' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1185 of 1999 filed by Haji Gul, appellant through Jail who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,50,000, in default two years' R.I. And the fine, if recovered was to be paid as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also granted to the appellant. The conviction and sentence was recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide judgment, dated 29-6-1999.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place during the night between 1st and 2nd of June, 1997 at a distance of two furlongs from Police Station Musa Khel, District Mianwali while the matter was reported by Mst. Mehran Khatoon at 2 mid night on 2-6-1997 and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.G. Was recorded by Abdul Razzaq, S.H.O.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the night between 1st and 2nd of June, 1997 Mst. Mehran Khatoon was present in the house alongwith Muhammad Aslam and Sultan Akbar when her husband came from outside. The electric bulb was on at that time. No sooner did Ghulam Muhammad sat on the cot, Haji Gul armed with a .12 bore gun raised a Lalkara towards the deceased and fired at him which hit on his left Daula who succumbed to the injury at the spot. The motive alleged was that a dispute was going on between Haji Gul and the deceased and due to that grudge, the deceased was done to death.
4. After registration of the formal F.I.R., Abdul Razzaq, S.-I., (P.W.7) inspected the place of occurrence, took into possession bloodstained earth vide recovery memo. Exh.P.J. Prepared rough sketch plan of the place of occurrence Exh.P.K., prepared injury statement Exh.P.F., inquest report Exh.P.E., took into possession last-worn clothes of the deceased vide memo. Exh.P.B., arrested the appellant on 14-6-1987 and took from his possession .12 bore gun P.4 and 2 live cartridges which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.C. And then after completion of the investigation challaned the appellant to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 8 witnesses in all, then the learned A.D.A. Tendered in evidence report of the Serologist and Chemical Examiner Exh.P.M. And Exh.P.N.
Respectively and closed the prosecution case. Thereafter, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded innocence. After the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant after having read the entire prosecution evidence and statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Submits that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, the two eyewitnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Namely Muhammad Aslam Sultan Akbar were not produced by the prosecution, the only witness in the field was the complainant whose statement did not get any corroboration from any other piece of evidence produced by the prosecution and that recovery of .12 bore gun was planted upon the appellant. Learned counsel submits that prosecution having failed to prove its case against the appellant, he is entitled to acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of the trial Court. He submits that the appellant is single accused and had killed his own real brother and that already a lenient view had been taken by the learned trial Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the prosecution evidence. In the instant case, deceased was Ghulam Muhammad, Mst. Mehran Khatoon, his wife was complainant. She being inmate of the house was a natural witness. Her evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because she was wife of the deceased specially when the defence has failed to prove her enmity with the appellant. The two eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Aslam and Sultan Akbar were rightly given up by the prosecution as having been won-over for the reason that Aslam is real brother of the appellant while Sultan Akbar is nephew of the appellant. It is a case of single accused as such there was no question of substitution because substitution is a rare phenomena. The Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity. In the instant case, the evidence of complainant is trustworthy and the defence has failed to create any dent in that.
Ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Recovery of .12 bore gun was also effected from the appellant at the time of his arrest alongwith 2 live cartridges but this recovery from the appellant also supports the prosecution case. The motive as held by the learned trial Court was not proved. So, I am fully convinced that the learned trial Court was right in sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment instead of capital punishment. I see eye to eye with the learned trial Court and the defence has failed to shake the veracity of the prosecution story. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained.