' JUSTICE CH. IJAZ AHMED (MEMBER).--- The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court wherein the appeal tiled by the petitioner against his conviction was dismissed. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No,226 which was registered at Police Station Gujar Khan on the complaint of Ghulam Murtaza P.W.7 under sections 302/34/201 of P.P.C. And section 12 of Offence of Zina (EOH) Ordinance, 1979 and section 337, P.P.C. The facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are as follows:-- "Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 14-5-1995, report was lodged by one Ghulam Murtaza son of Mir Zaman with Police Station Gujar Khan, it was alleged that his son namely Faisal Murtaza aged about 15-16 years disappeared from his house on 1-5-1995 at about 11-00 a.m. And also took away with him, a camera, two baby golden ear-rings, two male finger rings golden, two baby "Taveez", golden, one Tikka, one female finger ring, eight bangles, four female finger rings, one pair of "Kuntaz" and a big garland. According to the complainant, on the same day at about 2-00 p.m., Khuda Dad and Wadi Hussain P.Ws. (not produced) had seen said Faisal Murtaza with Muhammad Nisar and Muhammad Abid at Wagon Adda Chhina. According to the complainant, he tried to find his son but the efforts remained unfruitful and it was only on the day of reporting the matter that he found the dead body of his son floating in a deserted well of Mouza Tanky Maira of village Balwalial.
Complainant further disclosed that a single piece of shoe of the deceased had led him to the well.
It was further alleged by the complainant that he had a reason to believe that his son was killed by the accused persons namely, Muhammad Nisar and Muhammad Abid. On the stated allegations a formal F.I.R. No,226 dated 14-5-1997 under sections 302/201/337, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Gujar Khan."
2. The challan was submitted before the competent Court after investigation against the petitioner and his co-accused. The trial Court after completing he legal formalities, vide its judgments dated 20-8-1997 acquitted the accused by extending them benefit of doubt. The complainant being aggrieved filed Criminal Appeal No,89 of 1997 before the Federal Shariat Court which was accepted vide judgment dated 11-12-2000 with the consent of the parties and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside in view of discrepancies in the judgment of trial Court and the case was remanded to the trial Court to decide it in accordance with law after rectification of the defects pointed out by the Federal Shariat Court with the further direction that P.W.8 Liaqat Ali be recalled and defence be given an opportunity to cross-examine him. After remand co-accused of the petitioner was disappeared and declared proclaimed offender. The trial Court after remand convicted the petitioner under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him imprisonment for life as Tazeer with fine of Rs,50,000. In case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo six months' S.I. The compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Was awarded amounting to Rs,50,000. He was also convicted under section 201 of P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo three years with fine of Rs,20,000 and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo two months. The sentences awarded to the petitioner were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. Petitioner being aggrieved filed Jail Criminal Appeal No,296-I of 2003 before the Federal Shariat Court which was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court as mentioned above. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence was not witnessed by any witness, therefore, it was blind murder. Both the Courts below had convicted the petitioner on the basis of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in the shape of extra-judicial confession, recoveries of the robbed articles from the possession of the petitioner and his co- accused (P.O.), medical evidence and Chemical Examiner's report. He further submits that circumstantial evidence is always weak evidence and one piece of weak evidence cannot be corroborated with other weak evidence. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on the basis of the confessional statement made by his co-accused which was not permissible under the law. This fact was not considered by both the Courts below in its true perspective. He further submits that petitioner could not be convicted on the basis of confessional statement. He further submits that both the Courts below had come to the conclusion that petitioner had not committed offence under section 12 of Hudood Ordinance and section 337 of P.P.C. As the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of commission of aforesaid provisions against the petitioner as evident from para. 25 of the judgment of the trial Court. He further submits that prosecution witnesses are interested and inimical witnesses, therefore, both the Courts below were not justified to convict and sentence the petitioner on the basis of the statement of the interested witnesses without any independent corroboration.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner cannot be convicted and sentenced on the basis of circumstantial evidence has no force. The circumstantial evidence is one of mode to find out guilt or innocence of the accused. In fact awareness has been given to the world 1400 years ago by the Allah/the Almighty in the Holy Book of Qur'an in Sura-e-Yousif wherein this method of proving guilt or innocence was highlighted. The relevant verses are reproduced hereunder:-- "26. He murmured "It was she who sought my person One of her companions suggested a solution: "If his shirt is rent in front, she speaks the truth, and he doth lie!
27. "But if his shirt is rent in the rear, then she doth lie and he is truthful!"
28. So when he saw his shirt rent in the rear, he said, "This is women's guile. And women's guile is great! (The Book The Message of the Qur'an English translation by Hashim Amir Ali)."
