MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR @ CHARIYA S/O NAZEER AHMED (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

B;X' *1e h)^ , Gdtretirut ) f )-.r^q, ff,r €{l }*^' r-".

IN TI-[E H IGI-I COURT OF SINDH. I(ARA CHI

Prase ttl:

Mr.luslice It(oltutruund I(nrim llnn Aglm Mr.lnsticc An$nd All llolrlo

Suecial Crirrrinal A.T.A. No.133 of 2020 Confirnrntion Case No.06 of 2020, Appellant: Muhammad Zubair alias Chariya 5/o. Nazeer Alunecl through Mr. Muhammad Tamaz l(han, Advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh and Rana Kl'ralid Llussain, Special Prosecutor Rangers.

Special Criminal A.T.A. No.134 of 2020 Appellant: Abdul Rehman @ Bhola S/o. Abdul Sattar through Syed Muhammacl Mansoor Akhtar Peerzada, Advocate.

The State: Tluough Mr. Muharnmad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh and Rana l(l'ralid Flussain, Special Prosecutor Rangers.

Special Crirninat A.T.A. No.141 of 2020 Appellants: 1. Fazal Ahmccl S/o. Khan Zacla, 2. Alstracl Nleltmood S/ o' Nlrthanunad Ilasltir,

3.Ali lvluhanrnrarl S/o. Ivlasheen Khan thlotrgh lvlr. Faroocl l-layat, r\dvocate.

The Statc: Through Mr, Muhamrnatl ltlbal Awan, Acldi tional Prosecu tor General, Sirrclh ar-rd llana l(ralid I-lussain, Special Prosecutor RangersT

Page 1 of46 Muhammad Arif

.J

Succinl _I Crirrrinal A.T.A. No.142 of 2020

Appc'llnrtl: Shahrukh t.atif S/<.r. Abclul Latif through M/s. M. $armacl Khan and Muhammad Qasirn It;bal, Atlvocatcs.

Thc Stntc': Tlrrough Mr. Muhammad lqbal Awan, Acltlitional Prosecutor Ceneral, Sindh and Rana I(halicl I-lussain, Special Prosecutor Rangers.

Suecial Criminal A-T Aco Aoueal No.1 O4 of 2022 Appellant: The State through Mr. Muhammad lqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh and Rana Khalicl Hussain, Special Prosecutor Rangers.

Respondents 1. Abdul Rauf Siddiqui S/o. lvluhammad Abdul Majeed Siddiqui through M/s.

Shoukat l-Iayat and Saqlain Shafi Rajput, Advocates

2.Umar Hassan S/o. Siddique Hussain Qaderi.

3.Dr. Abdul Sattar Khan S/o. Jabbar Khan.

4.Mst. Iqbal Acleeb Khanum W/o. Syed Masroor Ahmed through Nl/s. Hasszur Sabir aricl Salman Sabir Aclvocates.

Dates of lrcaring: 28.08,2023 and 29.08.2023 Date of f udgment: 11.09.2023.

JUDGMENT

"'flrc only lling trccassnry for tlrc triutuyh of euil is rulrcn good nrut rln t.r.:llitrg." Edmurrd Burke/J.S.Mill MOI{SMMAD I(AI{IM-I(tlAN ACIIA,tr- The Appcllants Muhammac'l Zubair alias Chariya S/o. Nazeer Alrtuccl, Abrlul Rehman @ Bhola S/o. Abdul Sattar, Fazal Ahrnecl S/o. Kharr Zada, Arshacl Metrmoocl S/o.

L

Page 2 of 46 Mulwmnad Arif

, 6v

Muhammatl Bashir, Ali Muhamrnacl S/o. Mashccn Khan, Shahrukh Latjf S/o. Abdul Latif havc filccl thcsc appcals against the judgmcnt passerl by the Anti-Tcrlorism Court No,VII, Ccntral Prison at Karachi clatccl 22.09.2020 in Spccial Casc No.l'l(vii)of 2017 arising out of Ir.l.R. No,343 of 2012 U/s. 38.1/3tt5/3t\(t/a35/a36/302/324./337 /109/34 PI'C rf w ScctionT ATA rcgistclecl at l'.S. SI'I'I3-U, I(arachi whcrcby thc appellants wcrc cclnrrictctl arrti scntctrccd as urrclcn-

i)I hereby convict the accused persons namely Abdul Rehman alias Bhola S/o, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Zubair alias l-ala Zubair alias Zubair Chariya fol the offence u/s.7(a) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 for causing death of 264 persons (men and n'ourcn) through arsorl anc{ scntcrrce thcm to dcath on cach couut with fine of Rs.200,000/-(Two Lacs) each subject tcr confirmation by this court.

ii)I hereby convict the accusecl persons namely Abclul Rehman alias Bhola S/o Abdul Sattar ancl Muhammac'l Zubair alias pala Zubai alias Zubair Chariya for tl're offence u / s: 302 (a) PPC r / w' section 34 PPC and sentencc them for causirrg c{cath of 264 persons (rnen and women) and sentence them to death on each count subject to confirmation by this court.

iii)I also hereby cot"rvict thc accusec'l Abclul Rehrnan alias Bhola anr.l Muhatnmaci Zubair alias Zubair Lala alias Zubair Chariya for the offence u/s: 7(b) t-rf Anti-Terrorism Act, Lc)97 for their participation in the offerrce likely to cause eleath anel enclanger the life of the total number of factory rvorkers/ enrpkrl'ecs prcscnt irrside the factory, anti sentencc thcrn to R.l for life vvith fine of Rs.200,000/(Two Lacs) each antl in clefault rvhereof tt'r pay thc fine, each accused slrall suffcr S,l for six nrontlrs^

iv)I also hcrcby convict thc accusecl Abtlul Rchnran alias l]hola anrl Multarnnrac[ Zr.rtrair nlias Zrtlrair l,nln alias Ztrtrair Chnril'a for' tlre offencc uf s:32t1R/W scctiorr 34 I']aki.statr I)cuarl Cotlc (Pt'C) for attcr:r;:ting rlatl-i-nnttl irtrrl thL'1'eb;r ctrttsitrg irtjtrrits to 6() Pcrion$ (nrcn nncl worrtcn) sctttcncc thctrt to stt[[t'r R.l tcu l'gi11'5 ()n cach count witlr firrc of l{s.'l(X),t)(}0/-(()nc l,nc) cnclt, utrcl itt tlclatrlt whl'rcof lo pay [lrt'[irrr', caclt net'uscrl shnll suffcr S.l krr six montlrs.

v)I also hcreby cottvict lhc accusctl Abtiul lle'hrnan alias Bhola arrcl Muhanrnrar.l Zubair alias Zubair Lala alias Zubair Chariya for tlte offcncc ulrrlcr 7(c) of Arrti-'fcrrorisnr Act, 1997, for causing injur:ies to 60 persons (nrcn anct wourcn) ancl .sentcnce thern to Page 3 of46 Muhammad Arif

g1

suffcr lt.l ftlr lifc on caclr counl anrl to pay fine amount of RS 200,000/(1'lvo Lacs) each antl in rlcfault whcreof to pay the fine, cnch nccusutl slrall suffcr Ii.l for.six months.

vi)I alsu horcby t:ttttvict llr('accr.rsctl Atrdul Rchnran alias Bhola ancl lvlultattttttotl T,ubair nllng Zutrair l.ala alias Zubair Clrariya for tltt' rrllcttct' un(lor 7(lr) nl Arrti-'[crrorism Act, 1997, lo crcatc st'rittus risk lo llrc l)ublic, factory owncrs, workers antl t lltplttl,pl'.r lllr.scnt/nvailablc in thc lackty, thcrcby preventetl tltcttt ttt curlrc rrrrt florn tlrc factory vir, hli linte rprises situatecl nt plot No.ll-(r7 Sitc arca Knrnchi, anrl scntcncccl thcm to sufler I{.1 ftrr lifc atrr"l to pray fitrc amourrt of Rc 2A(1,000/(Two [-acs) cnclt attd in tlcfault wltercof to pay thc fine, each accusctl slrall suffcr S,l, for six months.

vii)l also hcrcby convict the accusec{ Abdul Rehman alias Bhola ancl Muhanrnratl Zubair alias Zubair Lala alias Zubair Chariya for the offence u/s: 435 of Pakistan Pcnal Code (PPC) for causing clamage to private property viz. Ali Enterprises situated at Plot No.F-67, Site l(arachi and sentence thcm to suffer R.l for seven years each ancl to pay fine antouttt of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lac) each ancl ir"r dcfault whereof to. pay the finc, each accused shall suffer S.l for six months.

viii)I also hereby convict the accusecl Abdul Rehman alias Bhola antl Muhammad Zubair alias Zubair Lala alias Zubair Chariya for the offence u/s:436 of Pakistan Penal Cocle (PPC) and sentence thenr to suffer R.l. for life each for t{estruction o[ prirratc factory viz. AIi Enterpriscs situatetl at Plot No'F-67, Site, Karachi ancl to pay (ine amount of Rs.200,000/- (Trvo Lacs) each and in tlcfault whcrcof to pay the. [inc, each accusctl shall suffcr S.l. for six tnonths.

ir) I also hcrctry colrvict thc accusctl Al:tlul llchmart.tlias Blrola and lvtultrnrttt,trl Ztt[:air rlins Ztrbair l..rln .rli.r.s Zubair Clrnril'a fnr lltc pffuttct'tr/s: 3tl-l r/ry sccti6rl 3{ of l\rkist.rn I,r,ll,ll (utlt' (llPCi) for eottttttissiott ol [ilttrrtiotr oI nltrnt'\' ("blr.rtta") itttr.l sctllt't'tcc tltcttr ltr srt[[t'r Il.l. ftrr thrr.'t'\'t'.lrs t'.tch tln(l kt Iine ol ll.r"l0tl,(]()0/- (()nt' l,.tc) t'.tch .llr(l ill tlt'f.rttll 11t11,11,11[ kr 1t,ty,tltr, littt', t',lch.lceusr,'rl slt,tll stt[[t'r S.l. itrr sir Irrotrlltrr.

x)I ,rlr,u lrrlt,by r orrvict tltt' .ter'ttst,tl AtrtlrrI ltr-'lrrn,rn ali.rs [Jhola .rrtr,l Mult,ttttttt,rtl Zub,rir ali,rr T,rttrair l.al,r alias Zubair ('lr.rriy,a krr llrt.oflt'ttct'u/s: 3tl5 r/rv scction 3-l o[ I'akistan I't'tral C]rrlc (l'l() krr ltttltilrli lltclury' otvncrs unr,lcr fcar to txlorl nlr)nc), ("blratl,r") anrl st'nlt'nce tlrcn'r to suffer R.l. for tlvo 1'eirrs eaclr .ltrd to Fay fine dnloutlt of Rs.50,0011/ - (Fi|ty Page 4 of46 llulwmmad AnJ

v Tlrousantl) each ancl i1 rlefault whcreof to pay tlte fine, each accuscd shall suffcr S.l. for six months.

xi)I also hcrcby courrict thc accusccl Abrlul Rcllnan alias llhola antl Multamurad Zubair nlins Zubair Lala alias Zubair Chariya for tltc offcncc u/s: 386 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for puttirtg llactory owltcrs unclcr fcar of c{eath and grievous Irult too, to cxtort llloncy ("bhatta") ancl sentence thcm to suffcr R.l. for tcn ycars cach anrl to pay finc amount of Rs,100,000/- (Orro Lac) cach anr{ iu default whcreof to pay tlrc fine, caclr accuscd shall suf fcr S,l. for six rnonths.

xii)I also hereby convict the accuscd Shahrukh Latif S/o Abdul Latif, Ali Muhamurad 5/o Masheen l(han, Arshad Mehmood S/o. Muhamrnad Bashir ancl Fazal Ahmed S/o Khan Zada under section 21-l of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 r/w section 109 PPC for aicl and abetrnent to tl're accused namely Abdul Rehman alias Bhola ancl Muhanrmad Zubair alias Zubair Lala and their accomplices to get them entered inside the factory to endanger the live of workers, employees and owners of the factory to cause their death which resulted in the death of 264 persons and injuries to 60 persons at the hands o[ above named principal accused persons, thus sentence them to suffer R.l. for life by each accused on each count anci to pay fine of Rs.200,000/- (Two Lacs) each and in default whereof to pay the fine, each accused sl'rall suffer S.l. for six months.

xiii)I also hereby convict the accused Shahrukh Latif S/o Abc{ul Latif, Ali Muhammad S/o Masheen Khatt, Arshatl Mel'unoocl S/o. Mul'rarnmad Bashir and Fazal Ahmer-i S/o Khan Zada, who while pennitting the principal accused persolls to get them entered inside the factory in aicl thereby to endanger the lives of workers, ernployees anci owners of the factory to cause tl'reir death, bodily harm and injuries, resulting in the cieath of. 264 persons and injuries to 60 pel'sons at the hands of principal accusecl persons namecl above for the offence U/s: 109 R/W section 34 of PPC, ancl sentencc'thern to suffcr R.l for life to each accused on each count ancl to pa), fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(One Lac) caclr ancl in default whcrcof to pa1, thc finc, each accuser-l shall suffer S.l for six months.

xiv)I also hercby convict tlte accuscll Shahrukh Latif 5/o. Abdr"rl Latif, Ali Mulramurad S/o Mashcctr l(han, Arshac"l Mehmood S/o. Muhalnnrad Bashir and Fazal Ahrnerl S/o. Khan Zacla, for the offencc u/s:31(: t/w scction 34 of PPC, to facilitate the principal accuscd pcrsons namcd above to gct them entered irrside the factory having plastic shoppers containing chemical substance with irrtcnt to causc harm to the bodies of ernployees, workers and factory owners available insicle the factory Page 5 of46 MuhammadAif

r rcsulting in thc rlcatfi o( 264 pcrsons thus, each accusec{ is liable to prny Diyat atnount as notificcl by thc Govcrnment of Pakistan for tlrc yaar 2020-2'l virle notification No:F.8(3)lF'lll/91'-609 tlatct{: 01*t of ]uly, 2020 at ratc of Rs. 27,77,353/ccluivalent to (30,(130 gl'nt1ts of slivcr) t9 tftc lcgal [cirs 6f cach ctf the deceasec-l.

'lltc scutcrrccs shall run concurrcntly ancl the convicts are cntitlcd to thc bcnefit of scction 3U2(b) Cr.P.C, besides the fine autouut if arry paict by accusecl pcrsorls, shall be deposited in the Gove rmnerrt Tleasury.

The retnaining accused namcly Muhammad Abdul Rauf Sidtliqui S/o Muhamnratl Abtlul Majeed Sic{cliqui, Umar l{assan S/o. Siriclique Hassan Qaelri, Dr. Abdul Sattar Khan 5lo Abdul Jabbar Khan and Mst. Iqbal Adeeb Kharrum w/o Syed Mansoor Ahrnecl are plescnt ol'r bail and against them prosecution has failed to establisl"r the charge, therefore, they are lrereby acquitted of the charge u/s:265-11(i) Cr.P.C.

