ABDUL HAMEED BUGTI S/O ALI MURAD BUGTI (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

C1-o G=.,1-,- k{-V il. il^,clJ q62 tt53 CiJI{TIT.ICA TB OI, I tl,U LL'UI rl Ir

k/ m#'#*ffitzortr /o-' c'c'ou/oz' D,D, .C.ompositiott ol ll enclt q J;a[,a- /4".4r-1 .r"z/ /'A,;.1 /Ql^r h^",

Dates of heari-og;. tr? /ol>o Deci<lccl ,:rn t;t di hr/*

(a)Judgnrent aPProvcd for reporting,

:E

Yes

CBJRTIFICATts

cnuuciate's a priuciP'lc Certilictl that the jtldgn)ent /Orrlcr is bascd upon or r distirgtrishes l' of law r'ldccides a quesLiou r,ilt-i'itltrl ii of-fiist irnpreseion/ uu.i-rur.r/ i,:verses/txplains "ra prcvicus decision' tStrikc out whichever is not applicable

NO'I'll:-(j) This slip is only lo t)e r,sed when some sctiqn is to bc takcn (ii) If the slip is uscd, the llcatlcr must {ttach it to the top of lhe lirst pagc ot the iudgmerrt.

(iiil Rerder must ask the Judge wlitirlg thc Judgrncnt whcther tbc Judgment is approv,:d :'or reporting'

(iv.r l'hose dircctions wtrich arc not to be used should be deletcd' t

SCP., I(ar --L (iii) 1459-5,000'* 6'93*T S'S'

tt6e t +st

I

t

i

IN THE HIGH COU}?T OF SINDH AT KARACHI

> i (CRIMINAL APPELLANT JURISDICf IONI

I

Special c.minar An1i.,l.r.rr.rism Appear #2, ,"r- Abdul Hameed Bugti I Son of AIi Murad Bugti, r'1 ? G\T Muslim, adult, residint ol Sui, Balochistan.

(Presently confined in Centrirl u.R,( \Ntrt Prison, Karachi)..... .... .. ..

ots.Il "\Scdt{(h)

VERSUS

2qgl The Stare Respondent

FIR No. 145/2005 Under Secrion 3O2 t 3241427 /34 IOq PPC, R/w Sectron 3/4 Explosrve qcr and 7, A'lA I9g7 , Police Station: Artillery Maidan, l(ara(hi.

t

I

+{+A!+!PEB AEAIIaTL25 o_r,_rHE ANrr - rERRoRrsM +:+_r_Pz_BE4p_urrE

PROCEUDRE CODE

sffi Being aggrieved arrd dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 1O-O6-20 14, passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court No.V, Karachi (Mrs. Khaiida i Yaseen) in Special Car;e No.37/20O5 (The State V/s .{bdul Hameed Bugti) vicle FIR No.145/2005, under Section 3O2/324/422/jOg/34 ppC, R/rv 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 19Og, R/rv 7 of A,1A \ , 1g9Z , police Station - lrtillery Maidan Karachi, convicted the appellant of an offence under section i,(a) of ATA, 1 997 and arvarded death sentence, and i.iso convicted him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- to each inj Lrred, as well as under Section af Explosive Substance r\ct 190g, awarded imprisonment &r life, and forfeited his property, and for causing

L.r D (3- "^.1,-\.-y k<n-^J{..\

qL,

TIF

IN THE HIGH COU RT OF SIND H A'I KARACI II

Spl. Crl. Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.42 ol 20'14' Confirmation Case No.04 of 2007

Prescnt:

Mr. ltrstiL'c Mohamnmd Koin Klurn Aplur Nlr. I ustite Z ulfi rlrtr ,\ li 5onti,

Appellant Abdul Harneetl Bugti son of Ali Muratl llugti through Shaikh Jawaid Mir', Aclvtrate'

Responclent The State through Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor Gene'ral Sindh.

Date of hearing: 27.03.2021t

Date of Announcement 09.04.2020.

