' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 6-5- 2003 of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, whereby Criminal Jail Appeal No,61 of 1994 filed by them was dismissed and the sentence of death awarded by the trial Court was maintained and the Murder Reference for confirmation of death sentence was answered in affirmative.
2. Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that on 18-5-1992 at about 9-00 a.m. Complainant Sanwal Faquir was present in his house in village Khair Muhammad Lorar when he heard noise from the shop of Muhib Ali which was at a distance of about 40/50 paces from his house and he rushed there and saw 5/6 dacoits armed with kalashnikovs, rifles and guns had abducted his relatives Jaro, Shafi Muhammad, Muhammad Hashim, Hazoor Bux, Moaj Ali, Sajjan and Israr Ali.
While abducted them dacoits asked for arranging ransom amount for their release. The incident was witnessed by P.Ws. And co-villagers in the light of bulbs. On the statement of complainant, a case under sections 365-A, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. And section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance was registered at Police Station Qamber, District Larkana, vide F.I.R. No,56, dated 17-5-1992. The complainant and the relatives of abductees while searching them in forest met the petitioners and other dacoits who demanded ransom amount which was later on paid to them and the abductees were released. However, Hazoor Bux and Sajjan were released without payment on Holy Qur'an.
3. Petitioner Rajab was arrested on 26-10-1992. On 27-10-1992 an identification parade was held in which P.Ws. Identified petitioner Rajab who also got recorded his confessional statement on 1-11- 1992 before the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Warrah. Petitioner Haji was arrested on 8-5-1993. The other accused persons could not be arrested and after fulfilling all legal formalities an order was passed under section 5-A(4)(a) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, by the trial Court directing that the case against absconders be proceeded in their absence.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all.
5. The petitioners in their respective statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. They, however, neither examined themselves on oath, as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor led any evidence in defence.
6. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 29-3-1994 convicted the petitioners as well as the absconding accused and sentenced them to death and also forfeited their entire property.
7. The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentence in appeal before learned High Court of Sindh, which was, however, dismissed and their conviction and sentence were maintained vide judgment, dated 25-4-2003.
8. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that in fact the incident was unseen one.
According to him, petitioner Haji was not put to identification test whereas it was only petitioner Rajab whose identification parade was arranged.
9-A. The most important evidence in this case is the statements of abductees P.W.1 Moaj Ali, P.W.2 Muhammad Hashim, P.W.3 Jaro and P.W.4 Shafi Muhammad which were corroborated by the complainant Sanwal P.W.5 and the shopkeeper Muhib Ali .P W.6. The petitioners have miserably failed to show that the P.Ws. Had any animosity or any motive to implicate them in this case falsely.
The prosecution has produced true and confidence inspiring eye-witness account furnished by complainant and above mentioned abductees whose testimonies were not shattered though cross-examined at length. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the confessional statement of petitioner Rajab was obtained through coercion of under any pressure or duress.
10. The case of the prosecution seems to be reasonably true and fully established as against the defence version. The learned Courts below have rightly appraised the evidence and correctly convicted and sentenced the petitioners and absconder accused in accordance with the well- established judicial norms and no miscarriage of justice has resulted. Well-founded reasons have been advanced by the learned High Court and the trial Court while believing that the complainant and the shopkeeper Muhib P.W. Were the natural witnesses of the incident. Irrespective of the above, there has been ample evidence brought on the record that Rs,20,000 for the release of Shafi Muhammad, Rs,60,000 for Moaj Ali, Rs,40,000 for Hashim and Rs,10,000 for Israr and Rs,50,000 for Jarro have been paid to the petitioners and absconders.. However, abductees, namely, Hazoor Bux and Sajjan were admittedly released by the petitioners and other dacoits without payment of ransom as their relatives requested them on Holy Qur'an for their release. To believe or to disbelieve of a particular piece of evidence is primarily the function of the trial Court and the Appellate Court and this Court usually does not interfere with the proper discretion exercised by the Courts below.
Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out even a single mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of petitioners, therefore, E the conviction and sentence of death awarded to petitioners are maintained.
11. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave to . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.