ABDUL SATTAR S/O AHSANUL HAQ (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

Oah*^l 8L,,.

@ Aze-ow,l,l.

.n by

IN 'I'I.IE I-IIGI{ COUIIT OII SINI]II ,,\'I'I(,\]i,\( II .[]r.rr".-:t!

,\ I t', I t rs I i r'r t\ I rt I r r t t u r t t t t[ /irllll /r lr,r ;r,.1.,/r, r I tt s I i r r: l\,1 r s. l( rt t r s n r S t r ! ! rt r : t'r / Iirsl;,r,iri .Sl'1,, CIilNllNr\1. ,\'[,\\( ).l ls ( )l .](].1.1 -C(lNlrlli\1.\ I'lL))i C.,\5lr N(),i)l ()l :lr:.1 ,t iil:,rrrr';l:,rir .'rii i,iir'..'r ..', l.l:rlr',r,, r : ,',lr 1 lirltr r,tglr l.iar lr lr::' i, it ti., r ir: r,' . i L ..',. -, r, I .,\ s ir t',tci::'. i,,l.r. ..'l .i ,. ,: ..r 1,, 'l'lr,-- lii,rlc tlrt',trr)llr [', Ir ]"1Ltlr;rtr,rr,.:,.i lL l'rl Arr,ir:.,, ,,\,1,lilin:t,:ll Pin{f,,'::t,"' i ir ',,1. 1 5r r Ltii r.

{ iltttl"ria:trant ),"ilrlr,inu:t.r,l r',,1i liriLrur,Ii i''[, :, i', l:.: .. i. , ,i ",\r'r,it.r.: ,lr'r!i -',.ril .i,rr' r; ".r1'.',,',t1,' A AL .;\'f.\ \(). L)lr 2Ll::.

,\rr"ll'rrl .;\,',j111 .-;-fr.,1- _.'r-. ,,.i,.'1, r1i,ii , I.lr i , I r t I t r t r ' t t r r : I ,-r ". .;r" l,ar,.-.i,(rpr-lllti l.lt. :j:,tl(' lll',Ll:'.lr ..ir- l.i .i:,.:: r rr I ,' r,r Ar',ratt, ,i\,1r1 ili*i",;.:l l1:',.;,,,-'rli,: r,. r',r I $irr, lir,

Coir pln irrant I,, i t t j-l;r ttr i tt

r l .,ii: i.r1 ,,.:..., i,l, lr.,,i..rrr :i, ,j \: .',1 .. .". r' . .,,..

Sl'1,. (ll{l}11N.;\l- \ f ,.\ Ntl. 1'']' { tl:'1rr I .1.., -ll.:tt f,iL lr,tr:rnr..l :: rl:,: r, ', i.i :1 ,:. ,'.. I 1,.. 'i.r'.I r ,- ,-..-,i .r,,;, i .' ;

.,\,1',rirl5;trr,i )'li:lil.. /,,', i : ;

Ilcspotrtlcrrt 'l'ltr"' Slatc tlrroulilr i\'lr'. .'r' i r r i , r t r r : , : l,'lt, ,l r : r r , r'\rvart, Artrlil.iorr.rl 1'r(rsscr.rl,,r, Lit'rrtr.ri, SirtLlh.

Ccrrrpl.rirrant

D.rte of I{earing li) r :. ':l Date of f uclgrncnt ll r'r:,':'i

Paec I of131

lqt

ru!-A i\Lg-r'lJ lohnnnnai Karlm Kl,lr.n Aghn, I, Appellarrtr Sh,unshair Ali NIirra, Nltlhanutrart Srlnr.ur antl Alrrlul s.rll.rr rverr, rhittgr. rlrt'r'lt tl kr f,tcc tht ir trials

Y

in Slrri,ll (',rct N{!(rto( 2ll2l ((}ltl $;r'r'i.rl (.ntr'Nn. 157/2(l2l),.rritin11 oul of f ll( No lq/:llll u/( 1(ri.Al rlt2/7{ll /20\/11 l'l'( 2'r li'lcgraph Art r/rv \r litrrr 7 ,1 ,1 ltltll arrtl I lll Nr' 7i/2(l2l t/t .1/'t, [:rPlorivr, 5rrlx. Act r/rr- rr\. linrr 7 rrl A I A lqtlT h\lri(\l hy r1l1'n11, r ornlrlainrrrt narnr,ly l\lulr,rntm.r,l .rt lS !'.rcctlithrrl, kar,rchl rrtttl virlt urlllnont tlalcrl 10 (15.2(122 appcllanls wt,rt. f

{'r!t\.it-k'(l .llrrl rr'ntcttct tl ac lltl(lrtr:.

