NAVEED JOHN BHATTI S/O WILLIAM JOHN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

\l o cq)

il ('t:t{'l'llrl(1,,\'l'l: OI;'l'l ll: tll(lll ('()tilt'l'OIr SlNl)ll, I(n ttr\('ilt C rl Jail Aplrc;rl NO. 437 af 2A21 C rl Jail Appcal NO.43B of 2021

-\ N;rvcecl Jolur Blratti & otlrcrs

\/s

-ilre S tn [c

I II(;it ('()ttl{ I o[,' slNl)l I

('tttttJ )().Yi/i()rl lit'l ,l.ll.

Mr. Justice Mulrntrtttrarl l(arirn ltlran Agha

l)rrle rrl'hcrrlirtg: 2'1"0()-202'l

I)etitlt'tl on: ()l-10-2024

.lurlgnrcrtt ill)l)l'ovccl Irlr ltc;lorLirrg l./

I C,\',

E$\

J C ]i lt'r'l i; I c A'l'li.

Ccrtilrc{ that thc-iuclrntcnt 'r'/C)rclcr is birsctl tlllotl or cltutrcirttcs ir ;rritrcilllc ol"lar,r t'ltlccicle.s a qrrestiorr ol- Iiiu, rvhiclr is ol' Ilrst itttpt'e ssiou/ilistirrgLlislrcs/. ( )r'cr'-rtrlcsi rcvct'scs/cx1llai ns l [)r'c\/ i otr.s clcc i siotr.

';' Slr"ikc orrt u,hiclrcve r is rrot apltlicable.

NO-|E: - (i) This sli;l is onl5,to bc rr.sr:cl u,lrerl sonte actiou is to lre trlicrt.

(ii)If the slil: is usccl. thc ltcirrlcr nurst attaclt it to thc top ot'llrc Ilrst page ol'tlre jtrdgrtre nt.

(iii)Relulcl'u:ust ask lhc Jrrilgc rvliting tlte Jttclgtttctit u,ltctltcr tltt' .ludgtttcttt is a1:1:r'ovccl lirr" r cllortirrg.

(ir,)'l-hosc rlircctiorts rvhichlu'L: uoI to Lrc ttsecl sltottlcl bc rlclutetl.

\P

t ln the Higlr Court sf Slfidlt nt Karachl.

Crimlnnl Jail Appuul No, of pls Naveed Joltn Blratti U I?'

Son of Williarn John Bhatti,

confined in Central Prison,

Karachi,.**.,r1,r,r,rr.,,,.,,.,,.r.r.].1..,rr .,.....,,.Appellant Versus

The State......... .r{,,....,...,..Respondent.

Appeal under section 4 0 ,4 r.B 4t 9. 41fr Cr. P. C.

I

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 15-05-2019 (copy enclosed), passed by the court of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge ( Model Criminal Trial Court), South, Karachi, in Sessions Case No, 470 of 2011 (State Vs. Naveed & others), convicting and sentencing the appellant named above and two others to suffer life imprisonment and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each, as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr,P,C., and to suffer R.t. for 7 years with fine of fu. 10,000/- each, respectively for comm ission of the offences punishable under sections 302 (l:), 34, PPC & 397 PPC, thereunder, with benefit of section 382-8, Cr.P.C., prefers this appealon the facts and grounds given herein below:-

Facts:

t, The facts forming the background of this appeal briefly stated, are that the FIR No. 2A2|?AL1 lodgecl by Suleman Shareef Khan (the complainant) through his statement of section 154 Cr.P.C., with \ the PS Clifton, l(arachi South, for the offences punishable under sections 302134 PPC on 25-08-2011 at about 1500 hours slated that on such date at about 11,30 a.m. hours, he got informed on phone by the domestic servanI Ashfaq that his master Murtaza Chinoy had stood shot and was no more alive and asked him to reach his offic* *h*ruupon he rushed to such place i.e. office at 2'd Floor, Zamzama Commercial Area, Phase V, DHA, Karachi artd ' ,,. , trW the police in the streeq he entered the office and saw the.

