MANNAN S/O HUSSAIN @ HASSAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

Q'

y-

IN THE HIGH COURT O F SINDH, KARACHI

Prcsefit:

Mt,lflsti.e Mohamttfid K.?ifi Khafl Af,hi Mr.lusticr Kl4difi Hrss4i Tu io' Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2021 Conf. Case No.03 of 2021

Appellant: Mannan s/o- Hus6ain @ Ha8san through Mr. Munir Ahmed Khan, llespondcnt: The State throuBh Mr' Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General.

Complainnnt: Haji Umar Khan through I\t/6' Mushraque Ahmed Jahantlri and Sath€cI Ahmed, Advo.ates.

Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2021 Appellant: Yousuf Khan S/o. Younus Khan through Mr. Tahir-ur'Rehman Tinoli, Adl'ocate.

Respor,ldent: The state ttuoqgh Mr. Muhaomad Iqbal Awa& Additional fYose.utor cenernl,

Complaioant: Haji Umrt Khan though IWs. Mushtaque Ahmed Jahansiti .nd Sagheer Ahnred, Advocates.

Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2021 Appellant: Basheer Vo, Hussaln @ Has8an throuth Mr. Munir Aimcd Khan, ReBpondent: The state through Mr. Muha$mad lqb.l Awan, Additional Plosecutor Genelal.

Comflainant: Haii Umnr Khan through ltv6. Mushtnque Ahrhed Jahangiri and Sathecr Alme4 Adyocntes.

Date of heerint: 09.02.2022.

Date of Announcement; 77.02.2022.

I

\gb

IUDGMENT

MoHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, h Thc appdlans Mannan S/o' Hussain @ Hassart Basheer S/o. Hussain @ Hassan and Yousuf Khan S/o' Younus Khan have Prefurrecl the instant aPPeals againBt the iudgment dated 19.01.2021 by leamed lst Additional Sessions Judge (Model Passed Criminal Trial Court) Karachi Sooth in Slecia) Case No 43 of 2(D0 arising out of Crime No.538/2019 !/s. 302/324/34 Prc registe(ed at PS' Daraklrshan, Karachi whereby the aPPellants wcre convicted and s€ntenceil by the learned tst Additional Sessions Judge (Model Criminal Trial Court) Karachi Solth as underr

1.Accused Mannan S/o. Flussair @ Ilassan is convicted for cofiunitting murder of deceased Moosa and s€ntenced to death subicct to AnJirrnatiun by the HiSh Court and he is also habie lo Da; compensation ot Rs.6,00,000/- (RuPees Six t-a's) unJcr ,n'uon s,i+-n cr p c. to thc lpgal heirs of lhe de(eased. In case of failure in Paymcnt ol compei'satiofl, the accused would also su{fer SI for (06) six months mofe. He is also convicted lor v committing aI oifence punishable under saction 324 PPC and senten.ed io suffer RI for 10 (Ten) years. He irs also corvicted fol committing an of{ence under section 337-A(i) PPC for causing injuries tolomPlainant Hali Umar and s€ntenced to suJfer R I foi m gfwo; years, while further directing to Pay 'Damaan'- in the sum oi irs.1,0o,00o/- to iniurcd Haji Umar. lle is also .onvicted for conmitting an offence under section 337-F(ii) Prc for causinq iniuries to ,njuI.d Ah^".i and to suJler RI ".ntcn(ed for 03 Clhiee) years. while further dire(hng to Pay'Damaan' in the surn of Rs.1,m,m0/- to iniured Ahmed, The scntcnces awa.ded to tlrc accused excePt death scnten'e would run concurrently and benefit under section 382-8 CIPC is also ertended to him.

2.Accused Basheer S/o. Hussain @ Ho$an is convicted for commilting offence Punishable under sectioll 324 Prc ard sentenced io suffcr RI for 10 ('len) yeals. He is also convicted fol comnritting offence undet sc.tion 337-A(i) PPC for causinB in;uries to;omplainant Haii Urnar and sentenced to suffer Ri lor 02 (two) yeals, ra'hil€ further directing to pav 'Damaan' in the surn or ni.t,o0,ttoo,l- to injur€d Haji Umar' He i's also convicted for committing offence under section 337-F(ii) PPC for causing iniuries to inj;red Ahmed and sentenced to suJfer Rl for 03 lfftre"; years, while further directing to Pay 'Damaan' in the sum ot Rs.1,00,0m/- to injured Ahmed.

