MUHAMMAD DANISH S/O SALEEM SIDDIQUI (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

\r1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

Spl. Criminal A.T.A. N0.237 of 2019. Spl. Criminal A.T.A, N0.238 o12019, Present:

Mr.lustice Mohanfiad Kaifl Klfin Agha Mt. lttstice Kh..dirrl Hussain Txrlio, AppeUa'rt: Muhamftad Danish S/o. S.l€em Siddiqui throtth Mr. Muhafimad Irfar! Advocate.

Respondcnt: The Statc tkough Mr. Muhammad lqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General assisted bY I4/s. Rana Khalid and Mehmood Anwar, Special Public Plosecutot6, fakiEtan Rangers.

Spl. Criminal A.T.A. N0,242 ot 2019' Spl. Criminal A.T.A. N 0.24'1 ot 2019.

Appcllant: Muhammad Rahlm Yo. Muhammad Hanif through Mr.

Muhammad Arif Afzal Khan, Advo<ate.

Respondent The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor Gefleial nssist€d bY Ivt/s. Rana Khalid and Mehmood Anwar, Spectal Public ltote<utor6, Paklstan Rangers.

Date of hea.lng: 01,02.2022.

Date of Announcement: 09.02.2027-

]UDGMENT

},tOtIANIMAt] KAI{IIu KTIAN AGHA. Tt the appellants Muhammad Dadsh S/o. shlecm Siddiqui and Muharffnad Rahim S/o Muhammad Hanif have preferred these aPpeals against the judgment dated 03092019 passed by I*amed Anti-Terrorism Court No.XIll, Karachi/l'rdicial ComPlex at Central Prison, Karachi in SpecialCase No1559/2017 arising out of Crimc No 16712017

\tB

\r/s. 302, 120, 34 PIt rcad with section 7 oI ATA, 197, SFcial Case No.1570/ 2017 arising out oI Crimc No.175l 2aV !/ 3.23(Il/ A ot Sindh ArmE Act and Special Case No,1571/2017 a sing out of Clime No.176/m17 u /s. B(l)/ A ol Sindh Afins Act ied8tered at Police gtation Orangi Town, Karachi whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as underi

1)Accused Muhammad Rahim S/o. Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Dani6h s/o. Saleem Siddiqui werc found Suilty for the offence and convicted u/s 302(b) Prc and senteiced to suflcr fmPrisonment for life as Tazir and also directed to Pay Rs.2,m,000/- (two lacs) each as a compensation to L.R.S oI both deceased as Provided u/s. g4-A Cr.P.C. In case o{ delault both the a(cused were ordeted to suffer R.l for (01) year more.

2)Both the accused were also convicted !/s. 23(i)/A sindh Artns Act, 2013 and s€ntenced to suJfet R.l. of seven (04 years with fine of Rs.50,0m/- (fifty thousand) each in case of derault in Payment of finc they were ordered to suffer R.t. {or six (06) monttls more.

All the Eentences were ordered to run concur€ntly. Benefit oI section 382-8 Cr.P.C. was also extended to both the accused.

2.The b ef facts of the pro€€cution.ase as Per FIR are that on 19.07.2017 al 1630 hours statement of Abdul Karim S/o. Abdul Hameed u/s 154 Cr.P C was recorded by ASI Muhammad Iaved of I5 Orangi TowiL latel on same was incorporated into 1 Cr.P.C. book bea.ring crime No.167/2017 as Pe! his verbatinL complaint Etated therein that his brother namely AHul Majeed @ Nadeem Moulana who was doing a job in the Water Board and a friend of his brother Rashid t,l were alfiliatcd with MQM London and they left th€ said Party and joined the PSe then they reaeived the thteats o[ dire consequences from MQM l-ondon. On 17.07.2017 his brother namely Ab<Iul Majeed and kiend of his blother Rashid were present outside the house, it was (N:45 P.m or 05:00 Pm when he heard the voice o( liring and came oulside the house and found that }fs brother Abdut Majeed and Rashid Lal sustained the injurie on their heads and blood was oozing. Then complainant with the helP of neiShbours shifted the iniured to Qatar Hoepital fol m€dical fleahnent in two Private vehicles, then Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, whele his brother AHul Maieed and ftiend of his brothet [iashid l,al succumbed to their injulies. On enquiry, the comPlainant came to know that two pe6on9 came on motorcycle and caused them Ercarm injudes with intention to commit Qatl-e'Amd. Thereaftet the above mentioned fIR was registered a8ainst ut*no\a'n accu6ed, who committed the murder of his

\\q

brother and friend of his brother and prayed for taking legal action against the accused.