,T) lirr oflerrct'o[ alrtluction for rnnsom punish.rble untlcr section 165. A r/rr,3"l I'l€ all thc prr.scrll ..rccusctl (l) Shamshair Ali Vlirza s/o Irluharrtrrntl Sadiq (2) Muhammarl S.rlm.rn s/o Asatl (1) Ahdul S.rttar s/o Ah.srn-u[-]laq are sentcnced to dcath subjt:ct to coufirnration by this court and propcrty of all the .rccuscd is ortlcrcrl to be forfcited.

b) For offence of Qatl-e-Amd, punishabk' under section 302 r/ rv 11 PPC all the prescnt accused (1) Shamsh.rir Ali lvlirza s/ r, Muhammad Sadiq (2) Muhammad Salman s/o Asatl (3) Abrlul Satt.'rr s/o Ahsan-ul-Haq are sentenced to death subjrct to I conlirmation by this court.

c) For offence of disappearing of evidence i.e. by burning the de"rtl body of tl're deceased u,/s.201 PPC all the present accust'd (l) Shamshair Ali Mirza s/o Muhammad Sadit1 (2) lvluhammad Salman s/o Asad (3) Abdul Sattar s/o Ahsan-ul-Haq are sentencrrl to seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1t]0,0001- on each accused, and in default of such payment the acruser.l shall undergo SI for six months.

d) All tlte prcsent accused arc'also tlirccter,l to p.1_y .rn .ulrrunt r,t Rs.2,00,0m/- (two lacs) caclr to thc lc.gal heirs is cornperls.rtion, ns providetl undcr SL'ctiot'l 5{1.A Cr.P.C. rrrtl in tlt'Lrult oi such l,ayrnent lhr, accusttl slrall undergo Sl (or six nronths.

The lx'nefil of sr.clion 3tl2-ll Cr.l!.C. is ertt'ndctl in f.rvour r,rl the' arcusr,'tl.

2.'l-lrr: brief l.rcls rtf llto Pro.itutttiotr c.rsc (rrt' ttl.rt ctrtrtlrhin.rnl Muhatnntad All hxlgcd l:llt statlnll llrt'rt,irr that urr th.tlt.20ll his l:rothr'r caltcd lrinr wilh inftrrrrrntiorr th,rt hls li(rll Slt.rhirl Ali alitrl lZ 1'r,.rrs h.rtl mrt returned afk'r;rlayinyn lrcorrlinl,,ly h* rushurl lo lri* lroust, antl conLrcttrl his relalivcs ahrul his nlirring rotr. Al .rb{)ul 0tl:30 prn he rcporletl tht, mntt(.r to policc stalion aboul misling o[ his son. During the search o[ his chilrl, hc receiverl a phone call fronr nrobilc No.03l7-27887q2 o[ kidnapper rvho demanded Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Ruper"'s one crorr: only) as ransom rmount, r..rl Pagc 2 of l3

F Cor.,S.u,.,n.,

sulrsc(lucnlly hc cnlkrl nllnln nnd dcmnntlcd I{s,70,00,000/-. l'lc thcrcforc, ctrntnctcd to pollcc Blntlon whcrcupon ASI Ghulnm Murlara transfcrred thc cnsc' to AVCC/CIA, On 11,01,2021 lhc lnvcsllgntlon wan transfcrred to Y Itrspsr'l(11 Nlnnr Awnrr, Durlng lnvcstlgntlon ha rcrcoivcd lnformatlon lhal (tnc nccun(r(l Slrnnrslrnlr nrrurtntl ln Ill{ No.25/2021 tE Sacctla ba,J u/s.4/5 llrpl. Sulxlnrrcr. Act rlurlrrg, ltttcrrrlln t lrrn ltntl rllnckrscrl nbout thc abrluclion o[ the. rrtxluck-'rl Slrnlrld All. Accorrllnl;ly lrc reachcrl therc and lnterrogated tht'nccusrrl rvlxr durlng lnk'rrognllon ndmlttod thc 6ullt of abductlon nntl tlisckxr'tl lhot hc rrnrl hls nctompllccs nnmcly Ah,lul Sattar and Salman had killt'rl thr-. nbtlucltt nftcr kltlnnpplng hhn, The accuscd, thcrcforc, was arrLrste(l ln this cnsc ond on tlre polntation of accuscd he inspccted the hr:usr:

of nccusL'rl wlrcrc orr his pointation, the policc discovered clothes, Tavccz antl sllpper of alxluctcc from a bathroom, which was idcntified by the conrplainant, Later on the accused Salman and Abdul Satlar wcre also nrrcsted on the pointation of accused and informcr from l-andhi, Karachi. During intcrrogation of the accused disclosed that they had buried the dearJ body of the abductee in KDA Scheme 33 and led the police party there; .l where on their pointation the dead body was recovered from a Gutter in bumt condition, which was sent to hospital for post mortem. The accusetl Shamshair also made confessional statements. After collection of evidence invesHgation ended in submission of Challan against the three accused.