The State has also filed Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.104 of 2422 against acquittal of respondents Abdul Rauf Siddiqui S/o. Muhammael Abdul Majeed Sittdiqui, Umar Hassan S/o. Siddique Flussain Qaeleri, Dr. Abdul Sattar l(han S/o. Abdul Jabbar Khan ancl Mst. Iqbal Acleeb Klranum W / o. Syecl Maroor Ahtned who as noted above were accluitted of the charge.

Z. The brief facts of the case as narratecl in thc FIR are that on 'l',.09.2012SIP/SHO natnely Muhaurmacl Nara,az Gondal along r'r'ith other police officials was busy in patrolling in the area for preventiotr o[ criurt'. During patrolling, lte receivecl information that therc' tvtls fire at f\li Entcrpriscs Garmelrts Factory, situatcc{ at Plot No.F-67. On this informatiou Sl{O Muftarlnrarl Nawaz Conclal rushc,.l to the pointecl place at about 1ti45 hourrs, riaw thc filc flartrcs in cloths insicle thc factory spreadipg spccr"lily. l-lc i,rr,cr"liatcly rc;-rtlptctl tlrc nr.ttcr to high uFr.s ovcr thc pl'ronc ancl also informcrl thc firc brigarlc tlcpartrnent. On the orcier of high ups, thc policc nrobilcs aud firc brigaclc also startcd reaching at the spot, where it came into his kr"rowledge that at 1830 hours, clothes hacl caught fire. Ttre vehicles of fire brigacie were puttir-rg out the fire tlrrough Page 6 of46 MuhammadArif

ry

the rright. On.12.09.2012 at 14(Xl hour$, tlrc [iru: had becn crrntrrrllcrJ,'['hc 5l-lO inspcctcrl thc 1',rouncl fioor rtf thc factory frorn outsiclc, obscrvcd that tlrcrc. nrc lour gatcs of currrirrll anrl 1I:ing for thc fact<try wtrrkcrs. 'lltrce

gatc's wu'rc lockr'r,l by oltlcr uf thc factory ow,lcr Abclul Ar'it, Bhaila sl'tma tirrrc bnck. 'l'ltc sotts of Abclul Ar,ir, llhaila namcly ttashid lthaila and Slralrirl lllraila nrrrl tlro nclnrirri.qtration of tlrc factory did not maka propcr .tn'ilrlgclllctrts for thc curcrllcncy aucl cxit of tltc factory workcrs, in casc rrf all), curcrg,cncy irrcident, "l"lrc fnctory [:uilrlirrl; was cottsistinl; upon thrr:t: storics. The cournron eutry ancl exit point is situatccl from inside thc factory.'l'hc ilon grills wcrc fixcd in thc winclows. At thc timc of firc in thc building, r{iffcrcnt workcrs includirrg malc and fcmalc havc cxpircd and u,crc also irrjurcd duc to said firc, who wcrc takctr to Civil l-lospital, Abbasi Shaheecl Hospital and Jinnah l-lospital by Edhi, Chippa and other Arnbulances from the place of incident. The owners of the factory and the administration of the factory did not make any arrangement of safety rlreasures, in order to save the life o[ factory workers, in casc of any sudden fire ir, the saicl factory, cven there were no alternate emergcncv gatcs or doors. Thc responsiblc persons of thc factory were wcll awarc of the fact that in case of any inciclcnt tlrcrc could be consiclcrablc' loss of lives. In this incident due to their burning, presently (at that time) 225 Persorls have been expired. The staff rnembers of rescue rvere takiug out more bodies of the dead persons, those boc-lies werc immecliately being shifted to hospitals. Their postmortem reports woulcl bc receivcd latcr on. Upon thc iclerrtification of tleceasecl persorls rcccivcc{ from hospital, it shall bc incorporatccl in thc'tlaily tliarl'' Iu this incir'lent e'luring invcstigation, it has also canrc irr thc knowlcrlgc that this incitlcnt has takclt ptacc cluc to clishotrcsty, ucgligcncc autl uonc of thc conccrtrccl departmcnt canre for. clrccl<ing tlrc factorl, i.c. Labour Dcpartrr]cnt, ISuilding Cotrtrol Dcpartntcnt, Elcctric Dcprallmcnt, Environment Social Security Sitc l,tr"l, Civil Defcncc antl uthcr conccrnccl clcpartmcnts ancl clue to tlris thc livcs of nrany pcoplc havc bein r-lcstroycd. Thc performance of factory owncr$, adnrinistration ancl atrovc namccl clepartmcnts attractce{ tlre offencc punishablc undcr scction 302/ 435/436/,137 /3* PPC, tl'rerefore Page 7 of 46 Muhammad Aril

g

tlris case was registerecl and invcstigathn were entrusted kr SIO Zafar Iqbal of P.S Site-B, Karachi.

3.Followiug thc abovc Fll(, as narratccl in dctail in the Impugned Jtrrlgnrc'nt, tlrc irrvcstigativc proccss was sct in motiun whercby thc factory Ovvllcl's as pcr orillirral chargc shccts wcrc amotrg.st others alleged to be lcsporrsiblc fot t,arious offcnccs ort account of tlic firc. l-lowever nearly 2 arrtl a half ycars aftcr tl"rc firc a Jl'l' rcpor:t iu rcspcct of ltizwan Qurcshi contltrctctl in FIR No: (r1/13 came to light bcforc thc Sinc'lh High Court u,hich rnatlc rerrcaling rlisclosures ns to thc causc of tlrc firc, the motivc behirrd tl're fire anrl the persons involvec{ in the occurrerlce which JIT report was exllibiterl at trial. Such revelations are set out below for ease of reference;

IMPORTANT INFORMATION WHICH ACCUSED

t (.Rizwan Ouershi) REVEALED.

During interrogation accused revealed the following important information which is as under:-

3.Fire Incident in Ali Enterprises Garrnent Factory in Baldia Town.

"During tlrc interrogntion accused reuealed tlmt ruell Kttotwt Party High Officinl denmnded extortiotr ruoney (BHATTA) of 20 Caror tlrough lis front nmn from the oruner of Ali Enterprises itr Attgttst, 20'12, on tltis dennnd of extortiott ,ttoney (BHATTA) lhe fnctory oruners urct ruith Sector htchnrge of Bnldin Towt Asglnr Bnig nnd told lirrr tlmt on Ilrc nnnrc of Pnrty High Offcinl sonrcone nsked tlrcnr. for extorliolt ntottcy (BHATTA), Sector lnclnrge of Bnldin Town Asglrnr Bnig tnlk to ltis brotlrcr Mnjid nnd tlrcy botlt look Fnclory oilttrcr to 90 Aziznbnd .nnd nrct willt luclmrge KTC I-lnrumnd Sidrliryi nnrl Fnrooq Snleem nnrl told tlrcm tlnl Fnctory ototte rs nre llrcir ttyporlcr ntil nlso nltottt tlrc de nmud of extortiott ilrcney (BI-IATTA), Alar lrctrrl aperylltittg Flaurnmd Siddiryi ond Fnrooq Snlcem replies lhut tlnl tltis nmltcr is trct from tlrcir sitle. On this nlliturle Seclor Inclmrgc of Bnldin LLrit Asglrn r Bnig md lis brothcr usa lmrslt ruorrls wilh l-lnnunnd Sidrliryi mul Fnrooq Snleem mul relunrcd bnck {rom llrcre, After feru dnys Hmmnnd Siddiqui suspcnderl Sector hclmrge of Bnldia Tororr Asglrnr Bnig nnd assigtt [oint Sector luchargc Relunan Blrcla as Sectot,, Page I of46 Muhammad Artf

gE

lnchnrgc of Baldia Torun, Lstu on l'Ianunad Siddiqui and Fnrooq Snlean orrlercd Rchmrut Bhola to collect the extortiorr t,t(rrrey (IlltATTA) fram Factory owrrcrs on the orrlcr ttf Parly I'Iiglt Oflicial, Ilcluunn Bhola Scctor lnchnrge ISnldin Torun ngnln duunnil /or cxtortlotr Money (BLIATTA) of 20 Cnror lrtnn l:nclonl ototrcrs and n/ter the denial of Fncfrl'r1 ou,ttttt's ott 7ll Selttctttbcr, 2012 tlchttmn Blrcla and lrfs rnrlvrorw, ot:co,,,ltllces tltetu chentical substnncc which r'rt'nlts firc itt l:nilary. Otr nexl dny CID rnidcd on Asglmr mtl Mryirl hottsc itr Gujrnl Molmh Bnldin Torun nnd arresled Mnjid lurrllrr,r' ty' Asg/rrrr bnig mul nfler llu: yressure of MQM (A) otr lirclruy 01,,,0rs lluty gnue slnlewuil llml Mnjid runs not itruohteel irr ittcidanl on llis slnlenrcnl CID relcnsed Mnjid. FIe furtlrcr slrtfcrl tlurt on the order o! Irnrty l'Iigh Afficial, Ex-Mittister ol IIIQM (A) went to Policc Statiotr and registers a cASe rtgniust Factory o.urtcrs. Fnctory autners got bnil before nrrest f'om Sindlt High Court in tlrc snid Flllbut nfier thcir bail MQM- A Ex-Mhtistcr by using lis cotnrcctions cnncelled tlrc bnil of Fnctory olt,ners. After thnt Ex-Prinrc Mhistcr lrclps Fnctory outtrcrs for tnkirtg bnil f'om Pwtjnb High Court but after the ittcrruytion of MQM-A Most lrigh Official that tlis is proahrcial issrrc so stay away from it then Ex-Prime Mitrister stcps baclc from the nmtter and one unlenoutn /ront trrnn of tlrc sarrre Party High Officinl who taas itr Goueuunent toolc L5 Caror ftonr Factory Ouners for disltosal of tlrc case. Accused told tlnt tlrcse nll infonnation le toolc form Ex-Sector Incharge Bnldin Touttl" .

4.Tlrese disclosures which came to light on 06.A2.201.5 nearly 2 ant{ a half years after the irrciclent and the original FIR changed the entire complexion of the investigation. A further JIT was formerl to reinvestigate the casc tl'rread bare and after it submittct-l its rcport u'ith ultirnately the investigation conclucling that the fire was r{eliberately startee{ at thc factory by some of the accused on account of the factor-r' owners rcfusal to pay a hugc arnourlt of 25 Clores trhatta to the lv{uttahitla Qaurni Movcmcnt (MeM) (Altaf) ;rolitical piu.t1, anrl as a result at least 259;:coplc tlieel irr l"lte facLory [irc artr"l at lcast 5(r othcrs rvcre injurec{ on account of thc factory clclibcrntcly bciug sct on firc as puni.shmcnt to the' factory owttcr$ for not paying thc lrhntta with thc dcsign, intent anrl PurPose ttl terrorizc otltcr factory owllers b pay bhatta orr tlemand to the MQU antl tltat thc MQM hacl n'rartagccl thc falsc FIR irr orcler to e'livert anv suspicion away fronr thcm arrcl hacl evcn cxtortec{ an aruount of rnoney 't

Page 9 of46 Muhammad Ari!

a qo

fronr tlrc factory owrtcrs wlrich tlrcy lracl alpcccl to pay as comPcnsation to thc lclial hcirs of tlrc clcccascd nrrrl lhe injurcd which was instead usec{ to truiltl n lucrntivc propcrty irt I lyclcrabatl.

5.'l'lurs, otr 14.02.2018 (6 ycars aftcr the firc at the factory) the follorving chnrl;c rvas fratncrl against tlre'appellants and their acquitterl ctl-lccuscrl to u'hiclt tlrey all plcad not guilty ancl clairned trial.

"Thnt ott 11,09.2012 nl nltout'1830 lrutrs ltrsitle Fnclory Building Ali Errlcr?rrisrrs silunted nt Plil No:F-67 5ik Knrnchi, yort ocarced Abdul llclunnn nlins Dholn S/o Altrlul Sntlnr md Muhnnunad Zttbair alias Laln Zrtbnir nlias Zrnbir Chariya S/o Nnzeer Alnrcd nlotrg ruith your trcctttnpliccs/rtssnilnnls nt tlrc dircctiorts nnd itrstigntion of nbsconding accrrser/ Hnnmd Siddiqui, in furthermrcc of your catiluron iutentian nnrl objccl, dannrulerl Bhnttn nurunil of Rs.25 Croras from tlrc owners af .fnctory Ali Enteryrises and pnrtncrslip in tlrc fnctory profts and on non' conrylinnce of suclt clemmtd issued tlrents to tlrc fnctory oiltners llmt itt cnse of llrcir re.firsnl, tlrcy zoould fnce tlrc serious dire conserytences nnd yau \ nt llrc direclions ruul instigntion of ncutscd Hmntmd Sidrliqui in order to tcnch the lessotr to tlrc fnctory otpners set the fnctory on fre ruitlt tlrc lrclp atrd conniuntn:e ol your flccot,tplices (attitrisls of MQM-A) tuorking irt snid Fnctory tlvouglt clrcnicnl lying in tlrc polytlrcnc ltngs re tninetl by you, tuhiclt yott nccttsed nnd yom' nccontplices il'ffotun itt tlrc fnclary u,lirlt e.rupted fire nnd fu tlrc cnuing fire nbout 259 persons lost tluir lkes lln'ough fre nnd ntore tlmn nltout 60 persails u,ere injured. Tluts, tlrcrehrl you hnue couuttittcd nn offencc prurishnble U/S: 7 (l) 7 (n) (b) md (c) o.f ATA, R/W 384 / 385 / 386 / 43s / 436 / 302 / 324 / 337 / 34 PPC, ruil/rirt llw cogniznnce of tlis Court".

