2023 P Cr. L J 1741
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan, C.J. and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J
NIAZ MUHAMMAD and others ---Appellants
Versus
The STATE and others ---Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 130, Murder Reference No. 4 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 123
of 2020, decided on 10th October, 2022.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 365 & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
S. 7(e) ---Qatl -i-amd, act of terrorism ---Appreciation of evidence ---Recovery of incriminating
material on disclosure of accused ---Reliance ---Accused were charged for abducting the
brother of the complainant for ransom and thereafter killing him ---Perusal of record revealed
that prior to the disclosure of the accused, it was not known to anybody that the abductee had been murdered and his body had been buried in the sewage pit of the farmhouse, which was recovered in 39 pieces in presence of Judicial Magistrate and Lady Police Surgeon ---DNA
samples taken from 39 pieces of the dead body and buccal swab of parents of deceased matched in the DNA report of Forensic Science Agency ---DNA report had proved that the
recovered pieces of human meat were of the late abductee and Forensic Science Laboratory Report of bloodstained tuka and knife, cap, and pair of Sandals (identified by a relative) recovered from the buried place of the abductee lent further corroboration---Farmhouse was in possession of co- accused being tenant and such fact had been proved through the
statement of owner of farm supported by the revenue record produced by the patwari ---
Disclosure of the accused was further corroborated by medical evidence i.e. postmortem report, which revealed that the death of the late abductee was caused by firearm injury in the skull ---Receiving of the ransom amount and paying debts from the same to the creditors by
the complainant stood corroborated by the statements of three creditors and by recovery of Rs.7,00,000/ - from the accused ---Prosecution had succeeded in proving its case through such
circumstantial evidence, therefore, appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Fazal Akbar v. State 2013 PCr.LJ 369; Zakir Khan v. State 1995 SCMR 1793;
Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146; Muhammad Azad v. State 2019 SCMR 1330; Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan 2001 SCMR 988 and Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146 ref.
Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e) ---Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2- A)---Qatl -i-amd, act of terrorism ---Appreciation of
evidence--- Appeal against acquittal ---Disclosure of co- accused ---Accused were charged for
abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom and thereafter killing him ---Perusal of
the record revealed that acquitted co -accused also made a disclosure wherein he disclosed
that when he reached his farmhouse, he found the accused along with the dead body of the
late abductee, and the accused told him that he had committed a mistake by causing death of deceased ---Instead of informing the police, acquitted co -accused facilitated the accused after
bringing the chopper from the city and thereafter chopped the dead body into several pieces with the accused and they both dumped the dead body along with cap and shoes, etc., in the sewage pit of the rented farmhouse---While dumping the pieces of the dead body in the sewage pit, his mobile phone dropped from the front pocket of shirt into the sewage pit ---
Thereafter acquitted co -accused received Rs.25,00,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only)
from the ransom amount and purchased birds and animals, which were recovered from the farmhouse ---Police auctioned the birds and animals ---Despite knowing all the facts of the
occurrence, acquitted co -accused concealed the crime--- Prosecution had proved the role of
acquitted co -accused and his sharing of common intention with the accused through
circumstantial evidence linking one circumstance with the other without any lapse ---In such
circumstances, the appeal against acquittal of co -accused was allowed and he was convicted
and sentenced under S. 201, P.P.C to suffer seven years imprisonment.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 365 & 34 ---Anti -Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
S. 7(e) ---Qatl -i-amd, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Ordinary kidnapping for
ransom case---Not an act of terrorism ---Accused were charged for abducting the brother of
the complainant for ransom and thereafter killing him ---In the present case, it had been
established through circumstantial and medical evidence that acquitted co -accused had
shared common intention by brutally disposing of the dead body by chopping it into pieces, receiving ransom amount, purchasing birds and animals from the r ansom amount and
remaining fugitive from the law ---Role of sharing common intention of acquitted co- accused
attracted S. 201, P.P.C ---Perusal of record showed that the complainant/ prosecution prima
face had no motive to falsely implicate the accused and acquitted co -accused ---Evidence
produced by the prosecution was confidence inspiring---In absence of any possibility of false implication, the prosecution evidence could not be disbelieved--- Circumstances of case
clearly depicted that there was no mitigatin g factors, benefit of which could be extended to
the acquitted co -accused by the Trial Court ---When the prosecution proved its case beyond
any doubt then it was the legal duty of the Court to impose harsh punishment to set an example---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom under S. 365 -A, P.P.C., was included as item
No. 4(g) in the Third Schedule of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 ('Act, 1997') which was
triable by Anti -Terrorism Court being a Scheduled Offence ---However, present case was an
ordinary case of kidnapping for ransom and as such ingredients of Ss. 6 & 7 of the Act 1997
were not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case---Thus, sentence under S. 7(e) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside and appeal was dismissed by maintaining the
sentence.