3.After registration oI FIR, investigaHon was entausted to Inspector Jamcel Aimed AwarL who had visited the place oJ incident and preparcd guch memo and sket h of place oI incident, collected one ernPty. three Projectiles and blood stained mud from the place of incident, recorded the Etaternents of Pws. Then empty snd projectiles were sent to FSL for er.aminadon and rePort On 25,07.2017, L.O, of the ca6e along with lirspector Ghafo6 Ahmed of Rangers 32 Wing were busy in snap checking. During enap checkin& Inrpector Gharoor Ahmed received the spy inlormation that five target killers belonging to MQM London (ln two fiotorcycles are Soing for.ommission of offence. on receiving euch information Rargers and police officials awaited for Pointed target killert meanwhile spy inlormer gestured towards two motorcycles on which [nsPector Ghafoor Ahrned Eied to stop said motorcyctiste out of them, tfuee PeFons were sitting on one motorcycle who eccaPed from the scme and their one mobile phone fell down on the glound, whereas other motolcycle on which two pe$ons werE riding were apprehended by fhem. On enquiry they disclosed their names as Danish and Rahim. On personal seatch o( accused Danish, hsPector Ghaloor Ahmed gecured onc 9mm pistol bearing No.12m6699 along with six live bu[ets hom his possession and cash Rs.25380/-, CNIC h the name of accused, ATM Card, driving licensc s€aured fiom him. Flom co_accused Rahim InsPecto! Ghafoor Ahmed secured one 9mm pistol bearing No.6002705 slongwith magazine load€d with 8 live bullet6, CNIC in the narne of accused, one qmobile phone from his pcs€ssio[ On demand of license accused could not Produce the same. Accused further disdosed names of their comPanion3 as Bilal Anis_ul-Haq (2) Muhamrnad Rizwan S/o. Zameet Hussain and (3) Muhammad Awais S/o Muhammad Sadiq. Then the complainant sealed the arms and ammunition at the spot and pepared memo oI arrest and recovery. On dema:rd of documents oI motorcycle, accused failed to Proiluce the same and as such motorcycle was also seized u/s. 550 Cr,P.C. The accused and recovered PtoPerty were btought to PS, wher€ ofI-shoot FIR3 were registe.ed against the above na-rned accused, alter registration of FlRs. inv€sti8ation of these cases were handed over to InsPector MuhamF^.1 Jamecl, r.r,ho ha'l visilcd thF pla.e of incident, PrePared the such memo, lecorded the statement of PWs u/3 161 Cr'P.C obtained the FSL rePort'

I

v

4.After regisEation of the FIRS and after comPletion oI u-sual investigation l.O. submittcd charge sheet against the ac(used Pergons. The accused Plead not guilty to the charge and claimed trial

5.The prosecution in oRler to Prove its case examined ]'t witnesses and exhibited various d(ruments and other items The statements of the accused werc rei:orded unde, Section 342 Cr'P C in which they denied all the Plosccution allegations and claimed lalse implication The accused declined to give statement on oath urdcr sectlon 340(2) CI.P.C in disProof of the Prosecution allegations but cach accused did .all one DW ifl supPot oI his de{ence case.

6.Atter appreciating the evidence on record the kial court convicted and Eentmced the appeUants as set out earlier in this judghent. Hcnce, the aPPellants have filed these appeals against their convictions.

7.The IacB of the case as well aE evidence produced before the tlial court find an elaborate m€ntion in the impugned judgment Passed by the trial court and. therefore, the same may not be reProduced here so as to avoid duPlication and unnecessary rePetition.

8.lratned counsel for the aPPe]lante have contended that the aPpellants are cornpletely innocent and have been Ialsety imPlicated in thi6 case by the Police at the behest of the rangers, that the sole eyewitne$ is a Put uP witness and he was not present at the time of the incidentl that the identiJication Palade was oot carried out in accordan(€ with the iaw, that the retracted conlessionr by the appellants beIorc the magistrate $.ere not made voluntarily and that no leliance can lre placed on them; that when the aPPellants were airested in a sePalate arm$ case the weaPons were foisted on them by the rangers,/police and even thefl the

FSL report in lesP€ct of lecovered weaPons did not match the emPty at the scene of the murdeu that with lerPect to Danish he was in illegal custody at the time when pa),tnents were allegedly Paid into his bank account in resPect ol thc murder and thus for any of the above reasons the aPpcllants should be acquitted I of the charge by extending them the benelit of the doubt ln suPPo o{ thei! contendons they havc placed reliance on the case of Tariq Pervez v The State 0995 scMR 134s).

