1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This jail appeal through leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 20-11-1974, of the Lahore High Court; whereby the appellant's conviction and sentence of imprison--ment for life as also fine under section 302, P. P. C., for the murder of his stepmother Mst. Roshan, was upheld and his appeal was dismissed.
2. The prosecution case is that the appellants real mother having died his father, namely, Jehan Khan (P. W.) who is also the first informant married Mst. Roshan deceased many years before the occurrence which took place on 6-3-1972. The appellant had a complaint against her, namely, that although she had taken keen interest for marrying her own daughter, no attempt was being made by her to arrange a bride for the appellant. On the night before the occurrence he quarrelled with her and according to the F. I. R. Went out of the house with a threat that he would kill her and would also finish himself. Next morning at 6-30 a. m., he returned to the house with a pistol and in the presence of his father Jehan Khan (P. W.) and another eye-witness (Barkat A.I) (P. W.) fired `a and killed Mst. Roshan. The witnesses tried to apprehend but he .Rat away. On the same day,. However, he went to Mashur Ullah (P. W,, confessed his guilt before him and handed over the crime pistol to him, the appellant was ultimately produced by the said witness before :he police. During the investigation, it was found that a crime empty recovered from the spot matched with the said pistol. Both the eye-witnesses supported the aforenoted prosecution case before the Committing Magistrate. But at the trial they resiled from the earlier statements. Barkat A.I's statement before the Committing Magistrate, however, was transferred to the Session's file and treated as evidence. The appellant's plea was that of denial and false implication at the instance of Mashur Ullah (P. W.) about whom he stated that he was his employer but their differences had cropped up on the question of payment of salary. Both the learned Courts below believed Mashur Ullah and relying on confirmatory evidence noted above convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 302, P. P.
3. C.
4. The circumstance that Jehan Khan (P. W.) the father of the appellant as also Barkat A.I the other eye-witness resiled from their earlier statement, is understandable. It also appears from the record that the father had forgiven the son and had also made an attempt for withdrawal of the case. As the appellant has already been granted the benefit of lesser sentence, therefore, the said circumstance, cannot be of any further benefit to him-the law in that respect is laid down in Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 1982 SC 139).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the present record of the evidence shows that there is no eye-witness's account against the appellant. He has further argued that Mashur Ullah is a stock police witness and belonged to another village, therefore, he should not be relied upon; and, in any case the extra-judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence was not enough for conviction. Regarding the recovery of crime weapon and the empty, learned counsel contended that although the empty was shown to have been fired from the pistol, the Forensic Expert showed his inability to express his opinion in so far as the pellets and the cartridge wads are concerned.
6. So long it has been established that the empty cartridge had markings of chamber of the crime pistol, it is not necessary for the prosecution further to establish that the pellets and wads recovered from the spot were before the firing contained in the crime cartridge. The recovery of both the weapon as also the crime empty has been believed by both the learned Courts below.
7. There is no reason for this Court to differ on this question.
8. Leave was granted to consider also whether in the facts and circum stances of this case, the conviction should have been based mainly on the extra judicial confession made by the appellant.
9. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel. Although the witness (Mashur Ullah) appeared in about two cases (once from defence side) a clear impression cannot be formed that he was usual stock witness ready to oblige police for making false statement. His testimony has a ring of truth. According to the appellant's own admission, he was his employer and it was natural in the circumstances of the case for the appellant to have gone. To him for help. He is a Lambardar and the fact that he belonged to a different village is of no significance in this case because of relationship of the master and servant. In any case Mashur Ullah' testimony is further supported by the recovery of the crime weapon and the statement made by Barkat A.I (P. W.) before the Committing Magistrate. In such a case where the evidence inspires confidence, it is not necessary to look for any technical/formal type of corroboration. As already stated the evidence in the case and the manner in which the occurrence was reported and the culprit was apprehended, inspire confidence. The appellant has rightly been found guilty for murder. However, we notice that the offence having been committed before the amendment of April, 1972, it was punishable with the alternative punishment as transportation for life and not imprisonment for life. We accordingly modify the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation of life. As the complainant father of the appellant has forgiven him, therefore, in the interest of justice allow him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C, With these modifications, this appeal is dismissed, revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.