AHMED SAEED @ SAEED BHARAM S/O MUHAMMAD ISMAIL (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

---+'"i-

l

XNTHEHIGHCO URT OF SINDH AT I(ARA CHI

Present:

ML l stice Mohairrflad.I<arim Khan Agha.

Mt lustitc Khadirn Hussai luflio,

SPECIAL CRIMINAL A .T. APPEAL NO. oF 2020 Appellant: Ahmed Saeed @ Saeed Bharam son of Muhammad Isrnail tfuough Mr Amir Raza Naqvi, advocate.

Respondent: The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awary Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of Hearing: 06.04.2022

Date of Announcementi L2.04.2022

TU DGMENT

Mohammad Kaim Kha Atha, J. Appellant Aimed Saeed @ Saeed Bharam son of Muhammad Ismail was charge sheeted to face his kial in Special Case No.1146 of 2018 adsing out of FIR No. 170 ot 2003 unde! section 302/324/84 ppc rhN section 7 of ATA 1997 registered at I5 Azizabad, KaEchi and was colwicted vide impugned judgment dated 08.09.2020 passed by the teamed fldge, Anti- Terrorism Courl No.X, Kardcfu r,,/hereby appellant was awarded sentence for the olrence punjshable u/ s.7la) oI ATA,1997 ro undergo Lifc Impri5onmenr wirh d payment of fine of Rs-100,000/- for each legal heir of 06 deceased persons. In case o{ default in payment he shall further undergo R_L Ior 01 year. He was al6o awarded sentence Ior the olfence punishable ! s. 7(c) ol ATA, 1,997 to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine oI Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment he shall suffer S.I. Ior 01 year more. Both the sentences were to run concurently. The benefit of Section 382-8 was also extended to the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case in nut shell as narated in the FIB. ale that on 02.09.2003 at about 2330 houls at Abbasi Shaheed Hospiial, Karachi complainant Syed Sajid Hussain (now deceased) recorded his statemdnt u/s. 154 Cr.I'C whelein he narrated that on 02.09.2003, at about 1620 houre at House No.R/8 Gulshan Shamim Phase-ll,,Block 8, FB Atea Azizabad, Katuchi ulknown

I

L\ qir

persons duly armed with deadly weaPons gunned down Syed Saeed Ahmed'

Syed Talyab Hussain son oI Syed Saeed Ahmed' syed Mazhar Hussain son of

Syed Saeed Almed, Qari Muharnmad Yaqoob son of Abdullalu Muhammad Muharnrnad Noman Khan son oI Muhammad Jibran son o{ Muhammad lqbaL due to unknown Iqbal Khan by rnaking indiscriminate {i ng uPon them' and as a result of such firing one person namely Umair- ir"rsonat gudge/enmity deadly firing ol 'r-oot u,ro became severely injured, as a result of brutal / injured were shilted to armed culP ts who fled away fron the crime scenc and Abbasi Shaheed HosPital, Karachi immediately for their medical treatment' persons as dead' where tlle doctols declaled above named 06 injured above statement of the Accordingly, on, the same day, at about 2355 hours' complainant was incorPorated into the FIR book' After usual investigation the case was disPosed of in

I

"A" dass When

was taken into custodl/ by however the accused retumed ftom Dubai in 2016 he the Police about the the rangets under the ATA whele he later conJessed to the case was re opened commission o[ tfus c me and many others ThereaJter the accused was arested in this case whilst already in custody df the Police and and the aPPellant was sent and after Iurthe! investigation the case was challaned the charge and claimed trial' up to face tdal. The aPPellant Pleaded not guilty to \ 09 witnesses and

4.The Prosecution in order to Plove its case examined of accused was exhibited various documents and other items The statement recordedundeisechon342CI'P'Cinwhichhedeniedalltheallegahonsleveled accused neithel examined himself against him and claimed false imPlication The case' ofl oath nor produced any DW in suPPort of his delence on rccord the trial 5, After hearing the Patties and aPPreciating the evidence as set out earlier in this court convicted the aPPellant and sentenced him his conviction' judgment. Hence, tlle aPPellant has liled this aPPeal against before the trial court 5- The facts of the case as well as evidence Produced \ findanelabolatementlonintheimPugnedjudgmentdated0s'09.2020passedby be rePloduced here $o as to avoid the trial coult an4 therefore, the same may not duplication and unnecessary rcPetition' that the only allegeci eye

7.Leamed counsel for the appellant has contended that the only evidence witness against him diA not recognize him in court; wh;ch he had been forced to, against him was his rekacted iidicial conJession

I

ri 2.

i i It

sign and that the procedures for carrying out judicial confesEions had teen violated; that there was not a single piece of co oboratory evidence against him and that he had been convicted at the behest oI the police/rangets on account oI his political alfiliation and that for any or all of the above reasons the appeilant by being extended the benefit of the doubt should be a.quitted df the charge. In support oI his contentions, he placed reliance on the cases of tadq pervez v State (195 SCMR 1345), The State though p,G. Sindh and others v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh and others (2021 SCMR 873), AIi Ahmad and anorher v. The Stare and another (PLD 2020 Supreme Cou* 201), Muhammad Ismdil v. The Stat€ (2017 SCMR 713), Bahadur Khan v. The Stare (PLD 1995 Supreme Courr Azeem Khan and another v. Muiahid Khafl and othero (2016 SCMR 274), The State v. Minhun alias cul Hassan (PLD 7964 Supreme Court 813), an unreported Judgment of High Court of Sindh in Special Criminal A.T.A. No.356 and 357 of 2018 (Syed I\dehloz Mehdi Zaidi v, The Stare) dated 21.01.2020 and another unreported Judgment of High Court of Sindh in Special Criminal A.T.A. No.163 of 2018 (Syed Meh.roz Mehdi Zaidi v, The State) dared 25,11.2-019.

t1

8.On the other hand leamed Additional I,rosecutor General sinell, has fully suppoted the impugned judgment and in paticular contended tiiat the retracted judicial confession can be safely relied upon as it was made volunta ly and that all procedural saJeguards rclating to the recording of the iudicial confession by the magistrate had been complied with and even otherwise if there were some defects in the procedural 'requirements these were curable. When confronted by the court he conceded that there was no othei coffoboratory evidence against the appellant apa* ftom the Iactum that the murder of 6 innocent people did in fact take piace as narrated by the appellant in his corJession at the same date, time and location; that we could salely convict the appellant based on his con{ession alone as no coroboration was iequired and as such the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and as such his appeal should be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the cases of Manjeet Singh v. The State (pLD 2006 Supreme Court 30), Solat Ali Khan v, The Srak (2002 SCMR 820), Muhammad Sharif v. The State (1969 SCMR 521), Abdul Haq and another v. The State (2015 SCMR 1326), Nazeer alias Wazeer v. The Srate (pLD 2007 Supreme Cou* 202), Mst. Naseem Akhtar and another v. The Stalte (1999 SCMR 'l744) and Majeed v. The State (2010 SCMR 55).

'I

9.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for d.Ie aPpellant as well as leamed Additional Proseclltor Geneal and Ilave gone thtough the entire evidence which has been read out by learn€d counsel for the apPelLant, and the

I

impugned judgment with the able assistance oI leamed counsel and have considered the relevant law including the case-laws cited at the bar.

10.Based on our reassessment of the evidence of the PW's, esPe.ially PI'/ 1 eye witness Syed Waqaui Hussain and the other Prosecution witnesses especially the medici evidence and other medical rePorts including the Post moltem reports oI the deceased, recoveqi of emPties and blood gtaihed earth at the crime scene we find tllat the Prosecution has Proved beyond d leasonable doubt that Syed Saeed Ahmed, Syed Tayyab Hussain, Syed Mazhar Hussain, Qari Muhammed Yaqoob, Muhammed Jibtan and Muhammed Noman Khan (collectively referred to as the deceased) were all shot and murdered by {ireal:m on 02.09.2003 at about 1620 hours outside House No.R/8 Gulshan Shamin Phase II Block 8 FB Area Azizabad Karachi.

' 11. The only question Ieft before us therelore is who murdered the deceased by firearm at the said time, date and location?