3.After usual investigation the matter was challaned and the appellnnts were sent up to face trial, They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 rvitnesses and exhlbid various items and other documents. The appellants recorded their statements under &ction 342 Cr.P.C. whereby they claimed that they are lnnocent. Only appellant Shamslrair gavc. evidence on oath antl called.l DW's ln oupport of hls dcfcnce case,

5.Aftcr appreclatlng thc evldence on record, the leamed hial court convicted nnd centonced tlre appcllnnts fls set out earlier in this judgment and hence the appellants have fllcd these appenls agalnst their convictions and sentences,

6.The facts of the case as well as evldence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mentton ln the lmpugned iudgment date'J N.05.2022, z XAI'I Page 3 oI 13

B cu-s"unn",

LP

$lsst{ [r1' llrt'ltlrrl Cr!url rtttr1, llrorr.[rrtt', Ilr0 rrttttr. tttrll' tt0l lt, tr,[11r1111s11; Itt't\'str,ls lrr rlvr)l\l rlu[l[.rrllrrrr rrrrrl ulllutr,n$rtr\' 1r,1rl.llllrrrr, ''. 7. [.t'.trttt'tl ('(tuns('l ftrr tlrt rr|[rr,lhutls lrnvr,cunh,n(h,(l llrrrl llu,rtIIr,111111;,1 nN' cotr\rlt'lt'lY lntrrtull rrn(l h[\'r,trr.r.tt lrrlrrr,ly lrrtPlk'rrh,rl ltr tlth r'rtnr,; llrrrl thr'n'is tro t't't rtllttr.ss lo r.lllrur tltr. nltlrrr'llrrn or rrrrrrrh,r; lhnl llrr,rr, ls nt l.r{l s(\ll ('\'i(lt\lTt': llt,tl tttr trrttsrut tk ttt,ttttl tvttr tttrtrk. r rrl nrr rrurqr,ttt P,rlrl; llr,rl tlrt' n'lr.tcltrl itttllet.rl c(tlllur$loll pI l[11, npp1,ll61tl Slt,ttttsltirlr w'r,,r tttrl(h,,ll1'r trrrlun .rrl(l ,ts stttlt cr\thl rlrrl [x. rr.llt tl ulr(ul rrq rlllrtltlrt (,ltlx.r ltlttnt,tI or lltr, crhrrtus(\l (thr. othcr rlfltl[.ultrr) whtr lrt' unrru'r,l ln lrls rr.trrrctr,tl lurlh,l,rl ctrnh.sslon; th.tl tlrt rtrrl'r'rtll ltt nts u[ llrc rrtrlrrcltc lrnrl lrt't'n pl,tnk.rl lry tlrr, lxrlict' .rt tltt'ltottst of t'rpgrtllrrnt Slt.rntshnlr ,rntl lte rlkl txll len(l llrc lrolh'r' to thcrn otr his printntioru tlrrrt thu CDtt tlhl rxrt llnk lrlnr r.lllu,r to tlrr, conrplriuant from rvhonr thc. rlnsonr dttnantl rvns nl[.gctlly mfl(l(' nor t(r.lny of the othc'r co-accusetl; thnt the rccovLrry of thc body of tlrc ntrr,luclt'r'on thr, ioint poinhrtion of trvo of the nppellants rvns lnndntissitrlc ln r'v itlcnct, a rrrl [r'r anv or all o[ tl're abovc'reflsons the appellants slxrukl bu acrluittcrl rrl tlrt, charge by extending thenr the bcnefit of thc doubt, In support of tlruir .l contentions they placed reliance on thc cascs of Ororrg'znlb v. The State (20ltl SCNIR 391), The State through P.G. Slndh and otlrers v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh and others (202f SCMR 873), Adil and another v. The State (2022 PCRLJ Note 44, Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State (2017 SCMIT

898), Mlr Zaman and 5 othere v. The State and othere (2012 SCMR 5tt0), Mazar alias Fouii and another v. The State (2016 YLR 2815), Chulam Mustafa v. All Nawaz and 2 others (2020 MLD 12@), Muhamnrad Mushlaq v. Mustansar Hussain and others (2016 SCMR 2123), Mlan Khalld Pervlz v. The State through Special Prosecutor ANF and another (2021 SCMI{ 522), Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahld Khan and olhers (2016 SCMR 27{), Muhammad Moln v. Haii Pathan and 7 othere (2017 PCRLJ 535), Shahzalb v. The State (2m2 MLD 950), Raeab Khan v. The Stale (20Oi SCMR l3tl5), Intekhab Ahmad Abbasl v. The Stotc and others (20t8 SCMR .t95), Muhammad Raflque allas Feeqa v, The State (2019 SCMR l0tr8), Naveed Asghar and 2 olherr v. The State (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 600), lbrahlm and another v. The State (PLD 1963 (W.P,) Karachl 73% foygun Blbl v. The State [PLD 1960 Supreme Court (Pak.) 3131, Maqbool Huasaln ve. The Slate IPLD 1960 Supreme Court (Pak.) 3821, Savllmlya Mlyabhai and another v. Emperor [A.l.R. (31) 19,14 Bombay 338t, Muhammad Mushtaq v. Mustansnr crl.fi! PBge 4 of l3

Slcu-s"uon.,

lqq

Hussain and othere (2016 SCMR 2123) and Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274).

