THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.05 of 2012

Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.07 of 2012

Confirmation Case No.01 of 2012

 

                                               Present:

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Ghulam Qadir Leghari

 

J U D G M E N T

 

Appellants:                      Rashid Aslam son of Muhammad Aslam Arain through Mr. Abdul Qadir Halepota, advocate (in Special Cr. ATA No.05/2012)

 

                                      Arshad Nabi son of Altaf Nabi Dar through Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi, advocate (in Spl. Cr. ATA No.07/2012)

 

Respondent:                   The State through Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, A.P.G.

 

Complainant:                  Abdul Sattar son of Nawab Khan, through       M/s. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Jamil Ahmed Rajper, Advocates

 

Dates of hearings:           05.05.2016, 06.05.2016, 11.05.2016

Date of Announcement:  25.05.2016

 

 

Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.--- Appellants Rashid Aslam and Arshad Nabi were tried by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa A. Memon, Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad and Mirpurkhas Divisions at Hyderabad for offences under sections 365-A, 302, 34, PPC read with section 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, who found both appellants guilty. Vide judgment dated 06.02.2012, appellants were convicted under Sections 302(a), 365-A, 34, PPC read with section 7(a) and (e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death on both counts. Both accused were directed to pay fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) each, to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Sami as required under section 544-A, Cr.PC. In case of default in payment of fine, accused were ordered to suffer 5 years’ R.I. Moveable and immovable properties of both accused were confiscated to the Government. Trial Court made reference for confirmation of death sentence.

 

2.       Brief facts of the prosecution case, which have occasioned this appeal, are that complainant owns cotton factory at Mirpurkhas. He had a son, namely, Abdul Sami, aged about 16/17 years, who was studying in First year in ZABST College, Mirpurkhas. Complainant left home on 05.12.2006 at 09:00 a.m. and went to his factory, while leaving behind his son Abdul Sami and other family members. Complainant returned home at 2200 hours, at that time his son Abdul Sami was not present. Complainant inquired from the family members about his son Abdul Sami and he was informed that Abdul Sami had left home at 04:45 p.m. and did not return back. Thereafter, complainant made call to his son on Cell No.0333-2986239 but it was switched off. Complainant telephoned his relatives and inquired about Abdul Sami but without any clue. On 06.12.2006 at morning, complainant narrated the fact of missing of his son to his elder brother Nadeem and cousin Abdul Hakeem. Search of Abdul Sami was made at different places but without any result. It is alleged that complainant was present at his cotton factory on 06.12.2006 at 1530 hours, he received a call on his PTCL No.874944 from an unknown caller. Complainant was informed by said caller that his son Abdul Sami was with them and complainant was required to make arrangement of ransom. Complainant went to the police station and lodged FIR against unknown persons. FIR was recorded by ASI Roshan Ali vide Crime No.230/2006 at police station Town Mirpurkhas under section 365-A,  PPC. Inspector Muhammad Arif Bhatti, initiated investigation of this case. He recorded 161, Cr.PC statements of PWs Abdul Hakeem and Nadeem on 10.12.2006. He arrested accused Arshad Nabi and Imran from bus terminal Mirpurkhas on 12.12.2006. IO recovered one mobile phone with SIM of UFone from accused Arshad Nabi in presence of mashirs Abdul Rehman and Imtiaz and prepared such mashirnama. SIM No.03333285609 was recovered from accused Arshad Nabi. On 12.12.2006 IO had also arrested accused Rashid Aslam from Station Chowk Mirpurkhas in presence of the same mashirs and recovered mobile phone and SIM No.0304-2266955. Both accused were interrogated. On 14.12.2006 investigation officer along with his police staff and private persons, namely, Abdul Rehman and Imtiaz went to P.S. Darakhshan, Karachi along with both accused. SIP Munir Chandio of P.S. Darakhshan accompanied with them to the place where dead body of deceased Abdul Sami was thrown by accused. It was Khayaban-e-Iqbal, DHA Phase-VIII, Karachi and place was pointed out by both accused, separately. Such mashirnama was prepared in presence of the mashirs. SIP Munir Ahmed of P.S. Darakhshan showed photographs of dead body to the police party and private mashirs PW Abdul Rehman, uncle of deceased Abdul Sami identified the photographs and clothes of his nephew Abdul Sami. Investigation officer submitted an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South for exhumation of the dead body. Application was allowed. Medical board was constituted and concerned Magistrate was deputed. IO took team of doctors and Magistrate             Mr. Khushi Muhammad to the Edhi graveyard. Dead body was exhumed and medically examined by the doctors. During investigation, both accused pointed out the house in which deceased Abdul Sami was confined by them for ransom. Under the bed sheet, identity card of deceased Abdul Sami of ZABST College was also recovered. IO secured the same and prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs Imtiaz and Abdul Rehman. IO secured Rent-A-Car bearing No.ALW-138, used by the accused in the commission of offence. During investigation, accused had shown the place where they had thrown mobile phone, keys and purse of deceased Abdul Sami, such mashirnama was prepared. Investigation Officer recorded 161, Cr.PC statements of PWs Saad Hashmi, Moazam Iqbal, Muhammad Aqeel, Muhammad Azeem and Abdul Aziz on 21.12.2006. On 23.12.2006 IO produced witnesses before Judicial Magistrate, Mirpurkhas for identification parade of the accused through these witnesses. Magistrate conducted identification parade of accused Arshad Nabi and Rashid Aslam and they were identified by the PWs, namely, Muhammad Aqeel, Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Azeem and Muhammad Qasim. Imran was let off by investigation officer on 18.12.2006. IO sent blood samples of deceased and his parents for DNA report. IO collected call data record. On the conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted by the IO against accused Arshad Nabi and Rashid Aslam under Sections 302, 365-A, 34, PPC read with section 6(2)(A) and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

 

3.       Charge was framed against accused Arshad Nabi and Rashid Aslam on 16.01.2007 at Ex-4. Mr. Akhlaq Hussain Larik, Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, found charge defective. On the application of S.P.P., Amended charge was framed against both accused at Ex-13. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

 

4.       At the trial prosecution examined Abdul Sattar (PW-1), Muhammad Azeem (PW-2), Muhammad Aqeel (PW-3), Muhammad Qasim (PW-4), Saad Hashmi (PW-5), Moizam Iqbal (PW-6), Abdul Aziz (PW-7), Muneer Ahmed (PW-8), Tahir Aziz (PW-9), Dr. Qarar Ahmed (PW-10), Muhammad Asif (PW-11), Abdul Rehman (PW-12), Capt. Dr. Farhat Hussain Mirza (PW-13), Roshan Ali (PW-14), Muhammad Asghar (PW-15), Dr. Syed Farhat Hussain (PW-16), Kamran Zafar (PW-17), Wiqar Hussain (PW-18), Zeeshan Hyder (PW-19), Mr. Nadeem Badar (PW-20), Mr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-21), Muhammad Tariq Khan (PW-22), Tharo Khan (PW-23), Muhammad Arif Bhatti (PW-24). Thereafter, prosecution side was closed at Ex-53.

