Muhammad Aamir & Ors (Appellant) VS The State (Defendant)

F lra ,,., J'* "--' ' \f sr.n-b.e^r.l' 4t+ -t @3 (-ri IITIF]CATE OT. 'I ru1 LLi U,L \1 lr

SINDIi I]IGII COURT q4 t.b F4- V\) tz?'12 L1 ':ffiu--

.IJfi It (. o nt poslllOll ( ,l-tl.:nrtt C0t /n N4 ^{\rN :1- tffiu _rtC^ *x}-rc/ 4.< M,^1 -rv^.

^) )z--* 'r-, ",1 t,J' A-r^ ( -.^^T" f\Anr'1 Datcs of ltearilg:, 2- - \A ' '\-O >-O . vr . z 0'lJ Decidctl ,:n l:l rJ

(a)Judgment aPProvcd for Ycs reporting. E ry1

CB[TTIFICATB

Certilicd tl)itt the jtl(Jgn)cnt r/OrrlcI is bascd upon or cnuuciatqs a'priucip'lci nt taw'i /rlctrtles a quisriin oi tn*-uiii.t, is of flist inrprcssion / d istingrtishcs ' ovcr-rulcs/ r'rvcrscs/cxPlains a prr:victts decision

rstrikc out whicbcvcr is not applicablc.

IilOl'll:-(i) This slip is only to trc tsed when some action is to be takcn' (ii) If thc slip is used, the llcader must tttach it to thc top of the flrst pagc of the ludgmerrt.

(iiir Rerdcr tnust ask tlre J udge writi:lg the Judgtnent whether tbg Judgmerit is approvr:d :lor reporting' (ivi ]'hosc clircctions which aic not to be used should be deletcd' <l SGP., Kar --L (iiil 1459-5,000-6'93--T.5.5.

V+t

t *sLl

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

A.T.A. Appeal No. 71,'' of ZOO+

Muhammad Aamir S/o Muharlmad Sallullah, Muslim, Adult at Present Confined in the Central Prison Karachi.

Tariq @ Bata S/o Muhammad Sadiq, Muslim,Adult, at Present Contlned in the Central Prison Karachi......... ,\ppellants

V/s

The State.... Respondent

a I Ap eal Ll/s 25 ol'Anti-'Ierro rism Act 1997 -A,bove Appellants being aggneved with Judgmenr dared I!,:12004 in Special Case No. 25/2003 given by Judge, Anti [r:.rn sm Court No. II Karachi Division Karachi whereby the .lcrellants have been convicted and sentenced as under._ ,.3r For committing eatl-e_Amd of deceased Anum Uzair and Muhammad Naeem, an oflence punishable U/s 302(b) r/w 34 and r/w Section 7 (a) ol the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, each of the accused Tariq alias Bata S/o Muhammad Sadiq

f r and absconCing accused Kala Nazim S/o Muhammad Azam

t and Raees alias Topi son of Sat-rudding (in their absentia)

I are awarded imprisonment for life as ta, zir on each count;

I ,-rr For making murderous assault on p.W. Muhammad T Shahid

an offence punishable tJrs 324 r/rv 34 ppc' and r/ w section

I

! 7 (b) of the Anti-Tenorism Act, 1997, each ol. the accused

n

T

l

I

tI IN I'III' III(itI COU}{I'OII SINDII A'I'K A It A C' II I y'op t // A.'[.APPEAi. No.( z uy 'l-he State through Advocate-Ceneral Sindh. Karachi Appellant

Versus.

(,' Mohammad Aamir S/o Mohammad Satiullah, -) 'fariq @ Bata S/o Mohammad Sadiq, lloth muslim,adults, at present confinetl in Central Prison, \ Karachi:

1 Kala Nazim S/o Mohammad Azarn.

.+ Raccs f@ 'I'oopi S/o Satiluddin, (l3oth are absconders). .. .... . . . . l(cspondents F. l.R.No, I 7012003 under.

a ,t Sections -102,1124, I 09/34 PPC r/w sec.7 ol'A.'l'.Acr. 1997 iir.'

I).S. l.andhi Karac ll ( llast ).

,.\I'I'IIAL TINI) F.tt sl,r("t'loN 2s .t otf r 1t t,l ANl t-'ruRIt()Rrs'l A( ]t I vll't tis A('t' 1997.

cing aggrieved and dissatisfied frorn rhe judgment datcd:15- 12-2004 by the lcamed A.'1" Court No.ll Karachi in Spl.CaseNo.2512003 whereby (espondents have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(a)fbr commitling Qatl-e-Amd of dcceased Anum LJzair ancl Mohanimad Naeern, an oll'encc ;runishable tJ/s.302(b) /34 r/w scc.7(a) olthe Anti-'l'crrorisnr Act, l997,cach of the accused 1'ariq alias Bata S/o Mohamnrad Sadiq and absconding accused Kala Nazir,t S/o Mohammad r\zarn ancl l(aees alias 'foopi S/o Safiuddin (in their abscntia) are awarded irnprisonnent for lilc as ta'zil.on t r'. each count ;

)l r' (hr [;or making murdcrous assault onP.W. Moharnmad Shahid, an off-ence punishable Uls.324/34ll,PC rlrv scc.7(b) ol the Anri- ! Terrorism Act,l997, cach of rhe accused -l-aritl alias Ilata S/o Mohammad Sadiq :rnd absconding accuseil Kala Nazim S/o Mohmmad Azam and Itaees alias 'l opi S/o Salluddin (in thcir absentia) are sentenccd to suller R.l. for 7 y,cars and pay fine of Ils.1,00,000/-(one lac) eac or rn defeult ro undergo R.t. Iix.6 months moiri I

f -6c,,-'1r.,.^-,,- O\s \,t}lq''^ A(o

IN THE FIICIJ COURT OF SINDI I r\T Kr\Ri\CI Il Spl. Crl. Anti-Terrorisrn Appeal No.45 of 200t1. Spl. Cr1. Anti-Terrorisnr Appeal No.03 ttf 2005.

Present:

Ilr. I u;I it t Ilolrtrtrrt ttrl Ktriut A/rr'ttt ,lt,lt,i 1t rtsticL'/.trl

Appellants: 1. Muhammacl Aamir S/o. Muh;rtrrma.l S.rif ullalr thlou gl.t lvlt'. S. l!lelrrrtoltl Alarr ll.izvi, Adl'ocatr-'.

2.Tariq (@ Bata S/o. Muharnnrari Satiitl through Mr. Abdul Rasheetl Nizarmani, ad voca te.

I Respontlent fhe State lhroush Nlr S.rl('(,rn Akht.ir Buriro, Arlditiorral [\'osr-cutrrr Ct'ne laI

Spl. Crl, Anti-Terrorism Acquittal Appeal No.03 of 2005.

Appellants The State througlr Mr. Salee rl Akltt.r r Bu riro, Aclclitional Prosucutor Clt'nt'raI

Respondents Muharnmall Aarnir anrl ()thcrs tlrr()Lrfllr M/s. S. Mehnrooci Alanr [iizr i an.i Abtlul I(asheeti Nizarnani, t\tl voc.r tcs.

Date of hearing: 02.04.?020

Date of Jutlgment: 15.04.2020.

IUDGMENT

MOHAMMAD KA RIM KHAN AGHA, l:- ./\.r Lr\t'(i \lLrlrarrttla.l Aamir Khan S/o. Muhammae{ Saifullah Khan and Muharnma,'l lalielue alias Bata S/ o. Muhammad Sadique were tried by learneel Jutlge, Anti- Terrorism Court No.ll, Karachi Division, Karachi in Spc'cial Case No.25 rrf 2003 arising out of Crime No.170l2U03 u/s.302/32+/109/3'l I)l)C reatl with Section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 registered at P.S. Lanclhi, Karachi East. After trial vitle juclgment clated I5.12.20()4 the appr:ll.rrrts were convicted and sentenced as under:- v

v\ gl

)4-t-T--- i?)

