Ali Hassan (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

fT\ \^.r-U Col.. ..lrt"-a EyuJl,','*^-- \f-kJ

BS1

CERTIFiCATE OF THE COURT iN REGAR D TO REPORTING

CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO. D-23 OF 20 16

CONFIRMATION CASE NO. D-O2 OF 2016

ALr HASSAN v/s THE STATE

SINDH HIGH COURT CIRCUI T COURT HYDERABAD

Composition of Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAS HEED AHMED SOOMRO (D.B)

Date oflast hearing (heard/ reserved): 30-06-2020 Decided on:

O2-O7-2j2O

(a)Judgment approved for reporting YES \//'

CERTIFICATE

Certificate that the Judgment/ Order is based upon or enunciates a principle of law/decide a question of law which is of first impression/distinguishes over-rules/explains a previous decision.

Strike-out whichever is not applicable.

l\tl I i1: - (i) This slip is only to be used when some action is to be taken-

(ii)If the slip is used, the Reader must attach it to the top of the first page of the Judgment.

(iii)Court Associate must ask the Judge lvritten the judgment u'hether the judgment is approved for reporting.

(iv)Those directions which are not to be used should be deleted.

SGP, Kar-L (\it) 77 3-2O0O-4- 2O03-lII

Bs8

IN lIiE lilcE col]Rr oE gl\Dc cikcui[ coui€ i-Y-E"iiB"D.

Cr. J,/&peei. No. 3 ?1 6f 2016"

llj ffrss.a S/o Gu}lel CEairdiat Boc coaliued j.:i cE;ati.:a.i P::ieon

iIE C erG.bed

1pp elL aui "

Ts.

fhe str.1: e

. ite E,pondeEt.

CoNID.P.N8. 2.

8s1

ORDER SHEET

HYDERABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT'

Crirninal Jail Appeal No'D-23 of 20 I 6 Confirmation Case No 02 of 20 l6

DA'TE ORDER WITH SIGNATLTRE OF Jt-]DGI For hearing of case

Mr. Ahsan Gul Dahri, Advocate for the appellant' Ms. Safa Hisbani, Assistant P'G for the State' evidence and has Learned Counsel for appellant has readout the entire has also rnade his submissions. Learned Assistant Prosecutol' General Sindh rnade her submissions. Reserved for judgmen

G[:

JUDGE

Alr llrdcr

t-,t- w-&-r Co n - i *r-o n '- €?. .Jl.,...^e V.li.^rq 8Lo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

Before:

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Ktran Agha Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro

Cr. Jail Appeal No.D- 23 of 2076 [Confirmation Case No.02 o1201"6]

Ali Hassan

Versus

The State

Appellant : Ali Hassan Through Mr. Ahsan Gul Dahri Advocate Respondent: The State Through Ms. Sa{a Hisbani, APG Sindh Date of hearing 30.06.2020

Date of judgment 02.07.2020

TUDGMENT

MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AG I.-This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09.03.2016, passed by the leamed Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Naushehro Feroze, in special Case No.03 of 2015 (Re:

The State V Ali Hassan), emanating from Crime No.380 of 2008, registeled at Police Station A-Section Dadu, under sections 302, 3'A,353,1'47,1'48,'149 PPC, r/w sections 6 / 7 Ann-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereby appellant Ali Hassan has been convicted u/s 302(b) PPC r/w section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and. sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. He was also directed to Pay compensation of Rs.100,000/- as contemplated under

2 B( I

section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased HC Roshan Ali, and in default thereof he shall suffer R.I for one year more