3.Accused YousuJ Khan S/o. Younus Khan is convicted for cornmitting offence Punishable under section 324 PPC and sentenccd Io sulfer Rl for 10 (Ien) years. He ie al6o convicted for .ommitting offence uflder scction 337-A(i) PPC for causing injuries to iomplainanl Hail LmdJ an'l \pntenceJ to suli(r RI lor

02 (Iwo) years, while further directing to pay'Dafnaan'in the sum of Rs.1,m,000/- to injured Haii Umal. He is aiso convicted for comfiitting offence undcr section 337-F(ii) PPC For causing injuies to injured Ahmed and sentenced him to suffer Rl for 00 1Tfuee1 years, while further directi.g to Pay'Damaan in the sum of Rs.1,00,fl)0/- to iniured Ahmed

The sentences aw?rd€d to thc accused aPPellants wcre ordered to lun concurrently and the benefit of section 382-8 Cr.P.C. was also ettended to the accusPd Percons.

2.The brief facts o{ the Prosecution case a.s alleged in the FIR lodged by complainait tlaji Umar Khan at Police station Darakl6han are tlut his three sons worked at Sea View, Clifton, Karachi on differcnt locations. On 26.08.2079 at abovl UO hours after receiving infotnation aboqt a quaEel between his nephew Daud and Yousu{ and others, he (the comPlainant) ruslud to the parking area whete accused Yousuf, Mannan. Basheer, Javed and Asghar Hussain alias Sain havin8 Pistols, chutries and daggers atta.kcd him anrl he received iniuries. His sons Moosa ag€d about 25 years and Ahmed carne to resaue him, who werc also attacked by accused Mannan, Bashir, Asghar Huesain and ,aved with Churri and daggers. As a result, his both sons teceivcd serious iniuries and Moosa succumbed to the injuries on B'ay to the hospital. Statement of comPlainant was tecorded under sertion 1 Cr.PC. by the poli.e in hosPital.

3.Duriig investigation, only accuscd Yousuf Ktran S/o. Yourus Khan rvas arrested and after comPletion of rnvestiSation, Challan was submittcd against him Ehowing accused Jawaid Khan S/o. Younss Khan, Maman S/o. Hussain O Hassan, Bashecr S/o. Huseain @ Llassan as absconders in colutnn No.02 with red ink, while the invegtiSating officer let off accused AsBhar Hussain @ sain 5/o. Sajan AIi by placing his name in column No.02 ot Challan with biue irrk, due to Iack oI eridence HoweYcr, the learned rudicial Magistrate concemed took coSnizance of tlre olfence against ail accused persons and joined Asghar Hussain @ Sain S/o. Sajan as accused in this case vide order dated 21.10.2019.

4.Record further shows tltat said abs<onding accused Persons Jawaid K}tan, Maturan and Bashir ra'ere d€rlared as Proclaimed offenders under section 512 Cr.l'.C. and proclarnation ProceedinS,s under section 87 and 88 L-r.P.C. wcre also initiated against them aJtea rccording statements oI the process scryer on oath. Thereafter, dccused Jawaid Khan 5/o. Younus, tn\edlr ^dl

l \qg

Khan, Mannan S/o. Hus.qain @ Hassan, Basheet 5/o. Hu6sain @ Hassan and Asgha! Hussain @ Sain 5/o. Sajan Ali were arrested, therefore, they joined trial.

5.Afte! completion of hvestigation of lhe case, the I.O subrnitted the charge sheet against the accused Persons to which they Pleaded not glilty and claimed trial.

6.The Pros€cution in order to Prove its case examined 12 witness€s and exhibited various documents and other itens. The statements of the accused wete recorded under Section 342 C[.P.C in which they denicd all thc allcgations leveled against them. None of the accus€d eramined tlrcmselves on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor led any evidence in their defence.