 

5.       Statements of accused Arshad Nabi and Rashid Aslam were recorded under sections 342, Cr.PC at Ex-55 and 56. Both accused denied the prosecution allegation. Accused Arshad Nabi stated that he was picked up by DSP on 19.12.2006 from Naval PHQ, Karachi. He denied the pointation of place where dead body of Abdul Sami was thrown. He has stated that he had never led the police to any showroom of rant-a-car. Accused Arshad Nabi in reply to question No.17 has answered that he was shown to the witnesses before identification parade and his photographs were also printed in the newspapers. He has also denied his confessional statement before the Magistrate. In a question why the PWs have deposed against him, he replied that he is the victim of personal grudge of DSP Qamar Ahmed, who had poisoned the complainant against him. Accused Arshad Nabi did not examine himself on oath in disproof of prosecution allegations, however, he has examined witnesses in his defence. He pleaded his innocence and produced written statement at Ex-55/A.

6.       Accused Rashid Aslam has also denied the prosecution allegations and claimed false implication in this case and stated that in fact he was arrested from his house, situated in Gulshan-e-Hadeed on 11.12.2006 by ASI Naeem Ashraf of Mirpurkhas. He has also denied that he led the police party to the showroom of rent-a-car. He has also replied to question No.17 that witnesses had seen him before identification parade and his photographs were printed in the newspapers. In reply to question No.19, he replied that he was not produced before Magistrate at Digri for recording confessional statement but his signatures were obtained by the police on blank papers. He has also claimed personal grudge with DSP Qamar Ahmad and raised plea that said DSP had poisoned the complainant against him. Accused Rashid Aslam declined to give statement on oath in disproof of prosecution allegations. He has examined in defence DWs ASI Naeem Ashraf, Nayar Alam and Ahsan Ahmed Channa. In a question, what else has to say? He has adopted the written statement filed by co-accused Arshad Nabi.           

 

7.       Learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Mirpurkhas, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of evidence, convicted and sentenced both appellants Arshad Nabi and Rashid Aslam to death as stated above.

 

8.       We have carefully heard Mr. Abdul Qadir Halepota, learned advocate for appellant Rashid Aslam, Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qazi, learned counsel for appellant Arshad Nabi and Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, learned Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh, assisted by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Jameel Ahmed Rajper, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the evidence minutely.

 

9.       Mr. A. Q. Halepota, learned counsel for appellant Rashid Aslam has raised the following contentions:

(i)      That conviction and sentence under section 302(a), PPC is bad in law as prosecution witnesses were not subjected to Tazkiat-ul-Shuhood test before recording the evidence.

(ii)      That no sentence of fine can be imposed upon accused in case of their conviction under section 302 PPC.

(iii)     That the dead body of Abdul Sami deceased had been completely de-composed and there was no material before the Trial Court to hold that the dead body recovered from the Defence area was that of Abdul Sami, deceased.

(iv)     F.I.R. is delayed by at least two days. The explanation furnished was not plausible.

(v)     That statements of PWs under section 161, Cr.PC were recorded with inordinate delay, without plausible explanation.

(vi)     That no separate identification parade of each accused through witnesses was held and joint identification parade of both accused was not the requirement of the law.

(vii)    That memo of arrest of accused Rashid Aslam was false and fabricated

viii)    That place of recoveries of dead body was on joint pointation of accused, where dead body was allegedly thrown by accused. Such piece of evidence cannot be termed as discovery as a consequence of information given by accused.

ix)      That it is the case of joint pointation of House No. 57/2, Phase-IV, Khayaban-e-Karachi, where deceased was confined for ransom.

x)       That recovery of the identity card from house No.57/2, Phase-IV, Khayaban-e-Karachi, on the pointation of accused was inadmissible in evidence.

xi)      That it was the case of joint pointation of the place near sea, where key of car and purse of deceased Sami were thrown by the accused.

xii)     (a)      That confessions of accused Rashid Aslam and Arshad Nabi were involuntarily.

          (b)     That Magistrate did not inform the accused that in case they refused to make confession, they would not be sent back to the same police.

          (c)      That judicial confession of accused is inconsistent with prosecution case.

xiii)    That mashir of all the mashirnamas, except two, is real brother of complainant, namely, Abdul Rehman, co-mashir was Imtiaz Panhwar, who was an independent person but he was not examined by the prosecution at trial.

xiv)    That one tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another piece of tainted evidence.

xv)     That from Mobile No.0333-2986239 call was made to the mobile of deceased Abdul Sami No.0333-3286609 on 06.12.2006 at 1059 p.m. from Mirpurkhas.

