Janan@Janu and another (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

t ^, *r.-$e-, (-^ &\^ L*^ * )r-Y\-r,'t!' \=\}^[ 8qz

ARD TO REP ORTING

CERTIFIC ATE OF TH E COURT IN REG

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. D-405 OF 201 1

CONFIRMATION CASE NO. D-28 OF 2011

JANAN ALIAS JANU AND All.&zv/s THE STATE

SINDH HIGH COURT CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

Composition of Bench troNBr,efrn- .lustlcB nesnoEp anrupp soowtRo {D.B) Date of last hearing (heard/ reserved): 25-06-2020 / k?/ Decided on: o2-o7-2020

(a)Judgment approved for reporting YES

CER TIFICATE

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-ru1es/explains a previous decision.

Strike-out r,,'hichever is not applicable.

NOTE: ' (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 Iirst page of the Judgment.

(iii)Court Associate must ask the Judge u'ritten the judgment lvhether the judgment is approved for reporting' (iv) Those directions rvhich are not to be used should be deleted' SGP, Kar-L (iii) 773-2000-4-2003-III

gq3

I

32 >A

,TESENTED ON il 'r- //

?tll 1 >o //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CI RCUIT COURT HYDE

Crimin al Appeal No D Lt,? S- of 20 11 e-rr/ ' Cs-Lt z!"c . ,).

1)Janan alias Janu son of Kouro. a8Y? tl

2)AUaz son of Janan alias lanu. Both by caste Chandio, Muslims, Adults, Resident of village Dano Chandio, Taluka and District dadu.

Now confined with Central Prison, Hyderabad.-- --------Appellants. Versus The State---- -Opponent

8uq

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH GOURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Criminal Appeal No.D405 of 2011 Confirmation Case No.28 of 2411

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

Ii/r. Abdul Rasool Abbasi and Mr. Shahnawaz Brohi advocates for appellants.

Ms. Rameshan Oad Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Learned counsel for appellants has read out the entire evidence and has made his submissions. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General has also made her submissions. Reserved for judgment.

JUOGE

UDGE

tat /-t{, 4..-r.&- Lg. V,.-.^..a tlzl^J Bqi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

BeIore:

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

Cr. Appeal No.D- 405 o1201'1 [Confirmation Case No.28 of 2011]

Janan alias Ianu and Aijaz

Versus

The State

Appellants : Janan alias Through IvIr Abdul Rasool Abbasi Janu and Aijaz Advocate

Respondent : The State Through Ms. Rameshan Oad, APG Sindh. r Date of hearing ?5.06.2020

Date of judgment 02.07.2020

TUDGMENT

MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, T.-ThiS criminai appeai is directed against the judgment dated 24.12.2011, passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court Hyderabad @ Hyderabad, in ATC Case No.308 of 2008 (Re: The State V Janan @ Janu and others), emanating from Crime No.380 of 2008, registered at Police Station Dadu, under sections 302,324,353, 147,148, 1.49 PPC, 6 / 7 Ana-Terrorism Act,7997, whereby both appellants (Janan @ Janu and Aijaz) have been convicte d u/s 302/1'49 PPC r/w section 6(2)(a) punishable under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. They have also been directed to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each which is to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased

2 6q6

HC Roshan Ali as compensation, and in default thereof they shall suffer S.l for one year.