(a)For committing Qatl-e-Amcl of lleceasetl Anuttr Uz.lir ,ttrtl Muhammad Naeem, an oft-ence punishable u,1s.302 (b) r/n' jl and r/w section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, r'ach oi tl.rt' accused Tariq alias Bata S/o. Muhammad Satlicl .tnti absconding accused Kala Nazim S/o. Muhammatl Azan.r atrti Raees alias Topi son of Safiutldin (in tht'ir abst'trtia) u't'r't' awardetl imprisonment for life as l'a'zir on each coutrt.

(b)For making murderous assault on P.lV Muhtrmrnael Shahi,'1, an offence punishable u/s.324 r/w 34 PPC and r/w section 7(b) ol the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, each of the accused f.rriq .lli.rs Bata S/o, Muhamrnad Sadiq ancl abscot.tcling accuse'el Kal.r Nazim S/o. Muhamrnad Azam ancl Raees alias'Iopi strn ol Safiudclin (in their absentia) were sentetrcecl to suffer Ii.l. for' 7 (seven) years ancl to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) r'ach or itl clefault to undergo R.l. for 6 (six) olonths rrrore.

(c)For causing llamage to the Suzuki Hi-roof Van bearing Rcgtr. No.CD-4571 an offence purrishable u/s.427 l'l'C r/rv 7(!l) oi tht AntiTerrorism Acl,79L)7 each of the accusecl 'lariq .rlias l].rt.r S/o. Muhamrnacl Sadiq anci absconcling accusetl Kala N;rzitrr S/o. Muharnmaei Azam anel l{aees alias Topi son of Safiutitlitr (in their absentia) were sentenced to sulfer ll.l. lor' 02 (rrvtr years) and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (ten thous;rnel) eitch t,t' irr default to undergo R.l. for 6 (six) months trorc'.

(d)For instigating/ abetting co-accusecl persons l'arit1 alias [J.rta S/o. Muhammad Sacliq arrcl absconcliug accuscti Kala Nazirrt S/o. Muhammacl Azam anr.1 Raees alias'lopi son oi Safirrtlrlin to commit thc instant offerrce, ;rn olfence punishable Lr/s I l-l PPC, accused Muhammacl Aamir Khan sotr of lr4 uhil rlnr.rrl Safiullah Khan was however, awarcletl lesser sentenct' i.r.'. R.l. for 10 years.

(e)All the four accusecl Persons were elirer:ted l() Pat nrl d{ll()ulrt trl Rs.100,000/- (one lac) e.rch ()ut of ,'r'hich Rs.200,(xX)/- (t!v() l,r( ) each be given to thc legal heirs of elecease.l Anunr Uzair arrtl Muhammatl Nac.ern respectivelt, as compensatiott as 1.rt'or itl,,'el u/s. 544-A Cr.P.C.

All the sentences were directed to run c(,ncurrentlv l-ht'bt'rl'fit of section 382-8 Cr.P.C. has also been extenclctl to tlrt' aPPellants.

2.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the jucigment p.rsst'tl [rl' learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.ll Karachi Divisiorr, Kar.rchi, these appeals have been preferred by the appellants, whereas the Statr-' h.rs filed an Appeal for enhancement o[ sentences to the'apprellatlts.

3.The brief facts of the prosecution case in a nutshe'll arL' th.lt t)11 23^t day of June 2003 at about 3:15 pm on the (lay of tht' bv-clcctitrtt,

V8L

i3l !sq-

NA-255 Landhi, while the process of by-election was in progrcss, accust'ti Tariq alias Bata and absconding co-accused Raees alias'[irpi, Kala Nazirl and two unknown persons duly armed with T.T. Pistols camL. oPp()sitc Junaid Milk Shop, Bhangi Parrah, 1/D Area, Landhi No.2, Karachi in a Charade car followecl by a rnaroon colourecl Honcla Civic Cal in which accused Muhammad Aamir Khan, Iearler of M.Q.M. (l l) was sitting. Accusecl Muhammad Aamir Khan instiga tecl,/ abettecl accusetl laritl ali.s Bata and absconcling co-accused Raees alias'l-opi ancl Kalat N.rzirl atlLl two unknown persons being the members of MQM (H) to kill Mr.rhanrnratl Naeem (complainant), Anum Uzair aucl Muhammatl Shahici alias Papt'rr belonging to M.Q.M. (Muttahiila) who w,ere also prreseut.tt thc nLr()\'(' place in connection with bv-election in Hi-roof Suzuki Car bt'aring, Registration No,CD-4571 as they were a source of trouble' fot the .tbtrr,.'

t named accused persons during the election proces$. At the instigatiotr atrtl abetment of accused Muhammtrcl Aamir Khan, accusetl I aricl alias Iltlta, absconding co-accuseci Raees alias Topi, Kala Nazim ant{ two unkttovvt't culprits started firing at the passengers of the Suzuki Hi-rorrf varr Lrcarirrll Registration No.CD-4571 cluring the course of which the cotnplaitratrt Muhammad Naeem sustained two bullet injuries on his leg artrl .tlrtlt,trtctr Thercafter accusecl 1'ariq alias Bata abscorrding co-trccr.rsecl liaees.rlias Topi, Kala Nazim and two unknown culprits alighterl lronr thr' CIr.rt ae IL' car anr.l went near the above Suzuki l li-ror>f van. Abscontlir.t1i co-accust'r.l Raees alias Topi and Kala Nazim draggecl out Anum Uzair fronr its r.o- driver's seat antl accuseci Tariq alias Bata firecl at him anti causetj hinr serious bullet injuries. After causing bullet injtrries to the conrplainattt Muhammad Naeem antl Anum Uzair accused'fariq alias Bahr abscoutlirtgi co-accused Raees alias Topi, Kala Nazim anel two urrknown culplits raisr'(l slogans "Aamir Khan Zinclabacl", "they have complietl !vith his directions", then all of them boareler-l irr the said Characle car at.tel clrovt' it away.

4.PWs Mul-nmmad Shahicl (rlriver of the Suzuki l-Ji-roof r'an) u'itlt the help of Rafi Akbar, Hassan Dil;rwar and Mulrammatl Saleem shiltt'Ll the injured Muhammatl Naeem antl Anum Uzair to the lrospital situat('(l at Korangi No.5, Karachi which provided them with emergencv trL'atnlL'llt and then they shifted tl.lem to the JPMC where injuretl Auutn Uzair

\ajl

L+E/_

succumbed to his injures. On receipt of the injured Persons at thc JI'M(. MLO on duty Dr. Kaleem flashecl such wireless mcssagc at P.S. [.anclhi which was entered in the Station's House Diarv at st't ial No 3f rrtr 23.06.2003 at 5:10 p.m. by SI Malik Muhammacl Amiu whtr itt tt'sl',rtrt.' went to the ]PMC and moved lettc'r of request for recorcliug stiltenlolrt ()l the injured persons upon which he was infortnetl that injureel Ar.runl Uzair had expirecl while the other injurecl Muhatnrratl Naee'lrl rvas 11()t irl a position to make a statement. l"het'eafter S.l. Muhanlrna(l n r]ri|r t)l()\'('(l letter of request for permission to insPect the deacl botl)' of .lccc'ast'.I Anum Uzair an(l to conduct inquest on it antl .-tftcr gettitrg sucll permission he inspected the dead bocly of deceasetl Anunr Uzair.rtrtl conducted inquest on it on 23.06.2003 at 7:30 pm in the plesctct' oi l)!Vs Nasir Hussain and Waqar Hussain antl then he movetl an()ther l€'ttcr (rt 7- request to the MLO for conducting post mortelu on the tleatl lrotlt'irt tleceased Anum Uzair ancl haneled ovel the r.leael borlv atrri papers to Ilre MLO, who after conclucting the autopsy, handed over the scaled parct'l ol blood stained clothes to him and certified cause r:[ dealh ol the tleccast'ti Anum Uzair to be hemorrhagic shock on account of gunsh()t ilrjur\' ()rr his chest. Thereafter S.l. Muhammad Amin handeel over tl.rc ele.rtl Lro,-lv tti deceased Anum Uzair to Nasir Hussain/ Mujahiel Bhai, ct:usin oi thc deceased for funeral and burial uncler a superclaginama.

5.On 23.06.2003 at 8:30 pnr S.t. Muhammarl Amin insl.roctecl thr: P1.111' of inciclent wherefrom he seizetl ancl secure'cl the Suzuki IIi-rtxri vatr bearing Registration No.CD-4571 liaving holes of bullets antl staitrs ol bloocl on seat cover anr'l foot pacl, five empty shells of the bullets of T.l' Pistol and sample of blood anti prepared rough sketch of the'place ol I incident in presence of Junaicl Ahmed anel ASI Javeel tshatti. ()rr 02 7.2001 at 5:45 pm SI Muhammarl Amin recorcled 5.154 Cr.l'j.C st.rtctnct.tt t'[ injured Muhammad Naeem at the JPMC whiclr was i t.tcor Pora tt',.i bl lritlt in 154 Cr.P.C. Book and registered critne No.170/ 2003 u/ s 302/324/-109/34 PPC r/w 34 PPC on 0?.7.2003 at 6:45 prrn anti errtrustctl its investigation to Inspector Allah Bux. Accused Muhartmarl Amir Khan was arrested in connection with crime No.135/1992 u/s 17(3) t)fft'nct Against Property (Enforcemer.rt of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 o[ I'.s' Liaquatabad and was confinetl at investigation Brattclt, zone-l, Satlelar',

Vg"t

g^bo- t5l

Karachi, wherefrom he was formally arrested in this case by S.l Char:tlhrv Muhammad Arif on 08.7.2003 at 09:35 pm in presence of S.l, Muhamr.narl A.jmal and ASI Subhan. On 09.7.2003 injureci Muhamln<rll Na('em r^'ns shiftecl to Aga Khan Hospital, Karachi where he was aclnrittecl dt l0:1(r pm. On 12.7.2003 accused Amir Kharr was put in iclentificltiotr praratlc under the supervision of Miss Zabiha Khattak, learrlccl XVIlth ( ilil judge/]udicial Magistrate, Karachi East in which he w;rs correctlt' identified by eyewitnesses Hassan Dilawar, Muhamrraci Salitr and Muhammad RaIi. On 1'2.7.2003, S.l6'1 Cr.P.C. statcrnerlts of PWs I lassarr Dilawar, Muhammad Salim and Muhammad Raf i rverc lecorcli'cl Lrt' tltt' learned XVIIth luclicial Magistrate, Karachi East in n'hich thev lLrllv implicatecl the accused persons ir.r the commission (tf the instant ollerlce t 6. On 737.2003 injurecl Muhammad Naeem expiretl al tlre Aga Kh.lrl Hospital, Karachi due to severe abt{ominal infection anll multiPlL'Lr()wl injuries and intra-abdominal sepsis causecl by firearm. On 14.7.2tX)3 at 09:30 pm S.l. Ch. Arif inspected the eleatl bollv of clecc.tst:.i lvl lta rtr rtt.r.l r"r

Naeem and preparecl inquest of his cleael bocly in prescuce rrt Muhittltrrati Waseem and Muhammad Ashraf. Ihe bloocl stairre,.l clothes Ltt ,.lecetrst',.i Anum Uzair, footpad, seat cover ancl sample o[ bltxrel were ser]t l() thc chemical exarniner who reported that (i) Blue colourerl .)eans [).rttt Lrl Deceased Anum Uzair, (ii) Black coloured Paiclan (foot [ratl), (iii) st'at covers and (iv) driecl blood were stainecl with human bloocl. l'he Suzuki- Hi-roof was sent to the Incharge FSI- who reported that tht'errtrv holcs marked on Suzuki Hi-roof van were caused tlue to the passage of the firt'Ll proiectiles of firearms,

a 7. Alter expiry of the stipulatecl perioti the l.C). subrrritterl tlrt'tlralgt' sheet before the lncharge Administrate Judge, A'l Cs, Karachi Diyisiorr Karachi forwarding Muhamrnad Aamir Khar.r in custotly arlcl placirrg tlrt' names of accused Tariq alias Bata son of Muhalnmacl Sacilq, I{nt'es alias Topi son of Safiuddin and Kala Nazim son of Muhanttnael z\zatlr itt column No.2 with red ink as abscontlels. On the basis of tl.re clrarge sht't't, Special Case No.25/2003 was registered ancl it was assigned k) the court for disposal in accordance with law,.

l.4(1-

ALL

i6l

8.Accused Muhammad Tariq alias Bata having been arrestcel itr connection with crime No.133/2003 u/s 747 /'118/719/-135 Pt'C ol t's. Landhi, Karachi was remandetl in jutlicial custoclv bv tht'lcarnetl Xllltlr Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East ancl he was confir.recl at District lail IUalir', Karachi. Following a tip off, the t.O, approached the saicl learnerl C()urt and obtained NOC as well as custody of the accuseci [or onlv onc tl.rl viz' 'l ariq .rli.rs li.rt.r !1'.is 29.09.2003.Subsequently accusecl Muhamtnacl arrested in this case.

9.Formal charge was frameel and read over to both the accuscll Muhammad Aamir Khan ancl Muhammacl Tariq alias Bata to rvhiclt thcl pleaded not guilty antl claimecl to be tried.

10.To prove its case the prosecution exanrinctl 19 prost'cutiotl witnesses anti exhibited numerous tlocuments an(l other items thL'r(]att('r the side of the prosecution was closetl. The statements of the accusctl t'r't'rr.' recorded t/s 342 Cr-P,C, in which thev cleniecl the allegations levt'lecl against them ancl claimer-1 false implication on account of political rivalrt Both the accused examined thernselves on oath but clitl not c.rll anv witness in support of their defense case.

11.Learned Jur"ige, Anti-Terrot'ism Court No.ll, Kalachi, a[tt'r lrt'at itt;', the learned counsel for the palties antl assc'ssment of tviet'trct aVailalrl'" on record, vide the impugnecl judgmerrt clated 15.12.04, convicteLl .lr)(l sentenced the appellants as state(l above, hence tlrese appeals hil\'('b('('r'r filed by the appellants against their convictions.

"12. The facts of the case as well as evitlence proeluccll L.refore thc tri.ll court find an elaborate mention in the judgment datetl 15.12.200'l Passrrl by the trial court and, therefore, the same may not be reproriucetl herc so as to avoid duplication and unllecessary repetition.

13.Learned counsel for the appellant Muhammacl Aamir Khan (u'lro is currently on bail) has contendecl that there was a delay ill filirrg the l:lll which lead to the case being concocted atainst thc aPPell.llrts, th'rt th(' prosecution eye witnesses are all put up witnesses wh() wcre not 'rt the,

Vfu

44Y

I?l

, scene of the offence ancl cannot be relier,l upon, ihdt the iclcntilicatirrn parade is irrelevant as the appt,llant rvas a well (61r1^,,p 1.rgys1r11. that thr,rc was rivalry between the two groups of the MQM rvhich kuri t() th(,[.lls(, case being concocted against the appellant and that for.rny oi thc'aLrolr' reasons the appellant shoukl be acquitterl of the charge by extentling hinr the benefit of the tloubt. In support of his conttntions he has Placeri reliance on Shahbaz Khan fakhrani V Lal Beg Jakhrani (.lgti{ SCMR -ll). Zarif Khan V The State (PLI) 1977 SC 612), The State V Safdar .rnd others (2002 MLD 1698), Mst. Zahida Bibi V The State (l'l-D 20()6 S( 155), Rahim Bakhsh V The State (1997 P Cr. Ll 1450), Mureecl V The State (PLD 2002 Karachi 530), Abdul Maiid alias Majha V The State (1976 l'( t LJ 545), The State V. Muhammad Yousuf (PLII 197.1 5C {b), 14 aqar Nazir V The State (2007 SCMIf 661), Muhamnrad Zubair V Thc State (21)07 SCMR 437), Imran Ashraf V The State (2001 SCMR'12.1), Yar Muhanrnrad V The State (1992 SCMR 96), Din Muhammad V Abdul llehrnan Khan (1992 SCMR 127), Bagh Ali V The State (PLD 1973 SC 321), Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah V The State (1993 SCMR 550), Kazinr Hussain Shah V The State (1972 P Cr. t-J 1012) antl Budho V The State (l']l.l) 1965 (\\.l' ) Karachi 76).

1,4. LearnerJ cour.tsel for the appellant Muhamrnacl Taricl alias llata has adopted the arguments of learnetl counsel for tlre appellant Muhantmatl Aamir Khan and has aciditionally contender.i that thc case is.r conrplL'tc fabrication, that there are rnany contladictions in the evi,.lerrce of tht' prosecution witnesses, that the eye witnesses arc put up witrlL'sses, th.lt the medical evidence does not support the eye witness evieiencc, that tlrc appellant was not put before an iclentification paracle tlespite tlre crt' A witnesses not knowing hrm anci only gettjng a flet'ting glatrce ol hitrr .tt tlrt' time of the incident, that despite being innocent the appellartt hatl .rllt'a.ir spent 17 years in jail and that for any o[ the above re.rs()rrs the aPpt'll.rrrt should be acquitted of the charge trv txtcntting hirr tllt' berl'"iit oi Iltt' doubt. In support of his contentions in .rddition to the autlrot ities t't'lir'.1 upon by learned counsel for the appellant Muhammacl Aamir Khart hc has placed reliance on Mansur AIi V The State (1970 t' Cr. I. I 2il7), Muhammad Younis V Muhammad Khan (1999 YLI( 2t35), Nooruddin V Nazeer Ahmed (2011 P Cr. Ll 1370), Bashir Ahmed V Muhammad t

\J r

t8l

Siddique (PLD 2009 SC 11) and Asfandyar Wali V The State (l'l.l) 1978 Peshawar 38).

15.At the outset we were informed that Muhar.ntner.l Ahslal Kazi advocate had been appointecl by the State to proceecl \^'itlr this rnath'r. However we had observed from the dairy she'ets that the aituesaiti learned counsel had not been appearinB to argue this c.lst'for ntattv elalt's. Again once again toclay despite the learneci coutrsel be'ing giverr tiint'l intimation notice anci a reminrler to his clerk he u,as calle'tl absent ttitlroLrl intimation. While going through the record of this case we observet{ th.rt one o{ the appellants, 'Iarique alias Bata had been in jail for arouurl I7 years without his appeal beir.rg hearel. Uuder these circuurstatrccs atrel it.t the interests of justice with the consent of Dr.Faiz I l.Shah l-earnt'l1 Prosecutor General Sindh Mr.Saleem Akhtar Buriro Aciclitional I)r'()s('c u t( r' ) General Sindh was directed to argue this casL" on beh;rlf of tlrr' Statt' instead of Mr Kazi because in both our view and his view it w'trulrl trrrt bt' fair to keep appellant Tarique alias Bata's appeal petrcliug an_1 lot.t15t'r keeping in view Article 10 (A) of the Constitution which in tttrt t ittv includes the right to an expeditious hearing of an appeal as wcll as trial since an appeal is in effect a continuati()n of a trial.

16.The Learnecl Additional Prosecutor Ceneral hers fulll' suppor-tt.l tltt' irnpugned iudgment- [n particular he has contenclecl that thc lrlli n'as lodged promptly keeping in view the injuries caused to Naoem who n'its the complainant and later expirecl ancl as shown by metiical ccrtific"rtes ht' was not in a position to record his S.154 Cr.PC staternetrt auy t'arlit'r atr.i as such any delay in lodging the FIR has been explaitrer'1, that all 4 P\{ c\ (' witnesses are reliable, trustworthv and conficlence inspiring atrd havt' correctly icientified both of the appellants and the roles n'hich thcy Pltrverl in the double murdel at the scene o[ [he offense, that all thc ['l\"s corroborate each other in all material respects antl as such the prost'cutiotl has proved its case beyond a reasonable elout,t and both the appt'als should be dismissed and the sentences enhancetl to that of the' tlt"lth penalty with respect to each appellant. When he was c()nfr()rltetl bY thc court he did however coucede that accorcling to the t'vitlcrlce lhere t'vas

a-bLt le)

rivalry and enmity between the two groups of the MQM anti at tht'tirnc ol the incident the appellants belonged to one group and the conrplainarrt party and the eye witnesses belongecl to the other group.

17.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel fttr the parti('s, gone through the entire evidence which has beetr rr'ael out [rY tlrt' appellant, the impugned judgment with tl.reir able assistatrce ancl lr.tve considered the relevant Iaw including that cited at thc. bar.

18.In our view after our reassessment of the evidence bascr.l on tlrt' evidence of the PW's especially, PW MLO, post mortelr reports anel otlrr"'r medical eviclence, PW police witnesses and [O, recoverv o[ t'rrrpties orr fhe spot and Hi roof van ancl positive chemical re[)()rt $,c .rre satisfictl that Y the prosecution lras provet.l beyontl a reasonable rloubt that orr 2j.06.2(X)3 at about 3.15 pm on the day of the by election for NA 255 l-anclhi opposite Junaid Milk shop, Bhangi Parrah 1/D Area , Landhi No.2 Kalaclri ;:e rsons in a charade car forcecl by firing at it a Suzuki lli Rrxrf van trcarirrf,, Registration CD 4571, to stop and persons in the characle c.u'lj()t ()ut ,ur(l then fired upon the persons sitting in the Hi-Roof van.rnti irrjurt'r.l Muhammed Naeem (the complainant in the case) by fircarm who l,ttr.'r died in hospital as a result of the firearm injuric,s anrl in eftt,cL ,,r,as murdered by such persons who also clraggecl Anurn Uzair (rut ol [ht' r irn and shot him with firearm anei thereby murderer.l ltirl or.t .rc.()unt ()l political rivalry during the election for NA 255 Lantlhi,

19.The issues therefore, ir.r our view, le'ft bcfole us arc (a) whetltrr' appellant Muhammecl Amir Khan instigated the murrlers ttf MuhanttncLl Naeem and Anum Uzair by appellant Muhammatl'Iaritlue alias llata.rn.l others and (b) whether appellant Muhammad Tarique alias Bata was ottc of the persons who shot ancl murdered by firearm either or both of Muhammed Naeem and Anum Uzair who were either in or wert'elrag;ictl outside the Suzuki Hi Roof van l{egistration CD 4571 on 26.06.03.

20- In our view alter our reassessment of the evidence we fincl that thc prosecution has NOT been able to prove beyotrcl a reasonable doubt th.rt (a) appellant Muhammed Amir Khan instigated the murclers ol

v?<

t 10 l

Muhammed Naeem and Anum Uzair by appellant Muhammari I'.trie1uc alias Bata and others and (b) that appellant Muhammael 1'arique alias Ilara was one of the persons who shot and murdered by firearm eitlter or botlr of Muhammed Naeem ancl Anum Uzair who were eithr:r' in ()r tv('rv dragged outside the Suzuki Hi Roof van Regishation Ct) 4571 otr 26.06.03.for the following reasons;

(a)It is trite law that arr FIR must be loclgecl with pr(nr1[rtitu(1('in order to give it reliability anLi crer'libilit,v urrless such tl,:lal e.rn [,c explained. It is regardecl as the, cornerstorre of lhr, pllrsecution c,tst, which gets the ball rolling in a crimirral case. lrt this res;,rer't reliance is placed on Khalid Javed V State (2003 SCMR 1,llc)). In this case the incident took place on 23-06-2003 anci yet rhe S.154 Statement of deceased complainant Muhammad Nac,:.rn w,hich formed the basis of the FIR was recordetl on 02-07-2003 i.r after a delay of 9 days,-lhe prosL.cuti()n has tried tr) justilv this tlt,lirr based on the fact that the complainant Mulrtrmnracl Naeenr was so f seriously injurecl that it was not possible to recoltl his S l5-.1 statement before this time. Admittetlly, the conrplainant Muhammad Naeem was seriously injured after rhe alt.rck and lre was operated on and kept in the ICU. PW 5 Dr.Kaltern who u'ar the MLO who first receivetl the injurecl N{uhamnreri Naeenr al JPMC in his cross cxarninatiorr on adrnitting thc corrplair.rant to ,PMC states thal, "ln ftt't lrc u,ns in t1 posilion ltt ttakt t slttlt'ttt'nl" Euen his MLC reuenls tltnt on ndnisstort to tlv ll'M( hc ?r,ris .orrsr iorrr Thus, his S.154 statement coultl havt, been recorclec{ without tlelar Even otherwise there is no evielence to suggest that th(' complainant was completely cornatose anci unable t() l.)rakt il statement before 02-07-03. Fulthermor(,, it was r1()t r.rt't t ss.rn' th,rt the S.154 statement be rnade bv the complainant. lt coulri har,t, been made by any one of the PW eye witnesses rvlro all in lht,il eviclence stated that they took lhe injuretl lo thc h()spit.rl. lrr',.'n tht' police coulcl have registerccl the FlR. In sh(',rt therc w.rs lro r.rt crl to wait for the complainant to gain consciousness before rt,coreling his 5.154 statement. He may have even nevct tratve tegaint'ri consciousness ancl dierl. Was the registration o[ tlrc l]lli to bc ht'l.j hostage to when the cornplainant rvas cortscious ancl vr,t'll .rnLl irt a effect delay the formal start of thL' investigation? lhts rvas completely unnecessary and in our view cloes not arlc(luat('l| explain the delay in registering the FIR after a lapse of 9 days esPecially as there were others available who coulr.l have leatlilv and quite capably registerecl the FIR as they were well aware ttf tlrt basic facts of the incident. ln this respect reliance is Place.l t)rr Muhammed Younis (Supra) For example, I'W 12 Muhamrncd Shahid who was actually tlriving the vt'hicle at tl'rc lintt'o[ tht' attack. The basic concept behind loclging an FII{ pronrpth' is kr ensure that there is no time for consultation ancl concoctiotr between the complainant and the police aucl any othe r third P.lrt\ who might want to fix a person in a false case. ln thc confext of this case where admittedly the accuserl were arch Political rivals of the deceased and the eye witnesses it was essential that llle I-lll !\'.rs t

\1u

kLL I 11 l

, lodged without delay. Aclmittetlly there lvas cntnitv bctvr'et'rr tlrt' parties which gave the compl"linant party anll tl.tt' polict' t irrrt' ttr consult and concoct a false case against the' accusetl antl tht' accused in our view were prejuelicetl by such tlelav in lotlgirr;i thL' FIR. lt has been held that a tlelay of one hour in lo'"lgir.rg an trlli may be fatal to the prosecution case basecl on thL' Particulilr i'r't' and circumstances of the case. ln this respect rt'liarrce is pl.lct'ti ott Zeeshan @ Shani V State (2012 SCMR 428). I'hus, itt our vieu' thr.' clelay in lot.lging the FIR h"rs not L.ret'rt aclecluately expltlitrt'tl which is near fatal to the Prosecution case ln this rt'spec1 itr tllc c'rst' 'rl Farman Ahmed V Muhammed Inayat (2007 SCN'III 1ti25) it n'as held as under in resPect of a 17 hout clel;rf irl lodgirrg tl)r llli ir) the presence of eye witnesses at Para 6 P.1tl2ti as uncler:

"ln',/e hmte considered the subnussions nttdt tty letnral iltttt5(l lnr tlrc parties uul peruscd lhe rctonl. lt is ultttitttt{ litcl llutl ittt ttlttrl took plnte on 30.6.1993 t 7:15 n.ttt u'ltre,rs l1l( rt'rts !<'i registered on n uritten nrul ninl on 1.7 1993 nl 12 10 t.rtt. lltL' plne of occtrrreut't'is nl t lisltutce oJ' 10 ttrilcs frottt tln' yolttr ststion. Tlr- FtR l'ts lodgcrl by tlr crtrttplatnntrl tt.ll(r t[)tt,tfuntblr delny of 17 hturs witltttut t)rll ttittg ll"' snil fulnv ttlsltilr ol litr lnct tlnt conryrltimttt luri shtk'd irt tlrt u'rith'tr rLrrtrylrttttl lltrtl tlrcra tL,ns ttLto eye<r'itntsses t tlk'sPot tt|d rtttttt ol llrttt itrlr''nttt'l tlrr polit:e be.fbre fliug a u,ritlctt Ltttnpluttl bV llL' rotttltl ittttttl. l7 hours delaq in FIR protitles sufficient time for delibtqtion and cortsulttttion tohe comPlainartt hts git't'tt tttt explanation lor rlelatl in lodging the LIII, lt is e,rcu\lt tilltt' for conplainant to.fnbricate the ston1, there.foru, possiltility carfiot be ruled out qua Jalse implitatiott o/ the rtspotrdrrtt. It is also o settled latu tlrut cleloq of17 hours in nakins Flll not explained leads to infetence tltttt tlte o.'.tcr?nIt: tt'tts unzuitnessed- lt is ilso a settled lalo thlt utex1tlnined rltlrty in registration of FIR sptcially tt'hctt the plact of ocL'urrtnct is at distsnce of '10 ttrilcs /rom the police stotiott tt d tlIU( were hoo other eue'uit esses Present at the s\ot alo,t8 tPitlt tlrc complainant, thetefore, surh situatitttr itttli.ntir tltnl tlt( eye-uitrrcsses u'ere procured swl induced to tlu' 11t- toitnesses, therefore, fitrding ol tlrc learnocl Higlt Court tlu'tl fleither the tomploinant or the eqe-u'ittr?sse' tt'(r( Pr(s.'ttt at tlrc spot. We do not fittd an1 itfitmitq ttr illtgalitrl itt tltt finding recorded br1 the learned High Court in pora.7 oI tltt impugned i u dgnerrf' " (bolel atlded)