Ghulam Hussain v. State PLD 2020 SC 61 rel.
Kamran Murtaza, Tahir Ali Baloch and Jaffer Awan for Appellants (in Criminal
Appeal No. 130 of 2020).
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Mumtaz Mehfooz, Abdul Kabir Khan, Bakhtiar Khan Sherani and
Ms. Aster Mehak for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2020).
Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional Prosecutor General ("A.P.G.") for the State (in
Criminal Appeal No. 130, Murder Reference No. 4 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 123 of 2020).
Kamran Murtaza, Tahir Ali Baloch and Jaffer Awan for Respondents (in Murder
Reference No. 4 of 2020).
Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Mumtaz Mehfooz, Abdul Kabir Khan, Bakhtiar Khan Sherani and
Ms. Aster Mehak for Appellant (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 123 of 2020).
Kamran Murtaza, Tahir Ali Baloch and Jaffer Awan for Respondent No. 1 (in
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 123 of 2020).
Date of hearing: 24th August, 2022.
JUDGMENT
SARDAR AHMAD HALEEMI, J. ---This common judgment, disposes of Criminal
A.T.A. Appeal No.130/2020, Murder Reference No.04/2020, and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.123/2020.
The Criminal A.T.A. Appeal No.130/2020 has been filed on behalf of Niaz
Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad (the appellant) against the judgment dated 07.07.2020 (hereinafter the "impugned judgment") passed by the learned Special Judge Anti -Terrorism
Court -1, Quetta (hereinafter "the trial Court"), whereby the appellant was convicted and
sentenced in the following manners: -
"The appellant namely Niaz Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad is sentenced under section 7(e) of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 to life in prison.
The appellant is further sentenced under section 302(a), P.P.C. to death as Tazir. He is hanged by the neck till he is dead. Death shall not be executed until its confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan.
While Murder Reference No.04/2020 has been transmitted by the trial Court for
confirmation of the death sentence of the appellant or otherwise as envisaged under section
374, Cr.P.C.
Whereas, Abdul Wajid son of Adam Khan (complainant) filed Criminal Acquittal
Appeal No.123/2020 against Muhammad Ewaz son of Ali Muhammad (respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused), whereby the trial Court acquitted respondent No.1 vide
impugned judgment.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 26th May 2017, at 07:30 p.m, the
complainant namely Abdul Wahid son of Adam Khan Miankhail registered an FIR No.106/2017 at Police Station Airport Road, Quetta, under sections 365, 34, P.P.C. to the effect that his family was the resident of Sheikh Manda, Quetta, and they were cloth merchants in Quetta City; in the morning of 26th May 2017, his younger brother namely Abdul Razzak Miankhail (late abductee) went in his white coloured Vitz Car No.AUX -758
as usual for his cloth shop at cut -piece street, Quetta City; that at about 06:15 p.m, the white
coloured vitz car of his brother was found parked in front of the Wilderness School at the Airport Road, Quetta and his brother's Cell Phone Nos.0301- 3700050, 0301- 3780038 and
0310- 8167770 were also switched off; he is sure that his brother has been kidnapped for
ransom by unknown accused. Hence, this report.
3. After registration of FIR No.106/2018, the investigation of the case was entrusted to
PW-22 Syed Tanzeem Shah IP of concerned Police Station who carried out formal
investigation for tracing the kidnappers and collecting evidence.
4. Evidence on record reveals of payment of ransom by PW -5 to the kidnappers in two
installments of Rs.7.4 million on 17.06.2017 and Rs.1.5 million on 01.08.2018.
5. After eight months of abduction of the late abductee, the appellant was arrested in the
evening of 26th May, 2018; during investigation on 29.05.2018, he made disclosure (Ex.P/10- A) before the police and pointed out the site of the parked vehicle of the late
abductee (Ex.P/22- B) and the site of receiving the ransom amount (Ex.P/22- E) besides
getting recovered the weapon of offence i.e .30 bore pistol and the cash amount of Rs.7,00,000/ - (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) as part of the ransom money from his house
(Ex.P/22- F); further disclosed in his disclosure that he has murdered the late abductee and
buried him; on his disclosure the IO along with PW -17 Saddar Hussain (Judicial Magistrate)
and PW -20 lady Dr. Aisha Faiz (Lady Police Surgon) reached at the salfi graveyard
(Ex.P/22- G) and on pointation of the appellant, they digged out two points wherefrom a dead
body of an old man was recovered, which was not identified by PW -3 Abdul Qadeer (relative
of the late abductee) by stating that the late abductee was a young man.