I chnrge you ncrused Shahnilch s/o Althtl Lntif, Ali Mulmnnnad S/o Mnslrcen Klnn, Arshad Maluuood S/o Mulnmtund Bnshir ond Afznl Ahned S/o Klmnzndn tlnt yotr ncutsed uder tlrc itr.fltrcnct', irrsfignliorr nnd conniunnce af ncurced Abdul Rclnll.ntr nlins Blli.ln nrtrl nccttsttrl Mtilnmtunrl Zubnir nlins Zrhnir Anrivn nnd tlrcir ollrcr nccotuyliccs (r';rl thu cxil doors of fnc.lonl locktl, tultt,n llrc fira cnrytad insida llu' .fitctory, ilid nol lnka nctitttt mtd scrirxts prcrtttliottttt'v t,tc'fisurcs lo srtlt' lltt' etuployccs/utorkcrs ol lln: sniil firclory, roolkilg irrsirlr t/rr' .litlory nt tln' liurc of lirc lo gel llrcm cxil n.l'lcr tirt anrylcd llu'rtht, ,r,orcso, tlu' frt exlitrgtrislnrs u\trc uol lounil itr ordtr dua lo yottr critnittnl nagligencc baing cnryloyct:s of tlu, snii fnclory, lu,sirh,s rTorl rlr:crrscr/ Sltnhrukh 5/o Abiltl Lnti[ baing I trclmrgc ol llll Depnrttncnt rrrrl o/so iid not tnkt mn1 nclion nller lirt lo grl llrc workts cxil .li'tttrt l/lr.gaft,s ltq brcnhing/ oltt,trittg lln srrtttt', llttts, llu,n,ln1 ilttr: ltt ryour crimitttl ntgligcttce ntul nbeilnett lo lltt nctusnl tnuwl nlxux,, llu, norkcrs lost tln,ir lit,as, tlurs, you cottttttillcd llrc alfcnce pnislmlic unir srliotr 3"16 R/W sectiort'109 PpC 't €t secliott 2'l-l of ATA-'1997, rpilltitt llw mgtiznncc of tlis Court.

Page 1O of46 Muhammad Arif

{t

I rlrrrjr yo,, ocnrsc(! Mriltnnuund Atxlut llm( Siddiqui S/o Mtilmnnmd Abdul Mrr7t't'rl .Sirlrtirpri (I-rlt) ttrnl you ruilh lhe conniunnce o[ ntcttscd Hnnnmrd Sirlrlirpri (llrstrrrrrlirg ncnrct:d) tnulcr t ltre-ylnnned n,fl,t,ter llrnrr.qlt llrc rtrlit,i.sls { MQM Abilrrl Rtlnrrrtrt nlins Blrcln, Ztfunir nlins Clrrrirlrt rutrl ollrr'rs ilt,,tttt,,dci llu, lJlml!n of Rs. 20fr.5 Cortrs ntd ;rrlrlrrr'rsllilr ilr lltr';rrrr/ils o[srrirl .lirclory frou lltr foclory ou',rcrs mrd on lhr'ir nJirsrrl (r(r',Ist',, Abdnl llilutttrtt Alutlln, hmbir nlins Clninln nlong rr,illr rrllrrr rrrrrrlrtttiturs/ nt'cotryrlit's nl stclt irtslignliotr of Hnntnmd Sirlrtfii ( nlrstllrlirtg rtcrltscrl) sr'l lllc' All Ettltryrises Fnclory silunted in Ilrrlrlrir rrl lrlrrl No. F/67 Silt' Knrrrc/ri lty throuittg cltcnticnl u,ltich eruTrted irr./irr', rrsrrllitr.g lln'rciu 259 /osl llwir lipt's rutd nltottl 60 yersons becnnrc Irrlrrrlrl nnd tlu,rdr11 rlrttt ittflttctrcerl tlrc yolice to lodgc atch FIR of sdrn;rlc ittciitttt of nccidctttnl firc fu ordcr to snue ryoursel/ and qour ynrt! i,dz A'lQr\{ lrom wch cottspirncy ntrd lnltr ott tlott nlong ruillr rrt't"rrst'd Hrunnmrl Sirlrltlri ulortcd fln ntuotrtrl of Rs.4 lo 5 Corers front tlu'.fitctttry or{',,(,,s ttt gt,t tln'nmtter scttlad nccordingly, tluts tlrcrehy yotr ,rrr.r' co,,,,,riltcd nn offun:e LI/s: 384/385/386/435/436/302/324/337fi09 PPC, lrrrrishnble undet' sccliott lJ/Ss: 7 (ll, 7 (n) (tr) nnd (c) of ATA, rpitlrirr llrc cogniznnce of llils Cartrt".

I cltnrge yot, tlcr:.tsetl Otner Hnssnrt Qndri S/o Siddique Hnssnn Qndri, rtlorrg ttritlr Muhnntnmd All Hnssnu Qndri (nbscondiug nccused), tlmt tlw ftctory autwrs Arslmd Blmiln nnd Slmlid Blmiln dw'ittg irntestiSntiott beforc tlu J.I.T nt'errerl tlrcrefu tlnt tlwrl lmd Ttnid nn runount of Rs.5,98,00,000/(fue Corers Nirtcty Eiglrt lncs) to nbscondirtg acatsed Mtimnnnnd Ali Hnssm Qndri tlu'ough Bm* nccotttrt of Siddiryrc Hnsstn Qndi, tulrcse detnil tlrts giirurr by snid nltscondhtg nccused Mulmnnnd Ali Hassm on tlrc yn'e.texl tlmt snid nnrcunt ruould be dcPosited in tlrc Bank tilt tlrc tinrc MQM carnpensntcs tltc t,ictirns from pnrty platfonu nnd tlrc. rest of mnount will lte pnitl nt tlw tilne af distrilnttiott cerenrc,ry to lttty tltc coruqtensntion nt tlrc rnte t Rs.2,50,000/per ctxmlty nnd Rs,-t,00,000/per injured nnd thereby tlrc snitl nrnotttrt runs trnnsferred in tlrc nccottttt of Sirldique Hnssmt Qndri irt nccouttt No.1010-0081-010.915- 0't-6 Bmil<-A1 f-ln$ib nt Brnnch Hydernbnd (Titled Siddiryrc Hossart Qndri) (fntlrcr of nbsconditrg ncarced Mtlnnnunfl AIi Hnssrur Qrrrlri) rtrtrl yott ncotsed Uwer Hnssnn Qtdri, lnucoer, trc stclt rlislrilrrrtiorr rcre,,totry nrrnng:d lill dnta, tlttts llrcrebry yo,l gcgtsr'(l c.rlorltrrl !h(' ilt,,tou,rt o.f Rs.5,98,00,000/frtun tln {nctory o?t,,t(frs aud tfu'rdty c'o,,lllilld(l p71 1r[i'rttr lntliug tttuler scclion 7 (ti rftu sglitttt 11N o/ A'lA-1992 tt'illrirr llrt' cognizrurce of llis Cottrl.

I tlnrgt: you ttt't'usul Mst. tqttnl Adcr,b K/lrlrttnu rttttl f)r'. Al,rfirl Srtlfttr llrrll yott lnllt ruillt yottr co,1,tn1 ittlctr!irttt rrrtrl olyr'r'l ott 02.A5.20Ii .gol lrnttsftrrcil ntr nttnuttrl ry' Its,5,00,00,000/- tt,illt lllt' t'oltrtit'rrltt'r ol you nccttx,d Otwr llrcsntt Qmlt'i in tlu'. rrcrulrrtl ttl'Nhtltnntnlotl littltcctt, rt ktrcwtt brtilfur a{ I'lrytlrrnhud for tlu' prrrr'lrtsr' oJ'yoyerly Plol No; 175, Block-C, Urril No: Vl, l"nlifttbttl, I lydrnilrutl, rttr'rtsttrittg 1000 Sq, )'ds irr llrc ttiltttt, o[ you ncr'ttscrl Msl. Iqlnl Adft'lt Kllnrlttttt ns Bumni lrrursncliott,lrrsirlcs on nnmrnl o/'lis.1,35,00,A00/- tuns tronsfet'rcd fu llw nr(ourrl No, 002013586?0fi289 Burj Bnt* Ltd, Lnlifnbad Brmult, Hydcrnbnd, by you uccustd Dr. Abdul Snltor Klmt for llu, ndttnnrc of snid Page 11 of46 Muhamnnd. Arif

qL

plat tlrottglt su,crnl clrcques of your occottttt No. 0020010586000002 (Iitletl nccriscri Dr. Attttul Snttni itmn) Burj Bonl< Ltd, Lntifnbntl Brnnclr, Hydarnbnt! nnrl llrureby gol tfu snid proltailrl t'iz Plot No; 175, Block-C, Llrrit No; Vl, Lntifnbnil,i-lvdernbntl, i,,rnsuritrg 1000 Sq, \-'ds lrnnsfe rrad irr rlour rrnrrrt' Mil, lqlnil"Arlccb Klmuum beiry {nnrily friand of Qndri Frrrirrlv, sttlrscrlrcltll v t:anslnrcled n lmtse ort it rulich prinm fncie. c.slrrlrlislrr'd lltn'l you'-ttt'cttscd Msl. lqltnl Arlcab Khntnun rud Dr' Ab&il Srtllnr ytrdtnseri lhrr snid 1tlot, conslruclad lnrrce llrcreon tltouglt extorlcd ,t,t,r',,,ti1, nillactarl .[t'om Blmilu Brollrcrs rpltich is still rpitlt you ncatscrl Qtuer tlnssntt Qndri, Dr, Abdttl Snllnr nnd Msl. lqbnl Adrcb Klutttrtrtt ln,ing beucficiru'ics rtf tlw snid extortcd, tltrrc tltcralty you lnt'e committed ofl'ctrct: fillhry ttnder so.cliott U/S: 7 (l) rfto sectiort 1'lN ol ATA-"1997, rlrflrin llrc cognizrurca of tltis Cotrrl".

6.The prosecution in order to Prove its case examined 400 witnesses and exl'ribited various documents and other items. The statement of the accused were l.ecorded urrder Section. 342 Cr.P.C who denied the allegations against thern and in particular appellant AR Bhola retracted his judicial confession and appellant Zubair denied setting fire to the

L

factory. The accusecl neither examined themselves on oath or called any DW in support of their defence case.

7.After hearting the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants and acquitted the respondents as set out earlier in this judgment ancl hence, the appellants have filed tl'rese appeals against their convictions and the State has filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents.

B. The facts of the case as well as evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2020 passed by the trial court and, 'therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.

9.Learnecl counsel for the appellant A.R Bhola contended that the appellant was completely innocent and had been falsely irnplicated in this case based on a JIT rcport in respect of Muharnrned Rizwan Quershi who was not even produced as a witness; that the appellant was not named in the FIR; that no witness had given any statement against him for over 2 Page 12 of46 MuhammadArif

q9

and a half years which showed that the statements were concocted and false as the police wanted to fix him simply because he was a member of MQM (A); there was no evidence that the appellant made any demand for bhatta from the factory owners or threatened anyone.; that there was no eviclence that any watch man was in connivance with the appellanU that there was rro t'lircct evidence against the appellanU that the appellant's iuriicial confession was retracted as it was not made voluntarily and should be excluded from consideration and for any or all of the above leasons he should be acquitted of the charge based on the benefit of the cloubt. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the cases of Hussain Ahmad v Mst. Irshad Bibi (1997 SCMR 1503), MuhammadZaf.ar v Civil ]udge and Judicial Magistrate-8, Hyderabad (2016 P Cr. LJ 207), Mst. Bano v Civil |udge and ]udicial Magistrate-Xll, Hyderabad (2019 Y L R 2178), Attaullah alias Qasim v The State (2006 Y L R 3213), Muhammad Yaqoob v The State (2023 Y L R 1418) and Syed Mehroz Mehdi Zaidi v The State (2023 Y L R 565).

10.Learned counsel for the appellant Zubair contended that the appellant was completely innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case by tl're police in order to show their efficiency; that he was not nominated in the FIR; that only one PW Arshad gave evidence that he started the fire and his evidence since it was given about 2 and a half years after the event could not be safely reliect upon; that Abdut Majeed who was in cl-rarge of tl're Godown and was the star witness in the case was not made a PW by the prosecution and as such it had with held the best evidence; that the appellant was for the first time named in the final charge sheet despite not being narned in the 3 earlier ones which showed the rnalafide of the police; that there was r1o evidence that any chemical was involved to cause the fire nor arly explosive device and that there was no CCTV or DVR eviclence against the appellant and as such for any or all of the above leasons the appellant should be acquitted of the charge by being extended the benefit of the doubt,-

Page 13 of46 Muhantmad Ar[f

q1

11.Learnecl counsel for Fazal Ahmecl,Arshad Mehmood' Ali Muhamrnecl (guarcls at the factory gate) ancl Shaluukh Lateef the HR of lnanager at the factory have all contenclecl that there is not a shred evitlcnce ngaiust thetn to support the charge and as such they should all be acquittecl by being cxtendec{ the benefit of the doubt.

i

'12. On the other hancl Mr. Muharnmacl Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutot Geueral ancl Rana Iftalic{ Hussain, Special Prosecutor Rangers appearing on behalf of the State have fully supported the impugned juclgrnent. With legard to appellant Bhola they have contended that the appellant gave a judicial confession before a magistrate which although retracted at trial could be fully relied uPon as it was made voluntarily

I

with the object to state the truth; that his judicial confession was also corroborated by PW 38L Abdullal,, PW 397 Arshad Bhaila, PW 375 Majid \ Baig anci PW 396 Muhammed Mansoori that he was an absconder for over 4 years; that the witnesses delayed giving their statements for so long due to fear of reprisals from the MQM if they told the truth and only felt able to do so once the reinvestigation took place following the revelations in the Muhammed Ramzan Quershi |lT and his appeal should be dismissed and death sentence up held due to the heinous nature of the offence of having the factory set on fire for non payment of bhatta which left 264 dead and 54 injured. With regard to appellant Zubair they contenrled that he was named in the confessional statement of appellant Bhola as being directed to burn the factory down on account of the owners refusal to pay bhatta which is corroborated by both direct evidence and conoborative ocular evidence and various chernical reports and his appeal be dismissed and again due to the heinous nature of the offence rvhere so many people innocent people lost their lives ir-r such a horrific r11allner i.e being burnt to death or suffocated through asphyxia the death penalty r.vas fully warranteci in ltis case and tlte confirmatiott reference be anslveree-l in the affinnative. In suppolt of their contentions that placed reliance on the

I

cases of Waris I(han v The Statc (2005 SD 451), Sajid Mehrrrood v the Statc (2022 SCMR '1882), ZllJtiqar atrd others v The State (1991 SCMR Page 14 of 46 Muhommad Arif

qi

326), Abdul Haq v The State (2015 SCMR 1326), Muhammad Amin v the State (2002 SCMR fi77), Ghularn Nabi v The State (2007 SCMR 808)' I(han Mulrarnnracl v The State (1999 SCMR 1818), Mai. (Retd.) Tariq Melrmoocl v The State (2002 SCMI{ 1493), Aijaz Nawaz alias Baba v The State (2019 P. Cr'. Ll 1775), Watarr l'arty v Tlre Fecleration of Pakistan (l')LD 2011 SC 997)ancl Multattrnracl Antirr v Thc State (t'LD 20065C279)'

13.We have hearcl thc lcalned counsel for the appellants and learned Atlclitional Prosecutor General Sindh and Special Prosecutor rangers and lrave carefully gone through the evidence on record as well as the relevant case laur.

