2024 M L D 1612
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
DAWOOD SHEHZAD and others ---Appellants
Versus
The STATE and others ---Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 329, 334, 336, 342 and Murder Reference No. 09 of 2022, decided on
29th March, 2024.
(a) Criminal trial ---
----Circumstantial evidence---Case based upon circumstantial evidence---Scope ---
Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other, the neck of the accused ---If such link is found missing, the whole chain breaks down and no conviction
can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.
2016 SCMR 274; 2016 SCMR 1144; 2017 SCMR 2026; 2023 PCr.LJ 589 and 2009
SCMR 135 ref.
Imran alias Dullay v. The State 2015 SCMR 155; Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016
SCMR 274 and Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365- A & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7 ---Qanun- e-Shahadat
(10 of 1984), Art. 164---Qatl -i-amd, kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of
terrorism ---Appreciation of evidence ---Evidence or witness produced through modern device
and techniques ---Scope ---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of
complainant after abducting him for ransom ---Complainant testified that after abduction of
his son, he had received ransom calls for three crores on his cell phone from a cell number ---
Call Data Record (CDR) and verisys were secured by Investigating Officer through recovery memo. which transpired that ransom calls were made through two cell numbers, which were registered in the names of two witnesses ---Said witnesses stated during interrogation that
they had given the SIMs to their friends ---Statements of both the witnesses were recorded
under S.164, Cr.P.C, by Judicial Magistrate, who testified and affirmed recording of their statements, substantially proving the factum mentioned herein before in view of Art. 164 Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984, which categorically stipulates that the Court may, if deemed
appropriate, allow to produce any evidence or witnesses recorded through modern devices or techniques, which led and connected accused for demanding ransom in lieu of release of deceased, hence the objection of the defence with regard to the admissibility of the CDR stood ruled out ---Later on a mobile with the SIM used for making calls for ransom was
recovered ---Appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB" were
allowed ---Appeal filed by two accused persons "D" & "I" were partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365- A & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7 ---Qanun- e-Shahadat
(10 of 1984), Arts. 38 & 39---Qatl -i-amd, kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of
terrorism ---Appreciation of evidence ---Disclosure of the accused ---Accused were charged for
committing murder of the son of complainant after abducting him for ransom ---On the
disclosure of an accused other accused was arrested on the same date i.e, 17.02.2021 ---
During investigation, said accused made disclosure of the crime, where of memo of
disclosure was prepared in the presence of police witnesses, wherein he reiterated the facts of
guilt almost in similar words as narrated by accused already arrested particularly,
confinement of the deceased abductee in the guest room of his house, making calls for ransom, strangulating the deceased with the cable of the mobile charger and setting on fire the dead body of the deceased under the bridge on a road ---Said accused also volunteered to
make pointation of the place of occurrence, where the deceased was confined, thus, he led
the police contingent to the guest room of his house, wherefrom in the presence of police
witnesses black and white jogger shoes of a child were recovered, which were identified by
brother of the deceased to be of the deceased---Said accused also got recovered a used binding tape and told that on resistance and clamour of deceased, the mouth and the hands of the deceased abductee were tightened ---Said accused also got recovered two caps belonging
to other accused persons and two empty wrapper of 'Valium' tablets, which were statedly administered to the deceased abductee---Appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB" were allowed ---Appeal filed by two accused persons "D" and "I" were
partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365- A & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7 ---Qatl -i-amd,
kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism ---Appreciation of evidence---
Medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant
after abducting him for ransom ---Autopsy of his deceased was conducted by Medical
Officer, who issued autopsy report, wherein she opined and affirmed that cause of death of the deceased was asphaxia caused by strangulation and that the body of the deceased was burnt after his death ---Although, neither medical evidence is a corroborative piece of
evidence nor it can identify the culprit, however it can confirm the cause of death---In the present case, cause of death of deceased so brought on record by means of disclosure made by accused persons had been found to be in consonance, which confirmed the cause of death by strangulation--- Appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB"
were allowed ---Appeal filed by two accused persons "D" and "I" were partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.
Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365- A & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7 ---Qatl -i-amd,
kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism ---Appreciation of evidence---
DNA profile ---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after
abducting him for ransom ---DNA report affirmed that deceased was the biological child of
complainant and that the recovered cigarette from the crime scene was a mixture of at least two individuals, whereof the DNA of accused "D" could not be excluded as contributor to the DNA, whereas recovered chewed gum matched with the DNA profile of said accused ---
Another recovered item matched with the DNA profile of accused "M" ---DNA reports had
been found to be in line with the disclosures and other circumstantial evidence, leaving no room to doubt the guilt of accused "I" and "D" ---As far as the evidence against remaining
three accused persons was concerned, although their names did figure in the disclosures made by accused "I" and "D", but the same could at best be used against them alone and not against the co -convict without any trustworthy, confidence inspiring and strong corroborative
piece of evidence---Thus, said three accused persons could not be held guilty of the indictment in absence thereof, and the findings of guilt to their extent was unsustainable ---
Appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB" were allowed ---
Appeal filed by two accused persons "D" and "I" were partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life imprisonment.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365- A & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7 ---Qatl -i-amd,
kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism ---Appreciation of evidence---
Sentence, reduction in ---Mitigating circumstances ---Accused were charged for committing
murder of the son of complainant after abducting him for ransom ---Record showed that
except disclosures of two accused persons, nothing incriminating had been recovered from
other accused in order to substantiate the same, as such, merely on the basis of disclosures of two accused, remaining accused persons could not be convicted and sentenced, thus for the safe administration of justice and to avoid any error of law, Court was unable to maintain impugned judgment to their extent ---Penalty of death awarded to two accused persons
seemed out of proportion because the standard of evidence required for awarding capital
punishment was not available ---Although, committing murder of a child aged about 10/11
years in a gruesome and inhuman manner was a gut wrenching incident, but it was also an
admitted fact that there was no eye -witness of the occurrence, no last seen evidence,
no judicial confession or even extra juridical confession, leading to maintain capital punishment awarded to two accused persons ---Thus, in view of such mitigating
circumstance, it was a fit case to convert death penalty into life imprisonment, which would serve the cause of justice---Appeal against conviction filed by three accused "MM", "R" and "MB" were allowed ---Appeal filed by two accused persons "D" and"I" were partly allowed
by maintaining the conviction, however, capital sentence of death was converted into life
imprisonment.
