2004 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 324/337‑F(v)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Corroboration, rule of‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Complainant/victim had fully supported prosecution version and charged accused for causing him fire‑arm injuries‑‑ Complainant was subjected to lengthy and searching cross‑examination, but nothing could be elicited to shatter his testimony‑‑‑Discrepancies in statement of complainant were inconsequential and not fatal to prosecution case‑‑‑Report had been made to police promptly without much delay and accused was specifically named therein‑‑‑Rule of corroboration was to be applied as an abundant caution and was not a mandatory rule to be always and necessarily insisted in each case‑‑ Requirement of corroboration depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case and in the nature of evidence in said case‑‑‑If the evidence did not suffer from any major or significant contradiction, the corroboration was not insisted‑‑‑Prosecution case, though largely depended on solitary statement of complainant, but 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 quantity which was to be considered‑‑‑Accused could not prove that medical evidence was in conflict with prosecution story and that victim had concealed material fact from the Court‑‑‑Preparation of site‑plan on the following day of occurrence at the pointation of prosecution witness or non‑association of complainant was not fatal to prosecution case‑‑‑Two empties of .12 bore and blood‑stained earth recovered from the spot, had fully established the venue of occurrence‑‑‑Accused remained fugitive from law for about ‑ 10 months without any plausible and reasonable explanation ‑‑‑Abscondence though by itself was not sufficient to convict accused, but it was a strong piece of corroborative evidence of direct and circumstantial evidence in the case‑‑‑Conduct of accused after occurrence was indicative of his guilt when considered in conjunction with ocular and circumstantial evidence in the case ‑‑ Complainant in addition to receipt of injury on the right hand, also had sustained injury on his thigh, resulting into fracture to femur‑‑‑Accused, in circumstances had rightly been convicted under S.337‑F(v), P.P.C.‑‑ Mere fact that no charge under S.337‑F(v), P.P.C. had been framed, but sentence had been awarded thereunder, was inconsequential and provided no ground for upsetting order of conviction‑‑‑Strong malice set up in F.I.R., had successfully been proved‑‑‑Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly convicted and sentenced accused and in absence of any misreading or non‑reading of evidence, judgment of two Courts could not be interfered with‑‑‑No case for enhancement of sentence having been made out, submission of State Counsel that order qua sentence of accused was bad in the eye of law and was not sustainable, did not carry weight‑‑‑Accused having been awarded legal and appropriate sentence, case did not call for interference. Ramzan v. The State 1975 PCr.LJ 1210; Najeebullah Khan v. The State and others 2002 MLD 872 and Mst. Roheeda v. Khan Bahadur and another 1992 SCMR 1036 ref. ‑‑‑‑Evidence‑‑‑Rule of corroboration‑‑‑Rule of corroboration was applied by way of abundant caution and was not a mandatory rule to be always and necessarily insisted in each case‑‑‑Requirement of corroboration depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of evidence therein‑‑‑If the evidence did not suffer from any major or significant contradiction, the corroboration was not insisted. ‑‑‑‑ 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 quantity which was to be considered. Mali v. The State 1969 SCMR 76; Muhammad Siddique alias Ashraf alias Achhi and 3 others v. The State 1971 SCMR 659; Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others PLD 1980 SC 225 and Riaz Hussain v. State 2001 SCMR 177 ref. ‑‑‑‑ Abscondence of accused ‑‑‑Abscondence, no doubt, by itself was not sufficient to convict an accused person, but was a strong piece of corroborative evidence of the direct and circumstantial evidence to the case. Muhammad Jamshed Khan for the State. Mian Qamar Gul Kakakhel for the Complainant.