] :I :

t

(L)

\\ o

a

ln the Hieh Court of Sindh at l(qraqhi' hfr Criminal Jail APPeal No' of 2019

1.Sajid Ahmed l(han;

2.Zahid Ahmed l(han;

Both sons of Rahat Noor,

confined in Central Prison,

Karachi............. .,....rr., ....Appellants Versus

The State..".."...'.,.r ..r,,.r,....., ....Respondent' I Appe al under se on 410,418 419 ,42A, Cr.P.C.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated j.S-0S-2019 (copy enclosed), passed by the court of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge (Model Criminal Trial Court),South, Karachi, in Sessions Case No. 470 of 2011 (State Vs. Naveed & others), convicting and sentencing the appellants named above and another namely, Naveed John Bhatti, to suffer life imprisonment and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each, as cornpensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-4, Cr,P.C., 0nd to suffer R.l. for 7 years with fine of Rs, 10,000/- each, respectively for commission of the offences punishable under sections 302 (b), 34, PPC & 397 PpC, thereunder, with benefit of section 382-8, Cr.P.C., Prefer this appeal on the facts and grounds given herein below:-

Facts:

1.The facts forming the bacl(ground of this appeal briefly stated, are that the FIR No. ZAZI?}LI lodged by Suleman Shareef Khan (the \ cornplainant) through his statement of section 154 Cr. P.C., with the PS Clifton, l(arachi South, for the offences punishable under sections 302134 PPC on 25-08-20LL at about L500 hours stated that on such date at about L1-,30 a.m. hours, he got informed on phone by the domestic servant Ashfaq that his master Murtaza Chinoy had stood shot and was no more alive and asked him to reach his office whereupon he rushed to such place i.e. office at Znd Floor, Zamzama Commercial Area, Phase V, DHA, Karachi and

(*,^1-Jrro'a g*W*-'[' $\

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT I(ARACHI

Presqnt:

Jlfr, Justlce Mohammad lto.rlm Khan Agha

gRL. JAIt SPPEAT NO.*37 OF 2019 cRI{:.J.AIt APPEAL NO.488 Or 2019

Appellarrt irr Naveed Johrr Bhatti s/o Vfilliam Appeal No.437/2019: Johan Bhatfi

Appellants iu Sajid Al'rmed Khan Appeal No.43B/20L9: Zahid Ahmed Khan both sons of Rahat Noor through Barrister Iftikhar Ahmed Shah assisted by Raja Zeeshan and Muhammad Naeem Awan, Advocates.

.t Respondent: The State through M/s. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh and Mumtaz Ali Shah, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh.

Cornplainant: Through Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate.

Date of Healing: 24.09.2024

Date of Armouncement 0L.10.2024

IT!G MENT

By this corrunon judgment, I intend to dispose of both the Cr. jail Appeais filed by Appellants Naveed Iotn Bhatti, Sajid Ahmed I(han and Zahid Ahmecl Khan, who were convicted and sentenced by the Lst Additional Sessions Ju,Cge/Model Criminal Trial Court (south) Karachi vicle Judgment datecl 15.05.2019 as under;-

1.Accused Naveed Johrr Bhatti S/o William John Bhatti, Zahid Ahmed Khan s/o Rahat Noor arrd sajid Anrned Khan s/o Rahat Noor are convicted for cornmitting murder of cleceaseci Murtaza Chinoy punishable under section 902(b), reacl with section 34, PPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment anct each of them is directed to pay compensation oI Rs. 5,00,000/(Rupees five Lacs) under sec[ion s44-A cr.p.C. to the legal heirs of deceased. In case of failure in payment of

\\L

--r- compensation, they would nlso suffer SI for (One year) 01. year t110re.

2.Accusc.d Naveecl Johr"r Bhatti 5/o William John Bhatti, Zahid Ahrnet{ Khan S/o Rahat Noor anc{ Sajid Ahmed Khan 5/o Rahat Noor are also found guilty of offence punishable under sectiorr 397, PPC, therefore, they are sentenced to undergo R.l. for $even (07) years and each of them is clirected to pay a fine of Its.10,000/or in default thereof, they would also suffer S.l. for Six (06) months lnore.

Benefit of Section 382-8 Cr.P.C is also extended to the accused persons, Above sentences would run concurrently.