2.The facts of the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R, registered by complainant lnspector / sHo Haji Ghulam Muhammad Memon at Police Station A-Section Dadu on 12.08.2008 at 0730 hours are that, on the fatefui day complainant was posted as SHO. On that day, HC Roshan AIi and PC Abdul Hakeem on his direction left police station vide roznamcha entry No.38, at 05.00 a.m in Dadu city to collect the information of absconder accused, while he himself along with his subordinate staff at about 0500 hours proceeded for patrolling in the city on police mobile. He remained in contact with H.C. Roshan Ali on mobile phone, who informed him that Janan alias Janu and other armed Persons were seen by him on motorcycle in the surroundings of Mallah Chowk. on receipt of such informatiory he (sHo) along with his subordinate staff proceeded towards the pointed place and also asked ASI Ghulam sarwar to reach there. It was about 0630 hours, they reached near hotel of Shafo Mallah and, on the head light of mobile saw HC Roshan Ali was standing there and was talking on mobile phone. In the meantime, three motorcycles arrived near him on which accused )anan aiias Waris,' 4) Ali Janu armed with Kalashnikov, 2) Aijaz armed with pistol, 3) Hassan son of Sultary 5) AIi Hassan (appellant) duly armed with Kalashnikovs, 6) w azfu armed with pistol and two unidentified persons armed with pistols were riding, they de-boarded from the motorcycles, accused Janan alias Janu fired three shots upon HC Roshan Ali which hit him on his chest, accused Ali Hassan and rest of the accused also fired upon him, who on sustaining fire arm injuries fell down. In the meantime, ASI Ghulam Sarwar Soomro along with his subordinate staff also reached there on police mobile. on fire shot reports people of the Mohalla gathered and accused ran away towards eastem side on their motorcycles by making indiscrirninate firing in order to spread terrorism. The complainant, along with PC Abdul Hakeem and shafi Muhammad, who was available in the hotel, went towards Roshan Ali and found him having fire arm injuries on his chest, back, arrns and legs and was bieeding and within their sight died. Such information was conveyed to the high ups through wireless. Thereafter, police party arranged Naka-bandi at protective bund but culprits could not be

a gLL

apprehended. Then complainant after leaving Police Constable Abdul Hakeem on the dead body of HC Roshan Ali went to chase the culprits, but they vanished. The post mortem of the dead body of deceased was conducted in Civil Hospital Dadu. Consequently complainant appeared at Police Station and lodged F.I.R. on behalf of the State as stated above'

Y

3.Initially police arrested two accused namely Janan @ Janu and Aijaz and after usual investigatiory submitted the challan against them before the concerned court while showing present accused / appellant as absconder. Thereafter, both aforementioned accused were tried by the leamed Judge, Anfi-Terrorism court Hyderabad @ Hyderabad in ATC Case No.308 of 2008 and vide judgment dated 24.72.2077were both sentenced to death. Thereafter, on 16.01.2015 Police arrested the present accused / appellant and submitted challan against him before the concemed court. After completing necessary formalities, Ieamed trial court framed charge against accused / appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed triai.

4.At trial, the prosecution in order to Prove its case examined 09 PWs and exhibited numerous documents and other items. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 342 CI.P.C whereby he claimed false implication. He examined himself on oath and called three DW's in support of his defense case.

5.Learned trial court after hearing the leamed counsel for the parties and assessing the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier in this judgment'

6.Learned trial court in the impugned judgment has already discussed the evidence in detail and there is no need to rePeat the same here, so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition

7.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, that the eye witnesses are planted wihlesses and were not Present at the time of the incident, that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials and as such their evidence cannot be safely relied upon, that there was no independent eye witness that supported the prosecution case despite it being a crowded t

4 8LZ

area at the time of the incident, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contain major conkadictions which makes their evidence doubfful, that the number of injwies as per eye witness evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence, that the police official who was murdered was not in uniform at the time of the incident and his bl00died clothes were not sent to the chemical examiner, that the deceased was murdered by other people who had enmity with him and not the appellant, that the DW',s who are independent and natural witnesses support the defense case and that the offense does not fall within the purview of the ATA and that for any of the above reasons the appellant should be acquitted of the charge by extending to him the benefit of the doubt. In support of his contentions leamed counsel for appellant placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Asif v The state (2017 SCMR 486), Dad, Muhammad v The state (2020 scMR 1"28), Nawab siraj Ali and others v The state through P.G. sindh and A.G. Sindh (2020 scMR 119), Farooq Ahmed V The State and another (2020 SCMR 78), Muhammad Farooq and another v The state (2005 scMR 1707) and Muhammad Khan and another V The State (1999 SCMR 1220).

8.On the other hand learned Assistant Prosecutor General sindh on behaif of the State, after going through the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as other record of the case has fully supported the impugned judgment. In particular she has contended that the evidence of the police eye witnesses are reliable and cannot be discarded simply because they are police officials, that the medical evidence suPPorts the prosecution case/ that empties were recovered from the scene, that a positive chemical report regarding the blood stained earth recovered at the scene was available and as such the prosecufion had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant and as such his appeal be dismissed and con-firmation reference answered in the affirmative. In support of her contentions she has placed reli.ance on the case of Ashique Hussain V State (2017 SCMR 188)

9.We have heard the argunents of the leamed counsel for the parties, gone through the entire evidence which has been read out by learned counsel for the appellant and the impugned judgment with their able assistance and have considered the relevant law including that cited at the bar.