12.We are acutely aware that this is a very sensitive case wherP 6 irmocent I persons llave bcen murdered by fire arm in the most brutal Iashion ln broad day light without appare reason by an alleged target killer who accdrding to his retracted judicial conlession (which we shall tum to later) had allegedly carried out many such crimes. However, as Judges we have to Put such asPects aside and decide the 8uilt or innocence of the aPPellant by disPassionately assessing the evidence before us and coming to a decision which is suPPorted by the evidence on record and the Soveming law and not bv our emotions or own the Iaw and PeDonal feeung.. We can only be guided by the evidence and nothing else. This asPect oI the iudges rcle in such like cases was emPhasized in the case of Naveed Asghar V Slate (PLD 2021 SC 600) at P.617 Para 10 in the following tertns:

" Heinous nature of allegltiofis ind awruisol oleaidence 10, The ruthless and ghostly nuldet of foe person! is a crime of heinous nafure; but the frightful flatltre of catne shoukl not blur Lhe eyes of j slice, illa@ill enotions trtSgered by the hotnlying natYe of tlE ot'fince to prejudgi the acansed. Cases ale to be ileciileil ott the basis if eoidenee ancl eoidence dlofle a il,lot ofi the basis of sefitimeflts ind emotiotts, Gfinsofiiq heinous ot btutal ahtle af the o/ferce nay be rcleoa t at the stoSe ol auading suilabte punbhne l altcr (

corroictiofi; bttt lt is totally irreleoaflt at the stage of appraisittg ot reappfaisittg the eoiilefice aoailable on rccotil to detefiline guilt of the acauseil persofl, as possibilitlt of afl irlflocent persofl haoing beefl urcfigly inooloeil ht cases of such flatule carrnot be ruleil oltt. An accused person is presumeil to be infiocefit till the time he is prooen piLry belot1d reasanable doltbt, dtld this presufiptioft of his innocence iontinues until ii,. prosecuhon succceds in prooing the cilalge against hin beyohd reasanable doubt on the bnsis of legally admrssible, conf.dtnce inspiifig, lrustt9rLhy and reliable erridence. No fiatter ha heinous tl9 crima, the constitutional guarantee of fai tial under Articlb 10 A cannot be taken aroay fofi the acc sed. It is, therc/ole, dutV oj the coult to I assess the probatioe aolue (.oeight) of ewry piece of eoiilence o|'ailable ofl rccolil in accolilaflce tuith the settled ?illciples of appreciatiofl of eoiilence, il a ilispassiotnte, sllstefiatic a il structureiL naflner witho t bei g influetced by the fiaturc of the allegatiofis, Atty teflilefic! to sttahl 01, stletch ot haphazatilly appreciote eoiileflce to rcach a ilesireil ot populdt ilecisiolt it1 n case ttlltst be scfupulouslU iuoiileil or else high\l ileletetious rcsults setioLtsly alfecting ptopcr ailmiflistration of ctiminal justice uill follow, lt nay be pertinent to underline l.cte that the pincipbs of t'ait lrial haae fiou bcpfi guamnlee.l as a FundampfiIal Righ! under Atitlp l0 A of llt" Conshtution dnd arc to bp pad a5 an inlpgrol p|rt af tupry eub- ccvslitutional legislatioe ilstrufienl lhat denls with deterhliftation af ciail rights afid obligstions of, or cifiinal charge against, afiy person" (Bold added)

13.Alter our eassessment of the evidence on record aparf Irom the actual murdeis oI the deceased which we have alteady found the prosecution hacl proven as fairly conceded by the prosecution and as conJirmed by the IO in his evidence lhe only piece of evjdence against the appellant is his rerracted judlcial conJession. PW 9 Muhammed Hussain who was the IO of the case in his evidence specifically states that except S. 154 Cr.PC statement of the accused before the iudicial magishate and admission of guilt before me there is no evidence available on the recoid againstthe accused.

74.The question therefore is whether we can safely convict on the basis of the rehacted ;udicial conlession of the accused without any coroboration. We set out the letracted judicial confession lor ease oI reference below;

On Oath Statement ry'si 164 Cr.PC.

F.I.R. No.330/2009, P.S. Nabi-Bakhsh.

"1, Ahned Saeed @ Bhstarn S/o Mohannlad Isnlail, IVo. House No.256, Sharfabad fiear Tooso Restaura t Bahadurabad Y,ndchi, Temryrutv resident of House No.1201, Al-latier Building tnain AItatu an Arca Sha4dh Dubai, do herew state oft oath tlat I belong to MQM (A). ln 1989 l joired Mutehda Urlit No.30 Ranchore-lnrc Sector as.a fiemberfioorker, I remaineil cofimittee nenber of abooe unit lron 1994 lo 7995. ln the end of 1993 I rcndined henber of target killiflg teans of Zrftt Tension aftd Habib Langra. I haoe comniffcd smeraL utardats of nlltbr .and attempt to tr1fidzr, for !)l1ich I receioed

t

instntctiolls ftom MQM kad?rship conpising Nafuem Nusnl, Farooq Sattar' Haider Abbas a t . W;5in1 Akhtar "ra Mohamhlld wa' ?l( Afer ont" ;tng -l tlp task I resutarlu used to inbY t thefi On th? tt4<tanrc oJ lhese pcr5ars l ".""tit'ria fi" hipet killinc'Icnns in Landhi, Yora gi Mdlir' Shok Faisal C-atona and Culistin<-laul;t Besides lhis beinq residing in Dubai I used to receiai instrucfions ftom Mohtfimad Ana'at l used to receiw lh4 arca Pporls ftotfl tdrS?t killin1 ;am".

In 1gg4 on th? ordn ol Habib Laflgra, I accottlplishzd tlilh n1q olhet acinmDhces Fahffi Mirchi, Firoz Fouii and Nall.r Bilal had 'ommtlled tllP

of uonud Chanchi ot Ran.hore-Lan? Bus SloP by m'akng ulh fing -,ri[, T.T. Pist;ls.

On Ogtl' lulv'1gg4 at 07:75 Hrs al the et)Pning time' t llongl)tth ferc| Fouii and ollter "Mul?hdo :ttlorkets aflcr abducting A-S l Maqbool Ao'an threw dead-body eonimited his murdtt by makifl| fin| aith T T Pislols and fis in Ranchore-Lane near UBL Bank, On 05th lune-lggs dunng sbikt catt of M leh'da, I,alofl|loilh othPr 'ii*'r"|*i*tlaoeld aegetable sdlfi acamolices and Shahid had committcil lhP th rd?t ol lu'o Haioatdat eslam and constable Murlaza W nahng fing at 'sitara'Marktl Ranchore'Iane al about 08:30 H ts o.f thr eocning ttnY' qceortplft' fahin On 03'd Dccember a! about 03:iO Hts, I olang.t'ilh my Mirchi.

'oj Habib Langra, Rtzuan Afiin and Nant Btnl had @mmltlcd ltrc fiur'bt ,py'uot o--oie17" at Moti-Mention Rarlchore-In e by nakitLg frittg with T.T,Pistols.

L Habib Ltfigra and Ayub useil Io manulacturc cracher lor cxp:' .'on.and uxd the sane t'or s/reading oi knoism[harassment in tht area dunng Mulehla stril" n lha year 7994/7995.

ln 1gg4/1gg5 in order lo nake success[ltt the Mlttehda stiie' l alongaith mu atcomolices Habib Lnfigra (die Fahim Mitchi hftested) N},P?n' Kamran had set- oia itn"i zsno .rorkers oi Muteh,'n Llnit-3l se(tor tRanchote-Lane) fired 15/76 uhicles by spinkli Spettolin Ranchore-Lane'

In 1gg5, l, Rashid Shatkh Fcroz Fouii Nasir Bital' NaWb HadT'.Asit and.