2.The facts of the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R, registered by complainant Inspector / SHO Haji Ghulam Muhammad Memon at Police Station Dadu on 12.08.2008 at 0730 hours are that, on the fateful clav complainant was posted as SHO at P.S Dadu. On that day, HC Roshan Ali and PC Abdul Hakeem left police station vide roznamcha entrv No.38, at 05.00 a.m in Dadu cify to collect the inJormation of absconder accused, rvhile he himself along with his subordinate staff at about 0500 hours proceeded for patrolling in the city on police mobile. He remainecl in contact with H.C. Roshan Ali on mobile phone, who inJormed him that Janan alias Janu and other armed persons were seen by him on motorcvcle in the area of Nlallah Chowk. On receipt of such in-formation, he (SHO) along with his subordinate staff proceeded towards the pointed place and also asked ASI Ghulam Sarn'al 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 Y there and was talking on mobile phone. In the meantime, three motorcvcles arrived near him on which accused Janan alias Janu armed with Kalashnikov, 2) Aljaz armed with pistol, 3) Waris, 4) Ali Hassan son of Sultan, 5) Ali Hassan son of Ali Nan,az duly armed with Kalashnikovs, 6) Wazir armerl with pistol and t'rvo unidentified persons armed with pistols were riding, the1, de-boarded from the motorcycles, accused Janan alias Janu fired three shots upon HC Roshan Ali which hit him on his chest, accused Aijaz and rest accused also fired upon him, who on sustaining fire arm injuries fell dorvn. h-i the meantime, ASI Ghulam Sarwar Soomro along with his subordinate staff reached there on police mobile. On fire shot reports people of the Mohalla gathered and accused ran away towards eastern side on their motorcycles bv making indiscriminate firing in order to spread terrorism. The complainant, along r+'ith PC Abdul Hakeem and Shafi Muhammatl, who was available ir-r the hotel rvent towards Roshan Ali and found him having fire arm injuries on his chest, back, arms and legs and was bleeding and within their sight died and such information was conveyed to the higher ups through lvireless. Thereafter, police party arranged Naka-bandi at protective bund but culplits could not be apprehended. Then complainant after leaving Police Constable

J Bq1

Abdul Hakeem on the dead body of HC Roshan Ali went to chase tl-re culprits, but they vanished. The post mortem of the dead body of deceased was conclucted in Civil Hospital Dadu. Consequentiy comPlainant appearecl at Police Station and lodged F.l.R. on behalf of the State as stated above.

3.Police arrested the accused / appeliants and after usual investigation, submitted the challan before the concerned court. After completing necessarl' formalities, iearned trial court framed charge against accused / appeilants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.At trial, the prosecution in order to Prove its case examined 11 PWs and exhibited numerous documents and other items. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C r,vhereby they clairned false implication. They did not examine themselves on oath or call any witness in support of their defence case.

5.Learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

6.Leamed 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 unnecessarv repetition

7.Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellarrts are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the poiice, that the eye witnesses are planted witnesses and were not Present at the time of the incident, that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials ancl subordinates of the complainant and as such their evidence cannot be safely relied upon, that the only independent witness who was called being P\\' 7 Shaffi did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contain major contradictions n'hit-h makes their evidence doubtful, that the police official who was murdereel n'as not in uni-form at the time of the incident and that he was murdered bv other people who had enmity with him, that the weaPons were foisted on the appellants and that for any of the above reasons the appellants should be acquitted of the charge by extending to them the benefit of the doubt. In

4 gq8

support of his contentions Iearned counsel for appeliants placed reliance on the cases of Ghulam Mustafa V The State (2009 S C M R 916), Liaquat Ali V The State (2008 S C M R 95), Mehmood Ahmad and 3 others V The State and another (1995 S C M R 124 and Tariq PervezV The State (1995 S C N'l R i34s).

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 wihresses are reliable and cannot be discarded simply because theY are police officials, that the medical evidence supports the prosecution case, that the murder weaPons (pistol and KK) were recovered on the pointation of the appellants, that the empties recovered from the scene led to a positive FSL report when matched with the above lveaPons an'1 as such the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt ag:ainst the appellants ancl their appeals be dismissed and confirmation reference ansrvered in the affirmative. In support of her contentions she has placed reliance on Ansar Mehmood V Abdul Khaliq and another (2011 S C M R 713), Muhammed Ilyas V State (SCMR 2011) and Ahsan Shahzad and another V The State and others (2019 S C I\'{ R 1165).

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

10.In our view after our reassessment of the evidence based on the evidence of the PW eye witnesses, PW MLO and post mortem report, PW police lvitnesses 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 hotei of Shafo Mallah HC Roshan Ali whilst on official police duty was shot numerous times by numerous assailants by firearm and was thereby murclered.

5 Bttl

11.The only issue therefore, in our view, left before us is whether it u'as the appellants who were a part of the group of assailants who fired at HC Roshan Ali (the deceased) and injured him with their firearm shots which lead to his murder by firearm.