Thereafter during the course of investigation, the appellant made his second
disclosure on 30th May 2018 at 1:10 a.m (Ex.P/10- C) for recovery of dead body of late
abductee; on his third pointation the dead body was recovered in presence of Judicial Magistrate and Lady Police Surgeon from the farmhouse located at Jatakabad Quetta (Ex.P/22- H), which was in possession of respondent No.1 as tenant; wherefrom 39 pieces of
human body meat, cap, pair of shoes (chappal), a coloured bed sheet and a chopper (tuka)
and Chori (knife) and cell phone etc were recovered (Ex.P/22- H); the Lady Police Surgeon
took DNA samples from the recovered pieces of meat and obtained Buccal Swap from Muhammad Adam and Shah Bibi (parents of late abductee); recorded the statements of witnesses; sent the DNA, Buccal Swabs to FSL Lahore and bloodstained Chopper tuka and
knife to FSL Quetta for chemical analysis; in pursuance of second disclosure of the
appellant, respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused was arrested on 25th February, 2018; in the
incomplete challan, section 365 -A of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) and section 7(b) of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA 1997) were incorporated; on receipt of all laboratory reports
and completion of the investigation, the challan of the case was submitted before the trial
Court and the trial commenced.
6. The trial Court framed the charge against the appellant and respondent No.1/acquitted
co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The prosecution examined as many as twenty- four (24) witnesses; after completion of
prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellant and respondent No.1/acquitted co-accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the allegations. However, they did not record their statements on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor produced witnesses in their defence.
8. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties the trial Court awarded
convicted and sentence to the appellant and acquitted respondent No.1 vide impugned judgment. Hence, these appeals and murder reference.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused made his
submission by stating that no direct incriminating evidence is available; the disclosures made by the appellant respectively on 29.05.2018 and 30.05.2018 are contradictory to the medical evidence; disclosure is not admissible under the law; the dead body was recovered from the farmhouse where the presence of Chowkidar was admitted by the prosecution witnesses, but his statement was not recorded; the recovery of .30 bore pistol has no effect as no crime empty has been recovered from the place of recovery of a dead body; the fingerprints obtained from the vehicle did not match as per NADRA report and the CCTV footage near Wilderness School did not connect the appellant with the commission of offence.
Learned counsel further contended that the CDR, voice and video recording did not
connect the appellant with the occurrence; the procedure has not been followed during the identification of Chappal and cap/topi of the late abductee; that it is astonishing that as per prosecution version, clothes of late abductee were destroyed whereas pair of chappal and cap were not disposed of, which has been foisted upon appellant; the evidence produced by the prosecution are contradictory and the ransom amount paid by the brother of late abductee
does not disclose his source of income; the recovery of 39 pieces of dead body and postmortem did not reflect that how many pieces were sent for DNA, wherein the report disclosed that teeth and other things of the late abductee did not match; the prosecution has failed to establish the links of events and the chain of circumstantial evidence were missing, which created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and the benefit of single doubt will
be extended in favour of the appellant.
Learned counsel relied upon the cases of Fazal Akbar v. State 2013 PCr.LJ Page 369,
Zakir Khan v. State 95 SCMR 1793, Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 PLD SC
146 and Muhammad Azad v. State 2019 SCMR 1330.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that in pursuance of his two
disclosures, the recovery of part of the ransom amount and dead body were effected; the new facts disclosed in his disclosures were not within the knowledge of the police; the disclosure is admissible under Article 40 of Qanun -e-Shahadat; the facts disclosed in the disclosure
memo are supported by the recovery of 39 chopped pieces of dead body matched with Buccal Swaps of parents of late abductee in the DNA report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency; recovery of bloodstained tuka and knife, pair of Chappal, cap, recovery of mobile phones from the buried place of a dead body; IMEI No.35974100114205 of Mobile Phone matched with the IMEI number present in the CDR produced by PW -12; the link of circumstantial
evidence is established by producing owner of farmhouse PW -9 verified by PW -21 who
produced the revenue record; recovery of ransom amount and its distribution to PW -11, PW -
14 and PW -15 and purchase of birds and animals from ransom amount by respondent No.1
and recovery of birds and animals were not denied; the postmortem conducted by PW -20 Dr.
