2004 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 324‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Sufficient material was on record to establish that accused while armed with Kalashnikov, fired at the complainant as a result of which complainant sustained serious injuries on his person‑‑‑No discrepancy or conflict was found between the version of complainant and medical evidence‑‑‑Objection that statement of complainant was not in consonance with medical evidence, was misconceived, in circumstances‑‑‑During investigation, four empties of 7.62 bore discharging fresh smell and three spent bullets were recovered by Investigating Officer from the spot, which recovery also lent support to prosecution‑ case ‑‑‑Prosecution case though largely depended on solitary statement of complainant; but conviction could be awarded on the basis of solitary statement of victim provided it rang true and inspired confidence‑‑‑Quality of evidence and not the quantity was to be considered‑‑‑Motive as furnished in F.I.R as well as in statement of complainant, was established satisfactorily‑‑‑Mere absence or weakness of motive would not come in the way of prosecution, if same was otherwise proved by reliable evidence‑‑‑Motive was not considered a sine qua non for proving the offence and mere absence of motive was no ground to doubt the truth of prosecution version‑‑ Abscondence of accused at the most could be taken as corroborative piece of evidence and not the evidence of change and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, said evidence, even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant the conviction of accused‑‑ Abscondence would go a long way to corroborate and strengthen the truth of the prosecution version‑‑‑Prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and judgment of Trial Court was not tainted with any vitiating factor so as to warrant interference by High Court in appeal‑‑‑Judgment of Trial Court was maintained in appeal, in circumstances‑‑‑Accused was awarded appropriate sentence and no case had been made out for lesser sentence. Mali v. The State 1969 SCMR 76; Muhammad Siddique alias Ashraf alias Achhi and 3 others v. State 1971 SCMR 659; Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others PLD 1980 SC 225 Riaz Hussain v. State 2001 SCMR 177 and Aminullah v. The State PLD 1976 SC 632 ref. ‑‑‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Conviction could be awarded on the basis of solitary statement of the victim provided it rang true and inspired confidence‑‑‑Quality of evidence and not the quantity was to be considered. ‑‑‑‑Motive‑‑‑Mere absence or weakness of motive would not come in the way of prosecution if the case was otherwise proved by reliable evidence‑‑‑Motive is not considered a sine qua non for proving the offence and mere absence of motive was no ground to doubt the truth of prosecution case. Government of Sindh v. Sobharo 1993 SCMR 585 ref. ‑‑‑‑ Abscondence of accused‑‑‑Abscondence of accused at the most could be taken as corroboration of the charge and not the evidence of the charge and in absence of any other corroborative evidence, said evidence even if found convincing, would not be sufficient by itself to warrant the conviction of accused. Muhammad Saleem Khan Gandapur for the State Complainant in person.