Khatri, Saul,at Mifta hufige and 10fi5 lqtgct killcts of Norlh-Nazlmabod Liaquatabdd S?dors hail iflmilted Rocl<1t assaulls lhtou9h and made J1nfig al Gardefl P olice Headquarter,

On 12ttt Morch-1ggi a! about 70:00 Hrs of lh( niSht line, I olongwith laroct kithns teams of Zafor Tmsion, Aimal Pohlti and my olhPr a(rcmphQs 7,ila', o'1,"", rea,i. e"if zaia,, Roshid Shoikh, Nasit Bilal. SaPcd Beflgra' ir,)i xli, ii*u i^a",..'khan Kun and osfio other totg Lnbrs of Mutchda wtth had conmiftc; th? ntu ?t ol 13 Horircq uorkerc by n0hi48 fnng T.T.Pislols ot Asif Colony the afta of Pak Colony ' O11 }gth October-tggs, I Llongwilh th" MutPhda ldrSel hllers Rashtd Bilal, Ainat Patun' I'ashif Daoid Fetoz Fouji' Nayab Had?r' 'i[iin Nas0 shaikh.

iia ",n,'4/5 totger hlters 6eing armed lh Rockel. Launehers' ^ tt Kdldshanicoos nad? fnfi{ al Sindh Secftlariat blostcd th? T.T,Pislols 6nd motorclcle tdden uith erplosioe subslance

I

ln 1gg7 l alonrlll/ith Ainal Pahdi, Nadcen Moulana t'rfe of Saed Cania ond Rinmn Sukkur riolahdd blasl o bonb in Scs:ions Court Sukhtr',

In 1,gg7, I alonguith Ainil Pahan, Zafar Tension, Fahim Mitchi and Zubair Chotd. lad blast the itototcycle lade uith explosiae sllbstance i co oenlon of PML(N) at Sohrab-Golh.

ln L997, pon the orders oJ Mutehda kdiLer Mohamntdil Amoar' I alonouith Rashid Aattar @ Rashid Shaikh, Zolar Tc'lsion, Aimal Pahan' Zeeihan Hakla, snatrhed tllP 15 nnd mototrycles fion dtft'erenl armsir''ata'hi ond dft loadilll ILD| ?t?losi,)c subslance in the bnne }ot blasl?d al l''n ' Press

I.l. ihundngnrkood. K?anai ond Taiq Road la 1.gg8, t alongwilh ny oth?t accomplices AsiJ Dahdan lk'shad' Faisal Lanba. Wasim Abbosl Rasheei Akhlar' Nadcetl Marble fuld cotlnilted mu et of ta)o police persoflnel W nakifi| fing at APC of Police at near MQM(A) Llnit-No.63, Liaquatabad. ,

On O2d Septenbet'2\\3.at hbout 04:30 Hts, I alongtDith "L! othet accomblices fiantelv Faisal Laflba, Wasitl Abbas, Wasin Comntafldo' Haide; Caddi @ Chuti\a and othet 10n2 Mutchila uorkefi had cotflrlitteil the nndet of Saeed Ahned, Taweb, MazhaL Nau'nan, Qari yaqoob ,u!t llrnatuuddit by making firing dt Azizabad' Ofl 18 t Odob -2003 at about O7:iO Hrs ol lh? caenIflS ti e l llonquilh fiu brothfi Rauf NaPo/,, uho is traiwd lrom Raj/J AScn(y and now a doV< he i5 Riw aeenl in iouth-Aftica I alohxlltilh hifi as aPll as lhe targct killing leom ol Wasii Connando hnd commilk| he nutfur of Muzffir @ Doptor Dean by fiaking t'iing at net Liiquatabad.

On 14ttt S?ptelnber-2\l4 ot aboul 09:00 p.n, upon th" o ets of Ayal. PahM I alonguilh thc '-ti?l kilhng leam< ot wo'in Cnmnando and s.ald Sfu)troo had t;fllmittPd ttt n der of Mul?h;a tlo cr Taiq ZeesiJln by maktnS

fing it Nasir ColotlY KorangL On 24t' Oclober'2004 at aboul Og:30 p m, I akngu'ith the largPt killing reams ol Saiid Stutru had conmitt?d lha murder ol Ashiq Hussain @ Babul umsi (aaiitl bv no*tng f ring a! SPCtor-32/D, Nesit Colony Kordru9' In 20042005, Mohflnnlad Anwar thtough Pho'1e ltom Lnndon called ne in Fandlo ADo menl Duboi Wh?n I arriLEd in Holcl lh?n Mohamnad Afiuat' Liaauat buieshi (died), Airr,al Palai (affest?d) and lt1haz Commando u?ft aioa, iresent lhereal. Mohamnad Anudr dis'lo, me thal Altaf ll L:'ain orafiia'nin to constitute tor+ct ktllinS lPans in Karuchi for @mmt':tn8-.tlP murder ol Anti oeopk ol MQ-M, and you all nay con'titul" the lar4cl killtng tpams in'Kanchi. ind he asked Sho*eel Unat lhal "you uill support and Ptty hem mlyy ftr expenditure" .

1; 2005, I alonglLttlh IhP larget killing teoms of Sald Shatru .ond wasim Haqeeqi unrlct by Abbas hod connitrei tlu nurdtr ol car ndinS unknown nlaking nt Liaquatabad-No.4,

On 2Ot' March-2lls at about O7:OO HB ol lhe coenng lime' I alongutllt - lhe torget kitling lenn ol Srlid Shatru had comnlilletl nurdPt o[ Ihe QroAer oJ PML(Q) nanely Ahsan Aziz

In lune-2005, I dlongwilh th? tr7get killi118 teanl .oJ SaJd Sha.tru had. comnilk; thP murder of edb-tP opentar hstud in ba'kside kl1e of Edht-Hone al "]" area Korangi-No.s, ln tutu-2005 al about 09:30 Hrs ol the ea?ning hme' I alonguith lhe taroet i:illins" lzam of Soiid Sha u hld cotnniltPd lhe nurdlr ol Zubair Tunda by'm*ing frn g * iear'Malkayudli Pulya I calDc r! ), Kotangi-No'2'1n"

I

\-\o:

rnd Dt Rasheed had conmil t?d ln 2006,1olongwith Sajid Shttru' MoaiAn?cs at ne the ,w *,;aii )ii,,g undPtu)ottd u'orkir bv making fnng -.{ "i., .oflet ofc listana-]aul&r ' I alongailh lh? laryet kilting Ofi 18th Fcbfuary-2006 al aboul 03:30 D m, Haqeiqi wo*et Shah Nau'az ,* "iiiri,i ti'i nia o,nmitted the nutir oJ [i' -"d, i i",i ii s,,'or-57o, Korart si -No 6 htnc' t lhr on 24tt' lutu-2006 al aboul 07:00 Hn ol thc et)ening -alongwith the nurder of Qadir Bux @ "*"iii,,i ,lii "isqiia at l nmo Goth Korangi sn,* had coniitred 'i,i,';,i,fb,i ^,i"eiins I alongui.th the bnryd liLlifl9, i On 2A- Sqtzmbet-2llb nt abo l 02:30 Ht5' (docoilJ on tunrynt t o* oi ir-t,a ino* ,p' kidnapping SabPm Kan'Kata nurd?r by noking nt Karbala fing fton irndhiNo anil @mntlled ht' 'Grotnd

rcar Na1ry Headquart?rs- time' I alongwilh TahY Iamba ln 2007 at abou! 10:30 Hrs of lhl flight 7)k;' hod trurder of tlu **"." urtt"lr,' iif. xwhif Daoii and 'o^*iu'd ';::;;"";;';;;;;'i;h;,)k 'nonetv oanish and his unknown actomptices bv fiah ng fing at Mark?t Road RanchorP'Lafie ' of Haidcr Ifl't2OO7 at about 08:30 Hn' I aLotgt' ailh lh? laryel k1lli118 lcofi

c,ut'6lliti'ct,,iii,' ii-ioi*iu'a ti 'u'a" o1 N.deem @ sP b! ma^.ns gt' fing dt fiear Masl'an Choura Irt 2OO7 at about 03:30 Hrs' of thE noon-time' I alongalth the target ItP nu Pr of hnnet^ioint sectot rrttirr'ir",i""tii"iil"ii-n i*a **.hi'ua Khan by naking ing at i?it 2-K Bus stop i;ri;r;;'ir;lk *tlely lmrafl f Sakh-Hassan lhe noonltme' l alofl{ wilh On 29th Fcbnnry 2007 at aboul 12:00 Hrs' of the murd?r oJ unknoun had conniied ,h" *:; iitt;;"*;;'"i saia shatnt coth ' i oq";q', *o,w,Ey .oxiig fi n ng at llyas tnt I dlollga'ilh lfl Decnnbct, 2007 at aboltt 07:OO rl's of lhe morning ' t oy thte Benyati darcils on ,w ,,,nl,7iit"i[i",*""t i,tii swt " naiooolne secrrrn brouthi at Machli-Mon ll1'Quarlers

L/L'