Mukesh Nath Kohli and Rajish Nath Kohli for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 329
of 2022).
Abbas Ali Qazalbash for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2022).
Muhammad Younas Mengal APG for the State (in Crl. Appeal No. 329 of 2022).
T.H. Khan for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal 334 of 2022).
Abbas Ali Qazalbash for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2022).
Muhammad Younas Mengal, APG for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of
2022).
Muhammad Khalid Kakar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2022).
Abbas Ali Qazalbash for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2022).
Muhammad Younas Mengal, APG for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 336).
Faiz Ahmed for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022).
Abbas Ali Qazabalsh for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 342).
Muhammad Younas Mengal, APG for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of
2022).
Muhammad Younas Mengal, APG for the State (in Murder Reference No. 09 of
2022).
Muhammad Khalid Kakar for Respondents (in Murder Reference No. 09 of 2022).
Date of hearing: 6th March, 2024.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .---The captioned appeals have been brought
against the judgment dated 30th June, 2022 ("impugned judgment") rendered by learned
Judge, Anti -Terrorism Court -I Quetta ("Trial Court"), whereby the appellants were convicted
and sentenced in the following terms:
"1) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. and section 365- A, 34, P.P.C., the under trial Iftikhar
Ahmed son of Muhammad Khan, caste Hazara, to Ali Town, Hazara Town, Quetta, Dawood Shehzad son of Sajjad, caste Christian, resident of Killi Batezai, Tehsil Saranan, District Pishin and Muhammad Mehdi son of Muhammad Zaman, to Hazara
town, Quetta are twice sentenced to death as Tazir and directed to be hanged by the
neck till they are dead (section 368, Cr.P.C) besides the forfeiture of their properties for their abducting the minor Ali Sher Hazara, strangling him to death at the report of the matter to the police and burning the dead body under the flood water course bridge at the Quetta Chaman road in Saranan. Under sections, 201, 34, P.P.C., all the
three of them are sentenced to 7 years and the payment of fine of Rs.30,000/ - each or
5 months S.I in default of the payment of fine.
2) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sections 365 -A, 34, P.P.C., the under trial
Muhammad Muhammad Baqir son of Muhammad Bashir, caste Hazara, tio Madrassa
road, Hazara town, Quetta (grandson of the complainant) is twice sentenced to life in jail as Tazir for abducting his minor nephew namely Ali Sher son of Eid Muhammad Hazara and instigating the brutal murder of the latter after the report of the matter by the complainant to the police following the lawful call for the payment of huge ransom amount of Rs. 30,000,000/ -
3) Under section 302(c), P.P.C., the under trial Roohullah son of Hussain Dad, caste Hazara, tio Hazara Town, Quetta is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for giving the SIM No.0348- 2346291 to the under trial Iftikhar Ahmed, which was
used for a call for the payment of ransom amount in lieu of the release of the minor
Ali Sher Hazara. Needless to observe that the principle of fazad -fil- arz provided by
the sole proviso to section 302, P.P.C. is vague in respect of the convict Roohtullah
son of Hussain Dad.
215. The benefit of section 382- B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ie the
period of detention during the course of the ongoing formal trial is extended to the
convicts namely (1) Iftikhar Ahmed son of Muhammad Khan, (2) Dawood Shehzad
son of Sajjad, (3) Muhammad Mehdi son of Muhammad Zaman, (4) Muhammad
Muhammad Baqir son of Muhammad Bashir and (5) Roohullah son of Hussain Dad as a matter of right under the law. The copies of the judgment under consideration were given to the condemned convicts (1) Iftikhar Ahmed (2) Dawood Shehzad (3)
Muhammad Mehdi (4) Muhammad Muhammad Baqir and (5) Roohullah in the Court
free of cost in lieu of a receipt in black and white in connection thereof as legally
required by the mandatory provisions of section 25(2) of the Anti -Terrorism Act,
1997 read with section 371(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
216. In accord with the provisions of sub- secton (3) of section 371, Cr.P.C. the
convicts namely (1) Iftikhar Ahmed son of Muhammad Khan, (2) Dawood Shehzad son of Sajjad, (3) Muhammad Mehdi son of Muhammad Zaman, (4) Muhammad Muhammad Baqir son of Muhammad Bashir and (5) Roohullah son of Hussain Dad are directed to prefer appeal in the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan, Quetta within fifteen days of the passing of the judgment by this Court as provided by subsection (3) of section 25 of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997.
217. The warrant of commitment under sentence of death (section 374, Cr.P.C) and sentence of imprisonment for life and 7 years and the payment of fine (section 245, Cr.P.C) is directed to be issued against the convicts Iftikhar Ahmed son of Muhammad Khan, caste Hazara, resident of Ali Town, Hazara town, Quetta, Dawood Shehzad son of Sajjad, caste Christian, resident of Killi Batezai, Tehsil Saranan, District Pishin and Muhammad Mehdi son of Muhammad Zaman, to Hazara town, Quetta and the proceedings submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan, Quetta for confirmation or otherwise of the death penalty awarded to the convicts Iftikhar Ahmed, Dawood Shehzad and Muhammad Mehdi
218. Hence, the penalty of death awarded to the condemned convicts namely Iftikhar Ahmed son of Muhammad Khan, caste Hazara, resident of Ali Town, Hazara town,
Quetta, Dawood Shehzad son of Sajjad, caste Christian, t/o Killi Batezai, Tehsil
Saranan, District Pishin and Muhammad Mehdi son of Muhammad Zaman, resident of Hazara town, Quetta for brutally strangling the minor Ali Sher Hazara to death and putting the dead body on fire shall not be executed unless confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan, Quetta as necessarily and legally required by the provisions of section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 read with the provisions of section 32 (1) of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997.
