' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,912 of 2008 (Kashif and another v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,896 of 2008 (Waseem etc. v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1027 of 2008 (Saleem v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1028 of 2008 (Muhammad Nadeem v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1310 of 2009 (Talat Yasmin Shehzadi @ Moona v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,988 of 2008 (Mian Muhammad Jamil v. The State etc.) and Capital Sentence Reference No,27-T of 2008 sent by the learned Trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Kashif, Anees, Nadeem and Saleem appellants, as they arise out of the same judgment dated 30-7-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court No,II, Lahore, whereby, appellants were sentenced as under:-
(1) Kashif, Anees, Nadeem and Saleem Appellants were convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to death each and movable and immovable property of each appellant was directed to be forfeited in favour of the State. They were also convicted under section 7 (e) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death each and movable and immovable property of each appellant was directed to be forfeited in favour of the State.
(2) Tallat Yasmeen Shehzadi @ Moona and Waseem Appellants were convicted under sections 365-A, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life each and movable and immovable property of each appellant was directed to be forfeited in favour of the State. They were also convicted under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life each and movable and immovable property of each appellant was directed to be forfeited in favour of the State. Both the sentences of these two appellants were directed to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to them.
(3) However, benefit of doubt was extended to Razia and Adbul Rashid accused and they were acquitted of the charge.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by Mian Muhammad Jameel complainant (P.W.2) in the F.I.R.
(Exh.PA/1) are that he was a resident of Chah Hazara Fateh Garh, Lahore. On 27-9-2007 at about 4.30 p.m., children were playing in the street and his grand-son, Muhammad Awais aged about 6/7 years, was also playing with them. A white colour Toyota car came there which was stopped in the street, there were three persons in the said car, amongst whom, a person got down, picked up his said grand-son, boarded him in the said car and kidnapped him by running away the car. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That prior to kidnapping his said grand-son, the car in question took a round of the street. The said incident, apart from the complainant, was also witnessed by Haji Muhammad Aslam and Dr. Muhammad Shahid Jamil (PW3). The complainant stated in the F.I.R.
That he can recognize the accused persons if they come before him and that the efforts made for the search of the boy remained fruitless as no clue of the abductee child surfaced. He further stated that after taking action against the accused, his grand-son be recovered. He lastly stated in the F.I.R. That some one form the Mohallah was also involved in the abduction of his said grand-son who used to provide information to his co-accused regarding the abductee boy.
3. F.I.R, in this case was lodged at about 9-30 p.m. 27-9-2007 under section 363, P.P.C. After registration of the case, investigation was carried out by Irshad Ahmad, Inspector (PW13).
According to the said P.W., on the next day of occurrence i.e, 28-9-2007, complainant made a supplementary statement informing him that the kidnappers had demanded ransom amount on telephone whereafter offence under section 363, P.P.C, was deleted and offence under sections 365-A, P.P.C, and 7 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was added. On 30-9- 2007, an application was filed by him to the IB Authorities regarding record of telephone number provided to him by the complainant. Complainant had also informed him that the kidnappers had threatened them not to inform the police. According to the said P.W., on 7-10-2009, the complainant along with the abductee and witnesses arrived in the Police Station and apprised him that they had paid Rs,48 lac to the accused who had returned the abductee to the complainant. It was further stated by the Investigating Officer that on 10-10-2007 complainant, one Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Mehmood joined the investigation, supplementary statement of the complainant and statements of other witnesses were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C, wherein they had implicated Razia Bibi and Asif accused in the case. As per said P.W., he was transferred from the said Police Station.
' P.W.14 Ahmad Goraya, Inspector was entrusted with the investigation of the case on 13-10-2007.
According to him, on 17-10-2007, Mian Muhammad Jamil complainant, Muhammad Saqib P.W., Muhammad Ishfaq P.W. And Dr. Shahid Jameel P.W. Joined the investigation, made their supplementary statements and named Irfan @ Anees, Kashaf, Talat Yasmeen Shehzadi @ Moona, Saleern, Nadeem, Wasem, Abdul Rasheed and Mst. Sajida Bibi as kidnappers of the abductee Muhammad Awais Saqib. As per said P.W., on 18-10-2007 at about 4.15 p.m. On the pointation of spy informer in Chowk Yadgar Stop, he arrested Abdul Nabi @ Ghulam Nabi and Asif son Rafique and recovered some money which was taken into possession vide Exh. PE. On 19-10-2007, Saifullah, S.-I.