9.on the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General aPpeal:ing on trehalf oI the State and aosisted by SPecial Prosecutol rangers has full)' suPPorted

I

\D

the impugned judgment. He has contendcd that the sole eliewitness has coftectly identified the appellants a5 the pe$ons who fired upon and murdeted the deceased who picked out the appellants be(ore an identiJication Parade conducted in accordance with law and whose evidence was reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspting and should be believed in terms oI the incident and the conect identification oI the appellants; that the aPPellants voluntarily confessed to the murder before a judiciat magistlate which conlessions were madc in accordafte with the law and can bc relicd uPon even if later retracted; that the pistols re(oveaed from the appellants lead to a Positive F"SL match with the cmpties .ctovcred at the s(cne; that a dePosit sliP of RS50,000 paid into the account of appellant Danish proved that the aPpellantB had been Paid to target kill the deceased and as such the Proeecution had proved its cas€ beyond a reasonable doubt and the aPPeals should be dismissed. In suPPort of his contmtions he placed reliance on the cases of Muh nmad Zaman v The State (2m7 SCMR 813), Abdul Haq v The St.t€ (2015 SCMR 1326), Met. Nadeem Akhtar v The Strte (199 SCMR'1744), Niaz-ud'din v The State (2011 SCMR 725), Muhammad Ilyas v The Stak (m11 SCMR 460), Zulliqar Ahmad v The State (2011 SCMR 492), Muh.rrmad Ehsan v The State (2006 SCMR 1857), MuhamErad Waris v The State (2008 SCMR 784), Khadim HGs:in v The State (PLD sC 669), Qaiser Khan v The State (20@ I€C (Crl.) 75), Muhamdad Andn v The state (PLD 2m6 SC 219) and Muhammad R.shid Y The State (SBLI{ 2019 Sindh 2173).

10.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the aPPellants as weli as l€arned AddiUonal Prosecutor General assiEted by sPecial Prosecutor range$ and have Sone through the entire evidence which has been lead out by counsel for the aPPellantg and the imPugned iudgment with thc able assistance of leamed counsel and have considered the relevant law including the caselaws cited at the bar.

11.Eased on our reasselsment oI the evidence of the PW's, esPecially PW 7 e],cwitnees Mate€n Ahmed, the comPlainant and the other Prosecution wihresses especially thc medical evidence and other medical rePolts including the Post mortem leports of the deceas€d, rccovery of emPties and blood stained earth at the crime s<ene we Iind that the plosecution has ptovetl its case beyond a

reasonable doubt that AHul Maieed and Rashid (collectively refcrred to as the deceased) were shot and muldered by fiream at about 1700 hours oti17 '07 at plot No.108, S€ctol 7/C Orangi To$'n Karachi

72.The only question left before us therefore is who murdered thc deceased by firearm at the said time, date and location?

13.After our teassessment of the evidence we find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the charge against the app€llants for 1^'hich tlrey were convicted for the lollowing reasons kceping in view that each criminal cas€ must be decided olr its own particular facts and circumstancesi h) That the FIR was lodged atter a delay of two days. The reason for the delay in todging ttre FIR was that the complainant had to go to the hospital to attend to the dcteased and thcn arange thcir bulial and thereafter lodged the FlR. As such the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained. lmporlantly the FIR is against unknown persons and as such there was no atteEpt to falsaly implicate the accuged or any other bodv or etse they might have been spe.ifically named in the FlR. Furthermore, the complainant had no enmity with the accused and had no reason to falsely implicate them and as such we find that the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the pros€cution aase as the delay has been explained. the accused were not nominated in the FIR and as such the delay in filing the FIR has not benefited the pros€cution or preiudiced the accused.