 

          Mr. Halepota argued that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt makes accused entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Lastly, he argued that from the prosecution evidence, ingredients of Sections 365-A, PPC are also not satisfied. In support of his submissions he relied upon the following cases:

 

  1. Muhammad Saleem versus The State (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 558)
  2. Noor Muhammad versus The State and another (2011 AC 39)
  3. Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs. The State (2008 SCMR 1221)
  4. Rahat Ali versus the State (2010 SCMR 584)
  5. Lal Pasand versus the State (PLD 1981 SC 142)
  6. Imran Ashraf and 7 Others vs. The State (2001 SCMR 424)
  7. Kirir versus The State (PLD 1996 Karachi 246)
  8. Mst. Askar Jan and others vs. Muhammad Daud & Others (2010 SCMR 1604)
  9. Naseem Akhtar and another vs. The State (1999 SCMR 1744)
  10. Bagh Ali versus Muhammad Anwar and another (1983 SCMR 1292)
  11. Hakim Gul versus The State (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Peshawar 1)
  12. Wazir and Others versus The State (PLD 1960 (W.P.) Karachi 674)
  13. Muhammad Yaqub versus The State (PLD 1969 Lahore 548)
  14. Rukan Zaman versus Khizar Hayat and others (1988 SCMR 950)
  15. Ahmad and another versus The State (1977 PCr.LJ 662 [Karachi])
  16. Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah & another Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 1410)
  17. Muhammad Akram versus The Statte (2009 SCMR 230)
  18. Khurshid Ahmad vs. Kabool Ahmad and others (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 356.

 

10.     Mr. M.A. Kazi, learned advocate for accused Arshad Nabi, adopted the arguments of Mr. A.Q. Halepota, counsel for appellant Rashid Aslam. He further added that appellant was arrested from Naval PHQ Karachi. Mr. Kazi emphasis that mashir Abdul Rehman had identified the dead body on the basis of clothes of the deceased and bandage on his leg but no bandage or injury was found in the postmortem examination report.        Mr. Kazi, argued that prosecution case is highly doubtful. In support the contentions, he has relied upon the following cases:

 

1.      Muhammad Pervez & Others vs. The State and others (2007 SCMR 670)

2.      Naqibullah and another vs. The State (PLD 1978 SC 21)

3.      Siddiqullah versus The State and another (PLD 2009 Peshawar 1)

4.      Muhammad Sadiq & another Vs. The State (PLD 1960 SC [Pak] 223)

5.      Amir Ali versus The State (PLD 1960 [W.P] Karachi 753)

11.     Learned A.P.G., assisted by M/s. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and Jamil Ahmed Rajper, learned counsel for the complainant, made following submissions:

(i)                That deceased was lastly seen alive in the car of the accused by PWs Muhammad Aqeel, Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Azeem. Inference can reasonably be drawn that accused are responsible for the death of the deceased.

(ii)              The accused were arrested on 12.12.2006 from Mirpurkhas and led the police party to Karachi and separately pointed out place, where dead body was thrown in defence area and pointed out the house where the deceased was confined for ransom and identity card of deceased was recovered underneath the bed where Abdul Sami was murdered by way of strangulation. It is submitted that such recovery was based on the information furnished by both the accused to the IO.

(iii)            That discovery was based on the information furnished by  both the accused to the IO, prior to said information place of throwing the dead body and place where deceased was murdered and his school card were recovered, were not known to anyone. It is argued that same can be used against accused under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

(iv)            That deceased was identified by his uncle PW Abdul Rehman on the basis of his clothes and photographs.

(v)              That chain of circumstances from the stage of last seen evidence till the death of victim have been established by conclusive evidence.

(vi)            That confession of accused was recorded after 14 days of their arrest would not be indicative of any doubt regarding their voluntariness. 

(vii)          That call data has been produced in the evidence which proved that both the accused contacted complainant/father of deceased for ransom.

(viii)        Both the accused were identified by PWs in the identification parade held before the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Mirpurkhas on 23.12.2006.

(ix)            That both the accused made confession before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Digri on 24.12.2006 and it was voluntary.

(x)              That investigation officer had sent blood samples taken from the dead body and of parents of deceased. DNA report was positive.

(xi)            That medical evidence reflected that deceased died unnatural death by asphyxia.

(xii)          That prosecution has succeeded to prove the motive against the accused of kidnapping the deceased for ransom.

(xiii)        Regarding defence plea it is argued that it has not been substantiated by cogent evidence.

(xiv)       That PWs had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in this heinous offence.  

(xv)         Lastly, it is argued that though this is the case of circumstantial evidence, yet chain has not been broken. Each and every circumstance connects with each other and leads to the guilt of the accused.

 

          In support their contentions, reliance is placed upon the following cases:

 

1.      Saeed Ahmed Vs. The State (2015 SCMR 710)

2.      Sh. Muhammad Amjad vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 704)

3.      Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others vs. The State and others (1992 SCMR 1983)

4.      Muhammad Ishaq Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 135)

5.      Talib Hussain versus the State (1995 SCMR 1538)

6.      Hamid Mehmood and another Vs. The State (2013 SCMR 1314)

7.      Ghazanfar Ali Vs. The State (2012 SCMR 215)

8.      Nasrullah Khan and 2 others vs. The State (2010 SCMR 881)

9.      Ghulam Hussain Soomro Vs. The State (PLD 2007 SC 71)

10.     Noor Muhammad Vs. The State (1999 SCMR 2722)

11.     Ghulam Nabi versus The State (2007 SCMR 808)

12.  Manjeet Singh versus The State (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 30)

13.  Maj. (Retd.) Tariq Mehmood and others vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1493)

14.  Nazir Shehzad and another versus The State (2009 SCMR 1440)

15.  Dr. Javaid Akhtar versus The State (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 249)

16.  Khan Muhammad and others vs. The State (2011 SCMR 705)

17.  Javed Iqbal and another versus The State (2012 SCMR 140)

12.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have carefully perused the entire evidence.

 