Ayesha Faiz mentioned the firearm injury in the skull of dead body; the recovered bloodstained (Tuka) and knife (Choori) supported by the FSL report of human blood; the murder of abductee by brutally chopping in 39 pieces has been supported by the circumstantial as well as medical evidence and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on the cases of Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan 2001 SCMR 988, Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146 and judgment dated 16.08.2018 passed by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.75/18.
11. Learned counsel further contended that the role of respondent No.1/acquitted co-
accused was also established as he shared common intention with the appellant which is also supported by the link of circumstantial and medical evidence; that the acquittal order passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused vide impugned order is
illegal and unlawful. The role of respondent No.1/acquitted co -accused falls within the ambit
of section 201, P.P.C. read with section 7(b) of ATA 1997 and lastly prayed for the conversion of acquittal into conviction.
12. Learned APG supported the conviction of the appellant and contested the acquittal of
respondent No.1/acquitted co -accused on the ground that the prosecution has proved the
charge against the appellant and respondent No.1/acquitted co -accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
13. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, complainant, and respondent No.1 as
well as APG at length we have minutely perused the available record.
14. Perusal of record reveals that prior to the disclosure of the appellant, it was not known
to anybody that the abductee had been murdered and his body has been buried in the sewage pit of the farmhouse (Ex.P/22- H), which was recovered in 39 pieces in presence of PW -17
Judicial Magistrate and PW -20 Lady Police Surgeon. The DNA samples taken from 39
pieces of the dead body and Buccal Swab of parents of deceased (Ex.P/22- M, Ex.P/22 -N,
Ex.p/22- O) matched in the DNA report (Ex.P/24 -A) of Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The
conclusion in the report of DNA analysis is reproduced as under:
"Based on the unknown deceased (item No.1) can not be excluded on being the
biological child of Muhammad Adam Khan(item No.4) and Shah Bibi (item No.6) because share alleles at all genetic markers test."
15. The above DNA report has proved that the recovered pieces of human meat were of
the late abductee, FSL report of bloodstained tuka and knife (Ex.P/22 -L), cap, and pair of
Chappal (identified by a relative) recovered from the burried place of the abductee lend further corroboration. The farmhouse was in possession of respondent No.1 being tenant and it has been proved through the statement of PW -9 (recorded owner of farm) supported by the
revenue record produced by the PW -21 (patwari).
16. The disclosure of the appellant is further corroborated by medical evidence i.e
postmortem report, which reveals that the death of the late abductee was caused by firearm injury in the skull. The relevant portion of the postmortem report is reproduced as under:
"There was an entrance wound on the right side forehead and exit wound on the right
side of frontal to a partial region of the skull and the skull bone was fractured. After
complete post -Mortem of deceased Abdul Razaq son of Adam Khan. I am of the
opinion that the cause of death is damage of vital organ of skull (head injury) caused by firearm and homicidal in nature".
17. Receiving of the ransom amount and paying debts from the same to the creditors by
the appellant stand corroborated by the statements of creditors i.e. PW -11, PW -14, PW -15
and by recovery of Rs.7,00,000/ - (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) from the appellant.
18. Contents of disclosure memo reveal that the disclosure of the appellant relates to the
discovery of new facts which is followed by recovery of the dead body, crime weapon, and articles used in the crime. Hence disclosure of the appellant is admissible within the purview of Article 40 of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984. In this regard reliance is placed in the case
of Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704, the relevant para is reproduced as under:
"Further it is noted that as per Article 40, corresponding to section 27 of the Evidence Act when any fact is revealed in consequence of information received from any accused in the custody of a police officer, such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discover may be proved. The information supplied by the appellant under Article 40 ibid relating to incriminating articles is admissible".
19. Perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused also made
disclosure on 26th February 2018 (Ex.P/10- M) and disclosed that when he reached his
farmhouse (Ex.P/22- H), he found the appellant along with the dead body of the late abductee,
about which, the appellant told him that he has committed a mistake by causing his death.
Suffice to observe that instead of informing the police, respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused
facilitated the appellant after bringing the Chopper from the City and thereafter chopped the
dead body into several pieces with the appellant and they both dumped the dead body along with cap and shoes, etc in the sewage pit of the rented farmhouse; while dumping the pieces of the dead body in the sewage pit, his mobile phone dropped from the front pocket of shirt
into the sewage pit; thereafter respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused received Rs.25,00,000/ -
(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) from the ransom amount and purchased birds and animals,
which were recovered from the farmhouse; the police auctioned the birds and animals in the sum of Rs.15,63,500/ -.
