MUHAMMAD HASHIM S/O MUHAMMAD NISAR (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

f.,'\ (^-'J-rJ G, - \,*lL *-r -*- D.-\L \u-\I 7,11

C E RTIF ICAT E OF THE COURT IN RIGARD TO REPORTING

Sp. st n ttg ,'] 1--ats 't t-t q'l{-t X < 'iaf ' (!t! r.4 H ^+A-i,, t. ,t s. -/r- e k*l-

HIGH COURT OF SINDH

Composition of Bench: ?8./D. B.

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, Ml J-*rf,- Z-.{ti?a-,,- a L' (*7i Date(s) of Hearing: s1- t\- \t Decideon: tg_ | _zo1-g

(a).ludgment approved for reporting .Ye< w l/L

CERTIFICATE

certified that the jLrdgment */order is based uporl or enLlnciates a principle of law */ decides a question of law which s of farst impression / distinguishes / over rules / reverses / explains a previous decision.

* Strike out wh chever is not applicable

NOTI: (i) This slip is only to be used when some action is to be taken.

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

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

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

i\ THE HONOTJRABI,E ITIGH COURT OF

SINDH A1'KAII.ACIII.

l.?

//a ".1. t.?,.':

y',t.,|#t{"^r N,,. /2018 t)0i ur, Hdc,:trEr i, ItaD Special Case No. 8.458 of 2015

FtR NO.31/2015

U/S 302/109/34 OF PPC, R/w Section 7 of ATA

P.S NORTH NAZIMABAD

Muhammad Hashim S/o Muhammad Nisar Presently confined in central Jail Karachi ----.. Appellant

VURSUS

The State though Prosecutor General Res pondent

I

I Pleas e See Next Paqe

i

311 \b)

I\ THE HONOT]RABI,E HIGH COT]RT OF

SINDH AT KARACHI.

,.6{!^u *,. /r1 /2018 i.' c-, - -- l

33c' Special Case No. B.aS7 of 201!

FtR N0.30/2015

I

u/s 23..1.A OF SAA,2013

P.S NORTH NAZIMABAD

Iuhammad Hashim S/o Muhammad Nisar hesenty confined in central Jail Xarachi _._._.___ Appellant

VURSUS

Ib Sate though prosecutor General Respondent

t,i,,-,

Please See Next paqe

3'l -l (. \

THE HONOUITABLIi HIGH COLIRT OIT

SINDH AT I(ARACHI.

lIil , a 4\ r I Ir APPeat No'/ AL /2018

\'.1'r<

I

Special Case No. B'456 of 2015

FIR N0.29/2015

( U/S 353/324/3 of PPC

P.S NORTH NAZIMABAD

lr$rammad Hashim S/o Muhammad Nisar PrEsenuy confined in central Jail Karachi Appellant

VURSUS

The State though Prosecutor General Respondent

I

Aeese-9ecX9{-Pase

t

311(d)

aftd c 'f,fj adiq

()ljl.-lc[ Of I Ht] 1Ut)CIl A \ I l- I ERIiORISt\l COUIT | \( ); \'l KARA':I II. No: ATC-Vl,/ K-DIV,/ l15 ;i:018 Karachr r.l.-ttecl: l()-(13-20 l8 ThP l(L'gistrar H('lrolnbl€ High Ci,urt of S'ndh (, i2L Kar;chr. \-} Subiect:- ItF!-ER[NCE I-()R CONt]l Itl\rATION (llr D AI II SLNTLN( } u/s 374 CI,PC rN SPFTCTAL Cr\SE No.t-14 6f 2015" rrR NO. 31 Or 2015, UlS 3021409/34 pl'C OF pS NORTH N AZlN.IAtlAt ). KARACH t.