2.The brief facts of the FIR lodged by complainant Suleman Shareef Khan tluough h.is 154, Cr.P.C. statement recorcled on 25.08.2011, at about 1500 hours at the spot are that on the said date, he was present at his house at about 1220 ./ hours, when servant Ashfaq of deceased Murtaza Chinoy informed him on phone that his cousin is no more alive and asked him to reach in his office. On receipt of such information, the complainant rushed to the office of the deceased situated at 2"d Floor, Zamzama Commercial Area, Phase-V DHA, Karachi and saw the police.in the street, He went inside the office and saw the deceased in pool of blood lyitg on the floor where Naveed Johr,, office peon of the deceased, told hirn that today i.e. 25.08.2011, there was knocking at door of the office, in resPonse he opened the door and found fwo persons in pant shirt aged about 28/30 years having black bag, who totd him to inform the deceased that they have come on behalf of Shahead Chawla. The complainant also stated that said office Peon also informed him that he informed the deceased whereupon he expressed that he did not know them, in the'me*nwhile by pushing the door they entered inside room and started abusing the cleceased on which he forbade them and thereafter they fired upon the deceased due to which he became injured and the culprits fled away from the scene, however, according to saicf Naveed John he can identity them if appearecl before him. Therefore, the complainant claims against two unknown culprits for committing murder of his \ cousin Murtaza Chinoy for unknown reason.

3.After usual investigation the matter was challanecl ancl the appellants were sent up to face trial. They pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial.

4.In order to prove these cases/ the prosecution examinecl 10-PWs ancl exhibited various items and other documents. The appellants recorclecl their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. whereby they claimed that they were

_rr innocent, I-lowevcr, they dicl not give evidence on oath or call any wifness in suppolt of thcir rlefcnce.

5.After npprccintiug tlrc cvidencc on record, the learned trial Court corrvicted nnrl scutcncecl thc nppcllants as sct out earlier and hence, the appellnnts ltavc filed tlrcse appcals against their ccrnvictions and sentences.

6.'['hs facts of thc cfise as well as evidence producecl before the trial court firrrt arr clal:orate mentiorr in the impugned juclgment passed by the hial court attd, thcrefore, thc sanle Inny not be reprocluced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessfi ry repetition.

7.Leartred counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants are cornpletely innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the police in order to show their efficiency; that there was no eye witness to the murder; that f the appellants judicial con-fessions were not made voluntarily and were later retractecl and as such the same should be discarded; that the recoveries from each of the appellants were foisted on them; that there are major contradictions in the eviderrce of the PW's and as such there evidence cannot be safely relied uPon and thus for any or all of the above reasons the appellants should be acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of the doubt.

8.On the other harrd learned Additional Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State arrd the cornplainant have fully supported the impugned judgment. They have contended that although this is a case o.f circumstantial evidence but the prosecution has heen able to prove its case against the accused based on the evidence of the PW's, the later reh'actecl judicial confession of the accused which could be safely relied upon as l:eing truthful; the recoveries of a robbed item from eacl'r of the accused as well as an unlicensed pisto] recovereci from appellarrt Zahict an empty of which recoverecl at the crime scene lead to a positive FSL report when matched with the recovered pistol; that the motive for the murder wit$ robbery; that the medical evideuce supporterl the prosecution case and as such thc appeal shoulel bc clisrnissccl. In support of their contentions they placed relinnce orr the cnses of Joygun Bibi v the State (PLD 1960 SC 3L3), Sikandar AIi v The Statc (StlLR 2A20 Sindh 981), Sh. Muhammad Amjad v The State (PLD 2003 SC 704), Muhammacl Amin v The State (PLD 2006 SC 219), Ansar and others v The State (2023 SCMR 929) and Ali Taj v The State (2023 scMR 900), f

\\q

L I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, gone -5r through tl're entire evidence which has been read out by the learned counsel for the appellants, autl tlte inrpugnect judgment with their able assistance and have consideree{ tht rclcvnnt lalv inclur.ling thc casc law citeci at the bar.

10.llnsr.,"t otl nUf rrfl$ri*$.riurcrrf of thc cvidcnce of the PW's, the place of the recrlvcl'y of thc rtcar.{ burly, the nrcrlicnl cvidcncc, the blood and empfy found at ttrl critrtc sct:tltl I firrd thnt tlre prosecution has provcd beyond a refisonable doubt thnt Itlullilrrllllorl Murtasa Chinnoy (the cieceased) was murdered by firearm and his office roblrecl nrith his safe containing savings certificates of RS l0lacs each trntl laptop ou 25.08.2011 ah about 1130 hours at/from his office at Znd floor plot No,3-C Lat'te No.9, Zatnzar:ta cornmercial area Phase V DHA Karachi.