-nnoint hom 1ll'Quatlen mutd?r "tiT"i'i"l *i-'ia thei bv msklng finS

L'ondon an! ot('rcd ln 2008, Muhannod Anwar phoned me ftom ry" murder ol Buadn Paa,r Attl ijnat tanart to commii had '#L;,iii;;';;;'';;*;tn '-,-,'e;;;;;;; Abbas Dr' Rast.ed and M?hnrcod-cnmmando' in Defn'e' i"i,lit atn i*an"lBu der Pivat Ali siddiquc bv naking finy alongu"llh thP larSel ln 2OA8 at about 07:30 t'lts' of ll( eoening tine' I ol two unknon n loorkcr attnr'|),,iii i"iii sn'i*'n'a *'hin'a ttu nlurder li

cholt'ran*' oJ PP7 by t okinglnngat Singet killing tcam of Airl,ol Pahttr. llt ln 2008, 1 alonS wtth thz larget 1"'i' ol Mutehda worl"t tu " '.Ly Lmton 'Ra'shec'd' ,"a N*r-'i"ili nia Mostid' GodPn n e street ol lmamtBoryah' httani U';;;;'i;';^;;:si;;; 'ot^i11e7i1'a killinS leam oJ Mule'hdn I?'*d'W' In Aoil2OOS I alongwith lhz laryel FeroiFowt' As'tam Acham' Na'e'en' Atsha;';;il;"a;;-;d1Pr ocinptices 'amitv kilter< had set fred tn ?;:li"h.-i;;;;;d Imnn saeed and )/i ottut tat?ct Ir? uehi(les ol tatvrs TdlirPlozanPoIcihJCout!,rcsunngtt,hichJoulopioncnllau,'yetsoIMu.Ichda. ,#i ir^-, i,a.on''a ai"a w' alsa iaused tumages ta patkPd in Ih? Pntkiflg area'1

On 12h' Ausust'2OOB at about 02:30 Hrs l atong t'ith the torset killinS siii tud kidnapped thz Haqeeqi ao*et namdy sagheeruddin -l "'- "isriii afler siopping Mazda coach at Babar Mqrkrl Lafidhi anil cofimillctl h$ mutder iy noJang fnng at MurLau Chounngi' on 24ttt Ausl)s-2OOB al abou! 03:i0 Hrs l dtonguith th? target hllinS norket Mazh1t Kala tean of Saiid Shati had commilt?d lhe nturd?t of Haq?Pqi tt,t nalin[fangot B s Stop Konngi No's tn 2OOg. I alonsuith Mutehda larsel kill?rc nomcly Man| fahit Rehan @ Dr. Rashced, Asil Anl Kala Boch' €i shao'b -t,nhn Ainal Pahon: Abduttah, lqbll ond his a ,i*ii,*a murder ol Haryeqi ViLe Chaift an namcly Badar iier by making fnng ai neai Light llouse M A lin'1oh Road' and other b't 2OOg, I aloflguith lTaidet Gaddi, Dt' Rasheed' Tahir Lafiba orl@r natiely. Abrut or*-itiii noa comkiued murdtr ol MQM Haqeeqi al Sttora Mdrk?t n?ar Hussiin Zardi by making fing uith out respcctiLY anns Suld<ur Bakery Ranchore Lane On lJ'd tun?-2009 n. about 07:30 Hh oJ the norning littt t dlollgwilh toto?! kiLlina leam al Sdiid Shitnt lwa 'omnltled lhe n1u'dPt ol HaqPcqt 'i*r'nor"U th?

tlour"a fdndaby makinS f in8 at Chiagh Holcl Landht' On Sttt lanuanr21t1 at abo l O5:OO Hrs l dlong th lhe tary?t k ling pr. ois"iia inom iia hdl1aw?d th? haqePqi worker nanely Aamir' brcught at Koranigi No.5 \t, and conmitted his murderby making frmS On 18'r F?bruara'2010 at abott 08:30 Hrs l alongwilh D); Rash??d and

Shani iad ,onmitpd"the muttur oJ booki? AsiJ Bhool by making fing at Bafl twn-N agar, Bufldani Colony, Li1qutab\d' on 311 lulu-2010 at abo t 08:30 Hrs , I alonR't\th Ainal Pa ' - '\nfq Dhobt, Wasm Connando, Tattir Multah, KathiJ Daaid Ali Chutiv-a' l\t-hat @) ol ANP rumety Mani, B al @ Shrnt hld conmttlcd thc fiutd"r al lht?c tooi<ers ulth Kalashnikol' al Banaras dunng Naueed. lrJon and lmran by naking fnng clash bctween Pathan Mohtjir' on o4th Aueust'2010 at aboul 03:30 of tha moftlin| time- I alongwith lh? tn,?et iilline teai of Saiid Sh'tru made fnnS uith Kalashnlko! 6 Pistots dt ntip nfae in zn Colonu f'orangi, ftsulting wh(h lu'o tL'irk?r oJ ANP nanetlt l'n1oi xhon ond AzizAhn?d were died thile Naidr Ali' AWb' Ahsan and

lmrfrflbecofie ittjured taryet kilUng On 24tt' Februory-2L7| at about 07:30 Hrs l alon|It'ith thc Sir,* rt commilted thc nurd?r of hDo u kaou'n trcrk?rs of

PPP

tro "iSrii by mahngfnngat near singer Aoorangi tcan.

On 24 ' luty-2012 at about OJ:00 p'n l dloflgu'ith th?.tdryet .killins the bous of l./.nl Sector lnchtrS? Salcem I nqolabi fiodr inng "f soiii shalau aniona g-MM ttu Afaq Ahm?d-al fl?-ar vbQ, iii'xausnnila Pislols al uehiclP oJ Mohdfinda Pdlaol.Pum| L'ondhi, resulting 10ilh At'aq Ahned's Cunnun'/Yl Eaisal died a d 03 Persofis uere inj'red' l?adcbhip ]n lhe ueat ol20t3 du? lo arcebrahnfi in operahon lhe aforesatd allea -ne at 'sO ,rd ord""d ne to3olokan ror u'hich ny P?t'porl lt-as sot 'i","lii ,ra in seopnb, r/aclobet-2ll3 1. / nQtar Qafln-Khan' lnd salid aPft Corolla Car at Cor''adat kan bordet ;krc Ih?

pctson i-,,*i'i i" ^"^rt'X nts tuo sons w'elrcmed us. sincP' Hdji ttds continuourly iii ';;;;;r;;',;r-;";;ri ""^il "irrr*i* *ith thP aloresaid teadership lherelore' te utelcome.d us Aner ifissins h& daVs, he Rot atangcd o|1t m?cling (ilh lwo llant -IntPllteell(e" ,im)* et, ina Zain'ul-Abideen, u'ho inhmaled abo l htgh leqdetshtP oj ",iiiu-rlii "riau 'ti"1"itt Writ itv som? ne@ssory u'erks ,ti, iitt us, but in retum thcv -,tilipo'tant hn)e to do tM'|'riorr (lihads", worl< wos'rtu nurd oJ

I

i

I

@hn are inaolaed. ifi Shifl Comnunity killi Ss on the instaflce of Goot oJ Pokista.n according to ba i Offcerc. lNe rest assurcd to lrafli Officers tlat ue { shall make etxry possible cooperutiorl 10ith tlwtt After two rnonths stdy in sofe lanse in lnn, wi hod gone to Dubai on the order of high leadershrp and while staying theteat, ue rcmiined futlowing the orders of high leadership I hal.)e repeflted fiotfi AlmiShty Allah, and tm satisfred r\ith this statefient-

Law on retraction ofjudicial confessions.

15.AIter a review oI the relevant law on the lega1 validity oI judicial confessions the Hon'ble SuPreme court in the case of Ch. Muhammad V Yaqoob V The Stare (1992 SCMR 1983) reached thd Iollowing conclusion:

"The legal position, u,hich hds efieryed front the abooe ftPotts' seems to be that ifl order to i dge tha enidentiary odlue of rettacted confession, the Coutt is to ailoert to the questiort, @hether the sdme appeats to haoe beefi tuaile aoluntatilA, @ithout arly ifuihtcefieflt, ilutcss ot coercion with the object to state the tfltth. If the Court is satisfkil ofl the abooe aspectt the fierc fact that therc u)ere sorne irregtlarities ifl recorilifig of a cofifessiotl, tttoulil not utaftaflt ilisregatilillg o/ tle same".(bold addtd)

76.It is settled law that a rehacted judicial conJession can be Iegally admissible and used against its maker in cetain circumstances. In the later case oI Muhammad Amin V The State (PLD 2006 SC 219) it was held atP 224 Patug as under;

"g. Theft is no caoil to the ProPositio that @noictio coulil haoe been a@atileil on the bosis of ftfiacte.l cofl/essio'|t tohich pro?osition @os eaanifled it case of Mst. IoYgu,t Bibi o Thqstate PLD 7960 (Sc lPab 37 3 as unilet-