liesP!.tcJ Srr

!\rltlt r.lercu.i t(, tl1(, .rLr'\,r, nolr(1 \Lrtrj(L.t rllnttei-. I h.r\r thc horrr'r r0 suL)nrit tlrnl in lhc Sprrial c.rsL, Nr, li-151. ol 1()l!, I lli Nr.,l L)i ltlll L\ '11127109,,'i{ I']P( (,f Ni)rth N,rzirr,ri.a.l, K.rr.rLhi, ir1(l:}n(,nt 1,,,c(r!1 ilrr:f(1,n l)r tlrr tundr'rsi$ferl \,(li iu!lgrrrtlll (l.rtrrl 21r, \1.rrih ltll8. ,{}rinst Jc.uscrl n.r lL.\ Iluh.rnrrrr.:J Il.tshirrr .:li,rr Q,rri r/1, Nrsnr Klr.rr r, lra: LlLrr .t,nrt.t(Lj ,r.l <r.trtt'rT cetl .rs I lJor-:,

'1. Llrr.lcrie.ti(rl17il) lr) AIA leqT R,/\!, S..ti()n 3(t: (h) itr.r1\i.h\l i1r1!ihrr5 s(!rn',r(Li to rie.rtlr .r' h.tngc.l ti I (l,..rth r\ rth , L)nrf.ns.rtillr L,l I{s 2,t)l),t)i)l) ( I h., I.r() r. u\, I'.r,i r.:lr,.l:r,,t rl,.'\,rr.r.

2.I alsn convict the.accuscLl under Se(tion 7 (1) (lr), ((t) an(l (h) A'fA l!(r; R/\r Section 32{,351,3.1 PPC: Rigofous imprisonnr('rlt for tlrp pcr.io(i of 7 an(l finc of Rs.1,00,0(I)/- to accustrl ar,rl in case of r1tfault accusctl shall sufh,r It fo! 6 months more,

I I .r <, t-orr irt rlrt arcusr:J \lLrlr.rrrrm.rrl lla-shn1 ,r'Q.rli r/1, \is.rr Klr.,r' un(lor-!(lririn :.r l.'\ S,\;\ r,: 1i,11 tt1 lr)r th(,prri(tr1 ot I rrar.s.n(1 lLr)L ,,1 Iis lll,lrlrlr - t() i(.usf(l .Id llr .n..,ot Llr t.ru:t .1.cLrsr\l :lt.rll rL,tirr S I l(,r () rIr'rrtlr.

Ttre record .rnr.l the prtreedings of the c.rsu are sut)rnitted lbr ((ll)lir m.ltion l,rr'sorr. as rt.(lu rrtri u,'\ 1,'.1 Cf l, ( (if dcrtl\ \,,.'jtr,na( ol .th ri.r n.1nte(i .rci..rstr I

j'\. :

Karatl'tr, ''l -,- ) " Dated:-29-Ll?-2018 (I\{UNfR BAKIISH BH U]'TO) fudge Antr I rrr'(,risnr Court NL,-\'1.

Kar nchi.

:v) /./ : *l

"*t

$ r- )r-r C-J - \ro I qtae-.,

21Q

IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Spccial Cr. Anti-Icrrorism ApPealNo.]18 of 2018 Special Cr. Arrti-I errorism Appeal No.l19 of 2018 Spncial Cr. AntiTerrorism Appcal No.121) of ?018 Conlirmalion Cr:se No.05 of 2018

Present:

lvr. lustice ,\Iohnlnnnl K/J'.i Khnn ASha .YLLllttszltfu 44 1, s!!9L

r\ppellant Muharnmad lfashim thiough N'lr. Jahangir Rahujo, Advo(',1te.