11.The oril5r question left before rne therefore is who murdered and robbed the deceasect b), fireartn at the said time, date and location?

'12. After my reassessilrent of the evidence I fincl that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasorlable ctoubt the charge against the appellants for which they l\rere convicted for the following reasons keeping in view that each criminal case must be decided on its own particular facts and circumstances;

(a)That the FIR was lodged within a few hours of the incident. The slight delay in lodging the FIR has been fully explained lry the fact that the complainant was informed over the phone about the shooting of his relative wIlo then rushed to his relative's office where he found him deacl. He arranged transportation of the body to the hospital with the assistance of the police and thereafter gave his 5.154 Cr.PC statement which later became the FIR agairrst unknovrn percons. Adrnittedly his FIR is based on hearsay evidence however the fact that he dicl not want to falsely implicate the accused in this case is borne out by the fact that he lodgecl the FIR against unknown persons

(b)Admittedly there is no eye witness to the mtrrcler and robberl, arrd the main piece of evidence against the appellants are their retracted judicial confessions and therefore tl-re question arises lvhether I can safely convict on the basis of the retracted judicial confessions of the appellants. I set or-rt the rettacted judicial confessions of each of the appellants for ease of reference below;

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT U/S.164 Cr.P.C. of NAVEED

JOHN BHATTT

Question: What you lrave to say?

Answer: I nlong uttth nccused Znhtd nnd Mnlilr Re/tan Fnrooq mnde n plnn in arder to cotrunit loot to Clthtny Snlib nnd tlrc snid plan runs ocutrred ilt aur offce, After looting lo Chinny Snlib, tlrcy hnutng tied rue ruent ntdny from tlw offce. I used to do tuark in tlrc o.ffrr, of Cldnny Snttib

I

v

f ns Peott. I lrnd mllt:d Znhid nrrd Snld througlt pltoue, Tlrcrenfter Znhid nnd ,^ Sniirl cilne frrsidc tlw officr af Chinny.Snlril; mtd slnrte d to conuttit lool nnd deuwnded montyfunr Cllfrrny Snlib, but lrc nmde resistnnce, upan tplich, nccttsrrl Znlid rtnrfe fre slrol rrillr llis pislol upon him, resultfrrg wlich, Irrrllel lrif nl lrfs rrcrk, 41*,' Iltnt, Znltirl nnrl Snjirl escnped ffi$ny trom tlw slrol rutrl I sfo;1rcd tlrcra. AtIu'lhnt, I nroued lfim, furl lrc u,ns nol nrcuing. Tlu'rt'rt/lt,r; I crrlltrrf rlrdrt r of Chinny Snhib llrottgh pltoue nnrl lrc snid nrc rlrut'l Ji'rrr nrtrl infonr srrfrl rrrcidcnt ttt 15 Polic*. Tlwrenfttr, Palice nnd L'rtlri o/|irinl rrriclrt'd rrl flrr spol nnd laok nruny Cltinny Snlib, Tltis ttnrch is tru.t1 ttrt r /i'-.rs io t t.

Scl/-Accused

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT U/S.164 Cr.P.C. of SAJID r\Ht\'IED

Question: \,Vhat you have to say?

Ansrt'er: Tlrc ncr.tsed Znlirl Aftured is nry renl brotlwr. The ncc,l.sed Frrrcoq nnd Nai,eed nmde plnn in order to counnit rabbery to Chinny Snlrib. Fnrooq lmd tokl ta nty brotlrcr Znlid tlmt llrcre fire some manryt Inytop nnd preciorrs uroltile pltone fu tlrc offce of Naaeed, nnd ruliclr ruIoIIey ttill be looted, stfine will be distributed utith ench otlter. After tlmt, Naueed ntnde plwrc cnll to Fnrooq nnrl stated l:nm ta send fiua persans. After ilrnf, I md Zalfid cmne nt tlrc affirc nnd got opened tlw door, Nnaeed openerl tlrc rloor nnd lrc snirl fhnf Imahry put pistol upon ldm and to tnke inside ,ffirr. Tlrc Aduocnte Clttnny Snlib Imd snt inside tlte affce rmd rymn'el ocanred tuifft ench otlur mrd nty bratlter Znlid mnde fired slwt ruitlt ptstol ttpon Clfimy inlib, ru'hich hit nt lis neck nnd Iw fell down. After tlwt, ue escaperl mony fi'orn tlrc spot.