7.AJter apptccialing the evidence on r€rold the trial cou-rt convictcd the appcllants and sentenced them as set out earlie, in this judgment, hence the appellant6 have filed these aPPeals against their convictions'

8.The lacts of the caee as well as evidence Produced befole the trial court find an elaborate mention in the imPugned iudgment dated 19.m.2021 passed by the Eial court and, therefore, the same may not be rcproduced herc so as to avoid duPlication and unnc{e$ary lePetition'

9.lparned counsel for the appellants have contended that they are conrpleteiy iruoceot oIany wrong rloilg and have bcen fa.lsely imPlicated by the police at the behest of the comPlainant Partyi that it was dalk at night and that the eye witnesses wei€ not rn a Position to corectly identify the appellants; that no recovery oI any weaPon was rnade ftom arry of the appcllans; that there arc maior contradictiorls io the prosecution evidence which renders it unreliable; *lat with legard to appellant Yousuf he is not Siven a sPecific role in the FIR and that the complainant .nade material imProvements in fus evidence in so far a5 it related to him and that for any or all of the above reasons the aPP€llants by exterding them thc bcnefit of the doubt bc acquitted of thc charge ln suppurt of thei! .ontentions thcy have Placcd reliance on the case of Muhamm.d Mansha v, The State (2018 S( MR 772)/

10.On the other hand leatned APG aPPearing on behalf of the State as well as lcamed counsel for the complainant have fully suPPorted lhe impugncd iudgment. ln suPport of thei! contentions, they have contmded that there are six eye witness€., two oI whom Bustaincd iniuries, during the attack and murder of Musa whose evidence is leliable, trust worthy and conJidence ilsPiring who have been able to cotrecdy identify the appellants as being the p€lsons who attacked the.omPlainarts side and murdercd Musa; that the medical evidelrce couobolates the eye witness evidcncci that the conduct of the appellantc in attacking the comPlainant and his sons shows a clear intent to conrmit mulder and the common intention of the accused and as su.h the aPpeals be dismis6ed. In supPott of rheir contentiong they have placed reliance on the cases of lalam sha-rif v. The State (ZDo SCMR 690), Muhamar.d Yaqoob v. The State (2021 SCMR 1384, Zakir Khin and othe!. v. The State (1995 SCMR 17%) Noor Muhammad v. The State (199 SCMR 22), Muhdrm.d A.tzal v The State (20m S:CMR 1678), Zia Utlah v The State (2021 5CMR 1504, Zahid Imran v Th€ Stete (PLD 2006 SC 109), Muhahmad Nadeem alis Deemi v The Stare (2011 scMR S72), Mqhamm.d Mrnsha v The State (2001 SCMR 199), Zutfiqar Ahmad v The State (2011 SCMR 492) and liaz Ahmad v The Stale (2009 SCMR 99).

11, We have heard the arglmenb of the leamed counsel for the Parties, gone tfuough the entire evidence which has been rcad out by learned counsel {or the appellants, and the imPugned iudgment with their able assistance and have considered the relevant law irr{luding the cas€ law cited at the bar.

12.Based on our reassessment of the evidence oI the I'w's, espe.ially PW eye wihEsseg, the other witslesses including medical evidence, recov€ry of hunan blood at the s.ene oI the incident we find that the pros.rcuhon has proved beyond a rearcnable doubt that Musa Khan (the deceased), Haii Umat Khan and PW 9 Ahmed Khan were attacked by assailanta and rcceived iniuries through butt and knife/dagger blows with th€ injuries to the deceased groving (atal on o! about 25.08.2019 at about 2330 hours at main sea view service road parking area canteen No 2 to 3 Phase V DHA Karachi.

\q o The only qucstion lelt bcfore us thclefore is who carried out the f3.

attack on Haji Urnar Khan and Ahmed Khan and the deceascd by Pistol and but and knife blows which lead to the iniudes to Haji Umar Khan Ahmcd Khan and the mulder of the deceased at the said time' {iate and lmation?