8.On the other hand learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and the complainant fully supported the impugned judgment and contended that the prosrrution had fully proved lts case beyond a reasonable doubt tluough reliable trust. worthy and conlldence inspiring evidence especially thc jutlicial confession of tlre appellant Shamshair whlch directly implicated the other appellants in the abduction and murder of the abductee; that the police recovered items belonging to the deceased child from thc house oI appellant Shamshair whose CDR also linked him to the complainant and other co- appellants who lead the police to the place where the dead body was secretly hidden and that the death penalty was applicable to this case due to the grievous nature of the offence against a young child. In support of their contentions they placed reliance on the cases of Mst. Naseem Akhtar and another v. The State (1999 SCMR 1744), Khawaja Hasanullah v. The State (1999 MLD 514), Said Muhammad v. The State (1999 SCMR 2758), Muhammad Azad alias ]avald alias fodi v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1330), Khurram Malik v, The State and another and Haji Nazir v. Khurram Malik & another (2(Xl6 SCJ 813) and Aiab alia Rajab and another v. The State (2004 MLD 180) Sagheer Ahmed alias Bhaya v. The State (2020 MLD 7374, falal Ahmed and another v. The State (2020 rcRLI Note 99), Muhammad Tariq Raza Attari v. The State (2015 YLR 1416), Nazir Shehzad and another v. The State (2009 SCMR 1,140), Khan Muhammad and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 705), Noor Muhammad v. The State (1999 SCMR T7?2), Muhammad Hayat and 2 others v. The State (2015 YLR 1326), Ali Muhammad and another v. The State (2022 YLR 710), Qasim Ali v. The State (2016 PCRLJ Note 113), Maj, (Retd.) Tariq Mehmood and others v. The State and others (2002 SCMR 1493), Majeed v. The State (2010 SCMR 55), Ghulam Nabl v, The State (2007 SCMR 808), Wlayat Ali v. The State (2m4 rcMR 477), Khan alias Kftani and another v. The State (2006 SCMR 17M) and Murad Ali v. The State (2007 SCMR 146).

9.We have heard the arguments of the leamed counsel for the parties, gone through the entire evidence which has been read out by the learned counsel for the appellants and the impugned judgment with their able assistance and have considered the relevant law including the case law cited at the bar.

t rAv?t Page 5 of l3

Ecu,r,s"uon",

Lg

10' After our reassessmenl of thc evldence we flnd that th€ Prosecution has provcd ils case bcyond o reasonable tloubl agalnrt the appellants for lhe following r('axons kecplng ln vlcw that anch crlmlnal case musl be decidetl on lls own Parllcular focts nnd clr(umetonces 6ntl evlclence on recortl.

(a)Tlrat lhe Flll ryar lulged on lhe same day and ag such there rvns n(! tlelay ln lodging thc Fllt and evcn thc sllght tlclay is .rccounted for by the lact that lhe parents and the other pcople in thc Mohalla rvere searchlng for the mlssing child which was their inrmerllate prlority, Whal ls of lmportance is lhat lhe FIR rvas lorlgt'tl a6alnst unknown p.Irsons as the complainanl dirl not know who had abducted his son and as such lhere was no lntention to falsely impllcate any body.

(b)There is no eye witness or last seen evldence relating to the ahluction of the deceased and no eye witness to his murder. To some extent thls is understandable as the deceaserl was ahlucted whm it rvas dark as per the evidence on record.

(c)The case against the appellants is therefore based on cirrumstantial evidence as conceded by the prosecution. With regard to circumstantial evidence leading to a conviction in a capital case it was held as under ln Eayyaz Ahmed V State (2017 rcMR 2026) al P.2030 para's 5 and 6 which are .} reproduced as under;

"To belieae or rcly on clrantstantlal euldence, the well settled and deeply anttenched prlnclple is, that It ls hnpnatioe for the Proseatlott to proolde all llnks itr chain an unbtokm one, where ote encl of tlrc sanre touches tlrc dead body anil tlr- othet the neck of the accused. Tlw prexnl case is of such a nalure lllllrre many linlcs nre missing in the dmin.

To anrry mnoiclion on n cnpitnl clmrge il is es*nliol llnt courls hnl to deeply scntlitrizt tle ciranmslanlinl aidencc because labricating of such anldence ls not unconmton as toe lnue toticei in some cacee thus, oery firhrute and narroto e,;a,f/ln/f,tlon of the satne ls necesssry to secure tlrc ends ol tustlce anil llnl lln Proserrrhitrt lnc lo eslfulish tlu cnx beyond nll rensnnhle rlorlrls, rrsturrg orr c/rcutttsta tlal edde ,tce. " Rensnnhle Doubl" dus ,ol nrrl;. n y dotrbl but il nllr, fu ncconryaniecl by snch rtosilrtts, sufficenl to praude n Judicial nind lor plocitrg nlinnce ott il, V lt ls shorl of cuch clandaril, lt ls betaer to dlscar., llrc sarrl,e so lhnt an lrnoceul pereon mlghl not be senl lo gallortrs. To drtu, at l$erence of gulll lrom auch euldence, lhe Court has to apply lts lutllclal t tlt.l wlrh deep lhoughl aul wlth exlrd carc ortll caatlon aud wheumer lhere are onc or some lnillcallous, shotulttg lhe deslgn ol lhe Prosecullon of uatulacturltg anil prepanllotr ol a cace, lhe Courla have lo shotu rcluctonce to belloe lt untess lt ls ludlc'lally sattsfled about the guilt of accused perlon anil the rcqulreil chaln ls made out t rlthout mbslng llnl+ ollurtllse at rawlom rerlance on such mldance would result ln lallure of Juetlce, , )am PaSe 6 ot 13