13.     Complainant Abdul Sattar deposed that on 05.12.2006, his son Abdul Sami disappeared from street in front of his house situated at Mirpurkhas. Complainant Abdul Sattar received a call in his factory from unknown caller on 06.12.2006. He was informed that Abdul Sami was with them and ransom was demanded from him. He was threatened not to inform anybody about kidnapping of his son. Complainant waited for another call of the culprits. On 09.12.2006 complainant lodged F.I.R. of the incident at PS Town Mirpurkhas against unknown persons. On 10.12.2006, while hearing the news of disappearance of Abdul Sami, his class fellows came at his residence and informed the family members that Abdul Sami was talking with one Arshad on his mobile. Complainant was advised by family members to collect some information from those class fellows regarding Arshad. Complainant contacted Arshad through PW-11 Tariq. Tariq was class fellow of Arshad and he arranged meeting of complainant with father of Arshad. Thereafter, according to prosecution case, Arshad also met with complainant and disclosed that Imran and Rashid Arain made programme were scheduled to go to Mirpurkhas. Thereafter, Abdul Sattar contacted Imran. He denied about such programme. Complainant suspected the correctness of story narrated to him by accused Arshad and he came from Karachi to Mirpurkhas and informed the police about meeting with Arshad and Imran at Karachi and their evasive replies. P.W-2 Muhammad Azeem was residing in the same Mohalla where complainant resides. He informed complainant that on 05.12.2006 at about 05:00 or 5:15 pm he came out of his house and was going to Doctor, when he came in the street in front of the house of complainant he saw Abdul Sami talking with two boys at footpath of the house. Light golden color Alto car was also parked in the street. P.W-3 Muhammad Aqeel stated that complainant is related to him. On 05.12.2006, PW Muhammad Aqeel went to purchase a car and when he was returing from Tando Allahyar to Mirpurkhas. At 5:30 pm when he reached near Ratanabad, where he stopped car as traffic was jam. He saw a car there, wherein Abdul Sami was sitting in the car on front seat, one person was driving car and another was sitting non rear seat. He identified both accused in identification parade as well as before trial Court. He clearly stated that accused Arshad was driving car and accused Rashid Aslam was sitting on a rear seat. PW-7 Abdul Aziz was resident of same Mohallah where complainant resides. He has stated that on 05.12.2006 at 5:00 pm or 5:15 pm, he left home for recovery and saw two boys along with Abdul Sami sitting in one Suzuki light golden color car in front of house of complainant Abdul Sattar. Abdul Sami sat on front seat of the car, one person was driving car and another person sat at the rear seat of the car. He identified both accused in identification parade and before trial Court. P.W-4 Muhammad Qasim had a Rent a Car business at Karachi. He deposed that on 04.12.2006 accused Arshad Nabi and Rashid came to his showroom and hired his car No. ALW-138. He obtained copy of CNIC of Arshad Nabi and he produced the same in evidence. He has stated that car was returned by both accused on 06.12.2006. It was damaged. He charged extra damages of Rs.8000/- from them. He identified both accused in Court. PW-5 Saad Hashmi student of ZABIST and class fellow of Abdul Sami deposed that on 05.12.2006, he had heard conversation of deceased Abdul Sami with one Arshad when he was accompanied with Abdul Sami in his car. P.W-6 Mozzam Iqbal deposed that on 05.12.2006 he contacted Abdul Sami at about 8:00 pm from his Cell No. 0345-3702725 on the number of Abdul Sami Cell       No. 0333-2986239 and enquired from him the number of his father Abdul Sattar. P.W Mozzam Iqbal found Abdul Sami sleepy/drowsy at that time. PW-18 Wiqar Hussain, Regional Manager, UFone has produced call data record at Ex.44/A showing that call was made from Cell                       Nos.0345-3702725 to Cell No. 0333-2986239. P.W-8 SIP Munir Ahmed of P.S Darakshan deposed that on 11.12.2006 he was posted as Incharge Investigation Team of PS Darakshan. At about 10:30 am he received information that dead body was lying at Street No. 27, Khayaban-e-Iqbal, Phase-VIII, Defence, Karachi. He proceeded to the pointed place, where S.H.O. Ziaul Hassan Rizvi and ASI Kamran Zafar had already arrived. SIP Munir took photographs of the dead body through digital camera and produced such photographs in evidence at Ex.30-A and took dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination and report. PW-09 SIP Tahir Aziz deposed that on 11.12.2006 he was posted in Investigation Branch of PS Darakshan. Investigation of F.I.R. bearing No. 547/2006 u/s 302 PPC lodged at P.S Darakshan was entrusted to him. He visited place of incident and recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws ASI Kamran Zaffar, Tahir Mirza and Khalid Hussain. PW-10 Dr. Qarar Ahmed deposed that on 15.12.2006 dead body was exhumed in presence of Magistrate. He was member of the medical board. He opined that death of the deceased was caused due to Asphyxia. PW-11 Muhammad Asif cousin of the deceased stated that in his presence, PW-12 Abdul Rehman uncle of deceased identified photographs of deceased Abdul Sami shown to him by police. P.W-12 Abdul Rehman acted as mashir of arrest and place where dead body was thrown by accused and mashir of place which was pointed out by accused. He also acted as mashir of a pointation of house where deceased was confined by the accused at Karachi and mashir of recovery of the I.D card of the deceased from the house underneath of the bed as well as mashir of identification of deceased through photographs. PW-13 Dr. Farhat Hussain Mirza has also opined that death of deceased was result of Asphyxia. PW-14 ASI Roshan Ali deposed that on 09.12.2006 he was posted as duty officer at PS Mirpurkhas, he lodged F.I.R. of incident of complainant bearing Crime No. 230/2006 u/s 365 PPC against unknown accused. PW-15 SIP Muhammad Asghar of Motorway police deposed that on 05.12.2006, he was on patrolling duty at Superhighway near Nooriabad. At 9:05 am in between Noriabad and Dadabhoy Cement Factory near Hescol Petrol pump, he found one car with high speed on Superhighway coming from Karachi. Car was stopped. Licence of driver Arshad Nabi was checked. He challaned the driver Arshad Nabi on account of high speed and imposed fine of Rs.750/- and obtained signature of Arshad Nabi on the challan. He produced the receipt in evidence at Ex.38-A. PW-16 Dr. Syed Farhat Hussain had taken blood samples of Abdul Sattar and his wife, the parents of deceased Abdul Sami for DNA in presence of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Mirpurkhas and in civil hospital Mirpurkhas. PW-17 ASI Kamran Zafar deposed that on 11.12.2006, he had received information that a dead body was lying at Defence area and he kept such entry in the record. Such entry was produced in evidence at Ex.43-A.      