20. Despite knowing all the facts of the occurrence; respondent No.1/acquitted co-
accused concealed the crime. The prosecution has proved the role of respondent No.1/acquitted co- accused and his sharing of common intention with the appellant through
circumstantial evidence linking one circumstance with the other without any lapse. It has been established through circumstantial and medical evidence that respondent No.1/acquitted co-accused has shared common intention by brutally disposing of the dead body by chopping
it into pieces, receiving ransom amount, purchasing birds and animals from the ransom amount, and remained fugitive from the law. The role of sharing common intention of respondent No.1/acquitted co -accused attracts section 201, P.P.C. which read as follows: -
"Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. ---Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that offence has been
committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
If a capital offence: shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
If punishable with (imprisonment for life): and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
If punishable with less than ten year's imprisonment: and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one -fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the
offence, or with fine; or with both".
21. Perusal of record shows that the complainant/prosecution prima facie had no motive
to falsely implicate the appellant and respondent No.1. The evidence produced by the prosecution is confidence inspiring. In absence of any possibility of false implication, the prosecution evidence cannot be disbelieved.
22. The circumstances of present case clearly depicts that there is no mitigating factors,
benefit of which was extended to the respondent No.1 by the trial Court. Suffice to add here
that when the prosecution proves its case beyond any doubt than it is the legal duty of the Court to impose harsh punishment to make an example. The case law referred by the counsel for appellant and respondent No.1 are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
23. The abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365- A, P.P.C. is included as
item No. 4(i) in the third Schedule of the Act, 1997 which is triable by Anti -Terrorism Court
being a scheduled offence. It was an ordinary case of kidnapping for ransom and as such ingredients of sections 6 and 7 of the Act 1997 are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Ghulam Hussain v. State PLD 2020 Supreme Court 61, wherein it has been held as follows: -
"It may be pertinent to mention here that the offence of abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365- A, P.P.C. is included in entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule
and kidnapping for ransom is also one of the actions specified in section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Abduction or kidnapping for ransom is a heinous offence
but the scheme of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997 shows that an ordinary case of
abduction or kidnapping for ransom under section 365- A, P.P.C. is merely triable by
an Anti -Terrorism Court but if kidnapping for ransom is committed with the design or
purpose mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 6 of the Anti -
Terrorism Act, 1997 then such offence amounts to terrorism attracting section 7(e) of that Act. In the former case the convicted person is to be convicted and sentenced only for the offence under section 365- A, P.P.C. whereas in the latter case the
convicted person is to be convicted both for the offence under section 365- A, P.P.C.
as well as for the offence under section 7(e) of the Anti -Terrorism Act, 1997. The
same may also be said about the other offences mentioned in entry No. 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act pertaining to "Use of firearms or explosives by any device, including bomb blast in a mosque, imambargah, church, temple or any other place of worship, whether or not any hurt or damage is caused thereby", "Firing or use of explosive by any device, including bomb blast in the court premises", "Hurt caused by corrosive substance or attempt to cause hurt by means of a corrosive substance" and "Unlawful possession of an explosive substance or abetment for such an offence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908)".
For the above reasons, the conviction of the appellant Niaz Muhammad son of Ali
Muhammad is altered from section 7(e) of the Act 1997 to section 365- A, P.P.C. and his
sentence for imprisonment for life is maintained. His conviction under section 302(a), P.P.C. is altered to section 302(b), P.P.C. and his sentence of death is maintained. He shall be hanged by neck till his death. The sentence of appellant under section 7(e) of ATA, 1997 is set aside, however, the death sentence awarded by the trial Court is upheld. Resultantly, the Criminal ATA Appeal No.130/2020 filed by the appellant Niaz Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed and Murder Reference No.04/2020 is answered in affirmative.
The Criminal Acquittal appeal No.123/2020 filed by the complainant is allowed and
respondent No.1 Muhammad Ewaz son of Ali Muhammad is convicted and sentenced under
section 201, P.P.C. to suffer Seven years RI and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/ - (Rupees Two
Lacs Only) in default thereof to further undergo SI for six months with benefit of section
382- B, Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1 Muhammad Ewaz son of Ali Muhammad is ordered to be
taken into custody for serving the awarded sentence accordingly.
JK/181/Bal. Order accordingly.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.