I

E

z(q

10.In our view after our reassessment of the evidence based on the evidence of the PW eye wibresses, PW MLO and post mortem report' PW police witnesses and IO, recovery of empties from the spot and positive chemical report of earth recovered from the spot we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on 12.08.2008 at 6.30am near hotel of shafo Mailah HC Roshan Ali whilst on official police duty was shot numerous times by numerous assailants by firearm and was thereby murdered.

11,. The only issue therefore, in our view, le{t before us is whether the appellant was a part of the group of assailants who fired at HC Roshan Ali (the deceased) and injured him with his firearm shots which lead to his murder by firearm.

72.In our view after our reassessment of the evidence we find that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant (Ali Hasan chandio) for murdering the deceased by firearm beyond a reasonable doubt and hereby uphold the convictions and sentences in the impugned judgment against the appellant for the following reasons;

(a)The FIR was registered with promptitude within an hour of the inciaent in which the appellant has been named and given a specific role and as such there was no time for the police to consult and concoct a false case. Furthermore no enrnity existed between either the complainant or the appeilant and thus the complainant had no reason to impiicate the appellant in a false case' Admittedly the complainant has now died but his signatures on the FIR, Roznamcha entries and mashirnama of arrest and recovery have been identified and proved by PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar.

(b)The key witnesses in this case in our view are eye witnesses PW 2 Ghulam Sawar, PW 3 Bakhshal Khan and PW 4 Abdul Hakeem We shall consider the evidence of these eye witnesses in tum below;

(i)Eye witness PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar. On 12'08.2008 he was posted at PS Dadu when this incident occurred' According to his evidence on12.08.2004 the deceased and PW 4 Abdul Hakeem were deputed by the complainant SHO Ghulam Muhammed (now deceased) to collect information about criminals and absconding accused' The SHO (complainant) Ieft with his police party in a mobile for patrolting whilst he left in a diJferent mobile for patrolling with other police officers. Whilst on patrol the SHO contacted him and directed him to reach Mallah Chowk as criminal Janan was there along with his companions on three motor cycles for committing a

6 86f

crime. He reached Mallah Chowk and saw the deceased standing outside the hotel. He also saw three motorcycles parked their and 7 armed persons who had come down from the motor cylces They were identified as Janan, Aijaz and the appellant' Janan and the appeltant had KK's whilst Aijaz had a pistol. He also named the other armed persons present in his evidence (all of who were named in the FIR which was lodged promptly by the SHO complainant Y now deceased with specilic roles).He saw Janan make three straight fires at the deceased which hit him in the chest' He saw Aijaz with a pistol also make straight fire at the deceased which hit him in the a.eu of the nipple. He iaw the appellant fire on the deceased which hit the lower part of his abdomen. He also saw other named persons fire at ihe deceased whose fire shots hit the deceased who utt tt"r, escaped by speeding away on their motorbikes' According to his evidence the poiice were unable to return fire as the area was crowded with members of the public who may have been injured by such firing. The police attempted to chase and capture the culprits but were unable to do so as the streets were narrow and again they could not fire due to Presence of the public. He knew the appellants as they were wanted criminals who he recognized along with other police officers on the sPot. It was a day light incident at 6.30am in August and the eye witness was standing relatively close to the appetlants being only 30 Paces away and as such he would have been able to get a good look at them as their faces were not muffled and as such he could easily identify them which he did in court and as such there was no need for an identification parade. In this respect reliance is placed on Muhammed Siddique and others V State dated 02-01-2020 (unreported) in Crim Jail Appeai No's 24,69,215,486 of 2016 and 682 of 2017 which held as under at Para 5 which is set out below;

"5. Castigating severely the evidence of test identification parade, the Ieamed couns el relied upon the guidelines laid down in the case of Kanwar Anzoar Ali (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 488) to urge exclusion thereof. The supra case indeed a fine piece of juridical literafure, nonetheless, does not extend much help to the convicts; it mainly addressed laconic approach adopted by a Magistrate in holding the test identification parade in the said case while highlighting general PrinciPles of iaw on the subject.

Test identification parade is a method of proof contemplated by Article 22 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, reproduced below for the convenience of reference:-

"Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or releaant fact, or uhich suppott or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue 0r releaant fact, or uhich esiablish the idmtity of anything ot person tohose identity is releoant, or fix the fime or place at zuhich any fact in issue or releuant fact happened, or uhich shotu the,

g 6L

relation ofpartiesby whom any such fact zuas transacted, are reletsant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose".