(b)In our view the foundation of the prosecution case agairrst th(' appellant is built on thc evieiencr.' of the PW p11' utj1111e51'5 111"1-i' are 5 eye lvitllesses. (a) t'lv I Jutlaitl Ahtlttl ',r'llo ',r'ittltss"'l llr''' inciclent outside his milk shop. Hc'was a llatural tvitn!'ss rvhtr h'r..i no affiliation with arrv political partv and was utrable to itltrltifr tht' appellants. [n our view he was not a chance rvitnr'ss and we lrt'lrl.'r t' his evitlence. (b) PW 12 I\'luhamnreti Shahitl r'r'ho w'as tlriyitrg tht' Ili Roof Van at the timc wlrt'tt tu'o of his passctrge'ts l\'e'rc sl)()l (') PW 13 Muhammed Saleem who u'as bus\'' irl elt'ctiorr('erillg !vh('!l he witnessecl the inciciet.rt (d) PW.ll Rafi Akbar u'ho r'r'its 'tlso bust electioneering when he witness('Li the incitlent anr-l (c) l'\'V l7 Ilasarr Dilwar who was also busy electioneering wherr he lvittressctl tht'

V\)

W

t 12 l

, inciclent. After a careful cortsider.ttiott of the t'r'ir'letrce orl I('c()r(l ancl the relevant law u'e finr.l that we disbelieve tltt' cve vr ittrt'ss evidence of (b) PW l2 Muhamrneri Shahicl rvho rvas tlriving thL' f li Roof Vehicle at the time when two of his passengers wcre shot (c) PW 13 Muhamn.red Saleem who lvas bust' in r-'lectioi.tt'erinrl w'lrt'tr he witnessed the incirlent (d) PW 14 Rafi Akbar''vvh() wds.rlso [rr'tsl in electioneering when he witr.tesseel the inciclerrt anr-l (t') l)\'V l7 Hasan Dilwar who was also electiorle'ering n'httt he rvittresst'tl lllt' incident in correctly iclentifving appellants Muhatnrrltel Antir l(harr and Muhammatl -farique aliits Batu a:t $'o (l() tlot corlsitlt'r tllt' evidence of any of these eye rvitnesses to be leliablt', trustu'()rth\' ()r conlidence inspiring and we cannot safely rely on their evidenct' in terms of them correctly identifying thP appellants at the scene or euen being at the scete of the incident for the following reasons;

Firstly in respect of appellant Muhammad Tarique alias B.rt.r;

(i)There are rloubts that these t'yt'wittrt:sses.r p.lrt fr'()rlr PW 12 Muhammed Shahirl who n'as tlriyitrl', tht'r'.rtr are natural rvittresses as the othcrs c.tlltt' tltrttt different parts of Karachi in strtne case's as per I'}W 1J eye witness Rafi Akbal frotn C u lshatt-e- lc1lr.r l vvlriclr was around 25 KM's away and takes over ttne atttl a half houls to reach Lanclhi accoteiitrg to his ovvtt evidence and n<.rne oI thenr hacl an1' rc.is()ll t() br: outside the milk shop where the incicletrt ocl urrt'ti .tt that particular tirne. They might bc' secrl as n.lttrr'.tl witnesses only on the basis that thev werc all out electioneering fot a cotnnton cau:ie trut lhis.tppt'.lr-s to be unlikt'ly whett we cotrsitler wh.rt is st't oul trt'lor,r' and especitrlly the fact that there w.rs tro p<rllirrg station near ]unaid Milk 5[1rp whcrt' the irr( i!l('r]t ()ccurred with the nearest polling statiotl beit.lS otrt' KM away as admitted bv eve ra'itness PW lj Muhammed Saleem during his cross exarninatiott.

(ii)All of these e,ye witnesses belottgetl t() th(' s.lrr1t' potitical Pat ty as the deccasecl rrlrti tl'er(' electioneering with thern fot a cotnmon c.lr.ls. \'('t none of tlrem registered the FIII cvt'rr whetl it Lre'carl.rc apparent that complainant Muhammetl Naeeul mat' not have hec'n able to clo so as he st'rioltslt' "vas injurecl. This inclucles PW.l2 N4irhamnrctl Shahicl rr'llo was the driver of the van whL'n it 'v1'.rs atta'kr(i Surely, thev woulti have rt'anted the invcstigatiorl agairrst their iniured frientls alltl roll('agucs t() g('t started without clelay especially as tht'y already knew that apPellant Muharnmed Amil Khan harl instigatell the murders (who thev knetv by face) as thcl'saw him at the scene of the incident ancl heard hirn grt'e the orders to kill their frientls in thr" lli-rooI r''rrr accoreling to their t'r'itlence.'l'heir [ailure tLr lirclgt'tht' FIR basecl on the particular facts ancl circumst'rnces ot,

h9 z_

ttL?

t 13 l

this case does not appeal to logic, reasr:n or corlllrr()rr sensq. [n this respect reliance is placeti on Fayyaz Ahmed V State (2017 SCMIT 2t)26)

(iii)All the above eye witnesses incluclir.rg PW l2 Muhammerl Shahicl who was clriving thc vat.t took tlltr injured to hospital by stopping a Suzuki.The tltcstirrtr arises why they clitl ntlt use the \'.ln t() trilnsPort lh(' injurecl to hospital which PW l2 Mulianlnrttl Shahi,'i coulcl have driven especially as he was its r.lrivt't arrtl was uninjured and the injurecl Muhan-rt.ne ei Naccrtt was already sitting in the back of that vau What rvas the need to stop a Suzuki van wl.tich onl'v tlcl.rr,-'tl taking the injuretl to hospital? Everr otherwist it appears that no one saw any of these eye wit esses.t either Koran8i Hospital or )inr.rah llosPital aitcl tlrt' inciclent. No rlocunrent such as it.ttlttc'st rt'1.rort is signecl ir.r their name at L'ither of the hQspitals. NLr blood staineel clothes were recovere,.l frtltn thettl ttr show that they took the injureci to tht' hospital. Iht'r also did not wait to see lvhether their criticallv iniurt'rl friencl and complainant Muharnmeel Naeetn lvotrltl live or clie. lnstciirl bhcv iust slil.rpr:c1 .lv\'.rl lr'()rrr tll(' hospital without telling anv one about the incident ttrr around 1'l to 12 clays which raises cloubts tlrat tlrt'r' ever transported their injuretl colleagues froltl tlrr' scene of the offence to the hospital (rn(l lvctc cvrlr actually present at the scene o[ the incitlt'nt. Again such conduct rloes not appeal to logic, reason ttr colnrnon sensc.. In tlris respect relianct'is agaill pltlct'.1 on Fayyaz Ahrned V State (20 t7 SCMIt 202b)

(iv)What is even more damning in our ','ien' is lh.tt tlotrt' of these eye u,itness n,ho knew tlrat nPP('llnrrt Muhammecl An.rir Khan had instigatccl Lhc t.nurtlcr trl their frierrr'ls an!t fL'llo!v prtrtl' rvorkcts !"lrll(' l()l\\'nr'(i and gave his 5.161 staternent tr.r the police urrtil 3 to -l- 07-03 which is 10 to 12 days after the incident. 5ur.lr -{ silence has not been explainetl at all atrel urrtler tlrt' circumstances is cluite inexplicablt'. lt has bt't'tl l.tr.'lti that a clelay in an e1'e witnt'ss recorcling his S.lhl Cr.PC statement after 48 hours has beeu fatal to th(' eviclence of that eye witness unless a goor.l explanation is given. lu this titse uo explltlatiott is given for such delay. The inierence is that the eve witnesses lvere busl' cooking up a falsc casc agaitrsl the accuseel ln this respect reli;rncc is plact'el tttl Muhammed Asif V State (2017 SCI\llt 1l3b) a rrti Farman Ahmed (Supra)

(r)[t is also rather co-incitletltal that all lltt' .l['ovt' L'r'"

V4ry

14L?

t 1J l

D witnesses came forwarcl to recorel their S.it,l statements at arouncl the same time rather ()tl different dates ancl that their statenr('lrts art'altrost identical which again gives a strong inclic;rtiorr that they were cooking up a false casc agaitrst tltc arcusr,.l while the FIR was being clelayed.