14.AJtet out reassesgment of the evidence we find that the pros€cutiofl has proved beyond a leasorable doubt the charge ag'ilst tlrc aPPellanLs

for wluch they were convictcd for the following reasons;

(a)That the FIR was lodged with promPtitude being.4. l,4.hourc afier the incident whereby-the apP€Llants are all named in the FIR as carrying out the attaci on the comPlainant Almed Khan and t"'tusa wnJwere inlured with Musa dying on account of the iniuries which he sustainei in the attack. Evcn iJ thcre was coruidered to be u .iieht d"l"y in lodging tre FIR this is e\Plnined by the fact *ut rl,o lomolainant *oi inir.e.l and nceded to receive trearnent in hosoila.l and atlcnd to his son who was broughl dead to the hosoitrl .urrl thurcJltcr thc FIR \^a' lodged With resPect t') an eroiaine,l ,lelav in lodsins thc Fllt not being latnl to the orosecution .as. reliancj is-placcd on thc case of Muharnmad irladeem aliag Deemi v The State (2011 SCMR 872) thc {b) ln our view the prosecution's case resls on the cvidence ofKhan ive wimesse" to thu issault on the comPlainant and Ahmed an.l murder of t-he de.ca-scrl whose cl idence we shall considcr in detail below,

Ii)Eve witneE! Pw 1 Haii Umar Khrn Hc is the iompiainant in the case an.l is the falher of the deceased According to his evidcnce hG three sons, PW 9 Ahmed, Esa -deceased and the used to work at sea view which i5 corroborated b]' PW 6 AHul salam. that on 25 08 2019 at about 2230 h. iad gon. bo sea vicw and was wlth his son Ahmed at tus cabrn-*hen he i\'as lnJormed that a disputc '10 Dat'ood and had taken plac€ betwcen his nePhew Pw aooetlant iousal which is corroborate{t bv PW 9 Ahmed ihln at the parkrng area ol sea vicw near (antcen two anLl hc went thcre.PW 10 Ddwood corrohrates the quarrel' Whcn he reached there Dawoocl and Yousai were not Drcsent. Ajl.cr dbout live lninulus fiv( P'rsuns Liunc olrt of a

iush of peopte uho he identilred a\ the aPPcllanh' ohng with Asihai who lvas a(quitted by way oI comPromise dr.rrine th'c tria-l and Jawaid who dirl not stand lrial and v'as J*f"r""a u Proclaimed Offender (PO) with Asghar and Dashir having Pistols and Manan, Iawaid and Yousaf having krives, He kner,'alt of thP aPpellants and the other two as thev all worked at.ea view wlxch has not been contradicteJ dtriing his evidenc". All the aPPellants and thP lwo "thers hi- .toting which he sustained a knife i4ury on tri" tr"nd u.a fell doin. He then saw his son PW 9 Ahmed, "r.ol.rii",-t

\q\ come there who was assaulted by the appellaits and two olhers and became rnjured. Thercajtcr he sa\^ hjs dcceased son come towards them when IlO rawaid caught hold of his arms from the back where alter aPPellant Manan stabH the deceased who then fell down. He then 8ot uP and saw that the deteascd was seriouslv injured and he took him in a rickshaw to a hospital where he was p rnounced dead on arrival-

He was a natural witness and not a ctunce witners and had no enmity or ill will which would lead him to lalsely implicate the accused. He was attacked by the aPPellaflts and the other two ('hose faccs were not masked and he knew them all and as such despite the lack of light from such a cloge distance i.e. next to them whilst he was being beaten, thcn watched his other son PW 9 Ahned being beaten by them and then saw aPpellant Manan stab the decea.qed whilst being held by the l'O Jawaid he woLrld have had more than suJficient timc and clo€cness to recognize and aorrectly identily the appeltants and the other two who wcre all named in his promptly lodged FIR as taking Part in the attack on him, PW 9 Ahmed and the deceased and as such bas€d on the particular facts and clrlrmetances of thls case deEpite there being poor light we have no doubt that the complainant has been able to correctly identiJy the appellants and the two others and hence thcre was no need for any identilication pararlc.

