1. ' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This criminal appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16-9-1991 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in Sessions Case No.14 of 1982. The State v. Nasreen Akhtar and two others, whereby the appellant alongwith two others was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to life imprisonment. Co-accused Mst.
2. Shakooran Bibi and Maqbool Ahmed have not appealed against the conviction and sentence affirmed by the High Court Lahore.
3. ' The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the two co-accused were charged that they, on the night between 10th and 11th July, 1982, within the area of Police Station Moghalpura, Lahore, in the furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Muhammad Yousaf, intentionally causing his death, liable to be punished under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C.
4. To which they pleaded not guilty and requested to be tried.
5. ' The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. P.W. 13, Wali Muhammad and P.W.14, Muhammad Shafi, are the two prosecution witnesses who have deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Mst. Shakooran Bibi, implicating herself and the co-accused in the commission of the murder of the deceased. P.W.16, Mrs. Pervaiz Aslam, is the handwriting expert to whom the letters were sent alongwith the specimen signatures of appellant Nasreen Akhtar. She has deposed that the letters marked Exhs. PA, PB and PC and spedimen signatures of the appellant marked Exhs. PA/1 to PA/3, PB/1 to PB/3 and PC/1 to PC/3, in Urdu, were identical in character with the specimen signatures of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar. P.W.20 is Investigating Officer Inamullah Khan, 5.-I.
6. So far other witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 4 deposed that they knew nothing about the case. While P.Ws. 6 and 7 are police officials whose evidence is formal in nature. P.W.8, Ghulam Mustafa, was a recovery witness but he turned hostile. P.W.10 Talib Hussain, a recovery witness, also turned hostile, P.W.17, Rehmat Ali, is also a recovery witness, but he also became hostile. Trial Court has placed reliance upon the letters written by the appellant to co-accused Maqbool Ahmed recovered at the latter's instance, the relevant paragraphs of the said letters have been reproduced in the trial Court judgment. The trial Court has also placed reliance upon the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.20, Inamullah Khan, who deposed about the recovery of Sandawa (P.5) from co-accused Maqbool Ahmad, at whose instance it was recovered, and recovery of Tassy (P.6) at the instance of co-accused Shakooran Bibi.
7. ' The learned Judge of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, in overall assessment of the evidence, has relied upon medical evidence, testimony of P.W.13, Wali Muhammad, and P.W.14, Shafi Muhammad about extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Shakooran Bibi, and evidence of P. W.16, Mrs. Pervaiz Aslam, a handwriting expert, so also the testimony of P.W.20, Inamullah Khan, Investigating Officer of the case with regard to the recovery of Sandawa at the instance of co- accused Maqbool Ahmad and recovery of Tassy at the instance of co-accused Shakooran Bibi.
8. ' We have heard Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem, the learned counsel for the appellant, who has argued that the retracted extra-judicial confession of co-accused Mst. Shakooran Bibi cannot be used against appellant Mst. Nasreen Akhtar in absence of corroboration in material particulars. He has placed reliance upon Noor Muhammad v. The State (1986 SCM R 467).
9. There is no cavil about the rule laid down that unless retracted extra-judicial confession of co- accused is corroborated in material particulars, it would not be prudent to base conviction in a criminal case on its strength alone. In the instant case, the testimony of P.W.13, Wali Muhammad and P.W.14, Muhammad Shafi is in respect of retracted extrajudicial confession of co-accused Mst Shakooran Bibi made to them is confidence-inspiring and is of unimpeachable character, as their testimony could not be shaken even in the cross-examination by the appellant. The extra-judicial confession is also fully corroborated by recovery evidence of crime weapons, viz. Tassy and Sandawa, recovered at the pointation of co-accused Mst. Shakooran Bibi and Maqbool. Ahmad, which is testified by P.W.20, Investigating Officer Inamullah Khan, whose testimony is also found to be reliable and confidence-inspiring and his veracity could not be shaken in the cross- examination. The medical evidence also corroborated the retracted extra-judicial confession that the deceased was done to death by violence by use of sharp-edged weapon. It will not be out of place to mention here that the appellant the daughter of deceased, and co-accused Mst.
10. Shakooran Bibi the wife of deceased, were admittedly in the house when violence was being committed upon the deceased, but they did not bother to come to the rescue of the deceased in any form, who was being given blows with sharp-edged weapons with force. Considering also that the deceased had point blank refused the marriage of the appellant with co-accused Maqbool Ahmed. The letterg written by the appellant to co-accused Maqbool Ahmed also stood proved that she wanted to get rid of her father so that she could have forever the company of co-accused Maqbool Ahmad, her paramour. There is also no merit that because the deceased was the husband of co-accused Mst. Shakooran Bibi hence she would have never wanted to become widow after the commission of murder of. Her husband, therefore, could not have made extra- judicial confession before the P.Ws. 13 and 14 considering that there is the confidence-inspiring evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 14, recovery evidence, crime weapons, and medical evidence which was consistent and fully corroborated the fact of extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Mst.