EBcr,ns"u*",

ll nny also hc ktpt itr nti*! lhnl sanwliwrs llr iut,otlignliufl rtgr tuy r.alletls cire nnrctanlinl euidrwe sremt npytrrnlly brlirruhb hon*'o'r, il lhe stricl slan arls o/ srrullnq arc ayyllcd lhue woulil altyedr rrrany fiatks atti loabtg ln lho sanrc wklrh are akuav lnhtrunt lhareln anil ln thst cose Courtt haue to ls rd nn dlsbcllaw thc stur." (txrld atldrd;

11.Tlrus, kccping ln vlcw lht' law on rirrumclanllal cvidcnrc whal evi<lcnre is their lo llnk lhe acrusod lo lhe abdurtirtn, ranet,m clcmand ;rnd murder of thc dsrearcd throuy,h an unhrrtkrn rhain of uvid*nrs,

(i)Thc etarting polnt it llv l'll1 kxJlir<l in rt'tyrt'rl <i llv' abtluctcr whtt war latur murd.r.'{. A', nttnlkrtnr,l'l alr*,' this ir againlt unknown t)(rt(,nt qo thcre vtdt <lrarlv rut intenti<rn by lhc trrmplainartt lo lals,:ly imtiital' anv eily.

(ii)Tht: firsl link i.' that on thc same day lht chikl wt:nt mitning lhc ctrmplainant rtceivcrJ rane()rn <Ju'naruJ) ltt the rafc relurn ol the chiltl which he inhrm,:d t.tfrr witnecscs atrout who al*t y,avc cvidcncr' lo lhis r:ffr'rt. The complainant thcn inf ornad thc policr' of tlrtx' rlemands and thc carc wae lranrfcrrr:tl kt AYt.-(.. lor > inver,til;ation who ar ir thc u.,ual Vracllce in rueh lil..r' caqt*, involvcd the CI'l.C.

(iii)Thc first brcak which the policc 1;ot in lhe cac{', rtJ which forms lhc next link in the chain rl circumetantirl evitJence, is provklul by PW 1 Mumlat Ali dml 7.al'ir llussain whr.r on 1"1.$1.2021 arrc:led thr: apprll;int Shamshir in an unrelaterl caqe whr; then conlurqtJ to thc akluctkrn and rnurtler of the rlcceastd child in this cag:,

(iv)'fhe nexl ljnk is whcn I'W 12 Nir, r r\hnrrd who was the lO in this cas{ interrogaterl thc appcllant 5harnshir wha agpin confc*cr! lo lhe alrduclion firr ranurrn anrl murdsr (rf the chil<J before him.

(v, '['he nert link in lhe chain ig appcllanl Slurmltir r.rnlv i <lays afler his arrcst in thir ca(' bcing broul;ht tx'forc t'W 3 9rhail Nausrn who war a jutlicial rnay,irlratr who recortJcd lhe jurJicial confc*ion rrf appcllanl Sharnchir anrJ through hir evidcnce confirns rtcordiny, lh! satnr' which ir ect (rul aJ under krr cax'ol relcrcnrc.

" luDtct At. coNt;[55toN u/s 't64 CIt.P.C, ltY AI'l,li1_l_AN]' srtAMSr,Al[ At.l Mlltztii Querllon: Whal have to ray?

An;iwer', tvly nama is Shamshr:r Ali Mirzia 5/o Muharnnratl Sadiq. Abr:ut l$ kt '12 day* earlier, rny lw(, aclrmplirr,.,; Molrammarl Sulenun and Altlul-Sattar, wu all thrcc tugr:llrur intendcd lo kidnap lhr: shild, we trarl ab,'olutcly ntr irrtrntion kr kill the child, we th<rughl thal wc will relca,'c lhc child altur l'a y,c 7 d ll

GHlc,,,s.,nn.,

6q7

t'xtorting ronsom amount. On 05-01-2021 at 0500 Hrs wc saw the chlld while playing and as soon as he came in-front of my house door, wc by finding the opportunity kept hand on child's mouth nnd eyes ond took hlm ln lhe room, then immediately nftcr llut we lietl the cloth strlp one child's mouth and eyes, tr then wt' put hlnr ln the bag. Thcreafter, Abdul-Sattar went nrvny for laklnl; ntotrrrcycle from his home, while Mohammad Srrlerrron by, tnkirrg hls Car slood-up aboul 1-1/2 kilomcter far frtrnt m1' lurmc. I nnd Abrlul-Snttar took away the child bag to thc vchlclt trf Sulcnrnn. 'I'hcrcnftcr, Abdul.Sattar and Suleman txrlh took nlvay the chlltl townrds the house of Suleman. A tlrrcr llltr bolllt' rvas lylng lnslde thc bag, I returned back to horne', Aftt'r pa*slng 2-1/2Hrs,5ulcman phoned mc and called nt Johar Morr nt Dalochistan Sajji Hotel, by making phone call to tho falhcr of child dernandetl ransom amount of Rs.70 lacs. Atrlul-Sattor lnforrned me that the child was died and they llur-.w the deod-body there ln some socicty. Thereafter, Muhammad Suleman said that you may Bo away to home, becausc the child's father was my neighbor, lhus lhey told me that you take care of that side and we will take care of the rest. Beyond that, I don't know how the child died"