LIe rc(orded his 5.161 q'e witness statement withi,r one day oI tha incidcnt and althouSh thPre has beefl some minor in'lprovements in tus evidence from his FIR we do not consider thes€ to bc rnaterial esPecially as the complainant by his own admission was illiterate and would have no idca how much detail to Put in hie FIR and 5.161 Cr.PC statement. The fact tlut none of the other eye witness€s reere named in the FIR based on the Particular lact3 and circumstances of this case as the comPlainant did not kno*' who the oths eye witnesses miSht be we do not consider this omi&sion a5 b€ing of particular siSniJicance or in any way undemining the evidence of this eye witness. With ref,ard to the poor light reliance is placed on Islam Sharlf's case (supra) wherc it was held as under at Para ili "lt is h eoiden@ thtl thz Ytitioner as uclL as the dxceased liated in lhz stttue rurol ieiShlrouthood; dts? le oLVr thz house 1145 been rariflr ince the yeor 1982 fl d, lhus, il can Lc safely ossur ed tlldl lllz both gidee i)erc &ell acqnninted. rttilh eaclt olher. Fajlar prayer is ltcld shortly belore dautn rnlll lle recession of thrkness; in ,uch o siluolion idenhfinlio of lh. culpil W llte niln?sses' pnteedin| in do* Ptoitttil! llith lhe deeo*d, in llv mo lh of Septefiber, Wlituhrly in Tiieu of long slandoti acquaitatlce, &nnot fu viet|u.l u'ilh susytciort" .

s

A?

Likervise it was held in the case of Muhammed Yaqoob (supra) P.1390 as under with regard to identiJication and Iighq

ProttidE itfifiunib! to nn -Darkfiess by itsell docs nol ofender if ll? loitnesses otlqtu'isc stcceed lo wpture/ascertain his idenlity lhrough ouailable ficans tle tio c.l irt llg oimc rePort".

The Supreme Court took the same Position vi6 a vie liSht and idantilication in thc case of Nagrullah Khan V State (2010 scMR 881).

The fact that all the eye witness€€ have statcd about the Poor liglrt irt our ! icra tclds to show their hunesq as not a singlc oic has staie.l othcr*-ise wlt(h might have becn exPecteJ in older to improve their case a8ainst the aPpellants and othets.

Admittedll, the eye witness was related to the deceased rvho was his real son ho*"u.t it is well settled by now that evidence oJ related witnesses cannot be discarded unless thete is some ill will or enrnity betwecl the eye witnesses and the accused which has not been Ptoven in lhis case by any rehable evidence. In thb resPect reLance is Placed on the (ases of liaz Ahmed V The Slate (2009 fMR 99) Nasir Iqbat alias Ne-sra and another v. The State (2016 SCMR We find that the eyewihess gave his evidence in a straight forward and natuial rnanner and was not dented during c!o6s examination.

I'hus. for the reasor1s mentioned abovc we find the evidence of the eyewitness to be reliable, trustworthy and conlidence irspirine and we belicve the same esPeclally with regard lo rhe'corict ldenlifi.ation of the apPell.nts and the two others as the per€on6 who attacked hinr and hie aon PW 9 Ahmed and tire deceased and .PPeUant Manan otabbilrt rnd murdednt th€ deceased whilst Po ,aleaid held the deceased's .rml and can coivict on the evidence oI this c)'e witness alone provided that there is some corrobolatlve/ suppottive evidence ln this resPect reliance is Placed on the caiis of Mqhammad Eh..n v. The State (2006 SCMR 1854' As also found in the cases of Farooq Khan v' The State (2008 scMR fl4 and Niar-ud-Din and another v' The State and another Gb11 SCMR 725). That what is of significance is the quality oi the evidence and not its quantity and in this case we find the evi,lcnce of this eyewitness to be of good quality'

(ir)Eye witness PW 9 Ahmed Khan. Hc b thc brothcr of lhe ,lcceised and ruis a cigarette cabin ncar Canteen No 2 sc'r view. ln his evidence ie corroblates the evidence o{ the comDlainant as bein[ with him at his cabin on 25 @ 2019 at abor-it 2200,/2300 hor-r"rs when the comPlainant was lnlormed about thc quanel with his cousin Daworrd /lhc ouafiel is

\4 j couoborated by PW 10 Dawood in his cvidence as bei'rg with appellant Yousuo.He $/as inJormed that some one *'as beating his father so he wenl to tlrc Pointed Place and saiv his father lying on the glound and being beaten by the appellanh and the two others (including apPellant Yousa0. Appellant Bashir caused a Butt blow to his head (which ties in with Basht having a pistol) and som€ one also Save hilr1 a dagger blow to his back. He fell down and saw IJ(J Jawaid catiir nold of the deceased Irom his back and apPellant Manan give a dagger blow to the deceased's ahlomen. His cousin Jabrael took him to I'ti Darakhshan for a medical ce ificate before proc€€ding to iinnah HoPsital for treatment-