The above framework provides enough space to admit evidence in prosecution of offenders previously unacquainted with the victims or the witnesses; appraisai of such evidence is subject to same principles as are universally applicable to any piece of evidence, under consideration in a criminal trial; there are no additional barricades as is evident from the plain reading of the Article ibid; wilhout prejudice to the safeguards available to an accused at each stage of trial, essentially {air as guaranteed under the Constitution, nonetheless, it does not cast an artificially heavier onus on the prosecution to meet standards of proof beyond human capacity' Each criminal case is to be decided having regard to its own peculiar facts and circumstances. A test to be essentially ipplied is one case may absolutely be irrelevant in as the crimes are seldom committed in identical "r,oth"., sifuations; there may be cases wherein prosecution must assign distinct roles played during the occurrence by the culprits for determination of their guilt as well as cor,i"q.ren.ut thereof, however, there are cases in which totality of transaction may not warrant reparability for such determination, like the one in hand' Cases involving abductions, dacoities and sudden assaults, more often than no! constifute episodes wherein different roles played by the culprits merge into integral totality of the crime, thus, it would be too harsh as well as unrealistic to demand exact reenactment of roles by the witnesses. CapaciHes even intellectually most sharp dwindle drastically in calamitous situations, therefore, the administration of criminal justice, in such peculiar situations, has to be dynamically balanced upon fair trial without prejudice to the accused as well as due weightage to the prosecution evidence without being swayed by illusory notions, subjectively structured upon hypothetical beliefs

Having found the witnesses with no axe to grind, in a com{ortable unison on all the salient features of the I prosecution case as well as events collateral therewith, we do not feel persuaded by the arguments, couched on hyper technical premise. Petitions fail. Dismissed."(bold added)

The case which we are currently deciding attracts the above dicta as it is a case of sudden assault.

He was a natural witress and not a chance witness because he was a police officer who had been sent on a pahoi as per rorlamcha entry by the SHO who had gone on a separate Pafrol,

8 BCI

whilst the SHO had sent the deceased along with PW 4 Abdul Hakeem to look for criminals/ absconders. On receipt of a wireless message from the SHO he was directed to reach the place on the incident which he did and witnessed the murder of ihe deceased by the appellant and others. We do not consider it relevant that the deceased was not in uniJorm based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case as he had been in Y Lffect sent on an under cover mission to identily wanted criminals and as such he needed to blend in with the general public and not stand out. He had no enmity or ill will with the appellant and had no reason to falsely implicate them in this case aiti,orrgn the appellant has alleged enmity but without any proof and nierely by a bald allegation. For example not a single document temg a complainant, NC or FIR has been produced to supPort this contention. He was not shattered despite lengthy cross examination and remained consistent in his evidence' His evidence accords with the FIR which was lodged by the nolv deceased complainant /SHO almost immediately after the incident ln wtrich he nominated the appellant with a specific role. His evidence is also corroborated in all material respects by eye witnesses PW 3 Bakhsal Khan and PW 4 Abdul Hakeem (except that PW 4 does not name the appeilant as one of the persons who shot at the deceased)' We find no reason to di.b"li"rr" his evidence which we find reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring and find that he has correctly identiJied the appellant as one oithe Persons who murdered the deceased by firearm.

(ii)Eye witness PW 3 Bakhshal Khan was posted as ASi PS iadu at the time of the incident. According to his evidence on 12.08.2008 the deceased and PW 4 Abdul Hakeem at 0500am were sent for seeking information about absconding accused while he and complainant SHO Ghulam Muhammed (now deceased) went on patrol with other police officers' During their patrol they kept in constant radio contact with the deceased who inJo.med them that the appellant Janan along with others were available at Mallah Chowk with intent to commit a crime' PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar over wireless was told to reach Mallah Chowk and they also proceeded there in their mobile and reached at 6.30 amin the morning. He saw the deceased and 3 motor cycles at the scene with 8 armed riders who got off their motorbikes He identified the riders' He saw Janan with a KK who made 3 straight fires on the deceased which hit him in the chest' He saw Aijai with a pistol who also fired at the deceased and hit him on the nipple area. He saw the appellant fire at the deceased which hit him in the lower part of his abdomen. He also saw other named persons who also fired on and hit the deceased on various parts ofhis body. The deceased fell down on account of the fire shots which hit hirn. He also saw PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar at the scene of the murder who also identified the appellant and the other persons who had made fire on the deceased' They (the police) could not retum fire as the area was crowded with

o

I (3

members of the public. The culprits escaped on their motor bikes by making aerial firing. He identified the appellants in court' Tirrough his evidence he corroborates the evidence of eye witness PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar in all material respects' The same considerations apply to him as for PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar mentioned abovsexcePt that no enmity is suggested against him