Thc State throuBh Ntr. Muharnmad Iqbal Ar,an DeputJ' Prose.utor General Sintlh

Date of hearingr 05.11 20r9

Date 01 announcement 16 11 2{)19

IUDGMENT

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J,- Appellant Muhammad Haslum son of N'luhanunad Nisar has prcferred the above apPeals aEairLqt the impuBned judftnent dated 29.03.2018 passed b)' the leErned Jud8e Anti- Terorism Court No.VI, Karachi in Speciai Casc No.B-458 of 2015, F.l.R No.31/2015 u/ s.302/109/34P1{ r/w se.tion 7 of A'IA, 1992 registered at PS North Nazimabad, Karachi, SPccial Case No.B-'156 of 2015 F.l.R No.29l2015 u/s. 353/324/ lffi/i4l+C redd with section 7 ol A'lA' 1997 registered at I5 North Nazirnabad, Karachi and SPe.ial Case No.B-457 of 2015 FIR r"\0.30/2015 u/s. B-(1)-A, SAA of 2013. registeled at I5 North Nazimabad v lerebv the appellanl has been convicted and sentcn.cd as

i)Under Section 7(l) (a) A'lA 1997 r/w Section 302(b) is conr icted and awarded death sentence r'ith comPensation ol Rs.2,0t1,000 ('l1ao lacs) to be paid to the LI{s of the victim ii) Under Se(tion 7(l) (b), Gl) and (h) A'IA 1997 r/w 9.'cttLn 321/353, ll PI'C: Rigorous imPrisonmert ibr a Period of 7 yea.s arld fine oI Rs.1.00,000/- and in casc of delault accuscd shall suffe! S.l. for 6 nonths more ij il Under Sectbn 23-(1)-A SAA of 2013 to R L t.,r the pcrit.d r'rf 7 yenrs and fine oi Rs.10,000/ and in case of default accus€d shall suffer S I for 6 nlonths fiore.

All the s{riteices bl wnv of inr}'risonment shall

2.fhc brief facts of the prosecution case aF Per FIR arc tlEt on 18.U2.2015 FIR No.3ll2015 tt/s.X02/324 Prc r/w. S€tion 7 AIA 1997 of I5 Nolth Nazimabad was lodged bv Sl Abdul Hakeem on the basis of the statemcnt u/s. 154 CI.PC ol the comPlainant Syed Amir Rehman On 18.02.2015, the police Part)' of ItS North Nazimabad was on Patrol (lllty aird (luring patolling, the]' rcached at double roarl near Al-Kareerrt Center, Block-ts, North Nazimabad and lound twLr Persons on orru motorcycle firing at two Pcrsons in car beadng llel]lstration No.AYY_635 'fhc police party thcn hied to apPrchen.l the two Pe$ons on such motorcycle bv raising voice to stoP but the accused lircd upon the Police party vi'ith intention to comrnit their Qatl-fAmd ]lc Police party als() fired upon the accusecl in self-defensc. One accused on the rnotor.ycle lost his senses and fcll down. The].' arrested thc said a.cused, lvho disck,sed his name as N{uhammad Hashim @ Qadri Sahab s/o. Nluharnmad lshactue ivho disclosed his abscond;ng comPanion as Khalid fhc police madt personal scarch of thc arre$ted accused and recovered, one 30 borc Pistol No.57(r117t0-66, loaded u'ith magazine contarning one live bullet in its chafirber and thJee live bullets in its magazine. From Iurther Personal scarch ol the accusecl two rnaBazines and an an()unt ol Rs.320/- were recovered. I h€ cnse ProPerty was scale.l on the spot Ir()ur cmPtics of 10 bore, thrce empties of g-MM bore atul thrce cmPtics of SMG were.llso gecured from the Place o( incidcnt. The! then returned to the IlS and lcdged lhe FIR5 Nos.29 ot 2015 tt/s. 353/1U/34 PIT:, IrlR No.30 of 2015 u/s. 23-(1)-4, SAA of 2013. ].iie Persorls sitting in car bearing rcgistrdtiofl NO-AYY653 had expired duc to firing of the accused, thercfore, th.' separate FIR No.31 o1 2015 o/.302/11lrPC r/w. S.7 of ATA 1997 rvis lodged at I5 North Nnzimabad. Moreover, the accus,ed Muhammdd Ilashim l\,as also arrestcd in llR No.31 ot 2015 b1'SlP Abdul Hak!'enr at PS North Nazinut ad.