The same considerations aPply to him as to eye witneas PW 1 Haii Umar Khan who he coroborates in all material resFcts excePt that he Save his S.161 eye witness statement 14 days alterlhe inci<tent which is exPlained by the lact that he wis too badly iniured to Sive his statement on tle day of the incident as conJirmed by the MLO and lO and remained in hospital lor at least 3 days.

(iii)Eye witneso PW 7 Qayyum Khan. He is an iodependent witnest. According to his evidence on 25.0i2019 atabout 2300/315 hours he was on duty with the deceased at gate No.1 of Parking area sea view when he was inJorlned that fathcr,/comPlainant of the dcceased an(l his brother Pw 9 Ahmed !\'as being beaten by aPPellant N{anan and his (ompa ions. He and the decea*d then travelled by moto. bike to the Pointed Place where he saw the complainant and Pw 9 Ahmed on the ground in injured coniition. T*o of the Persons he saw wele aimed with pistolc wfulst the tlree otheis had daggers. He knew all the iccr-uert. Hc saw the deceare(l get down from his bike and I'O Jawaid gtab hold of the deceased trom the back and then saw appetlant Manun stab the deceased in the abdomen with a dagger. He gavc his 5.161 Cr.rc eye witness statement thc next day and the same considerations aPPly to fum as to eye witnesB PW I Hrii Umar Khan and eye witness Plv 9 Ahmed Khen excePt that he was nol even related to the deceased.

(iv)Eye wit[ess Plv 2 ]ibtael, He was wotting as gate keeper of tate No.3 of Parking atea neal cantecn No.2 sea view on ihe day of the incident (25.08.2O19) when at 2300/2315 hours he was inlormed that PW 9 Ahmed and the complainant had been involved in a quarrcl at gate No.2 at pnrking area of sea view. tlc rlcnt to the PointeJ Place and saw th; complainant and PW 9 Ahmed injued anJ on the ground. He then saw fio Jawaid catch hold oI the dcteased ind saw appellant Manan cause da88er blow to the ahlomen of the decea6cd. He saw the comPlainant take the deceased in a rickshaw to JPMC. He took PW 9 Ahmed to I5 Darakhshan for a medical certificate and then to JPMC and then to civil hospital ae is (orroborated by PW 9 Ahmcd. Ht,

ta

was a nafural witneas as opPosed to a chance witne6s lle save his cve wihness 5.161 Cr.Rj statement one day aJlcr the incident. fie knew the acctls.t and the same consirlcrations apply to him as to the other eye wimcss mentioned above who'he corroborates in all malerial rsPects tn corElection with the injury to the comPlainant and Pw 9 Ahmed and thc mulder of the de(eased by aPPellant Manan.

(v)Eye witn$s PW 3 Gul MuhaErmed. He ie an independent witness. He used to run a com cart at canteen No.2 sea view. On 25.08.2019 he was working at his corn catt when at about 23m/815 hours he saw a rush of people at Fdte No.2 parking area. He went thele and saw thc ippellans and rw; other Persons who hc knew' He saw them beat the complainant and his son PW 9 Ahmed who were lying on the Sround in an iniured condition. He saw the tleieased arrive with PW 7 eye vritnes Qalyum Khan on a motor bike. When the decea6ed got doitn from the motor bike lro Jawaid caught hold o( hirn ftom back and aPPellant Mmnan stabH th; deceased with a dagger in his aHomen and as such he corroborates PW 7 Qayyum Khan's evidence' out of fear he did not interYene and closed hrs com cart and wcnt home. He gdve lus 5.161 eye $/itnesr Cr.rc stntement the next dav and is a nntural as opPosed to a chance witnPss who hacl no enmity with any of the appellants and had no lea,son to falsely imPlicate them in this ca6e. Hc coroborates in alt rnaterial rcsPects all the other above refeded to eye witness€s in conne;don with the inruriet to the comPlainant aJd PW 9 Ahmcd and the murder of the deceased and the same corBidelatiora aPPty to him as to the other eye witnesses mentioned above.