(vi)Again it also appears sorne what co-incitle'ntal that thc police haci no ic.lea about who was involvecl irr the offence until tl.re Fllt n'as lodgetl on 02.07.03 hower tr' on the very next riay on 03-07-03 u'herr the rrt'tl l() PW 13 Muhammetl Arif was appointecl all of a sudtlen out of the blue all the eye lt'itnesses cr-rttrt' forwarcl anr.l their S.161 statemeuts inrplicatirrg tlrt' appc'llants are recorclecl as if on cue. Ilorv dirl thc police all of a suclden corn!' t() kno'"r' abr.tut thc' availability of all .1 I'W eye !vitnesses at thr- s.rlrlc trrlr( who har,1 all remainetl mum for 'l l to 12 tl.rvs aftt'r tlrL' iltcirlent? It was even suggestetl r.iut ittg cross examination that all the witnesses were'sutrt bl tht: appellant's rivals the MQM ancl that the NIQN4 advisor of I lorne DePartmcnI oreieter'l tlle l() t,r record their statelnents and that he hael assurc'el his superiors that he woulci fix the appellar.rts irt this [.rlst' case. It is to be notecl that the rival IVIQM p.rrt\' !v.ts.l part of the Covernment of Sinclh at th.rt tinrL'. [ \'er1 eye witness PW 14 Rafi Akbar states elttring his c lt,ss examination, "Pt rce luul tttttlne lar{ tttt' ttt r$l)ttI ol lltt\ olt'ence ot 01.07.2003 or 02.07.2003. ()tt tlttl rLttl rr nlrsseng c(utrc of tV ltoLtst' rtttd pttsscrl tttt /lt( lltcssri.qr' /,r nry fantily aenrbar llnt I sltttrtlrl L.Ltttlrttl l).\. ltrttrlltr rtt t'onnection oJ sourc titter. ()n receiaing tltt' tbttt,t: nessage from nrq mother on fi l retufit to lttV ltottt(, I immediately contacted my MARKAZ. "90" as to ?t'htl I hgue been called ot I'.5. Landhi , tlrcV tlire(ted t r to approaeh P.S, La dhi." (bo icl adrleci). l-ikt' w'ist' atr extract of the cross cxamination of eye u'itness PW l7 Hasan Dilwar by cout.rsel tbr appellant Muh.rtrnr.rel Amit Khan is reprorluced as under';

{ "l joined MQM in yarr 1987. lMu:rt I u'ts itrrlrttltrl ttt MQM nt thot ttnk Mr. A.fnque u'ns tltt Zorutl lttlttrgr:. I tlo not knotp tt,ltiLlt ot'fit:c Muluuutrtnd Arttttir Kltttr tlrt; holding tltnt tine h MQM. I he lit'tsrott ltrttl tttkttr phce tn MQM yterlusts itr lltt' yt'tr l9!)1. ll is cttrn'L I llttl ore Jnction of'tlrc MQNI lrcndctl ltrl Mr. Altrt.l nttl ttllrr lrcnded by Mr. A.frque. Amrir Kltlrt lttd i,tttu'l llt lit ltott of Mr. A.fnque. Wwre I rennined tuttlt tle MQM Alt l gtoup. tt is corrett thnt presPntly tfu ftrctitttt 1t.l Mr' Alltl is pnrt o.l tlu Sndh Coot'nrnrcnt ll ts iLtrn'L I llnl lltr Home Mrntstrr Sindh is t'rom tlk'Pttrly o.l MQM /\ll l group. l'lr Got,errtor o.f Sindh ?irls a/so rt prnty ntentfur ct.l' Altaf grory. One or ttoo da11s before, v stitente t was recorded by police I uas directed bU Nlarkaz-9(),

\1q

u)4 t 1s l

, of Muttahidt Quami h'Iouene t to go attl oplttttt' before police for recording ntv stat( t(ttt. Ott 03.07.?003, I had gone to P.S. l"iutclhi lor gittittt rtttl statemefit but I tlo not rementber the exoct ti tc. I had not informed the l/O abort mq trriuul o_f l'.5. Landhi for giui g ststeme t. lllrctr I tuant lo l'5 Lsndhi I/O toas plese t atul recttrded ntq st,ttttltt'ttt u,ithin one horrr. "0-,olel addcrl)

In our view this evitlence oI these I'W e_ve u'itnesst's strongly indicates that they were rvorking on tht' instructions oi tlie MQM HQ at 90 N{arkaz in preparing statements against thL' appt'llants or''t'r a period of 11 kr 12 clays after the itrcirlr.'rrt irr or(l('r' l(i falsely implicate them in this offt'nst'.

(vii)It is notablc tlrat during the cvitlct'tcc ol all tltr'st'L'r.' witnesses, inclueling itr the clelayeci lilR bV the complainant, significant improvements lv('!r() t)rd(l(' in their S.161 statements anrl S. l b4 st.itcnlents .rs shown by numel'()us conlrontations through these statements eluring their cross examitrations whiclr catt be consiclerecl as dish()nest irn p rrtvt'ttren ts itt ortlcr to irnprove the prosecution case, Iu tlris respt'ct rcliattr't is placecl on Muhammed Saleenr V Shabbir Ahrned (2016 SCMR 1605) ancl Mst Rukhsana Begum V Saijid (2017 SCMR 596).For exarnl.rle ar] extract ()l tllt cross examination o[ eve witness I'W l-l ttali Aktr.tr' by' counsel for appellant MuhanrDta,.l l.lIi(lLl(' .rli.)s Bata is reprotluceel as under;

"My 164 Cr.P.C. statement u.tas recordeLl btt Magistrtt? by administrating oath. Drrrittg ttr.t1 statr t,ttl bclort tltt N'htgislntlc I lttrl ttrttt !lt, nanes oJ Trnrulrc B0li t ul Atn)tir Kltut irluttgrr tllt his fttlrcr's tutne. (confronted not sr.t racctrdul) ...........1 lud not noted tl*' regtslnrtiLttt tttrtttlttt ,tl Clttrndt' tnr tlt tlv tinp of ittttrlr:ttl. I do trttl knLtto zLtho u'as the candidate of Mrrhoiir Qaunti Moz,emett in the ltrl'electitttt NA- 255."(boiti addett)

A

Quite incredibly he did not eve'n know who the [vlQM cancliciate was for NA 255 being the rvell knou'n l)t.[]arrLx'.1 Sattar who he was canvassittg for.

Ancl cross examination for Amir Khan

"l lmd stnted in ny 164 Cr.P.C sitlcttttttl lltt!! ttt llk' ltttt,' oJ incident, Anruir Klutn iuts prese t itt tle tlotttl l.t(tL Car. (eonfronted not so recoried) l ltnrl ttr'tl 1t,.t'tt ttttl nnnrc to tlp lns1rttnl ot'fcinls as (t e o.l'lltL' persLttt tdn lt,t,l hrousht thc injurt'ds nl Ins1tital, It is correct thut lill 09.07.2003, I had not infonned antl bodq tbout th[s in c i il e n t." qbol d atlctecl),

r

L4+L-

t 16 l

) (viii) That it is an aclmittt'r.l Position in the t'r'itlence that errmity, rivalry and ill wili existecl [ttwt't'n tht' appellants and the eye witnesses who rcpresentetl two tlifferent factions of the MQNI rvho rvere electioneering fol two clifferent calrclitlatr-'s ir.t.t hotll contested electiorr for NA 255 Larrclhi or1 thd cla\' ()l the incident anci these eye witnr'sses hatl evet t' t cas,'tr to falsely irnplicate tlre appellants espcci"lll)' as their faction of the MQM was currently a 1.ralt of tht' Government of Sinclh. Thus, thev were all inteleste(i witnesses with an axe to grind against the aPpellarrts whose eviclence must be regartletl with great cale arrtl caution. lrr this respect reliarrrcr' is plna('(l ()lt tl)(' a,r\r' of Imran Ashraf (Supra)