"We areluwblz to suppofi the Ptoposition of lau' laid doun by _tha tearned ludges m lhis regatd. The relrutlion oJ a cont<<ton tJ d circumsince tlhich has flo beoifl| uhats@oer uPon ihe questiofl uhethet ifi tl12 ftst instaflce it tuas Lqlufltaily made, afld ofi the fnlfur questiofi uhethet it is true. Tha fact that thz fiaker of lhe confession latet does flot dhere to it canrlot by itself hooe afly effect uryn tfu lndings reached as to whether the coflfessiofi Toas lnltnlnry, and if so, uhether it u)os bue, ht to uithltaw flom a self'ttccusing statetlctlt ifi dircct face ol the coflseqteflces of the acc satiof is explicable fully W the Protinity of those consequences a il fleeil haoe flo conlTection uhatsoelrer toith elthet its oaluntary naltte, ar the tt tll of the facts stoted. The leamed ludges uere Petfectly li1ht il1 first deciding these two question', afld tlq ansl'ers being il1 the

/L

t0

I

-l\'

at'firmatbe, in declaing that the cofifes\iorl W itself uis sulfcieflt, tdkefi with the ottgt facts afid circlrnstlflcEs to suppott Abdul Wids cofloictiofi. The rctractiorl of the cotfessiotr was wholly irflfiateial ofice it uras fotnd that it was l)olufltLry as well as true,"

1-0. SinLtLarty irl lhe c,ise aJ tlu State o. Minhwl alias Gul Hassan PLD 1964 SC 8L3 this Cnurt lxas obseraed as underi

" As t'or the cont'essiotts the HiSh Ct)urt, it apPeafi, was ihtly consciol,ts of the fact that rettacted confessio whether jttdicial ot extru jndiciil, could leSall! be takzn into cotlsidetation agaifist the fifuker of th(he cafllessions hifiself, afld if the confessiofis alere found to be true altcL ooluntary, then tl@re @as no need at dl to look fot fwther cotrobofition.It is well-settled tfurt as agairtst the nalcer hi'fiself his confe\siofl, jlldicial ot extn illdicial, whethel rcfiacteil or not rcttdcteil, cat in lao oatidl! fonn the sole basis of his conoiction, if the Court b satisfied a d belieoes that it loos tfiie anil ool ntary afiil was flot obtained b! totture or coerciott Dt induceme.nt. ' bold add,ed\

77.Thus, the court laid down a two Pronged test as under (a) l$/hether the retracted judicial confession aPPears to have been made volunta ly, without any inducement, duress or coer(ion and (b) was made with lhe object to state the lruth.

18.Notably it was also held that if both (a) and (b) wele satisfied that even if there were some ifiegularities in recording oI a confession it wotrld not waffant disregarding oI lhe same. ln our view however following the case of Azeem Khan V Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274 such irregularities must bb of a mino! natue and must flot have detracted flom either the volufltariness or tuuthfuhess of lhe conJession.

19.In tlre case oI Bahadur v State (PLD 1996 K 336) although it was suggested that a iudicial conlession alone can be made the basis of conviction the

safer cou6e was to look to 6ee if there wa3 any corrobolatlve matedal available to determine its tmthfulness.

20.In the case oI Manieet Singh V State (PLD 2006 SC m) a tur:her requirement seemed to be added that in determining the truthfulness of the conJession it had to be within the aontext of the whole of the plosecution Placed ev idence/ caseZ

27.In our view therefore we ale not in any doubt that a retracted confession before a ate cal1 be the basis oI convicting in a capital casq however it must be;

(a)Voluntary i.e. without threat or inducement and

(b)Its object must be to state the truth; assistance lor which can be ascertained ftom (i) whether the confession appears truthful within the context oI the prosecutioll case and (ii) whether the.e is any othiri evidence on Iecord which tends to .ofoborate the huthfulness of the conjession and

(c)Only minor irregularities regarding the rules €oncerning the recordint of iudicial confessions can be perrnitted as determined on a case to case basis the main criteria being that su.h irregularities have not adversely effected the voluntarinesB or truthfuln€ss of the confession.

22.Averting to the procedural safe guards which are applicable to the lecording of conlessions such p nciples were set out in the case oI Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) which concemed judicial conlessions under 5.164 CI.PC belore judicial magistrates.

j

14.The dicial confessions, allegedly fiade W both the appellants L,e the mdlerial piece of a)ide1lce it1 the prosecution hind, therehrc, \ae uo ld deal 4ith the sane in the frst instafice.

i5, Keeping in oiew the High Court Rules, laing down a birulifig procedure far Lakillg tequireil plecalttions and obsen)ing the requirenents of the prdtision of section 364 rcad uith secnor 154, Cr.P.C. lry nou it llas becofie a trite lau thflt befote rco ing cont'ession and that too ifl ciites efitailing capitalbunishnent, I the Recofilifig Magistrdte has to essettially obserue oll these tuandatory preca tiotls. The fufldarfiefital logic behin l the safie is that sll sigtts of fear i clrlcated by the Inoestig.ttittg Agen! ifl the nifiil of the s.cc sed orc to be sheilileil out a4il he is to be ptuoide.l fxll assut.tfice that lfl case he is ttot guilty ol is not rnakilg a cofl/essiorl ooluntailV thefi ifi that case, he zoolld ltot be hanileil oner bacl. to the policc, Therea$eL suf|lcient Lime for reJlectiafi is to be gioen aJter the f.rst uimi E is adtfiiltistercd. At lhe eryiry of that tifie, Recodiftg Mdgistfite has lo adninister the second Taatning and the ac sed shall be assured that nou he uas in the safe hatlds, All police oficials uhether i/t unifomt or othenoise, including Naib Court attached to the O)urt must be kept outside the Co rt aru1 beyond the oiew of the rccused. After obseruing all these legal requiterneflts if the accuseil pe6o?, is uiilling to confess, theft oll fequirel Etestiotts formulated by the High Cottlt Rules I should be put to hful afld the afisuerc gioefi, be recolileil itt the uolils spokefl by hi/tL The statement of t|ccused be rccoded blJ the Magis*ate i[ith his oun hand and ifi cose thefe is a gen ine cofipelling reason the , a speciaL nole is to be gioen thot the satne uns dictated to a responsible olficial of the Coutt liLc Stenographer or Reader and oath shnll also be idmifiistered to such offcial that he g

,,Y

would correctlv tvpe or wite the tnle qnd cotrect oersion, the accus4tl stated afid diclated. by tll, Magistlate, ln c$e, tlle accused is illiterite, t\rc bnfession he fiakes, if recorded h aflothet lafiguage i.e. Udu or EnSlish tl9n, ifret its conpletiofl, the same be read4oer nnd eiplaified to hin in the laflguage, the accused fully understand and thereaftet a czrtifcate, ds requiled ufider seclion 354, C|,P.C. |L)ifh regir.l to these prcceedings be gtoen bjl the Maglstrute LLndet his seal and signatures ond the acctgeil shall be se# to j.til ofl iudicial il lerfia il afiil rifig this prccess at ho occisiofl he shatt be hafidcd. o,)et to any police olficiayo/fic whethe/ he is Naib Co tt roeaving police u?tifotm, or afly other police officiaVofficel because s ch carcIess ilispe satiofl toould considetably diminish the ooluntary nature of the cofifession, fiaile by the occused,

16.lthe irlstaflt cose, the Recordiflg Magistlate namely, Ch. Taufq Ahmed ditl not obsen)e least preca tians, requiredifider the ldu. He @as so caleless thit the cofifessiotts ol both the appellants trere rccorileil ot ooth, grossly tiolatiflg the law, the sarfle, thereforc, hN rmdered the cotfession i?tadrnissible uthich caflflot be safel! rclied upofl keepirlg ifi oie@ the piflciple of safe adrniflistrotiotl of jttstice,

17.The Reco ing Magisbate cofirfiitte.l successiue ill?galities ofi? aJt?r the other is a/ter ftcordifig the co fessiofis of the appell4rlts ofi oatb both @erc haflileil ooet to the safie police officer, ulho luil ptoiluced thefi it the Court in hafldct{fs. This fact bespeaks llollt nes that the Recording Magis*ate wos either flot lcnouirrg the laut on the subject or he uas acting in the police ua! desircd b! it, comprcnisirlg his judicial, obligations. This cmeless attiluda of the Magislrnte ptuoided preniu to the InaestigaLing Ageflc! becduse it uas lh4reafter, that the recooeries of the so-called incrininatin| articles were made at the instance of the appellafits, datail of t,hich is mentiorcd abooe,$old add,ed)

23.In the case of Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 898) it was emphasizeci that if the judicial confession was the only piece of evidence against the accused then ignodng procedural saieguards wofl d amount to the whole conlession being disregarded and in cases ofjudicial confessions as alluded lo earlier there was a requirement of conoboration in the following terms at P.898,