(vi)Eye witne6s PW 4 Samar Khnn. He wai thc rickshaw ,lrivei who took the complainnnt and his de( eascd son to hospital. He is an indePendent witness According to his eviicnce on 25.08.2019 he droPPed a Passenger at sea view at about 2230 hours and was waiting for a Iare at Sate No 2 sea view. He saw a glouP of PcoPle in a circle beating an old man who fetl to the ground and thc group of PeoPle then started to beat a young boy who also lcll to th€ ground iniured. There after he i* r*o lroys come on one motorbike aIId the Der.qon sittinq on the back of the motor cy(le 8ot off and one of t}l. a.cui"d persons caught him ftom the bdcl while another oI the accused Pelsorlr gavc a dagger blow to him in tlxe abdomen. PeoPle shilted the iniured boy who came on the motolbike to his rickshaw and thereaJter he took the iniured boy and two oihel persons towaJds Jinnah Hospital. At Bilawat Chowrangi he heard the peoPle in the tnci oJ the rickshaw say that the boy had exPired and called him Musa. He droPPed them off at Jinnah HosPital and Save them his phonc number' Hc idenrified the thJce aPPcildntr in cr-,u:t as bcing thosc who assdulted the (omPlainant Parly' lle was a natqlal indePendent witness who had no enmity with the appellants an.I had no rcdson to tals€ly imPlicat?

IO

them ia this casc and gave his S 161 eye witness statehent the next day. He did not name the aPPellants as he had never met them bclole which is quite natulal aftl honest' He coEoLlorates the evidence of the comPlainant esPecially in so far as it relates to the .omPlainant tal<ing the deceased fiom the scene o[ the incident to the hosPital in injured condition but because he did not know the aPPellants and did ntrt app€ar before an idertification Parade to identify - the appellants we believe his evidence so far as he witnessed the incident but Sive little, if any weiSht, to his in court identification of the appellants which has been dePre(ated by the Supreme Court.

As such based on the eye witness evidencc we have no doubt that the Plt/ eye witnesser have .offectly identifled the appellanb ln atta.king arld beatint the comPlainant and PW 9 Ahmed and in reBPect of aPP€llant Manan murdering the deaeased espeaially as the aPPellants do not even deny their presence at tie scene of the inaident during cross examination and only claim that they could not b€ identified correctly due to the darkness which due to the clos€ Proximit]' of the attacl to the cye witness€s especially the comPlainant and PW 9 Ahmed u'ho were inlured during th; attack we Iind to bc oI no assistance to the appellants basect on the Particular facts and c[cumstances of tltls case.

Thue, b.sed on our believing the evldence of the Pw ey€ witnesses and their correct identification of the aPPellants what (<) PW 5 Abdul Salam and Pw E Muh llmed Tufail when they ircar,t oJ the incident rushed to JPMC whe!€ they saw the complalnant and PW 9 Ahmed in injured condition shortly after the incidcnt. PW 10 Dawood took the iniured PW 9 to hosPital alter he witnesscd the incident in an inued conditron and as such corroborate the iniuries to the cohPlainant and PW 9 Ahmed at the hospital.

(d)Pw 5 Dr. Eiaz Ah6ed who examined the comPlainant, PW 9 air^e.l und carried out the post mortem of the de'ceased corroborates the injuries caused to the in ured comPlainant and PW 9 Ahmed and the offencc which such iniuries amount to under the law and the deceased .6 Siven by the eye witne5ses and that the cause oI death of the deceased was through a sharp weapon.