I UDGMENT

Mohammad Karim Khan As ha, l:- Accusetl Abllttl Hanrt't'tl Ilugti st'tr of Ali Murad Bugti was tried by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Cbu rt No.ll Karachi in Special Cases No. 37 of 2005 arising out of Crimc No.145l2005 u / s. 302/ 32a/ 427 / 709 / 34 I'PC 3 / 4 Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w. Section 7 AT A 1997 registered at PS Artillerv Maidan Karachi. After trial vide juclgment dated 10 06 2014 the appellant ALrtlul Hameed Bugti son of Ali Murad Bugti was convicted and sentencod as under:-

a) For causing cleath to four persons Sabz Ali, Iftikhar Ahmt-cl Jawed Iqbil an.t Noor Rehman, by bomb blast he w'as sentenced to death.

b)' For causing iniuries to 20 persons he is sentenced t() Rigorous Imprisonnieni for 10 (Ten) years and payment of a fine i'f Rs.50,000/ -(Filty Thousand) to each injured'

c) For causing bomb blast punishable u/s 3 of the [ixplosivc + Substances Act, 1908 to R I for life anel to iorfeit his ProPertY to the Government u/s. 5-A of the Explosive Substances Act' d) For causing clamage to the builclings of Muslim Commercial Bank antl FIDC tt"""" u/s.7(d) of Anti-Terrorism Act' 1997 to R.l. for 14 years.

I

Ltt'6 tf*

AII the sentences were to run concurrently. The sentt'trct' ot death awarded to the accusetl was subject to the conlirtnatior.t by the Hon'ble High Court of Sinr'lh, Karachi.

2.Being aggrieveel antl dissatisfied by the juclgment ;:assed b,r' Iearned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.ll, Karachi the aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the appellant against his conviction.

3.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.11.20()5 at about 1015 hours the complainant SHO Farooq Umer lodgc'r.l F lli No.145/2005, through his 154 Cr.P.C statement stating therein that he was patrolling the area along with his subortlinates in police tttolrilc vatt. When he reached at Dr. Ziaudclin Ahmed Road near Polo grouncl at about 0845 hours he heard noise of blast from the side of PIDC Housr, Karacl.ri as suc[ he immediately reached there and saw that a c.rr bcaritrg Registration No.ACB-490 having Bogus No.AEC-087 (which ht' krrew tfuough its Engine No.B-214704) in which bomb had exploclecl in front of Muslim Commercial Bank, PIDC House, Karachi. Duc- to saitl exlrlosiotr r many vehicles were burnt i.e. Car Nos.ABZ 634, ACS-4IJ3, Al;lvl-{59, AFM-978, ACV-344, ACS-522, AIH-139 and AHB-643 whereas lhr victirn car was totally destroyed. The passers by and security guards of PIDC ancl Muslirn Cornmercial Bank namely 1) Faisal s/o Dilawar llussairr, 2) Muhammad Aslam s/o Kafeel Ahmeci,3) Noor-ur-Rehman s/o ll.rhitn-tr- Din, 4) Ilyas s/o Farzand 5) Allah Ditta s/o Saifal Khanl, 6) Asael Ali s,i o Muhammad Amin,7) Asif s/o Ahmed Ali, 8) Saeed Ahmed s/o Abciul Qadir,9) Muhammacl Sabir s/o Abdul Latif, 10) Muhammacl Riaz s/tr Sirraj, 11) Hassan Ali Khan s/o Rahmaru-llah, 72) Sabz Ali s/o Zalgoon Shah, 13) Iftikhar Alimecl s/o Mir Afzal,-14) Khan Bahatlul s/o Na,'lir Khan, 15) Nasir s/o James Masih, 16) Sirraj s/o Noor Ali, 17) Mir Zarnar.r s/o Noor-uJlah, 18) lavecl Iqbal s/o Noor Khan, 19) Lious Mc'ia. 20) Mst. Sadhwa w/o Pursee, and 21) Kashif Muhammacl s/o lkra r.rr-u r- Rahtla rr received injuries. The r-rearby building of PIDC i.c. Muslim Comme rcial Bank and KFC was also damaged by the blast, While injured Sabz AIi, Iftikhar Ahmed, Jawed Iqbal and Noor Ilehman succutnbeel to thr'ir iniuries prior to reaching Hospital. The incident and circumstances shttlv that the terrorist to terrorize the public at large by killing ancl damaging the property had caused bomb blast thercfore case be registeretl againsl. unknown accused.