"The ofily othet piece of eoiilence rcnaiflittg ifl the field was a j dicial coflfessior dllegedly ma.le by M ha?n nad Iqrar, I<halid Hussain and Shakir ALi a.ppellants bcforc n Magisfiate un.ler sectiofl 764, Cr.P.C. but admittedry the said jltdicial cofifessiofl had beefl retracted by the appellaflts befoft the trial cottrt arlil ifl the absence of ahy ifidepefidefit conobol'ation sltch fe*octed. judicial coflfession coulil ttot suffice all by itself fot ftcotiling or upholditlg the appellafits" col,toictiofis. The record also shous that the aryellants hnd submitted an orylication hefore the tiaL tourt maintainhg that they had rcoer been produced before a Magittrate t3

l

t recordinR al 'alnbuled )ptr cofit'ession, ind lhal lh? ca't.'<tons to thcl ue? bogus. The p"ot?cdinSs of rc.ordo.l oJ lh? judicinl coflfession deposed nbollt by the rcleoint Magistuate shott) 'Lhat it hod beefi fientioned in thase proceedings thnt before recording the confessions lhe handcuffs of the rypellants hrd beefi ftfiooed. me shteneflt flada by the coflcemed Magistrite before the tial court shows that some Police consl^bLes did rerfiaifl in the Lolilroo al lhe tinc of recording ol lhe confesstons '

21.Like wise in the case of Fazal Rehman (Supra) it was held as under at

P.251;

i "(d) Fot Lhe purpose of arrioing at Ih. collclusion Qhether a relracted confession may form the basis of conoictiorl if belieoed to be true afid ootuntaily mitle, thr Co rt has to take ifilo considelation not o ly the easons gitex fot making the confessbn or retlacting but the ottending facts aid circtmstances sunounding the safiE Thel'e cat be no 'absolute rule that a rctructeil coflfessiofi caflnot be acteil Pon filess the 9afie is corroboruteilnateially. But as a fialtet of pruileftce afld caatiofi tDhich has safictified itself illto tt tule of laut,- 'a letlacteil cofifessiofl caflflot be tflaile solel! the basig of conoicttbfl ,tless the same is cottobotateil. mis, hotueoet, does ftot necessaily mean that each and eoery cicumst.fice mentiotqd in the confessioi rcga ing the complicity of the accused nust be seParately and independenlly corroboruted nor is it essential that the corrobotation must corne ftofi facts atld circumstances discoaeftd after the confessiofi 1as made.Sold added)

(n Tne confessio of an accused Wtson is sLtbstantioe eoidence ind o iomtiction can be based soiely on tht cofifessian me question holreoer, as to ulhetfur ofi tha facts afid cinmstafices of a gioefi cdse the Ciurt should act tpon such o coflfessiafi abfie is an efitircIy differefttly questiofi, I,hich rclat;s to the weiSht afld eoide tbry oalue of the anfession Nopnllg speaking it tooild ttot be qite safe, 4s a tfiattet of pfideflc4if-not of taro,-to basc a cofiaiafiott lor fiuriler on thP confession of the illeged muderet, by itself a d without fiorq wheh the co hssio is open to good deal of cttticisln.(bold atu ed)

25.Iumrng to the iudicial conJesslon of the aPPellant we find ftat we have glave doubts that it was made voluntadly ol was even made at all lor the following leasons;

il

(a)In his 5.342 Cr.rc statemmt the appellant denied maki.Ig axy 1 confession before any magrstrate and stated that it was already prePared by the police and lrrs signature was only added.

(b)It also begs the question why after 13 years of the olfence in question he would admit to it now knowing that it carried the death penalty when there was not a shred of evidence against him in any such case. This does not aPPeal to reason, logic or corunonsense,,, .

q

q

(c)According to the prosecution he was brought before the iudicial rnagishate to record his coniession which he did alter being given due rellection time. However it beggars belief dlat before the magistrate he was able to wdte out a 10 page detailed statement in manuscriPt without any corections or crossings out or sPellins mistakes listing in chronological order all the c mes which he had committed Irom 1994 to 2016 a period spanning over 20 yeals which amounted to around 47 separate incidents in which he was able to name all of fus accomplices on each occasion, who they muidered, where the murders took place and the date and the time of such murders. It is oimply not believable that he was able lo prepare guch a detailed and precise confession of so many murde$ over a span of 20 years without any kind of dairy or other aid. To produce such a list of occurences as mentioned in his confession you would need to either have a Photographic memory or computer like memory. \ly'e find that lt is quite apparent that the list was PrePared Ior him and that he was made to sign it and as such the confession was not made volunta ly.

(d)With regard to the case in hand he confesses as under;

"Ofl O2nd Septerflbet-20q3 at dbout 04:30 Hts, I alorlgtblth my other accottpliceg fiarnely Faisal Larfiba, Wasirn Abbns, Wasirrt Commando, Haidet Gaddi @ Chlttiya and other 7042 Mutehda workefi hail cotflfiitteil the mwilet of Saeed Ahrfied, Tayveb, MazhaL Naufitafi, QaA Yaqoob afid llrnair .ldifl by ntaking filing at Azizabail"

It is significant to note that PW 1 Syed Waqar Huss,a i who witnesses the incident did not recognize him in court as teing present at the time oI the incident. PW 1 also corihadicts +he iccused conJession by stating in his evidence that 0J Persons on two motor bikes escaped from the scene yet in the confession 4 people are specifically named along with 10 to 12 others So who were the 10 to 12 others which PW 1 ought to have seefi if the conJession is h'ue?

(e)That in his u.dtten statement which was Part of l{s 5.342 Cr'PC i statement the appellant has stated as under along with I documentary proof in the shaPe of passPort and visals and death

I

certilicate which gives weight to his contention that hE was made I to sign a pre prepared con{ession; I

UNDER

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.

L Sfi, I am i nocefit, and haoe no coficem roith the alleged ofence, <;t t a frlino lhi\ t|ilLtn .Lalenpnl to reufu auestion. "Do vo,, tr1nl lo sa! an.tthinq else" and prayet that the sinY may be trcated as relly of -i abaoe fle tioned Etestiofi.

It. Si/, I toas arresteil orl 74.03.2076 itt Dubni and btought to Karachi befiDeen the night of 21,D2,/3/2076, anil thercafter I zoas detaifled fot 90 .lavs by the tafige$ pefion ufiilet sectiort 77 EEEE of Arti-TefioAsfi Act 7997, ,tothing agaiflst ,ne @as follttil, aflil on expiry of 90 days ftmaflil, I uias hdnileil ooet to Nabi Bttx, police by lhe range$ personals on 21.06,2016, SIP Choudhry Taique anl t5

o/ficial of police station Nabi B , hail coflE at Metha Rarfl Llostel, Kalachi anil shown n\l arrest in case FIR No.3302009 undet L sectiofl 30U34 PPC of police statiofi Nabi Bltr Raruchi as Pcr entulJ No.34 dated 27.06.2076 and memo of formal atest doted 27.06,2076 I ploiluceil the saiil efib! afiil rnefio of afiest as Afifiexwe A/7 aflil A/2. rcspectioely and bro ght me at police station Nabi Bux anil on the folloT.t)ittg day I was proih6eil befote leamed. naristtate ulrc allouted ny physical remand for 5 dnys i police c stody and on ils eaTiry I raas agtin produced before the leanxed filogistrate, u)ho tlLdoed three mole days as my physical refiand in police a$tody ot1 27.46.2it1. I lltt:]s again produced before the fiagistlate, sir it is Poiflteil out that aII the tifie .ohefl I has proiluced belore the fiagistrate, the ruttg.rs percofial uere also aoailable aflil took Part itu nll the prcccedifi9, sit uihere tfly sigfiatute uas obtained ot1 prc .lfifted paPers, sir ihting ilete tiotl i raflgen I @as badly totlurc/threatE a d put in prcss re fot sigfiing the sarfie, sir 7 hail ,tot gioefi aty cofifessioflal staternefit as alleged blt thq prosetutiorl, b4orc the Magistrate, I say thnt the alleged statemefit has been plepared / drafted by the police @ith i collusion afiil as pel iliftction of raflgers Persofials,

L

and they haoe htndtd owt its draft the leafied nagistrdle, ha had copied it, it is ,1ot t1y statenent I afi ilfiocefit afid haae bee falseLy bfiplicated in tLlse cases ilue to ni! pdst relationship tith MQM politicaL Plltty.

