' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.--- These appeals by leave of this Court, are directed against judgment dated 28-11-2001 handed down by learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,106 registered at Police Station Nasirabad, on 21-4-1998 for offences under section 365-A, P.P.C., 320, P.P.C. And 201, P.P.C., whereby the appeals were dismissed and convictions and sentences, recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 19-11-1999; as given below were upheld and maintained;--- "Samar Jan Wiliam, appellant death under section 302(b), P.P.C. And to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For 2 years.
' Death under section 365-A, P.P.C., ' 7 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000 in default of 6 months' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C.
' Nazir Shahzad appellant death and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in default 2 years' R.I.Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
' Death under section 365-A, P.P.C.
' 7 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs.20,000 in default six months' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C."
2. The F.I.R. Was registered on the written statement Exh.P.F. Of Jabbar (P.W.9) father of the deceased. The relevant facts are that Junaid Jabbar who was 18 years of age and was student of M.B.A. In AlHajveri College left his house on 20-4-1998 at about 10-00 a.m. On Vespa No,LER 2744 for college. At about 5-30 p.m. He informed the complainant through telephone that he was speaking from New Campus and that he could not return in time because his scooter went out of order and that he would return after getting it repaired. At about 10-15 p.m. The wife of the complainant received a call, the caller demanded Rs.1,00,000 as ransom which was to be paid by 22-4-1998. The caller who could not be identified threatened the wife of the complainant with dire consequences, in case police was informed about the incident. On the very next day the complainant reported the matter to the police through written application, thereafter the case was registered.
' After completion of investigation both the appellants were sent up to face trial. During trial prosecution produced 13 witnesses in support of its case. The complainant appeared as P.W.9 and stated in accordance with the facts given in the F.I.R. Thereafter he gave the details of the developments which took place after the registration of the case, by stating that his friend Banjumen had given him mobile telephone which had facility of CLI, and that his friend Shehzad had given him a room in his building where he and his wife attended to the phone calls turn by turn. As soon as the accused persons contacted on the phone the Police Officer present there watched the number and tried to search the accused by finding out the place from where the call was made. He further stated that on 1-5-1998 he received telephone call from the accused who demanded Rs.1,00,000 as ransom and directed him to reach Dalgaran Chowk along with ransom money. The accused threatened that if ransom amount was not paid to them they would kill his son Junaid Jabbar. The accused also warned him that he should not inform the police. Thereafter the complainant put ransom amount in a brown envelope and reached police station along with Zaigum Waseem (P.W.10) and S.A. Pervaiz. The ransom amount consisted of two currency notes of denomination Rs.100 and 98 non-genuine notes of the same denomination. Rao Jameel Investigating Officer (P.W.13) after hearing the complainant and his companions signed the two genuine currency notes and formulated the raiding party. The complainant was followed by police party. The complainant went alone to Dalgaran Chowk where Nazir Shehzad appellant met him, who took the packet containing ransom money from the complainant and put it in the right pocket of his trouser. On inquiry of the complainant about his son, Nazir Shahzad stated that son of the complainant would be handed over after payment of full ransom and walked away after extending threats to the complainant. After some time both the appellants were arrested by the police and within the presence of the complainant, the ransom amount was recovered from Nazir Shehzad vide memo. Exh.P.G. At the same time, the Scooter which was being used by both the appellants, after changing its number plate was taken into possession. On the same date, in the evening the complainant identified the dead body of his son Junaid Jabbar which was lying at the mortuary at Mayo Hospital. The complainant also identified the shoes, belt and burnt trouser of the deceased.
Zaigum Waseem (P.W.10) who is brother of the wife of the complainant stated about the abduction of Junaid Jabbar for ransom and corroborated the events narrated by complainant which happened on 1-5-1998. He further stated about the recoveries effected at the instance of appellants. Dr. Shakeel Ahmad (P.W.2) stated that he had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Junaid Jabbar at 5-30 p.m. On 1-5-1998. His statement is being reproduced as under:--- "On 1-5-1998 I was posted as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxiocology, when I was directed to conduct the post-mortem of deceased Junaid Jabbar son of Jabbar caste Christian resident of Uhna Abad Ferozpur Road Cander Garten School Lahore. It was a skeltionised, putrified dead body of a young adult male brought by Headconstable Abdul Rashid No,5168 and P.C. Umer Farood No,9154 and identified by Zagham Waseem son of Latif Bhatti and Jabbar son of P. Ditta caste Christian. Post-mortem was conducted vide DD No,7930 issued by RSP/SP-MT Lahore, dated 1-5-1998 vide police papers. Time on death was 1-5-1998. Post-mortem was conducted on 1-5-1998 at 5-30 p.m.