219. As the foregoing sentences of death, life imprisonment and the rigorous
imprisonment for seven years awarded to the under trial Iftikhar Ahmed son of
Muhammad Khan, caste Hazara, t/o Ali Town, Hazara town, Quetta, Dawood Shehzad son of Sajjad, caste Christian, t/o Killi Batezai, Tehsil Saranan, District Pishin and Muhammad Mehdi son of Muhammad Zaman, to Hazara town, Quetta in the criminal case FIR No.37/2021 under consideration arise out of the same
transaction for the abduction of the late Ali Sher son of Eid Muhammad Hazara for
ransom in the first place and the lawful murder at the report of the matter to the police
afterwards, the separate sentences of imprisonment awarded in the criminal case under consideration would run concurrently subject to the variation of the same, if any, by the Hon'ble first and the Hon'ble second Appellate Courts."
2. As the captioned appeals stems from an FIR bearing FIR No.37/2021 (Ex.P/14- A)
registered with Police Station, Brewery, Quetta, therefore, the instant appeals are being decided through this consolidated judgment.
3. Unfurled facts of the case in hand are that Eid Muhammad, complainant (PW -1) got
lodged the FIR ibid on 16.02.2021 at 9:30 pm with PS Brewery, Quetta, averring therein that he runs a Confectionery Shop at Ali Town, Quetta, where his son Ali Sher age 10- 11 is
usually present in the said shop with him and that on 15.02.2021 at about 6:00 pm, he went home to offer prayer and left his son at the shop, but when he returned back, he found his son missing, who was searched at his own, however, today at 3:45 pm he received a call on his cell phone bearing Subscriber Identity Module ("SIM") No. 0347- 0380209 from an unknown
person using Cell No. 0348- 2346291, who demanded ransom of Rs.30,000,000/ - (Thirty
million) in lieu of release of his son Ali Sher.
4. Investigation of the instant case was entrusted to Shabbar Abbas SIO -IP (PW -14),
who at the very outset recorded statement of son of complainant Muhammad Jawad alias Muhammad Raza (PW- 3), made site plan (Ex.P/14- B) and on the basis of Call Data Record
("CDR") of cell phone, having International Mobile Equipment Identity ("IMEI")
No.35668008735852 used by the culprit, registered in the name of one Syed Ramzan Ali
(PW -5), who was interrogated. He (PW -5) stated that he gave SIM bearing No.0348- 2346291
to hi s elder brother namely Habibullah, who had further given it to his friend appellant
Rohullah. Through CDR, it was known that in the said cellular phone having IMEI No.35668008735852 another SIM bearing No.0313- 8021677 was also used, which was
found to be registered in the name of Ameer Hamza (PW- 4), who was also interrogated. He
(PW -4) revealed that he had given his said SIM to appellant Iftikhar Hazara. According to
Investigating Officer, ("IO") (PW -14) said Iftikhar was arrested on 17.02.2021 and during his
arrest from his personal search, a cellular phone Apple i6, having IMEI No.35668008735852 with SIM No. 0313- 8021677 was recovered. On 17.02.2021, during integration appellant
Iftikhar made disclosure, admitting the crime of abduction for ransom and murder of deceased Ali Sher after hatching a conspiracy with appellants Muhammad Baqir, Rohaullah, Muhammad Mehdi and Dawood Shehzad, following in arrest of appellant Muhammad Baqir, who had provided a car allegedly used in the crime. Disclosure of accused- appellant Ifthikhar
also led the police to arrest accused Mehdi from his house situated at Hazara Town, Quetta as well as arrest of appellant Dawood Shehzad from Saranan Bazaar. Appellant Dawood Shehzad, after interrogation made a disclosure and led the police contingent to the guest room of his house situated at Kili Batezai Tehsil Saranan, District Pishin and got recovered joggers worn by deceased Ali Sher, which were identified by Mummad Jawad (PW -3).
Beside above, appellant Dawood Shehzad also got recovere d used binding tape and two Caps
of appellants Mehdi and Ifthikhar as well as two empty rappers of 'Valium' tablets (L -
Diazepem) statedly given to the deceased by them. According to IO (PW- 14), he observed
some burn marks on the sleeves of the clothes worn by the appellant Dawood Shehzad, which were secured through recovery memo. and also led them to prepare site plan (Ex.P -14-
C). The Police contingent was further led by appellant Dawood Shehzad to a bridge near
New Mohajir Camp at Quetta Chaman Road and thereunder got recovered a burnt plastic
bottle, ashes of burn clothes, two smoked cigarettes, a piece of used Chewing Gum from the crime scene, where the deceased was done to death and ablazed, whereof site plan (Ex.P -14-
D) was prepared. In the meanwhile, IO (PW -14) came to know from Levies Saranan that a
burnt body of the child was recovered by Abdul Nafay Naib Risaldar Levies (PW -6). The
autopsy of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Aisha Faiz Police Surgeon (PW -7), who
issued autopsy report dated 07.07.202 1 (Ex.P/7 -A) affirming death of the deceased due to
strangulation. On 04.03.2021, appellant Roohullah was arrested. On 10.03.2021, IO (PW -14)
got recorded statements of Ameer Hamza (PW- 4) and Syed Ramzan Ali (PW -5) under
section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") by Azhar -ud-Din Baloch,
Judicial Magistrate Jiwani, Gawadar ("JM") (PW -11) as witnesses. On 20.03.2021, the
specimens of blood, lever kidney and stomach with contents coupled with articles recovered
from the crime scenes and blood specimens of the appellants were obtained and sent to
Punjab Forensic Science Agency ("PFSA") for Deoxyribonucleic Acid Analysis ("DNA"),
whereof reports dated 31.05.2022 (Ex.P/14- H) and (Ex.P/14 -J) were received respectively.
