' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 2-4-2002 passed by Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal bearing No,84 of 1997 preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 14-1-1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby petitioner was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death with direction to pay sum of Rs,30,000 to the legal heirs as compensation or in default whereof to suffer S.I. For six months has been kept intact. The co-accused namely Akhtar Rafiq and Zahid Perwaiz were declared proclaimed offenders after completion of necessary formalities and Tahir Perwaiz, Qaim Din and Muhammad A fzal accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court by extending them the benefit of doubt.
2. We need not give the fact of the case narrated in the judgments of learned Trial and Appellate Courts in depth. It is, however, to be noted that motive for the alleged murder was of the case got registered against complainant party qua the death of one Qaim Din.
3. It is mainly contended by Mr. M. A. Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that the evidence which has come on record does not justify the conviction and sentence because the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Bashir (P.W.1) and Safdar Hussain (P.W.2) is neither worthy of credence nor consistent being chance witnesses whose presence at the spot could not be established. It is next contended that oral version is in conflict with medical evidence and in the absence of any corroboration the question of awarding capital punishment does not arise. It is pointed out that even if for the sake of arguments the statements of eye-witnesses are considered confidence-inspiring no conviction could have been awarded in the absence of corroboratory material which is lacking in this case. It is also pointed out that absence of the petitioner was not proved as required under the law.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of relevant record of the case. We have carefully examined the judgment dated 14-1-1997 passed by learned trial Court and also gone through the judgment impugned. The entire evidence which has come on record has been scanned in depth with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court. The prosecution case hinges upon the eye-account furnished by Muhammad Bashir (P.W.1) and Muhammad Safdar (P.W.2) duly corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of carbine and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory showing that carbine was in a working condition and the reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist. Afterhaving gone through the entire evidence we are of the opinion that prosecution has established the accusation by producing worthy of credence evidence which has rightly been considered and relied upon by A the learned trial and Appellate Courts. A careful scrutiny of the statement of Muhammad Bashir (P.W.1) is indicative of the fact that he is an eye-witness who narrated in a comprehensive manner the details of the occurrence and stated in an unequivocal manner that Sanaullah (deceased) was on his way from mosque to the Dera after offering his Fajar prayer and recitation of the Holy Qur'an when the petitioner duly armed with carbine mounted attack with other co-accused and fired upon Sanaullah which hit on right side of his back who fell down and succumbed to his injuries instantaneously at the spot. He was subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination but in spite of various searching questions his veracity could not be shattered. His presence at the Dera has been established and being a natural witness his statement cannot be discarded. It is worth- mentioning that his statement was recorded on the same day which reflects that there was absolutely no chance of deliberation or fabrication. We are not persuaded to agree with learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that being chance witness the statement of Muhammad Bashir (P.W.1) for his presence at the place of occurrence by explaining that he was present at the Dera of deceased for discussing certain matters concerning marriage ceremony of one Ashraf and his sister and arrangement for collection of milk was to be made by them. It has also come on record that Muhammad Bashir (P.W.I) has corroborated the statement of Safdar Hussain (P.W.2) on all material particulars. The statement of Muhammad Safdar (P.W:2) is free from any exaggeration who stood firm to the test of cross-examination and nothing beneficial could be elicited rendering any assistance to the case of petitioner. The medical evidence tendered by Dr. Amjad lqbal Bark (P.W.12) lends full support to the eye-account furnished by Muhammad Bashir (P.W.1) and Safdar Hussain (P.W.2) up to the extent of receipt of injuries, the probable distance from where the alleged firing was made (blackening around the injury), timing of occurrence (presence of liquid in the stomach). The abstention of petitioner is yet another factor which lends corroboration to eye-account. The incident occurred on 28-4-1993 and he was arrested on 16-10- 1993 after lapse of about six months. We have absolutely no doubt that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case of the factum of abscondence can be treated as corroboration. If any authority is required reference can be made to the following authorities:-- "PLD 1971 Pesh.32; Bhamra v. State 1953 Bhopal 1; 1953 Cr.LJ 217; Manzoor Elahi v. State PLD 1965 Lah.
656; Permeshwar Din v. E. AIR 1941 Qudh 517; Crown v. Fateh Muhammad 35 PLR 740; Chandika Prasad v. E 126 IC 684; AIR 1930 Qudh. 324; 31 Cr.LJ 1981; Gangaram Hari Pant v. E. 61 IC 545; 22 Cr.LJ 529; Q.E. v. Sami and others 13 Mad. 426; Q.E. v. Gobardhan 9 All. 528; Rakhal Nikari v. Q.E. 2 CWN 81; Mahla Singh v. E. 130 IC 410; 1931 Lah. 38; 32 Cr.LJ 522; Q. v. Sorab Roy 5 WR Cr.28; Khan v. State AIR 1955 Cal. 146; PLD 1978 SC 103; Riaz Hussain v. State 2001 SCM R 177 and 2001 SCM R 1779."
5. We have also kept the defence version in juxtaposition and examined it in the light of evidence which has come on record. The petitioner denied the allegations, professed innocence and stated that a false and concocted case was got registered as at the time of occurrence he was at Karachi. He did not opt to get his statement recorded on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. We are conscious of the fact that it is for the prosecution to establish the case beyond shadow of doubt but where a distinct plea is taken at least an attempt should be made to substantiate it by 'producing some evidence which could have been done by showing that in which Garment Factory he was employed and as to whether he kept on performing his duties in the said factory during the period w.e.f, 28-4-1993 (the date of occurrence) to 16-10-1993 (the date of his arrest) when he was shown as absconder. In view of overwhelming evidence as discussed hereinabove a false and fabricated defence plea has been taken which has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial and Appellate Courts. The prosecution has established the presence of prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence and moreso, eye-account also finds support from medical evidence. There is absolutely no conflict between the oral account and that of medical evidence as pressed time and again by learned Advocate Supreme Court who failed to mention as to how the medical evidence was in conflict with the oral version.
6. Learned Advocate Supreme Court has also submitted that in view of the mitigating circumstances the sentences of death may be altered to that of life imprisonment but could not point out the factors which constitute the mitigating circumstances in absence whereof the question of alteration of death sentence to that of life imprisonment does not arise.
7. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove the prosecution has established accusation beyond shadow of doubt and the conclusion drawn by learned trial Court and pffirmed by the High Court being well-based and unexceptionable does not call for any interference.
' The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and .