' External appearance ' A skeltinised putrified dead body of a young adult male recognized by above mentioned identifiers as Junaid Jabbar from the belonging on the dead body i,e, a black burnt half pent muddy with black muddy burnt shirnken belt with steel buckle present. Brownish black boots with laces both muddy. This was a headless skeltionised dead body having present length 157 c.m.
Without head. No soft tissue was present skeltinised body appears to be of 18 years. Bones were burnt and muddy.
' Cranium and spinal cord.
(1) Scalp and skull, membranes brains were absent.
(2) Vertebrae, spinal cord, stated. Thorax Walls, ribs and cartilages stated.
(3) Rest of the organs in the chest cavity were absent. Abdomen ' All the organs were absent.
' Detail of skeltionised body
(1) Skelton was incomplete. It was a human headless skelton of a male dead body.
(2) Skelton was incomplete.
(3) Both humerous bones were present with burnt ends.
(4) Both scapula bones were present.
(5) No hyoid bone was present.
(6) Sternum was present, broken into pieces in the chest cavity.
(7) All the ribs were present and detached from its attachment to the sternum. The tips of the bones (ribs) were burnt.
(8) Starting from 5th cervical vertebra till sternum, all verebras were present but had loose attachment with each other easily separable by simple handling.
(9) Pelvic bones were present and were of a male dead body.
(10) Both Femur bones were present.
(11) Both Tibia and fibula on the right side were present but were separate from its attachment at the ankle joint.
(12) Foot both bones were present in the boots with no soft tissues on them. Opinion ' Autopay findings are consisting with the skeltionized, putrified dead body of an adult male. Dead body is an advanced stage of putrification. Due to absence of soft tissues and advanced stage of putiefaction, it is not possible to comment on the exact cause of death.
' Probable time between injury and death not known. Between death and post-mortem 15-20 days.
After post-mortem the dead body along with clothes last-worn along with carbon copy of post- mortem report, police papers, all signed and handed over to the police. Exh.P.A. Is the correct carbon copy of which is in my hand and signed by me. Exhs.P.A./1 and P.A./2 are the pictorial diagrams."
3. Muhammad Sharif Chowkidar (P.W.7) stated that on 20-4-1998 he was performing duty at gate of the college and that at about 1-30 Junaid Jabbar deceased came out of the college and sat in the carry van with a long tall person who was identified as Samar Jan appellant, by him. Arshad Hussain (P.W.11) Magistrate stated that he recorded confessional statements of both the appellants on 9-5-1998. Muhammad Jameel A.S.-I. (P.W.13) stated about the registration and investigation of the case, he has corroborated the statement of the complainant relating to receipt of phone calls, threats issued by the accused and the demand of ransom by them. He has also corroborated story of the complainant relating to events dated 1-5-1998. He has also stated about the details of the ransom money, the receipt of ransom money by Nazir Shehzad, the arrest of the accused and recovery of scooter belong to the deceased. He has also stated about the information furnished by both the appellants to him after arrest which led to the discovery and recovery of the dead body which had been thrown in Rohi Nala in the area of Police Station Kahna. He has also stated in detail about the recovery of dead body, its identification and its post-mortem. He has also stated about the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants and that he produced both the accused before the Magistrate on 9-5-1998, on the same date, after recording of the confessions the accused were sent to judicial lock-up. Nofil Zahoor S.-I. (P.W.12) has corroborated the statement of P.W.13.
' After the closure of the prosecution case, the statements of both the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Both of them claimed to be innocent, however, they did not appear in their defence under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not lead any defence evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the retraced confessions of the accused were obtained after torture and that the evidence of last-seen was not trustworthy. The recoveries were planted upon the appellants and that the whO-le story of the prosecution case was full of doubts and that the appellants were roped in the case merely on suspicion. The learned counsel have also argued that prosecution miserably failed to prove the story of abduction of Junaid Jabbar deceased for ransom. Both the learned counsel have laid much stress on the point that dead body could not be identified and that the cause of death could not be determined.
