1. ' By the aforesaid application, bail is sought in respect of applicant Taj Muhammad in Crime No,331 of 1999 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 3-3-2001.
2. ' The crux of the First Information Report is that on 28-12-1999 at 1-30 p.m. Complainant Abdul Zaman appeared at Quaidabad Police Station and lodged F.I.R. Alleging that on the eventful day after purchasing material from Joria Bazar when he was reverting back and at about 1-00 p.m.
3. Reached at his house where he was informed about the dispute between his real nephew Muhammad Dost Khan and distant nephew Taj Muhammad. On receipt of such information the complainant immediately rushed to the noted place and on reaching Adamjee Road near Telephone Exchange he found a mob of people. The complainant found that his real nephew Muhammad Dost Khan was lying dead who had sustained bullet injuries on back of neck and backside.
4. ' Motive disclosed in the F.I.R. Shows that about three years prior to this incident his maternal- cousin namely Meraj Gul was killed in Chachery village which is situated at the distance of 5/6 miles from the native village of complainant in which Akbar Khan son of complainant Abdul Zaman and his nephew Sarwar Khan were arrested and they are confined in jail whereas Muhammad Khan is absconding. The above murder is said to be a sequel of that grudge. The investigation followed and in due course the applicant was sent up to stand trial in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Malir.
5. ' The case proceeded during the course of which the evidence of complainant Abdul Zaman, P.W.
6. Muhammad Saleem and P.C. Tahir Masood was recorded in which they have not supported the case of prosecution.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case has proceeded and during the course of trial three witnesses namely complainant Abdul Zaman, P.W. Tahir Masood and P.W.
8. Muhammad Saleem were examined by the learned trial Court. P.W./complainant Abdul Zaman and P.W. Tahir Masood were examined as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence whereas P.W.
9. Muhammad Saleem was examined as Mashir of the arrest of the accused/applicant Taj Muhammad. All the witnesses named above have not supported the case of prosecution. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no circumstantial evidence of recoveries inasmuch as neither weapon of offence was secured from the possession of applicant nor any empty was recovered from Wardat. The only piece of evidence left behind/against the applicant is the judicial confession of applicant Taj Muhammad being made before the Additional City Magistrate, District Malir, Karachi on 1-1-2000. It has been further explored that according to the judicial confession the applicant had submitted the guilt. According to the learned counsel the only piece of evidence against the applicant is judicial confession of the applicant which is not seeking corroboration from any independent source. He put an impetus that as per confessional statement of applicant, he has taken the plea of right of self-defence and according to him nothing is said to be an offence if the things are done in the right of private defence and in this background the learned counsel for the applicant laid down on stress that it is a fit case where the discretion of bail could be exercised in favour of the applicant.
10. ' The learned counsel for the State conceded to the grant of bail on the ground that the only piece of evidence against the applicant is his confessional statement which is not seeking corroboration from any quarter. The opinion given by the learned State Counsel appears to be perfunctory, arbitrary and irrelevant.
11. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the concerned parties. It is wrong to say that the only piece of evidence left behind/against the applicant is his judicial confession. The confessional statement on the contrary is corroborated by the medical evidence. It would be just and necessary to reproduce the statement of applicant Taj Muhammad given in judicial confession which is reproduced in extenso as under:-- "On 28-12-1999 when I was selling Chana and Makai at Muhammad Nagar Muhammad Dost Khan alias Mandos Khan son of Muhammad Azim came to me and as he had killed my uncle Mairaj Gui at District Mansahra and was absconding in that case. He forced me to make compromise with him and also insisted me to have compromise with my father to drop that murder case. I told him to wait for some time but he did not agree with me and after some hot words he tried to take out lOaded gun from his Nepha of Shalwar. In the meantime to save myself I took pistol I had already with me and shooted him on spot. I fired 5 bullets at him and he died at spot. The people who were present at site caught me by arms and jointly took me to the Police Station Quaidabad. I was arrested by Police."
12. ' The learned Magistrate while issuing certificate at the foot of confession has stated that the confessional statement made by the applicant was true and voluntarily made. Moreso, the confessional statement given by the applicant is corroborated by the medical evidence and theory of apprehension of the applicant at the spot alongwith pistol, as according to applicant, Taj Muhammad, it has been stated by him that he fired by means of bullet weapon and medical evidence disclosed injuries sustained by him were from fire-arm. The confessional statement of the applicant is not retracted at an earliest opportunity as the witnesses examined were not subjected to cross-examination on the point of judicial confession to the extent that the confessional statement made by the accused was due to pressure, coercion and threats nor any suggestion was put to the witnesses that the said statement being made was neither voluntarily nor true.
13. There is unbroken line of decisions wherein it has been held time and again that the conviction could be based on the judicial confession of the accused alone provided it is voluntary and ringing truth. The confessional statement not only appears to be voluntarily made but also true and same is also corroborated by the acceptable pieces of evidence.
14. ' In the circumstances the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to make out a case for bail which accordingly is dismissed.
15. Criminal Bail Application No,440 of 2001 stands disposed of alongwith listed application.