q6+

4.After registering the case the investigation was entrustecl to Inspector Muhammad Tariq who visited the place of inciclent and prepared memo of place of incident, he also recorcled staterncnts ()l t witnesses under 161 Cr.PC and prepared sketch of place of incidelrt On he arrested the accused Aztz Khan and Mangla Khan who were already confined at Police Station Gulshan-e-lqbal, Karachi in another case Crime Nos.582/ 05 u/s 4/5 Explosive Substances Act and Arms Orclitranct' at Police Station Gulshan-e-lqbal, Karachi.

5.After completion of the investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet before the trial court ancl the trial court show'ing accused Abdul Hameed son of Ali Murad Bugti ancl Behram Dagh son of I{ehan Bugti in Column No.2 with recl ink as absconders. Subsecluently accust'tl Aziz Khan and Mangla Khan were convictecl vide iuclgment datetl 31'05'2007 Thereafter, present accusecl Abdul Hameed Bugti son of Murati Ali Bugti was arrested in this case on 29.06.2007 and after usual investigation I.()' submitted Challan.

t

6.The charge was framed against the accused Ab,-lul Hameecl Bugti who pleaded not guilty ancl claimed to be tried.

7, To prove its case the prosecution examinecl 20 prosecutiotr witnesses and exhibited numerous clocuments ancl othel itcus atrtl thereafter the side of the prosecution was closecl. The statement of tl-rt' accused was recorded u/ s 34? Cr.P.C in wlrich ht' clenit'cl all thc allegations leveled against him and claimecl false implication. He r-l icl not examine himself on oath or call any witness in support of his clcletrst cas'.'

8.Learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.ll Karachi. aftt'r lrcarirrg the learnecl counsel for the parties and assessment of evidencc availa[rlc on record, vide the impugned judgment datetl 10.06.2014, convictecl and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence this appeal has beerr filetl

I

by the appellant against his conviction.

9.The facts of the case as well as evidence PI'oduced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment, thercfore, tht' same are not reproduced here so as to avoicl duplication antl unnecessarY repetition.

l

tl68 t4-tt

10.Learned counsel for the appellant has cotrtended that the whole of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses has been manipulatecl bv the police ancl that and some of them were not even present.rt the place ot t the incident, that the juclicial confessions made bv the apprellant's ctr- accused implicating him in this case cannot be safely relied up()n, that lhc evidence of the eye witness cannot be safely relieel upot.t, that tht' identification parade has not been carried out in accorclance ra'ith tl.re lan' and cannot be relied upon and as such the appellant for auv of the.rbovt' reasons should be acquitted of the charge by extt'r.relir.rg him tlre L-t-t.rt.fit trl the cloubt. ln suPPort of his contentiot-rs he placetl reliattce orr Irfan alias Shani v. The state and another (2020 YLR 372), Hakeem and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 1546), Usman Ali v. Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh and 9 others (7017 l'.Cr.L.l 155), Allah Warrayo v. Mst. Ladan and 3 others (2020 MLD 334), Abdul Haq and others v, The State (2020 SCMII 116), Naeem alias Titu and 4 others v' The state (2020 Yt-tl 74), Noor Islam v. Ghani-ur-Rehman and another (2020 SCMI< 310), Mst.

Nazia Anwar v. The state and others (2018 SCMR 9.1 l), Sabir Ali alias t Fauii v. The State (2011 SCMR 563), Shafqat Mehmood and others v' The State (2011 SCMR 537), Muhammad Ayaz and others v. The State (201 l SCMR 769), Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another (2()1 I SCMll 527), Sarttaz alias Mattu v. The State (2005 YLR 980), Pir Noroz Ali Shah v. The State (2019 P.Cr.Lj 457), Muhammad Akram v. The State (20()(r SCMR 230), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (201ti SCMIT 772), K,anwat Anwaar Ali, Special Judicial Magistrate: in the matter of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.183 of 2019 in Criminal appeal No'259 of 2018 (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 48tt), Mst' Asia Bibi v. The State and other (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64), Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 956), Wazir v. The State and another (2019 SCMR "1297), l{aieeh-ul-Hassan v. The State (2019 SCIVIR I994), Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652), Abdul fabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129), Cangoo Ram v. The State (2003 P.Cr.Ll 1608), Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and another v, State and others (PLJ 2009 SC 333) ancl Dhani Bux alias Dhanoo and 2 others v. The State (2000 P Cr.LJ 239).

