JUDGMENT IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.---Through the instant criminal revision under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code calls in question the legality of the order, dated 18-12-2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kallurkot whereby he, on the basis of confessional statement made by the petitioner, convicted and sentenced him under section 337- A(ii), P.P.C. To pay arsh equivalent to 5% of amount of diyat under section 337-A(iv), P.P.C. To pay arsh equivalent to 15% of amount of diyat determinable according to the value of diyat on 1st of July, 2006, under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. To pay daman of Rs.10,000 and under section 337-L(ii) to pay daman of Rs.3000. The amount of arsh and daman was ordered to be paid to both the injured persons in lump sum or in monthly installments of Rs.5000 per month spread over a period of five years from the date of final judgment, failing which the accused/petitioner shall be kept in jail as if sentenced to simple imprisonment and the order dated 17-2-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kallurkot whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid conviction order was dismissed as having been withdrawn.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was facing trial in case F.I.R. No. 345 of 2007 registered under sections 337-A(ii)/ 337-A(iv)/ 337-F(iv)/ 337-L(ii),. P.P.C. At Police Station Kallurkot and during the proceedings on 18-12-2009 the petitioner made a statement before the learned trial Court whereby he confessed his guilt and after recording his statement the learned trial Court put him certain questions in the shape of memorandum of inquiry which were replied by him in the affirmative and the learned trial Court after satisfying itself about the fact that the accused had made a confessional statement without any duress or coercion convicted and sentenced as stated above vide order, dated 18-12-2009 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kallurkot but he withdrew the same on 17-2-2010. Hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate convicting the petitioner is against law and facts of the case as the learned trial Court before recording confessional statement of the petitioner failed to record the offer and willingness of the petitioner for making such a confessional statement; that the confession was not recorded by the learned trial Court in conformity with the provisions of section 364, Cr.P.C., as such, the impugned order cannot be termed as judicial order; that the learned trial Court did not record the question and answer of the petitioner in his on language which is violative of the aforesaid provision of law; that no signature or thumb impression of the petitioner was obtained underneath the answer of the question put to the petitioner, as such, the confessional statement is no statement in the eyes of law; that even the sentence awarded to the petitioner is very harsh as the injured persons did not remain admitted in the hospital and they had never incurred any heavy expenses and that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also against the norms of justice as no consent of the petitioner was obtained by the learned appellate Court before passing order regarding withdrawal of his appeal. Lastly it has been urged by the petitioner that since he had suffered the agonies of protracted trial from the years, 2007 to 2009, therefore, he was entitled to be dealt with leniently.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General while opposing this revision petition contends that the trial against the petitioner was in progress and only the statements of one or two witnesses were yet to be recorded when at the fag end of the trial the petitioner opted to make a confessional statement and the learned trial Court after observing all the due formalities for recording confessional statement convicted and sentenced the petitioner in accordance with law and the although against his conviction order the petitioner had filed an appeal but the same was withdrawn by his learned counsel and that since both the learned Courts below have committed no illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned orders, therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the available record. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court passed the order dated 18-12-2009 in violation of section 364, Cr.P.C., as such, the conviction order recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The record reveals that the trial was being conducted in the case against the petitioner by the learned trial Court in a transparent manner and the statements of prosecution witnesses were being recorded when abruptly on 18-12-2009 the petitioner of his on got recorded his confessional statement wherein he confessed his guilt and he signed the said statement whereafter the learned trial Court recorded memorandum of inquiry wherein the learned trial Court put four questions to the petitioner to which he replied in the affirmative and categorically stated that he is making statement without any coercion and at the end of the memorandum of inquiry the learned trial Court had given its certificate verifying the factum of making confessional statement by the petitioner and the learned trial Court has acted in accordance with the provisions of section 364, Cr.P.C. And has thus committed no illegality or material irregularity.
6. There is another aspect of the case from which it can safely be inferred that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner on the basis of his on confessional statement as after being confessed his guilty by the petitioner there remains nothing to be proved by the prosecution regarding guilt of the accused. Even the petitioner challenged his conviction by filing an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kallurkot District Bhakkar wherein it was not the case of the petitioner that his confessional statement was not voluntary and was under some coercion and only challenged his conviction by urging general grounds that the prosecution has failed to bring home his guilt. Even the petitioner withdrew that appeal from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge through his counsel and thereafter blamed his learned counsel that he had withdrawn the appeal by joining hands with the complainant party but this assertion of the petitioner is not believable for the reason that if for the sake of arguments the learned appellate Court is allowed to decide the appeal on its merit then what would the appellate Court do and the result would be that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the petitioner on the basis of his confessional statement. The law does not suggest any stage of the trial for making a confessional statement by the accused. It is settled law that any accused of a criminal case can confess his guilt at any stage of the trial and there is no bar upon the learned trial Court to refuse to record the confessional statement when the accused wishes to do so. Even otherwise, the prosecution evidence in the shape of five witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court before making confessional statement by the petitioner do suggest the guilt of the petitioner, as such, both the learned Courts below have committed no illegality or material irregularity while passing the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that I find no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed.