SYED ASIF ALI S/O SYED AZIZ (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

'1Ji*1 /- -r-'-^ [vtr^-, arr t- L]^ No *!k\r' 1.i il

CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT IN REGARD TO REPORTING

5p. x?a 2tI Lll t--'tLal( .l' t*6-c^+. I

ty,-) A<, 5 tl rr Vr ' -lL \ f'J-

HIGH COURT OF SINDH

Composition of Bench: ffi./D. B.

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, Mv I *rt.- z-*tf A i.. .<,--1.

Date(s) of Hearing: Zc' - tt- /, L' 2l - l1- iJ

Decide on: o.r -. tZ -2019

(a)Judgment approved for reporting Yes tq I I

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the judgment*/order is based upon or enunciates a principle of law */ decides a question of law which is of first irnpression / distinguishes / over rules / reverses / explains a previous decision.

* Strike out whichever is not applicable.

NO IE (i) This slip is only to be used when some action is to be taken (i) lf the slip is used, the Reader must attach it to the top of the first page of the judBment

(iii)Reader must ask the Judge writing the judgment whether the Judgment is approved for reporting.

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

L;z

IN THE HONORABLE IIIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. A.T.A No. o- 21 I Po1.6

Syed Asif Ali :l'ii g',|-iTl:ii s/o Syed Aziz, .- 26 zo\L Muslim, adult, Residing at F-1, Anarkali Centre, Block 7, Federal B. Area , Karachi ... -,_,.,:ll .,: -r."

'{icr. ii*r1'.'r' ,; . ,,i., Presently conflned at Central Prison, Karachi.. ,................Appe11ant'2..,1 5

FIR No. 7912015 UlSi 1471 l48l 7491 3021 34 PPC R/W section 7 A.f .A., 1997 P.S. Azizabad, Karachi

CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 25 OF THE ANTI TERRORISM ACT, 1997

Being aggrieved and dissatlsfied with the lmpugned ludgment dated 08.08,2016 passed by the learned IVth Anti Tenorism Court, Karachi, in Special Case no. 8-695/2015 whereby the learned Trial Court has been pleased to convict the Appellant u/s. l47l 1481 l49l 3O2l 34 PPC punishable u/s, 7(1Xa) of A.T,A., 1997 and awarded death sentence, while under section 25{1) Sindh Arms Act also convicted and awarded a sentence of 07 years R.I. and flne of Rs.50,000/= in default, further R.I for 04 months in Sp€cial Case No,696/2015 by the common ludgment for which a separate appeal is being filed. The Appellant prefers this

I

appeal on considerlng the following facts and grounds:- (C/o the inrpugned Judgment dated 08,08'2016 is appended herewith and marked as Annexr.tre "A')

I FACTS:

1.Ihat the brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.03.2015, saeed ur Rehman, the S.l. of P.5. Azizabad Karachi lodged FIR no. 79,/2015 under uls.147l r48l 1491 3021 34 PPC punishable

r.r )5

IN THE HONORABLE HTGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

cr. A.r.A. No. o- VlT tnrc

Syed Asif Ali

..,,. : .'ITED -

" Co o'a.?Etr, s/o Syed Aziz, Muslim, adult, Residing at F-1,

--'.' , i,", Anarkali Centre, Block 7, Federal B. Area , Karachi trr, r,!:t"t$lt: ': iji'' presently conflned at Central Prison, Karachi...,.........,. . ............APPellant The State Respondent

FIR No. 193/2015 U/S:2s-A(1) S,aq P.S. Azizabad, Karachi

ACT' 1997

CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S. 25 OF THE ANTI TERRORISM

Being aggrieved and dissatisfled with the Impugned ludgment 08.08.2016 passed by the learned Mh Anti Terrorism Court' dated learned Trial Court Karachi, in Special Case no. 8-695/2015 whereby the Slndh Arms Act and has been pleased to convict the Appellant u/s' 25(1)

I

awarded a sentence of 07 years R and Fine of Rs 50.000/= in default'

further R.l. for 04 months while in the main case u/s 302 RWS

7 ATA

Case No 695/2015 also convicted and awarded death sentence in Special by the common ludgmer]t for which a separate appeal is being filed The following facts and Appellant prefers this appeal on considering the grounds:-

(C,/o the imPugned .ludgmeot dated 08 08.2016 i5 appended herewilh and marked as Annexure 'A")

FACTS:

1.That the brief facts of the prosecution case are that o' 11.03.2015, Saeed ur Rehman, the S L of P S Azizabad Karachi lodg€C

FIR no. 791201s unde r uls.147l 1481 l49l 3021 34 PPC punishable

Qsr Datc 'r and c he ad

OFFICE OF THD JUDGE ANTI TERITORIS M COUII'T IX, XARACHI.

No.AT(l IX// K I)l!,/(fir'-2t)1tr harrtchr l) rii 11. l)', rls I .

l,'.

6q/ I ir, li.r1'lrir .

(p( I lli!li ( ,,LLrl ,'l \iiriI /?faIr" 1r ur.r. i,

I

\l ll.lt .( I l(l llil \rl I'.i)t ll \l ( lL,\ rt(ll l{ i\ \l' , ( i\l \i)11 ,,'i rjillli\,,,'lrl' L - rl-il\ l, l

j,l,( \\l)l\il,l ( r\t ( \\t \.{) l!ri,|-,rlillli\(r rL)i I S :5ilr.\ S\\ l'\ ,\/l/,\ll.'l)) r\\ I l) ,\\ll \l I \ I :l)l \ jlll \L\Il,. INl)l 1:Sl t llr)\'ar 'l()l ."1 \ t'u,-

It ir lo \trtc tl)at lh( irlinc\Jirl .irsc Itas htcrt(icrrrl,jJ ',rr Lll-lr11- :016 ard lhe trilcLrsed Slcd,\silAlis,oS)cli ,\zizlra:hertr,l\\arrl((i d!',rllr stttLurrur.rrr,lLrrlirrl L,iir!, \. 1,]rr.., ,|l,i-Lt lror,,',,r '..,rrlt ;rtr r, r '_ ,. llr,rr hl( lli,rlr ( ,'Lri1 l'r,l.r \r'rt].r i l L- r I i i,rL liNl'\ t) ilrr ,Ll'1r..,1,'l rpeeiltl i:tsc: rlrr \lrtl ltcr.\\illl iir \L(\ ,)l \!!li(,' l:r-r,'l .\t\ l"\)- lL'l con Il nlrrlli(rn oi dl th scrltcllra r,l'ilb()\ c n.(LrsL (l (rr (,lilrt \\ r\r D-a' ,y C I r . ;.t. Kirrdlr acknorr lcdgc tlrc lt',:cillt ol tlte rirrtte t

I

t \ t\ t ,1. \lt\l \\ \ l.l I\ \\ \\ltr) rl l)( I \\ ll ll l(ii( ilii\ii ( 1)i li \1r:\ l\ \ i'\( L

Gl,Ao r |\ -'.U, t" \'\. : N. r,^rU-\n lJi(^r

L1 (f

,I

IN'TtIE HIGH COURT OF SINDII A I(ARACHI Soe<ralCrl. Anti--l.rrorism Aplrcal No'2ll o' 2Ulb Soeciar Crl. Anti- [errorism Appeal No'212 of 2016 Cuniirmatinn Casc No.0't o{ 2Ulo.

. Presentl Krr,'I KhLu ltlr,ltstice lu tAli5d

All'cll'rnt: Sved AsiJ Ali S/o. Sycd Aziz throu8h NIr' S. lvlehmocd AIam ltizfi, Ntr Zakir Laghari and \{s- Akhtar llel€na, Advocaies.

'l hrough \4r. Rana Khalid Flussain, SPe{inl li(lr St.ik Prosecutor Ranga$

l)n1!'r,l h.a.inll: 20.11.2019 and 21.11 2019 f)ate oI arrn()unce,nent 02.-t2.2019

IU DCMI-N

Mohammad Karim Khan Agh4 J ' APPellant Syed Asif AIi S/o' Syed judgment dated Aziz has preferred these aPPeals against lhe imPugned 08.08.2016 passed by the Ieamed Judge AntlTerr<rrism Court No'[X'

Karachi ir1 SPecial Case No,B-695 of 2015, F'lR No'79 nf 2015 Lt/s'

147 /148/14g/3O2/ 34l'PC r/w section 7 of A'I A' 1997 and another Spetial

Case No.8496 of 2015, F I.R No.t93 of 2015 u/s 23(l)-A Sindll AmB Act has been 2013, registered as P.S. Azizabad, Ka-rachi whercby thc aPPellant convicted and sentencetl to dcath under scction 7-1(a) of ATA 1997 read with fine rvith section 302 PPC subiect to conlirmation by tlris court along of 1ts.50u,000/- to be Paill to the legal heirs of the r:leceased' if recovcrecl and in case of ilefault he l'v'as ordered to undergo R L for four months

mr.-rre. 1he appellant $'as also convictcd and sentenced lo suiter Rigorous

lmprisonmenL for 07 Ycars under sectio 23 (l)-A of the Sindh Arns Act' 'l8l-lt (r'l'' !\"rs rrt( n(lc(l k) ihi l()13. Ho\\,crer, henrlil rri sc(ritirl

The brief facts of the case arc that Sl I)in Mohammatl tsarfat hacl

!€cordecl staterne t of SI Saeed-ur-Rehman (comPlainant) u/s 154 Cr'P C- 2015 at which i\'ns incorporated in thc FIR book on the same date i e' 11 03 that hc, 1500 hours. It is stated L)l the comPlarnanl SI >aecJ'ur-Rchman

q.51

11 PW's !{iro In order tci Ptove its casc the Prosecution examincd exhibitcd valious doauncnts ancl other items in suPPort L,l thir rlosed its side. the proseaution case whcre after thr' Prosecution unde! S 342 Cr'rc in which he appcllant/accuEe!-i recorlled his statement and claimed false imPlication denied &e allegations of the Prosetution th'o defense witnesses in l-le examinerl himself on oath and also examined supPort of his dcfense case'

t4( 6

was sub-ln^spector at I19 Azizabad and on the niSht of I0'n or l1th N'larch 2015 he was on patrolling tlutv along with his subordinare staff on government mobile in Azizabad and it was about 0500 houls that I{ange$ persorncl and olficcrs conducted a raicl at Block No 8 of Azizabatl and where after at 08:i0 hours when thc Rangers (forces) rvere leaving arrcl \^,ithdra\^'ing from their operation a large number c'f persons convergerl there and in the lrleanwhile some unknctwn miscreants started firing.rs a result of !^,hich nne person namclv S1-ed Waqas Ali Shah S/o. Slecl Yaqoob Strah elietl on the sPot on account of firearDl injury and one Wascem Abid also got injured. lt is fu her alleged in the FIR that sonre unknown miscreant! by making firing cornmitted murLler of Sved Waqas Shah ancl iniured one Waseem Abid.

3 'fllereaftur SIP,/First LO Mansoor Warsi insPected the Place of inciLierrt on the sanre date. secured emPties and object of bullet and bloodstaincd earth, preparetl thc sketch anrl took PhcrtograPhs of thc sccnc of offcnce arrti preP.lred such tner'Iio Initiall\ thc.ase uas deposecl of in ".4" class however on 26 6.2015 thc accused Asif was arrested in this case by Dutl' Officer SI Nisar Ahmed when custody of the accuseLl l1'as ha ded over to him b]- Range! lnsPc<tor 'Iuiail On 01.07.2015 accused admitted that lre had murdered Syed Waqas and on his pointati('n took the police to where hc had hidden tlre murder t,''eaPon (pi\tol) rvhich was recovered by the Police from Yasinabad Nala On 05.07.20'15 the enPties and pistol in sealed condition were sent to rhe oflice of FSL. Thc enrpties were also previouslv 5ent to the FSI (,n 12.03.2015 whcn still the arrest o[ the a.clrsed h'as nol affected and weaPon wa5 rtot recovered' fhe bloodstained earth !\'as also sent for (ihemical Examination On 11 7 2015 thc identification Tcst of th(' accused was co|rlluated beiore learnccl Magistrate and he !.as identfied by the rvitnesses Farhan and Ansar and such memo was prePared. With regard to the collection ol tht evidenct' the rclevart memos were PrePared aid each witnesu was examined by the LOs unclcr se{tion 161 CI.PC rvhcre after charge sheet lvas subn tted again-st the accused.

l Tlre charpit' lras lramcd against lho aclused to rvhich hc plcadeJ not guilt) nn(l clairned his tr'l.rl

qi8

Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and anoth€r (1995 SCMR 127), Aurangzeb v. The State through Advo(ate'General (201)8 I'Sc- (Crl') 9ri5)' The StatdAnti Narcotic Force Rcgional Directorate Sindh throuS;h its Deputy Director (Law), Clifton, Karachi v. Shakeel Ahmed Siddiqui (200i l5(l (C-rl.) 912), Statc (!'edernl Gov€rnment of Pakistan) through the Colle.tor of Customs (Prelentive) v. Anwar Khattak and another (2005 'Y LR 328t)) al1i.l shnhid zafar and 3 others (l'LD 2014 SuPreme Court

9.On the othcr hand Sperial IJrose.utor Rangers has contcnded that all the PW's supported the Plosecution case; that the two eve \'ilnesses r.r,ere reliable and had corrc{tly it'lcnliJicd the aPpellant at the identili.ation parade lvith a sPeciJic role; that rccoverv of thc lrlutcler !\,-eapon rr'as on pointation ot tht' aPPellanU that the IrSL rePort was positive and that it was a case falling \aithin the Purvicw of thc ATA as the intcntion of the apPellant v/as to create fear and teuor iII the minds ol the public by murdering the deccased. ln suPport of his contentions he placed rcliancc on Muhammad Akram alias Akrai v. The State (201(' SCMR 610), Abid Ali v. The statc and another (2011 P Cr.LJ 628), Arif v' The Statc and 2 others (PI-D 2006 Peshao'ar 5) and Shamsud Doha v The State and another (2005 P. Crl.LJ 310).

10.IVe have hearrl the arguments of the leanled counsei for the patties, gone through tlle cntire evidence which has been reild out l]' thc appellarrt and bhe impugned judgment with their able assistancc and have coilsidered the rcievant law includirg that.ited at the bar'

11.ln our vier,r'after our reasscssment of the evidence based on the evidence of the PW's inclucling lhe PW MLO, Post mortem reporl antl othcr cvidence on record including the chcnical rePott and the recovery of empties at the scene we are satisficd that the Prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable Lioubt that on 11.03 2015 at about 0830 hours at Road Block No.8 Federal B Area Karachi Syed Waqas (thc Lleceased) was murdcred by [irearn1.

12.nrt, r,nly issue thcrefort', in our riclv, ]eit btfore us is ivhetllel the .rppcll.lnl rvas the person lvho shot the de.easell tr-v flre'1rm tvhich leal kt his death.

'I

q( \

13.In our viei'!'after our reassessmcnt of the evidcnce we find that the prosecution has Proved its case against thc aPPetlant be) ond a reasonable doubt for the foilowing leasons;

(a)The context to the case is thal the incident took Place at atx)ut oiiO tr.,urs on 11.03.2015 &-hert the Pakistan Rai€iers carricd out a raid on the Political Party knol^in as the MQNC'S head quarteN known as Nine Zero in Azizabad as a result ol which a large number o[ charged Il'lQI\4 workels Sathercd in order to confront the out the ,)Pcra(ion. An FIR h a> PronrPllv ranucrs who \^ ei(' (arrying-p.rrons lodferl agarnst unlnr*,' on the sJme L'la\ bv lhe Slatc dn(l inuistigari.-rns were conducted however since the P(llice wcrc unable to find the susPe.t the rePort was initially filcd under

"A"

class. \dc do not.onsider that based on thc facts and circumstances of the case that there has bcen any unexplained delay in registering, the FIR k.'epin8 in view that thc Police went to the hosPital after thc incident to;he;k c,n the iniurcd who had cxPircd and PrePared the S.174 report. No relatives of the deceased reliistered an FIR prolrabll: out o{ fear as the situation in terms of law and order and ihe relationslnp bet\'.'een the NIQ\'I Political Parr't'and the rangcrs and pc,lice r,r'as probably at that time vcrv tense and highl)- sensitive and also throughout the city as a result of thc raid and thus it !'!'as up tl) the Stat; to rcglster the FIR. li the police ot rangcrs had wanted to tir the appellant ir this casc they collld havc sinrpl"' named him in the FIR rather than lodging the FtR againsl unknotln persons espccially as thcy had over 6 hours to concoct such a casc igainsr thcappeliant ln ihis resPect reliance is placed on Liaqat Ali Fani V State (1989 MLD 1738)

(b)ln this casc there are two eve lvitnesses to the incident lx)th i,eing members of the I'akistan Rangers. In our view lhe casc will mainilv turn on whether !'!c find the evidence of th!'eYc wihlesses k' Le rel'iable, trustworthy and confidence insPiring and whether h'c consider that the eye !'!'itnesscs have corrcctlr- identificd the appcllant.

(c)In c(insidering the eridence of the eye lvitncsses wc have lakcn into account thc Jact that this was a dav time iicidcnt so the liShl rr'as p,rod: lhdt llre th'o (ve !a'itncsscs haJ n'r ill !vill ('r enlrlil\ ,n*oi.t. ,t," appellant.rnri thu' ItaLt no rc'r'orr t') inrPlr"tte 'nticl) him in tlris case; that neither of lhe eye witnesses were 'hance witnesses as they werc both rangers officials rvho had every rcason t(, be present at the time of the raid by the rangers; that the e)'e rvitness evidence concerning the raid and the conduct of the PeoPIe who gatheretl at ninc zero during and alter the raid te'1ds to rin8 true ind n ost importantlv that the aPpellant in his eviden'e under oath and his uvife OW t Norren Asif hae admitted the aPPellant's prcaence at the scene at the tinre of the murder' So the qucstion u[ the appeliant not being at thc scene of the incident is not in issue Turning specifically to the evidence of the eye witness' Eye witne6$ PW 3 Farhan w ho rvas an lnsPector ir thc' rang!-rs ']n(l in his eyide ce in resPect oI the identification of the aPPellant hc,

4b" statcs that he heard 4/5 rite shots and he saw the Person firing r'!ith the Tl' pistol. The numbcr of shots rougNy ties in !""'ilh the number (,1 enrplle\ rcrLrvered Thc ac, usetl \^as only 10 fect ahay lr(rm ll'!nl nt the trmc ,'i the frrin8 so he gul a gtotl r icw ('f him csPe(iall\ Js il r^,as day time. fhe deceased was five yards awal'f1om lvhcre the accusccl was st?rnrling \a'hen he shot him which ties in h'ith thc meclical cvi.lence of tlreir being no blackening around the ra'ound oi thc dec€ased- Ile !r'as not named as an eye rviiness in the FIR u'hich is understandable as this lvas lod8,cd on thc same.lal bl the polict- and the police n'ould not have known that hc was an el'e witness at the time of lodging the FlIt so this is irreverent in oul vieu Admittcdly the eyc !,,'itness gave a delayed S 161 statement alier the incident. How'cver based on the facts alld circumstances of this case we do not consitler this fact to be fatal to the prosL{ution case b(rausc as mentioned atove he ra'as not a chance rvitness, he haci no enmitl' with the accused, it ilas a day lig,ht incident and hc 8ot a clear vicw o{ the appellant being onlv 10 leet awaY antl it rvas it'r the police to find out thc eve lvitnesses (if any) during the cotrrse (rl their investigation. Likewise his evidcncL' is corrotrorated bl tlrt' me(lical evidenae and the rccovcred empties ,t thc scene lhc idefltity parade was held one clay after he gave his S.161 statcnlcnt .rntl he correctly pickcd out the aPpellant f()m thc ide^tification parade.rnd assigned him the specific rolc trf liring on the clcceasctl' [[e was unslathed tluring cross examinatioll. In our vieh lvr consider that the identification Parade as mentioned bclou' was carrierl out in ac.ordance with the guidelines laid dorrn ir the cas(: of Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLD 2019 SC 488)

Eve witness PW 4 Ansar Mehmood rvho was also a member of lhe Iangers r-,r'ho ltas assigned l{'iih PW 3 falhan at the time of the rangers operation against Nine Zero trnri his t'videncc in resPl,<t o{ thc idcntification of the appellant almost mirrors that of PW 3 Farhan who hcT,r'as on cluty x'ith at thc time of the incident. lle "1ls() rcnrairred unxathctl during cross cxamination.

ln our vierr, *e lind the evidence o[ the ran8ers eye w itnesses (PW 3 Farhatl arrcl PW,t Arrsar) corroboratory in alJ mah'rial resPects anll (onsider their evidencc as reliable, trushlorthy and conlirlcnce inspirinll lvho hdve cotrectly and safell itlentified the aPPellant as the pcrson h'ho shot thc deccased outside N{PA hostel r"luring tht' rangers opcration at Ninc Zero and 1ae mav convk't the aPPellani on the basis of their evidence alone although thc saler cource worrld trc to scek some intlependent corrobolative or suPPortive evidence. ln this rcspcd relialtce is placed on lluhgmmad Ehssn v. The statc (2006 S(llUR 1857) and thc .ase of \luhammcd Akram (Supra).

PW 5 Zaheer Ahmed was the magistrate rvho carried ('ut thc identification patacle of thc appellant where both eyc rvitrlcsscs PW 3 larhan an.l PIV 4 An5ar l\{ehmood identified the apPellant and gave him a particular role ill the incirlent ln our view the identificatiofl parade has been carried t)ut kecPing in viclv most, il not all, of the legal precautions and Suidclines for carrying out an identification parade as are laid down in thc cAse of Kanwar Anwaar AIi (PLD 2019 SC 488) u'hich in our vierv means that thc idcntification of the appcllant nadc at the iclcntification Paradc b)'

1r6l

the tll'o eyc rvihrcsses can be safely relicd upon.

(d)The nretlical evidence supports the eve rvitness oral eviclence' Thcre is also no bla.kening arouncl the wouncl of th{] deceas('d ivhich indi{ates tlut the shot which killed tlrc dcceased was fircel from over 3 feet away which is in consonance with thc oral cvidence given by thc eye rvitnesses in rcsPect of hor+' far the aPpellant was iro,n thc deceased when the shr.rt was firer.l.

(e)That the recovcrv of the n'eaPon on the Pointation o[ thE appeilant is also of siSnificance as the rveaPon was hid.lcn in sueh a placc that onl]- thc aPpellant r,''ould havc knot'\'n about.

(0 l hat thc empties recovered at the scene of the incident mac*hed with thosc from the recovered Pistol resulting in a Positive FSL report.

(g)A positive chemical rePolt was also a Part oi the evidence

(h)That the PtrV's are all corroborahve ol each other and that there are no frajor rontradictions il1 iheir evidence i{hi(h rvould adv€rsely imPacl on thc Prosccution case. Admittedl)- rnost ()1 the P\!'s are ranger or Police u'itnesscs. lt is $'ell scttlcd by noh'th.1t '1 witness Provided that n(1 ill lrolice h'ih]css is as gocd as any othcr will, enmit!, malalide or Pcrsonal interest i5 Pr('ven aIiailtst hinr tis a vis the appcllant. In this resps.t reliance is placed on Riaz Ahmad v State (2004 SCN'II( 988). Zafar V State (2t)08 SCMI{ 1254) and Abbas V state (2008 SCMR 108).ln this case lherc was none and the ranger eve lr'itnesses and the police PW's had no reason to lalscly implicate the appellant in this case. No such en ity, ill \^'ill, ryr:rlafide or persoral interest ra'as even suggeste(i to the Police ev' l!'ihlcsscs or.tny othet PW during their cross examinatit.)n.

(i)Evcn if lhere are any contradictions in lhe efidence oi lhe Pu's we consider these aontradictions as nlinor in nature and not rnaterial and ccrlairll\ rlot ofsuch naleriality so as to irffect the proseclrtron case and lhe conviction of the appcllart. In iltis respecl reliance is placcd on Zokir Khan V Strtc ( 1995 SC|\'ll{ l79l )

0 That the prosecution evid€ncc Providcs (o a believable chain of evitlcnce from thc time of the langers raid the shooting of the deceasc.l, his death, the araest of the aPPellant and recovery (l the nrurtler weapon tvhich is cortoborate(l by the medical, chemical, I,SL cvidence and rcPorts-

(k)Although it is fbr the Prosctution to Prove its case be1'ond a reasonabl(, doubt and it is not for the accused to Prove his inno(ence we do not lind the delense of the appellant believable and regard it as an after thought in an attcmPt Lo save his skin. Namch, rvhen cros$ cxamining eye witness PlV 3 Farhan it is su88ested to him tlrat thc appellant was not Prescnt at the time of the inciclent whcn in fact th; appellant in his own evidence has admitted his Pre*nce at thc scene at ihe timc of the incident. Like\^'ise he docs not sllggest to t'W 3 Farhan that the langers shot the de<eased and not hinrseil

I b2

(l)The Pistol \4as rccovered on thc Pointation of thc accuscd for n'hich he had no license and thus he has also been rightly convicled under S.23 (l) (a) of the Sindh Arrns Act 2013

14.The next iE6qe is of sentencing. We are of the vieu' that tho prosecution has neitl1er allegcd any motivc against the aPPcllant nor hds it proven any otivc aBainst the aPPellant lctr his murdering thc deceased Ceireiall,t it has been accepted by the suPerior courts that if the prosecution fails to prove the motive for the nrurder the courts are justiJicd in imposing thc altemate sentence of life imPrisonment as opposecl to the death Pcnalty. Rcliance in this respect is placcd ttn the (asc of Am,ad Shah V Srate (PLD SC 2017 P.152) where it was held as undcr at P.156 Para 9j

" Nat ,ilhstanlits thul llrc pnrlicifaholl ol tlr ulrp(llunl fi thc to tt)lission o[ affetre is duly cshblishti, ltts it clit)tt, S,itlt ttl,tJ at tnaltic l', tt',ttt,ttt llr \t tt\ tr ntrs shtordt.l itt ntystery anl is thffelorc, rnltotv ln slch like cases.ahere tlre motite is rrot Ptooeil or is trot alleged by the prosecutiofi, thc court fot the sake of sale airri\istratiott of i stice, ddoPts cautiort ttttd trcats the li* ol t,tolice os a ,rtitigatirtg r'ircu,$tatrce fot rcducittg the Iuariunt o.l scnl.ne ttu,ardeil to (t aoxTtict. [lcfeft at i5 nt'ziL lL' Zcesh

15.we are dlso of the vie$'that this was nol an act oi terrorism falling within the pulr'iew of the ATA. This is beGuse based on the evidence on rcrcord r,r'e are of the viel, that there was no design or intention to crcatc anv fear or insecority in society by murdering the deceased and in fact this was simply a murder case falling under 5.302 Prc' In this resPect reliance is piaced on the recent SuPeure Coult case oI Ghulam Hussain v state (urueporte(l) date(l 30-10-2019 in Criminal Appeals 95 and 96 oi 2019 anr'l Civil Appeal No.10 L of 2017 and Criminal APPeal A3 of 2013.

16.Thus, $'e hcreby uphold the convictions in the imPugned judgmcnt against thc appcllant apalt from the convictions under any section oI thi) ATA but in rcspe(t of the offense of lrurder under 5.302 (b) I'PC u'htch conviction is upheld the sentence is rcduced from death to lifc imprisonmenl ancl the conJirmation reference is ans\rered in the ncgative otherb'ise all other convictiotrs, sentences, Pcnalties, fines etc ior an-v other t

li

qL3

offensc in the imPugned judgment arc uPhcld which shall rcmain in t$ct and the aPPeals are dismissed. The sentences shall run concurrenth' and the appellant shall havc the benelit of 5.382 B PIrC I,' l'he appeals .1nd .oniirrnafion reference stnntl disP(rsed ol in tlle above terms

Jr rt-'1

I UWE

el,,)v1 ",1r1|f .