' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Arab Gul appellant and his father Mir Nawaz, residents of Gamber Dakhli Shahbaz Azmat Khel, Bannu, were tried jointly by Malik Mujtaba Ahmad, learned Judge, Special Court, Bannu for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. At the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment, dated 9-7-2003, the appellant having been found guilty, was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer six years' R.I. And fine of Rs,1,000 or in default whereof, to undergo further six months' S.I. The appellant was also convicted under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. And sentenced to pay Daman amounting to Rs,60,000. He was directed to remain in custody till recovery of aforesaid amount of Daman. The amount of Daman was payable to the complainant/injured. Benefit of section :382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant. However, co-accused Mir Navvaz was extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge.
2. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences by filing instant Criminal Appeal No,59 of 2003 which is before us for consideration
3. Mir Shahbaz complainant was brought to Civil Hospital, Bannu in injured condition on 22-1-2001 at 19-15 hours where he made a report to the effect that on the said day, he was on the way to his house at about 18-00 hours after saying "Maghrib" prayer. When he reached near the house of Noor Habib, he came across his co-villagers Mir Nawaz and his son Arab Gui. Arab Gul was armed with kalashnikov whereas Mir Nawaz was empty handed. The complainant asked them to have meals with nim but they refused. All of a sudden, Mir Nawaz commanded Arab Gul to kill. Arab Gul, at the instigation of Mir Nawaz, fired at the complainant with kalashnikov, with which the complainant was hit and sustained injuries. After the occurrence, the accused persons bolted away from the spot. On hearing the report of .The fire shots, father of the complainant and many others were attracted to spot. Explaining the motive, it was disclosed that prior to the occurrence, accused Arab Gul had a quarrel with Muzaffar Khan, brother of the complainant and was on a look to take revenge of his insult
4. H.C. Maqsoom Ali Shah (P.W.2) recorded the report (Exh.P.A./1) of the complainant in Civil Hospital, Bannu and dispatched the same to Police Station Saddar Bannu where it was incorporated in F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.) by S.H.O. Gui Akbar (P.W.9). He prepared injury sheet (Exh.P.W.2/1) of the complainant and handed over the same to Constable Abdur Rehman (P.W.1) for the endorsement of the doctor. After endorsement it was handed over to the Investigating Officer. At this juncture, S.H.O. Gul Akbar (P.W.9) took the investigation in hand. He prepared site plan (Exh.P.B.) on his own observation. During the spot inspection, he took into possession blood-stained earth from the place of injured Mir Shahbaz and sealed the same into a parcel. From the place of Arab Gul, he took into possession four empties of 7.62 bore, P.1 discharging fresh smell and sealed the same into a parcel. From the rear portion of the Kotha of "Hujra" of Usman, he took into possession three spent bullets, P.2 affixed in the wall and sealed the same into parcel! He also received the garments of injured from the hospital consisting of Shalwar P.3 having corresponding cut marks which were sealed into parcel. After discharge of the injured from the hospital on 3-3-2001, the Investigating Officer took him to the spot where at his instance, he made certain additions in the site plan (Exh.P.B.1/1). The recovered articles were sent to Chemical Examiner, F.S.L. Peshawar whose report is (Exh.P.W.3/3). As the accused were absconding, the Investigating Officer initiated proceedings under sections 204/87, Cr.P.C. Accused Arab Gul was arrested on 2-7-2000 when he appeared before the police. Inspector Nazif Shah (P.W.7) submitted complete challan against the accused.
5. During the trial, the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses in support of its case against the accused persons. Complainant furnished the ocular account of the occurrence and charged the accused for the commission of the crime.
6. Dr. Muhammad Shah (P.W .6) Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Bannu on 21-1-2001 at 7-30 p.m.
Examined Mir Shahbaz and noted the following:--
(1) Entry wound of size 1/4" x 1/4" on the left buttock about 1" posterior to left hip joint (on lower buttock). No burning, no gun powder was noted on the wound ' Exit wound of 2" x 1". Exit wound measuring 1" x 1" on the left thigh to the lateral side about 4" posterior. 6" distal to entry wound on posterior aspect of left thigh. The formity and swelling was noted at the site of injury. Nature of injury was kept under observation. The weapon used was fire- arm.