11.On the other hand learnecl APC appearing on behalf of thc' Statt has fully supported the impugned judgment and in particular contencletl

.I

l/"?

that there was no evidence to show that the case against the appcllant l.raci been manipulated by the police, that all PW's who gave evitlcnct. that thel were present or visited the scene of the incident is supported by other a evidence and as such all PW's who gave eviclence in this respect can be relied upon, that the retracted judicial confessions of the appellants co- accuserl were made voluntarily ancl can be relied uPon against the appellant, that the eye witness was reliable, trust worthy atrcl confitlctrce inspiring and had correctly identified the apPellant as being the p-rerson who parked the car behind the car of the car bombc'rs antl that tht'co- accused who had parked the car bomb with the car bomb in it tllen g()t into his car which drove off shortly before the bomb itr the ear parketl br his co-accused exploded injuring 17 people ancl murdering 'l otlrers ancl had correctly iclentifiecl him at the ir'lentification parade which was ctr rrit'''l out in accordance with the law; that the appellant was arrestctl w'ith narcotics and an unlicensed firearm and as suc}t the appeal against conviction should be dismissed and the ct:nfirmation referL'nce answt'rctl in the affirmative. In suPport of his contentions ht: placecl rt'liat.tcc on tht' 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 dated 16.12.2019 (DB of Sinllh High Ctturt- Unreported), Ghazanfar Ali @ Pappu and another V The State (2012 SCMR 215), |oygun Bibi V The State (PLD SC 313), Khan Muhammad and others V The State (1999 SCMR 1818), Muhammad Amin V The State (PLD 2006 SC 219), The State V Minhun alias Gul Hassan (l'l-l) 1964 SC 813), and Raz Muhammad V The State (PLD 2002 SC 56)'

12.We have hearrl the arguments of the learnetl coutrscl fr'rr the partit's' gone through the entire evidence which has been reael out bl tho appellant and the impugned judgment with their able assistance 'rrrd h"rr'(' considered the relevant law including that citecl at the bar'

13.In our view alter our reassessment of the evidence based on thc evidence of the PW's especially, PW MLO's, Post mortem reports anl1 other medical eviclence, PW police witnesses and IO, recoveries tnaelt' tttt the spot, other PWs'and engine of the car which was useti as a car bom[' along with No. plates oI other damaged vehicles, damage t() surrounding prope*ies and the recovered CD which showed the blast wt'arc salisfictl that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable douht that orl t

q*) b.w

15.11.2005 at about 0845 hours a car bearing registration No'ACll--190 having Bogus No.AEC-087 planted with a bomb in front of Muslinr Commercial Bank, PIDC House Karachi was exploclecl causing seri<rus injuries to 1) Faisal s/o Dilawar Hussain,2) Muhammacl Aslam s/o Kafeel Ahmed,3) Noor-ur-llehman s/o Rahim-u-Din,4) Ilyas s/o F'rrzantl 5) Allah Ditta s/o Saifal Khanl, 6) Asad AIi s/o Muhamtl'rtl Arrin' 7) t\sil s/o Ahmed Ali,8) Saeed Ahmecl s/o Abdul Qaciir,9) Muhamrnad Sabir s/o Abdul t-atif, 10) Muhammad Riaz s/o Siruaj, 11) Hassan Ali Khan s/o Rahmat-u-llah, -12) Sabz Ali s/o Zargoon Shah, 13) Iftikhar Ahrnetl s/tr Mir Afzal, 14) Khan Bahadur s/o Nadir Khan, 15) Nasir s/o Janrr:s Masih' 16) Sirraj s/o Noor AIi, 17) Mir Zaman sf o Noor-u-llah, 1tt) Javetl lqbal s/o Noor fhan, 19) Lious Meia, 20) Mst. Sadhwa w,/o Pursce, arrtl 2l) Kashif Muhamrnad s/o lkram-ur-Rahman of whonr irriuretl Strbz Ali, Iftikhar Ahmed, Jawed lqbal and Noor Rehman succumltel to thoir injuries and clied prior to re'aching hospital ancl damaging tlre builtlirrg of Muslim Commercial Bank antl PIDC House, ancl 08 vehicles parkerl tlrcrt'' This position is admitted by counsel for the appellants and APC'