Sd/- Accused.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT U/S.154 Cr.P.C. of ZAEIID

AHMED

Quesfion: lA/hat you have to say?

Answer: On 25-08-2ALL nt nbout 7J.15 lrotu's, I md nry contpnnion Snjirl ruent ta tlw offrc of slnin Clinny Snlib cnlled by tlw Nnueed /an iru order to conunit rlncoity uiwre rymrrel ocurred rru'fft Clrfnny SnJrfb mtd I surldenly nmde fired rrrif/r pisfol tdich /rif nt tlw urck of Clinny Snhilr, resulting wlich lrc fetl down on tlrc spof. I4/e lrnd laoterl orre lnplop, frt,o Snuing Certtficntes o/Rs.10 Lnc ench nnd cnslr rtborrf Rs.50 lo 60 llloltsnttd froru tlrc office of Ainnv Sn]ri&. After tlnt, ptolice rccouercd n/oresnirl nrlicles ft'ont ilur possessro n. Tltis rtnrch is rrry corrpssiorr. Sd/-Accuseci

13.It is settled Iaw that a retracteel judicial confessiort can be legally admissible and used against its maker in certain circumstances. In the case of Muhammad Amin V The State (PLD 2006 SC 219) it was held at P.224 Para g as under;

"9. There is no caail ta the propositiott tlmt cotruictiort could hsae been nwarded on t'\rc basrs of retracted confessiotr tulticlr

Pro4nslllort ruas exnuined lil case $ Mst, !oylsuu lJtbi u, The state I)[D I960 (SC (I,nk] 3trfr as wuler:-

"v{e nrr unnhla to su\ryarl tlrc prapositiotr of Iruu Inid rlorun by llrc lmnrctl luigtts itt lltls rcgnrrl. T'ht relrnclion of r confession i.t rt ri t'r"t tttutltttr:r ultitlt lms no benritry riltrtlsoeue r uyon lltc tlrtt'sliott tulwllw in llrc first inslnnca il runs uoluutnrily mnde, trtil tttr llrc fitrllntr ryu:sliott ru\rcilrur il is lruc, "l'ltc fnct thtt the ntnl*:r of tltt ronfcssiatt lnlcr iloes nal nillruru lo it mnnol by ilsclt lmue nny r:ffecl ilyztt lltrt Jittditrgu rarclrutl rus to rulruthe r tlrc cut'cssron lrt/ts uolttnlnry, nnil if so, rulrulltcr il russ lrue, for to rpitlulrmtt li'ottt n scff-nctusittg slnlewenl tn rliract fnce af lhe cails(ry'lrl,rces o{ llw ncarcnliort, is exytlicn{slc fully by lhe proximity o! llrcse conscquetrces nnrl need lmac no conructiott ruhnlsot:r;er ruillr eillrcr ils uoluntary nnlure, or lhe trulh of the fncts slntcd. TIE lenrtrcd Judges wcre perfeclly right in first decirling llrcse huo questians, nncl the nfisrlers being in the ffinnntiae, in declnring thnt tlrc confession by itself runs u{ficienl,, tolren ruilh lhe ather fncts nnd cirutmslnnces to srtltport Abdtil Mnjid's conaiclion, The retrsction of the confessiott w{ts whally inmratwial once it was tound thst it wns aalunt*ry as well as true ."