According to learned counsel both the appellants merited acquittal.
' Conversely, it has been argued that the prosecution proved its case through independent and reliable evidence and that the P.Ws. Had no previous enmity with the appellants and that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was fully corroborated by the remaining evidence and that both the learned Courts below had correctly convicted and sentenced the appellants who deserved no sympathy.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have scanned the record of the case. In our opinion the retracted confessions of the accused recorded by P.W.11 were inadmissible in evidence and could not be used against the accused for the following reasons:---
(a) P.W.11 admitted that after recording the statements of the accused he handed the accused back to the police.
(b) Perusal of the confessional statements Exh.P.M. And Exh.P.N. Reveals that before recording the statements of the accused they were not informed, that they would not be handed over back to police whether they confessed or not.
' Above noted circumstances were overlooked by the learned Court below which wrongly relied upon the confessions.
6. The evidence of P.W.7 is also not reliable as he did not know the accused previously and no identification test was held after the arrest of the accused in order to ascertain the identity of the accused by P.W.7.
7. Having rejected, above noted pieces of evidence, we have considered and scrutinized the remaining prosecution evidence, in depth. P.W.13 stated in clear terms that, after arrest of the accused he firstly interrogated Samar Jan and later on he interrogated Nazir Shehzad. Both the appellants, who were separately interrogated, informed the Investigating Officer about the place i,e, Rohi Nala in the area of Police Station Kahna, where they had thrown the dead body. This discovery based on the information furnished by the appellants led to the recovery of dead body from the Nullah. There is no doubt about it that prior to information furnished by the appellants the where about of dead body were not known to anyone. The information furnished by the appellants to the Investigating Officer can be used against them under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. As in a case of circumstantial evidence where there has been discovery as a result of confession made under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat order, 1984, it is expected to find the discovery of something which can be associated with the deceased.
' The mere plurality of information received before discovery shall not necessarily take any of these informations out of the section. In a suitable case it is possible to ascribe to more than one accused the information which leads to the discovery, so was held in the case Naresh Chandra Das and another v. Emperor AIR (29) 1942 Cal.
593.
' It was held by this Court in the case of Sher Muhammad v. The State 1968 PCr.L J 221 as follows:--- "In the absence of any explanation by the accused as to how he came to have knowledge of the dead body in the disused well, it may fairly be presumed that he was the person who had thrown the body in a dismembered state into the well."
' The medical evidence supports the prosecution case that Junaid Jabbar was done to death and his death was not natural. The statement of the doctor also reveals that the dead body was that of a 18 years old boy which was duly identified by P.W.9 father of the deceased. P.W.9 himself stated that he identified the dead body of his son after seeing the shoes, belt, and trouser of the deceased. The statements of both these witnesses were not challenged on this point. Hence it could not be said that the dead body was not identified.
' The motive behind the occurrence is proved through overwhelming evidence. P.W.9, P. W'.10, P.W.12 and P.W.13 have stated that the deceased was abducted for ransom. It is in evidence that complainant and his wife received telephone calls demanding ransom. It is also in evidence that the accused issued threats to the complainant that in case ransom was not paid his son would be done to death. It is also in the evidence that the ransom amount was put in envelop and delivered to Nazir Shehzad on the demand of the accused. The ransom amount was subsequently recovered from appellant Nazir Shahzad after his arrest. No other motive is available on the record of the case. There is no reason to disbelieve the P.Ws. On this regard. The scooter belonging to the deceased was being used by both the appellants and was recovered at the time of the arrest of the accused. Both the accused also led to various recoveries of articles which fully implicated them and fully corroborated the prosecution case.
8. The upshot of the whole discussion is that leaving aside the evidence of last-seen and confession before a Magistrate, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against both the appellants, through the remaining evidence, beyond doubt. Having come to this conclusion, we have given our considered thought to the quantum of sentence. Both the accused committed the murder of a young boy who was aged 18 years and was a student, for ransom. No mitigating circumstance exists in their favour. The appeals are dismissed.