14.The witnesses can be divided into the following categories;

(a)Eye witnesses who were inside the factory at the time of the fire and rnanaged to escape but in the.process were iniured and were I h'eated at hospital for their injuries but did not implicate any of the accused. There are 34 of such witnesses all of whom gave evidence of the fire at the factory and the resulting chaos inside the factory amongst the workers once the fire started including in some cases death of fellow workers on account of the fire. These witnesses were rnostly not cross examined and as such there evidence of the factory burning down was not challenged. Tllese witnesses worked at the factory and as such were natural as opposed to chance witnesses and their presence at the time of the fire does not seem to have been disputed.

(b)Eye witnesses who were fire fighters vvho were callecl to the factory when it was on fire and assisted in putting out the fire as well as assisting with the dead ancl injured. There u'ere 4 of such witncsses. These witnesses u,ere ntostly not cross examinetl and as suclr thcre cvitlcnce of tlte factorl, bttrnitrg dolvn rvas not challcrrgccl. 'l'lrcsc witnesscs bcirrg firc fightcrs n'ele natural as op;roscd [o clrancc witncsscs anrl their prescl"lcLl at the tirne of the Page 15 of46 Lluhammad. Ari!

qb

fire does not seetn to have been disputed. They did not implicate any of the accused,

(c)Witnesscs who wcre medical legal officers(MlO's) who were at the various hospitals to which the dead and injured were dispatchcd (Abbassisttaheecl, Civil and JPMC) who carried out the post mortcnr o[ thc dead bodies ancl mostly came to the conclusion that cause of cleatl'r was either through burns or asphyxiation caused by smoke inhalation. There were 30 of these witnesses who dealt with rnultiple bodies. These witnesses were mostly not cross examined and as such there evidence of the death of the Person who was brought from the bunling factory was not challenged' These witnesses being MLo's were natural as opposed to chance witnesses and there presence at the time of carrying out the respective post mortems does not seem to have been disputed. They did not implicate any of the accused' t

(d)Witnesses who carried out the 5.174 Cr.PC proceedings on the dead bodies brought from the burning factory. There were 43 of such witnesses. Again rnostly the evidence of these witnesses was not challenged during cross examination.

( e) Witnesses who were legal heirs of those who died on account of the fire at the factory and wl1o identified ancl collected the dead body from the hospital. There were about 24A of such witnesses. Again mostly the eviclence of these witnesses was not challenged during cross exalnination.

Thcse categories mentionecl above exclude the IO's anel other matcrial witnesses whiclt according to the prosecution prove the charge against cacl'r of thc accused the evitience of n'hich witnesses wc will consiclcr Iatcr irr this iutlgntent.

Concluoion.

15.Nonc of thc abovc catcgory of rvitnesscs rvere chance wihresses, they all gavc tlreir evitlence in a natural manner and none of these Page 16 of46 Muhanmad Ari[

q+

witnesses evidence was challenged during cross examination and they did not irnplicate any of the accused, We find their evidence to be trustworthy, reliable and confidence inspiring and as such find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt thab

a) That on 11.09.2012 at about 1830 hours Insidc Factory Builc"ling AIi linterplises situatccl at Plat No:F-67 Site Karachi a fire broke out;

b) That as a result of thc fire at tl're factory at least 264 persorrs diecl on account/consequcnce of the fire as named in tl're impugr"red iuclgment (259 complete bodies and thc remaindel in pieces. 29 dead bodies remain to be identifiecl despite the use of DNA) ancl

c) That as a result of the fire at the factory at least 56 persons wet'e injured on account/consequetlce of the fire as named in the impugned iudgrnent.

Based on the evidence we need to determine whether any bhatta demand was made by any of the accusecl by themselves or on behalf of the MQM and who if any of the accused burnt down the factory.

16.It is notable that most of the statements implicating the appellants were made after tl-re disclosures i1 the Rizwan Qursehi JIT report rvhich was produced before the Sindtr High Court on 05.02.2015 which is reproduced above about two and a half years after the incident. A number af. these statements wer.e material eye r.r,itness statements directly implicating some of the accusec'l.

17.Usually as a matter of law such statements are not given much credibility and their reliability is considered doubtful as there are chances that over this period of tirne (2 and a half years) such statements have been fabricated througl'r consultation. Each criminal case however must be based on its own particular facts and circumstances and like wise the

I

Page 17 ot46 Muhammad Anf

q8

thc reason for the clelny in making any suclt statcmctrts implicating accuscd.

18.In this casc thc tc.lsoll why thc statemcnts wcrc given so bclatcclly was bccause of t1c party i,volvccl irr tlrc irrciclent. Namcly, thc

MQM (A)

and rvhich although a legitimate political party with Parliamcntary scats a lar.ge support bank rnainly in urban sinclh ccrtain clcmcnts within it, as

most people who live in l(arachi know, sincc its inccption hacl a

Onc properrsity for violerrce when so orclerecl by the party high commancl' of its methocls of raising func{s was through the collection of bhatta (extortion money through the threat of fear) which if not paid could leacl not off to dire consequences for those who lefusecl. Target killing was also the agencla of the parLy as in the case of Salot I(han whose MQM target killing team assassinatecl the heacl of the then KESC (Solat Khan V State 2002 SCMR 820) and those involved in the murder of one of its founcling nrernbers Dr. Imran Farooq (PCr,Ll 20221511) in London showing that its militant elements had a long reach. These two cases are well documented ancl need no further discussion or elaboration along with the widespread disorder in the Saddar area of Karachi by MQM supporters following a provocative speech by its leader Altaf Hussain from phone via London on

19.Essentially because of fear of reprisals from certain elements within the MQM witnesses were initially reluctant to come forwarc{ and tell the truth until the disclosures 2 ancl a half years later rnade by Rizwan Quershi irr his JIT rcport wltich \ ras presented before the Sinc{h Fligh Court ancl gave them a l'cason to do so now tl'rat thc, cat was ourt of the bag and thcre was to be no hiclirrg of the tlutlt regarciing the reasons behincl the fire. I]esides prior to the Riz.raran Qucrshi clisclosurcs the sole FIR had ;:laced the blarnc on tlrc factoly owllor'6 and other eiepartments anc-l not on the rcal culprits so why c,'rc forwartl a*ql put both yor"rr life ancl that of your farnily at risk? To kccp urum in such a situation, although not to be t

Page 18 of46 Muhamnvd Ari[

qq

cotlcionecl, was both the logical and natural thing to do in terms of a quiet life.

20.It has come in cviclence on countless occasions that appellant A'R Bhola was scctor in cl'rargc of thc MQM for tlaldia sector where the factory u,as situate at the timc of thc fire and that appellant Zubak was an active rncnrber of the MQM who was head of the finishing department of the factory at the time of the fire and was present during tl"re fire and allegedly both of them were instrumental in the burning down of the factory after the ovrrners refusecl to pay the MQM bhatta demand.

21 A number of wihresses gave evidence about their fear of the MQM Fol exarnple;

(a)PW 373 Arnir Ali in his evidence stated that he met Arshad at the staircase who told him that Zubair had started the fire but clirected him not to say anything about the fire including Zubair and his assailants as they were dangerous and would cause damage to my life and property. Thus, he remained mum and told no one.

(b)Pw 374 Muhammed Arshad corroborates the evidence of his subordinate mentioned above PW 373 Amir Ali. According to his evidence after the incident he moved to Puniab out of fear and the danger that he could have been exterminated as he was an important eye witness who saw Zubair set fire to the factory.

(c)PW 375 Majid Baig stated that after recording his statement on 15.07.2015 he was tlrreatened and felt in danger and r,r,ent to the Mitharam hostile and told his fears to the langers lvhere alter his S.164 Cr.PC statement was recorded,

(d)PW 397 Arshad Bhaila. One of the owners of the factory gave evidence that he remained under pressure frorn the activists of the MQM.That he had to give wastage from the factory at 15 lacs per month (bhatta)just to keep the MQM at bay as well as 10 lacs a month (Bhatta) to MQM Baldia sector in order to ruu their business peacefully, He alcl his brothers were followed by anned riders to pressurizl them to pay bhatta.l-Ic apd 6is brother remained in banglaclesh for aboui 3 weeks due to the pressure and fear which even macle him ill,The policc clicl 1ot everl encoulage them to record statements regarding MQM's clemand for bl'ratta and threats on account of non payrnent. When the Rizwan Quershi disclosures became public about the rcal reasons about the fire he felt insecure and he ind his family left Pakistan. They were asked to Pay I{s5 lac Page 19 of46 Mulummad Arif

\oo

deceased by the MeM but since they were under fear, I: "u:hand pressure they diJ not respond, tn ihe initial rouncl of :lTtT tnvestigatiot'tour employl., and worklrs were threatened, tortured and k9n! under pressure to depose on the line of FIR, even some were bribcd irr t^his regarc{ to narrate at the tone what they were h'ying to float.

G) PW 398 ]ahanzeb who was the seconcl IO gave evidence that initially the factory owner.s clicl not mention iny thing in their statetnent out of fear anc{ leferred hirn to pW Mansoor.

(f)PW-399 Sajid Arneer Sac{ozai who was the 3rd IO gave evidence that the witnesses and factory owners did come forward due to fear.

(g)The opening part of the retracted judicial confession of appellant A.R. Bl-rola which we will come to later gives some insight as to the modus operandi of some elements of the MQM which is leproduced as under;

I had joined "MQM' Party as zoorker and on " Irr tlrc year of L992, thc hrctance ol Scctor lnclmrge Amin lJmn, according to tlrc party's ltolicy, bloodslrcd, extortion, burubtg of aelicles, closing of sltops, aerial firhry and spreadilry fear euul lmrassnreut etc, rcas inchuled. During tltis time, I also killeil 5 to 7 peoples belortg to People's Party and Suuty Mooemertt. Besides that nry tennt urcntbers lcilled dozen people ns pcr MQM ytolicy"

22.I-Ience, based on the above fear ancl terror placecl on the witnesses basecl on the particular facts and circumstances of the case as narratecl above we have decided to consider the evidence of the witnesses who gave thcir statements 2 and a half years after the event whilst viewing it with some caution. [n this respect we place reliance on the case of Waris I(han (Supra) where it was even helcl that it was nol urauc{atorv that in all cases a witness shall recorcl his statcrnent uncler 5.161 Cr.PC. Reliance is also placed on the cases of Sajid Melunood (Supra), Qaiser Hussain V State (2011 P.Cr.lJ "1126), Abdul l(halique V State (2015 YLR 1015), ancl The State V Muharnrned Boota (2014 YLR 306). Itetiancc is also placecl on thc Watan Party (Strpra) casc which scts out in dctail the fearful law and order situation prcvailing in l(arachi at tl'rc titne n'hen the factory was bur.rrt clown arrd tells its own stor:y of n'hy rali1r-,utses and other citizens were fealful of giving eviclence before the courts against the miscreants Page 2O of 46

Muhammad Anf

who wcrc operating in Karaclri at that timc cspecially in rcspect of those subjcct lo r.lcrrranr"ls for the paymcrrt of bhatta.

Ttrrning to thc cascs of npprcltarrt A.l(.llhola ancl Zubair as they are i rrtcrlirrlccrl through appcllnlr t A l( lllrol a's retractccl ju d icia l cotrfession.

23, Tltc main although not exclusive evidence against appellant AR llhola is his retractcd judicial confcssion which is set out below for ease of rcference whcre he also fully irnplicates appellant Zubair. Initially AR Bhola had confessed before PW 400 Raja ]ahaghir the fourth IO and PW- 362 Muharnmad Asghar whilst in custody and was then brought before the judicial magishate for recording his confession within 6 days of his arrest it being settlecl by now that there is no hard and fast rule as to when a confessioll can be recorded after arrest but obviously the sooner the better. In this case we find this slight delay to be of no significance.

Judicial Confession of Abdur Rehman alias Bhola under S.164 Cr.PC.

Q.No.11. What you have to say?

Answer: ht the year of 1992, I lmrl joined "MQ,M" Party ss worlcer mrl on tlrc hrstance of Sector Inchtrge Anilr l(tnn, nccordilry to the party's policy, bloodslrcd, extortiort, buruhrg of uclricles, closirry of slrcps, aerial liring and spreading fear and Irarassnrctrt etc, ruas includcd. Durilry this time, I nlso lcillerl 5 to 7 peoplcs belong to People's Party nrul Sttruty Moaement, Besides tlnt nn1 teatn tnetnbcrs kilted rlozctr people os per NIQM poliul. Whnl I lmt'e loltl yott altotrt tltc tpnrdnls of mtrrde rs, I lmpe told thc llT in rlclnil dttrhtg lhe Intcrrognlion fu:fora. ltt tlrc ycnr of 2009, o,t tlrc rccottrnrcndntiott of ITAQNI Knrnchi Orgnnizittg Cottrrtriltce tttctnbcrs ltfnu Khru4 Zalrid nnil llrrtti/ Nleuon, I runs urnde n soctor nmubu ol llnldio, Drtriug tlrc tetttrrc; ttte cxtort urillir:ns ntp?(s itt lictt o/ Znlcot, Fltrnt trnd Animnl Leotlrcr ntut trscd lo dcposil nt90. Itr Tllt ttrontlt o[ tlttt ryeu of 2012, the l(TC lnclmt'gc lQrrnchi Ilnnttttni Siddiqui got colled ute nt 90 aurl stlil lo trtc tlnt lrc is retuoaiug tlrc prntlotrs scctor ltrclmrga Asglmr Bnig and deyutitrg you as s(clor inclmrge, becnusc Vo,t nrc be ing giue n n tnslt, ulticlt tlou lrtrac to cottrplete. Ilc snid to nrc that Page 2L of 46 Muhammad Aif

\oT

there is n factoty in llnldia-Totutt itt tlrc narne of Ali Entcrpriscs; you lmue to dennud extortiott nrcney of Ilrtltccs 25 Crore {rom its oTt),ters. He fLrther snid tlmt run1lrcw you ltnue lo corttplcle llis tnsk.'l'hereafter, I went nuil nrct tuith lnctonl ou)ilers aud snid tlrcm tlmt I hnue bcen sent bv I-lmtttttnd Sidiliqui, for axlortion of 25 Crttrc, Tlrcv nskd [or tiutc kt lltitl<, Af cr ytnssing feut rlnys, I ngnin ruuil lo {nctory. As soo,t ns If entered into fncto41, tltc otuners utcre nboul lo go, tutcl they hnd strt irt tltc uehicle, I stopped tlrcru nud dernsnded t,,o,rey, Irut lhev rcplierl tlmt tlrcy cattnol lrav ,tnre tltnn oilc crorc. Snbse.qnafily, o,t tlrc instartce o/ lTrumnnrl Siddiqui, I nslccd tlrcm tlnt citlrcr mslee our partnersliyt irt tltc /actory or otherzuise tlrc factory shall bc got set on fire. Thercnfter, I contacled ruith {nctory ,unnngar tmnrcly Mntsoor orr plrcnc nnrl snid thnt i.f yon dott't lnoe Rs.25 Crore , thut giae tts Rs.20 Crore or ltarhrcrslip, but Mansoor said tlnt tlrc outucrs cat pay lkryees One Crore only mul besides tlmt cnn't giae anytling else. Tlrcrcaftu, I atd onc Zttbair @ Clrurya roent to Hauunad Siddiqui and naruated him entire detnil tlmt rcither the facto.r'y otu,rcrs cnu pny lls.20 Crore extortiott ,,to,rcy nor doing pnrhrcrshilt, tlrcy are paying nq)ecs One Crore only an utlich Llnnutad Siildiqfi beconrc ail9ry nnd nskcd nte to set fire tlrc factory. Tlrcrenftcr, I gnae tlis rcsporrsibility to Zubair @ Clnryn and said ltittt tlmt he lms to nml;e arrongeflrcttts of clrcntical, etc. Afte r tl.lrrl on 1"1-09-201,2 at noon thnc, Zubair @ Clmrya alongtoith 4/5 persous canrc to nrc in a ulite coloured Hi-Roof nnd spend hnlf au hotu' irt ury office aud sairl that he ltas made arrnngetnctfis roith regnrrl to set fire tlrc fnctory. Memnulile, I ittfonned to Ilmmtrnd Siddiqui througlr phonc thnt rue arc se ttirtg fire to fnctory. I'le said tlutt nfter finisling worlt infonn llnttt thnt zuhctlrcr the uorli is dorre or rtot? Thercttftar, in rulik coloured Hi' Rool, Ztfunir @ Clmrya nknryruith his rtccortt;rliccs ytrocecrlcd lorunrds lrclory. I nlso wt'ttl ltdind tlu'nt on tttrl rtnlornlcla lo runtclt tlu'ttt, lNlrcu tltey etttttrctl ittttt fuctory lltc.rt I ctttrc ltndt mul ittfontted to Ilnutttrad Sirldiqui o,t ltlrotrc. tl.fttr pnssitts 2025 rtritrtttt's, Zubnlr @ Cltnryt snid thronglt lilrottt: tltot tltr tuorl; Itns bcan ilottc, 'fltu I irtttttulintclry it(onnetd to llrtrtttnnl Sitliliqul on yltont' tlmt tlrc ruorl; lms betu tlottc. 'flwrul'lar, l"lrtutrnnd Siddiqui snir/ lo nut ta tnkc nccontl,rury llw nrcn MNA, NIPA mul rr,ory'icr'.s to .fnctonl for lwlp.'l'lrcrt,nfler, lltc KKF lr'/riclrs ntd MQM rlrrr/icrs rllso nrriu:il. W( s(l tlrc cnntp ttylo 04 dnys. Tlrcrcnfter Rnuf Siddiqui got registered tlrc FIR ngahlst factory otuncrs, so tlmt tlrc nllegntiott nmy trot cotttc ou ItqQM. Thcrenftcr,I cnnrc to lenoru thnt Rnuf Siddi7ui Page 22 of 46 MuhammadAri[

and Hauunad Siddiqui a/ter tlrc bail of factory oturtcrs recektecl lls,04/05 Crore for uithrlrazuirry {rorn case",

Law on retraction of judicial confessions.

24.Aftel a review of the relevant law on the legal validity of judicial confessions the l-lon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ch, Muhammad V Yaqoob V The State (1992 SCMR 1983) reached the following conclusion:

"Tlrc legnl positiott, tolich lms emerged from the nboae reports, seenrc lo be thnt in ortler to iudge the euitlentiary unhrc of retrncted confessiort, t.lrc Court is to adaert to tlrc Etestiort, wlrctlrcr tlrc same apqefirs to haue been matle aohuiarily, without any inducement, cluress or coerciorr toith the obiect to state the truth. If the Court is satisfied on the aboue aspect, the nrcre Jact tlmt there u)ere soflrc itregularities in recording of a confessiorr, woukl ttot warrant disregarding of the same",Qtold ndded)

25.It is settled law that a retracted judicial confession can be legally admissible and used agairrst its maker in certain circumstances. In the Iater case of Muhammad Arnin V The State (PLD 2006 SC 219) it was held as under;

"9. There is no caail to the propositiorr tltst cotaictiorr coukl lmue beer azuarded on tlrc basis of retrncted confessiort tuliclt proposition toas exantined in case of Mst. loygun Bibi a. The State PLD L960 (SC (Pak) 31,'3 as tutder:- "We nre wrnble to support tlrc proposition of lau lnid clotott by tlrc lennrcd Judges in tlis regnrd. The retrnction of n confessiort is n ciruunstnnce ruhich hns no benring rulmlsoever upon llte questiort tolrctlrcr in tlrc frst instmtce it uns voluntarily nmde, nnd on llrc furtlrcr ryrcstiotr rulrctlrcr it is tnrc. Tlrc fnct tlnt tlrc nmker of the confession lntcr does not ndlrcre to it cnnnot by itself lrnue nny elfect upon lhe findings renclrcd ns to tphetlrcr t)rc confessiotr uns uolmttnry, nnd if so, uhetlrcr it wns true, for to witldrmu fom a sef-ncatsing stntenrcnt in direct fnce of the consequences of tle ncarcatiort, is explicnble fully by the Page 23 of 46 Muhammad Arif

\o\

proxinity of tlrcse consequences nnd need hnae no connection tulmtsoeaer ruith either its aoluntnry nntilre, or tlrc trutlt of tlrc fncts stnted. Tlrc lennted ludges toere perfectly right in frst deciding tlrcse fipo questiotrs, nnd the nnillers being in the affirnmtiue, in dcclnring llnt llrc confession by itself uns srtfJicictrt, lnkeu uillt llrc ollrcr fncls nnd circmnstnnces to srtpltorl Altdrul Mnjid's coruticliotr, Tlrc retrnction of the cottfcssiott tuus tultolly ittttttnterinl once it uas found tltnt it Ttttts utrlil,rtnry ns uell as trtrc."

70.Sintilnrly in tlrc cnsc of tlrc Slnlc u. Minlun nlins Gul Hnssnn pLD '1964 SC 8i3 this Cotu't lns obse rued ns unde r:'

" As for tlrc confessions tlrc Higlt Court, it nppears, ruas duly cotrsciorrs of tlrc fnct tlmt retrscted confession ruhetlrcr iudicinl or extrn judicinl, could legnlly be tnken into considerstion ngninst tlrc nmlcer of those confessiotrs l*nself, nnd if the confessiorrs ruere found to be true nnd aolwttnry, then tlrcre wns no need nt ntt to took for firtlrcr corroborntion. It is tuell- settled that as agailtst the malcer hinrself ltis confession, juilicial or extra juilicinl, ushetlw retracted or rrot retracted, can in law aaliilly form the sole basis of his conaiction, if the Court is satisfiecl and belieaes that it uas tnte aud aohn*ary ancl toas rot obtahrcd by torture or coerciott or itrducentent." (bold added)

26.Thus, the court laid down a two pronged test as under (a) whether the retracted judicial confession appears to have been made voluntarily, without any inducement, duress or coercion and (b) was made with the object to state the truth.

27.Notably it was also lreld that if both (a) and (b) were satisfied that evcn if thcre were some irregularities in recorcling of a confession it rvoultl not warrant disrcgarclirrg of thc sanrc.

28.In tlre case of llalraclur V State (PLD 1996 SC 336) although it was suggestcd that a judicial confcssiolr alonc can Lrc. made the basis of conviction the safcr course wn$ to look to see if there was any corroborative matcrial avai lablc to rlctcrnrine i ts tru tl'rf ulness.

I

Page 24 of 46 Lluhaamad Anf

v>

29.In the case of Manjeet Singh V State (PLD 2006 SC 30) a further ! requirement seemed to be added that in determining the truthfulness of the confession it had to be placed within the context of the whole of the prosecution evidcncc/casc,

30.In our view therefore wc arc not in any doubt that a retracted confcssion before a magistrate can be the basis of convicting in a capital case however it must be;

(a)Voluntary i.e. witl'rout threat or inducement and

(b)Its object rnust be to state the truth; assistance for which can be ascertained from (i) whether the confession aPPears truthful within the context of the prosecution case and (ii) whether there is any other evidence on record which tends to corroborate the truthfulness of the confession and

(c)Only minor irregularities regarding the rules concerning the recording of judicial confessions can be permitted as detennined on a case to case basis the rnain criteria being that such irregularities have not adversely effected the voluntariness. or truthJulness of the confession.

31.The judicial conJession if relied upon by us is extremely damaging to the maker and the other co-accused who is named in the confession even if its legal value vis a vis a co-accused is lesser without corroboration of an unimpeachable nature,

32.Now if we consider the retracted judicial confession of appellant AR Bhola we find no rnaterial on record that it lvas not marle voluntarily.

33.We also find that it was nrade with the object of telling the trutl'r keeping in view the prosecutiorr case and evidence. In this context it must be noted that the appcllant Bhola had.abscondecl and was arrestecl in Singapore and was brougl'rt back to face trial in this case over 4 years after his absconsion, Perhaps he was tired of being on the run and nolv having been arrested in Singapore knew the game was up and decidecl to come Page 25 of 46 MuhammadArif

clean and tell the truth, The truth of his confession ties in with the prosecution case and witnesses thus we find that the retracted judicial confession was madc with the object of tclling the lruth Keeping in mind the fact that absconders who remained absent for a long time such as 4 years in appellant's Bhola's casc, let alone arrested from abroad, could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence against him in any event. In this rcspect reliance is placecl on Muhamrned Ijaz V State (2023 SCMR 1375)

34.We also find that there are no procedural irregularities in the nlalrner in which the appellant's confession was recorded before the judicial magistrate and that it was recorded in accordance with the law and the settled principles of recording judicial conlessions thus we believe the confession as against appellant AR Blrola subject to some independent corroboration.

So what other evidence is there to corroborate appellant's Bhola's confession and co-appellant Zubafu s role in the fire. It being noted that corroboration is only a rule of caution and not a rule of law. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Waris v The State (2008 scMR 784)

(a)According to the evidence of PW 375 Majid Baig his family was affiliated with MQM and his brother Asghar Baig rvas MQM sector in cllarge of Baldia town in which area the factory rvas located. He knew appellant AR Bhola who was an active nrember of the MQM. In July 2012he was sitting with PW Mansoor and appellant Bhola in Mausoor's office in the factory rvhen Shahic{ Bhaila one of the owners of the factory came into his office. AR Bhola followed Shahid Bhaila outside where tl'rey were in discussion. This witness gave his cviclence in n straight forrvard rnallner ancl lvas not particularly clentecl cluring a lengthy cross examination. He had no reason to falsely implicatc appellant AR Bhola in the offence in terms of his prcsencc at the factory arrd corroborates his confession of going outsicle to meet the factory owners. Thus, so far as this evidence concerns the appellant AR Bhola we believe the same and place reliance on it.

Page 26 of46 lv{uhammad. Anl

o7

(b)PW 376 Muhanrmed Mansoor. He was production in charge at the factory and rvas also a confidant of one of the owners PW 397 Arshacl Bhaila. According to his evidcnce a large number of rtorkers at thc factory bclonllcd t<r MQM (A) and were also in commattd of thc MQM (A) nntl appellant Zubair who was an f\4QM nctivist and otlter MQM workerg also collected zakat and l;itra for the MQM. FIc corroboratcs PW 397 Arshad Bhaila on the rvastagc and othcr monies paicl by tlre factory to the MQM as blratta. I-le corroborates the evidence of PW 375 Maiid Baig of appellarrt Bhola following Shahid.Bhaila out of the factory and entering into discussions with him. According to his evidence on the next day Shahid and Arshad Bhaila (the factory owners) called him into their office and inlormed him that AR Bhola had denranded RS 25 Cores or partnership in the factory at the direction of tlrc MQM (A) lenders nnd par$ elders. AR Blnln hnd told lim thnt tlv dtnnnd hnd canrc from Hnnuned Siddique in clmrge of KTC MQM (A)on belwlf of tlrc pnrly.The Bhaila's refused to pay the bhatta demand and he was directed to meet AR Bhola and negotiate with him and offer RS one crore and settle the matter. He contacted Bhola who told him that the matter could only be settled if the factory orvners paid RS 20 crore and not otherwise and in case the demand lvas not fulfilled there would be no good result for the factory owners or the factory. This fully corroborates AR Bhola's iudicial confession. He even confirmed that when the MQM(A) used to demand bhatta it was paid through him. This evidence regarding AR Bhola's demand for bhntta or a share in the factory from Hammad Siddique is fully corroborated by lhe factory olYner PW 397 Archacl Bhaila. Tlris lvitncss gilve his cvidence in a straight {orward nrnnrlr:r antl was not partictrlarly r.lcntetl durirrg a lengthy cro$s oxamination, IIc harl t'lo reason to [alst-.ly inrplicate appellant AII Ulrola in the o[[encc. 'l'hus, so far as this evitlence concerns the appellant AIt llhola wc bclieve thc salnc arul place reliance on it.

Page 27 of 46 Muhammad Aril

(c)PW 3fl Abdullah.

According to lts evidence he was an active , worker of MQM (A) and worked in unit 117 Baldia sector MQM.

Later otr he was cleputecl as sector in charge of Baldia town. He lead the MQM workers to factories situated in Baldia where appellant AIt tlhola ancl others usecl to distribute bhatta parchies to the factory owlters ancl others. I-Ie usecl to get the wastage from the factories as bhatta alor-rg with h:fan Baig but contract was given to Faryal instead. I-Ie corroborates PW 375 Majid Baig in this respect. Orr directions of appellant AR Bhola in Ramazan he pointed out factory to Gul Muhammed who was a member of MQM baldia sector. He saw appellant AR Bhola call PW 376 Muhammed Mansoor and demand RS 25,000 as Zakat. Mansoor collected the said amount and deposited it in the sector office. After lrearing about the fire he went to the factory on17,09,2072 where he saw appellant AR Bhola outside. According to his evidence appellant AR Bhola was appointed sector in charge Baidia town 1.5 days before Ramazan 2012 i.e before the fire. This witness gave his evidence in a straight forwald maruler and was not particularly dented during a lengthy cross examination. He had no reason to falsely implicate appellant AR Bhola in the offence. Thus, so far as this evidence concerns the appellant AR Bhola we believe the same and place reliance on it.