5. After conclusion of the investigation, the appellants were sent up to the Trial Court to
face the deeds of their crimes, where on commencement of the trial, the appellants entered
the plea of denial, thus, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge produced as many as fourteen (14) witnesses, and after close of the prosecution side, the appellants refuted the allegations so brought as envisaged under section 342 of Cr.P.C, whereafter appellant Ifitkhar Ahmed took oath in accord with the provision of section 340 (2) of Cr.P.C, whereof categorically denied the allegations and professed innocence, however, did not produced any evidence in his defence, hence on conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the terms mentioned in para supra.
6. Mr. Mukesh Nath Kohli, Advocate counsel for appellant Dawood Shehzad contended
that there is no eye- witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution is merely based
on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of the events leading to the guilt of appellant Dawood Shehzad. He emphasized that appellant Dawood Shehzad neither made any disclosure nor any incriminating articles were recovered on his pointation and that there are material contradictions with regard to the address of house of appellant Dawood Shehzad, wherefrom the aforesaid articles were recovered. It was also
argued that the place, where the dead body was ablazed was already known, thus, such recovery on the pointation of the appellant in consequence of the disclosure is unworthy of credence. He added further that evidence collected has been foisted after the arrest of the appellant, thus it would be unsafe to rely upon such piece of evidence, which otherwise has no corroboration, more particularly, when there is delay in sending the specimens to PFSA for DNA analysis, which diminishes its evidentiary value, henceforth prayed for acquittal of the appellant in consequence of acceptance of the appeal and setting at naught the impugned judgment and answering the murder reference in negative.
7. Mr. T.H Khan, Advocate representing appellants Muhammad Mehdi and Roohullah
and Mr. Muhammad Khalik Kakar, Advocate learned counsel for appellant Iftikhar adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Mukesh Nath Kohli, Advocate counsel for appellant Dawood Shehzad, however, added that arrest of appellant Iftikhar, Muhammad Mehdi and Roohullah on the basis of CDR has no evidentiary value as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery of the mobile sets, CDR; and that the statements of Ameer Hamza (PW -4) and Syed Ramzan Ali (PW -5) recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. are
inadmissible, which are result of padding and manipulation. Mr. Khalid Khan Kakar, Advocate urged that appellant Iftikhar had neither made any disclosure nor inconsequence thereof got recovered any incriminating article, thus on the basis of inadmissible disclosure his conviction is unsustainable. Reliance was placed upon the judgments reported as 2016 SCMR 274, 2016 SCMR 1144, 2017 SCMR 2026 and 2023 PCr.LJ 589.
8. Mr. Faiz Ahmed, learned counsel for appellant Muhammad Baqir urged that there is
even not an iota of evidence against appellant Muhammad Baqir, but the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant contrary to the evidence available on record on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which is not sustainable and the same merits to be set at naught, while accepting his appeal.
9. Mr. Younas Mengal, learned APG assisted by Mr. Abbas Ali Qazalbash, representing
the complainant vigorously opposed the appeals and argued that although there is no eye_witness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, but prosecution has successfully proved the case on the basis of overwhelming evidence. It was also argued that arrest of the appellant Iftikhar on the basis of CDR and arrest of the other appellants on his disclosure led the prosecution to the c rime scenes so
pointed out by appellant Dawood Shehzad, wherefrom incriminating articles were recovered, which establishes the indictment through unbroken chain of events, creating no doubt in mind that the appellants abducted Ali Sher for ransom and committed his murder and, as
such, prayed for dismissal of the appeals with the prayer to upheld the judgment impugned
herein. Reliance was placed upon the judgment reported as 2009 SCMR 135.
10. Heard. Record sussed out with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversial
parties. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and entire edifice of prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence. We are conscious that where the case depends upon circumstantial evidence, extraordinary care and caution is required, therefore, while re -appraisal of the evidence on record, we have taken utmost possible precaution so to
avoid and rule out any wrong conclusion because there is always apprehension of fabrication of circumstantial evidence. The apex Court has time and again held that the circumstantial evidence is always not of a standard and quality, rather it is dangerous to explicitly place reliance upon such evidence and that the circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other, the neck of accused and if such link is found missing, the whole chain breaks down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence. In this regard we are fortified with the view expounded in the case of "Imran Alias Dullay v. The State" (2015 SCMR 155), "Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan" (2016 SCMR 274) and "Hashim Qasim v. The State" (2017 SCMR 986). For ease of reference, para- 5 of Imran alias
Dullay's case is facsimile herein below;
"5. By now, it is a consistent view that when any case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence then, each piece of evidence collected must provide all links making out one straight chain where on one end its noose fit in the neck of the accused and the other end touches the dead body. Any link missing from the chain would disconnect and break the whole chain to connect the one with the other and in that event conviction cannot be safely recorded and that too on a capital charge. As
was held in the case of Fazal Elahi (ibid) and in view of the changed social norms and standard of ethics of the society, to which the witnesses belong and also the questionable credibility of the investigating agency and its incompetency to professionally investigate such blind crimes by now, the Courts have to exercise more and more cautions before accepting and resting its opinion of being guilty on a circumstantial evidence collected apparently in a dishonest, dubious and rough manner."
