' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Appellant Fareesh Gul son of Hameesh Gul, resident of village Rajar District Charsada, has filed instant appeal challenging the judgment and order, dated 9-12-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haripur whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of his father-in-law Abdul Ghafoor son of Saifoor and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to undergo three years' R.I. The appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs,20,000 in terms of section 544-A Cr.P.C. Or in lieu thereof to suffer further six months' R.I. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was, however not extended to the appellant.
2. The crime in question, resulting into the murder of Abdul Ghafoor deceased, is alleged to have taken place on 6-9-1994 at 8-00 hours in the house of Mst. Pari Gul complainant in Khyber Textile Mills Colony, Baldher, and the report about it was lodged the same day at 10-40 a.m., by the complainant in D.H.Q. Hospital, Abbottabad. The report (Exh. PA/1) was reduced into writing by P.W.
Khan Muhammad, the then I.C. P. Post Shah Maqsood Haripur.
3. Mst. Samina P.W., daughter of the deceased was married to the appellant about 7/8 years prior to the occurrence and two sons were born out of the wed-lock. A month and a half prior to the occurrence, the couple is stated to have come to Haripur and started living in the house of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that a'day prior to the occurrence the appellant had picked up a quarrel with someone in the Khyber Textile Mills Baldher. Having come to know of it, the complainant and her deceased husband consoled the appellant and asked him to mend his way or leave their house. The appellant got infuriated, drew out his .30 bore pistol and fired three shots at the deceased. The deceased was hit and fell on the ground. After the occurrence the accused managed to run away from the spot. The complainant and her daughters namely Mst. Samina, Mst Robina and Mst. Shagufta witnessed the occurrence. On raising hue and cry people from the adjoining houses were attracted to the spot. They arranged a Suzuki and took the injured to Civil Hospital, Haripur for treatment. As the injured was in precarious condition, he was immediately rushed to D.H.Q. Hospital, Abbottabad. The injured expired in the hospital on the following day of the episode. The section of law was accordingly altered from 324, P.P.C. To 302, P .P.0 .
4. A.S.-I. Khan Muhammad P.W. The then In charge Constable Police Post Shah Maqsood after recording the report Exh.P.A./1 on 6-9-1994 at 10-40 a.m. At the instance of Mst. Zar Pari complainant, prepared injury sheet Exh.P.W. 5/1 and inquest report Exh.P.W.5/2 on 6-9-1994 and 7- 9-1994 respectively. He also prepared site plan at the pointation of the complainant and other witnesses. He took into possession shirt Exh.P.C. Produced by P.W. Aftab Ahmad H.C. And sealed the same into parcel vide memo. Exh.P.W.5/3. During the spot inspection he took into his possession bloodstained earth, 3 empties of .30 bore P-1, giving smell of fresh discharge and two bullet led P-7 and prepared the memo Exh.P.W.2/1 to the effect. He packed and sealed these items into different parcels. The appellant was arrested on 12-9-1994 by the Takht Bai Police. P.W. Mukhtiar Hussain Shah IHC, Police Station, Hattar along with police party went to Takht Bai and brought the appellant to Haripur. The appellant produced licence copy and two National Identity Cards which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.4/1 prepared in the police station in presence of witnesses. The appellant on 16-9-1994 while in police custody took P.W. Khan Muhammad A.S.-I. To the hotel of Liaqat P.W. Situated in front of Khyber Textile Mills Baldher and at his pointation Liaqat produced to the A.S.-I. Khan Muhammad 30 bore pistol bearing No,19731 along with a magazine and three live cartridges P-8 and P-9 respectively. P.W. Liaqat claimed to have purchased the pistol from the appellant for Rs,800. The ASI packed and sealed the pistol into a parcel vide memo Exh.P.W.3/2. As Liaqat could not produce any licence of the pistol, the A.S.-I. Drafted the Murasila for the registration of case against Liaqat under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance. The blood stained items and the pistol along with the empties and bullet, were sent to the Expert for opinion and report. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.D. Is in positive. So is the report Exh.P.G. Of the Fire- arms Expert. After completion of the investigation in the manner described above, he handed over the file to P.W. Muhammad Akram S.H.O. Police Station, Saddar Haripur who submitted the same in Court.
