Aziz Khan and an Other (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

C r_D L--.1, \r."v (.^; "\.\ LtLil )4f giRrlF l_c_4lli _q,r- I nE L_rrl4 il lr

, SINDI.I H IGI{ COURT

tr/ -7;-a. rVl.t . / ? f* c c'"'/oz Compsiion < t ll ench. A;e*!24:-- )l / Jra.tka. l4 K7"aq t t|br\ . tJ.-,,

Dates of lrearir:g:; ?5/N/2o ^^rl aU/oe1Nl Decidc<r ,:n u oA fouf 2a

(rr)J udgment aPProvcd fctr reporting.

:ffi Ycs

CERT IFICATE

or cnuuciate-s n'p[iricip-lc Certilied that tlle jrr(jgnlent /Otricr is bascd upolr irrrprcssion/distiesrtishes/ r.i,"-'ia.lij.r';';;;;aiil; "i r.l"-ui,i.r,-ti fiist "r Jt.i-irr.tt a prr:vicus "i decision' "tr.tses/'cxplains

*Strikc out wl cltcvcl is not applical:le

/ NO1'E,-(;) This slip is only to tre r'sed wltcn some act'ioll is lo be taken' (ii) tf thc slip is used, the lleadcr must attach it to tho top of the first page of thc iudgment.

(iiil Rerder tnrrst ask the Judge writing the Judgrnent whetbcr thc Judgment is approvr:d :lor reporl'tng'

(iv.r l'hose dircctions which are not to be used should bc delct'd' []GP,, K ar'--L (iii] I 459-5,000'- 6'93--T S'S'

qq\ -+t3T

r +.

\,\tc. '\ .,,il['rl1 u\ ).i;. ..-o . .,Jl.i

rl- THE HIGH couRT oF srNDH ar rentrcnr t

Spl. Cri. ATA. No. ,t / 1 ot z00t

Aziz I(han S/o Gella Iihan

\{engla I(han S/o Gella KIan \lusLm, r\duh, Both are confined at Central Prison, r-\RACHr. . . . . . . . r\ppellants

\/ IiRSL'S

I he Stare. I{esp<>ndcnt

FIR No. 145/ 2005 Dated 15-11-2005 U/Ss.302, 324, 427 ,

109,34 P.P.C.

R/w5.3/4llxpl.Act, R/w S. 7 ofATA-97.

P.S. t\rnllery Maidan, I.iATLA.CH].

APPEAT U/S 2s oF TrIE ATA. 19 2 R/w SECTION 410 OF Cr.p.C.

I Being aggneved and dissatisfied by the Judgcment dated 31-5-2007 passed by the ,\'l(_ (_oun No. 5 in Spl. Case No. 37l 5 whereby the abovenamed appellants were awarded death tence alongwith imprisonment for ljfe & finc for the offenccs tioncd abovc. I-lence, this appeal has bcen prcferrecl kceping the follorving facts and grounds amongsr others Cr>rtd,. P /2

C1 o-. Go-lr DL,N C^^..dJ

LILtZ t,

HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Spl. Crl, Anti-Terrorism Appeal No'14 of 2007. Confirmation Case No.04 of 2007'

Present:

Mr. lustice Moh+lruud Karirr Khorr A Mr. I ustice Ztlf'i*rr Ali Stnti,

Appellants 1.Aziz Khan son of Cella Khan 2.Mangla K}ratr son of Gella Khan both through Shaikh Jawaid Mir, Aclvocate.

Respondent The State through Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General Sinclh

Date of hearing: 25.03.2020 ancl 26.03.2020

Date of Announcement 09.04.2020.

I UDGMENT

Moham mad Karim Khan Asha, I:- Accused Aziz Kharr son of Clella { Khan and Mangla Khan son of Gella Khan were triecl by learnecl Ju'-lge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.V, Karachi in Special Cases No. 37 of 2005 arising out of Crime No.145/2005 tt/ s. 302/324/ 427 /1,09 /34 PPC, 3 / 1 Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w. Section 7 AT A 1,997 registeretl at [5 Artillery Maidan (South) Karachi. After trial vide iutlgrnent tlatccl 31-.05.2007 the appellants Aziz. Khan and Mangla Khan were corrvictt'r.l and sentenced as under:-

a) For causing tleath of deceasetl Sabz Ali, Iftikhar Ahrneti, lawed Iqbal and Noor Rehman, by bornb blast Lr()th thc accused persons Abdul Aziz Khan antl Mangla Kl.r.rn .rlc awarded death sentence on each count u/ s 7(a\ of the Anti- Terrorism Act,1997.

b) For causing serious injuries to injured l) Faisal s/o Dilawar Hussain, 2) Muhammatl Aslam s/o Kafeel Ahmed, 3) Noor' I ur Rehman s/o Rahim u Din,4) Ilyas so/o Farzand, 5) All.rh Ditta s/o Saifal Khan 6) Asad Ali s/o Muhamnrad Amin, 7) Asif s/o Ahmerl Ali,8) Saeecl Ahmed s/o Abdul Qaelir, r)) Muhammad Sabir s/o Abclul L;rtif, 10) Muhammacl [liaz s7'o Sirraj, 11) Hassan Ali Khan s/o Rahmat-u-llah,.12) SaL'z Ali sf o Zargoon Shah, 13) lftikhar Ahmecl s/o Mir Afzal, 1'l) Khan Bahadur s/o Nadir Khan, 15) Nasir s/o Jarncs Masih, 16) Sirraj s/o Noor Ali, 17) Mir Zaman s/o Noor-u-llah, 1lt) Javed Iqbal s/o Noor Khan, i9) Lious Meja,20) Mst. Saclhwa w/o Pursee, and 21) Kashif Muhammad s,/o lkrarn-ur-

t4 Lltt I2l )rJ+

Rahman, punishable u/ s.7(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 7997 are each sentenced to suffer R.l. for 10 (ten) years anr-l pay the fine of Rs.50,000/-(Fifty Thousand) to each injureti.

). c) For causing of explosive bomb blast punishable u/s. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 both the accuscd persons sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Iife and their w'holc properties are directed to be forfeit to the Covernment iis providerl u/s. 5-A of the Explosive SuLrstances Act, 190tt d) For causing explosion by bomb blast which damagecl the building of Muslim Commercial Bank anll PIDC Ilousc, st, also to the 08 vehicles parked there punishable u/s.7(d) ol Anti-Terrorisrn Act,7997 and sentence each of thcm to suffer' R.l. for 10(ten) years anll to pay fine of Its.50,000/- (ltupccs Fifty Thousand) each.

e) For cornmitting an offence {or creating sense of fctrr atr.l insecurity in the minds of general public as well as business community punishable u/ s. 7(i) of Anti-Tt'rrorisnr Acl, 1997 ancl sentence each of them to suffer R.l. for 05(five) -Ve.rrs rlntl to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

All the sentences are directed to run c()ncurrently. Ihc sentence of death awarclet{ to accusecl persons arr: subjc'ct to { the confirmation by the High Court o[ Sincih.