[Emphasis added]
11. In the instant case, the case of the prosecution is based upon following pieces of
evidence;
i. CDR.
ii. Statements of Ameer Hamza (PW -4) Syed Ramzan (PW- 5), who had given their
SIM(s) to appellant Ifthikhar and Roohullah and got recorded their statements under section 164 of Cr.P.C. as witnesses.
iii. Arrest of appellant Iftikhar and recovery of cell phone from him, having IMEI No.35668008735852 with SIM No. 0313- 8021677, which was used in the crime for
demand of ransom and recovery of a Mehran Car bearing No.AYA -386 used in the
crime.
iv. Arrest of appellant Dawood Shehzad on 17.02.2021 pursuant to the disclosure of appellant Iftikhar.
v. Disclosure and pointation of appellant Dawood Shehzad of his house, where the deceased abductee was confined for ransom and administered intoxicating drug 'Valium' tablets (L -Diazepem).
vi. Recovery of two empty rappers of 'Valium' tablets (L Diazepem), binding tape, two caps of appellants Mehdi and Ithikhar as well as jogger of deceased Ali Sher indentified by Muhammad Jawad (PW- 3).
vii. Pointation of the bridge under which the deceased was done to death by strangulation with a wire of a mobile charger, wherefrom a burned plastic bottle, ashes of burnt clothes, two smoked cigarettes, a piece of chewed gum were recovered.
viii. Recovery of a cable of a mobile charger Art.P/12 tied around the neck of the
deceased, whereby the deceased was strangulated, which was handed over by Dr.
Aisha Faiz (PW- 7) and photographs of the deceased Art.P/4 to 8 and memo. of
injuries Art.P/9 and Art.P/10 secured through recovery memo. (Ex.P/9 -A) and
(Ex.P/9 -B)
ix. Autopsy report of deceased Ali Sher.
x. Forensic -DNA reports.
12. Complainant Eid Muhammad (PW -1) testified that after abduction of his son Ali Sher
he had received ransom call for Rs.30,000,000/ - (three crores) on his Cell phone No. 0347-
0380209 from Cell No.0348- 2346291 made by an unknown culprit. CDR and verisys
produced as Art.P/17 and Art.P/18 were secured by Shakeel Ahmed (PW -10) through
recovery memo. (Ex.P/10- A), which transpires that ransom call was made from Cell No.
0348- 2346291 on the cell phone of complainant (PW -1) bearing Cell No.0347- 0380209,
which was found to be registered in the name of Syed Ramzan Ali (PW -5), whereas some
calls for ransom were made in lieu of release of his son from Cell No.0313- 8021677
registered in the name of Ameer Hamza (PW- 4), whereof CDR and Verisys Art.P/21 to
Art.P/25 of Cell No.0313- 8021677 were secured through recovery memo. (Ex.P/12- A) by
Naseebullah ASI (PW- 12). Syed Ramzan Ali (PW -5) was interrogated, who stated to have
had given the said cell phone number to his elder brother Habibullah, who had further given it to his friend appellant Roohullah, which was used in cell phone No. No.0313- 8021677,
having IMEI No.35668008735852 so evident from CDR ibid. Ameer Hamza (PW -4) was
also interrogated, who revealed that he had given his said SIM to appellant Iftikhar Hazara.
The Statements of both the witnesses Ameer Hamza (PW- 4) and Syed Ramzan Ali (PW -5)
were recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. by Azhar -ud-Din Baloch, JM (PW -11), who
testified and affirmed recording of their statements, substantially, proving the factum
mentioned herein before in view of Article 164 of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ("Order of
1984"), which categorically stipulates that the court may, if deems appropriate, allow to
produce any evidence or witnesses recorded through modern devices or techniques
mentioned therein, which leads and connects appellants Iftikhar and Roohullah for demanding ransom in lieu of release of deceased Ali Sher, henceforth, the objection of the defence with regard to the admissibility of the CDR stands ruled out.
13. On 17.02.2021, appellant Iftikhar was arrested and from his personal search, Apple
mobile phone i6, having IMEI No. 35668008735852, wherein SIM No.0313- 8021677 was
installed, which was secured through recovery memo. (Ex.P/10- B) in the presence of Shakeel
Ahmed (PW -10) and Muhammad Iqbal SI, which was used for the demand of ransom,
whereof CDR was taken into possession. On 17.02.2021, appellant Iftikhar made disclosure, whereof disclosure memo. (Ex.P/13- A) was prepared in the presence of Ehsanullah Marwat
SI-SHO (PW -13), wherein he admitted to have had hatched the conspiracy of abduction of
deceased Ali Sher for ransom with appellants Muhammad Baqir, Mehdi and Roohullah as well as appellant Dawood Shehzad, who agreed to provide a place for keeping the abductee, and that on 15.02.2021 he along with appellants Muhammad Baqir and Mehdi went to the shop of complainant (PW -1), where appellant Muhammad Baqir called Ali Sher and made
him sit in the car, whereafter brought him to the house of appellant Dawood Shehzad and inserted his SIM in his mobile phone, whereafter he further disclosed that appellant Dawood Shehzad called the complainant, but due to language barrier appellant Mehdi talked to the complainant and demanded Rs.30,000,000/ - (three crores) in lieu of release of his son and
that when the complainant got registered the report ibid, they were appraised by appellant Muhammad Baqir, who told them to murder the abductee, thus they administered sleeping pills to the abductee, who slept in deep, whereafter the abductee was brought in a car at Quetta Chaman Road, where appellant Mehdi gave a cable of a mobile charger to appellant Dawood Shehzad, who strangulated the abductee with the said cable in the car and when it was confirmed that Ali Sher had died, they laid the dead body under the bridge on Quetta Chaman Road, where he poured petrol on the dead body and appellant Dawood Shehzad set fire, whereafter appellant Dawood Shehzad was dropped at Ajwa Hotel, whereas rest of the appellants came home, but subsequently he was arrested. In consequence of said disclosure, he got recovered a Mehran Alto Car bearing No.AYA -386 used in the crime through
recovery memo. (Ex.P/8- A) prepared in the presence of Khurram Saleem SI (PW- 8) and
Naseebullah ASI (PW- 12).