3.Aftcr registration o[ the cases, the investiEntion was assigncd k) lnsp{.ctor Hameedullah Khan Niazi. who incPected the Place oI inciderrt in prese-nce of musfurs namely SlP Syed tdress Pasha and PC Mubashir ]aved and also preParcd the memo o[ site ircPection in presencc of the mushirs. LIe also recorded lhe statement of u/s.161 Cr.trc of PWs- Aflcr conclusbn of i[vestiSalion he submibted the challan Llcfore the (omPetcnt

e86

court of la\,!'. The charge was ftamed against the accus€d to wlu.h he pleaded not guiltv and (laimed trial.

4.In order to prove itt case the prose(ution examined 09 PW's who exhibited various documents and otier items in suPPort ol the pioscclrtion case rvhere after the prosecution closed its side. Ihe accusecl recorded his statement unds 5.342 CI.PC whereby he denied all tlte allegations leveied against him and claimed that he lvas falsely imPlicatcd in this cag€ as he was alrcatly in police custody at the time of the incident- However, he neither examined hjmself on oath nor produced anv $,itness in his defense.

5.l-earned Judge, AntlTerro sm Court-VI, Karachi, after hearing the learned counsel for the pa*ies and assessment of evidence available on recold, vide the impugled iudSment datcd 29.03.2018 convi(ted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence these aPPeals against conviction have been filed separateh' h, the appelllni. By this comrnr,n judgnrent ia'e intcnd to de,iide the same.

6.The lacts of lhe case as u'ell as evidence Produced bef()re the tdat court find an claborate menrion in the impugned judgment, thercf(,re, thc same are n(,t rePioduccd here so as to avoid duplication and unnecellsar'!, repetition.

7.l,earned counsel for tlre appellant contcnded that the appellant is conpletely imroccnt and has been falsely implicated in these cases; thnt thcre was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR which gave time for the police to fabricate the case against the appellantj that the eve witnesscs $,crc managed witnesses and werc not present at the sc€ne, that no encounter took pla.e, that therc are maior contradictions in thc evidencc of the police \a,hich shows that this was a lalse.ase atld that the Polj(e have given Ialsc evirience; that there is a discrepar'tcy in the number of empties which were rccovered from the scenc; that there was a dela]' o[ 5 days in sendirrg the empiies and recol'ered Pisbol for f6L and for any of the above reasons the appellanl should be ac(iuittcd of the challie b]" exter'rding hinr the benefit ()l tle doubt- Ir support of hls contentions hc placed teliancc ott Bashir Ahmed V Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2009 5C 1l), Muhahmad Rafique nlias Feeqa V The State (2019 SCMR 1068), Mohanrnad Sami v The state (SBLR 2019 sindh 126), wahid Bur( @ l

:4t I

Bhutto V The State (SBLR 2019 Sin(lh 282) Mian Dad Leghari V The State (2tX)9 P Cr. L r 1226) and Shafiq-ur Rehman v state (SBLR 2018 Sindh 22e).

8.Learned DPC on behali of the State ,vl'lo was also a.ting Ior tht coolplainant contended that thcre 1^'as no unexPlalned tlcla)-' rn lodSing the FIRj that there wcre two reliable eie il'itnesses who had seen the incidenu that thp accused had been arrested on the sPoti that thc Pistol re.overed from the aacused tnatched the emphes; that there was a dela!' in scndingl the empties but there had becn no allegatiorr of tampering and that the medical evidence supported the eve wihrcss evidcn(e and as such the prosecuti(rn hacl proved its case against the appellant be]-(,nd a reasonable doubt and as such his appeal shouid be dis,Dissed and his death sentcnce and othcr sentences upheld. In support of his contentions he placed lelianre on Muhammed Astuaf V state (2011 SCMR 1046) .1nd Dadullah v State (2015 Sclvllt 856)

9.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Parties, gonc tluough the cntire eYidence which has bcen rcad out by thc appellant and the impugned iudgm€nt with their ablc assistance and have considered the relevant la\^' including that cited at thc bar.