(iii)Eye witness PW 4 Abdul Hakeem left the PS on patrol with ihe deceased and was with the deceased when he was murdered. At the time of the incident he was posted at PS Dadu' According to his evidence on 12.08.2008 he along with the deceasedleft the PS on patrol. \iVhen they reached Mallah Chowk Shafan Mallah hotel he saw 7 persons come on three motor cycles. The deceased informed SHO Ghulam Muhammed (now deceased complainant). He recognized 3 out of the 7 riders but did not recognize the appellant and only names the three he identilied ut iitiog on the deceased which does not include the appellant. He, however, conJirms the presence of SHO complainant Ghulam Muhammed (now deceased) who registered the FIR and FtV2 Sarwar and other PC's at the scene' Otherwise he corroborates eye witnesses PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar and PW 3 Bakhsal Khan in all material respects including the fact that he was left behind with the body of the deceased whilst the other police attempted to give chase to the culprits' The same considerations apply to him as for PW 2 Ghulam Sarwar mentioned above except that no enmity is suggested against him..

(c)It is settled law that we can convict if we find the direct oral evidence of one eye witness to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring. In this respect reliance is placed on Muhammad Ehsan V Th; Stale (2006 SCMR 1857). Furthermore, the suPreme court in the case of Niaz-Ud-Din V The State (2011 SCMR 725) ll,eld as under in respect of the ability of the court to uphold a conviction for murder even based on the evidence of one eye witness provided that it was reliable and conJidence inspiring and was substantiated from the circumstances and other evidence since it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters atP.734 Para 11 as under;

"11,. The statement of lsraeel (P.W.g) the eye-witness of the occurrence is confidence inspiing, zohich stands substantiated front tlrc circumstances and other eaidence. Tlure is apt obseruations appearing in Allah Bakhsh a. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) that "eaen in a murilet case conttiction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if the Court is satisfied that he is teliable." The reason being that it is the quality of eaidence anil not the quantity tohich matter. Therefore, 70e are left with no doubt uhatsoeoer that conrtiction of Niaz-ud'Din uas fully justifud and has rightly been maintainedby the High Court." (bold added) In this case we find the evidence of the 2 eye witnesses mentioned above to be fully corroborative and reliable, trust worthy and

g6l

confidence inspiring especially in terms of correctly identifying the appellant as one of the persons who committed the murder of the deceased by shooting him with his KK. The other eye witness fully corroborates the other two eye witnesses as to the incident. Never the less by way of abundant caution we will consider below whether any corroborative /supportive evidence is available in respect of the direct oral eye witness evidence.

(d)It is well settled by now that police witnesses are as reliable as any other witness unless any ill will or enmity has been attributed to them which has not been done in this case excePt of PW 2 Sarwar and el'en then no evidence of such enmity has been brought on record apart from a bald allegation although under oath the appellant does not state that the police had any enmity with him and the enmify i{ any seems to be primarily between the deceased and the chandio's which in fact would gi"e the appellant the motive to kill the deceased. In this resPect ieliance ls piaced on Zaiar V State (2008 SCMR 1254), R-:iaz Ahmed V State (2004 SCMR 988) and Muhammed Hanif V State (SCMR 2003 1,237).ln any event according to the evidence independent witnesses were asked to act as mashirs but all refused.

(e)The medical evidence fully supports the eye wihress version of events.PWlDr.MukhtiarAhmedwhocarriedoutthepostmortemof the deceased gave evidence that the deceased received 7 firearm injuries of two dilferent rypes indicating the use of two different fiiearms being a pistol and a KK and at least 2 or 3 firearm injuries were at the chlst iegion (this is close to the abdomen which both the PW eye witnesses itut" it the place where the appellant shot the deceased) and 3 such iniuries had burning and charring (rvhich corroborates the evidence of PW 6 Barkat Ali who was the tapedar whose evidence shows that the point whete the fire was made by the accused on the deceased was at a close distance with PW 1 Dr' Mukhtiar Ahmed himself opining that the charring and blackening could have been caused by firing at a distance of 3 to 6 feet.) and the cause of death of the deceased was bv firearm injury' (0 The KK being the murder weaPon used by appellant was not iecovered from g.," appellant however this is not surprising as the -ti-" had been absconding appellant for 7 years and would have had plenty in which to dispose of the murder weaPon' He was arrested whilst in custodY in another case.

