ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal No,52-D of 2012 filed by appellant Abdul Qayyum alias Komi against his conviction and sentence and Criminal Revision No,23-D of 2012 preferred by Qamar Zaman complainant for enhancement of sentence of the appellant as both the matters are the outcome of one and the same judgment dated 21-7-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Judge Juvenile Court, D.I. Khan vide which the appellant has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs,2,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default to undergo six months' R.I. With benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Extended in his favour.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24-1-2011 at 1915 hours, complainant Qamar Zaman reported the matter to the local police to the effect that he along with his father Faiz Muhammad went to the house of his brother-in-law Muhammad Mushtaq and when at 'sham qaza-vela', they along with their brother-in-law were returning to their house by foot and when at 0630 hours, reached bypass road, appellant Abdul Qayyum alias Komi was already present there who first called the father of complainant stating that "listen to me" due to which his father started walking towards the appellant and when reached near him the appellant started firing at him with which he got injured and fell down while the appellant decamped towards nearby wheat crops. He further alleged that the appellant is friend of co-accused Muhammad Aslam and said Muhammad Aslam had threatened the deceased to death and the appellant killed the deceased at the instance of co-accused Muhammad Aslam. The complainant party was taking the injured to the hospital who succumbed to the injuries on the way.
3. After completion of usual investigation, complete challan against the appellant was submitted in the trial Court. He was formally charged to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the allegations. He neither appeared on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any evidence in his defence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 21-7-2012, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, hence the instant appeal and criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been roped falsely in the instant case. It was argued that there are gross contradictions in the ocular account and medical evidence also militates against the prosecution version. It was added that nothing incriminating i,e, weapon of offence, has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. It was also argued that no firearm has been mentioned in the FIR and alleged motive has not been proved through evidence available on file. It was contended that the trial Court has placed implicit reliance on the contradictory evidence produced through interested and chance witnesses. It was argued that alleged occurrence took place during evening hours and as there was no arrangement of light on or around the clime venue, identification of the real culprit was not proved in accordance with law.
5. As against that the learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that there are no contradictions in the ocular account. Medical evidence is in line with the prosecution case. The appellant has been attributed specific role of causing injuries with firearm to the deceased, resulting into his death. It was argued that accused and complainant are co- villagers, known to each other, and there was no possibility of false implication. It was contended that co-accused Muhammad Aslam has effected compromise with the complainant after payment of the blood money, which fully support the case of prosecution and justify the stance of prosecution for involvement of the appellant in the instant case.
6. We have given our deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7. The occurrence that led to the conviction of appellant, Abdul Qayyum alias Komi son of Muhammad Nawaz alias Nazo, reported by complainant Qamar Zaman, to local police that he along with his father Faiz Muhammad went to the house of his brother-in-law Muhammad Mushtaq and when at "sham qaza-vela" they were coming back along with Muhammad Mushtaq, to their house on foot, when reached at 0630 hours at bypass road in the limits of Shor Kot, where appellant was already present called his father by saying "listen to him" and deceased on the call, attracted to the appellant and when reached near him, he started firing at the deceased, due to which received firearm injury and fell on the ground while appellant decamped from the crime venue towards nearby wheat crop. Being empty handed, the complainant party could not retaliate.
The appellant is a friend of co-accused Muhammad Aslam, who had threatened the deceased to death and the appellant killed the deceased at the instance of Muhammad Aslam son of Ramzan.
The complainant party were taking the injured to hospital in Datsun Pick-up. Who died on the way, culminated into instant FIR.
8. On 25-2-2011, supplementary statement of Qamar Zaman complainant was recorded by the local police, who reiterated the version of FIR and added that Asmatullah alias Kala son of Ghulam Sarwar and Asmatullah alias Asma son of Qutab-ud-Din have abetted the offence by instigating and supporting the appellant. They were charged for abetment under section 109, P.P.C.
Asmatullah alias Asma died during trial, while Asmatullah alias Kala is still absconder. The complainant party has effected compromise with co-accused Muhammad Aslam and he was acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise on 14-4-2012.
9. The appellant was arrested on 14-2-20r1 after about twenty five days of the occurrence. The prosecution produced eleven witnesses during trial against the appellant whereafter statement of appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who denied to have committed any offence, however, did not produce any evidence in defence and also declined to be examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
10. We have reappraised the evidence produced by the prosecution. As many as eleven witnesses were examined in the trial Court, out of whom deposition of complainant Qamar Zaman (P.W.9) and Muhammad Mushtaq (P.W.10) has been subjected to serious criticism by the learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution case hinges upon two witnesses whose testimony is of vital importance as being eye-witnesses of the pathetic incident. Though certain variations were pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant but these were minor discrepancies and would be of no significance and to be overlooked. These statements were in line with FIR and fully corroborated its contents. The ocular version of these witnesses was straight forward and natural.
No or enmity on the part of eye-witnesses had been proved to falsely implicate the appellant in the case. Moreover, single accused is charged for specific role of one firearm with no chance of substitution. The appellant has been attributed specific role of firing with firearm, in the promptly lodged FIR. Recovery memo. Exh.P.W.1/2 shows recovery of one empty of .30 bore having smell of freshly fired from the crime venue. The occurrence no doubt took place in the evening time, yet the identification of appellant is not doubtful for the reason that parties are hailing from same village, known to each other and call made by the appellant to the deceased who attracted towards him and hit by firearm when reached near the appellant. Both the eye-witnesses fully corroborated the version. The site plan speaks about the presence of appellant at the place where from empty was recovered. The compromise effected with co-accused Muhammad Aslam, during trial in lieu of blood money, who was charged for abetment of offence, further strengthen the stance of prosecution and lead one to believe the involvement of appellant in the commission of offence.
11. The postmortem report shows only one wound of firearm entry of firearm entry of 1/4" x 1/4" in dia on the posterior lower chest of left side, with exit wound on the left chest interior side of 1/2" x 1/2" dia before the nipple and as such is in line with ocular account to the effect that deceased was hit with only one fire shot at the hands of appellant, further supported by only one empty of .30 bore recovered from the spot, where appellant was shown present in the site plan.
12. Now, we may also refer to the abscionsion of appellant after occurrence, which look place on 24-1-2011. He was arrested on 14-2-2011 after about twenty days. There was no explanation about absconsion in peculiar circumstances of case, when both the parties belong to one and the same village, known to each other. Though obsconsion is for a short period, but conduct of appellant weighs in favour of guilt in circumstances and to be 'considered as strong corroborative piece of evidence. Moreover, the recovery of crime weapon could not be effected due to absconsion of appellant. The learned trial Court has arrived at a just and lawful conclusion while awarding sentence to the appellant. The judgment of the learned trial Court being based on proper appreciation of evidence needs no interference.
13. The learned counsel for the complainant, however, did not press the Criminal Revision No,23-D of 2013 for enhancement of sentence of the appellant.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, Criminal Appeal No,52-D of 2012 and Criminal Revision No, 23- D of 2012 are hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.