2.Being aggrievecl and dissatisfiecl by tlre jutlgrrrent passt'tl [,v learned ]udge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.V, Karachi, the aforesaiel appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

3.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.1 1.2()05 at about 1015 hours the complainant SHO Farooq Umer lodgeel Flli through his 154 Cr.P.C statement stating therein that he was patrollirrg the arc.r along with his subordinates in police mobile van. That when he reacht'tl at Dr. Ziauddin Ahmed Roatl near Polo grounel at about 0tt45 hours, ht' heard noise of blast from the side of PIDC- I-louse, Karachi ancl as such, ht' immediately reached there and saw that a car bearing l(egistratiotr No.ACB-490 having Bogus No.AEC-087 (which he knew through its Engine No.B-214704) in which bomb was exploded in front of Muslim Commercial Bank, PIDC House, Karaclii. Due to said explosittn Inanv vehicles were burnt i.e. Car Nos.ABZ 634, ACS-483, AFM-.159, AFM-g7it, ACV-344, AGr522, AJH-139 and AHN-643 whereas the car in which thc explosive device was plantecl was totally destroyecl. The passers by ancl security guards of PIDC house and Muslim Commercial Bank namelt' 1)

t4t4f t3l b*-

Faisal s/o Dilawar Hussairy 2) Muhammaci Aslam s/o Kafeel Ahmecl, 3) Noor-ur-Rehman s/o Rahim-u-Din,4) Ilvas s/o Farzand 5) Allah l)itta s/o Saifal Khanl, 6) Asad Ali s/o Muhammad Amin, 7) Asif s/o Ahmetl }\ Ali,8) Saeed Ahmed s/o Abdul Qadir, g) Muhamma,'l Sabir s/o Abtlul Latif, 10) Muhammacl Riaz s/o Silraj, 11) Hassan Ali Khan s/o ll.rhmat-u- llah, 12) Sabz Ali s/o Zargoon Shah, 13) lftikhar Ahmed s/o Mir Afz.rl, 14) Khan Bahadur s/o Nadir Khan, 15) Nasir s/o.|ames Masih, 16) Sirraj s/o Noor Ali, 17) Mir Zaman sf o Noor-u-llah, 18) lavect lqbal s/o Noor Khan, 19) Lious Mtja, 20) Mst. Sadlrwa rv/o Purset', ancl 21) Kaslrif Muhammad s/o Ikram-ur-Rahman receiveci injuries as a result of tht' bomb blast. The nearby building of PIDC i.e. Muslim Commercial Bank and KFC were also damaged.lnjuretl Sabz Ali, Iftikl.rar Ahmeel, Jaweel Iqbal and Noor Rehman succumbecl to thcir injuries Prior ttt reachirrll hospital.

4.After registering the case the LO. startecl investigatiou. Orr 16.11.2005 at about 1545 hours the l.O. came to kmrw through SIO t'olict' 1 Station Gulshan-e-lqbal, Karachi that accused of the instant crime are confined in another case Crime Nos.582/05 to 585/05 u/s 4/5 Explosivc' Substances Act and Arms Ordinance at Police Station Culshan-+lqbal, Karachi. On interrogation by the LO. both the accuse'd persons ar"lrnittcel their involvement in this case, hence they were duly arrestecl in present case in presence of SIP Ajmal Awan auel SIP Muharnmael lslatr.r aftt'r completing legal formalities.

5.After completion of the investigation the'1.O. submitted chargc sheet before the trial court and the trial court forwarded both accusetl persons in judicial custody whilst placing the names of absccxr.ling co-accused Behram Daagh son of Rehan Bugti ancl Abtlul Harneetl son ol Ali Murad in column No.2 with red ink as absconders. Thereafter formal charge was framed and read over to the accusecl Persons, to which thev pleaded not guilty and claimecl to be tried.

6.To prove its case the Prosecution examinecl 30 prosecution witnesses and exhibited numerous documents and other items anel thereafter the side of the prosecution was closeti. Statements of the accused persons were recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C in which they deniecl all the allegations leveled against them and pleaded false implication- t,,.,r/.

LlLt [" t,rl )6

7.Learned Juclge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.V, Karachi, after hc'aring the learned counsel for the Pa ies and assessment of eviclence available on record, rride the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2007, con'i'icted antl ). sentenced the appellants as stated above, hence these appeals have been filed by the appellants against their convictions.

8.The facts of the case as well as evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment, therefore, the same are not reproduced here so as to avoitl tluplication ancl unrleccssarl repetition.

9.Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the whole o[ the eviclence given by the prosecution witnesses has been manipulatc'tl bv the police in that their timings are not precise, that there are contrarlictions where the engine was found, that the arrest of the accusecl was ckrubtful, that the appellants retracted judicial confessions wert' not ma(lo rrr accordance with the law laid down for Inaking confessiolts.]n(l .rs sut.11 .( they cannot be relied upon, that the evidence of the eye witncsscs cann()t be relied upon, that even otherwise the iclentification paratle is lropclt'sslv flawed as it has not been carricri out in accordance w'ith thc lau'.rtrti as such cannot be reliecl upon ancl as such the appellants for anv of 1;.,.' 3[rolt' reasons should be acquitted of the charge by extencling them the benefit o[ the doubt. In support of his contentions he placecl reliance on Irfan alias Shani v. The state and another (2020 YLIf 372), Hakeem and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 1546), Usman Ali v. Additional Sessions f udge, Toba Tek Singh and 9 others (20'17 P.Cr.LJ 155), Allah Wanayo v. Mst. Ladan and 3 others (2020 MLD 334), Abdul Haq and others v. The State (2020 SCMR 116), Naeem alias Titu and 4 others v. The state (2020 YLI< 74), Noor Islam v. Ghani-ur-Rehman and another (2020 SCNII{ 3lt)), Mst.