(d)PW 397 Arshad Bhaila. He was one of the factory owners. According to his evidence under pressure of the MeM (A) and just to lead a peaceful existence he was payi.g MeM (A) Balclia sector 25lacs a month on one acconnt of one thing or another e.g rvastage, zakat, futra, denrancls i.e bhatta etc. Irr Ma1, e, ]une 2012 pW 375 Majid Baig discloscd that the MeM sector was clemanding crores of ns. At first lrc thouglrt it was a bluff btrt then he realizecl that it wa6 an cxtortion amount undcr threat. FIe ftrlly corroborates pw 376 Muhalnmed Mansoor about trrc 2s crore ancl partnership in the factory nrade by appcllant AR Bhola through Hammecl siddique and on accou.t of such dcmancl he rernained under Page 28 of46 Muhammad Arif

*- !, ...-: ,@r::y:r!n.l & *tl?.ry: '!a,tu

v

their business to Prcssrlrc nn(l fcnr fln(l cvcn nttclrtplctt nlovlng cvidence fully llnnglntleslt whcrc hu slnyctl for'3 wccks' [lis his rcturn armecl cutrotttlrnlc's tltt' cottfcsslott of AI( Ilhola' On ttroIttrtrikt' litltlrn ttsctl ttl [tlllow ltitlr in <lrclcr to tltreatcn and

itttitttitlntc lrirrr, 'l'his lvilttctts 11nvc his cviclcncc in a straight cluring a lengthy ttrt'\r'ilttl lllilllllol'ntttl rryn$ rrot pnrtlcularly tlcntccl cr(rss (.xnnlirrntion. l-lc lrncl 11() rc{l$on lo falscly implicatc appellant

Al(llholninthctrffuncc,.l'hus,sofarasthiscviclenceconcernsthe samc ancl place reliance on it' ilPPr"'llnrtt AIt llholn rvc Lrclicvc tltc when reacl with the

35.Thtts, thc abovc corroborative evidetrce evir.let'rcc agniltst appellant Zubair fully corroborates and proves the retracteeiitl'.ticifllconfessiotrofappellarltARBlrolainconnectionwithtlre the factory which lead to hunc{reds b'atta tle'rancl a't-l burning c{own of alive rnurclerecl by being either burnt of innoce.t r,err ancl womell bcing injurec{' or tluough asphyxia and leaving rnany

Evidence against appellant Zubair'

that Zubair lvas

36.There is abunclant evidence on recorcl to show that he rvas present in the hcatl of the finisltirrg clepartnrent at the factoly, lvas bttrut tlorvn' that he rvas factorl' thc day the factory caught fire ancl anMQMactir,istinl]alcliascctoru.Irolr,asalreatl),ittr,olr,eclincollecting illegalrnorrcyfrorrrtlrcfactorytltrottgltotrcslrapcorfortrr(bhatta)fcrrthe pcace' That every rvittress MQM in ort['r tltat lltc fnctorl' cttttltl cxist iu kttu'rv hiur ns ltc tvas ont' fr,rtr lhu, faclory rvlro 11ave uvltlcttcc ngalrrst hittr (lisPttttls ill"td of flrl, sg cirllerl slt'ttttll,tttctt tr( tltc fnctorf itt restrlvinS' so tltt'rt'is tro collrctinlr, ilh:1"irl nrorrcy (trlr,rtl,r) frtlttt tltc f,rctorl'()\vllttrli casr, of nririt,rkut itlultllll, ntltl tltt llt't'rl ftlr ntt itlt'tttl[iC'ttittll [r'1r'ltlc' (AS With aPPellant Al{ l}turla) nlttl lltitt ,lccortlitt$ to tltc itrtliciill ctttrfession oI appullarrtAI{ l}lroln (rvlrlch 1{1' l1ilvq rtlt'r"ttly trelic'r'crl antl evitlence hu lvas tlskt'tl witlr sttting the factory ag.insl Zubair furtlrrrr (orrotror,lk's) rt'fttsal to pay Lllratta', 0n fire ott itccttttltt o[ its tltr'tters

Page 29 of46

Llulo.nrnrorl Ar{

\\a

(a)Accordirrg to the evidence of eye witness PW 374 Muhammed Arshad. PW 376 Muhammed Mansoor got him a job at the factory whcre he was ernployecl as a fitter with Amir (which is corrol.roratcd by PW 373 Amir Ali), On 11.09.2012 appellant Zubair directetl hinr to rncct him irr the cvcning as guests were coming to thc fnctory, l-lc tnct Zubair in the evening who had about 5 boys rvith hinr in thc Gorlown area. Zubair tolcl him to take the boys to tlrc n'ashroom which he did. Zubair then arrived and gave them all clraras cigarettes. I-Ie took a few puffs and after Zuabair's pernrission left. From the mezzanine floor he saw Zubair give snrall shopper packs to each of the 5 boys. He saw Zubair fold the shopper pack in his hand, shook it and threw it onto the clothes in the Godown. The five boys with Zubair to whom he had given packets also did the same. smoke followed and in a short period of time flarnes burnt in the cloth Godown. He rushed down and founcl Majicl who was in charge of the Godown and along with others tried to extinguish the fire but tl-rey failed. Zubair came but refused to help and told them that the fire would never extinguish, The owners and PW Mansoor were raising a commotion to try and save the laborers and material lying in the factory..........He went to the canteen which was locked but when they managed to break through he saw Zubair and the 5 boys smoking on the cement benches. They pushed past Zubair and his boys and headed for the roof in order to escape the fire. Again Zubair came to the roof smiling and did not help. He then fled to Punjab out of fcar. This witness gave his eviclence in a straight forwarcl manner and was not partictrlarly clented tluring a lengthy cro$$ exflnlinntion. I-le hacl no rcason to falsely irnplicate appellant Zubair irr tlrc o[[cncc. Wc fintl his evitlcnce to be trust worthy, reliablc, conficlcnce inspiring anrl of good qtrality ar-rtl believe the same ancl can convict on thc l:asis of this sole eye witness evidence. In this rcspect rcliance is placed on the cases of Qasim shazade V State (2023 ScMRl17),Mtrharrrnred Saddiq V State (2022 SCMR l

Page 3O of46 Muhammad Arif

690 nnd Naiz-ucl-clin V Statc (2011 Sctvll{ 725).'l'hls cvirlcttcc nlso is ) corroboratcd by AI{ t}hola's jurlicinl corrfcssiott. 'l"lttt.t, .qo [nr ns this eviricnce concents thc appcllnnt Zutrair .suttlinlg firc to tlrc fnctory rvc bclic'vc thc snnrc nrrtl plncc rcllarrcc on it.

([r) Accortlirrg ttr thc cvitlt'ncc of I'W 3(r0 l(nshif. l'lt: lvorkttrl in tltc l'irrishinll tkprll1p1.',tt with Ztrtrnir. I Ic was with I'W 3(rl Abclul I{nccs rvlrr.lr the fitc brokc oul. After the fire lrc saw Zrrbalr with tltrcc to 4 unkuowrt persotls. He saw hlm ln the finlshing departttreut and orr lhe roof of tlic factory,Zubair was not in his departtnent when the firc broke out. This witncss Save his evidence in a straight forward tnanner and was not particularly dented durirrg a lengthy cross exatnination. I-le had no reason tc, falsely irnplicate appellant Zubair in the offence. Thus, so far as his evidence concerns the appellant Zubair's activities at the factory on the day of the fire we believe the same and place reliance on it.

(c)Pw 36L Abdul Raees. Also worked in the finishing department. He corroborates being with PW 360 I(ashif when the fire broke out. He also saw Zubafu in the canteen smoking and later on the roof when they were trying to escape. Zubafu lvas locking gates and doors to hinder escape. This witness gave his evit{ence in a straight forward manner ancl was. not particularly dentetl during a lengthy cross examination. He had no reason to falsely implicate appellant Zubair in the offence. Thus, so far as his evidence concerns the appellant Zubair's activities at the factorl' on the tlav of thc fire we bclievc the same ancl place reliance on it.

(d)PW 363 Mtrhartrrtred Wasecrrr. I-le w'as enlployer.l at the factorv tltrouglr Zubair. On 11.t19.2012 hc n'ret Zubrrir at noon in the finishing tlel:arturclrt. Ztrbalr rvcnt to the Godorvn side later that cvcning nroulrd Asar praye'rs. Whcn the fire broke otrt PW Mansoor ancl hinr ulrut down thc clectric brcakers. He saw Zubair smoking cigaretles in tlre cantecn in a relaxed and coor manner. zubair locked cloors to the canteen to hinder escape. He also

I

Page 31 of46 MuhammadArif

stntetl thnt the f\{Qlvl rvlrkcra lvcre u.qsntly fourrcl nttctrtllng Ztrbnlr iu tltc fnr:tory rvho hc girvc tcn nutl pnnts lo. It wns nlso llte Cotltlrvtr nrcn rvherg lhr. flrc cruptgl wlrlctr wno (,lrl)osltc lhc firrishlrrg tL'p11[1uu11t rvhhh rlltl txrt cntch flrc.'l'lris wltrtcsrt llilvrt Itis t'r'itlt't\cc lrt n strnillht ftrlr,vor.tl nlrlnrlor nrrtl wns nul 1;nrticulnrly tlr-'tttr:rl tltrlinli rr lcnlgtlry cr()ss cx{lluirrrrtlou. Ito lrntl ntt rcillltlrl ltr falsclf irrtPlicnlc nppcllnnt Ztrtrnir lu the o[[cncc.'l'lrus, stt fnr ns llis ('\'itlt'l1cu'cerlcLrt'l'rs thu nppcllrrut Zutrnir's nctlvitics nt thc (aclory 0n tltc rhy' of thc firc lvc bclicvc thu snme nntl placc rcliancc on it.

(e)P!\t 372 Salecnr l(han. Again hc saw Ztrbair irr thc cantccn srrrokirrg nftcr thc fire brokc out. I'lc also saw Zubair lock thc canteetr door in order to save hitrrself. I'W 373 Anrir Ali givcs corroborativc eviclcnce. Inrportnntly be iug n,, olcctrician he cttrrfinns thnt tltc lirc could trot lnae brokcn out ilttc to a short circrrif ns all tltc ruiring u)os ,tctt,. Tfucsc witucsses gave their eviclence in a straight forwarcl ltlaltner aud wcre not particularly dented during a lengthy cross cxatnination, They had no rcason to falsely, implicatc appellant Zubait in the offence, Thus, so far as tl'reir evitlence concel'l'ls the appellant Zubair's activitics at the factory on the day of the fire wc bclieve the same and place reliance on it.

(0 PW 376 Muhanuned lVlausoor. According to ltis evidence Ztrbair was in charge of finishing department who was au active menrber of the MQM wlto used to exert Prcsstlrc to cstablish his hold and flronopoly nt the factor.y. I-le also used to intervene witlt workers clisputcs in orclcr to maintain his authority. I-lc was prcsent in the factoly wltcrr tlrc firc brol<c ottt itr thc Gtldowrr wltich they wcre unablc to cxtingtrish. l'W 360 I(nshif tolcl hinr that hc saw Zttbair ancl 4 to 5 othcrs lrr thc Gotlowrt antl lntcr on the roof. Although his eviclcncc rcgartlirrg Ztrball on thc rright of thc fire is nrainly hearsay iI is howcvcr corrolrttratccl Lry otltcr raritncsses whose eviclcncc is nrctrtioncct abovc. I'lis tlitect cviclcncc poltrays Zubair as a powerful MQM figrrrc within thc factoLy,. 'l Page 32 of46

Muharnnad Aril

D

Y

G) PW 397 Ashraf Bhaila. He was one of the owners of the factory. According to his evidence as mentioned above the management of ) the factory was always under pressure to make payments to MQM Baldia towtl sector which they did out of fear so that they could run their factory peacefully. He also narrates earlier the bhatta demands from MQM via appellant AR Bhola via Hammad Siddique and tlrc top lcadcrshilt ol thc MQM,ln 2005 PW Mansoor n ho was his confidant hired Zubair in the finishing Department r,r,ho shortly becarne in charge of the department. The laborers and workers of the deparhnent were under his control and direction. Zubair used to get disputes in the factory settled through PW Majid Baig whose brother was an MQM activist. On 11.09.12 he was sitting in his office when PW Majid informed him that a fire had erupted in the Godown/wharehouse. On reaching the Gowdown they found the fire spreading with great speed in a high rise manner and had engulfed half the wharehouse/godown in seconds. PW 360 l(ashif informed llim that at the time of the occurrerlce of the fire he lrad seen Zubair with 4 /5 culprits being strangers inside the factoly which hearsay evidence is corroborated by other witnesses whose evidence is mentioned above. He told l{m when he saw Zubair and the strangers tl"rey were in a casual maru1er despite the fire and that they were not worried in this regard. Kashif informed him that Zubair was definitely involved in the fire. He came to know that on the next day the FIR was lodged under the pressure of MQM leader Rauf Siddiqui blarning the factory owners in order to divert attention away frorn the MQM.

37.That thc policc PW's had no enmity or ill will towartls the appcllant and hacl no rcason to falsely irnplicate him in this case ancl in such circumstauccs it has bcen helcl that the eviclence of the police PW's can be fully relicd upon and as such we lely on the police evidence. In this respect reliance is placecl on Mushtaq Ahnred V The State (2020 SCMR

I

Page 33 of 46 l,tuhammadArif

38.That all the PW's are consistent in their evidence and even if there are solne contradictions in their evidence we consider these contradictions as minor in nature and not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to effect the pro.secution case ancl thc conviction of the appellants. In tlris rcspect rcliarrce is placccl ou the cases of Zakir l(han V State (1995 SCMR 1793) antl l(haclinr Fltrssain v. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 669).The evitieuce of the PW's ancl appellant AR Bhola's confession which we believe providcs a believable corroborated unbroken chain of events frour the appellant AR Bhola demanding Bhatta at the behest of Hammad Sicldique head of the I(TC from the owners of the factory whose failure to conrply lt ould result in the buming down'of the factory to Zubair and 4 to 5 of his associates throwirrg some form of accelerant in the Godown which lead to the fire while Zubair obstructed workers from leaving the factory and seemed to be enjoying the drama by smoking, smiling and acting in a relaxecl manner and not helping to put out the fire which he said could not be put out and lead to the factory being burnt down with the result that 264 men and women being murdered by either being burnt alive or through asphyxiation tluou gh smoke inhalation.

39.As was recently held in the case of Muhammed,ljaz V State (2023 scMR 1375):

"WEre discrepnncies nre of rnhtor clnracter md do ttot go to tlrc root of tlv proseailiotr story nnd do not slmke tle snlient features of tlrc proseutiott uersion, they need not be giaen nwch intpor tnnce."

40, Likewise in the case of Nazir Ahnred V State (2023 SCMR 1299) it was held as underl

"ll is n ruell wllleil yropositiott of lmu llnt ns long ns tle mnterinl nslncls al llrc miilenca lnua n ring of truth courts slnuld igtort tuiuur discreynncies irr llrc euidetrcc."