(b)We lind that the prosecution's cas€ primarily, but not wholly, rests on the sole eye witnBs to the murder and his correct identiJicatiofl of the appellants whose evidence we shall considei in detail beloi/;

(i)Ey€ wttne3s PW 7 syed Mat€en AhEred. In his evidcnce he states that on 17.07.2017 at 5pm the present incident took Place. lle v/as with AItab and left his house to meet his kiend Nadeem (one of the deceased).When he reached near the housc of Narleem he saw Nadeem and Rashid werc sitting and the accused who came on motor cycle fired upon them before escaping lrom thc scene. He , h l: r ,, .,r : l:,: : rl i,,u ll,^ ,l-, r rl l,r i'il.)1.

He lived clo6e to the dcceascd and was not a chancc witness. I Ie saw the incident in broad day tight from about 20 feet.The appellanys faces were uncovercd and thus he would have been able to get a good clear unobstructed view of them. He recorded his 5.161 Ci.rc eye witness statement within 48 hours of the incideni and apparently he gave the hulia oI thc appcllants although this is disputed. ln any event he states that he can clearly recognize the appellants if he saw them agairl He had no cnmitl with the appellantg and thus had no reason to implicate thcm in a false case. 'I his murder according to the prosecutio[ was a target kil]ing based on political alfiliation however the eye u.itness was an independent witnelrc without any party affiliation.We find that the evewitncss gave his evidence in a straight lorward and natural manncr and was not dcnted du ng a lcngthl'cross examination and as such r{'e believe his evidence,

He appeared belore an identification parade on 05.08.2017 which was teas than one month aJter the incident and Picked out both the appellants with a specilic role 6 days after theb ariest- Although it seenrs that the identilication parade was not ca ied out strictlv in

I

accordance with the Iaw in that it was a ioint identilication Parade and thus we ale put to caution as to its legal validit)' The sliSht delay (6 days) in holding the identification Parade is not of much conscquence and in this resPect reliance is Placed on the case of Mui.mn.d Zrrun v. Th. Stat€ (2007 scMR 813).The factum of the eyewitness picking out the appcllant at the identification Parade with the specilic role of shooting the deceased is corrobotated by P1V 3 Rameez Raja who was the Judicial Magiskate who.arried out the identification parade along with his memo of idenhfication.

Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, whilst being o caution, we find the evidence of the eyewitne&s to be reliable, trustworthy and conlidmce inspiring and we believe the same esPecially wiih regard to lhe correct identificatio[ of the aPPellants aB the persotre who shot and murdered the de(ea6ed and can convict on tlis evidcnce provided that there is some coroborative/ supportive evidence. ln this resP€rt reliance is placed on the case of Muhamdrad Ehsah v. The State (2006 SCMR 1854 As also found in the cascs of Farooq Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 91f and Niaz-ud-Din and anothe! v, The State and another (2011 SCMR 725). That what is of siSnificance is the quality of the evidence and not its quantity and in this case !r'e 6nd the evidence of this soie eyewitness to be of good qualily.

Thus, based on our believing the evidence of the PW eyewitneos what other supportive/coroborative material is there against the apPellaflt? It bcing noted that coroboration is only a rule o( caution and not a rule o[ la$'. ]n this rcspect relianae is placcd on the.ase oI Muhammed waris (Supra)

(c)That both the aPpellants have recorded conjessions before a judicial magistratc which we set out b€low for ease oI refelence;

Conlesrional Statement ry's 164 Ci.PC of aPPellant Muhamm€d Danish.

Notei Rest of the document is already in English.

Que.don 8. What have you to say?

Anawer: Muhammad Rizwan alias lawan, Bilal Anees alias Biila upon their behest in Jtrne 2017 I lvas informed by MQM London's Riutiran alias Jawan, Bilal Anees alias Eilla tlut Bilal Anees remains in contacl with London and South AHca vla WhalsAPP' And Bilal Anees aliac Billa inlotmed ihat he i3 forming a team of target killers at the start of July. Bilal Ances alias Billa was its leader, Rizwan alias Jawan was its Vice l2ader and Muhammad Raheem, Muhamrnad Awais and myself were in.luded as target killer6. Bilal Anees alias Billa inJormed that Altaf Hussain in Lonrlon and Nadeem Nustat in South Africa. Rizwan then sent myself and Raheenr and Rizwan said that I h'ill back 1'ou up from b.hird. Th.n we arrlv€d in the altey of Nadeem Molana and Raheem Bot off the moving bike. He fired at Nadeem Molana and hie companion Beshid Lal Khan on theit head and chest seven to eiSht bullets and we fl€d away from the a.ete. I was ri.fing the tike and Raheem was Bilting al the back. 1907'2017