5. P.W. Dr. Ziaur Rashid D.H.Q. Hospital Abbottabad on 6-9-1994 at 12-00 examined injured Ghafoor and noted the following injuries:--
(1) A big wound situated on the anterior aspect of right elbow. A small dressed wound in the back of elbow joint.
(2) An entry wound on left shoulder with active bleeding margins inverted.
(3) An entry wound in anterior axillary line between 9th and 10th ribs of left side.
' The injuries were found to have been caused by fire-arm. The injured was also examined by P.W.
Dr. Nasar Khan Jadoon Radiologist D.H.Q., Hospital Abbottabad.
6. As stated above, the injure.' expired in D.H.Q., Hospital Abbottabad on 7-9-1994. The post-mortem examination was conducted by P.W. Dr. Ali Fawad Senior Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital Abbottabad the same day at 9-00. In opinion of the Medical Officer the death was stated to have occurred due to shock and loss of blood caused by fire-arm injury causing damage to the intestines. The time between injury and death was found within 12 hours whereas between death and post-mortion examination 8 hours.
7. The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 witnesses and abandoned P. Ws. Mehdi Shah and Sabir Zaman being unnecessary. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 34r2, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to have been falsely charged. He also refuted to have led to the police party to the house of P.W. Liaquat resulting in the recovery of the crime weapon. In answer to a question as to what is your statement and why have you been charged, he stated, "I am innocent and falsely charged. The age of my wife was about 16/17 years. She wanted to marry one Faiz Muhammad. The said Faiz Muhammad was annoyed on my marriage and prior to the occurrence he attempted at my life. My wife planted the murder of the deceased in collusion with the said Faiz Muhammad in order to remove me from the screen."
8. The appellant declined to produce evidence in defence and also refused to offer his statement on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
9. The prosecution case mainly rests on ocular testimony, medical evidence, motive and recovery of the crime weapon at the pointation of the appellant. The trial Judge believed the motive part of the prosecution story given by the complainant and her daughter. He also believed the ocular evidence of other witnesses. The trial Judge discarded the objection raised by the defence counsel with regard to the testimony of aforesaid eye-witnesses. He believed the medical evidence and recovery of crime weapon and on the basis of aforesaid pieces of direct and circumstantial evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant per the impugned judgment and order.
10. Appearing on behalf of the appellant Haji Sabir Hussain Tanoli Advocate attempted to argue that the primary evidence furnished by the complainant and her daughter has come from an interested quarter and the learned trial Judge had no reason to place implicit reliance on it. The learned counsel maintained that the appellant had no hand in the murder of the deceased and in fact it was Faiz Muhammad, a relative of the complainant, who perpetrated the crime which resulted in the death of the deceased. Adverting to motive, the learned counsel submitted that the motive has not been proved and the appellant had no reason to do away with the life of his father- in-law. The submission has not impressed us. There is nothing on file in support of the plea taken by the appellant. The motive has been satisfactorily proved through the deposition of the complainant and her daughter. The existence of motive or its complete absence would be wholly immaterial if the prosecution is able to prove its case through ocular evidence of unimpeachable character as held in Saeed Akhtar and others versus The State 2000 SCM R 383.
11. It is true that the complainant and her daughter are closely related to the deceased but the fact cannot be lost sight of that they have given a straightforward and truthful account of the incident.