(g)ThatSomeoftheemptieswhichwererecoweredfromthesceneof ite incident were of KK which was the murder weaPon used by the appellant.

(h)positive chemical reports showed that the blood gathered at the ,."rru *u, human blood and the eye wiklesses have given evidence that the deceased,s clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident were bloodied with bullet holes in them.

(i)That all the PW's are consistent in their evidence and even if there ui" some contradictions in their evidence we consider these

? -lo

contradictions as minor in nature such as PW's saying 11 shots were fired and the MLo finding 7 bullet wounds keeping in view that their evidence was recorded over 7 years after the incident and the terror and chaos which was then unfolding at the scene of the incident and not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to effect the prosecution case and the conviction of the appellant. In this respect reliance is placed on Zakir Khan V State (1995 SCMR 1793) and Muhammed Ilyas V State (SCMR 2011). The evidence of the PW's provides a beiievabte corrobolated unbroken chain of events from the Y tme the deceased and PW 4 Abdul Hakeem left to search for criminals/ absconders, to the deceased call for assistance, to the arrival of the police eye wihresses, to the murder of the deceased by the appellant and others and up to the arrest of the appeliant in custody in another case.

0)It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt igainst the appellant which we find that it has done in this case h"owever *" hi.t considered the defense case before reaching this conclusion. The appellant has taken the dual defense plea that in effect the incident dld noi take place where it was stated to have taken piace and that the deceased was murdered elsewhere and in the alternate that even iJ the incident did take place as alleged the appellant was not present and he has been falsely implicated by the police on account of l"*ity. We have noted that no evidence of any enmity against any, *.*b", of the police party has been placed on record by n'ay of complaint, FIR oi otherwise. Under Oath the appellant.simply states r that he has no knowledge about the incident and that the police had enmity with appellant Janan and not him or any one else named in the FIR. DW 1 is Muhammed shafi who did not come forward at the time of the incident in order to record his s.161 Cr.PC statements and norv 7 years iater out of the biue he aPPears for the defense and seems to fuliy remember the incident. He confirms the incident took place at the date, time and place where it was alleged to have taken place but orily claims to have seen 2 riders shoot the deceased and he hide so he could not recognize them. In our view this witness is completely unreiiable and ,pp""urc to have been won over by the defense and we disbelieve his especially as he appears to have gone back on his 5'161 Cr'PC ",rid".r."

statement which ire gave 7 years later. DW 2 Ali Gull's evidence is similar to DW Is Setn Muhammed. During cross exa-Irlination he admitted being directed by seth Muhammed to give his evidence and having not eve-n received a surrunons to aPPeaI before the court. He did not re"cord any 5.161 Cr'PC statement.DW 3 Meer Muhammed gives similar evidence to DW 2. None of these DW',s came forward at the time of the incident and have only now after 7 long years come out of the wooc{ work. We find that they are put up witness who the appellant had arranged over the 7 years since the incident and disbelieve their evidence. Thrt, *" disbelieve the defense case which we see as a belated effort to save the skin of the appellant especially in light of the overwhelming prosecution evidence against the appellant'

13.Thus, based on the above discussion especially in the face of reliable'

IL

trust worthy and confidence inspiring eye wibress evidence and other corroborative/supportive evidence mentioned above we have no doubt that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

74.With regard to sentencing we note that the appellant murdered an unarmed police officer in cold blood in broad day light in front of the public

Y

in a particularly brutal manner whereby he received at least 7 fire arm injuries which murder was desigrred and intended to intirnidate and terrorize the public who were so intimidated and so terrorized by such a barbaric public act which amounts to the offense of terrorism under the ATA and as such no leniency is justified in terms of sentencing for the appetlant Ali Hassan son of Ghulam Chandio but rather a deterrent sentence is the appropriate one in order to deter such cold bloodied brutal murders of policemen'

15.Thus, for the reasons discussed above the appeal against conviction of Ali Hassan s/o Ghulam chandio is dismissed, the impugned judgment and its sentences irnposed therein are upheld and the conJirmation reference is ! answered in the affirmative.

't6. The appeals and confirmation reference are disposed of in the above terms

I Eoz l.r /.-

IUDGE 67