10.Sfurfinrly itr llrc cnse of the State u, Mitthun nlias Gul l-Iassan PLD 1.964 SC 813 tlis Court hns obseraed ns under:-

"As for the confessrorrs the High Court, it nppenrs, u)fis duly cotrsciaus of tlte fnct thnt relrncled cottfession wlrcther judicial ar cxtrn judicinl, could legally be tnken into considerntion ngnirust tha nmker af lhose confessions hinrcelf, nnd if tlw confessions toere found ta be lrue nnd uohmtnry, then there uifrs no need nt nl| t:o loak for furlher carroborntion. It is well*settled that as agcirtst tlrc mnlw himself his contessiotr, judicial or extrn indicinl, zuhetlrcr retraeted or not retracted, can in laru unlidly lorm the sole basis of his conaiction, if the Court is satisfied nfid belieaes thst it was true and aoluntary and zuas not olttained by torhre or coereion ar in ducunerrf. " (bold added)

14.Thus, the court laict down a two pronged test as under (a) whether the reh'actect judicial confession appears to have been made voluntarily, without any inducemetrt, dures$ or coercion and (b) was made with the object to state the truth.

15.Notably it was also held that if both (a) and (b) were satisfied even if there were sorne irregularities irr recording of a confession it would not warrant clisregarding of the same. Irr rny view however following the case of Azeern I(h*rr V Mujahid Khan (2016, SCMR 274) such irregularities must be of a minor nature and must not have detracted from either the voluntariness or tmthftrlness of the confession.

\\a

16.In the cnse of Ilahadur V State (PLD 1996 SC 336) although it was suggested thal a juelicial confession alone can bc macle the basis of conviction the safer course wfis to look to Bcs if thcre wils flny corroborative material availnlrle to detcrmirre ile lruthfuhle$$.

17.In thc cn$e of Manjcct Singh V Statc (IJLD 2006 SC 30) a further requireureut seerned to be adr{ed that in cletermining the truthfulness of the coufession it lrnd to be plncctt within the context of the whole of the prosecution evitlence/case.

18.ln my vielv therefore I arn not in any doubt that a rekacted conIession before a magistrate can be the basis of convicting in a capital case however it r:rust be;

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

(b)Its object must be to state the kuth; assistance for which can be ascertained from (i) whether the confession apFears truthful within the contexi'of the prosecution .ur* und (ii) whether there is any other evidence on record which tends to corroborate the truthfulness of the conjession and

(a)only minor irregularities regarding the rules concerning the recording of judicial confessions can be permitted as cletermined on a case to case basis the main criteria being that such irregularities have not adversely effected the voluntariness or truth.fulness of the confession.

I find tl'rat when the retracted judicial confessions are placed in the corrtext of the prosecution case there is no evidence to suggest that they were not voluntarily made or made through induJeinent or coercion and their object was to tell the truth,

I also find that all procedural safeguards in recording each of the juclicial confessions have been fully complied with and as such I place reliance on each of the judicial confessions.

The next question is whether there is any corroborative/supportive evidence in relation to the retracted jtrdicial confessions although admittedly corroboration tends to be a rtrle of carrtion however in cases \ of retracted judicial confessions I consirler such corroboration I supportive evidence to be of irnportance/significance especially in a capital case.

I find the following corroborative/strpportive evidence to the retracted judicial confessions of the appellants.

(ct)That it is an admitted position that appellant John worked in the office of the deceased as it was he who is named in tl're FIR as being present at the time of the incident ancl narrating the facts of the incident to the

colrlplainant about the murder and robbery by the two unknown persons. Initially it therefore appeared to the police that John *u, p*ihaps a wituess aud was uot nrrested. Itowerer *1,*r'r the Supreme Coult ordered a reinvestigation the startiug poiut for the naw investigation team was John as hc r,vas the only pcrson prescnt at thc time of Jhe robbery ancl lllltr{.ler- It r,vorrk{ nlso ltnvc bcerr irnpossiblc for thc othcr appellants to know that the decenserl kcpt a safc in Iris r:rfficc witlrr:ut John iclting them as them tlvo otlter appcll*uts had notlrirrg tr: clo with the eleccasecl oflice rt'lrr:r*as Johrt \.vns fl trustccl ernployrs and hence appellant John ancl the ottrer nppr'llnuts ltatched the rnbbery of the dcceascd who was killed on t'r:sistatrct: b1r appellarrt Zahirl, I-lence when thc ncw investigative tcam irrrcster.l Johrr uuder $.54 Cr.PC for suspicion of committing the crime he crackecl aurl confesseri to the robbery anr{ the murder.