L Sit it is pettinefit to fiefltio1l ooer hel'e, that this fict has been est.tblishe,l from 'the alleged confessioflal statefieflt tlrat sofie of the ificiilents alleged ndfiitted by ,ne, took Place, uhefi I u)as not eoefl in Pakistaq i.e. (i) irtcidefit shorofi took Place ofi 20.03,2005, of m tder of Ahsan Aziz case, I was at Dubai ftorn 07.03,2005 to 26.03.2005 (ii) iltciilent showfl took place ofl 20.09.2006 regadifig t twiler of Saleen Kuqkata, case, I uas abroad fton 27.08.2006 to 27,09.2006 Gii) incident shoton toak place o11 71.06.2a05 ol lmran case, I was abtuail ftorrl 07.06,2005 to 19.07.2A05 I ptodrce tha copll of pissPort. dlLd traoetlitlg histoty rcgailirlg mV nolr. aoailability in Pakistctl in the dlleged days of

I

itlcialents arc attached heleu)ith are fiarkeil .ts anfiareil "Bl7 to B/4" rcspectioel!.

lV. It is s btnitted, thit in alleged confessional statenLent, it is hentiorcd thltt in the incident ofTohir Plaza uhich tookplace in thz yeat 2008, I adnitted that I corfimitted the alleged lncideftt alang|ith other including Feroz Fuji this fact has beeft falsifed that said Fercz Fuii has abeaily ileail siflce 2005. CopA of his death cenificate &fld f neral slip are attachcll heretuith afid tfiakrcil as afifiexute g/1 and C/2 rcspectioely.

I

Sir, it t, lurthct pomled oul thal lhe learned judi,ml magislrllc nanel t Sied Inran lman Zaidi uas PosLcd sme a lonS tenure tith thc juisdiction of police station Nabi Bux Ksachi and it is svbmitted lhat anV suspcct orfesledby th? la!'enhrccmcnt asenrtJ Jron uhalso?uPr are' ot-juiididon oJ any othtr Wlicc station ol Kora.h lheir aflPr arc bhou'n alleged recooery of aflts and ammufiition fiom the juisdiction of Police sfition of Nabi Bakl$h Yrrochi aflil rcgistercil cases artd sho@tt obtained their coltfessiofial statefleflts it1 frcnt of the sLid Magisfi,ate, ,norc ouer the leatneil Mogistrate has aihttitteil ift his e|'iilefice about 1-ecotditlS of s cll fiatare anil s.,11rc formats cofifessioflal statemefits of suspects nafiel! Mifihai, Uzdir Baloch afiil others, sb the leafieil Magistfite also lecoileil coflfessiofial slatflncfits of one Raees Mafia, lmra Saecd, Syed Mehnz Mehdil

Zaidi afld otheB as tfiefltio eil abooe, Colies of so Le statefieflts arc attdcheil heftwith afid rfiarke.l 4s amrexure i'DA" to D/4 respcctiuely for the kind Perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

Si, I .,as fnbely im)ohxd in this blind FIR uithout afiy eaidence flol I saue anu cofifessional statemefit oolunlarily as alleS?d' nau'I am dl "nerry oi this't1on-ble Cou and pr|llr fot justiL? Jton th$ Hon'bl? co,rrt. (bold added) sd/-75.08.2020 (AHMED qAEED @ sArFXStX#)

26.The above statement and attached documents show that the accused was not in Pakistan at the time of some of the murders which he conjessed to and in some cases lus accolnPlices were aheady dead at the time oI the murder referred to. This gives further credence to the lact that the accused was made to sign a pre prepared confession as alleged by him and cannot be simPly bfushed aside'

27.Thus,,when the above point6 are all taken together we find that by giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt the confe6sion of the aPpellant was not maf,e voluntaril"v and even the truth of 6ome of its content6 are doubtful and ao such we disregard the Bame and Place I1o ielian(e on it'

28.Even otherwise, we find countless significant Procedural erlols in the recording of the judicial confession which in our view tend to caste doubt on whether it can be safely relied upon. For example,

(a)lt was made under oath

(b)The accused was brought to make his conJession by the Police and was handed back to the Potice drter making his conJession

(c)He was not warfled that the confession may be used against him in his evidence.

(d)Such procedulal irregularities and others are amply ' ' demorsLted by the cross examination oI the iudicial magishate by the appellants counsel before the trial cout which is reproduced below for ease oI reference;

CROSS TO MR. T'iIJSHTAO HMED. L RNED coufi NEL FOR THIE A CCUSED SAEED BH At thz time of recording the abooe Cnflfessiofial State'nent of tllc Dresent accuseil, my lingth of sercice 'as approximal?ly 04t' 'vcdts.

No sepante application lot r?rcrding co fessioial ;hlefienl of thc accuseil Saceil was gioen Io fie in lhis casP' I did not i$ue aq Certifed Copy of abooe Confessional Statement recorded b4 ne ti tht LO of lhts tose. I ha,)e only passed lh? o Pr lo produi th? n(uscd afet 24 hour\' Il it thc domain oJ lh" f O tu y'

'Ll/s issue Notice 160 C\'PC to the accused Shcq it is the fnctiotl of the l.O to tisue Notice, thereforc, said Notice is to be lcpt W the Oalh, thcrefore' I 'liuiSinre, the accusedhinself disctosedhisonstaleneflt i.o- n"ntioo"d in thc F Lifle ol Thr lst Line/fitle lttas aerbatim afitten W rhe, as disclosed bv tha dctused' t;t lfu lime ol reco inRhis slalcmenl on oalh ll is incafi?cl Io say that the offsent accus;dhod nol slaleil in hts slalPment on oatlt a' ,n hts it Line. h? slatPd lhz some, whi.h t hftue mentioncd ll t' a had locl lhal in tlle C?ftificate,I hale fio! ntcnhoncd lhat accubccl re.orded h* slatem.it on Ooth, Vol. sav< lhat <tnce, lh? (ettifote , as isiucd btt mc a):d ,t)05 5t111cd bu ti and t'or this reaso t' I did trcl menlion'rhe -ba,'c la.t- is'a lact that the -n'1! o/ accuseil Saeed Bharam uas produced btJ SlO Taiq Mehrflood ofPS Nabi BuL Karachi. me afiest of the acc sed is mentioned ii the Columll of the 'l't Page of the Statemefit' Nofei

At this stage, leafiEil adTrocate /ot the accusbd coflftotlted Pto Forma to tllis witfiess afld b!/ lookittg to the safle, he replieil in affiflnti?te.

lL is 1lot ifi my knouledge thfil accused. Saeed Bhafittn uas flrrestcd bu the LO o[ this case flom Korncht Air7o4 on 22"d Nlath, 200b ti is trot pirt ol the ie@td that the Petiod oI the detntion of the ac&seiL ifl this case has to be iliscloseil. IL is not il my knowledge thtt at the tifie of prodltction of accused Saeeil Bharam before me, I did nol ],1loto phether lrc ttas on Renand U/s, 11 ELEE of ATA, 1gg7 fot g0 days,It is flot ?att of the Re.oril rcgaliling attach of EIR ofthis caset nor, it hos l o',1 li ientionia Uy me. lt is itlcorrect to say that the stod! of recordirtg his statenent afid Uulc1fter, I tetulned back the custody, I of the aicused to Rangers. The custodY of the prcseflt Eccuseil TDas haflded ooet to satue Police official, uho had blought the acc seil beforc me after recotdirlg statefiefit of the accuseil. I do not temember, ulethet, at that time, SIO was in proper Untftrm or flot.It is a lact thal no lail wananl was 'attached it the time ol ptoiluction oI lhe a.cusc.l belotc me. I had flot issueil afly Jail Watant |ftet rccordbtg the statetue t of the ptesefit \co$ed Saeed Bhan ' It is incofiect to say thot I haoe oiolateil the ptotrisions of Rule n o{ federat CaDilat and Sindh Cotttls Criminal Circular, val. says lhtt at : ne, thr a,tt-<-a a< ftnandPC iont llP Administratiae ludge of ATCi, Hon'ble HiSh Court of sindh at y,arachi, therct'ore, lE was letunled bock to the l.O fot his protlucton be[ore lhP Adminislratiw ]udge oJ ATC| Hon'bte Hiqh Court of rndh ql Karachi. lt is a lacl that aboae t'atl is nol neTloned in'ny order or in onv pafi of llu rccotd. I htoc rc(o cd aw,oxmalelv i5 Cnnfessiondl S;latent?nls oJ dticr?nt dlpnts up nlt nou . Thilu,isdiction ol PS Nttbi Butt rctnain?d tL'ith ni fot thP periotl of 04t, yea6. Il is intorrctt lo say thtl during ny lenurP. ll,.c R t Rprs olf.ials 8ol " rcrd?d all lh? rcr'sionol slolemcnl' before me, b,! inaok)ing t:):c accused percons n High Profle Cnscs I b1J t'ixing the cases Wi 23(i)A SAA, 201i and a/5 EtP, S bs Act, 7b0s ai P.S Nttbi Bil't, KtLtdchi, vol. says that FIR beaiflq No.3302009 tods alreaiLy ftgistered at P,S, Nabi B t, I<druchi Wg 302 PPC, ?tiot to ioinifiS tL! sertices i'l1