Furthermore, in consequence of disclosure made by the appellant Iftikhar, appellant
Dawood Shehzad was arrested on the same date i.e, 17.02.2021. During investigation,
appellant Dawood Shehzad made disclosure of the crime, whereof memo. of disclosure (Ex.P/13- B) was prepared in the presence of Ehsanullah Marwat SI_SHO (PW -13) and
marginal witness Muhammad Iqbal SI, wherein he reiterated the facts of guilt almost in
similar words as narrated by appellant Iftikhar particularly, confinement of the deceased
abductee Ali Sher in the guest room of his house, making calls for ransom, strangulating the
deceased with the cable of the mobile charger and ablazing the dead body of the deceased under the bridge on Quetta Chaman Road. He also volunteered to make pointation of the place of occurrence, where the deceased was confined, thus, he led the police contingent to the guest room of his house situated at Kili Batezai Saranan, wherefrom in the presence of Ehsansullah SI -SHO (PW -13) and Muhammad Iqbal SI got recovered a black and white
joggers shoe of a child having trade mark of 'Fasta Sports', which was identified by brother of the deceased Muhammad Jawad alias Muhammad Raza (PW- 3) to be of deceased Ali
Sher. Appellant Dawood Shehzad also got recovered a used binding tape and told that on
resistance and clamour of deceased Ali Sher, the mouth and the hands of the deceased
abductee were tightened. He also got recovered two caps belong to appellants Mehdi and
Iftikhar and two empty rapper of 'Valium' tablets, which were statedly administered to the deceased abductee. IO (PW- 14) found sleeves of the wearing clothes of appellant Dawood
Shehzad to have been burnt at the time of disclosure, which were also taken into possession.
All the said articles were put in parcel Nos.2 and 3 through recovery memo. (Ex.P/13- C).
Appellant Dawood Shehzad, further led the police officials to a place under the bridge
situated on Quetta Chaman Road, where the abductee was strangulated to death and ablazed
thereafter. On arrival under the said bridge, IO (PW -14) on the pointation of appellant
Dawood Shehzad got recovered a burnt bottle, which was statedly filled with petrol, ashes of
burnt clothes of the deceased, two smoked cigarettes and a chewed gum, which were taken into possession through parcel Nos.6 to 9 respectively, vide recovery memo (Ex.P/13- D) in
the presence of Ehsanullah Marwat (PW- 13) and Muhammad Iqbal SI. IO (PW -14) also
prepared site plans (Ex.P/13 -E) and (Ex.P/13- F) made on the pointation of appellant Dawood
Shehzad. Ehsanullah SI -SHO (PW -13) was crossed examined at length, but he remained firm
and consistent to his examination in chief, thus the defence remained unsuccessful to shatter his testimony.
14. We are conscious that under Articles 38 and 39 of Order of 1984, the confession, even
in terms of disclosure before the police is inadmissible, except discovery of new facts, which comes on surfaced in consequence of a disclosure, therefore, we have critically looked into the disclosures of appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad and recoveries made in consequence thereof very carefully and cautiously in view of the Article 40 of Order of 1984. Article 40 of the Order of 1984, clearly manifests that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from person accused of any offence in the custody of the police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. In the case of "Mst. Askar Jan v. Muhammad Daud" (2010 SCMR 1604), the apex Court, while elaborating the admissibility and evidential value of the Article 40 of Order of 1984 rendered a well celebrated judgment the relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below;
"10. Thus, firstly there should be an information or statement of the accused whether it may be confession or otherwise and that too when he was in police custody and secondly on the basis of such information or statement a fact is discovered. If there is no statement of the accused or information given to the Police, which is an essential requirement of the Article, then the subsequent discovery would become inconsequential. Further such information either oral or recorded by the police is required to be proved by the prosecution through evidence."
15. In the instant case, appellant Iftikhar made disclosure, wherein he named appellants
Dawood Shehzad, Muhammad Baqir, Mehdi and Roohullah to have had hatched the conspiracy to abduct deceased Ali Sher for ransom, who were earlier not known to any prosecution witness. Moreover, in consequence to the disclosure made by appellant Iftikhar a Mehran Alto Car bearing No.AYA -386 used in the crime was also recovered and appellant
Dawood Shehzad was arrested, thus, these were the facts so disclosed by appellant I ftikhar in
terms of Article 40 of Order of 1984 and discovered, which were previously not known. As far as disclosure of appellant Dawood Shehzad is concerned, albeit certain facts disclosed by
him were already known, which squares out of the purview of fresh discovery of facts as
such facts were already narrated by appellant Iftikhar. However, certain facts disclosed by appellant Dawood Shehzad were freshly discovered. Appellant Dawood Shehzad led the police party to the guest room of his house, where the abductee was confined and got recovered joggers worn by deceased Ali Sher, used binding tape, two Caps of appellants
Mehdi and Ifthikhar as well as two empty rappers of 'Valium' tablets (L -Diazepem).
Furthermore, he also led the police contingent and IO (PW -14) to a bridge situated at Quetta
Chaman Road, where the deceased was strangulated and done to death as well as ablazed,
which place and articles were not seen by the IO or any other police official before, except by Abdul Nafay Naib Risaldar Levies, who neither was part of the investigating team and police station where the case was registered nor he made pointation of the place from where the corpse of deceased Ali Sher was recovered. Appellant Dawood Shehzad also led the police party to the place of occurrence and got recovered burnt plastic bottle, ashes of burnt clothes, two smoked cigarettes and a piece of used Chewed Gum, whereof non knew nothing, thus the disclosure and recovery made in consequence thereof, falls within the purview of
Article 40 of Order of 1984.