Nazia Anwar v, The state and others (2018 SCMR 911), Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State (2011 SCMR 563), Shafqat Mehmood and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 537), Muhammad Ayaz and others v. The State (2011 SCMR 769), Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2011 SCMR 527), Sarfraz alias Mattu v. The State (2005 YLR 980), Pir Noroz Ali Shah v. The State (2019 P.Cr,Ll 457), Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), Muhammad Mansha v, The State (201ti SCMR 7721, Kanwar Anwaar Ali, Special )udicial Magistrate: in the matter of Criminal

t4L(T tsl ffi

Miscellaneous Application No.183 of 2019 in Criminal appeal No 259 of 2018 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 488), Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and other (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64), Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v' I The State and others (2019 SCMR 956), rN azir v. The State and another (2019 SCMR 1,297), W aieeh'ul-Hassan v. The State (201 9 SC\4lt I 991). Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652), Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129), Gangoo Ram v. The State (2003 l'. Cr.L.f 1608), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v. State and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333) ar.rd Dhani Bux alias Dhanoo and 2 others v. The State (2000 P Cr.l-l 239).

10.On the other lrand learned APG appearing on belralf of tht'Statc has fully supported the impugned judgment and in particular crrntcndt'cl there is no doubt where the engine was found as its chassis number is mentioned in the FIR which was lodged without delay anel that tht'errgitrt' was recovered outsicie of the car.rs confirmetl by the I'W's, tliat it h.rtl been recovered by the time the BDU exPert arrived, that tho tilrc differences were minor, that the retracted judicial confessions were madtr voluntarily and can be relied upon, that the eye witnesses were rclitrblc, trust worthy and confidence inspiring anel hacl corrcctly iclerltiiit.tl tht' appellants as being the persons who parked the car with the bomb in it and had correctly identified them at the identification parade which was carried out in accordance with the law; that the appellants wcrc seL'l] getting out of the car which held the car bomb which shortlv tl.lcre.lft('r exploded killing and injuring so many which engine was recovcrcll, likewise the white corolla in which the apPellants hall made their t'scapt' good from the scene had been recoverecl on the arrest of the appellarrts whilst they were carrying unlicensed $'eaPons and explosives, that thc recoveries supported the prosecution case and as such the appeals against conviction should be dismissed and the confirmation reference answercd in the affirmative. In support of his contentiolrs he placecl reliance on the High Court Rules for conducting identification parades and recording confessions, Special Criminal ATA No.39,40 and 41 of 2010 Muhammad Ashfaq & others V The State daterl 16,12.2019 (Dts oi Sinclh l ligh ('ourt' Unreported), Ghazanfar Ali @ Pappu and another V The State (2()12 SCMR 215). |oygun Bibi V The State (PLD SC 313), Khan Muhammad and others V The State (1999 SCMR 1818), Muhammad Amin V The

I

5l vh?'

J41B-

(l'l-l) State (PLD 2006 5C 219), The State V Minhun alias Gul Hassan

2002 SC 56)'

1964 SC 813), and Raz Muhammad V The State (PLD

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the l. partie's'

gone through the entire evitlence wl-rich has been reatl out bv the appellants and the impugnecl judgment with their able assistance atrtl have considered the relevant law including that cited at the bar' "12. In our view after our reassessment of the evidence based on tht' evidence of the PW's especially, PW MLO's, Post mortem reports ancl other medical evidence, PW police witnesses especially the BDU expert (}n thr: s}rot' and his report anc{ IO, recoveries made b1'the BDU exPert other PWs'and engine of the car which was usecl as a car bomb alorrg with No. plates of other damagerJ vehicles, ciamage to surrountling properties and the recovered CD which showed the blast we are satisfietl that the Prosecution has provecl beyond a reasonablt' doubt tlrat orr 15.11.2005 at about 0845 hours a car bearing registration No ACll-'I9() having Bogus No.AEG-087 planted with a bomb in front of Muslirrt Commercial Bank , PIDC House Karachi was explocled causing seritrus injuries to 1) Faisal s/o Dilawar Hussain, 2) Muhammacl Asl;rtn s/o K'r[t't'l Ahmed, 3) Noor-ur-Rehman s/o Rahim-u-Din, 4) llyas s,/o Farzantl 5) Allah Ditta s/o Saifal Khanl, 6) Asacl Ali s,/o Muhammad Anrin' 7) Asif s/o Ahmed Ali,8) Saeed AhmerJ s/o Abdul Qadir, g) Muhammacl Strbir s/o Abdul Latif, 10) Muhammad Riaz s/o Sirraj, 11) Hassan Ali Khan s/o Rahmat-uJlatu "12\ Sabz Ali s/o Zargoon Shah, 13) lftikhar Ahme el s/ o Mir Afzal, 14) Khan Bahadur s/o Nadir Khan, 15) Nasir s/o James Masih' 16) Sirraj s/o Noor Ali, 17) Mir Zaman sf o Noor-u-llah, 1lt) Javetl lqb'rl s/o Noor Khan, 19) Lious Meia, 20) Mst. Saclhwa w/o Pursee' and 2l) Kashif Muhammad s/o lkram-ur-Rahman of whom injurecl Sabz Ali' Iftikhar Ahmed, Jawed lqbal ancl Noor Rehrnan succumbetl kr tht'ir injuries ancl dierl prior to reaching hospital anc{ clamagir.rg the builelir.rg of Muslim Commercial Bank and PIDC House, and 08 vehicles parketl tht're This position is admitter:l bv counsel for the appellants and APC'

13.The only issue therefore, in our view, left before us is whether the appetlants were the persons who left the car bomb in front of Muslim Commercial Bank, PIDC House Karachi which explorleci causing serious.

uuq t7l 4q iniuries to 17 people tnentioned above and murtlered 4 other people mentioned above and caused damage to proPerty.

x 14. In our view after our reassessment of the evidence we find that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants (Aziz Khan and Mangla Khan) were two of the persous w'lro left the car bomb in front of Mustim Commercial Bank, PIDC l'louse Karachi which exploded causing serious iniuries to 17 people mentioned above and murdered 4 other people mentioned above anci clamagetl property as mentioned above for the following reastlns;

(a)In our view there is no unexplainetl delav in lociging the FIR after the incident n'hich coulcl have lead to concocting a false case against the' appellants. The FIR was lodgecl with promptitur-le bearing in mind the chaos and conlusion thcn prevailing with the priority to get peoplc ttr hospital ancl save their livcs. 'I he Irl['{ elicl not nanre anybody and hence there was no attempt t() fix anvbocly in a false case. The slight time dilierences given by the prosecution witnesses are only minor { in nature and are to be expectecl over the passage of time and the fact of the chaos then prevailing antl in our view are inconsequential and clo not lead to the conclusion that the prosecuti()il witnesses manipulated the case. With regard ttr the engine of the blowrr up car the evidence' ott record reveals that this was found at the scene' over 107 feet from the car used in thc blast as confirmed by the sketch preparetl by the tapeclar. The chassis no. is mentionecl in the FItl lvhich was lodgeel promptly, the engine was recovere,-l at.:,.l .t careful reading of the prosecution evidencL' especially PW 4 Farooq Umer where lrt' states that it was incorrect that the engine was 100 feet awav and the engine was fitted in the car ancl not insitle the car at the time reveals that there is no contradiction regarding the engine being irrside the car after the explosion

(b)In our view the foundation of the prosecution case against the appellants rests on two key pieces of evidence (i) Whether we can saiely rely on the retracted juclicial confessions of both the appellants and (ii) the eye witnesses eviclence in terms of whether the eye !vitnesses have bee.n ablt' to correctly identify the appellants. We will tleal with each aspect intlividually in turn..

tt9o t8l )i+o-

(c)Turning firstly to the retracted fudicial confessions:

(i)the two later retracted judicial conlessions lna(le bv

T.

appellants (Aziz Khan and Mangla Khan) for ease of reference are set out below:

S.164 Sta(ement of Aziz Khan.