(i*) None of the !'ye witnesses ktrerv .rppcllartt Muhammad Tariclue alias [.Jata belore t]rc irrcitlt'nt. All the eye lvitnesses orll)' got a fleeting glatlce ol hitrt from a clistancc' of about 20 fcet whiclt is rrot { particularll,close and none of thern gavr'atrv httlia ol him in their S.161 staterncnts atld he ,!v.rs ttot PlaLt'Ll before arr itlentilication paraclc'. PW l2 Muir.rr.rtntttl Shahicl who rvas the driver of the van rvlrich rvas attacked rlicl not even sf,re appellant Muhar.ntrratl Tarique alias Bata at the time of the incir'ient ittrtl instead was told about his presence bt' thc otltt't t'tt' witness€'s, that cluring tht' rt'corclir.t11 of tht' S ltr'i statements appellant Muhammael Iaritlue alias llata was not present ancl lratl no chance t() cr()ss cx.ltttil](' the eye witnesses ancl as suclt in our vicu' takirrg ali the above r:rentioned factors together the c()rr('ctlles\ of the identificatior.r of appellant lvluhanrrnatl laritlue alias Bata by any of the e1'e wittresses is ltrutrtl to bt' cloubtful clespite it being a ,.lay light incitltrrt a:, it cannot be ruled out that the eye witnesses w('re ll()t even presL'nt at the scene of tl.re incir,lent itnel havt' concocted a false case against him.

) Secondly in respect of appellant Muhamnred Amir Kharr

(i)Despite the FII( being lodgetl 9 days after the incident it is silent in respect ,'rf the prt'cis.' t..'1,.' played by appellant Muhamme.l Ar.nir Khan. It simply says that he instigated tlrt' killers lhcre is nrr mention of him ordet'ing any kiliinH fronr atrothet vehicle at the tirne of the attack antl that th('killt'r5 then shouted his nam,.'in Pr,risc.

(ii)Most of the satne consitleratiotts aPl'l,v as itrt' appellant Muhamrnad Tarique alias Bata als mentioned abovc as to the eye witnesses antl in ,1

I

LtQ L

q+2- f 17 l

D particular it is iust not believable that l<nowing tlrat appellant Muhamrnetl Amir Khan gave the oreitrs trr murder their friends ancl fellolv party n'orkers.rll lhe eye witnesses kept mum for I I to'12 tlavs atrtl clicl nrrt tell a soul.

(iii)Even if all the eye witnesses were presL'r1t at the s(en(' (which we doubt) we find it unbelievable that u'hilst two vehicles were ririving along persotrs in thu charade car coultl hear the shoutctl r>rcler of appellattl Muhammecl Arnir Khan from another ctrr bc;lt'itrg itr tnind the clistance betweett the cars, the tloise "r'hiclr cars make wl.rilst bcing driven antl other tlalf ic ttoist' antt the noise of other passers b1' that the Pt'rr'otrs ir) the charade car coulcl havc heartl appr'llarrt Muhatnmecl Amir Khan shouting such ortlcrs. l-lrt'r,.' was no evidence that the car winclolvs wLjre Lrvell down ancl that no music was plaf ing in an1' of the cars. If this was a preplanned attack thcn aPPellant 1 Muhamtnecl Amir Khar.r woulcl not even havl'tret'tll'tl to shout such orde'rs.

(ir)The identification parade n'here the eyt. n'itttcsscs pickecl out appellant Muhanrmee{ Amit Kh;rn is alsi' inconsequential as all the eye lvitnesses .rlrca.l1' ktlt'vr' appellant Muhamnte.l Arnir Khatr vt'rl' tt'r'll as ht' was a senior MQM leader all ttf lvhotll tltt' .'t r.' witnesses woulcl havc known lry face Ior.tg belorc tltt' attack.

(u)The Hontla civic which lre was r.lrivir.rg when hc allegeclly gave the orders to kill the persorrs in tlrt' Ili roof van was not t'ecovered from him.

(c)In addition

I

(i)Two of the e)'e witnesses statt' ir.r their t'viticnct' th.lt appellant Muhammael Tarrque alias Bat.r w'.rs Lrtrlt' one pace away frorn cleceast'el Anutn Uzair rvhen lt.' shot him. This horvever is contrar"lictor'\' to thr' rneclical evitlence of PW 5 Dr'Kalecn.r n'ho lou n''l trrr blackening arouncl the wouncls which indicates tllat all fire shots were matle frorn at least 3 teet aw't\'. Thus, the medical evidence does ll()t corrotrorattl tltt ocular evidence. In this resPect rc'liance is placetl ort Muhammed Zaman V State (2014 SCMR 7{9),k

Wr

q++ t 18 l

(ii)That no pistol was recovered florl .rppeliant Muhamn.rad Tarique alias Bata at thc tinrc ol his arrest or anything to link him to the. scr-.rrc. of lht, offense. Hence the recovery of enrpties at the sc('n(' ii' of no consequence.

(iii)lf appellant N4uharnmecl Amir Kharr hacl llrverr the ortler to kill those persons in the. lli rool varr rvh\ clici the appellant Muhammetl Ttrritlur also rrrrt kill the tiriver of the van I'W l2 Muhanrlr(.(l qh.rlrirl instead of Ieaving l.rim bel.rinel as a potential rr,ilrrcss against hirn, '[his does not particularly a]rpr,.rl t() reason, logic r rr comnlon sen.i('.

21.Thus, based on the above discussion where we finci that rve r,lo not consider it safe to rely on the evidence of the following prosecution eye witnesses (a) PW 12 Muhammeci Shahicl who vvas clriving tlrt' IIi Iiotrl van at the time when two of his passengcrs r,r,ere shot (b) I'VV 13 Muhammer,l Saleem who was busl in electioneering wherr he w'itnt,sscrl the incident (c) PW 1a Rafi Akbar w,as also busy in electioneeling rlhen lrl witnessed the inciclent ancl (ct) PW l7 Hasan Dilwar rvhr.r ,,vas .rlso Lrrrsr electioneering when he witnessed the incident in corrcctly itlt'ntifvinli appellants Muhammecl Amir Khar.r and Muhamma,,l l ariclue alias flat.r iir terms of them correctly identifying the appellants at the scouc ()l tlre inciclent or even being at the scene of the inciclent we clisbelieve theil evidence in so far as it relates to the appellants involvement in thc murder which couple(i with the unexplaineti elelay in lLrt{ging tltr.: Iilli which baseti on the particular facts ancl circumstances of this case girt'c th(' complainant, the police and rival politrc.rl partl' the ch;rtrce to t.rlsii\ ,r case against the apPellants ancl which delal' was lrol .rrie(lu.il!'lv t';rpltritrt'cl and disadvantagecl the appellants for tht' reasons eliscusserl above .ltl.l I based on the lack of supportivc/ corroborative evitience bv extenclitlg thc benefit of the doubt to the appellants we herebv allorv thcil al)P(\rl\, acquit them oI the charge aucl st't aside the impugnetl iutign.rcrrt Consequently the appellant Muhamrnar"i 'larique alias Llattt sh.rll Lre released unless he is wauted in any other custotlv case ancl the Lrail botrtls of appellant Muharnmed Amir Khan stand clischargecl.

22.If follows that the appeal tor enhancement of senteuces of lilt appellants filed by the State (wronglv filed as criminal ac(luittal aPPe'ti

I

\7a

I 19 l

against the appellants being No.04/2005) alstt fails .rrrtl is llt'rt'bi tlismissecl.

23.The appeals stancl tlisposcr.l of in the above terms d) 'pl$r''l',1^, I ).lo ,