7. The accused in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied and controverted all the allegations and claimed to have been falsely charged. While answering a question as to why he had been implicated in this case and also as to why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, Arab Gul accused stated as follows:-- "I am innocent and falsely charged. The actual accused who is resident of Manja Khel and is a desperate person has not been charged for the reasons of fear, while I being a poor person have been falsely charged by the complainant.
' All the P.Ws. Are prosecution witnesses and have deposed against me to prove the prosecution case."
' The accused neither appeared as their own witnesses on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor desired to produce defence.
8. On the close of evidence and after hearing the arguments, the impugned judgment has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal.
9. Mr. Khawaja Nawaz Khan, Advocate for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that the learned trial Judge had no justification to place implicit reliance on solitary statement of the complainant qua the culpability of the appellant and make the same a basis for conviction; that motive set up by the prosecution has not been proved and that the medical evidence runs contrary to the ocular account and thus, the prosecution cannot be said to have established its case satisfactorily. In the alternative, he submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant is extremely harsh and the same may be reduced to the one already undergone.
10. On the contrary Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan Gandapur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the prosecution evidence by making full discussion dn the case, hence, judgment, delivered by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is sufficient material on record to establish that the appellant while armed with kalashnikov, fired at the complainant as a result whereof, the complainant sustained serious injuries on his person. On hearing the report of fire shots, father of the complainant and some other inhabitants of the locality were attracted to the spot. The injured was hurriedly taken to the hospital and the timely medical assistance saved the life of the victim.
The complainant was medically examined and found to have received fire-arm injuries. The objection of learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of the complainant is not in consonance with the medical evidence is misconceived. No such discrepancy or conflict between the version of the complainant and the medical evidence has been pointed out or suggested. It may be stated that during investigation, four empties of 7.62 bore discharging fresh smell and three spent bullets affixed in the wall of the "Kotha" of "Hjura" of Usman were recovered by the Investigating Officer from the spot. This recovery also lends support to the prosecution case.
12. The next submission of learned counsel that solitary statement of the complainant uncorroborated by independent evidence was not sufficient to lay foundation for conviction of the appellant, is equally without substance. It is no doubt true that the prosecution case largely depends on the solitary statement of the complainant but it is equally true that the conviction can be awarded on the basis of solitary statement of the victim provided it rings true and inspires confidence. It is the quality of evidence and not quantity which is to be considered. Mali v. The State 1969 SCM R 76, Muhammad Siddique alias Ashraf alias Achhi and 3 others v. The State 1971 SCM R 659, Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others PLD 1980 SC 225 and Riaz Hussain v. State 2001 SCM R 177.
13. A strong motive is alleged against the appellant that prior to the occurrence he had a quarrel with Muzafar Khan, brother of the complainant and was on a look to take revenge of his insult. The motive is furnished in the F.I.R. As well as in the statement of complainant. The motive has been established satisfactorily. Anyhow, it is not denied that mere absence or weakness of motive would not come in the way of prosecution if the case is otherwise proved by reliable evidence. Motive is not considered a sine qua non for proving the offence and mere absence of motive is no ground to doubt the truth of prosecution case. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 1992 PLD 302 (sic) and Government of Sindh v. Sobharo 1993 SCM R 585.
14. No doubt it is true that the abscondence at the most can be taken as corroborative of the charge and not the evidence of the charge and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, this evidence E even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant the conviction of the accused person, but in the instant case, the abscondence of the appellant would go a long way to corroborate and strengthen the truth of the prosecution version. Aminullah v. The State F PLD 1976 SC 632.
15. We have considered the question of sentence passed against the appellant for the offence under section 324, P.P.C. The appellant has G been awarded appropriate sentence and we feel that no case for lesser sentence has been made out.
16. In the result we find that prosecution has successfully brought guilt home to the appellant and the judgment of the trial Court is not H tainted with any vitiating factor so as to warrant interference by this Court. The appeal fails which is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is maintained.
17. We have, by our order, dated 29-3-2004 dismissed the appeal for reasons to be recorded later.
Above are the detailed reasons.