And Abdul Sattar, S.-I. Had taken both the said accused persons towards Asif Colony Baghbanpura for the arrest of the remaining accused but due to firing by the remaining accused persons both Ghulam Nabi and Asif lost their lives which formed basis of case F.I.R. No, 1111/08 of PS Baghbanpura, Lahore. According to the said Investigating Officer, on 22-10-2007, Razia Bibi was arrested who got recovered Rs,one lac from her house (Exh.PB). On the spy information received by the said Investigating Officer, he arrested Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Saleern, Muhammad Nadeem and Waseem on 22-10-2009 and on the next day the said four accused persons were sent to jail for identification parade. On the same day, he apprehended Anees @ Irfan, Kashaf, Mst. Talat Yasmeen Shehzadi & Moona and on 24-10-2007 they were sent to jai for the purpose of identification parade. On 26-10-2007 incomplete challan was sent to Court against Razia Bibi. On 31-10-2007, identification parade of Anees @ Irfan and Kashif was conducted in-jail by Mr. Farhan Nabi, Judicial Magistrate. On 15-11-2007, identification parade of Tallat Yasmeen Shehzadi @ Moona, Abdul Rasheed, Saleern Nadeem and Waseem was conducted by the same learned Magistrate in jail., An amount of Rs, 2 lac was recovered by him from Kashaf (Exh. Pp), Rs,3 lac from Anees (Exh.PC) and Rs, 1,95,000 from Talat Yasmeen Shahzadi @ A Moona (Exh.PG). According to the said Investigating Officer, he prepared challan on 9-12-2007 and then went to perform Hajj. The challan was submitted before the learned Trial Court and copies were distributed to the accused.
The formal charge was framed on 12-3-2008 against eight accused persons under sections 365-A, P.P.C, and 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the learned Anti-Terrorism Court No,l, Lahore, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
2. In order to prove its case, prosecution produced as many as 14 P.WS, during the trial. The appellants/accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. They neither produced any evidence in defence nor opted to depose on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as detailed above.
3. Ch. M.S. Shad, Advocate for Kashif and Anees appellants (in Criminal Appeal No, 912 of 2008) contended that the ocular account of the occurrence furnished by Dr. Shahid Jamil (PW3), Mian Muhammad Jamil (PW2), Mian Muhammad Saqib (PW6) and Awais Saqib (PW8) is full of contradictions and dishonest improvements that the complainant of the case (Muhammad Jamil P.W.) made a different statement before the Court than his statement before the police that similarly other witnesses have also changed their versions before the learned Trial Court. He has referred to the different portions of the statements of these P.Ws, to show that their statements before the learned Trial Court are different from their statement made before the police. Learned counsel is of the view that as a matter of fact, these witnesses did not see the occurrence and made false statement before the Court. The learned counsel vehemently argued that it has come on record through the statements of different P.Ws, that Anees appellant was running a tailoring shop in the Mohallah of the complainant/PWs and that he was one of those three persons who had received the ransom amount but even then he was not named in the supplementary statements of the P.Ws, recorded after the delivery of ransom amount. Learned counsel further contended that as per Muhammad Yaseen Janguwa (P.W.4), Mian Muhammad Saqib (P.W..6) and Mian Ashfaq (not examined), the ransom amount was paid in the compartment of a train at Railway Station Samma Satta to the three unknown persons which included Kashif and Anees appellants but Kashif and Anees appellants were not put to the test of identification parade by Saqib and Yaseen Jangwa P.Ws, for establishing the fact that they were those persons who had received the ransom amount. Learned counsel also contended that Haji Muhammad Aslam (not produced P.W.) could not identify Kashif appellant during the identification parade, rather, he placed his hand on the head of a dummy person (Ghulam Murtaza), who was sitting at Serial No,7 of the identification parade. Learned counsel further argued that identification parade has no evidentiary value in the eye of law as the accused were shown to the P.Ws, before holding the identification parade and this objection was taken by the accused before the learned Magistrate, that no role of receiving any ransom amount was ascribed to the appellant Anees by the P.Ws, during the identification parade, that even the abductee Awais Saqib (P.W.8) has stated before the learned Trial Court that he had seen the accused in the Police Station. Learned counsel added that recovery of currency notes valuing Rs,3 lac from Anees appellant and Rs, two lac from Kashif appellant is of no avail to the prosecution because the said recovery effected from Anees appellant is from the house which is neither exclusively owned nor possessed by him, as other persons were also living in the said house and the recovery from Kashif is valueless because as per prosecution, currency notes were brought by one Ghulam Mustafa, a relative of Kashif at the Police Station and as such it cannot be used against Kashif appellant. Further added that there were no marks of identification on the currency notes to show that it was the ransom money. While advancing his arguments, learned counsel argued that as a matter of fact only Asif and Abdul Nabi were the real culprits who were killed in a fake police encounter. While relying on 1995 SCM R 1345 and 1999 SCM R 1220, learned counsel contends that the accused is entitled to the slightest benefit of doubt and since the prosecution story is full of doubts, therefore, the appellants may be acquitted.
