' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 29th July, 1997 passed by High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 1996.
2. Incident had taken place on 30th June, 1993, around 12-00 noon at Arbab Ghulam Ali Road, DEBA Quetta. It is the case of prosecution that petitioner alongwith absconding accused Muhammad Usman, Jalal and Ahmed Khan in furtherance of their common intention armed with weapons committed Qati-e-amd of Haji Khan Jan and casued grievous injuries to complainant Muhammad Ishaq. F.I.R. No.114/93 was registered with Police Station Saddar, Quetta, on the basis of Fard-e- Bayan of injured Muhammad Ishaq which was recorded in Civil Hospital, Quetta soon after the incident. Petitioner was tried for the above offences by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta and on conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. By means of judgment dated 8-1-1996 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.20,000. He was also convicted under section 324/34, P.P.C. For causing injuries to complainant and sentenced to R.I. For four years besides fine of Rs.5,000 (Rs.Five thousand). Criminal Appeal filed by petitioner before High Court of Balochistan challenging above conviction and sentence was dismissed on 29th July, 1997, which has been impugned through present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner criticizing validity of conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner has raised following contentions:--
(i) Prosecution case is based on solitary evidence of complainant Muhammad Ishaq, who apart from being deeply interested is inimical towards petitioner.
(ii) Rule of prudence requires an independent corroboration of solitary ocular testimony qua the accused, which is lacking in present case.
' Reference was also made to observations in case Haroon v. The state (1995 SCM R 1627).
(iii) Medical evidence is in conflict with ocular testimony, therefore, same could riot have been relied upon.
4. We have carefully perused entire record in the light of above submissions. It may be seen that complainant Muhammad Ishaq is an injured witness. Medical Certificate (Exh. P/6-B) establishes grievous injury on the person of complainant Muhammad Ishaq, therefore, his presence on the spot is undisputed. It is pertinent to notice that Fard-e-Bayan' of complainant was recorded immediately on his reaching Civil Hospital while lying in an inured condition. There was neither any occasion nor possibility of outside influence, planning or making abrupt exaggeration about the incident. Record reveals that petitioner alongwith co-accused had absconded from the scene. He was, however, arrested towards May/June, 1995, by police of Satellite Town Police Station, Quetta, in connection with some other offence whereafter his custody was transferred for completing investigation. It may be seen that statement of complainant recorded before trial Court was confidence inspiring and despite searching cross-examination same could not be shattered or impeached. Mere fact that there existed enmity between the parties or that complainant was related to deceased has no material bearing, keeping in view peculiar circumstances of present case. It is well settled that factum of placing implicit reliance upon testimony of solitary witness whose presence is otherwise established depends upon circumstances of each case and satisfaction of Court. Mere existence of enmity when solitary ocular version is unimpeachable and confidence inspiring becomes irrelevant. For authority reference may be made to paragraph 10 in case Pervaiz v. State (1998 SCM R 1976) .
5. For proper appraisal emphasis is laid upon the quality of evidence and not quantity. Pre- eminently satisfaction of the Court as regards nature of evidence, and its impact in peculiar circumstances of case operates as determining factor concerning guilt of the accused. For this view reference can be made to observations in cases (i) Allah Baldish v. Shammi (PLD 1980 SC 225) and (ii) Gulistan v. State (1995 SCM R 1789).
6. Now adverting to objection pertaining to conflict of medical evidence with ocular version, suffice it to observe that complainant Muhammad Ishaq was undisputedly injured during the incident. It is not possible for a person in that condition to give complete account with mathematical precision about location of injuries inflicted during said turmoil. One cannot ignore the agony, disturbed mind and choas which said witness must be simultaneously undergoing at the time of incident.
Therefore, minor omissions which learned counsel attempted to highlight, in our opinion, are inconsequential.
7. Both the Courts below have exhaustively dealt with all above aspects and on thorough scrutiny of entire record by assigning logical conclusions have found petitioner guilty for the offence committed by him. Both the Courts below in the respective judgments have independently expressed full satisfaction about credibility and convincing nature of the testimony given by complainant. There does not exist any substantial reason or legal justification to interfere with above concurrent findings.
' For the above discussion we do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal declined. 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.