I

l

Bital Anecs alias Billa, having called all lhe friends, got us lirten to an audio message which had been leceived f.om Abdullah's number r4,herein AltaI Hussain con8latulated us on our work On 20.07.17,1 got R8SqOOO/- ct€ditinmy account. I inlormed Bilal via message. Abdul Rasheed alias Bahubali, Qamar-ul-lslam alias Qamar Taidi alias waseem, Asif alias Abdullatr, who are tatget killeE in South Afri.i, they were in contact with Bilal Aneee alias Bilta throuSh WhasApp, Bilal Anees alia6 Eilla informed that upon their beheBt, MQM Pakislan and PSP leaders ale to be targeted. on 2 or 3 July. 2017, called me outside the house of Rizwan alias lawan and agked for dly account numbet which I gnve for Habib Metlopolitan B.nk Boat Basin Branch then he said PSP3 Zonal In<harge Abdul Majeed .lla! Nadeem Molana iB to be targcted. t, Rizwan alias rawan, Awais and Raheem carricd out recce towards the house oI Nadeem Molana (words ambiguous) th€n on 17.07.2017 a final meeting was h€ld at the house of Bilal Anees alias Billa where Bilal Aneee alias Billa told me that I have 10 ride th€ bike and Raheem wlll fire bullets and Bitat, Rizwan .nd Awai6 wlll remain on backup on seParate bikes. Bilal Anees alias Billa tave ue two gmm Pistols and a packet containing 25 bulleb. Around 4 O'clock Billa .alled and informed Rizwan that Nad€em Molana i! sittinB outside his house with hjs companion et trhich Bilal .alled and infofined that this amount has come 6om the tondon l€adershiP. After that Ran8ers and police were .arrying out raids at several Pla(es and arma weie belng te(overed. On 26 July at 0300 houls we werc Boing to bury it in the park near the house oI Billa's friend. I and Raheem were on one bike whereas Bilal, Rizwan and Awais were on another bike. Police and Rangers were carrying out snaP_ checking near (word illegible) ground where they signaled Bilal to stop and Bilal aJte. bliefly stoPPing over accelcrated the bile and his mobile phone fell olf from his upPer Po(ket which the Rangers seized into their custody. Then stoPPed rr|e aitd Raheem and during physical sear.h, from myself and Raheem one Pi8tol eaah was recovered. The potiae and Rang€rs conduated interogation and we inlorlned them ebout the tartet klllint of Nadeem Molana.

L-l1 & Sd/- ot accused.

5d/- Civil/Family Judge & Judicial Magiskate Court No lll, Karachi West EX.lllF

Confeoslonal Statement u/e 164 CI.PC of apPellant Muhammed Raheem

Notei Rest of the docurnents i5 already in English Quegtion.8. What you have to say?

Answe I, Muiammad Rafteem B/o Muhammad Hanif, lo House No.630, Sector 1-8, Orangi Town, K.rachi was a worker of MQM. ln 2010 I ioined MQM at the behest of Shan and Kamran. Until 2011, t used to be in the cornpany of Sharnshad lqbal, Noman

L-7

dod Mujahid. Whatever they did, they would inlorm me. AJter that my wo.t started. In 2011, I parted alway$ with thc party and got busy in AC work. After that I did not deal with the party. Irl 2012 I met with Bilal so Bilal informed me that in my dtucussion with Altaf Hussain end Nadeern Nu3rat it haB been informed that in South Afri.a Qamar Taidl, Asif alirs Abdqllah, Khursheed allaB Bllll have formed a aerun in Kara.hi which Bilal has been nominated as a head and Rizwan alias Jawan ha! been nominated as vi(e he.d and con6tituted a five member teaEr including AwaiB, Danish and myrelf wherein Bilal told rtle to targel PsP and MQM-Paklgtan leaderg ln Karachi wherein after a few daye Save message to Bilal from South Africa "to lak. aare of Nadeem Molena's work" at whlch the five of us started doing r€cce. 2 or 3 July, 2017 Bilal called at his home, held a meeting and asked all of us to carrv out the recce. On 17.07,77 at 1100 hours all of us gathered, Bilal gav€ two 9mm pistols and 5 bulets to myself and D.ntuh. At 1600 hours orl 17 Jsly, Bilal catled and intormed that Nadeem Molana ls sitting outside his hoqse. The five of ue galhered at one pla(e and aeked Danish to.ide the bike and I was asked to sit at the back and carry out firing. one bike will be flrr the backup on which Bilal, Rizwan and Awais will be riding. W€ arived near the hoose of Nadeem Molana. I, havlnt tot off the bike. ftued around 7-8 bullets at Nadeem Molana due to which Nadeem Molana and Rashid Lal Khan dled on the spot- After that we left for our house. RanterB and police werc (atryint out raidr so we wera trying to hide our weapons so Bilal suggested on 26 July that thele is a park beside his friend's hous€ and we should buf} our *'eapons thele so we a8reed to lhat and were going tL) bury out weaporu so at Qazzafi Chowl9 police and RanSers wcte carrying out snap checking. Bilal, Ai!'ais and Rizwan wcte ding on one bike which was stopped by Rangers and police so 8ilal, having slowcrl down the bike, ac.cterated it so due to the ierk his mobile fell olI his pocket and rvhen wc were signaled, we stoPped and rehen out physical 6eat h was carried out two 9mEl pistols were re(overed from us. Ih€ l{anterr duriAE, interrotation inquired about the target klllint of Nadeem Molana and we disctosed that w€ did it:nd the police broutht us to the lls. LTTISdl- of a.cusld.

