'ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMMKANI, J.---This appeal has been filed by appellant Rehmatullah alias Gud against the judgment dated 31-10-2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, whereby he has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay Rs, 100,000 to the L.Rs, of the deceased within the meaning of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended in his favour.
2. The prosecution case is that on 20-11-2001 at 1645 hours, complainant Jan Alam reported to Muhammad Akbar, A.S.-I., in Police Station Kakki District Bannu, that on the fateful day at "Deegar Vela" his sons Akhtar Alam alias Khan and Babar Alam, left their house for Kakki Bazaar to purchase snuff (Naswa r) for him. After some time, Babar Alam returned home and told him that accused Rehmat Ullah alias Gud, stabbed his brother Akhtar Alam near the shop of one Hassan Khan, wherefrom the co-villagers shifted him to Civil Hospital Bannu, in precarious condition. Motive behind the occurrence is stated to be a dispute over dogs, inter se the accused and Akhtar Alam.
The injured succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, hence, this case.
3. The report of the complainant was reduced into writing in the shape of F.I.R. Exh.PA by Akbar A.S.-I.
Mir Nawaz A.S.-I. Prepared injury sheet and inquiry report of the deceased Exh.P.W.6/1 and Exh.P.W.6/2, respectively, in the hospital and referred his dead body to the mortuary for post- mortem examination. Dr. Qazi Fayyaz ud Din SMO DHQ hospital Bannu, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on same day at 08.00 a.m. And found the following injuries on his person.
(1) A stab wound on the lateral wall of left side of abdomen at the level of 11th and 12 ribs, size 2" x 1/2" x 4". The margins of the wound were clean cut and inverted.
(2) A stab wound on the back of left side of the body at the level of 1/2 lateral to the third lumber vertebrae, size 1" x 1/2 x 3".
' Margins of the wounds clean cut and inverted.
(3) Stab wound on the right side of the Chest just medial to the right scapula at the level of 1" lateral to the third thoracic vertebrae, size 1-1/2 x 1/2" x 3-1/2" margins of the wounds clean cut and inverted.
' Thorax: Walls, pleurae, right lung and blood vessels were injured.
' Abdomen: Walls, peritoneum, stomach, small and large intestines, left kidney, injured while rest healthy.
' In opinion of the doctor the deceased died due to sharp injuries to vital organs such as lungs, left kidney, stomach, small and large intestines and blood vessels leading to excessive bleeding, shock and death.
Time between injuries and death: 30 minutes to 1 hour.
Between death and Postmortem: 15 to 16 hours.
4. After the occurrence the accused went into hiding. On completion of investigation by Muhammad Akbar S.H.O.; he submitted complete challan in terms of section 512, Cr.P.C. Against the accused before the trial Court and consequently, the accused was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 11-5-2002. After arrest of the accused, supplementary challan was submitted against him before the trial Court, where he was formally charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and professed his innocence.
He also wished to be examined as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And accordingly his statement was recorded as such. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned above, hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that impugned judgment of the trial Court is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on file; that the story advanced by the complainant is concocted and fabricated. He argued that appellant has been held guilty on the basis of hearsay evidence of complainant, who is not the eye-witness of the occurrence while the presence of alleged eye-witness Babar Alam, who by then was a child of 4/5 years, on one hand has not been established, while, on the other hand, it does not appeal to reasons that a child of such age, would remember each and every event of the occurrence, after passage of long period of ten years, as his statement has been recorded after ten years of the occurrence. He went on to say that deceased was hardened and desperate criminal, having enmities in the area with number of people and some one from his enemies has committed his murder for which the appellant has been falsely charged on mere suspicions. He further argued that no incriminating article whatsoever has been recovered and 1.0. Of the case has not been examined to prove the investigation being dead, as a consequence whereof. Valuable right of the appellant to cross examine him and to bring the true picture before the Court has been extinguished; that prosecution evidence is suffering from major contradictions and discrepancies, benefit of which is to be extended to the appellant in shape of acquittal.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant contended that accused/appellant is directly and singularly charged for brutal murder of the deceased, and that too, in the holy month of Raman; that PW Babar Alam is natural and straightforward eyewitness; that complainant has come forward with true account of the incident, as had he any intention to falsely implicate the accused then it was easy for him to stand as an eye-witness rather to take a risk of pushing forwards his son Babar Alam as eye-witness, who by then was a child; that deceased and eye-witness Babar Alam were real brothers and their presence with each other at the time of occurrence was natural; that he has furnished a true account of the occurrence and the prosecution has failed to create any dent in his testimony; that recovery of blood from the place of the deceased, his bloodstained last worn garments having cut marks, the autopsy report coupled with long abscondence of the accused are the circumstances which corroborate the ocular version of the prosecution, hence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