"We hm,e contnitted this ot'fenst on tln' itrsisttttt'r' ol Sardar people.l Abilul Aziz acconryuied uillt lJtlrrnm, Hnmeed and Mangla Khan lmd pntked tlr tplritL' t't'lutlt lnden uith explosit e nlLrngside PIDC nnd :r.tttl aa,ny"&old added)

5,164 Staternent of Mangla Khan.

"We lnt'e cotnmitted this bomb blast on tln' tttsistt'ttt1' ol Snrdar Brrgli" @olcl acltled)

(ii)It is settletl law that a retracted iudicial confessior.t can be legally admissible and use.l against its rnak('r in certain circumstances. In the case of Muhammad Amin v. The State (PLD 2006 Supreme Ciourt 2lr)), it was helcl at P,224 Para 9 as under;

"9. There is tto csail to the proposition that conaiction could haae been auarded on the basis retracted con/ession tphiclr "f u.as examined in casc of Mst propositio Joygun Bibi a. Tlt? State PLD 1960 6C (l)rtk) 313 as under:-

"We nre unabLe lo strpport the proposition ol' lmu lnitl tloun by the learned ludges in tltis regnrd. The retrnction of n con.fession is t circuntstnnce tplich lns rto beartng ulnts<terct upon tlu qLestion u'hetler in the first instfince it uas pohtntarily nnde, tnd ot tlr .frtllu'r question Trlztlzr it is tnte. The fnt'l tlnt flt maker of lhe confession lnter does not ndlurc lo it cnnnot hy ilself hn?te n y L'ffact ttyol llu' fndings reaclutl ns to ?t'lvtller the confessirtrt tuas ttolunlnry, nnd if so, ?ulvtlrct it ruas lrue, t'or to ruithdrmo frtnn a self-nccusing sttttt' rcnt in direct fnce of tlrc consequencts of llrt nccusntiott, is explicnble .fitlly by tlu proxinnty oJ tln* consequences nnd ntt'tl ltttc tto connectiotr rulntsoeuer u'ith either its t'olunlnnl nature, or tlft truth of the fncts stnted Tltc lenrned lutlges ruere perfectlll igltt in .first deciding these ttrc qrcstions, nnd tlp nrtstlcrs being in the affnnntiu', in det'laring tlnt llrc confession by itsell. ws su.ffitienl, trrkett u'illt

I

t4rl g4r-

the otlur lacts nnd circumstnntes to sttpfort Abdul Majitl's conlticttotl. Tlrc retraction of the confession was wholly imfiateial once it was /ound that it was uoluntary as u'ell as true."

T

10.Similarly in tlrc case of llrc Stnk't'. Mittltrrtt alins Cut Htssan PLD 1964 5a 813 lltis Lourt ltts obsened as under:'

"As for the cont'essiorrs tlrc High Courl, il appears, tptls duly cotrsciotts ol tltl t'act tlrut retrncterl cont'ession rulutlrcr judicttl or t'rtrn judicial, could lcgnlhl be hrkttt ittlo ronsidertttion ngainst llrc nnker ol. llnst cont'essions ltinsef, nnd if lhe on]issiorrs u'err .fottnd to ht trut'nnd uttluntnry, tltctl tltrc u'ns no neul ull to look lbr furtlur corrobonttittt ' r It is well-settled tlmt as against tht maker himself his confession, jutlicial ot extra jutlicial, xoheth retracted or not retractul, can in law aaliilly form the sole basis of his conaiction, iJ the Court is satisfied and belieues that it uas true a d uoluntsru an.l u)as not obtained bq torture or coerciotr ttr inducement." (bolti aclrted)

(iii)Thus, the court laitl down a tu'o protrgecl tcst as ur.rcler (a) whether the retracte(l itttlicial totrft'ssiotr appears to have been made voluntarily, vvitllout.rrrt inducement, rluress ttr coerciot.t and (b) w'as nlaclc with the obiect to state the truth.

(iv)Notably it was also held that if both (a) and (b) were satisfied that even if there !\/cre s(rr'Ilt' irregularities in recording of a confession it u'ould rr()t warrant ciisregarcling of the same .

(v)In our view thercfore we are not in any d()ubt tlrat a retracted confession before a magistratc catr be llx' basis of convicting in a capital case however it must be;

(a)Voluntary i.e. without threat or induct:m('nt .rnd

(b)Its object must be to state the truth; assistance for which can be ascertainecl from (i) whether the confessiotr appears truthJul within the context of the prosecution case and (ii) whether thert'is any other evidence on recortl which tends to corroborate the truthfulness of the conJession and t

I 10 l t/S.t 4uy

(c)Only minor irregularities regareiing thc' rules concerning the recorciing of luclicial confessions can be permitted as determinecl on a case to case basis the main criteria L being that such irregularities have not adversely effected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession.

(vi)In our view basecl on the evitlenct' of PW 24 Khushi Muhammed who was the judicial magistriltc who recorded the confessions of the appellants lhe judicial confessious have been tnatle volurrtarilt without threat or inducement antl the confessions art' truthful when basecl in the context t.lf the prosecution case anrl other corroborative material which wt' will cliscuss later. Even the aPPellants in their S 3'12 Cr'l'C statements did not claim that the statements h'rr'l trot been macle voluntarilv ancl it was not sugUest('ll otherwise eluring cross examination of lhc iuelicial magistrate. Likewise the aPPellants only claim in their 5.342 Cr.PC statements that the)' h/ere n()t takcn our of the police mobile for their iclentification paradcs' They do not mention not being present at the tinre of their confessions. lnsteael thcy clairll th'rt thr'\ either signecl blank pieces of paper or thev elitl rrol I understand urdu as they were Balochi Thl' ludicial magistrate has cienietl that the appellants coultl not understand urdu likewise PW 30 Muharnmc'd Iaritl who was the lO.