s.1/, Civil / Family ludge & Judicial MaAirtlate Court No.lll, Karachi t\est It is weu settled by now that a retracted con{ession before a ma8lstrate can Iorm the basis o, convicting in a capital case however it mu6t be;

(i)Voluntary i.e. without thtEat or inducement and (ii) Its obieat rnust be to state the Euth; a&sistance for which can be ascertained ftom (i) whether the conlession appears truthJul within the context of the prosecution case and (ii) whethe! there is any othe! evidence on recold wtuch tends to corroborate the tnrth{uLness of the conlession and

I

^L

\b2

(iii)Only minor irreglladti6 regarding the rules conceming the recording of iudicial confessions can be permitted as determined on a case to case basis the main criteria being that such irregularities have not advertely eff€{ted the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession. ln this resPect leliance is Placed on the cases of Muhantmed Amin (Supla) and Mst Na6eem Akhter (Supra).

we find that both the judicial conJescions have been (a) made volunta-rily and (b) that there obiect is to state the truth as is apparent fiom the other evidence on recold which fits in with the prosecution cas€ and that lhere are hardly any Procedural irregularities in recording the same and as such we rely uPon both the retracted judicial conlessions agairLgt the aPPellanG which corroboEte/support the evidenae of eye witness PW 7 Mate€n as identifying rhe appe[ants who murdered the deceased by ftearm.

(d)That the names of the other target killers Siven in thc conlessional statements ties in with the names which the apPellants gave PW 5 Rangers Inspector Abdul Chaloor, PW 6 Rangers SePoy Muharnmed Amir and fW 14 iameel Ahme<i vvho wa6 the Io from the Police at the tirne of thei! arrest. Like wise the mannel of their arrest and the e$aPe o( there accomplices on 26.07.2017 when an ur icensed Pistol was recovered from each of the appellants fully corohrates thei confession. These were indepcndent witnesses and had no teason to falsely imPlicate the appellants and no eflmity was suggested against them and as such we beiieve their evidence in resPect oI the anest and re.overy of the Pistols ftom the accus€d. That the police and ranger PW's had no etunity or i1l- will towards the aPPellants and had no reason to falsely imPlicate them in this case for exampie by making uP thcl! arrest or foisting Pistols on them and in such circu-rnstances it has been heid that the evidence of the Police PWs can be firlly relied upon. In this resPect reliance is Placed on the casc of Mushtaq Ahmed v The state (2020 SCMR 474)

(e ) lEPortantty and sitAlficantly PW 10 Khizer lllyas gave evidence that on 1t.07.2017 his brother Qamar Illyas had called him ftom South Africa and gave him the account number of aPPellant Danish which he was to pay RS 50000 into. He Save evide^ce that on 20 07.2017 he Paid thc RS 50,00i into the account of aPPellant Danish at Habib Bank Metropolitafl Appe]lant Danish's bank statement was exhibited shorving a ca8h payment-in the said bank oI RS 50,000 on the same day PW 10 tQUr". [lyus is an indePendent witness who had no reason to falsely implicate the apPellant. His evidence $'as not dcnted during cross examination anJ r,r'e believe the same which fully ties in with aPPcllant Danish's judicial confession. APPeIladt Danieh had no exPlanation as to rvhy anylody ehould deposil RS50,000 into hle bank account shortly a-fter the mulder of the dcceased.