4I, Thcrc arc some nrinor inrprovcnrcnts in the 5.161. and 5.164 Cr.PC statement of the witncsscs howcvcr we do not consider such improvements fatal to the prosecution case. In the case of Aiiaz Nawaz Page 34 of 46 MuhammadArif

lls

(Supta) which held as under;

a "strictly spenkhg, humnn belmaior anries from person to person; dffirent people belmae nnd renct dffirently in different situntiorr, Hmnm belnaior depends upon fncts of enclr cose; lrcru n person rcncls nnd belmues in pnrtiuilnr sihmtiott cnn 'nel.,er bc predicted, Euery person who rrrilncsses n seriots criilM, rencls itl ltis oturt LL,ay; sorue are strrnued, sotile nre slteccltless; sonrc ruould see tlrc incident wlrcrens sonrc roould Jlee from tlrc spol, There is no set of nrle of nnturnl conduct,

42.So r.vhen we take the evidence against Zubair as a whole it fully supports the confession of appellant AR Bhola that it wasZubair who was girren the task of setting fire to tl're factory. The eye witness evidence of PW 374 Muhammed Arshad which he have believed and placed reliance on is conclusive direct eviclence that Zubair started the fire with 4 to 5 unknown pelsons. The other witnesses mentioned above also confirm I Zubair's MQM affiliation, that l"re collected Bhatta for the MQM in different forms e.gZakatfrom the factory, that he was a leader within the factory, that l're was present in the factory at the time of the fire, that he did not help to put the fire out which according to him could not be put out, that he was smoking in a very relaxed and smiiing manner in both the canteen and tl're roof top whilst the fire engulfed the factory which all support the eye witness evidence that he started the fire in the factory.

43.The eye witness PW 374 Muhammed Arshad saw Zubair and 4 to 5 others set the factory on fire by throwing packets into the Goclorvn which quickly caught firc; a fire which proceecled in an unusually fast manner considering that most of thc rnaterial irr the Godown lvas Denim r,vhich does not burn casily. In this rcspect the fact that the fire coultl not be put out by fire extinguishcrs at its carly stages ancl tl're eviclence of pw ggz Ashraf Bhalla with rcspect to the fire, which is set out below, raises questions whethcr any chctnical nncl or accelerants were usecl in the fire as per appellants AR Bhola's confcssion;,

Page 35 of 46 MuhammadAnf

tlb

"Ot lrcarirry the information for the fire engulfetl in the warehouse, roitltfu seconrls I along with Slnhid Blmila and Mansoor ntshed to tlrc said nrea. ln the nrcautinrc, the fire eryulfed in tlrc lnlf of tlrc portiort of tlrc warelrcuse witlritt seconds ard wcre fowtd spread in a higlurise iltntuter speedily zuithout resistance and unusunlly tlrc circle goals of tlrc firc uerc fowrl'spread frorn tlrcre, We tried out Ieael best to get cxtittguislt but clid rtot succeed ns it uns wumtural nud ruitlr high aelocily sltccd itr its uolunrc anrl were beyotrd the coilrol nnd nppronch to lte extittgttished. lt uas rlefinitely a snbotnge and terrorism nctiaity,

Tlrc zonrelrcuse tucrc rctailitrg rau rlenint materisl haaing tlrc tilcnsurailont of 100/11.0, 11.51120 nrcters in each roll tightly packed, Inabry tliclsrcss of 12-L3 ottrrce whiclr tliil ttot easily capture the firc cau if auyboily ruillfitlty tries to buru it tlrouglr the usual fire, urrlcss tlrc firc zolich is umatural. Tlrc ordinary nature of fire coulrl :|/ot easily catch the rolled balls of razu denim capacity of lnahry sufficient tliclcuess and of cotton did trot capture the fire in a,ty Lutty tuiless it is irt tlrc ntamrcr of arson. Here in this case fire causetl zoere cilr,ying higtily flanunable circles such lilce balls which could not be fouul in a usual fire. Euen at the thne of extitrgrtislr as and when water t1as throrwt to tlrc said fire it got acceleratecl rather to slow down aud conrc to the poitrt of extirtguislt, r'ather it exceeded iti aohune, magritude and speed' During the investigation a C.P. was filed wherein the report was also furnished by National Forensic Science Lab Islamabad mentioning tl-rerein the samples dispatched to the said Lab for DNA were found burnt, deteriolated and decay which is unusual to the best of my experience and knowledge. I may say that on the basis of forensic report it is apparent and prima-face shows that the fire were not the usual and nafural but it was an unnatural sabotage state of fire which were caused at different places in an arson with chemical and cornbustible material. Tlrc snid report were nlso funilslted to tlrc lT du'irtg tlw hruestigntiort. Itt tlrc initinl rowrd of inaestigntion our enryloyces mtd ruorlcers were tltrentened, tortured md kept under pressure to depose on tlrc line of F[R, et)en sonrc ruere bribecl itr this regnrd la nnrrnte nl the tone rulnt tlrcy ruere trying to Jlute.

We rcryrcslcd llrc clminunn of tlrc corrulrissiorr to get llrc forensic inueslignlion co,ulucled fu raspect of Jirtt tlu'ough tlrc foreigtr itnrestigntion ttttit lo nscerlnin llrc rcnl cmtse, to tulich lennrcd Amirumu itfonued thnt it tuotild cnuse uillions of ntpcas, euett our nduocnte slrcton ol.r zuillingness lo pny stch n lntge cost, but it wns not ncceded tlrcreto mtd fntly hrned doturr. Our rcquest uere nlso published fu dnily Dnwt in, Page 36 of46 Muhammad Arif

tlis regnrd' ulrcreitt our adaocnte had ngreed to pay tuhnteuer the antount conrcs inaolaed in the foreign ,orrn irriotn and inoestigntion. pvsm scp to 17th sep, the llrt inaistigation were cowructecr by pI zafar lqbal anil tlrcrcby chouithry bi was reprace, by pr lahanzeb to carry ott tlrc ilrucstigatiott, Tlrouglt media zue cante to lcnow tlnt pI Zafar Iqbnl inaestigatcd Majirt Biag and zubair ard iltereby the s.aitl Pl zafnr lqbal afuntittcrr befire ilrc chaivnran comnrissiott (lrcarlerl by Mr. Retirerl lustice Zalid ettrbatt Alai), tlmt sector irtclnrge werc luahry frce access ittside the /actory, ruho lras got sourc issues nnd dispute roith the owflers o/ the factory 1ts). The said nrctter zuas also reltorted fu ilaily Dawn, I(srachi. lt was tlrc tnajor reaso,t and cause that when Pl Zafar lqbal found out tnth, lrc zuas replnced from the inaestigation part.,.,.......,...,,..

44.Other eye wihresses to the fire have aiso reached the same conclusion that the fire was unnatural and spread very quickly'And why did Zubair state that the fire could not be put out unless he knew that it

I

was not an ordinary fire and that some kind of accelerant had been added. He and the 5 boys each threw 5 packets. Yet a single match could have caused the fire.

45.According to the expert chemical report provided by the International Centre for Chemical and biological sciences prepared by PW 387 Dr.Shakeel Ahmed of Karachi University and his team dated 01.08.2016 it was opinec{ as under;

"subjech Foretrsic Anal)'sis of Baldia Garments Factory' Denr Sir:

This is toith refercnce to your letter No: SP/SITE/RDU32-lKnracli (deliacrcd by lnnd on 'l6th Nouctnber,-.

Bnsad ott prelinrinnry discrtssiott, our'lcnn lns oisilcd llrc site, nrct with cye ruilnesscs, nnd collecled snnrplts for ilnnlysis. Folloruing nre our obserznliotts.

"Aftcr obsenting, Ilrc ptrllcnt ol fire and cyc tuitrtcss nccoturts, zue fecl thnt tlrc /irc urrry ltnuc becu cnttscd by aolntile. nccelerttor. Samples rucrc nntlryzwl /or tlrc prcsuce ol volttile ntul otlrcr nccelerntor(s) by ctttltlaying GC-MS (Cns Clronmtography lr4nss Spectronrctry), lCp (Iudttctiuely Coupled Plnsntn) nud HPLC (High Petfonilntrcc Liqid Cltomntogt'nylty), lloweuer, rrc trnca of mry nccelet'ntor tuns fattnd in nny of lhe snntltlcs, Ihully trotc tltnt snttrples ruere collected after tltee Uears Page 37 of46 Mulummad Arif

l18

of ilrcident, and & is unlikely tlnt ury aolatile conrporuul zoottld exist after urch a long thile,,.

Witlt Regnrds, Sincerely, sdl- sd/- Dr. Amir Haider Ph.D,(Clrcm.) Dr. Shakil Ahmed Ph.D. (Cltan.- Senior Research O{ficer / Research Officer. Chemical Manage/'

46.As per the report of the Punjab Forensic science agency dated 16.10.16 which was exhibited tluough PW 395 Khalid Faraz it opined as under;

ns and of In

a It r,r'as an arson incic{ent took place on 11-09-2012. Scene was cornpromised due to fire rescue activities and time Iapse. a No signs of electrical short circuit have been identified, Probability of fire due to electrical short circuit could be ruled out.

a Tl're fire spread over a large area because the cornbustible material was present there all around that is cloth etc' a Discontinuous patches of fire lead to opine that the fire eruption points were rnultiple.

a Any combustible material do not burn until it gains its flammable temperature and as tl'rere were only one or two kind of combustible material (jeans & Cotton which was told by the concerned Person as Ready For Dying cloth) was/were present, If sarne kind of material is present, it shoulcl burn in the same manner. Fire on ground floor appeared to.be initiated from south rvest arca of the hall.

a In the basement there were no signs of fire travelletl from grouncl floor to basement through stairs, as there \ /as only thc smoke deposition ancJ no buur pattern was irlentified(lmage # 1 to 3) a In bascment flarne/burning material might fall frorn tl're open place (nratcrial hancling opcnirrg, in front o[ clo,ator) coultl be the cause of firc initiation, (lmagc tl 4) a First floor was found to be relativcly less clamagerl with fire as comparccl to thc rcst of tlrc floors of tlrc building. o l-Icavy smokc clcpcrsition obscrvccl orr walls, ceiling ancl rest of the rnatcrial at first floor.

Discontinuous burn patterns which catrsed srnall and focalized Ievel of damaged were also iderrtified. In presence of same type of cloth (combustible uraterial) such patterns could lead to opine

I

Page 38 of46 Muhammad AriJ

tt1

tlre involvenrent of hurnanly activity regarding fire initiation. (irnage#5toB) a Supervisory hall (small arca to view tlrc rnain stitching hall) on first floor of the adjacent builc{ing was also clamaged due to firc, but no signs of firc travelling from thc main affcctcd building to the this hall, Wcstcrn sirle of the hall was having sevcre burn impact. Fire initiation point coukl bc such arca in this hall. (imagc # 9 & 10) a Sccontl floor was found as severely darnaged clue to the fire, most of thc material iucludirrg building material was severely darnagecl. Stair arca has becn collapscd (thc only access for second floor from first floor) and no passage could be made to identify the fire travcllinl; frorn floor first to seconcl, But as there were little burn impact and no firc travelling sigrrs were found in front of stair arca on first floor, it is of the opine that fire on second floor initiated frotrr tlre same floor (second floor). (lmage # fi" e14.

47.We find based on these reports and the eye witness evidence that a chernical accelerant of some kind was thrown into the Godown to accelerate the fire by appellantZubair and his 4 to 5 colleagues.

48.It is clear from the Punjab Forensic science agency report that the fire did not break out due to a short circuit as claimed by the appellants. Even otherwise, evidence has also come on record that the wiring was completely new and the breakers were turned off within minutes. Likewise PW 385 Anwar Ali who inspected the boiler found that the boiler did not blow up and it had not even been in use since 2010 so this was also not the cause of the fire. Likewise no evidence of any explosion was found.

49.We therefore firrri based on all the evidence, conlession of Bhola, eye witness account of PW 374 Muharnmed Arshad, other eviclence of the belraviour of Zubafu at the tirne of the fire tluough other n'itnesses and chemical reports when reacl in a holistic manner that appellant Zubair set

,I

fire to the factorv.

Page 39 of46 Muhammad Ari!

50.we also find that the offences so charged fall squarely within the provisions of the ATA as enunciatccl in the case of Ghulam tlussain v State (PLD 2020 SC 61) not only in tcrms of actus reus but also mens rea as the appellants AR Btrola ancl Zubair whilst committing offences under the ATA actcd with intcnt, pulposc ancl clcsign to tcrrorize other factory otvllel's atrd nrcmbcrs of thc public that if they did not pay bhatta as denranderl thcir factorics woukl bc bulnt c{own ancl both their lives, those o[ thcir fanrily anc{ thcir cmployccs woulcl bc put in grave clanger.

51.Thus, basecl ou the cliscussion of the above evidence we hereby uphold all the convictions I'randecl down to appellants AR Bhola and Zubair in the irrpugned judgrnent.

52.With r.egard to sentencing there are no mitigating circumstances' lnsteatl tl'rere are only aggravating circumstances. 264 men and women with families inclucling youllg children to ,rpport were murdered in the large part in the most agonizirg fashion by eitl"rer being burnt alive or tlrr-ough asphyxia on account of smoke inhalation. Of the 264 oriy pieces of 5 bodies were lecovelec{. The identities of.29 bodies clespite the use of DNA have not been identified and are buried in a kind of mass grave. This must be agonizing for any one whose family menrber lvent to work at the factory on the day of the fire but who have not returned home. The motive for the fire was greed for which innocent businessmen lvere terrorized into paying crores of RS simply to carry out their constitutional right to pcaccfully carry out there businesses, On top of the dead at least 56 pcoplc suffcrccl injrrrics on account of the fire.. So cruel ltere the appcllants that even cloors wcle lockcel to preirent lvorkers from escaping. Such wida scalc clcnranrl for bhatta is akin to organized crime lr,hich mnst be stampcd out ancl those convictccl of thc offcnce given a deterrent sentence. Pakistan's ccononly is currerrtly facing challenging times. Who can cxpect investors lo come if thcy face not only red tapism wherl they try to set up business ancl invest in Pakistan but also have to face the menace of bhatta payments failing which either they or their family Page 40 of46 Muhammad Arif

tL)

I

melnbers will be murderet{ or businesses burnecl down. As such all the sentences handed down to appellants AR Bhola and Zubair in the impugnecl ]uclgment are rnaintainec{ in respect of each of them and the confirmation lefercnce is answered in the affirmative in respect of each of them.

With regard to appellants lazal Ahmed,Arshad Mchmood, Ali Muhammed (prards at thc factory gate) and Shahrukh Latecf the [IR manager at the factory 53, We have found no evidence to suggest that they committed the offences fot which tl-rey were chalged,.The evidence suggests that the guarcls hacl no real control over people who entered tl-re factory even if they attempted to stop them who came and rvent as they pleased due to the MQM's grip over the factory. We also find no linkage of any of them to the file or those involved in it. As regarcls tlie HR manager Shaluukh Lateef we have found that lTc did not play any role in starting the fire or had any prior knowledge of it. He also was powerless to stop non employees from entering the factory given the prevailing environment of the MQM's grip over the factory. When confronted on this asPect of the charge the learned APG and Special Prosecutor rangers were not able to point out any such evidence wfiich could support the charge against any of them and as such Fazal Altmed, Arshad Mehmood, Ali Muhammed (guards at the factory gate) and Shahrukh Lateef the HR manager at the factory are all acquitted of the charge by being extended the benefit of the doubt and shall be released unless wanted in any other custody case.