72.It is settlcd law that a retracted judicial conlession can be legally arlmissible and used against its maker in certain circumstances. In the case of l ) Muhammad Amln V The State (PLD 2006 SC 219) it was held at P.224 Para f;

9 as under;

"9, Thcre is no caoil to the proposltion that colr.aictiott coukl lrute been nrunrded on the bnsis ol rctracted coufessiotr tuhich proposltlort ruas cxanined tu case of Msfl loygtn Bibl t. The State PLD 7960 (SC @ak) 373 as under-

"We nre unnble to suppott the proposition of lmo lnid dotn by llv lennred fulges in this regnrd, Tlp retrncliott of n conlession is n circuntslnncc ruhich hns no hearing rlnlsoelr upon llw qrreslr:orr whellur in tle frsl inslnnce it uns whmtnrily nnde, and on lhe firrlher qneslion tlwtlr'r il is lrue. Tle lncl thnl lfu nnl<tr ol tlu confession lnlrr does nol ndlrcre lo it munol lty il*lf lnle my I ellecl ulnn llrc fmlings rt'nclrcd os lo tlhelher tle corrltssrorr rlrrs wlunlary, nnl I so, u,ht,lher il was trne, for to withdrnw.frout tr oelf-acauing llnleucul it dirccl !r* of the curser;rrerrcs o/ lfue nccuanllon, ls exylicnble rtilQ by llc pro.tdrlily of lllrrx corrmquetrces nnd need lnve no conneclion roftrrlsoerrr rcith eilher lla toltnlaynluru, or lhe lrulh ol llrc lncts slntul, The lenruerl ludgec uere p{ectly rigftl irr lrsl rletidirg llrese lrro qrrt'sliorrs, nnd ,he nunwrs l;eing in llrc nffirnnliu,, in dechtring thnt lhe a co{ession by il*[ u,ns sulficiut, tntr'rr urdtlr llrc other lncts nnd circuntslatces lo sapport Ahtlul Majid's rr,nuictiott. Tlrc retuactlon of the co$esslou tuns uholly lnmnterlnl ouce lt uas lounil that lt tuas aolu,ttnry as uell rc true,", t TII,'I Page 8 of 13

Bcu*s"u*",

il f

l0. .Silrilnrl.U itr llrr' uts' u[ llrr' .$lnlr' t,. lv4iuluut rrlrirs (ilrl lir.*srrr Pl.l) 106.1 S(' ll l.l lftis (i,rr, ,rrts o|,.$r'rtrl rts ttttrt'r- "As.llrr llrr rrtrtf's.rirrtts lltr' Illglt (lttlrl, it ttyltt'tus, utn hly .r rrrrrsr'irrls ol lln' .firt'l lhil rilmdil rrrtt/irsirrtt nlu'l|rl"r julitiil or r'r lnr llrrldr'drrl, rnrrlrl lr'.r1rrlly 1,,' furlrlr irtftr rrrttstihrtlirrtr rr,qrritt.rl lltr' rrrrrLcr rr/ llfttsr' rruttr'sstrrts [irrt.v'f, uul il lh (rrr,['risi(rr,,c flr'rr' I .lirrrrr,l lt, lrr' lrrrr.rutrt rtlunltry, lh'n lhett rrc no u,ri nl nll lo lrxrl ./trr.fir rllrr'r rrrrnrl,rrrrtltirr, ll ls un ll-totlleil lhtl rc ngtlust llrr. rrrrrlrr hlnsc[ hls toufrsslun, luillclol or txln lullcltl, rolrcllrer rclrrrcleil trr nol lrlnrclul, ctn h lnp urlldly lonu llrr'sole lrasls tr/ft1.r convlrlhut, lhr Conrt ls st!lsllnl tnl

I

Dcllrtes llrrrl It rtrrts tnrc nnil voltutlary mul ams mrl trltlthrcd by lorhrt or cocrclou or huluceutmL " (hrkl ntldttl)

13.Thus, thc court lairl dolvn n two prcrngcr,l tcat ile undcr (.1) rvht'lhcr lhr' retrflcted iutllcial confession nppcars to havr'bccn m.rtlt'voluntlrlll', rvithttul nn)' inducetrrc'nt, duress or cocrcion and (b) was matlc rvlth thc o[-,ittl lo statt' the truth.