(vii)In our view iI there are anv irregularitics itr recorcling the conlessions these are only tlinor irr nature for example the appellants werc b()th sclrt t(r judicial custocly after recording their conft'ssiotrs although they were not informed ()f this Pri()r t() making their conJessions and have no bearing ot.t the voluntariness and truthfulness of the conftssitrrls 'rrrel can be ignorecl and thus we rely on both of the retracted iudicial confessions to the extent of both the appellants parking the car bomb outside the PIDC building shortly before it exploded irrjurirrg l7 people atrd murdering 4 people. In the case of Raz Muhammad v. The State (PLD 2002 Suprenre Court 56) it was held that a delaf in recordirrg a lutlicial confession would not be fatal. ln this cast'the jr-reiicial confessit,ns rv(re ltt.ltlc withil' 3 rr r.'t'ks 'rl lll("rrr('\t Lrl the appellants

(viii)Other corroborative material in respect of tht' retracted judicial confessions of the appt'll;nts catt bt' fountl in the fact that the blast came fronr .l c'lr 1'arkt'ti outside I'tDC houst' atrtl that car u'as lillctl rvitlt explosives as per the evidence of Ir.tost oi tlrt' politL' PW's and in particular PW 2? Mrrhamrrtetl lttbal tlrt' '/

t 11 l

US3

+rry

BDU exPert, his t'ecoveries at thc sc!'ne being, "l' Coiled Spring for Timer,2.Electrical coil with lcrrgth of wire,3. Pieces of metal recovered near the cr.rtcr (No other residue after full-fledgecl blast foun''l), \ Detail of Crater: One and half feet into 04 feet. All round at the place of blast" and his report .rnr'l thc CI) which was recovered on the sPot anri showetl the blast.

(d)Turning to the identification of thc apPellants

(i)Eye witness PW 25 Zahir Shah was a taxi tlriver [t'r the last 40 years rl'ho according to his eviclence otr tlrt' clay of the incitlc'nt (15.11.2005) Iiatl pickecl up a passenger ancl hacl cl rop,l.rctl hinr at I)ll)C lroust' tre'tt MCB at about 8.45 arn aud was w'aiting outsitlt' PIDC' house for his passenger who did not have change to U() kr his office anll returlt ttl pay his fare Whi]st l.re r'r'as waiting a biscuity colourcd Suzuki Mehran came rvhich rvas parkecl b)' tlvo persons. The police ;rskeel hinr tL' r.r.rove his taxi (which corroborates the next l'W eye witness traffic police men Muhammed Ashraf).Whilst he was standing in front of the MCB he saw t!\'() persons get out of the biscuity coloured Suzuki Mehran I who got into a white corrolla car and left towarcls the bridge.(The sketch of the incident drawn up by I'14' 17 Jamil Ahmed shows the MCB to be just in frorrt of where the eye witness and his taxi was waiting and was where the Suzuki car was Parked bY thc appellants). He saw the bomb explode in the biscrrity coloured Suzuki Mehran from which the two men he saw had alighted and Bot into the white corolla. lht' engine ol the car fell ncar his taxi. l{e gave lris S 161 Cr.PC statement on the same day within a few hours and stated that he could recognize the Persons if they were again brought before him llis PrL'sollc(' .1t tlle scene is also corroboratecl by PW 30 N'luhan.rmecl faritl who is the [O who states in his evieletlct tll.]t .rlt('f reachilrg the scene, "l sttrted gettitg inJ.onnttlittrt irLtttt llu' pnblic nenn tt'hile one taxi driuer Zahir Shah inlbrtrcl lltt detrtil of irciderl in u'ltost preseuct' tlt( ittLid?ttl look 1tlt,t I recorded lis 5.161 Cr./'C st tenznt." In our view l.rc rv.rs not a chance witness, he was an independent witness, it was a day light incident and eye witness l'W 25 Z.ahir Shah got a good look at the men in the bisucity colored car which he was standing close to and said he could identify them if he saw them again. l le h;r,'l trt' cttmitl' torvards the appellants and hatl llo reasoll to falstlt' implicate them in this case. Ht' corrcctlv pickt'c1 ou t lhc appellant Aziz Khan at the itlentification paratle antl again in court. The fact that he failed to identify Mangla Khan and Abdul labbar in our view goes to his honesty in identifying the people he could remembtr .tt th!' identification par;rtie which w;ls carrieri out 7,'1.rys aftet'

I

qs4 tL2 l

W

the incident. There may be some' tleficiencies irr the conduct of the identification parade Lrut in our vicu' based on the particular facts anei circumstances oi tlris particular witnesses iclentification of the appellants thesr-' t deficiencies are not particularly relevant as in our vieu' the identification parade was not mandatory basctl otr the particular facts and circumstances of this case ln this respect reliance is placeti on Ghazanfar Ali V The State (20i2 SCMR 215) which in relevarlt Ptrrt at I"rr'r 13 ')l P.224 reads as under;

"Eoen othenuise the holding of identificution patade is not fiandatory and it is metelq a coroboratiae piece of euidente. I.f tlrc sttlttttr'ttl of a oitness qwr tlrc identity o.l nn at'ctts'tl tt'en tt.t Court inspires corfidence, if he is consistt'nt on nll rntterinl partitultrs uul llu're is trclltittg ttr elidence to suggest th t ln' is deposirtg.litlstlv, llt absence of lntding of rtlenli.ficttion ptrada u'ottld nol be fst to tlr Prttsectrtio u. ll llirb )iu >ttttllt 2,. Slnle cr ruu tnd Knslnurr ((19/t) 4 Srrprttttt Court Cnses 480), the Court uplrld the cottl'tLtuttt ttrhere no ilcntification pnradc lnd hLrn lu'll rrntl obsen,ed thnt tlu t'nilure to lnhl irkn tr fitrtltrttt pttritle tLould not he .fattl irt ttrses ulwrc rnorrglr I rcrroborntit't nud t-tnrlttsn'c tt'td, ttLt' tlrts rtt'ttlrthlt A sinilar cicrt' tpts tnkt'n irr Slnt{'.) f LI.P (1970) 3 Supreme Courl Crrscs 518) (boLJ added)

With regard to rleficiencies in thc' identification pararlt' reliance is placed on Muhammed Siddique V State (202() SCMR 342) which held as under at Para 5 which is sct ()ut below;

"5. Castigating setterely the et'idencc oJ lasl irlenti.fication pnrnde, tlrc leanted corrnsal relied upon tlv guidelines lrtid dotott ttr lltr" use of Ktttt\t /\ttlt'nr 1\li (PLL) 2019 SuPrcrfle Court 488) to urge exclusion thereof. The sltpra cnse indeed n t'int pit.l.' ol juridicnl literature, nonetluless, does trot extend nuch help to tlt cont'icts; il ttnittl1 addressed laconic npproach adopted hv n Magistmte in lnlding tlrc test idenlifictlion pnrnde in tfu snitl cnse ulile lighlighling Sener l princiPLes o.f lnrt' ott flrc *hject.

Test identifcatiott pnrnde is t mctlnd oJ proof contempltlted by Article 22 of tlte Qoarrtr-i' Shahndat Order, 1984, reproduced helotL'.for tlr conuenience o.f re.fercnce j "Facts necessary to explnin or inlroduce t .fncl in issue or releunnt Jnct, or dtich sttpporl or rthtrl tttr inference suggestetl by n t'rct in tssul ot rPl(uttlt

qt{ t 13 l ry fnct, or 'person tdticlt estnblish tlr identill of artvlhing or tlhose itlantity ts releunnt, or fi tlra lttttt'.or pLnce nt nhich any lacl in isstN or rPlrt'tlttt .ltlt I hnppened, or u'hr,lt slntr tlp relnliort of p'trlt''s by ,uiro* n y surh t'nct rpas transncted, nre reletnnl itr t so fnr ns they nre tecessnnl for that purpose" ' Tfu nbot'e t'rnnrcttork prot'rdes enotrglt s|trtLt' lo arlrnit et'ilente iL proserLrrtirttr o.[ tLft'rulars prcaiously unacquaitted zoith the uictims or 'the zuitnesses; apprnisnl ol'suclt eddencc is trbjt't't to amte principles ls ue uircrsnlly rrytplicnhlt tr't ltl1 Ptece of et,icbncc, under consderttlit'tt rtt tr criminal trinl; there ore no additiotLnl birrirttdes tls is epident fron the ptnin reding o.f tlrc Artirk ibid; toithout prejudicc to tfu snt'egnrds m'nilnble to ttt accused nt each stnge of tri l, 5senti lly .liir rc gunrnnteed tmder the Constitutkttt, nttrrcthclrss, il Toes not cnst nn rtrlificinlly fuin'ier orttts o lh? prosecutiotl to meet standnrds of proo.f beyorul luman cn1tadty. Each criminal case is to be decided hadng regard to its oun peculiur fucts afld circuttrstances. A test to be esseutiallq applied itr one case maq absolutelq bt itreleaant in anothel, ss the crimes are seldotn committed irt identical situations; thert tnaq be cases tulrctein prosecution must assigrr distinct roles ptayed during the occurretct bv the culprits for determination of their guilt as uell as consequences thereof, hou'ettt'r, tlwe sre cases in uhich totolity of tronsactiot maq not zuarraflt req rsbilitY fo, suclr deternination, like the ote in hantl. Cascs inaolzting abductions, dacoities and suddtn assaults, nore ofteu than not, cortstitutc' episodes u,hercin tlilferent roles pldyed bv tlt? ciulpits merge itto integral totalitu oJ th? crime, tlttts, it tuould be too harsh as utell as unrealistic to deffiatd exact r?enactment of roles bq the ulit esses, Capacities euart intellectually ttrost sharp dtLtindle drasticallq in calamitous situqtions, therefore, thc administration of crininal iustice, itt such peculiar situatiotts, has to be dynanricallq balanced ttpon fair tial u'ithout preiudice to the accused as well as due u:eightage to tlrc prosecutiotr euidetce utithout being szuuqed by illusorq notions, subjcctiaely structured uPon hypothetical beliefs

Hat ittg .l'ound tlE lL,itfie sx's a'illt tto rt rr to gritul, irr- a cont.fortnble unison Ltrt nll lhe snliertt ft'tttrrr:s ol tht prosectlion cnsc as it't'11 is tu'ttts rollilt:t:tI theretoitlr, t'e do not feel perxrtful hq llu' argunents, cotlched on hyper technical prenrise' Pctiliorrs frtil. Dtsnissed." (boltl a.l,-led) ,

I 14 ]

t6{ l,t#

The case which we are currently clecitling.ittracts the above dicta as it is a case of suclden assault. Evetr a delay in holding the identification paratle of over a year was not fatal to the identifier correctlt' I identi{ying the accused whilst in this case the identilication parade was carried out within 7 days of the incitient. ln this resPect reliance is placecl on the case of Solat Ali Khan v. The State (2002 scMR 820) and in any event evidence flowing fronl alr identification paracle is only a corroborative piece of evidence ancl cannot supersede reliable, trustn'orthv, conJiclence inspiring direct evidence. In this respect reliance is placed on Muhammad Ehsan v. The state (2006 scMR 18s7).

The eye rvitnesses presence at the scene was not challenged. He hacl an unobstructecl \'ie!,' ol thc appellants when they got out o[ the Suzuki rnt']rrltr car as is indicatecl in his evir.lence and the skctch. I{is evidence \^'as not shatterecl during lt'ngthy crttss examinatiolt ancl rve iincl his evielence trr [rc' t tliablt', trust $'orth), anel con[itlencc inspirirrg atlc] thus we believe the evidence of this witness in terms of his correct identification of both the appellants as being the persons who drove and got out of the car which { later exploded injuring over 17 people and murdering 4 people and we rely on such evidence based solely on his eye witness testimony having given little weight to the identification parade as it was a joint identification parade.

(ii)Eye witness PW 26 Muhammed Ashraf rvas a traffic constable or.r clutl' outside PIDC houst'.rl tl.rt' time of thc incident. Accorcling to his evidenee at about 8.45 am on the elay of the incieient (15.11.2(105) he was in front of NBP PIDC house rvhen hr" sa"\'5 t() 6 cars, a taxi and a white corolla illc'gall'r' parkctl outside MCB. He told the taxi driver to movt'but th(' taxi clriver saicl he rvas n'aitilrg for his t.rrt' (corroborates eye witness PW 25 Zahir Shah who vras that taxi driver).He also tolci the white corrolla to move but the driver said he was waiting for his two companions who were parking there Suzuki car.In his evidence he sates that he saw two persons tetting out of the Suzuki Mehran car and get in the white corolla car which then left iust prior to the blast. His Presence on duty is corroboratetl bv ['\\' 21 Tariq Javed who cleputed him kr the I'IDC traf f ic signal and proelucecl eye witness PW 26 Muhammed Ashraf's daily dairy shon'ing his prest'nce l{is presence is also corroborated by Pl4f 30 Muhammed Tariq who was the IO and recordecl his statement at the traffic chowki within hours of the incicient on tllc sarne clay and his presence at the scene was not challenged by the appellants ln our view he rvas not

t 1s l t|f,7 40r a chance witness, it was a day light incident and eye witness PW 25 Muhammed Ashraf got a good look at the men in the Suzuki Mehran car which he was standing close to and said he could identify them if I he saw ihem again, His 5,161 statement was recorcied within a matter of hours on the same tla\" He hatl rro enmity tou,ards the appellants and tracl no reas()n t() falsely implicate the ;rl.rpellants irl this cast' l l..' correctly pickecl out both the appcllants at thc identification parade and again in court. The fact that he failed to identify Abdul Jabbar at the identification parade in our view goes to his honesty in iclentifying the people he could remember at thc' irientification parade which was carriecl out 7 clavs after the incident. Basecl on the Particul'rr facts ;rnel circumstances of this case keeping iir view lhat c'ach criminal case turns ot.t its own particular facts 'rtrel circumstanccs there rvas Iro neeel for an itlentiiicatir'rrl paracle which itt such circunlstances rl"is not mantlatory. ln this respect as mentionecl aLrovt' reliance is placed on Chazanfar Ali V The State (2012 SCMR 21S).There may be some tleficiencies in tl.rt' concluct of the identificatiorl Paradl' t.tut in our vit'rl based on the Particul.lr facts and circumstances oi this particular witnesses identification of the appellants 1 these deliciencies are not particularly relevant' ln this respect reliance is again placetl on Muhammed Siddique V State (2020) as mentioned abovc' The case which we are currentlv clecitlir.rg attr'lcts tht above dicta as it is a case of sucltlt:ll assattlt llvcn a delay in holtling the i,.lentification paracle oi ovt'r a year was not fatal to the iclentifier correctlt' identifying the accusecl. In this resPect reliance is placed on the case of Solat Ali Khan v. The State (2002 SCMR 820) and in this case the iLlL'n tific'r [i()tr parade was carriecl out within a week ot thc' itrcir-lt'nt antl in any event evidence flowing lrom 'rn iclentification parade is only a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot supersede reliable, trustworthy, confidence inspiring direct evidence lrr this respect reliance is placecl on Muhammad Ehsan v' The State (2006 SCMR 1857).

LIis eviclence rvns not shatteretl eluring lt'ngthr' cross examination attcl n'e fir.ttl his eVidence tQ be rcliablc, trust h'orthY itnd ctlnfitlcnce ir.rspirirrg arrtl thus we believe the evidence of this eye witness in terms of his correct identification of both the appellants as being the persons who parked and got out of the car outside PIDC house which later exploded injuring over 17 people and nlurdering 4 people and we relv on such evidence based solely on his eye witness testimony having given little weight to the identification parade as it was a ioint identification,

Ll59 t 16 l

W

Parade,

(iii)eye witness PW 26 Khushi Muhammed is the jutlicial magistrate who recorded the confessions of tlre aPPellants i and also conductecl their ielentification pararlc. t le recognized both the appellants in court as the accusecl rvhost judicial confessions he recorclecl ancl who were' picketi ou t ot the identification paracles which he herld.

(e)All PW's corroborate themselves in all material respects. Iivetr i[ there are any contradictions in their evidetrce anr.l that ol anl other prosecution rvitness we consider these contraclictions as minctr itr nature and not material antl certainly not of such materiality so as to effect the prosecution case and the conviction of the aPpell.lnts. In this respect reliance is placed on Zakir Khan V State (.1995 scMR i793)

(f)It is well settled by now that police w'itnesses are as gtxr.l as attv other witness provided that no ill will, enmitl', malaficle or perstrn.rl interest is proven against him vis a vis the appellar.rt. In this t't'spe,: t reliance is placed or.t Riaz Ahmad V State (2004 SCMR 9liii), Zafar V State (2008 SCMR 1254) ancl Abbas V State (2008 SCN'lR 1t)8) ln this case there was none ancl the police witnesscs hacl no rcasotr to falsell, implicate the apprellnnls. No such enrnit.y, ill r'r'ill, rllalalitl.' or personal interest was even suggestecl to the polir:t' w'itt tcsses ttr' any other PW during their cross examination inclucling the eve witnesses.

(g)That it was a tiav Iight incicler.rt

(h)That when the appellants were arrested the next dal' thev wl're found with illegal arms and ammunition ancl explosives in a white corrolla,

(i)Although it is for the prosecution to pr(rve its c.rse beyon,'1 a reasonable doubt we have also considered the defense casc'u'hiclt in effect is false implication. We disbelieve this clefense case as the appellants claim to have been arrestecl itr Llvclt'rabael ['r' Iau' enforcement agencies yet thev producetl nt'ither anv tr'itlrcss rr()r any application to any competent authority to suPPort this Iine ot clefense. It was simply a bald assertion. Thel'do not dclly being produced before the magistratc to make their conJessions but oulv indicate either that the)' could not understand the confession as it was in urdu which thel' coulcl not unclerstancl or thev sigrrt'cl a blank piece of paper. Even otherrvise PW 30 Muhammed Tariq who was the IO of the case who knew the appellants well as it w'rs he who had interrogaterl them and took them before the magistrate for both their identification Parades and confessions and has gi! en evidence that they did understancl urdu an.l PW 25 Khushi Muhammed in his evidence speciiically clenics that lh. .rccusc'l (lid not understand urdu and he recorcletl their coufessions alrtl as sucll signing on blank paper does not arise' Furthqrm()re, it d(x's rl()t appeal to reason, logic or commonsense that the appellants onlt' spoke and understood tsalochi as how would thel'havt'bcorr 'rblt' to explain anything to any bodv from the time of their arrest a dav

7'l L.t5q btqt-

after the incident? Neitl.rer of the appellants examiner.l thetnstlvt's on oath or called a single witness in support of his defenst'case anrl as such in the face of the overwhelming eviclence against then) especially in terms of their correct identificatiorl b1' reliable, trust f worthy and confidence inspiring eye witnesses we ciisbelieve tht' defense case which has not raised a single lloubt in our mintls about the appellant's guilt and simply appears to be an after thought in order to save their skins,

15.Thus, for the reasons mentioned and discussed above .rntl itr particular the confessions of the appellants and their correct iclentifica tiorl at the scene parking the car bomb and leaving just before it erplodcd bv reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring eye witnesst's antl otht'r corroborative evidence on record we fincl that the'prosecution has provt'cl its case beyond a reasonable doubt against both of the appellants arlel tltc convictions in the impugned juclgment are upheld

"16. Now turning to the sentences to be imposeci keeping in vi('rt' that we have come to the conclusion that the Prosecution has proved its case 1 beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellants in terms of c.rusing serious injury to L7 persons and murdering 4 persons in cold bloocl most of whom were civilians simply going about tlreir dailv busitr.'ss.rt 8-l5arrr in the morning.

