1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C J.--Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained only on the basis of his implication by a co-accused in his confession in the absence of any other evidence to involve him in the crime.
2. ' Three persons namely, Pir Kabul Shah, Gul Nawaz and Muhammad Hakim were tried alongwith the appellant. The prosecution case is that on 14-12-1982, Injer Gul son of Kabir Khan, resident of Kali Wanda, Police Station Panyala, District D.I. Khan, lodged a report at Police Station, Ghazni Khcl at 11- 00 a.m. On account of blood feud. There was enmity between him and Bhai Khan of their village and that in crder to settle the dispute they appointed Pir Kabul Shah as an arbitrator and paid to him a sum of Rs,19,700 on condition that he will settle the dispute and the said amount shall till remain with him as security. A month passed but Pir Kabul Shah failed to settle the matter and did not refund the money. On 6th of December, 1982, the deceased who was his brother went to take the money back from Pir Kabul Shah but did not return from that errand till the date of the lodging of the report.
3. ' The fact that the deceased had come to claim the money from Pir Kabul Shah and his return on the next day was disclosed by Ayub Khan, his nephew, who had gone to Wanda Pashan to enquire about his father's health. Investigation thereafter commenced and the dead body was pointed out by Gul Nawaz which was recovered from a ditch and identified to be that of the deceased. The autopsy disclosed that he died of strangulation. Gul Nawaz also thereafter pointed out the room of the house of Pir Kabul Shah where the deceased was strangulated to death.
4. ' Gul Nawaz on 22-12-1982 confessed before a First Class Magistrate, Lakki, upon which his statement was recorded. Similarly on 26-12-1982 Pir Kabul Shah also confessed and his statement was recorded. There are no eye-witnesses and the conviction is recorded on circumstantial evidence connecting Gul Nawaz and the retracted confessions.
5. The trial Court while assessing the case of Abdul Karim Khan has believed the confession of Gul Nawaz qua the involvement of the appellant without there being any other evidence connecting him with the crime. It appears from the reasons given by the trial Court that the circumstantial evidence against Gul Nawaz has been read as against the appellant to sustain his conviction which was irrelevant as it was not a case of conspiracy.
6. ' The High Court also upheld the conviction on assumptions which could not be drawn from the evidence to connect the accused, namely, that the deceased could not be strangulated without the co-operation of others and further that there was no reason as to why Gul Nawaz and Pir Kabul Shah would implicate the appellant. These reasons are artificial and cannot be taken into consideration in corroboration of the participation of the appellant.
7. ' We are, therefore, of the view that the conviction cannot be sustained and the appellant is, accordingly acquitted. His appeal is allowed and he is ordered to be released forthwith unless required in some other case.