14.We find that there ls no evldence that tho retsncted ludlclal conlessiortq wert' not matle voluntarily, Despite the nppellonl ctniming thot he rvas torturetl bv thr' rangers and the pollce into maklng the conlession he did not raise this issuc tt'lon' tlre nraglstrate and rvhen inspected by the moglstrate there rverc no signs ol torlurc on hinr. No family member even moved any oppllcation trefore any court or.lnv other authority that the appellant was lrelng torttrttl rvhllst ln illegal dfitnlitn' Tht iudicial confesslon as seen fronr its content 6lso hns ihe object of telling the truth anrl fits in wllh the proseortion case ns being a case of kidnnp for ransom. IVt' .rlso fintl lhat all material safeguards regarding the recortling of the iudicinl conft'ssion were complled with by the magishate.

15.Thus we placc reliance on thc judicinl conft's-sion of app.'llant Shamshair as wcll as ngainst his co-nccused subJecl to there lting trlhcr corroborative/supportive evltlence/moleri.rl nvnilable on rrtorrl rvhich is st't out as under nlong wlth olher clrcunrstantial evidence; ln this respect rellance le placcd on tho cnses of Khurronr lvlallk (supra), Itllr Zarnan (Supra) and Muharnnred lamnll (suprn)

a (vl) Tha nexl llnk ln tho chaln ls that appcllant Shanrshair wa8 a ncxt door neighbor of thr: conrplainant rvho rvas seen oulslde hls housc at the time of the abduction by PW 10 Slddtqn who was the mother of the nbductetl chlld and even helped in the search of the abducted child accordlng to PW 6 Muhamnred Rlzwan (rvhich

n^Irt Page 9 of 13

Ecu*s"unn",

6s\

Y

defcats his claim that he wag in illegal detention at lhe hands of thc rangers at the time of his abduction).PW l0 Mrs Slddlqul who was not on visiting lerms wilh the Y appcllant Shamshair's family ln her evidence also s:ated thal Shamshalr's family starled to visil her which rvas oul of characler and she assumcd latcr was to obtain lnformallon ahrul the invcstigation into her missing son. (vti) Thc next llnk ls thal the appellant Shamshair t<rok the pollce to lrls own house and on his pointation showcd lhem wherc lhe abducted chikl was kept and murderetl from wherc thc polict' rtrcovercd Taveez, slippers and pant whlch belonged to the abducted child which mashlrnama o[ rc,covery was signed by independent wltncss PW 5 Sycd Walid Shah who wag nol a chanc(' witness as he had hls shop in the same slre€t.

(viii)The next link is the appellant Shamshair pointing out kr the police his two co-accused appellants Salman and Sattar whose arrest was made ln front of an indepndant mashir from the CPLC PW 11 Khuram Maieed who are usually involved in kidnap for ransom cases.

(ir)The next link in the chain is the appellant Salman after his arrest pointing out the Yilz car in which thev aMucted thc deceased child and where the watch of the .t abrlucted child was found to PW 9 Asif Illyas which car was produced in court as case custody.

(*) The next link ln the chain is the appellants Sattar anrl Salman leading the police to the place rvhere the murdered child who had been sulfocated and bumt rvas hidden inside a manhole which was a place rvhich onlr' they could have know about. Joint pointation is admissible under the law and in this respect reliance is placed on the case of Mst. Naseem Akhtar (Supra) anrl Nazir Shehzad (Supra)

(xi)The next link in the chain is the CDR record rvhich links Shamshair to the complainant around about the time of the abduction and also to Salman which rvhen read in juxta position with the rvitnesses who gavc cvitlt'nct' about the ransom demands i.e the complainant, his rvift' PW 10 Sidr,llqui antl Muhammed Rizwan the only infercnce whlch we can draw is that the calls to the complalnant by Shamshair lvcre ransom demantls (rvhy elsc woukl Shanrshalr be calling the complainanl rvhose famllles wcre not on vlsillng terms) and other calls between Salman and Shamshair were in connection with the dlaposal of thc botly ond thus wc find that the appellants did make a demand for ransom although it was not palcl, (xll) The nexl llnk is thc positive identification of the child by hls mother based on a mole on his leg followed by a posltlve DNA report which by 99.9999% found the 't chlld to be the eon of thc complainant and his wife.

IAIJ"I Page lO ol 13

Hcu,nt"rn ",

loo

V

(xilt) The next llnk is the cause of death of thc chlld which wae by suffocation and there after burning as per the nredicnl evldcncc anrl reports, v :'

I (xlv) Thnt thc.rc arc no malerlal contradictions in the cvidencc ol the PW's nnd exhiblts and lt ls well settled by now llrnl rnlnor conlradictlons whlch do not effect thc nrnterlallly o[ the evklence can be ignored. In this I respect rcllancc is plnccd on the case ol Zakk Khan V State (1995 SCMRl79]),

(xv)Thnt none of tl're witnesses whether pollce or otherwise had any ill wlll or enmity wlth any of the appellants and as such had no reason to falscly implicate lhe appellants and under such circumstanccs it is well settled by now that inter related witnmses evidence must be taken at its own worth and cannot simply be discarded for this reasoru In this respect reliance is placed on the cases of Amal Sherln v The State (PLD 2ffi4 K. ?77), Dlklat Hussain v Muhammad Afzaal allag Chala (PLD 20Ol SC 663).Like wise is the position with the evidence of the police officers who also had no enmity or ill will rvith any of the appellants and as such had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in a false case. For .} example, by planting recoveries at the appellants house. Most oI the wihesses gave their evidence in a straight forward rnanner, were not dented despite a lengthy cross examination and as such we believe their evidence. Muahtaq Ahmed V The State @020 SCMR 47.1).