10.Ijeforc procecdjng further we would like to makc it clear that wc have not found thc case law citcd bv thc appellant as being of much signiJicance and is distinguishable baserl on lhe parti(ular facts and circurrrstanccs of this case.

11.In our view aJtcr ou! r€assessmcnt of the evidence }r'e find that the prosccution has proved its casc against thc appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and hcreb)'uphold the corwictions in the impugned iudgment for the following rcasursj

(a)we do n(,t consider that a four hour .lclay m lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case bascd upon the Particular f.1cLs anll ( ircunrstances of lhis .ase where aiter the encounter r 'ith the Police both the dece.rsed needetl to be iaken t(, hospital and after their expiry FIR was lodged by complainant Pw 2 Amir Rchman Sved once hc reached tlre hospital and confirmed the deaths oI the decensed h,ho was thc se.urity in charge of Ai-Kari Textile Mills w'here one of the dereased Karinr llashr'!'ani was emplo)ed Bascd ()n the parti(ular facts and circumstances of the case as narrated bclow there was no tinrc to conco(t sLrch evcnts as the accused lu(l alrcadf been arrested on the spot.

3ez (1,) That the ef idcnce of the PW eye r4'itnesscs discllrse th,1t jt q'as a targei killing in broad day light $hereb), thc accu*d and hir abs(onding acco plicc carnc up to the car in which onc of th.r rleceascii was a drir,er and lhe othe w'as a pagsenger and ma(l! numerous fircs ai the car and its occupants whereupon the Polict on patrol who &'itncssed ihc same gave chasc to the moto! bike wlic| thc appellanl nnd his accomplice rvas rieling in order h) esrape the sccne of the ollense during u'hich tlntc th-. appcllant fell oit the t)ack of thc bikc. The evidence of tlrc prose(uti(xr is tullf supporti\,e ol th€se chrin ol evenLs whrch rinll trlre

(c)ln our vicw 1,!'e lind the evitlence ol thc police eye wilnesses (Ph' 3 S) ed ldress Pash,r and PW 7 Nlubashir Jawed) corrcboran)rl' in all nraterial respe(ts and regard them as rrliable, confidence inspidng and trusL worthy wihresses. ln this respeci reliance rs placed on Muhammad f,hson v. Thr Slste (2u06 sClvfR 1857).F:ven il thcre arc aliy contradicii(,rs in their eviddnce and that ol .rn) o{hcr proseculion witncss wc consider thesc contradictions as niDor in nalu.e ard not malerial and certrinl) Doi ufsuch muteriality so as to efllct the proseculion case and the conviurion of the appellonl ln lhis rcspe(l reliance is placcd on Zakir KhNn V Shtc { 1995 SCN{R I79.1)

(d)lt is rvpll settled by now that a police eve h,itness is as good as ar1,v., other wit css providcd dlat no ill u'ill, enmity, malaficle tr pcrson,ll intcrest is pro\ en atlain-st him vis a vis thc nF,pellant. ln this respe( t reliance is placed on Riaz Ahmad V State (200{:d--NrR 9*), zalar V State (2008 SC\,IR 125.1) and Abbas v State (2008 SCIVIR 108).ln this case there was none and the police eye witnesscs had no reason to falsel] implicate the appellant. No su(h ennity, il] u'ill, rnalalide or personal interest i!'as cverr suggestcd to the policc e!'c witnesses or anv other PW during thcfu cross examination. ,Vith regard to the appcliant's dcfe se that hc u'as fired in this casr as he was already under arrest at thc time ()l the incident he has protlrrceel no reasons as hr why the police rvould want to fix him. Furtherfiorc, neither he nor anv member ol his family wrote a'1, Ietter kr the (oncerned authorities or movcd any courl in resper't oi his illegal continerncnt and no DW lvas produccd by tilc appeilant to support his stance which in our riew has becn raised as.i dcfcn6€ ia order to save his skin since he rvas appreheni€d on thc spot.