5. It is pertinent to mention here that extra-judicial confessions were made by the petitioner and his co-accused (P.0) before Liaqat Ali P.W.8. Petitioner is brother of P.W.8's sister-in-law as evident from the examination-in-chief of the statement of P.W.8. Defence has failed to cross-examine him about this portion of the statement of examination-inchief of P.W.8 meaning thereby his statement to this extent has gone unchallenged, therefore, it was admitted by the petitioner under the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Noor Jehan Begums' case 1991 SCM R 2300. It is pertinent to mention here that his confession is corroborated by the following pieces of evidence:--
(i) Recoveries of robbed articles from the possession of the petitioner.
(ii) Medical evidence.
(iii) Chemical Examiner's report.
6. Both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence had given finding of fact that the aforesaid piece of evidence duly corroborated the confession made by the petitioner and his co- accused. It is also a settled law that mere relationship is not sufficient to discard the statement of the interested witnesses as law laid down by this Court is Roshin's case PLD 1977 SC 557. The prosecution witnesses had faced lengthy cross-examination but the defence had failed to shake their veracity. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that statement of the prosecution witnesses inspiring confidence. In case all the pieces of evidence are put in a juxtaposition, then circumstantial evidence is sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence beyond any D reasonable doubt and petitioner could have been awarded capital punishment on the basis of aforesaid evidence as law laid down by this Court in Jaffar Ali's case 1998 SCM R 2669. Both the Courts below had taken lenient view not to award capital punishment to the petitioner. The learned Federal Shariat Court after re-examining the evidence on record maintained the conviction of the petitioner after considering all the case-law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements.
The testimony of Liaqat Ali P.W.8 regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner and his co-accused (P.O.) Pervez Saleem cannot be under any circumstances brushed aside as not inspiring confidence. Liaqat Ali P.W.8 was close relative of the petitioner as mentioned above.
The evidence of the Liaqat Ali P.W.8 finds corroboration from the strangulation marks found on the body of the deceased as also from the discovery of the dead body from that very place where the petitioner had stated that they had thrown it coupled with the fact that article (i,e, iron box, a pair of golden ear-rings) belonging to the deceased were recovered from the house of the petitioner on his pointation. The said recovery was believed by the Courts below in view of law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Muhammad Akbar's case 1995 SCM R 693. Now we will examine the confessional statement of the convict/petitioner and his co-accused (P.O.) Both the Courts below had come to the conclusion that convict/petitioner had given confessional statement voluntarily before P.W.8 Liaqat Ali. The petitioner/convict had denied this fact in his statement made under section 342, Cr.P.C. The proposition of law regarding confession was considered by this Court hi the State v. Minhun alias Gul Hassan PLD 1964 SC 813. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "Unless, a retracted confession is corroborated in material particulars it is not prudent to base a conviction in a criminal case on its strength alone. It is the duty of the Court that is called upon a retracted confession to enquire into all the material points and surrounding circumstances and satisfy fully that the Confession cannot but be true."
7. We have minutely gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. The entire evidence has been examined with the assistance of the learned counsel of the petitioner. After having gone through the entire record, we are of the view that prosecution has established its case by producing cogent and concrete evidence. Recent trend of this Court is that conviction could have been awarded on the basis of retracted confession without any corroboration. See Manjeet Singh's case PLD 2006 SC 30. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "This is a settled law that a retracted confession either judicial or extra-judicial, if is found truthful and confidence-inspiring and also qualities the test of voluntariness, can be used for conviction without looking for any other sort of corroboration."
8. As mentioned in the case in hand that both the Courts below had given finding that petitioner/convict had made confessional statement voluntarily before his own nearest relative P.W.8 Liaqat Ali. His confession was also corroborated with other pieces of evidence mentioned above. It is settled law that conviction can be awarded on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone as law laid down by this Court in the following judgments:--
(i) Talib Hussain's case 1981 SCM R 174, (ii) Muhammad Arshad's case 1992 SCM R 1187, (iii)
Muhammad Fayyaz's case PLD 1984 SC 445, (iv) Khuda Bakhsh's case 2004 SCM R 331, (v) Daulat, Ali's case 1999 SCM R 845, (vi) Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada's case PLD 1972 SC 363, (vii) Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob 1992 SCM R 1983, (viii) Abdus Samad's case PLD 1964 SC 167, (ix) Nazir Ahmad's case 1994 SCM R 58.
9. Both the Court below have convicted and sentenced the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is a settled principle of law that this Court does not, interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the Courts below while exercising powers under sub-Article (2-B) of Article 203-F of the Constitution. We have also examined the evidence but we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.