(xvi)As for the defence case all claim false implication but only shamshair gave evidence on oath and called { DW's who gave evidence that the rangers took him away before thls incident. However all these rvitnesses are related, none of whom made any complainant at tht, time of the alleged illegal detention of the appellant Shamshair by the rangers to any authoritl, and as such we disbelieve the defence case.

(xvii)Thus, when the retracted ludicial confession of the appellant Shamshnir is placed in juxtaposition rvith the entire prosecution case it is quite clear that the confesslon ties in rvitll is corroboraled by and supportetl by nll othcr aspects/pieces of evidence In respect of the prosecutlon casc and shorvs that the three appellants who knew each other very lvell and in one cas€ tvere reloted kldnappcd the chlld for ransonr who died during the aMuction after the making of a raruom demand and hls body was dlsposed on in the most heinous manner. As was hcld ln the case of Said Muhammed (Supra) ! each participant ln a kidnapping for ransom is equally liable regardless o[ hls role and in the instant case we find the roles of the appellant to be all of equal significance. ,

lrl,/tl Page ll ol 13

Scun s"*n.,

?o t

(xviii)In cases conccrning kidnap for ransom there is a ne,etl to take a dynamic approach. Thc Supreme Court in Noor Muhamrnad v. State (1999 SCMR 2722) has also adverted to this aspect o[ tlre matter and has observed as untler:-

" llotltcucr, utc ,ntty obscnte tlmt thr people art losing fnitlt in thc lisyensntiott of crininnl justice by tlrc orrlinary criuinnl courts lor thc rensotr thal they either nequit the .tcctts l l,osorts ott trchnicnl grounds or tnke a lcuient uirto irr nwanli,r3 se,,lcrlre. It is ltigh tittrc thnt the Corrts shouli realize thnt therl ottrc duttl to thc legal hcirdrelntions of the oictins aru| nlso lo the sotitty. Scntercts aruarded shotld bc such tuhlch should act as n deterrcnt to tlrc camutission of olfenccs, Onc al us (Ainnl Minn, C.1., ns lv lhen rlas) Irns ligltlighled thrs nspet!, utler alin in tlrc cnsa of State througlt the Aduocatc Gcneral Sitttlh, Karnchi a, Fnrusrr Hussait and othcrs (PLD 1995 5C l), rclet nttt ltortiou u,hertof nt 1arya ruds ts follous:-

(3)lt is n matter of public krrotuledge that in Simlh, otr acco nt of kidnappiug fot rnnso,,t, counnission of dncoilies and olhcr offurces, the pcople are feeling ntsecured. Tlu le nrued trinl Cotrt ]ms dilnted upon lfuse nspecls in dtlnil. I > nm itrtlinerl to subscriltc 1o 1112 1,ist t'outtd t'at'ortr u'itlt il. Tlrc apprcnch of the Court in nstters like the case in hntd should be dynamic and il tlrc Court is sntis/ied that tlte olfence has been conudtte d in tlrc nnnnet fu drich it lns been alleged by tl:c prosecution the teclnricalities should be ooerlookcd tuitltout causiug any rniscarriage of justice". (nld ndded)

i

1.6. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, rvhilst ignoring technicalitics without causing a miscarriage of justice and bv using a dynamic appro.rch, we find that the prosecution has proved ar wrbroken chaitt of euidence, ruhere one ctd of the sn re touclrcs tlrc dead body and the other the ncck o!

the nccused anrl ue nmi ain tlrc conricliorrc ol lle apycllnnls.

17.With regard to sentencing this is a case rvhere a younB chiltl rtas abducted Ior ransom, was murdered and whose body nas tlisposcd of in the must brutal manner. Namely, he rvas sulfocated, then burnt alive antl then stulfed down a gutter, The life of a young child rvas snu(fed out ftrr a fcr,' lacs; his future lost; untold misery and trauma brought on his parents which Y will be never ending. Such acts are an abomination in any society anrl need to be stamped out. Those who commit them need to be made aware that if proven guilty of such horrific acts the courts rvill shorv no leniency as such horrific crimes lully warrant and iustify the maximum sentence as a

I

Page l2 of l3

EHlcu,,s"onn.,

A o X/

deterrent. \Ve can maintain the death penalty in cascs such as this whiclr art' based on circumstanlial evitlencc. In this rcspect reliancc is placcd on the case of Muhammed Amiad V State (PLD 2003 SC 70.1), Thus, {or thc rcasons mentioned above rtc hc'rr'[ry' upholtl all tlre sentences in the impugncd iurlgnrent including thc tle,rth penaltics to all lhe appellants.

18.The appeals are disnrissed anr{ thc conlirrnation reference i$ answeretl in the affirmative in respect of eacll appellant'

IU E

JI

l,elt

E

Y

kH cu,rs"unn",