PW-18 Waqar Hussain Regional Manager UFone has produced call data of Cell number of Arshad Nabi made on the mobile of deceased and record of calls made from Karachi to the number of complainant Abdul Sattar on his PTCL No. 874944 on 06.12.2006 so also the call of P.W-6 Mozzam Iqbal. He has deposed that on 05.12.2006 a call was made from 0333-29862398 at 1359 hours to cell No0333-3285609. Another call was made on same number at 1711 hours. On 06.12.2006 at 1629 hours a call was made to PTCL No.0233874944. PW-19 Dr. Zeeshan Hyder has deposed that on 11.12.2006 he was posted as M.L.O at JPMC Karachi. On that day at about 3:00 pm ASI Kamran Zafar brought dead body of unknown person for conducting postmortem examination and report. He had conducted first postmortem examination. He opined that cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia. P.W-21 Mr. Muhammad Aslam Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Mirpurkhas conducted identification parade of both the accused through P.W-2 Muhammad Azeem, P.W-3 Muhammad Aqeel, P.W-7 Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Qasim on 23.12.2006. P.Ws identified the accused before Magistrate. Before the same Magistrate, blood samples of the parents were taken in hospital at Mirpurkhas by the medical board for DNA test. P.W-20 Mr. Nadim Badar Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Digri recorded confession of both the accused. He has deposed that on that on 24.12.2006 SIO Muhammad Arif Bhatti produced accused Rashid Aslam and Arshad Nabi in Crime No.230/2006 of P.S. Mirpurkhas for recording the confession. He separated both the accused and called accused Rashid Aslam and issued warnings. Accused Arshad Nabi was also called and Magistrate issued him same warnings and inquired about any inducement, threat or promise for making confession but they denied. Magistrate provided them two hours’ time for reflection. Thereafter, firstly called Rashid Aslam in the Court and repeated same warnings. After that accused was giving statement voluntarily, he started recording his statement. After recording such statement magistrate read over its contents to accused Rashid Aslam to which he admitted the same to be true and correct and put his signatures and thumb impression. Magistrate gave certificate that it was true and voluntarily. Thereafter, he called accused Arshad Nabi in the Court and repeated same warnings. After satisfaction, he recorded statement of accused Arshad Nabi. Thereafter, accused Arshad Nabi put his signature and thumb impression on his confession. Magistrate affixed photographs of both the accused on their statements and stated that due to lapse of long time he could not exactly identify accused in the Court. After recording confession he remanded the accused to jail. P.W-22 Muhammad Tariq Khan was friend of deceased as well as of both the accused. He had arranged meeting of father of deceased with accused Arshad Nabi at Karachi. P.W-23 ASI Tharo Khan had recorded 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W-22 Tariq Khan at the instance of SIP Khuda Bux on 26.05.2008. P.W-24 IO Muhammad Arif  carried out investigation of F.I.R. No. 230/2006 registered at P.S Mipurkhas u/s 302/365 PPC. He recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws. He arrested accused Arshad Nabi and Imran (later on let off) from Bus Terminal Mirpurkhas on 12.12.2006 in presence of mashirs namely Abdul Rehman and Imtiaz. Personal search of accused Arshad Nabi was conducted and a mobile phone No. 0333-3285609 was recovered. On 12.12.2006 IO also arrested accused Rashid Aslam from Station Chowk Mirpurkhas in presence of same mashirs and his personal search was conducted and a mobile phone of Nokia along with sim No. 0304-2266955 was recovered. On 14.12.2006, IO along with mashirs Abdul Rehman and Imtiaz and both accused proceeded to PS Darakshan, Karachi. He made such entry at PS Darakshan. Thereafter, SIP Munir Ahmed Chandio, Tahir Aziz Abbasi accompanied with IO and mashirs and accused persons led them to the place, where both accused separately pointed out place where they had thrown dead body in the defence area. IO further stated that SIP Munir Ahmed had shown photographs to PW Abdul Rehman who identified that same were of his nephew deceased Abdul Sami. IO further stated that on 14.12.2006, both accused led IO and same mashirs to the house where both accused had confined deceased for ransom. IO has further stated that he had recovered ID Card of deceased underneath the bed from said house and secured the same in presence of same mashirs and prepared such mashirnama. On 14.12.2006,  IO visited Rent a Car showroom of PW Muhammad Qasim, on the pointation of both accused in presence of masahirs. PW Muhammad Qasim produced NIC of accused Arshad and record of car No. ALW-138 given to both accused on 04.12.2006. IO got dead body exhumed through medical board on the orders of Court and handed over dead body to mashir Abdul Rehman uncle of deceased Abdul Sami. IO inspected place in front of house of complainant from where deceased was kidnapped by the accused persons in a car. Accused Imran was released by IO on 18.12.2006 u/s 169 Cr.P.C. On 21.12.2006 IO recorded statements of P.Ws Saad Hashmi, Mozzam Iqbal, Muhammad Aqeel, Muhammad Azeem and Abdul Aziz u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 23.12.2006 IO produced both accused before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Mirpurkhas for identification parade through P.Ws Muhammad Aqeel, Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad Azeem. IO has stated that accused prepared to make confession and he produced both accused before Civil Judge & J.M Digri on 24.12.2006 where confessions of both accused were recorded. Thereafter, IO has stated that accused were remanded to judicial custody. He has produced DNA reports of deceased and his parents. On the conclusion of the investigation, he submitted challan before learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Hyderabad and Mirpurkhas Division at Hyderabad.