16. On 17.02.2021, Abdul Nafay, Naib Tehsildar Saranan (PW -6) got examined the dead
body of the deceased and handed over photographs Art.P/4 to 8 to IO (PW -14). There are
few more pictures of the deceased available on record, which clearly show marks of cable apparent around the neck of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was examined by
Dr. Aisha Faiz Police Surgeon (PW -7) in the mortuary, who handed over a burnt cable of a
mobile charger tied around the neck of deceased Ali Sher and his clothes to IO (PW -14),
which were taken into possession through recovery memo. (Ex.P -9-A) and (Ex.P -10)
respectively in the presence of Saud- ur-Rehman SI (PW -9).
17. Autopsy of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Aisha Faiz (PW -7), who issued
autopsy report (Ex.P/7- A), wherein she opined and affirmed that cause of the death of the
deceased was asphaxia caused by strangulation and that the body of the deceased was burnt
after the death. Although, it is now a trait law that neither medical evidence is a corroborative piece of evidence nor it can identify the culprit, however it can confirm the cause of death. In the instant case, cause of death of deceased Ali Sher so brought on record by means of disclosure made by appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad have been found to be in consonance, which confirms the cause of death by strangulation. In this regard, reliance can be made to the judgment reported as "Hashim Qasim v. The State" (2017 SCMR 986)
18. Dr. Aisha Faiz Police Surgeon (PW -7) also collected samples of Blood, Liver,
Stomach, Kidney, Femur Bone, Teeth and Anal Swab and handed over the same to IO (PW -
14) on 20.02.2021, who secured the same and prepared parcel No.13, which were sent to PFSA for forensic analysis, whereof report dated 05.10.2021 was received, which reads as under;
"Tests performed on Received Item(s) of Evidence:
(a) Screening test for drugs of abuse (benzodiazepines) was performed on blood in item # 01 using ELISA technique.
b) Qualitative identification test for basic drugs (lidocaine, doxylamine, amitriptyline, nortriptyline, promethazine, codeine, verapamil, imipramine, methamphetamine, quetiapine, doxylamine, chloroquine, fentanyl,clomipramine, tramadol, mirtazapine, clozapine, fluoxetine, ketamine, venlafaxine, sertraline, diazepam,zolpidem, midazolam and alprazolam) was performed on blood in item # 01 using gas chromatography- mass spectrometry technique.
c) Confirmation test for benzodiazepines (diazepam, nordiazepam, midazolam, bromazepam, chlordiazepoxide, oxazepam, flurazepam, temazepam, lorazepam, alprazolam, alpha hydroxy midazolam, alpha hydroxy triazolam and alpha hydroxy alprazolam) was performed on blood in item # 01 using gas chromatography- mass
spectrometry technique.
Results and Conclusion:
Blood in item # 01 contains 0.46 mg/L diazepam.
As per policy, most appropriate samples as mentioned in results and conclusion were
sampled and analyzed as representative of submitted specimen(s)."
Moreso, IO (PW -14) also sent samples of anal swab, burnt cigarette butt, buccal
swabs of appellants, chewed gum and blood samples, whereby PFSA report dated 06.04.2022 was also received, which runs as under;
"Item No. Description of evidence as provided by the submitting agency
1. One anal swab froin Ali Sher.
2. One anal swab from Ali Sher.
3. One burnt cigarette butt marked as "CAPSTAN ORIGINAL".
4. One burnt cigarette butt marked as "CAPSTAN".
5. Chewing gum.
6. One buccal swab of Eid Muhammad.
7. One buccal swab of Mehdi.
8. One buccal swab of Iftikhar.
9.One buccal swab of Dawood Shahzad.
10.Blood sample of Ali Sher.
11.Blood sample of Eid Muhammad.
12.Blood sample of Mehdi.
13.Blood sample of Iftikhar.
14. Blood sample of Dawood Shahzad.
Results and Conclusion
No seminal material was found on item Nos. 1 and 2; therefore no further DNA analysis (Short Tandem Repeat profiling) was conducted on these items. The absence of seminal material on the tested evidence item(s) does not preclude the possibility of the use of condom, non -ejaculation, considerable delay in medico -legal examination,
improper preservation and packaging of evidence item.
Based on DNA analysis, Ali Sher (item No. 10) cannot be excluded as being the biological child of Eid Muhammad (item No. 6), because they share alleles at all genetic markers tested. The probability of paternity, assuming a 50% prior chance, is 99.99994 % and Combined Paternity Index (CPI) is 1,790,442.
The DNA profile obtained from item No. 5 matches the DNA profile of Dawood Shahzad (item No. 09. The probability of finding an unrelated individual at random from the population as being the source of DNA obtained from item No. 5 is approximately one in 1.3 quintillion in Caucasians.
The partial DNA profile obtained from item No. 4 is consistent with the DNA profile of Mehdi (item No. 12). The probability of finding an unrelated individual at random from the population as being the source of DNA obtained from item No. 4 is approximately one in 2.6 quadrillion in Caucasians. Four genetic loci were not used for frequency calculations owing to allelic dropout.
The partial DNA profile obtained from item No. 3 is a mixture of at least two individuals. Dawood Shahzad (item No. 9) cannot be excluded as being contributor to this DNA mixture profile. Nothing can be said with certainty about the other contributor to this DNA mixture profile.
The possible contribution to the DNA obtained from item No. 3 by Dawood Shahzad
(item No. 9) is approximately 45 trillion times more likely as compared to an unrelated Caucasian individual.
No STR (Short Tandem Repeat) profiling results were obtained from item No. 7.
The DNA profile obtained from item No. 8 is partial and inconclusive.
No analysis was conducted on item Nos. 11 and 14 as reference DNA profiles were developed from alternate item Nos. 6 and 9.
NIST Caucasians frequencies database was used for frequency calculations."
