe that the complainant has made material and dishonest improvements in his statement, made before the learned trial Court. Similar is the case of other eye-witness i,e, Raza-e-Mustafa (P. W.11). Both these witnesses were duly confronted with their previous statements and the improvements were brought on the record which is clear from the following portion of the cross-examination of the complainant:-- "I had stated to the police that. I, Sharif, Razzay Mustafa and Khushi Muhammad was sitting on the Thara of the shop. (Confronted with Exh.PH, not so recorded). I had stated to the police that at 9-30 a.m., Salim Iqbal alias Billa, Mahrrum Ali and Allah Rakha approached there on a motorcycle and alighted over there. (Confronted with Exh. PH, not so recorded). I had stated before the police that while exerting Lalkara Allah Rakha also stated that he will teach a lesson for divorcing his sister.
(Confronted with Exh. PH, not so recorded). I had stated before the police that Salim alias Billa fired his first shot which landed on the chest. (Confronted with Exh.PH, not so recorded). I had stated before the police that Mahrrum Ali fired which landed on the abdomen of the deceased.
(Confronted with Exh.PH, not so recorded). I had stated to the police that thereafter, both the accused resorted into firing causing injuries on different parts of the body of deceased Sharif.
(Confronted with Exh.PH, not so recorded). I had stated before the police that all the accused returned back, gave first and kicks blow to the deceased and also resorted into aerial firing.
(Confronted with Exh.PH, not so recorded). I had stated before the police that accused decamped on the same motorcycle upon which they approached at the shop.
(Confronted with Exh.PH, not so recorded)".
16. The improvements brought on record through the cross-examination of Raza-e-Mustafa (P.W.11) are reflected froth the following portion of his statement:-- "I had stated before the police that at 9-30 a.m., Salim Iqbal alias Billa, Mahrrum Ali and Allah Rakha approached at the spot on a motorcycle. (Confronted with Exh.DA, wherein not so recorded). I had stated before the police that I along with, Sharif, Siddique and Khushi Muhammad were sitting on the Thara of the shop, belonging to Bashir. (Confronted with Exh.DA, wherein it is not so recorded). I had stated before the police that Salim alias Billa and Mahrrum Ali fired which hit on different parts of the body of Sharif. (Confronted with Exh.DA, not se recorded). I had also stated before the police that all the accused gave fist and kicks blows to Sharif deceased. (Confronted with Exh.DA, not so recorded). I had also stated that the accused decamped from the spot on the same motorcycle.
(Confronted with Exh.DA, not so recorded)".
' The question of placing reliance on the materially improved statement of a witness came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as AKHTAR ALI AND . OTHERS VS. THE STATE (2008 SCMR 6). At page 12 of the judgment, the learned Apex Court of the country, commented as under-- "It is also a settled maxim when a witness improves his version to strengthen the prosecution case, his improved statement subsequently made cannot be relied upon as the witness has improved his statement dishonestly, therefore his credibility becomes doubtful on the well-known principle of criminal jurisprudence that improvements once found deliberate and dishonest cast serious doubt on the veracity of such witness. See Hadi Bakhsh's case PLD 1963 Kar. 805".
' In MUHAMMAD FAZIL v. BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER (2009 SCMR 1382), at page 1385, the Hon'ble Supreme. Court of Pakistan, has been pleased to observe as under:-- " It is settled principle of law that improvements of the witnesses to make the oral evidence in accordance with the medical evidence causes serious doubt about veracity of such witnesses as law laid down by this Court in Shahbaz Khan Jakhrani's case (1984 SCMR 42) and Muhammad Shafique Ahmad's case (PLD 1981 SC 472). As ocular evidence contradicts by medical evidence as mentioned above, therefore, learned High Court was justified to acquit respondent No,1 which is in consonance with the law laid down in various pronouncements. See Bagh Ali's case (PLD 1973' SC 321), Darey Khan's case (1972 SCMR 578) and Shah Bakhsh's case (1990 SCMR 158)...... "
' In MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others. v. THE STATE and others (2010 SCMR 385), at page 396, the learned Apex Court of the country, has been pleased to observe as under:-- " This Court in the case of Saeed Muhammad Shah v. State (1993 SCMR 550), observed that if a witness improves his statement on.Material aspects of the case then such improvement is not worthy of reliance and the evidence of such witness requires corroboration. In the case of Khalid laved v. State (2003 SCMR 1419), while reiterating the above rule, it was further observed that such witness is to be considered to be wholly unreliable and it is not advisable to place explicit reliance upon his evidence".