 

14.     Accursed Arshad Nabi has raised defence plea that his father was posted as Principal Cadet College, Sanghar on 05.12.2006. DSP Qamar Ahmed Shaikh of Mirpurkhas had approached his father for admission of his son, in Cadet college, as session had already been started, admission to the son of DSP was refused, which caused much annoyance to the DSP, hence he has involved him in this case falsely. Accused Arshad Nabi has denied his arrest from Mirpurkhas on  12.12.2006 as alleged by prosecution but raised defence plea that he was arrested by DSP Qamar Ahmed Shaikh from Naval PHQ Karachi. He has raised plea that Naval officer had handed over him to I.O. Appellant Rashid Aslam has also denied his arrest from Mirpurkhas Station on 12.12.2006 but raised defence plea that he was arrested from his House No. B-212, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Karachi by one ASI Naeeem Ashraf IT of Mirpurkhas and examined DWs and both accused filed written statements in support of their defence pleas.  

 

15.     It has been vehemently submitted by Mr. A.Q.Halepota learned counsel for appellant Rashid Aslam that dead body of Abdul Sami deceased had been completely de-composed and there was no material before the Trial Court to hold that dead body recovered from Defence area Karachi was that of Abdul Sami, deceased. Trial Court has considered this issue with care and caution. Dr. Farhat and Dr. Qamar Ahmed had opined that death occurred due to Asphyxia. Dead body was identified by his uncle Abdul Rehman (PW-12) on the basis of clothes of the deceased and photographs, which were taken by the police when an unidentified dead body was found by the police at Defence area, Karachi. He has further deposed that he had identified dead body of his nephew on the basis of bandages on his left foot. It is clarified by PW Abdul Rehman that 15 days prior to the incident, deceased had sustained injuries on his left foot in motorcycle accident. Accused Rashid Aslam in his confessional statement before the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Digri stated that on 06.12.2006, he along with co-accused Arshad Nabi strangulated Abdul Sami by means of red wire in house, situated in Khayaban-e-Iqbal, Karachi. Accused Arshad Nabi in his confessional statement recorded before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Digri on 24.12.2006 confessed that on 05.12.2006, he along with co-accused Arshad Nabi hired rent-a-car from Karachi, went to Mirpurkhas, kidnapped Abdul Sami in the evening from his house in the state of intoxication, brought him to Karachi in a bungalow, situated in Defence at Karachi where his hands and feet were tied with red colour wire and he was confined in a store of a house. Accused Rashid Aslam took key and purse from the pocket of Abdul Sami. On 06.12.2006 accused strangulated Abdul Sami by means of red coloured wire then dead body of Abdul Sami was wrapped in a thick cloth and it was thrown at Khayaban-e-Iqbal, Sea View, Karachi in an abandoned area and father of Abdul Sami was contacted on the mobile of Abdul Sami, ransom was demanded from him. Co-accused Arshad Nabi in his confessional statement stated the same facts as narrated by accused Rashid Aslam. Inspite of the fact that the dead body was highly decomposed, the identity of deceased Abdul Sami stood proved from the consistent and cogent evidence brought on record. As such, question of any doubt in identification of the dead body of Abdul Sami could not arise and finding of the trial Court on this issue is affirmed.  

 

16.     Learned counsel for the appellants have attacked the judicial confession on the ground that accused were arrested on 10th and 12th December 2006 from Mirpurkhas but they were produced before the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Digri on 24.12.2006 and it was Sunday. It is further contended that the Magistrate before recording the confessions did not put material questions, and since the accused at the earliest opportunity retracted confession, the same needed corroboration by unimpeachable character, which was lacking in this case.

 

17.     In the case of Ch. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others versus The STATE and others (1992 S C M R 1983), Honourable Supreme Court while considering the evidentiary value of retracted confession observed as under:

 

(i)      That if a statement of fact made by an accused in a confession is of the nature that if it is assumed to be true, it would negate the offence alleged to be confessed, it is called an exculpatory confession.

 

(ii)      That a statement of an accused that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession.

 

(iii)     That a retracted confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction for a capital offence, if the Court is of the view that the same is voluntary and is true, but as a rule, of prudence, the same should not be acted upon unless corroborated by some other reliable evidence in material particulars.

 

(iv)     That though the confession of a co-accused cannot be made foundation of conviction but it may be used in support of other evidence.

 

(v)     That the confession of a co-accused is an evidence of a weak character.

 

 (vi)    That under Islamic Jurisprudence, in order to make a confession reliable, it should be voluntarily made and not on account of any coercion, duress or violence.

 

(vii)    That any delay in recording of a confession may, or may not, be fatal as to the evidentiary value of a retracted confession as the factum that the accused were in the police custody for 11 to 15 days, was not fatal as to the credibility of the retracted confessions for the reason that the Court was satisfied that the retracted confessions were not tutored and were, in fact, made voluntarily.

 

(viii)   That any lapse on the administrative side on the part of a Magistrate recording a confession, may not be fatal as to the evidentiary value of such confession provided the Court is satisfied that the lapses on his part have not, in any way, adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession.

 

(ix)     That if an accomplice's evidence is not corroborated in material respect, it cannot be acted upon and that the evidence of an accomplice cannot be used to corroborate evidence of another accomplice.

18.     In the case of GHULAM QADIR and others versus The STATE (2007 SCMR 782) the confessional statement of the appellants was recoded by the Magistrate seven days after their arrest. It was held by Honourable Supreme Court that delay in recording judicial confession becomes relevant to determine its voluntariness. However, delay does not render the confession involuntarily.   

 

19.     Legal position which has emerged seems to be that in order to judge the evidentiary value of a retracted confession, the Court is to advert to the question, whether the same appears to have been made voluntarily, without any inducement, duress or coercion with the object to state the truth. If the Court is satisfied on the above aspect, the mere fact that there were some lapses/irregularities and delay in recording of a confession, would not warrant disregarding of a confession. Trial Court while discussing the confession of accused in para 3 of the judgment came to the conclusion that confession of both the accused was voluntarily and delay in recording the confession would not be fatal to the prosecution case.

 

20.     In the present case, recording of confession on Sunday and delay of 14 days after arrest of accused in recording confessions as highlighted by Mr. A.Q. Halepota in our considered view, would not be fatal as to evidentiary value of the confessions for the reasons that Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate was on duty on Sunday and from the delay in recording confessions prosecution has not derived any undue advantage, as such, these factors in no way adversely affect the voluntariness of confession. Record reflects that both the appellants are educated persons, if police wanted confessions on account of any coercion, accused had full opportunity to refuse the making of confessions before the Magistrate but it was not done in this case. There was corroboration between confession and other evidence. Trial Court rightly based conviction on confession and other evidence. We are also satisfied that confessions of both accused appear to have been made voluntarily, without any inducement or coercion. Mere fact that there were some irregularities in recording of confession would not warrant disregarding the same.