I

"14. The onty issue therefore, in our view, left before us is whether the appellant was one of the persons who was involvetl with the otltcr co- accused in leaving the car bomb in front of Muslim Commcrciai Bank, PIDC House Karachi which exploded causing serious injuries trr l7 peoplc mentioned above and murdered 4 other people mentioneel atrove atltl in particular was the driver of the car ra'hich eirovc off u'ith tht' co-accuscr'l after they hacl planted the car bomb which explocieci shortly after hc tlrtrte away causing the aforesaid injuries, deaths and clamage to propertv and as such enabled them to make their escape goocl.

15.ln our view after our reassessment of the eviclence we fincl that tire prosecution has NOT been able to prove beyond a reasonable d()utrt that the appellant (Abdul Hameed Bugti) was involvecl with the co-accusccl who plantecl the car bomb in front of Muslim Comrnercial Bank, I'll)C House Karachi which exploded causing serious iniuries kr 17 1'reoplc mentioned above at-td murclered 4 other people mentioneel above "tnd damaged proPerty as mentionecl above and clrove them aw'rt' frotl thr" scene oI the offense shortly after the bomb went off with the car bomttrs allowing them to make their escaPe gootl for the following reaso:ts;

L't+t 16t

(a)In our view the foundation of the prosc'cution case against the appellant rests on two key pit'ces irf evidence (i) lvhether we can safely rely on tlrt' retracted juclicial confessior.ls of both thc appellants co-accused (Aziz Khan ancl Mangala Khan) and (ii) the eye witness cvidenct'in tcrnrs of whether the eye witness has been ablc to corre'ctll' identify the appellant. We will deal with eacl.r aspect indir,'itiuallf in turn.

(b)Turning firstly to the retracled judicial confessions:

(i)the two later retracted iudicial corrfessions m;rclc br the appellant's co-accused (Aziz Khan ancl Mangla Khan) for ease of reference are set out bel()\\':

S.164 Stntement of Aziz Khan.

"We lnz,e committed this olfense on tht' trtsislcttt:t ol Strtlar people.l Altdul Aziz rtctotttptnied u'rtlt Btlrnrttt, Hameed nnd Mangla Khan hnd parked tlu' u'hitt ldtitlt lnden tpitlt explosirc nlongsidc PIDC nnrl r .tnl trlrtt/" (bold aclded)

S.164 Statement of Mangla Khan

"We hnre committed this bomb blast on tlte irtsistetut' of Sudnr Bagli" (bold attcled)

(ii)It is settletl law that a retracte({ iudicial conft'ssiorr can be legally admissible ancl usecl against its ulakcr' in certain circumstances in a capital case antl eletr against those named in the statement provitlcel that there is strong unimpeachable corroborative t'vit1c'nce from an inclepenclent source provicletl tl'rat tt'rtairl requiremcnts are met, namcly that it is hoth volunlarv and truthful.

(iii)In our view however we exclucle these iuciicial confessions against the appellant nratie bv his co- accused Aziz Khar.r and Mangla Kharl .llltl pl.t(('lrt, reliance on thern [or the folllrwittg reas.rtls;

(a)The iudicial magistrate vr'lto recortletl tht'st' juclicial confessions Khushi Muhammed cii'.1 trot give evidence at trial an(l as such tl.lt'aPlicllant was not Siven the oPPortunity to cross exittnitrr.' the person who recorded these confessions whtr ma1' have been shattered by the' appellant otr cross examination regarding the manller in whiclr the confessions were' recorclctl and there voluntary nature keeping in view that lhest' confessions were crucial evidencL' against tlr(' appellant.,

toe

(b)The ludicial confessions wcre exhibitetl bv the I() PW 20 Mohammed Iqbal insteacl oi thc pt'rsotr u,ho recorclecl tl.rc confessiotts Khushi Muhammed without anv exprlanation 25 11r whv Khushi Muhammed was ntrt ablc t() c()n1!' 'rl1(l give evidence and exhibit lhem himsell

(c)These confessions have been made by tlle co- accused trgainst tlrc appellalrt anel the ap';'cllant himself l-ras made no confession befors ;rn| judicial magistrate of his involvernent jtr this offense.