(0 That the medical eviderrce and medical rePorts as discussed abov€ iully support the eye-witness/ prosecution evidenc€. It confirms that both the".teceised were brought to hosPital sulfering from multiPle firearm injurics and expired (,n account of thos4 rniurre\.

(g)That atthough the Pistol emPty recovered irmediately at the r.iar<iat,.lid not lea."tl to a Positive FSL rePort the emPties found at the/ t0

scene and handcd ovet by eye wit[ess PW 7 Mateen to PW 14 Jammcl Ahmed who was the IO three days alter the incident did produce a positive FSL report when matched witl the pistols recovered ftom the appellanls on their arrest and aE such can be relied uPon to link the appellants to the murlers oI the deceased. Even in some cases non rccovery oI crime emPties has not been fatal to the Plosecution cdse where the eyc witness is believed as in this casc ln thie resFrt reliance is Placed on the cas€ of Qaiser Khan (Supra)

0, That all the PW's are consistent in their evidcnce and even if there ar€ some cont adi.tions in their evidence we consider these contradictions as minor in nature and not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to e(fect the prose.ution case and the conviction of the aPPellants. In this respect reliance is p:aced on the cases o, Zakt Khan V State (195 SCMR r793) and Khadim Hu6sain v. The State (PLD 2010 SuPreme Court 669).The evidence of the Pw's provides a believable corroborated unbroken chain of events from PW 7 witnessing the aPPellants shoot and murder the deceased to the deceased being talen to hosPital and pronounced dead to the corect identilication of the aPPellants at the idcntification parade to the arlest and r€<overy of the aPPellants to the judicial contessions of the appdlants to the dePosit oI Rs50,00 in aPpellant Danish's bank account for car:rying olrt the target killinSg to a Positive FSL repo in €spect oI the empties which were r€<overed froln the gutte! at the place oI the incident with the unlicens€d Pistols which were recovered fiom the appellants on their adest.

(i)Undoubtedly it is for the Prosecution to Prove its case against the accused beyond a rcasonable doubt but we have al6o considcled the defence case to see iJ it at all can caste doubt on or dent thc Proseotion cas€. The defence case is simply one oI fals€ imPlication by th€ Police at thc behest oI the rangers as each of the aPP€llants had been earlier a.rested by the rangers and fixed in this case. Neither of the aPPellants gave evidence on oath. Each aPPellant blought one DW being their respective brolher to support their case howeve! one of them mentions that his brother went out to buy medicines and then disaPPearcd hoi{e\'er he failed to file any petition before the courl in this resPect whilst the other DW states that the other apPellant was Picked uP Irom his house by the rangers however he fil€d no complaint about this abduction to an)' body ajtd no neighbor even came forward to cofiobolate his version which DW's appear only to have come rorwald in ordcr k) save the skins of thei! close relatives. Thus, {or the reasons mentioned above lve disbelieve the defense case as a.ll aftctthought in the face oJ a .eliablc, tlust worthy and confidence inspiring eye witness and other corroborative /supportive evidence against the aPpellants which has not at all dented the prose.ution case.

'11. That the evidence 3hol.6 that this was an orchestr6ted case o( targct killing whercby the appellants acted on instructions ieceived from outside Pakistan whilst acting ss hired guns in order to murder their political rivals and as such no Ieniency can be allowed in sentencing if the charges ale proved as deteEent sentences are the only way to put an end to such Practices which seem similar to the cilcurnstances suroundin& the death of former MQM Ieader lmran

LI

nb t',,-

Farooq whereby assa8sins were sent from Pakistan to murdel him in l'ondon'

England.

t 15. Thus, based on the above discussion esPecially in the face of reliable tsustworthy and conlidence insPiring eyewitness evidence and other the eoroborahve/suPPorhve eviderrce mmEoned abovg we have no doubt that prosecltion has Proved ite case agairLst ttle aPPe[ant8 beyond a i€asonable doubt forthe offences fo! which they has been convicted and hereby rnainrain their convictions gnd sentences.

16.As such the aPPeals are dismiss€d and the imPugned judgment is uPheld with the convictions and sentences handed down to the aPPeuants being n'Iaintained.

,W; *b't"

DGE