19. In the case of "Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain" (PLD 2021 SC 362), learned
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, while dilating upon the usage of modern forensic techniques and science under the Criminal Justice System emphasized that the courts needed to understand and to be open to science and its principles, tool and techniques not only to consider the same as corrobotaive piece of evidence, but also to rule out false implication of an accused person, more particularly in a case, where the occurrence is unseen. It was
also observed that the DNA was considered as a standard to establish the identity of an accused and the DNA test due to its accuracy and conclusiveness was one of the strongest
corroborative piece of evidence and that the DNA report like any other opinion of the expert
under Article 59 of Order of 1984 is relevant and thus admissible, whereas Article 164 of the
order ibid, further underlines the admissibility, reliability and weightage of modern scientific
forensic evidence, including the DNA test, as the said article provides that convictions may
be based on modern techniques and devices.
20. The forensic report dated 05.10.2021 shows that 0.46 Mg of L -Diazepam was found
in the blood of the deceased, which confirms the fact so discovered in consequence of the disclosure made by appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad, wherein it was revealed that the abductee was administered tablets of 'Valium' (L Diazepam). So far the DNA report dated 06.04.2022 is concerned, though there is delay of sending the sample by the SP concerned, but record reflects that IO (PW- 14) almost promptly on 20.03.2021 had sent the same for
onward transmission to PFSA, thus without pleading malice on the part of the defence, we believe that mere delay is not fatal in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case. DNA report affirms that deceased Ali Sher was the biological child of complainant (PW- 1) Eid
Muhammad and that cigarette being Item No.3 is a mixture of at least two individuals, whereof the DNA of appellant Dawood Shehzad cannot be excluded as contributor to the DNA, whereas Chewed Gum being item No.5 matched with the DNA profile of appellant Dawood Shehzad so recovered from the crime scene, where the deceased was done to death and burnt thereafter, whereas item No.4 matched with the DNA profile of appellant Mehdi. The DNA reports dated 05.10.2021 and 06.04.2022 have been found to be in line with the disclosures and other circumstantial evidence, leaving no room to doubt the guilt of the convicts -appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad. As far as the evidence against appellants
Roohullah, Muhammad Mehdi and Muhammad Baqir is concerned, although their names do figure in the disclosures made by appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad, but the same can at the best be used against them alone and not against the co- convict without any
trustworthy, confidence inspiring and strong corroborative piece of evidence. Thus, appellants Roohullah, Mehdi, Muhammad Baqir cannot be held guilty of the indictment in absence thereof, thus the findings of guilt to their extent is unsustainable.
21. Indisputably, there is no other view that the court, while awarding sentence may
inflict death penalty as a normal sentence so enunciated in the case of "Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan" (2009 SCMR 502) if the victim had been done to death in a cold blooded and brutal murder or other inhumanly ways, however, Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, ("Constitution") guarantees value to the life and liberty of the human being, thus the court may exercise discretion in the lesser punishment, which also would be strictly legal, having the statutory backing of section 302 (b) of P.P.C., having the rationale as well as philosophy behind the mandate of Article 9 of the Constitution.
22. Upshot of the above discussion is that, though there is no eye -witness of the gruesome
murder of child aged about 10- 11 years, but in view of the evidence discussed hereinabove,
we believe that that there is sufficient incriminating circumstantial evidence, which has been proved by the prosecution with hilt, having no missing link, leading the murder of deceased
Ali Sher to the neck of appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad without any shadow of
doubt, whereas the prosecution has remained unsuccessful to establish the indictment against appellants Muhammad Mehdi, Roohullah and Muhammad Baqir, except disclosures of appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad, which cannot be used against them. Moreso, DNA report (Ex.P/14 -J) alone is insufficient to hold appellant Muhammad Mehdi guilty of the
indictment in absence of any other substantive corroborative evidence and similarly recovery
of vehicle bearing No.AYA -386 allegedly used in the crime in consequence of disclosure of
appellant Iftikhar allegedly provided by appellant Muhammad Baqir neither hold him guilty
of the charge nor the same has been proved against him substantially. Furthermore, except disclosures of appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad nothing incriminating has been recovered from appellant Roohullah in order to substantiate the same, as such, merely on the basis of disclosures of co- accused Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad appellants Muhammad
Mehdi, Roohullah and Muhammad Baqir cannot be convicted and sentenced, thus for the safe administration of justice and to avoid any error of facts and law, we are unable to maintain impugned the judgment to their extent.
23. We believe that the penalty of death awarded to appellants Iftikhar and Dawood
Shehzad seems out of proportion because the standard of evidence required for awarding
capital punishment is not available. Although, we are aware of the fact that committing
murder of a child aged about 10/11 years in a gruesome and inhuman manner is gut
wrenching incident, but it is also an admitted fact that neither there is an eye -witness of the
occurrence, last seen evidence, judicial confession nor even extra juridical confession,
leading us to maintain capital punishment awarded to appellants Iftikhar and Dawood Shehzad.
Thus, in view of the above mitigating circumstance, we find it eminently a fit case to
convert death penalty into life imprisonment, which would serve the cause of justice.
24. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.334 of 2022 filed by appellants
Muhammad Mehdi, Roohullah and Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2022 filed by appellant Muhammad Baqir are allowed and consequence thereto, impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 to their extent is set aside and resultantly they are acquitted of the charge.
Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2022 filed by appellant Dawood Shehzad and
Criminal Appeal No.336 of 2022 filed by appellant Iftikhar are partly allowed by maintaining the conviction, however, the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 is modified and the capital sentence of death is converted into life imprisonment, whereas the remaining sentences are intact with the premium of section 382 -B of Cr.P.C.
As a sequel to the above, the Murder Reference No.09 of 2022 is answered in
negative.
JK/30/Bal. Sentence reduced.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.