1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Appellant Majnoo son of Khawand Bux Lashari has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28th September, 1978 of 1Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby he has been convicted for offence under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default R. I. For one year more. It is further directed in the judgment that if fine is realized, the same may be paid to the heirs of the deceased. The appellant was 'tried alongwith his co-accused namely Ghulam Qadir son of Rahim Bux for the said offence but the trial Court has acquitted the said co-accused for want of sufficient incriminating evidence against him.
2. Shortly stated prosecution case is that appellant Majnoo was married to deceased Mst. Karima sister of acquitted accused Ghulam Qadir. This marriage took place about 4 years before the incident and appellant Majnoo was living with his were and mother-in-law deceased Mst. Janat in village Ghulam Mustafa Donki, Taluka Kashmore. Some days before the incident Mst. Janat brought Mst. Karima from the house of the appel--lant without his permission to Jacobabad and stayed, in a house in family line in Jacobabad. Appellant resented this act of his mother-in-law and suspected that his mother-in-law had brought his were to Jacobabad for immoral purposes.
3. Thereafter appellant himself came to Jacobabad and met his brother-in-law acquitted accused Ghulam Qadir. It is further the case of prosecution that the appellant and the acquitted accused found out that Mst. Karima was in the house of Rasool Bux Khoso and oil 20th September, 1977 they decided among themselves to kill both the ladies as they were of bad character. At about 11 p. m.
4. Appellant Majnoo concealed himself in Juwar cultivation near Mazar of Lahori Baba in Jacobabad when acquitted accused Ghulam Qadir went and brought his sister Mst. Karima and his mother Mst. Janat from the house of Rasool Bux Khoso in family line on the pretext that his were was ill and both ladies should see her and while he was bringing both the ladies for the purpose stated above and passed by the Mazar of Lahori Baba appellant Majnoo emerged from Juwar cultivation and both appellants Majnoo and acquitted Ghulam dragged the ladies in Juwar cultivation and attacked them with knives. In the result of attack both the ladies sustained injuries and their cries attracted P.. Ws. Dad Mohammad and Habib to the spot who saw the incident. The assailants prevented eye-witnesses from interfering and declared that they were killing their own ladies on account of 'Ghairat'. Both the ladies died at the spot due to knife injuries. After that appellant Majnoo went away to his village and acquitted accused Ghulam Qadir went to his house. Following morning Ghulam Qadir went and informed complainant Mughal alias Ladho and made extra- judicial confession before him. Complainant Mughal brought Ghulam Qadir to the Police Station City, Jacobabad and produced him there. Complainant filed F. I. R. Which was registered at 6-30 a. m. Ghulam Qadir was taken in custody. His blood-stained clothes were recovered and sealed into a parcel. Ghulam Qadir also produced knife which was secured and put into a sealed parcel.
5. Sultan Haider, Addi--tional S. H. O., who registered F. I. R. And made recoveries mentioned above, inspected vardat which was pointed out by complainant Mughal. He found dead-bodies of Mst.
6. Janat and Mst. Kanma in Juwar cultivation near Mazar of Lahori Baba with knife injuries. He prepared mashirnama of vardat, inquest report of the dead bodies and despatched the dead bodies to the hospital for autopsy. He recorded statements of P. Ws. Habib and Dad Mohammad on the same day. On 23September, 1977 he searched for appellant Majnoo but could not locate him.
7. On 26September, 1977 appellant Majnoo voluntarily appeared at Police Station at 10 a. m. And surrendered himself for arrest. He also - produced a blood-stained knife which was secured and put into a sealed parcel. On the same day appellant Majnoo was produced before Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Jacobabad, who recorded his judicial confession. After completing other steps of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
8. Before the trial Court 9 witnesses were examined. P. W. 3 Dad Mohammad and P. W. 4 Habib were examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence but they did not support the prosecution case. P. W.
9. 2 Mughal complainant before whom extra judicial confession was made by Ghulam Qadir also did not support the prosecution case. P. W. 5 Mr. Sadullah, Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Was examined who produced confession of appellant Majnoo Exh. 18 P. W. 8 is Bakhtullah, Tupedar who has prepared sketch of vardat Exh.
27. P. W. 6 is Barkhurdar mashir who has attested mashirnama of vardat and inquest reports. He has also not supported the prosecution case. P. W. 9 is Sultan Haider, Investigating Officer. Chemical Examiner's report Exh, 30 is to the effect that clothes of Ghulam Qadir and knives recovered from him and also from appellant are stained with human blood. P. W. 1 Doctor Moolchand performed post-mortem examination on the dead bodies on 21st September 1977 at Civil Hospital, Jacobabad and he found the following injuries on the dead body of Mst.
10. Jannat
(1) An incised wound 5" x 1--" x muscle deep on front and the right side of the neck.
(2) An incised wound 2" x 1" x muscle deep on left side of neck.
(3) An incised wound 3" x muscle deep in between left thumb and index finger.
(4) An incised wound 2" x --' x skin deep on mid of right leg.
(5) An incised wound 1-- x --" below injury No. 4 on right leg.
(6) An incised wound 1--" x ----- muscle deep on right arm on its inner side with right axillary artery cut,
(7) An incised wound 2' x --' x muscle deep on back of right forearm just below elbow.
11. The doctor was of the opinion that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapon such as hatchet or big knife.rd th On the same day he examined the dead body of Mst. Karima and found the following injuries on her person
(1) An incised wound 4" x 1' x structure deep on front of neck, with blood vessels of the neck and throat cut.
12. The doctor opined that death vas due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury mentioned above which vas caused by sharp cutting weapon such as hatchet or big knife.
13. The defence of the appellant and acquitted accused before the trial Court was total dental of prosecution allegations and false implication. Appellant Majnoo has stated in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. That be was arrested by Police from his village .On the day of incident and he did not produce knife before Police. He repudiated his judicial confession and stated that be was tutored by Police to make that confession as his father and women-folks were called at the Police station and also that he was maltreated. No witness was examined in defence.
14. The learned trial Court has discarded the evidence of complainant Mughal and eye-witnesses Dad Mohammad and Habibullah, which means that ocular testimony and extra-judicial confession of Ghulam Qadir have been disbelieved. The trial Court has excluded from consideration the evidence of recovery of knives and clothes to be stained with human blood as reported, by the Chemical Examiner mainly for the reason that there was inordinate delay in sending the sealed parcels to the laboratory of Chemical Examiner and the prosecution has failed to furnish' any explanation for the delay. The trial Court therefore held that there was no evidence against Ghulam Qadir as such acquitted him but found the present appellant guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as stated above on the ground that there was retracted judicial confession made by him which was corroborated by other circumstances.
15. After the careful analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution in The light of arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for each side, we have come to the conclusion that the conviction of the present appellant is not sustainable. First of all we have to see whether the judicial confession which is retracted by the appellant, is truthful and voluntary. If it is so then there is hardly any need to 100 for corroboration. If it is not so then in order to be fully convinced about the truthfulness and voluntariness of the confession we may look for corroboration which must be strong in nature to support the confession in all material particulars so that the lurking doubt about it, as mentioned above, is completely wiped out.