7. Learned A.A.G. Adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and sought dismissal of the appeal.
8. We have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
9. This untoward incident has taken place in the holy month of Ramzan at "Deegar Vella" i,e, little before the opening fast. The appellant/accused is directly and singularly charged for murder of the deceased by giving him dagger blows. Complainant Jan Alam appeared in the witness box as P.W.9 wherein he reiterated his earlier version set forth by him in his report. He deposed that on the fateful day he asked his son Akhtar Alam to accompany Babar Alam so as to bring Naswar (snuff) for him from Kakki Bazaar. After some time his son Babar Alam returned home and told him about the incident. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant draw our attention to cross- examination of the complainant wherein he has stated that he asked his sons to go to the Bazaar to pass time and also to bring Naswar for him, and contended that it amounts to dishonest improvements, as nothing of the sort has been alleged by the complainant in his report. This argument of the learned counsel is without any force, because the object of First Information Report is to set the law into motion, and each and every detail is not necessary to be given in the same. There is no denial of the fact that the occurrence has not taken place in the month of Ramzan. The story of the complainant does appeal to reason because in our pathan society, majority of people are addict/habitual of snuff/naswar and in the month of Ramzan, they remain anxious and eager for using snuff, after opening/ breaking fast, as such the deceased and PW Babar Alam being the sons of the complainant, their reaction to obey the order of their father to bring snuff for him is quite natural. Moreover, in our society, particularly in this part of the country, people do have access to some food items of daily life, but even then, in the month of Ramzan, after Assar time, they prefer to visit market at some distance from their houses so as to purchase those food items etc and also to pass time till breaking/opening fast. It is borne out from the record that P.W. Babar Alam was a child at the time of incident. He is straight forward witness and a child of age of 7/8 years is not expected to manipulate or concoct any event occurred before him. What he had seen, he narrated before his father. Moreover, the conduct of PW Babar Alam is also natural because a child in such age would definitely run towards his house noticing such unfortunate incident that some one is giving dagger blows to his real elder brother. Had the complainant any mala fide to falsely implicate the accused/appellant, he after listening the story from his son Babar Alam in home, could have easily cite himself as eyewitness of the incident instead pushing his son of tendered age to face the test of cross-examination as an eye-witness. Moreover, if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is taken into consideration that the complainant had enmities with many persons in the locality and his deceased son had been done to death by his enemies, is unpersuasive. Had it been so, what circumstances compelled him to spare the actual assailant and to implicate an innocent person. No shred of evidence has been brought on record by the defence to prove previous motive of the complainant with the accused to falsely implicate him. Thus, the conduct of the complainant is straightforward and free from any doubt.