(d)Even if the confessions were reliecl upon thev give little, if any, evidence against the appellant' Co-accusecl Mangla Khan elocs not tlalll(' tht appellant in his confession ancl co-accust'tl Aziz Khan in his confession onll' refers f() ()rre " Hameed". No where has it come in evitlc'trce that the appellant was the Hameed who was rsf e rretl to in co-accused Aziz Khan's confcssion l-hcrt' are thousancls tti people n;rnlt'cl I I;rtr.rectl.

(c)Turning to the identification of the appellant'

(i)Eye witness PW 16 Muhammed Ashraf is the sole eye witness examined by the prosecution at trial rvhtr was a traffic constirble on (iuty at PIL)C house'at tht'tirnt' of the incieler.rt. According to his eviclence at about U 15 am on the day of the incident (l5 ll.2(X)5) hc sarr' orrt' private car and one taxi park in ft'ont of tlrc PIDC houst' He aske.l them t() remQvLr their car an(i taxi lrotlr tht' place. The person who was sitting in the car requested him to allow him to park the vehicle at some distance and shortly thereafter the bomb blast occurred l{is presence on duty is corroboratecl by PW 20 Muhammed iariq who was the lO ancl recortle,'i his statcnlcnt 'rt the traffic chowki within hours of the incitlt'nt ttn tltt'sitntt' day and his presence at the scene was not challenged by the appellants. In our view he was not a chance witness, it was a day light incident and eye witness PW 16 Muhammed Ashraf got a good look at the man in the car which he was standing close to and said he could identify him if he saw him again. Liis 5.161 stntcr.r'lt'rrt was recorclerl rl'ithin a matter of hours tltt thc satnt'tlay Fle. hacl r.to enmity tow;rrds the appellarrt ancl hacl ntr reason to falsely imPlicate the aPP(] Ilant in this casc Ht'' correctly picketl out the appellant at tht' itlerrtilic'rtiorr parade atrd again in court Based on the P.lrticr-ll.lr tacrs inel circumstances of this case kt'eping in vie!"1' th'rt each criminal case tulns on its orvlt Particul.tr' [']cts ;itr(l circumstances tltcrc rvas lltl neetl lor atl ii-letrtifieatiorl paracle which in such circumstances llfas n()t marl(l'rtor\"

L

Ll+3 qrc

In this respect reliance is placeci on Ghazanfar Ali V The State (201) SCMR 215) whicir in relevant part at Para l1 at P.224 reacls as uncler;

"Euen othenoise the holding of identificntion parade is not mandatory and it is merelq a corroboratipe piece of euidence. I.[ lltr slrttttttrttl o{ a utlm'.s rlut lle :Jttrlthl ,'[ 411 111111'111 ;11tr tt' Lurirl tttsprrr's to fldt \t', tIlt ts ,t'ttsl\tt]t! t t'll m erid pnrtitlnrs fittd tlrere is notlting trt et,idence to suggest thnt he is deposing fnlsely, tlu' nhsence of lnliling of identifcittiott pnrude u'ouhl not be fnt, lo lltc pros(tttiott ln llnrbtltrtr 5tt lt i:. 5lrile o u ttnd Kasltntr ( (I9t-5) 1)rrltrrttn Court Ctses 480), tha Courl u1 rcld tlrc Lottottlitttt tplrcre ntt identifcntion pnrndt hnd bacn lpltl tnrl ohsen'ed thnt the fnilure to lnld idr:ntificntiotr nnrrule troultl not he fntal tn tns(s u'lk'r( rttottNlt corrohornlttt nnd LonrlIustt't tpi,h'tt,'' tttrs rtrtI l'lr A siwilar 7'iL'1r' tltts trtkttt rn lndrrttrrllt 5 tutt'ol'U.P ((1970) 3 Suprerue Aurt Cnscs 51"'l) (bolcl addecl)