17.We have no doubt that this was a brutal ancl barbaric attack aimr"ri at murdering innocent civilians in broacl day light in a busy part trf Karachi used by bankers and other office workers which was intendecl and designed to create fear and terror amongst the civilian and business community of the city and actually created such fear antl terror atrcl as such find that this was an act of terrorism falling under the purview of thc' AT A "t997.

18.The obiect of punishment uncler criminal law anti pelral jurisprudence can be for a number of purposes for examplc, reiormativt', deterrent or retributive. The sentence which is hantlecl clown will clepentl on the particular facts and circumstances of each case and the indivir-lual accused and the manner in which he committed the crime, tlre heinousness of the crime and the motivation behind the crime, whether there are any mitigating or aggravating factors amongst other things and as such sentencing can never be mechanical. ln this resPect reliance is

( 18 l ti60 +5rr

placecl on Muhammad Juman V State (2018 SCMR 318)

'19. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case keeping in view t the brutality of the crimes which was to in effect set a car bomb off irl broad day light in a busy business area of Karachi which seriously injured 17 and murdered 4 most of lvhom u,ere innocent civilians goirrg aboul their claily business and the btal disregarcl for hunan life (bt. it rnan women or child) and property the motivation oi which was t() create terror and fear amongst a certain segment of the society, the cornple'te lack of mitigating circumstances and in fact the presence of aggravating circumstances as mentioned earlier and the. need to discourtrgc such kir.rtl of offenses in Karachi which regrettably were most common at the tilne when these offenses were committed we are of the view that a deterrent sentence is the appropriate one and that no leniency is permissible.

20.In this respect reliance is place.r.l on Dadullah V State (2t)15 SCi\llt 856) which at P.862Para t helcl as under;

{ "9.Conceputally punishment to an .lccusecl is an,arrlcr.l on tht' concept of retribution, deterrence or reiormation. 'l-hr-' purpost' behind infliction of sentence is two fold. I-irstly, it rvoulrl creatt' such atmosphere, which could become a cieterrcnce for thr'1.rL:oplt' who have inclination tow,ards crime ancl; seconcllv, to lvor'k as a medium in reforming the offenct. Deterrent punishment is not only to maintain balance with gravity of wrong done by a Person but also to make an exalnple for others as a preventive measure for reformation of the society. ConcePt of tninor punishrlcnt rtr Iarv is to make an attempt to reform an individual w,rongtiot'r However, in such Iike cases, where the apPellants have committed a pre-planned dacoity and killed two Pers()n? no leniency should be shown to the culprits. Sentence of dc'ath would create a detetrence in the society clue to which no other person would dare to commit the offence of murder. If irr anr' proved case lenient view is taken, then peace, tranquility and harmony of society would be.ieopardized and vandalism would prevail in the society. The Courts should not hesitate in awarding the maximum punishment in such like cases where it has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused was involved in the offence. Deterrence is a factor to be taken into consideration while awarding sentence, specially the sentence of death. Verv n'ide tliscretion ill thc nlatttr ()1 sr'rrtcr'laL' has Lreen given to tlre courts, \a'ltich must bc exercisecl juc{icior.rslr" Death sentence in a murder case is a normal penalty ancl the Courts while diverting towards lesser sentence should have to give detailed reasons. The appellants have committctl tlrt'murclt'r' of two innocent citizens anrl also l(nte(i thc bank in,r rr,'atl[tttr, crucl and callous manner. Now a days the crilne in the society has reached an alarming situation and the mental proPensity towards,

I 19 l Llbl .w-

the commission of the crime with impunity is increasing. Sense of fear in the mind of a criminal before embarking uPon its commission could only be inculcated when he is certain of its punishment provided by law and it is only then that the purpose and object of punishment could be assiduously achieved. lf 'r Court of law at any stage relaxes its grip, the hardened crirninal would take the society on the same page, allowing the habitual recidivist to run away scot-free or with punishment not commensurate with the proposition of crime, bringing the administration of criminal iustice to ridicule and (ontenrPt. Courts could not sacrifice such deterrence and retribution in the name of mercy and expediency. Sparing tht' .rccusc'cl rvith .loath sentence is causir.rg a grave miscarriage oI justict' arrtl in ortlt'r ttr restore its supremacy, sentence of cleath shoulcl t.re inrl.roser-l trrr tht' culprits r,r,here the case has been 1.rrtrvecl.

10.This C ourt in Noor Mrtlnnrtuurl t'.Slrttr' (1999 .SCMR ?,',22) has also adverted to this aspect of tlle matter ancl has o[:st'rvt't1 .ts under:-

"How'ever, wo mav observe' that the peoplL'.:re ltlsirrg iaith in the clispensation ol criminal justice bv tht' ortlittarl criminal courts for thc' reason that the\,' t'itlrer actluit the accusecl persttns on tcchnical grounds or takc a leniellt vi('h' in awartling sentence. lt is high time that the Courts should realize that they owe duty to the legal heirs/relations of the victims and also to the society. Sentences awarded should be such which should act as a deterrent to the commission of offences' Oneoi us (Ajnr.rl Mian, C.J., as he thcn rvas) has highlightccl this aspt'ct, irrtt'r alia in the case of State, through tl.rr,' Aclr.'ocate' C,t'nt'ral Sinellr, Karachi v. Farman Hussaitr and others (l'LD 1995 5C l), relevant portion lvhereoi..tt page l9 rqatls;rs folltrw's:-

(3)It is a matter of public knolvle.lge that in Sinclh, otr account of kidnapping for ransom, commission of ciacoities and other offences, the people art'feeling unsecurecl. l-ht' learned trial Court has clilatetl uporl these' aspects in tletail I am inclinecl to subscribe to thc vielv found favour r.vith it. The approach of the Court in matters like the case in hanrl should be dynamic and if the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed in the manner in which it has been alleged by the prosecution the technicalities should be overlooked without causing any miscarriage of iustice"' (bolti adderl).

27.Likewise in the more recent cases of Tariq lqbal V State (2017 SCMR 594) and Khalid Mehmood V State (2017 SCMII 201) the Supreme Court has con-firmed the death penalty in cases of a brutal and merciless nature as in this case.

22.As such we uphold all the sentences for each offensc in the

l20 ) t4bA Wr=

impugned judgment and answer the confirmation reference 04/2007 it't respect of aPPella ts Aziz Khan and Mangala Khan in thc'affirmative .rncl uphold the death sentences handed down to the aPpellants in the Y impugned judgment whilst dismissing these appeals.

23.The appeals ancl conlirmation reference are clisposetl ol ilr tlrc' al.xx,e term:i

i \,t, ILTDCI ,.'r t "1t"* l>o*"

Y