With regard to the rcspondents in the appeal against acquittal filed by the State narnely Mulramrnnd Abdul Rauf Siddiqtti, Umat l-lassan, Dr. Abclul Sattar l(han ancl Mst. Iqbal Arlcclr l(hanum. Tlrese appeals are time barred for whiclr no cxplauation lras bcen giverr.

54.Evcn otherwise, as a rnattcr of law the parameters for an appeal against acquittal to succeecl are nruch narlower than in the case of an appeal against conviction. It is settlecl law that judgment of acquittal Page 41 of46 Muhammad Arif

\L>

t should not be interjected until findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554). Moreover, the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is narrow arrd limited because in an acquittal the presurnptiorr of the innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of crirninal iurisprudence as the accused shall be presumed to be innocent until provecl guilty. In other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled as helcl by the Ilonourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above referred judgrnent. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder:- ,16. We lmae lrcwd tltis cnse nt a considernble length stretching on quite n ttrunber of tlntes, n17f, Tpith tlrc able nssistance of tlrc learned counsel for tlrc pnrties, lmue tlnroughly scanned eaery nmterinl piece of euidence nanilable on tlrc record; nn exercise prinmrily necessitnted uith reference to tlu conoiction appenl, and also to ascertnin if tlte conchtsions of tlu Courts below nre ngainst tlrc eaidencc on tlte record nnd/or in oiolntiott of tlrc lmo. ln any eaent, before enfunrking upon scnrtirry of the anrious plens of lnu nnd fact raised from both the sides, it nmy be nentioned thnt both tlu learned cotntsal ngreed tlnt tle criterin of interferertce in tlrc iutlgnent ngninst ncquittnl is not the slnrc, as against cnses inaolaing a conaictiort. In tltis belmlf, it shnll be releunnt to nrcntion thnt tlrc follotoirtg precetlents protsicle n fnir, settled and consistent aiew of the superior Courts nbout the rules rulticlt sltouldbe folloued in such cnses; the dicta nre:

Bashir Alurted o. Fida Hussnin and 3 otlrcrs (2010 SCMR 495), Noor Mali l1tan a. Mir Shah lehan and another (2005 PCr.Ll 352), lmtiaz Asad a. Zain-ul-Abidin and anotlrcr (2005 PCT.LI 393), Raslitl Ahmed u. Muhanrnmcl Nawaz atd others (2006 SCMR 1'1'52), Barlcat Ali a. Slmulcat Ali nnd otlrcrs (2004 SCMR 249), Mulnzim Hussaht a. Tltc Statc nnd mtother (2fiA PCT,LI 926), Mulmnnnad Taswccr a. Ilafiz Zttllcaruain nnd 02 otlrcrs (PLD 2009 SC 53), Fnrhnt Azccrrr u. Asttmt Llllnh nnd 6 others (2008 SCMR 1285), Ilclmrat Shah nnrl 2 otlrcrs u, Atnir Gul nnd 3 athers (1995 SCMR 139), Tlrc State a. Muhntnutod Shnrif ntd 3 others (1995 SCMR 635), Ayaz Aluuerl anil anotlrcr a, Dr, Nnzir Ahnted and anotlrcr (2003 PCr, Ll 1935), Muhanunni Aslnm a. Mulmuntnd Znfar nnd 2 athers (PLD 1992 SC 1), Allah Dnlclrch nnd nnotlrcr u. Gluiart Rasool and 4 othcrs (1999 SCMR 223), Najaf Snleem a. Lady Dr. Tasneem and atlrcrs (2004 YLR 407), Aglm Wazir Abbns and otlrcrs u. Tlrc State and othcrs (2005 SCMR 1,1.75), Mukhtar Ahnrcd a. The Stnte (1994 t Page 42 of 46 l4uhammad Arif

SCMR 231.1), Ralinuilah Jan a, IGsltif and atother (PLD 2008 SC 298), IOmn o. Sajiarl mul 2 otlrcrs (2004 SCMR 21.5), Shafique Alunad a. Mulmntnmd Rantzan and another (1995 SCMR 855), The Statc a. Abdul Gha/fnr (1996 SCMR 678) nnd MsL Saira Bibi a. Mulnnunad Asif and othcrs (2009 SCMR 946),

From tlrc rnlio of nll tlrc nboue pronowtcenrcnts nnd those cited by the lennrcrl cottnsel for tlrc Ttnrtics, it cnn be deduced tlmt tlrc scope of hiletference in nppenl ngninst ncquittol is trrosl ,mrro?p nnd litnited, Itccotrsc in nn ncquittnl tlrc presunption of irutocence is signifcantly ndded to tlrc cnrdirml nde of crilninnl jurisprudence , tlnt nn acarced shnll bc prc*nned to be innocent is dotfuled. Tlrc courts sltsll be aery sloto irt interfering witlt such an ncquittal iudgment, wrless it is sltoutn to be peruerse, passed it gross aiolatiotr of laut, suffering from tlrc errors of graae nrisreading or ,rcn-rectding of the euidence; suclr jrrdgurcnts sltould not be liglttly interfered and lrcaay burden lies on tlrc prosecrttiotr to rcbut tlrc preswnptiorr of innacence uhich the acatsed hns ennrcd and attained an accottnt of his acquittal. It has been categorically held in a plethora of judgntents tlmt interference in a judgurent of acquittal is rare and tlrc proseattiotr uttrst sltotu that tlrcre are glaring errors of law and fact coutrtritted by the court in arriuittg st the decisiort, zulticlr tuould result into graue niscarriage of justice; the ncquittal judgnrcrft is perfunctory or uholly artificial or a shocking conclusiorr has been drazon. Moreoacr, in munber of dictruns of tltis Court, it has been categorically laid dowtt tlnt xrch judgnent sltould not be irrterjected urtil tlrc findings are peraerse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speaiatiae and tidicttlous (Emphnsis supplied). The Court of appeal should rot inter/ere sinrytly for tIrc reasort tlmt on the re-appraisnl of tlrc euidence a dffirent conclusiotr could possibly be arriaed at, tlrc facfinl cortclusiors shoild tot be upset, exccpt uthen palpably pcraerse, suffering from serious and nnterinl factual in/iruities. lt is nuerred in Tlrc Stnte u. Mtrhmnnnd Slmrif (1995 SCMR 635) nnd Mrilmnnnnrl ljnz Alnund u. Rnjn Falfiu Afznl mul 2 otlrcrs (1995 SCMR -1281) thnt llrc Sttprettrc Court being tlrc fnnl forunt tuorrlrl be clmry mil hesitnut lo ittlufere in tlrc fndings of tlrc Courts below, It is, thcreforc, cxpcdient nnd imperntiae tlmt the sbaae criterln onil llrc gulilellncs slrcnld bc follorued in decidirtg these nppenls." (bold ndderl)

55.We have considered the rcasons why the co-accused /respondents were acquitted of the charge in the impugned judgrnent which are found Page 43 of46 Muhammod Arif

I 2'{

t

at typed pages 233 to 236 and 245 to 262 and when confronted by the court the APG and Special prosecutor Rangers were not able to point out any error in the reasoning in the irnpugnect judgment for acquitting the respondeuts baset{ on the evicleuce on rccord. Having reviewecl tlre reasoning for the acquittal of thc respont{cnts in the impugnecl juclgment antl tlte evir{crtce of rccorrl arrrl kccping in view the Iaw on appeals against accluittals as citctl earliel we Rlso fincl no reason to interfere with thrl impugucri jutlgureut in so far as the acquittal of the respondents is coltcerncd anrl as such the appeals against acquittal of Muhammarl Atrclul Raui Sirldiqui, Unrar l-lassan, Dr. Abdul Sattar Kltan antl Mst. Iqbal r\ticcb Khanuur is tlisn'rissed.

Conclusion

1.The appeals of AR Bhola and T,ubair are dismissed and all the convictions and sentences in the impugned judgment are maintained and the confirmation reference is answered in the affirmative for both appellants AR Bhola and Zubair.

2.The appeals of Fazal Ahmecl, Arshacl Mehmood, AIi Muhammed (guards at the factory gate) and Shahrukh Lateef the HR manager at the factory are allowed. They are acquitted of the charge, the impugned judgment is set aside in their cases and they shall be released unless wanted in any other custody case.

3.Tlre States appeal against acquittal in respect of responelents Muhammad Abdul Rauf Sicldiqui, Umar l-las.satt, Dr. Abdul Sattar Khan anrl Mst, Iqbal Adeelr Khauum is dismissetl.

Beforc parlfiy.wilh this iuclgrrrent rvcre rvould like to nrake the following obecrvaI ions/clirccl iorrs.

1.l'his casc revcalcr"l to us a coml:lctc brcakclolvn in the investigative proccstr wlrcra ;:rinra fnciu thc real culprrits lvcre protectecl tluough a rnisleading IlR, witncsscs cr:ulcl not come forward to tell the truth out of [car, thc policc wcrc not even keen to record any Page 44 of 46 Muhamnnd Arif

a \> l.

Y

sl.llt'mclll tl'hi(h rr"r"o.llftt lhc ctrlk:rlirrn {}f nh.ltl.l .lntl ('t.t't1 .r lriglr { P{lrl'fl(.(l (irntnriqrirrfi rlrt lirrt'rl l(} (.lrrY rxtl r\l'frt rlrrntir;l tt'qlc ltr t'trlulttcivt'l\ tlt!((r\r'f tltr'(,!lrtr'rtf tlrr Iitr.ll lhr'11r*t 1rf lht'l.rctrtrl" ()ltlIfls li,rthct lltr'tl ltrrttltttittg lltt'rlr.llh o[ ctr tltitfll',lll{l l'llsltritltl llt.tl llt,rl ll(r rtl( lt iltr itlcttlq {'\ I'f hilftlt('lll(l nl',,lill il a1r1rt'.rrr llr"ll r\tll,rtriT.rlil!rtt is1rl1',111 trrrt(r (trnll'tr'titUl til ;1r'l llte (r('rlil [r,r h.tltrlittl: o11l 1-1r11q;r111{.llirrlt lrr lltr lclial lrrirt (rf lltr' tlrro,tcctl IVr' ,rrrr .lllrlt' rtrtrlitlt'trl llr.rt lrarl lltc l{izlr'*rtt Qttt'rslti llf rcpttrt nol (onrr kr lt}'.lrt I't' th,ttlct' l't'fort tht, Sinrllt I ligh Court tltrce vc.rre .rfttr thr ltrt' ,ll lhe laclorv llrt teal culprits rsoultl ltirr.c 6otten awal with llris nlosl lrorrilic antl gruesotllc crim(' as llterc secmctl lo lrc ncr lvill trn tltc part trf tlre ptrticc lo contlucl d rigorous .rntl llrtrroulih ini"e,rll1;.lli(rn ir1 {rrrk'r to 11t't to tlrc trutlr of llru nr,lltcr instc.ttt tht'r' ttroh tht' p.rtlr of lc,rsl rcsistancc b1, hlanrirrg thc faclorl' olvntrs .lntl thc rlcPa11111.,',1s rcsponsitrle for snfet1' nt factorics.

2.l\te herelrv direct that all factory o]r'ners in Karachi rnsure that thcv h.rve adcquate safety equipnrent and SOP's in placc in c.rse of ,t [irr' or other serious occurrcnce/emergenc)' at thcir facton' rvhich rvrll trc checked b1' the relevant departntcnt of the Covernment ol Sinrlh.

3.l\tc hcrcbl' tlircct .tll Covt'rnnrcnt o[ Sindh rlcp.rrtnrr'nts ttr rn.tku' tlre rrr;uircd sa[ct1' clrccks on evcr]' Lrctor-\' r)[rrr1.l,1n*, in K.rrlchi antl c.rtrsr: it tu ccase it opr-.r.rtions until it conrcs rrp tr.r tht' rcrluirr',"1 Itc.rlth and l.rf*ll'sl.rntlnrtls. "l'lris t'rt'rtisc sh.lll bt'crrttrPlctt'r,t rtillrin (r rvrr.kr of llrr tl,rlc o[ llris irrtlgnrr.rrt rvillt a cr.rtnPli.tltct' tr,;r1;1 1 lx,rrU', strhlrrillt,rl tlrt'rr,a{tcr, i\ r'1rP1, 1rl tlri' f rrrl6rlrt'trt sh.tll trt' sr,,tl lo C lrit,l h,,r tltrll)! ('1v1'1rJ1ltllr'llt trl Sirttllr hrr ctrtttl'li.tllct' { 11'r' {grrl tlr,rt il ir t,rlr.,1tcl1' trtrlikr'11' tltat tttr'lt rl \r'rirrtl{ tk'cisitrtt lr,rrtlrg lUr lt nr't'r.tr' ('(ul,rr'{lllt'llt'\'*r/lr'l)r'l{tlr-iirltt" trl lrttrtt rh.'ltvll rl lrr lult rln;rluyttrll ltttttt, llt.ttt l,(ilt| rl'rrrLr'tr r'rtttlrl lr"l\'.' lr.'.'tl tturl.' trlllruul lllr,,n,rtrrlltlt ttl llrv lrtlilrcrt lt'.trlt'trlttlr rtl tltr'l\lQi\l .urrl ttulr lltt'alr;rrI l,rtlrrtr'ul lltt'Jrrtllt't'tlt tttyt'rtt11.rtilrg, tltrs.llr$lt'r'.$.

l'ay,e 4$ oI 46 lJ*1,.r-rr.o{ A.}r

b t \ 2.

t

initially through the other members of the KTC which met as a I body often at 90 which was tl're HQ of the MQM in Karachi and then see where there investigation lead.

5.We note that I'larnrned Siclcliquc still remains out side of Pakistan as a ploclaimcrl of{cnclcr ancl has not been extradited to face justice despite a lapsc of 10 ycars, A copy of this Juclgment shall be sent to IGP Sinclh, Sccretary l-lome Department Government of Sindh and Secretary Ministly of Iuterior Government of Pakistan who shall all appear in person or tluough responsible senior officers well aware of the efforts to bring Hammad Siddique to iustice and file their progless reports on 18.09.2023 at 8.30am when the matter shall be put up by the office at serial No.1.

6.We extend out tl"ranks to all learned counsel in this case who appeared and offered their able assistance including learned APG and Special Prosecutor rangers.

56.The appeals stand dispose of in the above terms with the confirmation references being answered in the affirmative in respect of appellants AR Bhola and Zubair. .1

tA= I JUd/E rrJ"r/zl

IUDGE

t

Page 46 of46 Muhammad Aif