(e)fhat it was a day light inci.lcnt an(l the appellant llas arrestcLl frorrl the spcit and as such thlre is no quesiion of !lris i cntifiaatjon.

(0 l hat the appellant's pisto, \^,as re.overcd lrom him on thc spot at the time of his arrcst as lvell as Iivc rounds and magaziDes contairing live bullets.

(B)That thc FSL report provcd positive in r€pe(t of ihe pistol recovered lrom him and thc enlpties (covercd at the scene in Bo far ds thev relatcd to his pistol.

(h)It may be that there was a 5 day dela)' in sending the pistol an(l th€ empties for forcnsic analysis ho$,ever the IO PlV 9 Flamcedullah Khan has explained this dclay in his evidence by stating that it rvas a rcquircmpnt ol thc ATC at thit time to produce thc crime wcapon dt th(- Limi of rcmdnd lvhr.lr lead to thc .lelar,

Even otherh'ise the appeliant did not su8gest that an)-, tamPerin!, had been made to the evidcn(e duriltg this Period of delay and as such it can be ignored. ln this resPe(t rcliance is Placed o,1 Muhammed Asfuaf'o case (Supra)

(i)That the FSL report on the car of the lwo dNcased showed that the holes in it had been made by lirearm Proiectiles. That the hdcs rvere on the car at the scene oi the inciLlent dccording io PW I Sheeraz lqbal an SI urho reached thc scenc of the incidiint atui thus \a'erc not later manufactured by the Police.

U) That the medical evidence of Plv 6 Dr. Abid Haroon ful11- corroborates the oral cviden.e of thc eye wihrcsscs narDcly that the cause ol dealh of both the deccased was from multiPle filearnr injuries. lnrpoitantl), ehc confirms that thc firearm injuries ilcre (auscd b] pistol and not SMC and that the firinS nas hom over threc feet away and thus drere was no blackening aroulrd the lvounds ra,hich fits in the with the prosecution eviclence.

(k)That there was a positive (hemical rcpolt in resPe(t of the bl(,ocl \,vhich was recovercd from the car.

(l)That PlV i Noshad Ali rvho is a Private indePende:]t witness wh()se statcrnent was recorrlerl on the day of the incidelt alter hciring the filing.ame out of her house ancl saw the two de(casacl lying clead in their car w-ho h'ere takcn to hosPital and is thus supportive of thc prosecution.ase.

(m)'fhe fact that neither the police nor their mobile rvas hit bv bullets fired by the appellant does nor rnake this 'lutonrati(ally a casc of a fake cn.ounter. Bascd on the Partj.ular facts and circumstan.es of the case wherc the aPPella^t and his a.compli(c werc fleeing the s.cne on a motor bike h'ith the accomplice ,lrivinB and the appellant on the back it is likely that thc accornplice rvh.r was ddving the Drotorbike.1nd .lttcmPti g to escaPc \a'as not able to make sny iire on the police and the aPPellnnt \^4ro was sitting at the back of the rnotor cycle was unable to 8ct rnany rounrls off as thcy tried [o make their escape gooci hence il is un]ikcly that eithcr the police mobile or police officers wolrld be hit by the apPcllants fire. On the contrarv all thc eviden.e Points to thc Poli.e il.ltermpting a target killing and then chasing the cu]Prits who fired to kecp them at bay and during such escaPe the aPPellan[ \aho tvas sittinll or the back of thc bike fell oft and v''is arr€sted on the spot !,r'ilh iris pistol

1.2. N*ow hrrninS to the sentences to be imPosed keePing in view that uve have come to the conclusion that the Prosecution has Proved its casc beyond a rcasonable doubt against the appellant in terms of the murder of the two deceased; thc police e counter and lhe recoverv of the unliccnscrl fire arm lrom the appellant.