1,2. In our view after our reassessment of the evidence we find that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants (Janan @ Janu and Aljaz) for murdering the deceased by firearm beyond a reasonable doubt and hereby uphold the convictions and sentences in the impugned judgment against the appellants for the following reasons;

(a)The FIR was registered with promptitucle within an hour of the incident in which the appellants ha','e been named and given specific roles and as such there was no time for the police to consult and concoct a false case. Furthermore no enmity existed between either the complainant or the police against the appellants and thus the complainant and the police had no reason to implicate the appellants in a false case.

(b)The key witnesses in this case in our vietv are eye wihresses PlV 1 ? Ghulam Muhammed who is also the complainant, PW 4 Buxhal Khan, PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar and PW 6 Abdul Hakeem. We shall consider the evidence of these eye u,itnesses in furn belorv;

(i)Eye witness PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed is also the complainant in this case. According to his evidence on 12.08.2008 he sent the deceased and PW 6 Abdul Hakeem for getting inJormation about culprits u,hilst he r4,ent out on a separate patrol. According to his evidence l-re received a call from the deceased that 6 persons holding KK's and pistols were roaming on motor Lrikes in the N'lallah Chorvk area with intent to commit robbery. He disclosed one of the culprits as appellant Janan. He then went to the pointed place and told PlV 5 Ghulam Sarwar who as on patrol in a separate rrrobile to reach there. When he reached the scene of the incident both the cleceased anci PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar were present. He saw 6 persons who had got off their motor bikes fire at the deceased with KK's and pistols out of whom he saw appellant Janan fire 3 shots which hit the deceased on his chest and appellant Aijaz also fired one shot which hit the deceased on his chest, FIe also saw othel named persons fire at the deceasecl n hose fire shots hit the deceased who all then escaped bv speeding awav on their motorbike. Accorcling to his evidence the police were unable to return fire as the area r,r',as crowcled n,ith members of the public who rnay have been injured bv such firing. The police attempted to chase and capture the culprits but u,ele unable to do so. He knew the appellants as they were wanted criminals who were also recognized by PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar and other police officers on the spot. It was a day light incident at 6.30am in August and there were additionally the _,

6 8(o

lights of the police mobiles and the eye witness was standing re-iatively close to the appellants 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 (unreportecl) in Crim. Jail Appeal No's 2'1.69,215 ,486 of' 201'6 antl 682 of 2017 rvhich held as under at Para 5 which is set out belorv;

"5. Castigating severelv the evidence of test identification parade, the learned counsel relied upon the guidelines laid dou,n in the case of Knntoar Aruoar Ali (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 488) to urge exclusion thereof. The supra case indeed a fine piece of juridical literature, nonetheless, does not extend much heip to the convicts; it mainly addressed laconic approach adopted by a Magisrrate in holding the test identification parade in the said case n'hile highlighting general principles of law on the subject.

Test identiJication Parade is a rnethod of proof contemplated by Article 22 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984, reproduced below' for the convenience of reference:- a "Fncts necessary to etplnir or inh'odtlce n fact itt tsstL? or relerant fact, or ulriclt sltpport or rebut an infetence suggested by a itr issue or relet'ant fact, or iohiclr t'nct estnblish the identi\ of anythurg or Person ruhose identity is relet ant, or fix tlw tinte or plnce at tthiclt any fnct irr isstrc or" relet,nnt fact lnpltened, or tt'ltich slrct tlte relntiort of parties by uhortr nny sltclt fnct utas transacted, nre reletnnt in so fnr ns tlrcy nre trccessary for tlnt pltrpose " .

The above framework provides enough space to admit evidence in prosecution of offenders previouslv unacquainted with the victims or the rvitnesses; ap-rpraisal of such evidence is subject to sarne 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; without prejudice to the safeguards available to an accused at each stage of trial, essentialiy fair as guaranteed under the Constitution, nonetheless, it does not cast an artificially heavier onus on the prosecution to meet standards of proof beyond humau capacity. Each criminal case is to be decided having regard to its own peculiar facts and circumstances. A test to be essentially applied is one case may absolutely be irrelevant in another, as the crimes are seldom committed in identical sifuations; there may be cases wherein prosecution must assign distinct roles played during the occurrence by the-

rtr

culprits for determination of their guilt as well as consequences 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 not, constitute 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. Capacities even intellectually most sharp dwindle drastically in calamitous situations, theref ore, 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 shuctured upon hypothetical beliefs

Having found the witnesses r'vith no axe to grind, in a comfortable unison on all the salient features of the prosecution case as well as events collateral therelvith, rve do rrot feel persuaded b1' 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.

On 17.08.2008 whilst on pafrol with PW 4 Buxhal Khan he came across the appellants riding a motor cycle who he arrested and recovered the motorcycle from. He was a natural witness and not a chance witness because he was the SHO who had sent the deceased out to gather information about criminals and on receipt of such information concerning a number of heavilv armed criminals rvho it appeared intended to commit a crime he went to the scene of the incident to suPPort his colleague u'ho hacl provided him the information. We do not consider it relevant that the deceased lvas not in uniform based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case as he had been in effect sent on an under cover mission to identify wanted criminals and as such he needed to blend in with the general public and not stand out. He had no enmity or ill rvill with the appellants and had no reason to falsely implicate them in this case. He was not shattered despite lengthy cross examination and remained consistent in his evidence. His evidence accords with his FIR nhich was lodged almost immediatelv after the incident in which he nominated both the appellants rvith a specific role. His evidence is also corroborated in all material respects by eye witnesses PW 4 Buxhal Khan, PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar and PW 5 Abdul Hakeem. We find no reason to disbelieve his evidence which we find reliable, trust worthY antl confidence inspiring and find that he has correctly identifiecl the appellants as two of the persons who murdered the deceased b1'

B giL

firearm

(ii)Eye witness PW 4 Buxhal Khan was Posted as ASI PS Dadu at the time of the incident. According to his evidence on 12.08.2008 the deceased and PW 6 Abdul Hakeem at 0500arn were sent for seeking inJormation about absconding accusecl while he and eye witness PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed went on patrol. During their patrol they kept in constant radio contact with the decelsed who informed them that the appellant Janan along rvith others were roaming at Mallah Chowk with intent to .otnilit a crime. PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar over wireless was tolcl to reach Mallah Chowk and they also proceeded there in their mobite. He sa'w'the deceased and 3 motor cycles at the scene r'r'iti-r 8 riders rvho got off their motorbikes. He saw appellant Janan with a KK who made 3 straight fires on the deceased which hit him. He also saw appellant Aijaz with a pistol who also fired at the deceased ana hiihim on the chest. He also sar'r'other natuetl persons who also fired on and hit the deceased on various parts of 1-rlr body. The deceased fell down on account of the fire shots which hit iri*. H" also saw P\{ 5 Ghulam Sarwar at the scene of the murder. They (the police) could not return fire as the area was crowded lviih members of the public. The culprits escaped on their motor bikes blz making aerial firing' On 17'08'2008 he along with PW 1 SHO Ghulam ]vluhammed was on pah'ol rt'hen L they saw the appellants on a motor bike. They arrested the apiellants and iecovered the motorbike' He identified the appellants in court. Through his evidence he corroborates the .uid.,l.u of eye witnesses PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed in all material resPects. The same considerations apply to him as for PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed as mentioned above'

(iii)Eye witness PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar was posted as ASI at PS bud,r-ot 12.08.2008 when the incident occurred' According to his evidence on 12.08.2008 the deceased anci PW 6 Abdul Hakeenr were sent bi' SHO PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed to collect information about criminals and absconders. Thereafter P\{ 1 Ghulam Muhammed, PW 4 Buxhal Khan anc.l other police officers left for patrolling' He left for patroliing in a separate mobile during lvhich time he remained in contact rvith the deceased and SHO PW 1 Ghulam Nluhammed. SHO P\'V 1 Ghulam Muhammed directed him to proceed to N4allah chor'r'k ,l. where appeliant Janan rvas committing a crime' When he reached the scene he sa'n' the deceased standing along n'ith 3 motorcycles from which 7 persons had alighteci' He saw appellant Janan with a KK make three straight fires on the deceased which hit him on the chest. He also saw appellant appellant Aijaz make straight fire at the deceased with a pistol which fire hit the deceased. He also saw other natned persons fire at and hit the deceased with their fire. The culprits escaPed by speeding arvay on their motor bikes whiist making aerial firing. He did not take part in the arrest of the appeilants but apart from this aspect of his evidence he corroborates eye. L

I B{Z

witnesses PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed and PW 4 Buxhal Khan in all material respects. The same considerations app11' to him as for PW 1 Ghulam Muiramrned as mentioned above.

(iv)Eye witness PW 6 Abdul Hakeem is probably the most important eye wiLness as he left the PS on pakol with the deceased and was with the deceased when he was murdered' At the time of the incident he rvas posted at PS Dadu' According to his evidence on 12.08'2008 he along with the deceased left the PS on patrol. When they reached Mallah Chowk Shafan lt4allah hotel he saw 7 persons come on three motor cycles' The deceased inJormed SHO PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed fearing that there might be an incident of dacoiti' (n'hich corroborates the eviclence of PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed). He saw appellants ]anan and Aijaz alight from their motorcycles and fire at the deceased which hit the deceased on the chest. He natnes the other 5 cuiprits who were Present. He confirms the presence of SHO PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed ancl PW 5 Saru'ar and other PC's at the scene. He was close to the appellants n'hen they fired and u'ould have no difficulty in identifying them as it was day light There closeness of 2-3 feet is also corroboratecl by some of the meclical evidence which found some of the fire arm injuries on the cleceasecl as having burning and charring which indicates that such fires lvere made from less than 3 feet away. He was not a I part of the patrol which arrested the appeliants but apart from this aspect of his evidence he corroborates eye witnesses PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed, PW 4 Buxhal Khan and PW 5 Ghulam Sarwar in all material respects' The same considerations appll' to him as for PW 1 Ghulam Muhammed as mentioned above'

(c)It is settied law that we can convict if rve 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 The State (2006 SCMR 1857). Furthermore. the supreme court in the case of Niaz-Ud-Din V The State (2011 SCMR 725) helcl as uncler iu respect of the ability of the court to uphold a conviction for murtler even based on the evidence of one eye witness provided that it n'as reliable and confidence inspiring and was substantiated frorn the circumstances and other evidence since it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters atP.734 Para 11 as under;

"17. Ttrc statement of lsraeel (P.1,!.9) tlte eye-utihtess of tlu occwt'etrce is cortfidence inspiitrg, roldch stands substantinted f'otrt tlr circtLtnstances and otlrcr eddence. There is apt obseruatiotts appearing in Allah Bakhsh r,. Slnmnti and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) tlnt "ei'ett in n murder case conuiction can he based on the testimony o,f n single tttitness, if tlu Court is satisfied that he is reliable." Tlu rensou beirry tlmt it is the qunlity of etidence nnd not tlrc quantity tuhiclr nntter. Therefore, u,e are leJi uith no dotrbt tdntsoet er thnt condctiorr of Ntaz- ud-Ditt tters.fttlly justi.fied nnd lms rightly been tnnintahrcd by tll.r Higlt Cowt."

10 B{t)

In this case we fincl the evidence of the 4 eye witnesses mentionec'l above to be fully corroborative and reliable, trust worth)' and confidence inspiring especially in terms of correctiy identifying the appellants as some of the persons tvho committed the murder of tire cleceased by shooting him with their KK and pistol respectively. 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.

(cl)It is well settled by now that police witnesses are as reliable as an1' other rvitness unless any ili wili or enmity has been attributed to them rvhich has not been done in this case. In this respect reliance is placed onZafar V State (2008 SCMR 1251\,Riaz Ahmed V State (2001SCN{R 988) and Muhammed Hanif V State (SCMR 2003 1237).Like rt'ise it is well settled that simply because a witness is related does not make him an interested witness and unreliable unless he has reason to falselv irnplicate the accused, or he is biased, partisan or inimical to the accused which there is no evidence of in this case. In this l espect reliance is placed on Ijaz Ahmad V The State (2009 SCMR 99).

(e)The medical evidence fully supports the eYe witness version of events. PW 8 Dr.Mukhtiar who carried out the Post mortem of the deceased gave evidence that the deceased received 7 firearm injuries of hvo different types indicating the use of two different firearms being a pistol and a KK and at least 2 or 3 firearm injuries were at the chest region and 3 such injuries had burning and charring and the cause of death of the deceased rvas by firearm iniury ail caused by buliets.

(f)The KK being the murder weapon used by appellant Janan rvas recovered on Janan's pointation hidden in a grave yard ivhich only he and not the police could have known about anci as such there is no question of the I(K being {oisted on Janan. Likewise the recovery of the pistol which was used by Aijaz to murder the deceased rvas recovered on the pointation of appellant Aijaz in the same hidden secret Piace.

(g)That some of the empties which were recovered from the scene of the incident when compared with the KK and pistol which rvere recovered from the appellants respectively matched as per a positive FSL report.

(h)Positive chemical reports showed that the blood gathered at the scene was hurran blood.

(i)The motor bike used in the crime rvas recovered from the appellants at the time of their arrest.

(j)All the most relevant and sigrrificant police entries were exhibited at trial in support of the prosecution version of events.

(k)That all the PW's are consistent in their evidence and even if there are some contradictions in their evidence we consider tl-rese contradictions as minor in nature (such as typo's and the number of culprits at the scene being 6, 7 or 8 keeping in view the terror and chao.s

11 a<

which was then unfolding) and not material and certainly not of such materialit)' so as to ef{ect ihe prosecution case and the conviction of the appellants. In this respect reliance is placed on Zakir Khan V State evidence of lioos Scfuln U%) ani Muhammed Ilyas (Supra). The the PW's provides a believable corroborated unbroken chain of events from the time the deceased and PW 6 Abdul Hakeem left to search for criminals/ absconders, to the deceased call for assistance, to the arrival of the police eye witnesses, to the murder of the deceased bv the appellants and others, uP to the arrest of the appellants and the recovery of the murder weaPons on their pointation'

(1)We do not find it particularly relevant based on the particuiar facts and circumstances of the case that PW 7 Shafi nho was an indepenclent witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile because at the time of gl rirg t'tit evidence only 2 out of the potential to g murderers had been caught and thus he h,as probably afraid for his life and that of his familv especially as he was a local person ancl the other killers were stil1 ui lutgu and having already killed a policemer-r would have not hesitated to either intimiclate or even kill him' Qn) Of course it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyoncl a reasonable cioubt against the appellants which we find that it has clone in this case hort'ever lve have considered the defense case before reaching this conclusion. The appellants have taken the defense plea of false iniplication. Namely, they were at home rvhen the police falseli' implicaied them ir.r this case. Horvever they have not given evidence unier oath or called any defense witness in suPPort of their defense case nor duling cross examination have the)' suSgested to any police pW that he haJany enmity with them and therefore a reason to falsel' implicate them in ihir .ur" ancl as such we disbelieve the defe.se case of false implication which ive consider to be a mete after thought in order to save the skin of the appellants especially in light of tl-re overwhelming prosecution evidence against the appellants'

13.Thus, based on the above discussion especially in the face of reiiable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring eve witness evidence and other corroborative/ supportive evidence mentioned abol'e we have no doubt that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

14.with regard to sentencing we note that the appellants murdered a police officer in cold blood in broad day light in front of the public in a particularly brutal manner whereby he received at least 7 fire arm rniuries which murder was designed and intended to intimidate 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

12 ?s6

leniency is justified in terms of sentencing for the appellants Janan and Aijaz but rather a deterrent sentence is the appropriate one in order to deter such cold bloodied brutal murders of policemen who represent the symboi of the State and any attack on whom can be regarded as an attack on the State'

15.Thus, for the reasons discussed above the appeals against convictiou are dismissed, the impugned judgment and its sentences imposed therein are upheld and the confirmation re{erence is ansu'ered in the affirmative.

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

a- I

E:' / /'2:

IUDGE o .D(

"1 )l' f

,r.