 

21.     In this case, after arrest both accused had led the police and mashirs on 14.12.2006 to the place where they had thrown the dead body, situated at Khayaban-e-Iqbal, Phase-VIII, Karachi. Both accused had also led police and mashirs on same date to the house, situated in Defence Karachi, where they confined deceased Abdul Sami and had also shown store in the house where they committed murder of Abdul Sami with wire by strangulation and college identity card of deceased was recovered underneath the bed. Contention of learned advocates for the appellants that it was the case of joint pointation, it appears that place where dead body was thrown by accused was separately pointed out by accused persons, the mere plurality of information received before discovery shall not necessarily take any of these informations out of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In a suitable case, it is possible to ascribe to more than one accused, the information which leads to discovery. In the present case, no explanation has been furnished by accused as to how they had the knowledge of place where dead body was thrown. No explanation was furnished by accused as to how they led police and mashirs to bungalow situated at Defence Karachi where they had committed murder of deceased Abdul Sami by way of strangulation. Trial Court rightly presumed that accused were the persons who had thrown dead body at the place pointed out by them and they had committed murder in the bungalow pointed out by them. The information furnished by the appellants to the Investigating Officer could be used against them under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In the case of NAZIR SHEHZAD and another versus THE STATE (2009 SCMR 1440) Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as follows:-

“7. Having rejected, above noted pieces of evidence, we have considered and scrutinized the remaining prosecution evidence, in depth. P.W.13 stated in clear terms that, after arrest of the accused he firstly interrogated Samar Jan and later on he interrogated Nazir Shehzad. Both the appellants, who were separately interrogated, informed the Investigating Officer about the place i.e. Rohi Nala in the area of Police Station Kahna, where they had thrown the dead body. This discovery based on the information furnished by the appellants led to the recovery of dead body from the Nullah. There is no doubt about it that prior to information furnished by the appellants the whereabout of dead body were not known to anyone. The information furnished by the appellants to the Investigating Officer can be used against them under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. As in a case of circumstantial evidence where there has been discovery as a result of confession made under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat order, 1984, it is expected to find the discovery of something which can be associated with the deceased.

 

The mere plurality of information received before discovery shall not necessarily take any of these informations out of the section. In a suitable case it is possible to ascribe to more than one accused the information which leads to the discovery, so was held in the case Naresh Chandra Das & another v. Emperor AIR (29) 1942 Cal. 593.

 

It was held by this Court in the case of Sher Muhammad v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 221 as follows:---

 

"In the absence of any explanation by the accused as to how he came to have knowledge of the dead body in the disused well, it may fairly be presumed that he was the person who had thrown the body in a dismembered state into the well."

 

The medical evidence supports the prosecution case that Junaid Jabbar was done to death and his death was not natural. The statement of the doctor also reveals that the dead body was that of a 18 years old boy which was duly identified by P.W.9 father of the deceased. P.W.9 himself stated that he identified the dead body of his son after seeing the shoes, belt, and trouser of the deceased. The statements of both these witnesses were not challenged on this point. Hence it could not be said that the dead body was not identified.

 

The motive behind the occurrence is proved through overwhelming evidence. P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.12 and P.W.13 have stated that the deceased was abducted for ransom. It is in evidence that complainant and his wife received telephone calls demanding ransom. It is also in evidence that the accused issued threats to the complainant that in case ransom was not paid his son would be done to death. It is also in the evidence that the ransom amount was put in envelop and delivered to Nazir Shehzad on the demand of the accused. The ransom amount was subsequently recovered from appellant Nazir Shahzad after his arrest. No other motive is available on the record of the case. There is no reason disbelieve the P.Ws. on this regard. The scooter belonging to the deceased was being used by both the appellants and was recovered at the time of the arrest of the accused. Both the accused also led to various recoveries of articles which fully implicated them and fully corroborated the prosecution case.”

 

22.     We have anxiously attended the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and found that delay in lodging of F.I.R. has been adequately explained and accounted for. In any event, mere delay in lodging of F.I.R. is not always fatal to the prosecution case, though in some cases it militate against the bona fides of the prosecution. In this case, young boy was kidnapped for ransom. Complainant invariably endeavoured his best to locate his son rather than promptly lodging of F.I.R. for fear of death of victim which may sometimes prove to be counterproductive. We are, therefore, not inclined to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution on the ground of delay alone in lodging of F.I.R. Appellants were arrested on 10.12.2006 and 12.12.2006 from Mirpurkhas. During elaborate investigation incriminating evidence was collected against them. Contention of the learned advocate for the appellants that both appellants were not put to identification parade separately and their photographs had been published in daily newspaper, before holding of identification parade. Even otherwise, the holding of identification parade is not mandatory and it is merely a corroborative piece of evidence. Accused were identified by the witnesses in the Court, such identification inspires confidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GHAZANFAR ALI versus The STATE (2012 SCMR 215). Relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-

13. Even otherwise the holding of identification parade is not mandatory and it is merely a corroborative piece of evidence. If the statement of a witness qua the identity of an accused even in Court inspires confidence, if he is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he is deposing falsely, the absence of holding of identification parade would not be fatal to the prosecution. In Harbajan Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ((1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480), the Court upheld the conviction where no identification parade had been held and observed that the failure to hold identification parade would not be fatal in cases where enough corroborative  and  conclusive  evidence  was  available.  A  similar view was taken in Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. ((1970) 3 Supreme Court Cases 518).”

 

23.     It is further contended that on the basis of momentary glimpse of the accused, the question of correct identification does not arise. From the perusal of evidence, it transpired that the witnesses identified accused before the Magistrate and identified both accused before trial Court. Rightly reliance has been placed upon the case of NASRULLAH KHAN and 2 others versus THE STATE (2010 SCMR 881). Relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-

“2. Sardar Muhammad Khan, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended with vehemence that the evidence which has come on record has not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to substantiate the said contention it is argued that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the identification parade which could not be held in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and directions made time to time by the learned Lahore High Court and besides that common features narrated in the F.I.R. make the entire exercise of identification ab initio, illegal and void. It is next argued that on the basis of momentary glimpse the question of correct identification does not arise which went unnoticed causing serious prejudice against the petitioners.

3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners and perused the judgment impugned with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners. The question of identification has been dealt with in depth by scrutinizing the entire evidence which has come on record in a comprehensive manner and relevant portion of the judgment impugned is reproduced herein below for ready reference:---

 "According to statement of the complainant, Muzaffar, Zulfiqar Ali and Tasneem Aslam had also witnessed the occurrence and that complainant and other P.Ws. could identify the assailants. The descriptions of the two accused who had entered into the room and resorted to firing was given in the statement. One of the accused was aged about 24-25 years, was of strong physique, was keeping beard his. height was about 5 feet 7/8 inches and was wearing `Shalwar Kameez', the other accused was of the height of about 5 feet 6/7 inches, he was of whitish complexion, had a strong physique was aged about 20-25 years and was wearing `Shalwar Kameez'.