3 Bq

13.i4'e have no doubl tlut this was a talget killing of a Prominent businessman and his drivcr outsidc his home which $'as intended ancl designed to crate lcar alnongst lhe business community of the city who refus€d to pay bhatta or go along with the demands of other unscrupulous criminal elemcnts ol what the consequences would be The motive to murdcr the deceased csPccially decea's€d Knreem_e-Shahwami was to send a clear nressalle to all business men in Karachi that thcy shr-ruld not resisL demands nude of them bv rrnscrupulous elements or they would mect the same fate.

11.As to the murder of trro innocent Pc6ons this was carried out in the most brutal and colcl bloodied manner by the aPPcllant dnd hi! accomplice. According to I'W 6 Dr.Abid Haroon wh.r ra'as the MLO who carried out the post moltem oI both the deceased thc deceased Karcem_€_ Shahwami receiverl 4 separate firearm injuries \a'hilst his daiver who was not even spared deccased MuhamrneJ Nawaz receivcd 3 firearm lnruries.

15.Thc obje.t ol punishment untler criminal law and penal jurisprudencc can be tor a number of purPoses ior examPle, reformative, deterrent or rekibutivc. 'l hc sentence 14hi.h is handed down will dePend on the particular facts and circumstanccs ol each case and the individual aacused and the manner in which he committed thc crimt-, the heinousness of the crimc and the nrotivatit)n behind the crime, whether there are any n tiSating or ag8ravating Iactors amongst othcl things and as such sentencing can ncver be nrs:haniral In this resP(t reliance is placed on Muhammad luman V State (201t|SCMR 318)

16.Based on the facts and ci(unrstances of this case kccPing in view thc brutality of the crime where hr'o inhoccnt Pcrsons were shot to Jeath by 4 and 3 separate fir€arm shots resPectively brazenly in broad day light outside their housc thc motivation of h'hich was t() create terror and fear anrongst a ('ertain segmeni of the society. thc comPlete lack of miti8ating cilcumstances and in fact the presence of aggravating circumslances as mentioned earlier and the need to discourage such kind of olfcnscs in Karachi \a,hich reSrertably lvas nr()st contmon at the time when these oftenscs were committed wc are of the view that a detetent sentence is the apprcpriate one.

32t

17.ln this respect rclian.e is placed on Dadullah's care (Supra) whi(h at P.tl62 PaIa 9 held as under;