(e)Having confessecl to the police to committing the crime John also lead tlre police to lris house where on his pointation a saving certificate of RS l0lacs irr the narne of the deceased wfls recovered which fully Iinked him to the robbery and murder the saving certificate being his share of the proceeds of crime. Appellant ]ohn also implicated appellant Sajjad in the crltne who the police recovered the deceased laptop from which was pickec{ out at an identificatiorr parade as the Iaptop belonging to the deceased which linked appellant sajjact to tl"re robbery and murder" Appellant Sajjid then implicated his bother appellant Zahid in the crime rvho the police arrested on his pointation from whom another saving certificate of l.0lacs \ /as recovered from in the name of the deceased which again litikecl hirn to the robbery and murder. An unlicensed pistol was also recovered from appellant Zahid. Within 6 days after their arrest all tl'uee of the appellants conJessed to the crime before the judicial magistrate in the terms reproduced earlier.

($When tl-re empty recovered at the crime scene was sent for FSL along with the pistol recovered from appellant Zahid it produced a positive FSL report,

(g)That the medical evidence also fully supports the prosecution case in that the deceased received two firearm injuries from close range as evidenced by the blackening around the wounds cluring the couise of him putting up resistnnce to the robbery.

(h)Tlrat the police PW's had no enrlity or ill-will towards any of the appellants ancl hact no reason to falsely irnplicate them in this case for example by foistirrg the recoveries or1 tlie appellants ancl in such circunrstflnces it has been helcl tlrat the eviclence of tn* police PWs can be fu]ly relicd upon, In this respect rcliancc is placed on the cfise of Mrrsht*q Ahmed V The Statc (2020 SCMR 47a).As such I place reliance on the evidence of the police witncsscs whosc eviclcnce was not tlentecl dtrring \ Iengtlry cross examinetions,

(i)That all tlre PW's arc consistcnt in their cvicicrrce ancl even if there are sorne contradictiot'ts in ttreir cviclencc I cousider these contradictions as minor in nature anct not mnterial ancl certainly uot of such rnateriality so as to effect the prosecutton case and the conviction of the appellants. In tlds respect reliance is placed on the cases of Zakir I(han V State (1995 SCMR 1793) and Khadim Hrrssain v. The State (PLD 2010 Suprerne Court 669).The evidence of tlre PW's provides a believable corroborated t

'a

I

--\ unhrgkurr cftnlrr rrf cvcrr[.,] frurn ap;rcllnnt Jcrhn confc.*sing to the crime to thc rccnvt,ry pf unc of tlre snvinlg ccrtlflcat*s r;n his pointation to appellant tinlJntl crtrrfasslrrg to tlrc erlmc'nrrcl thc rccovcry of. thc tlcccased laptop frtrttl hlru tu tlru nrrpst of Znlrkl on hls lrrothe r ,$aJad's paintation anc{ him rttttft'ssirrg fo tlu erlmc nnd the rccoycry of thc othcr saving certificate frtrtr Irirri nlrrrrg wltlr nu unllccnscd ;rlstoi. wlrlch when matched with the r t'trrpty r'.'r6vcrc,l nt t5e sccne of thc crime lcad to a positive FSL report. fi) I'hc rnptive for: t5c crlnre wns robbcry which escalated into murder ivlrcn tlc r.lcccasccl rcsistcd tlrc robbcry at his office which ties in with the cottfcssions of the nppcllatrls,

(k)Thc f*ct thnt nr: private person was a mashir I did not fincl to he of lrugc sigrrificance in this ctay ancl age where if has virtually become a ju.iicinlll, rccognizcct fact thit private persons do not want to associate thentsclves with such like crirnes'

(l)uncloubtedly it is for the prosecutiot't to prove its case ageinst the appellants beyo,ci a reasonabie doubt but I have also considered the .iiience case to see if it at all can caste doubt on or dent the prosecution case. The clefence case is simply one of false implication by the police sirlplictcr despite ttre police hiving no entnity witl'r the appellants. None of the appellant's fgave evidence on oath and none of the appellants called *;i, DW to support their defence case, The defence that the appellarrtis confession was not made voluntarily and that the recoveries *i itt* stolen items from the deceased office were foisted on the appellants are after thoughts in order to save the skin of the appellants and I ctisbelieve the same in the face of the over whelming prosecution evidence and find that the defence case has not at all dented the prosecution case.

19.Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, I uphold the impugnecl judgment and dismiss the aPPeals.

IU E

o) In Lt*l