MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 3-4-1996 whereby the conviction of the petitioner under section 302/34, P.P.C. And the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera, have been affirmed.
2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated thus:-- The occurrence took place in the shop of one Syed Shaukat Ali Shah, a co-villager of the parties in village Kandi Dilawar, on 1-5-1988 at 16-45 hours. It was the month of Ramazan. Syed Faiz Ali Shah (P.W.7), his brother, namely;, Syed Liaqat Ali Shah and Syed Sadaqat Ali Shah (P.W.8) were sitting in the -shop aforesaid. In the meantime, Niaz Ali Shah, his son Ayaz Ali Shah petitioner, appeared in the shop and at the behest of the former, the petitioner fired a shot at Syed Liaqat Ali Shah who was hit, injured and expired on way to the Police Station Chamkani. The occurrence was witnessed, besides the complainant, by Syed Sadaqat Ali Shah (P.W.8) and others. It was stated in the F.I.R., by way of motive that a year prior to the occurrence, an altercation had taken place between the deceased and the petitioner which was later on compromised. The F.I.R. Of the occurrence was recorded by Shah Nawaz, A.S.I., besides preparing the injury statement (Exh. PC) and inquest report (Exh. PC/1) of the deceased.
3. Faridullah, S. I. (P.W.10) visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Exh. PB).
During the spot inspection, he secured blood-stained earth through cotton vide recovery memo.
(Exh. PD/1). He had also taken into possession vide a recovery memo. (Exh. PD) the last worn blood- stained clothes of the deceased and the spent bullet and sent it to the Serologist. He set out in search of the accused but without any success as they had absconded. He had recorded the statements of the P.Ws. In the meantime he was transferred and the remaining investigation was conducted by Abdul Ismail Khan (P.W.9) who completed the investigation and submitted supplementary challan against, the accused.
4 The petitioner had remained absconder from 1-5-1988 to 17-8-1991
5. The autopsy on the dead body of Syed Liaqat Ali Shah was conducted by Dr. Faridullah Shah (P.W.11) on 2-5-1988 at 7-30 a.m. Who found a fire--arm entry wound on the right side of forehead 1/4" X 1/4" in size 1" to the midline and 1/2" above the right eye-brew. On opening of the skull, it was found fractured. The brain was injured. The stomach was empty. Time between injury and death was instantaneous while that between death and the post--mortem was 10 to 20 hours. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was severe haemorrhage and shock due to injuries to vital organs such as brain, caused by fire-arm weapon. A metallic piece was recovered from the skull which was sealed and handed over to the police.
6. The prosecution, in support of its case, relied on the ocular evidence furnished by Syed Faiz Ali Shah (P.W.7) and Syed Sadaqat Ali Shah (P.W.8); factum of abscondence of the petitioner for over three years which he had not been able to explain satisfactorily and the medical evidence. The petitioner had denied his guilt and also the allegation of his abscondence for a period of about three years. When asked as to why he has been charged, he professed innocence and attributed the charge against him to the "suspicion" and the village "factional" prejudices. He had produced neither defence evidence nor offered to make statement on oath in rebuttal of the charge. Syed Faiz Ali Shah (P.W.7) who had lodged the report (Exh. PA) had narrated the occurrence consistently in accordance with the allegations set up in the report. He was subjected to searching cross- examination like his brother Syed Sadaqat Ali shah but nothing substantial could be elicited so as to demolish the case of the prosecution against the petitioner.
7. The learned trial Judge held that notwithstanding the relationship of the to eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Syed Faiz Ali Shah and Syed Sadaqat Ali Shah being the real brothers of the deceased their evidence was straightforward and candid and that in any case even if it was somewhat interested it lent ample support from the abscondence of the petitioner for almost 3/1-2 years. According to the learned trial Judge, the accused have not been able to bring on record any animus for false charge against the prosecution witnesses. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was held guilty of the charge of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For one year. Half of the fine was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. In the matter of sentence the learned trial Judge was of the view that the petitioner being "a young man of 26 years and apparently there being no strong motive", he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended, to him.
8. The learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court likewise came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the to eye-witnesses who were undoubtedly closely related to the deceased were reliable and in any case their testimony was completely corroborated by the absondence of the petitioner and thus maintained the conviction recorded against and sentence awarded to the petitioner.
9. Mr. Khawaja Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submission in support of this petition:--
(i) That the testimony of to eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Syed Faiz Ali Shah (P.W.7) and Syed Sadaqat Ali Shah (P.W.8) being closely related to the decease was not worthy of reliance without any corroboration.
(ii) that, merely so-called abscondence of the petitioner was not enough of a corroborative piece of evidence so as to connect the petitioner with the offence with which he stood charged; (i.e) that there was no motive for the petitioner to have killed the deceased and, therefore, the charge against the petitioner was not only without any foundation but has remained unsubstantiated by any cogent and reliable evidence; and (iv)that there was an inordinate delay of 1/1-2 hours in lodging the report because the police station, even according to the prosecution, was 2/3 miles away from the spot and it could not have taken more than half an hour for the complainant to have reported the occurrence.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have come to the conclusion that the occurrence had taken place in the shop in the village in broad daylight. The blood has been recovered from inside the shop. No doubt, the to P.Ws., are closely related to the deceased being his brothers but there was nothing extraordinary for them to have kept company with the deceased in the village's shop particularly, when it was the month of Ramazan and there was still at least 2/1-2 hours for the Aftari the. The youngsters of the age group of the deceased and the P.Ws., usually do sit in the local shops for the sake of gossip in this part of the country.
11. Conceding for a while that the to P.Ws., in this case were interested still in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Niaz v. State (PLD 1960 SC 387) that in order to be satisfied that no innocent person was being implicated alongwith the guilty, the Court, in the case of interested witnesses, would look for some circumstance that lends sufficient support to their statement. It is by now well-settled principle of law that the testimony of interested witnesses may not be discarded if it is otherwise worthy of reliance and stands corroborated by some other piece of evidence. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge as also the learned Judges of the Division Bench have rightly placed reliance on the requisite corroboration which was available qua the petitioner from his long abscondence of 3/1-2 years and the medical evidence.
12. We find that there was no delay in lodging the report so as to cast any shadow of doubt on the integrity of the prosecution case. Nonetheless, the question of delayed report came up for consideration before Peshawar High Court in Mir Aftab v. The State (PLD 1981 Peshawar 23) which was approved by this Court, wherein it was held that the question of delayed report would be material only if there was any doubt about the name of the culprit. In the instant case, there was no doubt about the to culprits, particularly the petitioner because the occurrence had taken place in broad daylight in the Bazar of the village and, therefore, chances of substitution, in the circumstances of the case, were quite remote. Besides, 'the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any animus for the false charge against the petitioner.----
13. After going through the record, we feel that the High Court had taken the correct view and followed the principles laid down by this Court for safe administration of justice. There was no delay in reporting the occurrence and, in any case, delay per se had not affected adversely the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses. The presence of the eye-witnesses at the the and place of occurrence is established. They were not interested witnesses in strict senso as held in Zar Bahadar v. The State (1978 SCM R 136). Nonetheless, their evidence lends ample corroboration from the abscondence of the petitioner for about three years which he had not been able to account for satisfactorily. The conviction of the petitioner under section 302/34, P.P.C., the sentence of imprisonment. For life and fine imposed and the payment of compensation awarded against the petitioner are justified and do not call for interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed and leave as prayed for is declined.