"9.Conccputallv punishnlent tlr an ac.used is awarded on the concept o[ retibution, lleterren(e or refornldtion. Ihe prtrp,;se i:ehrnil in iction of sL'ntert!'is two l,,ld. Firstl\, it rvould cre,rte sLrch irtmosphcrc, which coulcl become a dcterrencc lor th€ Pcople lvho h.lve inclination tou'a.ds criore and; seconlily, to work as a nredium i rcfornling the oflerlce. Deterrent Puni5hment is nol only to nraintain balan(€ uith Sravity of wrong done by a Person but also to nrake an exrrnplc for others as a preventive mcasurc for reformation of the society. ConcePt of nrinor Funishmcnt in law is to make ni attcmpt to rclorm ar inrlividual rvrorrgclocr However, in su(h like (ases, where the apPellants have commilted a pre-planned dacoity and killed tr.ro person, no leniency should b€ show[ to the culprits. Sentenc€ of death would crcate a dcterrence in the so.iety duc to vr'hich no other pprson would dare to .orrrmit the offcn(c of nrurder. lf in any prcved (ase Ienicnt view is taken, then Peacc, tranquility and harmony of society 'ould be ieoPardized and vnndalism would prevail in thc society. Thc Courts should not hesitate in awarding th€ m.rxilnum punishmenl in such like cases whcr€ il has been provcd beyond any shadow of do bt thrt the a(cused was involved in the offen(e. Dcterrcn(c is a factor to b€ tiken itrto consideration while awarding scntence, sPecially the scntenre of death. Vcry 1!'ide discrction in the nratter of sentcnrc has bcen given h) the courts, wlich tuust be ex!'rcised j(rdi(iouslv Death sentence in a murder (as€ is a normal Penalty and th€ Courts while divertint towards lecset senten(e should have to give delailed reasons. Ihe appelia'1ts have cornmitted the mur(ler oI two in (,clr1t crti/ens alld alsL, loot!'d thp bank in a watrton, crtte] and calious rnanner Now a diys the (rime in the society h,ls reached an alarming situation and the rnental proPcnsity towards the comnrission of th€ <rime lrith imPunity is increasint. Sense of fear in the mind of a criminal beforc ernbarking upon its comnrission could only be in.ulcated when he is (ertain of its punishment providcd by law and it is only then that the PurPose .nd obiect o( punishmenl could be assiduously achieved. lf a Court of law at any stage relaxes its 8riF, lh€ hardeneii crimin,il would take thp so(iety on the samc page, allowing the habilual re(idivist to tun arlay ecot-free or with Punishmcnt not €ommensurate with the ProPosition of crime, brin5ing the administration of .riminal iqs{i(€ to ridicule and .ont€mPt. Courts.ould not sacrificc sutrh dcterren(e and retributiun in the name of mercy and €xpcdien(y. Spari,lt1 thc dl:cusrcl with d(!,th sentt,ncc is caulrnH a grave rriscarriage t)f justice and in or(ler h) restorc its suprenracv, srntcnce ol (leath shoul(l bc inlFosed on tht' .ulprlts u,here the case has &en provctl.

10.This Court in-N r-MtJuaa4-.!.5!lJ9 (1999 SCMR 2722) has also adverted to this aspcct of the nutter and has t)bscrved as under:-

"Howevcr, we maY obsen'e thdt thc people are losing failh in the dispensation of crimilal iusticc by the orllinary c mindl .ourts for lhe redion that they eithcr.lcquit tlr/4 lt

3c L

accus€1l p€rsons on te(hniaal grounds or takE a l(lliertt view' in awarding sentence. It is high tirne that the Court8 should re;lize that lhey owe duty to the Iegal heiryrelations of the vi(time and also to the society' Scntcnccs awnrded should be such which should aat as a delerrent to lhe commission of offen<es. Onc o[ us (AJma] Mian, (:.1 , as he thcn !'ns) has highliShted this asPcct, il1tcr alia in the case oi State through thc Advocate Cenerai Sirrdh, Karachi v. Iarman Hussain and othcrs (PLD 1995 SC 1). tclevant Portion 1, hereof at I)alit l9 leads as followsl

(l)It is a matter of putric kno\'r'ledgc that in Sinclh, on account oI kidnapping for rans(nn, comntissi()n ()i daroities 'lhc ancl olhcr offences, the PeoPIe are feeling unsecurcd. IearneJ trial Court llas dil.rtcd uPon these asPects in dctail I arn inclined to subscrih to thc vic\"r' found filvour wiih it The apptoaah of the Court in mattere Iike thc (ase in hand should be dynamic and if the Court is satisfied that the offcn(c ha! be€n (omnritted in the mann€r in whi(h it has be€n alleged by the Prosecution the te'hn;'alities should be ovctlooked without causing any miscairiatc of justice". (bold addeti).

llt. Likewise in thc morc recent cases of Tariq lqbaMtate (2017 SCMR 594) and Khatid Mehmood V State (2017 glMR 201) the SuPreme Court has confirmed thc Jeath Penaltv in (ases of a brutal and merciiess nature as in this case.

19.As such wc LtPhold all the sentcnces for each olforsc in thc impugned judgment and aonJirm the dtath stnten(c handcd down to the appellant !vhilst dismissing these appeals.

20.I'he appcals and conJirmation rercrence are disPor,cd of irr the M+1r' IUOCE t.t l ltl iflo\t