1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The appellant was tried for murder of Mst. Zuhra Begum and her minor son Roohul Amin Shah alongwith acquitted accused Amir Nawaz under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Before the Sessions Judge, Charsadda. The appellant was found guilty of double murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on to counts with fine of Rs.15,000 or in default to suffer further R.I.
3. For to years. The sentences were to run concurrently but benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was refused. The co-accused in the case was acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal the sentence and conviction of appellant has been upheld by the High Court. Leave was granted in the jail petition to consider the following points: -- "The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence and retracted judicial confession.
4. Why the murders remained unreported so long and whether the circumstantial evidence is of a quality which can sustain conviction requires examination. " , The prosecution story is that during the night between 15th and 16th of Ramazam in the year 1988, the deceased Zuhra Begum and her minor son Roohul Amin Shah were found missing. Mst. Zarina, mother of the deceased Zuhra Begum, sent various applications to authorities informing about disappearance of Mst. Zuhra Begum and her son Roohul Amin Shah but to no avail. The appellant who was under arrest in another case (F.I.R No. 101, dated 21-8-1988) under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 disclosed during investigation of that case, that he alongwith his brother Amir Nawaz (acquitted accused) and Faizullah (absconder in the case) had committed the murder of the deceased Zuhra Begum and her son Roohul Amin Shah and buried them in his fields. The dead bodies of the to deceased were exhumed by the police from the fields on the Plantation of the appellant in presence of a Magistrate. The to dead bodies were identified by Mst. Zarina, the mother of the deceased Zuhra Begum.
5. To prove its case against appellant, the prosecution relied on motive, judicial confession of appellant and recovery of dead bodies of the to deceased in the case at the Plantation of the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judicial confusion of the accused was of no evidentiary value as it was recorded after 4 days of the arrest of the accused/appellant and at the trial the appellant retracted from the confession. With regard to motive, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that it could not be established against the appellant. Criticising the medical evidence in the case, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the medical evidence neither established the cause of death nor the identity of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant accordingly, contended that the appellant was entitled to acquittal in the case. The learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of to Courts below and prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.
7. It is true that there are no eye-witnesses in the case to the occurrence but the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in the case is very strong. The appellant was arrested by the police in a case of theft vide F.I.R. No. 101 dated 21-8-1988 and during the interrogation of that case, he disclosed the murders in the above case and led the police party to the place where he had buried 2 deceased after murdering them. The recovery of dead bodies of the to deceased at the Plantation of the appellant is very strong circumstantial evidence in the case which could not be easily ignored. The to deceased were found lying buried in the fields belonging to the appellant and therefore, the fact about' their burial in the ground was within the special knowledge of the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the confession of the appellant was not voluntary as it was recorded after about 4 days of his arrest by the police and therefore, it should not be taken into consideration, has no force. As earlier pointed the appellant was initially arrested in a case registered against him under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and while in custody in the aforesaid case, he disclosed the murder of the to deceased and offered to make a confession in this regard.
8. According to prosecution evidence, he was arrested in the present case on 10-10-1988 after registration of F.I.R. No. 124. In these circumstances, the detention of the appellant with the police before making his confessional statement is not of much significance. The confession recorded by the Magistrate in the case does not suffer from any legal infirmity. We have gone through the confessional statement and found that before recording confession of the appellant, the Magistrate allowed him sufficient tithe and also informed him the consequences in case he makes a confession in the case. Nothing in the evidence could be brought to show that the confession was induced or was result of any torture by the police. The to Courts below in maintaining conviction of the appellant have relied on the confession of the appellant and there does not appear to be any illegality in the same. With regard to the identity of the to deceased, it will suffice to observe here that Mst. Zarina, the mother of the C deceased Mst. Zuhra Begum, identified the body of her daughter as she was buried alongwith her clothes which she was wearing at the the she was murdered. She gave a very positive statement in this regard which was not challenged in cross-examination. The defence, otherwise, has not been able to prove that the dead bodies recovered from the fields of the appellant were not that of Mst. Zuhra and her minor son. On reappraisal of the evidence, we are of the view that the to Courts below have committed any misreading of evidence nor the Courts below have omitted from consideration any important piece of evidence. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.