(e)The fact that no rc.overy was made from ally oi the aPPellants-is not relevant as appellaflt Manan was arrested 6 weeks after the incident in another case and would th€refolE have no weaPon on hirn when he was arrested in this case as he was alreadY in iail ll

tl \q t Ifl That all the PW's are consistent in their evidcncc and evm iI iliere arc some contradi(tions in thct cvidence wc colrgider thece contradictions as minor in nafure and not matenal and certair y not of such materiality so as to effect the Prosecution cas€/evidence and the conviction ;f the aPPIlants ln this resPect rcliance is olaced on thc cars of Zakir iGan v State (t995 SCMR 1793) and khadim Huseain v. The state (PLD 2010 Supreme Cr)un 669)'The evrclence ol the PW'. Provides a believable corroborateJ unbroken the chain of events from the comPlaiflant being inlormed about ouarrcl with PW Dawood witir the cumplainant going to whet 6aw.rod was meant to be to the <omPlainant and PW 9 being attackcd and beaten by the aPPcllants and two othe's to the scene deceased hearing oI thc atfack o; his father to his going to the in order bo save- his {ather to the deceased being Erabbed by PO Jawaid and being stabbed by aPPe[ant Manan in the ab<lomm t<r

ihe complainant'trying to taiie the in ured deceased to hosPital b)' rickshaw to the death of the deceascd by a sharP object ag conlirmed by the Post mortem of the dP'Pased and to the arre't ol thc appellants.

fs) That the ooticc Pw's had no cnmity or iU h' l towards the aioellant and had no reason to falsely imPlicate them in this case ani in such circumstancee it hn9 becn held that the evide^ce o[ the Dolice Pws car be fully relied upon. In this resPect reliance is placed on MuBhtaq Ahmed v The strte (2020 SCMR 474)

(h)That it does not dpPeal to logic, commonscnse or rcarcn that a i"irr.. -orld iet the iial murdeier of his son Bet away scott [ree and fals€ly implicate an innocent Person by way of substitution'

(i)Undoubtedlv it is for the prosecuhon to Provc iLs case against ih. accused beyond a reasonable doubt but we haveonalso or considered the de(ence case to se€ iJ it at all can caste doubt dent the proseortion case The defence case is onc of false imolication simplicter. None of the.rPPeltants gavc evrJence on ori, o, cllea u bW ;n order to caste doubt on the Prosecution case Thus in the face oI rctiable, trust worthy and confidence insPiring cye witness evidence of the aPPellants bcing involved in.the beatine and causing scriollc iniury to the comPlainant and PW 9 Ahmei and appellint Manan murdering the deceased. and othe' sr.pportive/coi.oborative evidence we di_sbelieve the delence case'

15.Thus, based on the above discussion esPecially in the face of reliable, trust worthy and aonJidence insPiting eye witnegs evidence and other corroborative/supportive evidence mentloned above we have no doubt that the Plosecution has proved its case a8ainst the aPPellants beyond a reasonable doubt for the ollmces for which they have been conricted and heleby rnaintain their convictions -16. With iegard to sentencing we note that it is not a univelsal rule that the death senteme thould not be handed down iI no motive is proved as t2

I

I

ln each case must be iudged on its own Particular facts and circumstances (SuPra) Ir dris respect rcliancc is Placed on the case of Noor Mohammed quarrel set this case the aPPellants without aPParent leason b€yond a upon the comPlainant and PW 9 Ahmed and seriously iniured them

tfuough pistol buts and daggers and knives and as such all the aPPellants

had .ommitted the olfence of Sf24/l4g/34/337-A(0 and 337-F(i' Prc when the acts oI the appellants are considered in their assault on the along complainant and PW 9 Ahrned with Pistol buts and knives/da88ers with the medical evidence concerning the injuries to the comPlarnant and PW 9 Ahmed by such a violent assault with intent to kill'

77.That aPpeuant Manan mudered in a brutal lashion and in cold ahead of him in blood a young rnan in the prime oi his life with his future a busy s€a side area in front o( the public and in front of hlt father and as facts and such $'e do not 6nd that this case based on its o$'n Parhcular ag was circumstances warrants any leniency from this court and rathet held in Dadullah V State (2015 scMR 856) a deterient s€ntence iustified i5

seaside where to deter such mindiess murderu in front of the Pubiic at the away in fear young families go to enioy thems€lvcs rather than being kePt on a.count of suah incidents.

18.Thus, for the reasone mentioned above we dismiss the aPPeals and uphold all the convictions and s€ntences handed down to each oI the appellants in the impugned judgment and ansl\'er the conJifination refermce in resPect of aPpellant Manan in the affirdative'

) 1L

,lJDc I

t.l