I

t8

Iudiciary, as I joifled the ludiciary ift thr yeat 2012, uthich is Fours years nftet the incident. I hall ftcorileil coflfesbiofial stitetueflt of the one acdtgeil nanely Mthammad M thaj Qazi itl FIR No.nnu6 Wi 23(rA SAA, 2013. Likeuise, I hail also recotileil coflfessioflal statefiefits o/ the aacBed llzab Bdloch and other Shitt Actiaists and other accusecl Wrcons under Arms act and Explosilt Substance Act. It is irtcotect to suggest thdt I was ?Dotlcing ufiiler the Ra ger's A thbities afid accordiflgly Rafirerc woulil get ftcorileil statemertt( of the accuseil pelsorls bq o t pltttitlg t ly sigrlafioes ofl thet'; Vol siys that the accuseil also put his LTI a.nil sisfiatwe 1tpofl it. lt is itlcofl'ect to suSSest that all the statefie ts werc pft-ilrufteil statet efits afiil the acctseil percofis uere fie|rer proihrceil before fig It is iflcoflect to suggest thot I haoe flot fiefltiofleil dui g recor.litlS statefiefit of the accuseil Saeed Dhaflfi that his hondcuffs were rclliooeil, It is iflcoftect to sugge|t that I dii fiot ittttoiluce myself as a Magis*ate, befole the.recorilifig |taterneflt of the Ptesent aca$eiL If, it Toas ot ofl recotil then it is cofiect to suggest. It is cofiect to suggest that I iliil not rclnooe the clolhes of the accuseil aflil checked his pit ate parts, Since, all the Pages of the statenent were sigfied by the accased, uhercin, it his been mentioneil rcgading consent of the accused, therefore, it is incofiect to stggest thttt I haoe fiot asked tle accuseil abort afiy tlaltleat 1ent. It is also incorrect to say thal I did not Sioe any secand uamifig to the aacused piot to recording hi6 cont'e\sionnl statenznt. I hitl gtoen second waming to llrc accused al 09BA Io 12:0A PM. It is a fact that ofl 28th Iu e, 2U6' it was RanzatT anll s rrfier oocatiorts uerc i4 prcgress afld ofl that d.ay, I hail recotileil three con/essioflal statefieflts of the accused persofls, lt is a fact thttt iluing abolre ilay aflil time, I also did tly Coutt @o/b so also perfon eil as Link I dge. It t light be possible that I sigBd aftet the Co tt hours.I haoe not meflLiofied in the recotl that a Chair Nas prol)ided to the accused ot the ltne of rcconling hk confessional stdtelnent lt is a fact that I hioe to issue Ceftifcate U/s. 3(A(3) of Cr'PC dt the bottom of confessional statenlent. The ceftified copy of the staterne t aoailable ifi the Co rt does ot bentiw the cettificate. Vol. says th.at n1y hondl\ittefl certit'icite is ooailable on Mefilo of Confe\siofial Staternent.lt is i correct to say that in the Meno of Confessional Stotenent that al the nandatory q estions are ot fiefitioned by me in my hafidloiting fior, their replies. Vol. sttys that thcy werc luflduiltet't by ne lt is ificoftect to s ggest that fieitheL the ptesent 4ccus41 zlas prcduced/preseflt beforc me floL he hail coflfessed anythiflg. I tad recoded the statefiefit of the ^ccuseil as Per his tetbatim, theleforc, I cafifiot say that @hethet o1t 20& March, 2005, 20th Septenber, 2006 and 77the lune, 2005, the pfeseflt \ccuseil Saeeil @ Bhatun was flot ifi Pakistafl. Vol sals that accused niSht haoe misstated his stalefiefit, in order to make his outfl statefient snspicious. As Wr oerbatin, I had recotibd cont'essioflal staterflent oJ the acc sed Saeed Bharan therehre, uhateoer h.as been mentiofted in such staternent is ttue fis per his aerbalim, It is ixcotect to say that the dca$eil Saeed Bhoratx had dkclosed while lecorileil llis state:ment that he uos ,tot prcse t in Pakista fiorn 07th March 2005 to 26th March 2005 a A ftoflt 07th lufle, 2005 to 79'1' Jlt|Y,2005 t9

Taell as 27th Augltst, 2006 to 27'09'2006 lt is incarreci to as 'rlrirsi', tt o, tht accird had not conJe! cd the prcsent innd''lt oJ thi"instant 'tni tlR before mp ll $ in@tt\| Lo soy thal I had rc'aded cinfessionot slatcnent ol the a(cul?d al lhz uibh oJ th?

ir"rii". L nra recorded aiove cont'essiorMl slalemerttoiolol?d of lh? ,.'riuia i, *" Clamber.lt s ncotetl to say lhal I hnoc the Lartt. It is also inanecl to say that I recorded abone statefilfit of thc acc\sedbY oiolati g tfu Rubs

Il'the-is d lad thal Pro Fonna on hich, shteflent U/' 164 Opnnled PC of atlu"crl Ahncd iot?d @ Bharam uas rccord'd uas a Pro Eorna, wherein, questicns uerc also Pifitetl, only rcply of the ,"rur"d *o" uitten by n1e lrith pen. lt is incarrect to say that arcordinc to law, ia,,e lo uilt?fi qucslrcns unth my oun

I

i*au,;inp. tt is a lact that on l't Page, !h? ilale and tine of I ,i"""*"tt'ot **ia t as ol bee ientioned in ParuYaph ii.t. tt x i lact tnat in the Cettificatc u)itten the by fl'c' do?s. iii'iit"toti ftgailing statene,tt naiLe W aca$eil u)itho l a u inircemeit ot pressu'e' lt is a ract thal in t'ly ,"rin.rri," i nr"" not mefiiloncil rcSariling @ns?quenes th? of his ionfessionat stafemenl Vol says lhat il uas inJotfi"d lo accusei. Mu .rt ft' ate is occording lo lau" I had issuPd CPthfr'al?

,rr"rainn ioltciaa l haoe not-mefitio cd that what part of l the bodi of the accusedu)as ecked by me, before rceotding l his statenent" (bol.l adde .

I

{e1 There is no other corroborative/suPporti'"e evidence in resPect dbove is a of ,h" ,"ou","d ;udi.ial confession which as indicated Placed on ..J"."n, unier the la*. In this resPect reliance i6(SuPra) Ismail's case (SuPra) Maieed'6 case and ;i,h;;";

Fazal Rehmanis case (suPra)

,nwe have also (onsidered the fact liat the aPPelldnl 'ds been ronvicted in ano(her case by ilx' court based o1 rhe same .oJ"oion u" i" tf* .ase for whicl-r we have been inJormed leave ," r"o"ul flu" U"* granted by the SuPreme Courl however since *t" it",o be decided on its own Particular facts and "l.Tiri.r.ri (ircumsrances and in accordance with lhe binding authorihes lald i^*- r,, 1t..Lro."^" Court we do not consider ourselves bound (1995 sCMR 362)' iu rt irifg.""t or the Multilines (ase "ii# ", juciicial

29.Thus lor the reasons mentioned above we lind that the retracted conlessiofl of the aPPellant was not made voluntarily and it is more than likely by the that the aPPellant signed a confession Previously PrePared the obiect of sulh confession ti police/angets which he was compelled to sign and wasnottotellthetluthasisevidencedbythescantydetailsgiveninlesPectof the th' e when il lt and the lact that he was abroad dur:ing the 6 murders in this case wele comnitted As such as menlioned some oI the murders which he conJessed earlier we disrega:rd the retracted judicial conlession where after thele is no other evidence left to connect the aPPellanl to the offence for which he wa5

2A

charged and convicted with the result that th€ aPP ellant is acquitted oI the _L cha.rge.

30.The ups\lot of the above discussion is that the aPPeal is allowed' the The appellant is acqiritted oI the charge and the imPugned iudgment is set aside appellant shall be releared unless wanted in any other cu6tody case

U E

IL (

rh * 9>-

JUDGE

I

I

I

l

I

i

I