ERUM SAJAD GULL, J.---The Petitioner Muhammad Saleem through this criminal revision has assailed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore dated 23-10-2014 whereby the application filed under section 337 read with section 338, Cr.P.C., by the Respondent No.4 (Mst.
Sajida), accused in FIR No.1254/12 dated 05-09-2012 registered under sections 365, 302, 201, 34, P.P.0 at police Station Factory Area Lahore, was accepted. And she 'was declared as an approver.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the impugned order was against law and facts and the same was as a result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence; that respondent No.4 under duress chose to become an approver so as to save her mother and father as they were also accused in the aforementioned FIR; that the application of the respondent No.4 was allowed without application of judicial mind and was a mechanical order hence be set aside and if it is not set aside the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. While relying upon "Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and another v. Gul Hasan Khan" (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 633) and "Haider Hussain and others versus Government of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1991 Federal Shariat Court 139), the learned counsel argued that the provisions of sections 337 and 338 of Cr.P.C. Have been declared contrary to the injunctions of Islam by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the impugned order has been passed in violation to the dictums laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
3. The learned 'Deputy District Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 (Mst. Sajida) have defended the impugned order and argued that the order is legal; that the order impugned has been passed in line with the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and this criminal revision be dismissed.
4. The arguments have been heard and the impugned order along with the available record has been carefully perused with the able assistance of the learned counsel.
5. In the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has laid down that in Hadd and Qisas cases an offender cannot be granted pardon and be allowed to be an approver without the permission of the victim or the legal heirs. Even otherwise under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1991 Sections 337 and 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 have been amended since and now by law no offender can be pardoned in hurt and murder cases without the permission of the victim or the legal heirs as the case may be.
6. An approver or an accomplice has not been defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or under The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. An accomplice and approver have been defined in Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary 7th Edition as under:- Accomplice: Any person who, either as a principal or as an accessory, has been associated with another person in the commission of any offence. The evidence of an accomplice is admissible, but the judge must warn the jury of the danger of convicting on such evidence unless corroborated and if this warning is omitted a conviction may be quashed.
Approver: An accomplice who turns Queen's evidence. Under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
Article 16---Accomplice "An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person, except in the case of an offence punishable with Hadd and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice."
Article 129---Court may presume existence of certain facts: The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case- Illustrations.
The Court may presume-
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars
7. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the accomplice and approver is dealt in section 337, Cr.P.C. Tender of pardon to accomplice and section 338, Cr.P.C. Power to grant or tender of pardon.
8. It has been clearly laid down under sections 337 and 338, Cr.P.C. That it is the Court's discretion to tender pardon to any offender and declare him an approver on a condition that the offender shall make full and true disclosure of the crime as committed within his knowledge and not suppress any fact. Provided, in cases of hurt and qatal no person shall be pardoned without the permission of the victim or the legal heirs, as the case may be.
9. As a rule of prudence, a statement of an approver should not be accepted as the gospel truth and such a person cannot be trusted who has betrayed his or hers own comrades. Therefore, for safe administration of justice conviction should never be based on the sole testimony of an approver without independent corroboration. Though under Article 16 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 legally conviction can be based on the sole statement of the approver but this is not advisable.
10. In the case in hand the main objection raised by the Petitioner is that he being the co-accused of the respondent No.4 (Mst. Sajida) his case will be prejudiced if she is allowed to become an approver. It is always the discretion of the Court to pardon an accused and allow him to become an approver and in a case of hurt or qatal if the victim or the legal heirs have no objection then a co-accused could not challenge this pardon as he would be given ample of opportunity to cross- examine the approver.
11. There is no illegality in the order impugned as respondent No.4 Sajida was pardoned and allowed to become an apptover by the competent Court with the permission of the legal heirs.
12. As reiterated above the impugned order dated 23-10-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore being well reasoned and legal is upheld resultantly, the afore titled Criminal revision having no force and being devoid of any merit is dismissed.