10. PW Babar Alam the eye-witness of the occurrence has been examined as P.W.2. He deposed that on the day of occurrence his father asked him to accompany deceased Akhtar Alam so as to bring Naswa r for him; that when they reached near the shop of one Hassan, accused Rehmatullah alias Gud, already present there exchange hot word with his brother over dispute of dog, and thereafter the accused stabbed Akhtar Alam with his dagger; that he ran towards his house and narrated the incident to his father, who went to Police Station for lodging report. He deposed that site plan was also prepared at his pointation. In cross examination he admitted that he might have taken admission in the school after one year of the occurrence. So as stated early on the day and time of occurrence, PW Babar Alam was a child. Keeping in view the time of occurrence and time of report, there appears no reason to believe that a child of 7/8 years would furnish a concocted story before his father in such a short time. There is nothing on the record which may suggest that complainant was prompted to falsely implicate the appellant-accused. The appellant-convict is singularly charged for brutal murder of the deceased. It is also unbelievable that in such occurrence, a father would spare the actual assailant for no reason and would falsely implicate an innocent person.
11. Both the P.Ws. Have been subjected to lengthy and comb searching examination by the defence, but nothing fruitful could be extracted from them. They stood firm to their stance. The ocular account furnished by PW Babar Alam has been substantiated and corroborated by the circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of bloodstained earth from the place of deceased and his bloodstained last worn clothes, having cut marks, coupled with positive FSL reports qua the bloodstained articles as well as autopsy report of the deceased wherein stab wounds have been found on vital part of his body, which prima facie establish the crime venue, presence of PW Babar Alam and that of the accused on the spot and the occurrence to have been taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by him. No doubt, P.W. Babar Alam is the solitary witness who has furnished the ocular account of the occurrence but at this juncture we would like to say that in criminal cases, what is more essential for the Court to see is the veracity and credibility of the witness and not the number, as it is the quality and not the quantity of the evidence which matters. In the present case the statement of P.W. Babar Alam is straightforward and confidence inspiring which is corroborated by circumstantial evidence and medical evidence.
Though there may be some minor discrepancies in his statement, but that would not be fatal for the prosecution case because in the instant case undisputedly, the accused absconded for long period of ten years and thereafter was arrested and then the P.Ws. Were examined. After passage of such long time, when witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination by a skillful hand, such discrepancies do creep in from the simple and straightforward witnesses, who are never used to such tricky questions nor are mindful about the nature and consequences of answers thereof. No major contradiction could be found in the statement of the eyewitness which may negate the basic edifice of the prosecution story. Moreso, the testimony of the PW Babar Alam, which is straightforward, reliable and confidence inspiring, cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that he is solitary witness of the incident. By virtue of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, in financial matters, two male or one male and two female witnesses, have been made the requirement of law to prove the financial obligations. Whereas in all other matters including criminal, there is no such obligation, which clearly suggest that a single witness is sufficient to prove a fact. When the law permits a fact to be proved through the statement of a single witness, there is no reason or logic to call for more witnesses than one. The credibility of statement of solitary witness has been discussed by the apex court in so many cases. In this regard reference can be made to "Mali v. The State" (1969 SCM R 76), "Muhammad Ashraf v. The State" (1971 SCM R 530) "Muhammad Siddique alias Ashraf alias Achhi and 3 others v. The State" (1971 SCM R 659).
12. In case titled, "Muhammad Mansha v. The State" (2001 SCM R 199), the Ho'ble Supreme Court while dilating 'upon the spirit of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, held the following:- - "A bare perusal would reveal that the language as employed in the said Article 17(1)(b) is free from any ambiguity and no scholarly interpretation is required. The provisions as reproduced herein above of the said Article would make it abundant clear that particular number of witnesses shall not be required for the proof of any fact meaning thereby that a fact can be proved only by a single witness".
' In the judgment Supra in Para No,7, the apex Court held that conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a single witness in the following words:-- "Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. The Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. (Principles and Digest of the law of Evidence by M.Monir page 1458).
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment Supra while referring to C.D. Field on the law of Evidence (Page 4746) reproduced the following:-- "Thus evidence of a single witness is sufficient to sustain and may legally be made the sole basis for a conviction, the relevant section 134 having enshrined the well-recognized maxim that 'evidence has to be weighed and not counted'. Though the Legislature has placed no jurisdictional limitation on the power of a Judge to act on the sole testimony of a single witness, even though uncorroborated, the Judges themselves have from time to time evolved some rules and guidelines of circumspection as to when such evidence can be or cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (Pema Dukpa v. State Sikkim. 1981 Cr.LJ 276).
' In Para No,9 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing "Unus nullus" (one is equal to none) the old principle remained applicable for decades, in light of the Law of Evidence and Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, observed the following:-- "It may not be out of place to mention here that Law of Evidence (I of 1872) and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, have excluded the well entrenched principle remained applicable for decades that "unus nullus" (one is equal to none) and is no more enforced hence cannot be taken into consideration. The only criterion which can be fixed seems to be that in order that the sole testimony of a witness is made the foundation and the basis for finding a person guilty of the charge, the evidence must be clear, cogent and consistent and should be of an unimpeachable character".
'The principle with regard o base conviction on the statement of testimony of a solitary witness has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled, "Farooq Khan v. The State" (2003 SCMR 917).
13. A careful examination of the dictums as laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgments, the consensus seems to be that conviction can be awarded on the basis of solitary statement of a witness, if it is found worth of credence, dependable and consistent.
14. No doubt, complainant Jan Alam (P.W.9) is the father of the deceased while eye-witness Babar Ali (P.W.2) real brother of the deceased. Both the PWs are closely related the deceased but their testimonies may not be discarded for the sole reason of their relationship with the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while facing a like situation in case "Dildar Hussain v. Muhammad Afzaal alias Chala" (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 663) in Paragraph No,11 of the Judgment observed as under:- "Learned counsel appearing for respondent No,3 contended that as far as this witness is concerned, he is also related to the complainant party as it has been admitted by P.W. Dildar Hussain in his cross-examination. We inquired from him as to whether such question was put to him his answer was in negative. It may be noted that firstly mere relationship with the complainant party is not sufficient to discard evidence unless it is proved that he has ulterior motive to involve the respondent No,3 in the commission of the offence".
15. In case, titled, "Muhammad Mansha v. The State" (2001 SCM R 199), the Hon'ble Supreme Court defining interested witness held the following:-- "An interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused is a partisan and is involved in the matter against the accused. Friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused".
'We would like to refer here that principles for accepting the testimony of even an interested witness are set out in case titled, "Nazir v. The State" (PLD 1962 SC 269).
16. In the case in hand, the ocular account furnished by PW Babar Alam, the solitary eye-witness is worthy of credence, confidence inspiring, credible and irrefutable and has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has failed to bring an iota of evidence to prove any ulterior motive of the complainant or eye-witness towards the appellant/accused to falsely implicate him in the case.
17. It is borne out from the record that soon after the occurrence on 20-11-2001, the appellant/accused went into hiding and remained fugitive from law for considerable long period of nine years, for which he has not furnished any plausible explanation. Proceedings under sections 204 and 87 Cr.P.C. Had been initiated and completed against him and even trial under section 512, Cr.P.C. Was conducted wherein he was declared Proclaimed Offender. The unexplained disappearance of the appellant from the ordinary place of residence immediately after the occurrence knowingly that he was being charged for the murder of the deceased tantamount to deliberate absconsion with guilty mind, therefore, it would be another circumstance to establish his culpability and we are fully agreed with the opinion expressed by the trial Court.
18. For what has been discussed above, the prosecution has fully established the guilt of convict- appellant; who is singularly charged for committing the murder of deceased by stabbing him.
There is no possible reason to believe that the complainant and eye-witness, father and brother of the deceased, respectively, would let-free the real culprit and involve the present appellant for no reason or any ulterior motive, because substitution in such likes cases is a rare phenomenon, which is also not borne out from the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The complainant/State has not filed any criminal revision for enhancement of sentence of the appellant/convict. We while considering the case in hand from different angles do concur with the sentence awarded, by the trial Court. We see no infirmity, illegality or irregularity or any misreading or non-reading of evidence in 0 the impugned judgment which may call for interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
19. Resultantly, this appeal being without any substance stands dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the P trial Court is maintained.