With regard to deficiencies in the itlentification paradc reliance Is placed on Muhammed Siddique V State (2()20 SCMR 342) which held as under at P.rra 5 whicll is sct ottt below;

"5. Castigating seperely tlu et)denc? oJ ttsl identifciion pnrade, tlte leornad corrnsel relierl upon the guidelines lnirl dotlu in llr cnse of Kntnpnr Anunr AIi (PLD 20-19 Suprefie Cottt488) to urge ex'lusL()tt. thireof. The suPro se indeed a t'rne piece ol juridicnl Iiternfure, nonetl:rclL'ss. do,r not exterul nruclt helP to tlu! cottT'i ts; it nittlv nritlressed latonic npprotclt ulopletl hy n Mngistr t? in holding the tesl ulenl t.ficrttntn parade in tln snid cnse ruhile ligltliglrting gener principles oflaru on the subject

Test itlentifcatiort pnrnda is , t,rlhotl o.f proo.f contenrylnled by Artidr 22 o.[ tfu Qntrtrtt-i Shnhaint Order, 1984, reprodrrt'ed beluo lbr tlu' conttenien ce of rele re n ce :'

"Facts necessnry to expl n or introduca rt .fncl in issue or relet ant t'act, or uhich support or rahttl un mferente suggestetl hy n lntt rtr tsstr or rtlrrnnl oJ ittvll N o'' [n, t, or u'lurh eslnhlislt lln' tdeulity 'person ttllose ilentiy is rcleunt, or t'is llw trnc-or place at t,hich any t'act in issrc or rcl?rnnl fil(l 'hnppcned, or tpltitlt shott the relnlnt ol'p rlrcs hU tohom nny such -fuct runs transncted, nre relet'lnt tn so t'ar as they are necessary .for that purpose" .

The nbotte t'rnruetL'ork prot'ides enouglt slx'J(l' /(,.

Lt+tl qbq

ndntit ei,idtnce in prrtstctrtiorr o.l oflt'nders preuiously unacquaintecl zpith the uictims or the uitnesses; tpprnisnl of sru'h t'r'idenc'e ls siill/(1'/ to sanw principlcs ns ue unh'ers lhl ryplmltlc lr:t tttty piece of et,idence, untler tttttsulertttrtttr ttt rr crimital trtnl: there nre no tLlditiLtnnl bnrrir:nrles rts is et,ident t'rom tlrc ploin renrling of tlte Artick'tbid: ruitlnut prrjudice lo tle st.fcgrutr,ls nrrtrlttble lLt ttt ncrttscd tt Lttch stnge t)f trinl, (ss!'ttt ly liur rts gruranteetl under tlrc Cottstttutio , ttottt'li lt'lr'ss, ii does not cnst an uti.ficinlly lvnttiL'r ontts ttn lhc prosecution to nrct sltndnrds o.[ l.trLni brtlorr'l lnnnnn <'t1tncilt1. Each ctiminal csse is lo lte decided lutztitrg regard to its tttt'n feculior.focts aul circumstatr.'es. A test ttt bt esstntiolly applied in one rsse marl altsohtelq bc irreleaant in arotlrer, as the crinrcs are seldou cot tntitte.l i ide ticsl situatiorrs; tlure traq be cases ruherchr prosectttion ntttst ttssiq tlistinct roles played during the occurtetce ltrl the culprits for .leteftnilatiort of their Suilt as ruell as conseqrrcnces thereo.f, 111171'p1tt't, thtre are cases in tohich totalihl of trottslctiotr matl ,rot aoarrsnt reparubilitq .for suclr aleterr inqtion, like the one in hand. Cast's ittuoluing abductions, drtcoities a .1 sLtdd('n assaults, nrore olten than not, cottstitute episodes uherein difltrett roles pluled bq tht culprits nrcrge irtto i tegrol tot.tlitq o.f lht crime, thtts, it toould lre too harsh ss u'cll as unrealistic to denmnd eract ree (tme t of roles bt1 the :.nitrrcsses. Capaciti6 e1'?tt intellectuallq most sharp cktindle drastically in calsmitous situ tions, therefore, tlre administratiotr of criminal iustice, itr surh pea iar sittttttiotrs, has to be dynonricallq balanced upon fair trial zuithout preiudict' to tlrc accuserl as utell tts due u'eightuge to tlrc proseartion euidence u'ithout beiflg st1sVed bv illusorq notions, subiectiuely structured upttrr hupothetical b?liefs