It was also observed in the judgment impugned that "the identification test was conducted by P.W.30 Muhammad Tajamal Abbas Rana Magistrate. Perusal of his statement, on oath, reveals that the witnesses while identifying the accused had also described the role played by them. Furthermore, all the P.Ws. identified the accused before learned trial Court and also specified their roles. The argument of the learned counsel that no light was available at the time of occurrence is devoid of any force as it cannot be presumed that the Daras was being given in a room which had no lights."

 

 24.    It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the evidence brought on the record did not establish kidnapping for ransom. It is also argued that it was unbelievable that deceased was murdered by the accused without payment of the ransom. It is settled law that to constitute an offence under section 365-A, PPC it is not necessary that money must have passed on to the culprits, nor it is necessary that the victim must have been released as held in the case of Muhammad Amjad vs. The State (PLD 2003 SC 704). Complainant Abdul Sattar has deposed that his son was kidnapped for ransom on 05.12.2006, he received call for ransom, as such motive behind occurrence is provide through overwhelming evidence. The case of prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence, recovery of articles, confessions, pointation of the place where dead body was thrown, pointation of the place where mobile, key of the car and purse of the deceased were thrown near sea, pointation of the bungalow where deceased was brought by the accused persons and strangulated in the store room of the house, underneath the bed identity card of deceased was recovered.

25.      We are convinced that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt, judgment of trial court did not suffer from mis-reading of record or misconstruction of evidence as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. Crimes like kidnapping for ransom have become rampant in our society. It is an unfortunate state of affairs and can only be deprecated. Such kind of criminal acts must be dealt with iron hands and if there are minor discrepancies and deviations in the evidence or shortfalls on the part of investigating agency, the Courts should always be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching the true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of GHULAM HUSSAIN SOOMRO versus THE STATE (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 71). Relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-

 

“8. Before parting with this judgment, it may be pertinent to observe that the crimes like kidnapping for ransom have become rampant in our society, which is an unfortunate state of affairs and can only be deprecated. Such kind of criminal acts must be dealt with iron hands and event if there are minor discrepancies and deviations in the evidence or shortfalls on the part of investigating agency, the Courts should always be dynamic and pragmatic in approaching the true facts of the case and drawing correct and rational inferences and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case. We may not be misunderstood to mean that an innocent person wrongly roped by prosecution or falsely involved by an unscrupulous investigating officers should be unreasonably dealt with or made escape goat but he Courts must maintain balance while arriving at the truth or falsehood of the matter by sifting the grain from the chaff. This may be treated as a rule of caution and circumspection.”

 

26.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, the considerations pertaining to the quantum of sentence have been examined. Trial Court has rightly awarded death penalty to the accused. Now it is settled proposition of law that death sentence can be awarded on circumstantial evidence. Provided all the circumstances constituted a chain and no link is missing and their combined effect is that the guilt of the accused is established beyond any shadow of doubt as held in the case of Sh. MUHAMMAD AMJAD versus The STATE (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704), in which it is held that last seen evidence though generally is regarded as a weak piece of evidence yet capital punishment can be awarded if an unbroken chain of circumstances from the stage of last seen evidence till the death of victim is established by conclusive evidence. In the case of MUHAMMAD ISHAQ versus THE STATE (2009 SCMR 135), the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has enunciated the following principles of law:-

 

“It is the settled principle of law that death sentence can be awarded on circumstantial evidence, provided that circumstances constituted a chain and it’s no link is missing and their combined effect is that the guilt' of the accused established beyond any shadow of doubt. The brutal and atrocious manner in which the appellant committed murders of his wife and his mother-in-law does not call for any leniency in the sentence. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Muhammad Ajmal v. The State PLD 2003 SC 1 wherein this Court had held that the brutal and atrocious manner in which the petitioner committed the cold-blooded murders of his wife and her mother does not call for any leniency in the sentence. Moreover, the learned trial Court as well as the learned High Court have elaborately discussed every aspect of the case and have dealt with the same in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed

 

27.     In another case of HAMID MEHMOOD and another versus The STATE (2013 SCMR 1314) it has been observed that no rule exists that sentence of death cannot be awarded in the absence of direct ocular evidence, if the guilt of accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial and forensic evidence.

 

28.     Deterrence is a factor to be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence specially sentence of death and in this behalf reference can be made to the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as case of HAMID MEHMOOD & another versus STATE (PLJ 2013 SC 772). Relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-

 

“25.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, the considerations pertaining to quantum of sentence, have been examined. The reasons for the award of the death penalty far out weight the considerations for the award of lesser sentence. The tender age of the minor, the brutal and heinous nature of the crime and             pre-meditation persuades us to agree with the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court as well as the learned High Court. The deterrent aspect of the sentence cannot be lost sight of either as it was a crime of kidnapping for ransom of minor, followed by murder. In such an eventuality, the normal sentence of death should be awarded and the Court should neither hesitate nor search for laboured pretexts to award a lesser sentence, as has been held by this Court, in the case, reported as Muhammad Sharif (Supra).”

 

29.     All the prosecution witnesses have successfully passed the test of lengthy cross-examination by the defence but no material discrepancies have been credited by the defence counsel in favour of appellants. Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the defence theory. We have carefully perused the defence assertions and evidence of D.Ws and found that defence version was without substantiation through reliable documentary evidence. Prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against accused because P.Ws had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this heinous crime.     

 

30.     For whatever has been discussed above, we hold that prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. As a sequel, conviction recorded by trial Court is maintained. However, sentence under section 302(a) was erroneous, the same is converted to 302(b), PPC as Ta’zir. Fine imposed by trial Court is modified to compensation to be paid to legal heirs of deceased, in case of default thereof, appellants shall suffer S.I. for six months. Appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed and Reference for confirmation of death sentence is answered in affirmative.

 

                J U D G E

 

                                                                             J U D G E

Gulsher/PS