11. Shakooran implicating herself and the appellant and co-accused ,Maqbool Ahmed in the commission of crime, therefore, the retracted extrajudicial confession could be taken into consideration against the appellant as well. Reference may be made to Qayyum Khan v. State (1998 M LD 344), wherein Full Bench of Federal Shariat Court has observed:--- "It is pertinent to mention that although the confession of a co-accused alone cannot make a basis for conviction of another accused, it can be taken into consideration, as contemplated under the provisions of Article 43(B) of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, as circumstantial piece of evidence against her/him, as the case may be, and can be made a foundation for award of Tazir sentence, provided it is corroborated by other independent evidence."
12. ' Reference may also be made to Ram Parkash v. State of Punjab (PLD 1959 Supreme Court (India)
19. Paragraph 6 of the judgment runs- "Although on behalf of the appellant it had not been argued that the retracted confession of Perm was inadmissible, we regard the submission that it was irrelevant and cannot be used against the appellant as tantamount to saying the same thing. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act states: ' When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself of and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.'
13. ' It will be clear from the terms of this section that Where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by any one of them affecting himself and any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the Court not only against the maker of the confession but also against his co-accused. The Evidence Act nowhere provides that if the confession is retracted, it cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused or the confessing accused. Accordingly, the provisions of the Evidence Act do not prevent the Court from taking into consideration a retracted confession against the confessing accused and his co- accused. Not a single decision of any of the Courts in India was placed before us to show that a retracted confession was not admissible in evidence or that it was irrelevant as against a co- accused. An examination of the reported decisions of the various High Courts in India indicates that the preponderance of opinion is in, favour of the view that although it may be taken into consideration against a co-accused by virtue of the provisions of section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, its value was extremely weak and there could be no conviction without the fullest and strongest corroboration on material particulars. The corroboration in the full sense implies corroboration not only as to the factum of the crime but also as to the connection of the co- accused with that crime. In our opinion, there appears to be considerable justification for this view.
14. The amount of credibility to be attached to a retracted confession, however, would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. Although a retracted confession is admissible against a co-accused by virtue of section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, as a matter of prudence and practice a Court would not ordinarily act upon it to convict a co-accused without corroboration. On this basis it is now to be seen whether the confession was voluntary and true. It will then be necessary to consider whether the confession has received full and strong corroboration in material particulars both as to the crime and the appellant's connection with that crime."
15. ' In the instant case, the appellant was portly tried for the same offence and co-accused Mst.
16. Shakooran Bibi made ,,xtra-judicial confession in presence of P.W.13, Wali Muhammad and P.W.14, Muhammad Shafi, which evidence is also fully corroborated in material particulars by recovery evidence of crime weapons, viz. Tassy and Sandawa which were recovered at the pointation of co- accused Mst. Shakooran Bibi and Maqbool Ahmed who have not filed any appeal against their conviction maintained by the High Court, and further the said recovery evidence of crime weapons has been proved by P.W.20, Investigating Officer Inamullah Khan, whose evidence is also reliable and confidence-inspiring. The mere fact that Mst. Shakooran Bibi has retraoted the extra-judicial confession would not in itself lessen its evidentiary value when the said retracted extra judicial confession has been fully corroborated in material particulars by recovery evidence of crime weapons, the medical evidence and the testimony of P.W. 16, Mrs. Pervaiz Iqbal--the handwriting expert, about the letters written by the appellant to co-accused Maqbool Ahmad.
17. ' The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged letters said to have been written by the appellant have not been proved in accordance with law.
18. ' We do not find any substance in this contention as well. The letters were recovered from the possession of co-accused Maqbool Ahmad at his instance and were sent to the handwriting expert P.W.16 alongwith the specimen signatures of the appellant, who opined that the handwriting on the letters was identical in character to that of the admitted specimen writing of the appellant.
19. No other plea has been raised. There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below. We do not find any substance in this appeal, consequently, the same is dismissed.
20. ' The appellant is on bail granted by this Court, but she has remained absent, therefore, her bail bond and surety bond are forfeited. The trial Court to initiate proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
21. For recovery of bond amounts from the appellant and her surety for breach of bonds. The trial Court will also issue non-bailable warrants against the appellant for her arrest so that she could serve out the remaining sentence passed.