llat,irg/bund tlr tlitnassts tlitlt rto rrtt' tLt grinrl, rtt n tortrlbrtitblc tutisttrt orr all Ilu sal rrtl .fittttrrts ol llk lrros,cuttoll ctse ns tptll ns ?ttttls Lollill?ru1 fher?tlith, t)t do ttol .ftel ptrsurulal lty lltt nrgtrme ts, couclrcd ott hrlper technical prernise' Petrltorts lail. Dismissr:d." (bold aclclcd) The case which lve are currently deciding attracts the above dicta as it is a case of sudden assault. Even a delay in holding the identification parade of over a year was not fatal to the idcntificr corrcctlv identifying the accused ln this respect reliance is placed on the case of Solat Ali Khan v. The State (2002 SCMI{ 820) and in this case the irlentificatiorl parade was carried out after 20 months ancl in an;'

Q4T

+6t event evidence flowing from an identification p;rracle is only a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot supersede reliable, trustworthy, confidence inspiring direct evidence. In this respect relianct' is placed on Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 scMR 1857).

His evidence was not shattered tluring lel.tgth',' cross examinatiott antl rve fincl his evitlence kr [t reliable, trust worthv atttl citnficlence inspiring an''1 thus we believe the evidence of this witness in terms of his correct identification of the appellant as being the person who parked outside PIDC house iust before ihe car bomb blast which infured over 17 people and murdered 4 people and we rely on such evidence based solely on his eye witness testimony having given little weight to the identification parade'

(cl)The appellant was arrested aPProximatelv 18 months after the incitle'nt whilst hr-' was c.lt'rl itrg narcotics ancl an unlicelrser.l pistol, anll .1t whir.l'l tilll(' there was nothing to connect him to ttris oifetlst' str why woul.l he confess his involvement to the Police (which is inadmissible anyrvav) to a tapital c'rse which he knen'coultl lead to the cleath sc'ntt'nce at a time when there was hardly any e'"'idence against him. This does not app,-'al to logic, rt'ason or comnl()n sense. Significantly, he did not confess before a magistrate.

(e)Very little, ii any, other evidence has conte on recorcl agtrinst the appellant.

"f6. Thus, although we believe the eviclence o[ eye witness I'W 16 Muhammed Ashraf who identified the appellant in a car just ()utside PIDC house before the bomb h'ent off in the absence of 'rnv tttht'r significant corroborative evidence we d() not considcr that it is satc tr) convict the aPPellant of the charge basecl on this evidence alont'ilntl tlrus by extending the benefit of the doubt to the aPPellant we hereby actluit him of the charge as there seem to be doubts about his involvemont in thc car bombing outsicie PIDC house which lead to the iniury of and tlre murder of 4 others on 15 11.05, ln this respect reliance is placecl ott the case of Tariq Pervez V/s. The State (1995 SCMR 13'15), *'herein tht' Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

"lt is settled law that it is not necessary that there should be manv circLrmstances creating tioubts lf there is a single' circurllstarrr..e' which creates reasonable doubt in a prucle.nt mind about tlre guilt-

I

q7b

of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to thc bencfit rrot as a matter of grace and concession but as a mattcr of rigl.rt'" 1,7. As such we allow the appeal and set asitle the inrpugnecl jutlgment and answer confirmation reference 04 / 2007 in respect of aPpcllant Abdul Hameed Bugti in the negative who shall be relcased from custtxlY unlcss wanted in any other custody case.

18.The appeal and confirmation reference are disposed of in the above terms

t-) lu

I

I M,1.*lo-- +f.,