JAVED IQBAL, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-5-2003 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the criminal appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed and judgment dated 23-12-2002 of the learned trial Court whereby the petitioner was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. (on two counts) and sentenced to death with fine of Rs,1,00,000 each and in case of default to undergo one year S.I. Each as been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case as enumerated in the judgment impugned are to the effect that "while in injured condition, Murtaza Mahmood, reported to the Police Officer in the Casualty Ward of L.R.H., Peshawar, to the effect that on the eventful day, he along with his father Mahmood Khan and uncle Bakhtiar Ahmad, was working on the spot when in the meantime Janas Khan, Hashmali Khan and Mawas Khan, duly armed with kalashnikovs, came there and started firing at ,them and as a result of their firing, he sustained injuries on his leg while his father and uncle succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be a dispute over landed property. The occurrence is stated to be witnessed by the complainant as well as other co- villagers. Accordingly, all the three accused charged by the complainant were booked for the commission of double murder and injuring complainant. P.W.7 Muhammad Gul, A.S.-I., after reducing Murasila Exh.PA/1, sent the same to the Police Station for recording formal F.I.R. Which was registered by P.W.8 Muhammad Hakeem A.S.I. Of Police Station Mathra". After completion of investigation the petitioner was sent up for trial and on conclusion whereof he was convicted and sentenced as per details mentioned hereinabove. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred which has been dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Barrister Zahoorul Haq, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioner and contended emphatically that factual and legal aspects of the case have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the factum of accusation by producing worthy of credence evidence which aspect of the matter went unnoticed causing serious prejudice against the petitioner. It is also contended that the medical evidence was in conflict with ocular version which aspect of the matter has not been dilated upon properly but on the contrary the medical evidence has been misconstrued and the oral version has not been examined properly. It is also argued that there are various glaring contradictions which were not noticed either by the learned trial Court or Hon'ble High Court which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is pointed out that the motive as mentioned in the F.I.R. Could not be established besides that no investigation whatsoever was conducted to determine its genuineness.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as mentioned hereinabove in the light of record of the case and scanned the entire evidence with the eminent assistance of learned counsel. We have also perused the judgment of learned trial Court dated 23-12-2007 as well as judgment impugned. After having gone through the entire record we are of the view that prosecution has substantiated the accusation by producing cogent, concrete and forthright evidence. The eye account furnished by Murtaza (P.W.2) in previous trial has rightly been taken into consideration being worthy of credence by whom specific role of fringe has been attributed to petitioner which resulted into death of Bakhtiar Ahmed and Mehmood Khan. There appears to be no reasons A whatsoever for Murtaza (P.W.2) to substitute the real culprits with that of petitioner in absence of any serious enmity which otherwise is a rare phenomena. It is also to be noted that Murtaza (P.W.2) also sustained injuries which confirms his presence at the spot. Even otherwise the statement of injured witness cannot be brushed aside merely on the B ground of some minor contradictions which do creep in the passage of time. The learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court could not furnish any plausible justification that as to why the statement of Murtaza (P.W.2) should be discarded. Medical evidence furnished by-Dr. Yasmin Orakzai (P.W.6) and Dr. Shaha Taj Khan (P.W.10) lends full corroboration to the eye account furnished by Murtaza (P.W.2). The lea fried counsel on behalf of petitioner could not explain satisfactorily that how the medical evidence was in conflict with oral evidence . It is not enough to argue that medical evidence is in conflict with oral evidence but it is mandatory duty of the learned counsel to give solid reasoning and explain that how and on what ground the medical evidence was in conflict with oral evidence. As mentioned hereinabove nothing can be _pointed out and this regard except that the conflict between the medical evidence and oral evidence was apparent, which is not sufficient to consider the said contention until and unless it is explained with reasoning qua the conflict between medical evidence and oral evidence. Besides that the factum of absconsion has rightly been considered as corroboratory piece of evidence. There is no cavil with the proposition that factum of absconsion cannot altogether be ignored and corroborative value of the abscondence carries substantial weight. In this regard, following authorities can be referred:-- 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 Oudh 517; Crown v. Fateh Muhammad 35 PLR 740; Chandika Prashad v. E 126 IC 684; AIR 1930 Oudh 324; 31 Cr.LJ 1081; Gangaram Hari Parit v. E. 62 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's case 130 IC 410; 1931 Lah.38; 32 Cr.LJ 522; Q. v. Sorab Roy 5 WR Cr.28; Khan v. State AIR 1955 Ca1.146; PLD 1978 SC 103; Ria3, Hussain v. The' State 2001 SCM R 177.
5. We are not persuaded to agree with learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that no. Authentic judgment is available to the effect that factum of Absconsion can be considered as corroboratory piece of evidence. In view of the precedent law incorporated in the authorities as mentioned hereinabove on the basis whereof it can be inferred safely that factum of absconsion can be considered as corroboratory, piece of evidence subject to certain exceptions which are not available in this case. The prime contention of learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that statements of Guldaraz (P.W.1) and Murtaza (P.W.2) should have been discarded is not tenable which has been made in oblivion of the provisions as contained in section 512, Cr.P.C.
6. We have also kept the defence version in juxtaposition which is nothing more but denial simpliciter which cannot be considered in view of the overwhelming incriminating evidence which has come on record to substantiate the accusation. No other point was urged before us.
7. In sequel to above mentioned discussion we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner to the hilt. The judgment impugned being well-based and unexceptionable does not warrant interference. The petition being meritless is dismissed and .