' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---This appeal with the. Leave of the Court is directed against the judgment, dated 26-10-1994, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench at Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No,7 of 1994, whereby the conviction of Muhammad Amjad appellant under section 302, P.P.C., and sentence of life imprisonment plus fine awarded to him was maintained.
2. Leave was granted to consider as to whether conviction of the appellant on the retracted confession and conflicting versions of the P.Ws., was justified in law.
3. The facts in brief are that on the night of 22-6-1990 Muhammad Siddique deceased, Ghulam Ghaus P.W.1 his brother Mst. Aisha P.W.2, his mother, and Mst. Abida Parveen P.W.3, his sister, were sleeping in their house. At about midnight the family members of the deceased woke up on hearing the noise and saw Muhammad Siddique deceased in an injured condition and bleeding from the neck. Before the deceased could communicate any he fainted. The P.Ws., tried to open the main door but it was found locked from outside. On the alarm raised by the P.Ws., people from the nieghbouring house came and opened the door. Muhammad Siddique deceased was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Ghulam Ghaus P.W.1 reported the matter to the police at 2-30 a.m.
4. The motive for the offence was that the appellant was annoyed with the complainant party over the engagement of Mst. Sajida, sister of the complainant, with Javed son of Ghulam Rasool.
5. Allah Dino, S.I. P.W.6 arrested the appellant on 23-6-1990 and recovered blood-stained dagger P.6 at his instance through Mashirnama P.16 attested by Mumtaz Ahmad P.W.5 and Muhammad Din.
6. At the trial, the prosecution examined Ghulam Ghaus P.W.1, Mst. Aisha P.W.2 and Mst. Abida Parveen P.W.3 as eye-witnesses. According to them, they had seen the appellant running away from the courtyard of their house with a butcher's knife in his hand. Ghulam Dastgir P.W.7, Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M., Shandadpur, proved the confessional statement Exh.P.19 made by the appellant before him under section 164, Cr.P.C. Mumtaz Ahmed P.W.5 testified to the recovery of Butcher's knife at the instance of the appellant from the house of his uncle. S.I. Allah Dino P.W.6 carried out investigation of the case.
7. The appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He also denied having made any confessional statement.
8. Relying on the testimony of the aforementioned prosecution witnesses and the confessional statement of the appellant the learned trial Court by judgment dated 23-12-1992 convicted him under section 302, P.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For one year, with a further direction to pay compensation amounting to Rs,10,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. However, in view of the tender age of the appellant the extreme penalty of death was not awarded to him. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him.
9. It is contended that the appellant has been involved in the case merely on the basis of suspicion and that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R., lodged by Ghulam Ghaus P.W.1, real brother of the deceased, and further that the confessional statement was not recorded in accordance with law. Recovery of knife is also assailed on the ground that it was not recovered from the place in the exclusive possession of the appellant..
10. No doubt, the name of the appellant does not find mention in the F.I.R., lodged by Ghulam Ghaus P.W.1, but Mst. Aisha and Mst. Abida Parveen P.Ws., had categorically stated to have seen the appellant running away from the courtyard of their house with a butcher's knife in his hand. They were not confronted with their statements made before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C., to show that they had improved upon their previous statements. In the absence of confrontation, no adverse inference can be drawn against them. They were the inmates of the house and as such were the natural witnesses and nothing was suggested to them showing their animosity or towards the appellant to falsely involve him in the case of the present nature.
The fact that the appellant was arrested a few hours after the occurrence lends corroboration to the fact that the P.Ws., were aware of the identity of the assailant which enabled the police to immediately arrest him and to recover knife P.16 at his instance, which stands established through the evidence of Mumtaz Ahmad P.W.5 and Allah Dino S.I., P.W.6.
11. The confessional statement made by the appellant also appears to be voluntary and true. It was recorded on the third day of his arrest and as per statement of Mr. Ghulam Dastgir, Mukhtiarkar/F.C.M., Shandadpur, it was recorded after observing all the necessary formalities. The appellant was sent to jail after recording his statement and not delivered to the police. The signatures of the appellant were obtained thereon. The details of the incident as mentioned by him in the said statement fully correspond with the prosecution story and leave no room to doubt its authenticity.
12. Having considered all pros and cons of the case we are of the view that the prosecution had fully succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt and the learned Trial Court and the High Court had rightly appraised the evidence in recording conviction of the appellant and the conclusion arrived by them does not warrant any interference. In consequence, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.