These eyewitnesses were subjected to a searching cross-examination but there is nothing on, the file which may tend to discredit their testimony. It is not denied that the evidence of interested witness should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself be sufficient, in the circumstances of a particular case, to base conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet in most cases in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question whether the presence of a witness at the scene .Of the crime at the material time was probable. If so, whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness, being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case, is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answer to these questions be in the affirmative, and the evidence of the witness appears to the Court to be almost flawless, and free from suspicion, it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any source. In the present case, the complainant and her daughter have given a straight forward account of incident and being inmates of the house their presence at the venue of occurrence at the material time, cannot be looked, with suspicion. It is a recognized principle of law that in criminal administration of justice evidence furnishe by interested witnesses related to victim or deceased cannot be discarded merely for the reason that the witness has relationship with the victim. However, the Courts have emphasized that in such like situation efforts must be made to see corroboration from other evidence available on record. As far as corroboration is concerned it does not mean that it should come from an independent witness but any thing in the circumstances which tend to satisfy the Court that the witness has spoken truth can safely be considered to be corroborative evidence. Reference is made to the case of "Nazir and others v. The State" (PLD 1962 SC 269). In the case of the 'Din Muhammad v. The Crown'
(1969 SCM R 777) it was held that there could be case in which the witness is closely related to the deceased but still his evidence has been accepted because there was consistency in his testimony and it was getting corroboration from other pieces of evidence available on record. With reference to this principle in our opinion other pieces of evidence for seeking corroboration can be medical evidence, recovery of incriminating articles including empties and the crime weapon shown to have been recovered at the pointation of the appellant. Likewise in the case of Iqbal alias Bala and two others v. The State (1994 SCM R 1) the expression "interested witness" was defined to be a interested witness who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused, is a partisan witness 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.
12. Now turning to the facts of instant case as far as Mst. Zar Pari complainant and Mst. Samina P.Ws. Are concerned though they are closely related to deceased Abdul Ghafoor but at the same time their evidence is worth consideration because they have fully supported the prosecution case.
They have furnished consistent, coherent and trustworthy evidence against convict Fareesh Gul. An objection has been raised on behalf of the appellant that two daughters of the deceased claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and two other witnesses, have been withheld by the prosecution without valid reason which tends to suggest that had they been produced at the trial they might have deposed against the prosecution. We are not impressed of the objection so raised. It has been repeatedly held that the prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses. The emphasis is placed always on quality and not quantity.
13. Adverting to the other evidence connecting the appellant with the guilt .We find that the recovery of the crime weapon at the instance of the appellant, the medical evidence and the reports of Chemical Examiner and Firearm Expert fully connect the appellant with the murder of Abdul Ghafoor deceased. It is contended by the learned defence counsel that there is material contradiction in the ocular account and the medical evidence with regard to number of injuries and the time of death. However, the learned counsel did not take this argument to its logical conclusion as he did not refer to the alleged contradiction. An objection regarding delayed despatch of the crime empties has also been raised but there is nothing on the file in support thereof. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the F.I.R. Had been lodged with delay after consultation and deliberations. The objection is without substance. The crime in question having taken place on 6-9-1994 at 8-00 hours in the house of the complainant, the matter was reported to the police the same day at 10-40 a.m. By the complainant in D.H.Q. Hospital Abbottabad. The victim was first taken to Civil Hospital Haripur and thereafter he was shifted to D.H.Q. Hospital Abbottabad. In the circumstances, the F.I.R. Cannot be said to have been lodged with delay.
14. Having gone through the record, we feel that the learned trial Judge has evaluated and dilated upon the evidence in detail and has, for cogent and sound reasons, held the appellant responsible for the commission of the offence. There is no need to emphasize that mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased would not detract from their veracity as they have absolutely no motive of their own to involve the appellant. The stand taken by the appellant seems to be an afterthought. The appellant has brought nothing on record to indicate that in fact Faiz Muhammad, a relative of the complainant was the author of the crime and he had fired at the appellant in order to remove him from his way but accidently the deceased was hit and wounded. Mst. Samina P.W.
Wife of the appellant was stated to have a hand in the affair but nothing has been brought on file in support of the accusation.
15. We are, therefore, of the view that the trial Court has rightly punished the appellant for taking the life of the deceased by firing at him. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order is maintained. However, the request of the learned counsel for the appellant is granted and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to the accused. The Court while passing a sentence of imprisonment on the accused has not taken into consideration the period during which the accused remained in . Custody to await his trial for such offence. The benefit of the aforesaid provision of law shall be given to the appellant in computing the period of imprisonment to be suffered by him.