17. So far as motive is concerned, in the F.I.R. It was alleged by the complainant that the appellant was demanding share of property from his father Muhammad Sharif (deceased) and on his refusal, the appellant has committed this offence, whereas, while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant, himself, has admitted that the relations between the appellant and his deceased father Muhammad Sharif were cordial which is evident from the following portion of the cross-examination of the complainant:-- "Said accused Salim alias Billa met my brother Sharif three/four times in my presence. Salim Iqbal had demanded property from my brother Sharif in my presence, four/five times. He had finally demanded share in the property a week earlier to the incident, in my presence. It was in normal situation when the demand was made by Salim Iqbal alias Billa accused.
' Thereafter, Salim Iqbal calmly left the place. Mahrrum Ali, Muhammad Rafique father of Mahrrum Ali and Allah Rakha used to accompany said Salim Iqbal alias Billa. When even these persons approached they were cordially received and always negotiations took place in pleasant atmosphere. The relation between Allah Rakha, Rafique alias Feeqa and one/two other remained hostile throughout the life with Muhammad Sharif deceased and exchanged hot words between them. Firstly the exchange of hot words took place at the time of divorce of Nasim. Bibi, about twenty years back. Salim Iqbal alias Billa had got, relation with Chachas including myself and Bashir. My brother Sharif used to deliver gifts to Salim alias Billa out of love and affection"
18. In the given circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive against the appellant, as alleged by the complainant in the F.I.R.
19. So far as recovery of pistol (P1) at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we may observe here that it is alleged in the F.I.R. That the appellant resorted to firing and as per Postmortem Report (Exh.PC) there are nine firearm entry wounds on the person of Muhammad Sharif (deceased)but surprisingly no crime empty was recovered from the spot and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is only to the effect that the pistol was in the working condition, therefore, recovery of the said pistol from the appellant is of no avail to the prosecution.
20. As far as appellant's abscondence is concerned, the evidence furnished by the prosecution in this regard cannot advance the case of the prosecution because if the ocular account falls on the ground, as has happened in this case, then there is no need to further discuss appellant's abscondence which at the most can be considered as a supportive piece of 'evidence. Even otherwise, it is consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that mere abscondence cannot be considered as a corroborative piece of evidence to maintain a conviction. To fortify our view, reliance is placed on ROHTAS KHAN V. THE STATE (2010 SCMR 566), wherein, at page 571, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, has been pleased to observe as under:-- ' This Court in the case of Asadullah v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1971 SC 541) observed that both corroborative and ocular evidence are to be read together and not in isolation. As regards abscondence this Court in the case of Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad ' (1995 SCMR 1373) observed that abscondence is only a suspicion circumstance. In the case of Muhammad Sadiq v.
Najeeb Ali (1995 SCMR 1632) this Court observed that abscondence itself has, no value in the absence of any other evidence.. It was also held in the case of Muhammad Khan v. State (1999 SCMR 1220) that abscondence of the accused can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case. In the case of Gul Khan v. State (1999 SCMR 304) it was observed that abscondence per se is not sufficient to prove the guilt but can be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence. In the cases of Muhammad Arshad v. Qasim Ali (1992 SCMR 814), Pir Badshah v. State (1985 SCMR 2070) and Amir Gul v. State (1981 SCMR 182) it was observed that conviction on abscondence alone cannot be sustained
21. It is universally recognized principle of law that conviction can only be based upon unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused.
22. After considering all the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge of murder of Muhammad Sharif (deceased) by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is behind the bars and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. So far as Criminal Appeal No,666 of 2006 (Muhammad Siddique v. Allah Rakha and others), which was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of Allah Rakha, Mehram Ali and Saleem Bibi alias Nasim Bibi, is, concerned, for afore-referred reasons, the same has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
' Murder Reference is answered in the NEGATIVE and sentence of death is NOT CONFIRMED.