6. Messrs Amjad Ali Mughal and Zulfiqar Ahmad, Advocates for Muhammad Waseem, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Nadeem appellants (in Crl.A. No,896 of 2008, Crl. A. No, 1027 and Crl. A.
No,1028), contended that these appellants were nominated as accused on 17-10-2007, their arrest was shown on 22-10-2007 and identification parade was held on 15-11-2007 but the delay of about twenty-five days has not been explained and this fact alone has made the prosecution case doubtful; that the joint identification parade of these appellants along with their acquitted co- accused Abdul Rashid was held which is not permissible under the law; that even no specific role was assigned to the appellants during the identification parade and that the said identification parade has no value in the eye of law. Learned counsel, while advancing his arguments, further contended that the appellants were shown to the P.Ws. Prior to the holding of identification parade, therefore, the identification parade in question carries no value and the identification parade is a corroborative piece of evidence at the most.
' Apart from his above submissions, learned counsel for the said appellants further contended that the sole evidence against the above-mentioned three appellants is of Muhammad Awais (P.W.8) who was allegedly abducted and for whose release, ransom was demanded and received, but, as per learned counsel, his evidence cannot be relied upon for the conviction of the appellants because it is full of discrepancies.
' In addition to the above contentions, learned counsel for the said appellants, while advancing his arguments, contended that the statements of P.W.3 Dr. Shahid Jamil and P.W.6 Mian Muhammad Saqib are hearsay and as such in view of Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are inadmissible in evidence.
' Further argued that case of the appellants is at par with Abdul Rasheed who has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, therefore, the evidence which was disbelieved qua the acquitted accused cannot be believed qua the appellants unless there is some independent corroboration qua them. He next argued that chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete qua the appellants.
In this context, the learned counsel has read certain portions of the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 to show that the appellants were not present at the spot at the time of abduction of child, payment of ransom and release of the child. The learned counsel lastly argued that nothing was recovered from the possession of the said appellants; that the statement of abductee (P.W.8 Awais Saqib) was not recorded by the police and that the appellants have falsely been implicated because of their brother Ghulam Nabi who was killed in a fake police encounter, therefore, they are entitled to acquittal.
7. Mr. Muhammad Tahir Butt Saleh, Advocate for Tallat Yasmeen Shehzadi alias Moona appellant contended that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. As there is no mention of any woman in it but she was later on implicated through a supplementary statement after a delay of one month merely on the basis of a suspicion; that as per incomplete challan dated 26-10-2007, sections 365- A, P.P.C. And 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are not attracted; that the recovery was effected from the, main accused Asif and Ghulam Nabi who were killed in the fake police encounter and this incident was witnessed by the appellant as she was working in the PCO and this is the reason for her false implication in the case ; that the identification parade was held on 15-11-2007 under objection and without assigning any specific role in the occurrence; that the case of the appellant is at par with two acquitted co-accused; that appellant's case is not covered by section 365-A, P.P.C.; that presence of this appellant is not proved at the house where the alleged abductee was confined for ten days; that the identification parade was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence while recovery of the alleged amount of ransom was not proved during the trial in accordance with law; that mere testimony of a child (abductee Awais) is not sufficient to uphold conviction of the appellant. In this regard he has placed reliance on Muhammad Asif and others v.
The State 2008 PCr.LJ 628, Abdul Ghani @ Mooso and others v. The State 2009 YLR 862, Muhammad Jamil Sharif and others v. The State 2009 YLR 1486, Junior Reid and others v. R. 1994 SCM R 137, Abdul Adeel Awais and others 2009 SCM R 511, Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCM R 230, Ghulam Haider v. State PLD 1995 Kar 534. While concluding his submissions, learned counsel has prayed for acquittal of the appellant from the case in hand.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Asghar Ali Gill, Advocate for the complainant while vehemently supporting the judgment of conviction, contended that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. And although no body was named in the F.I.R. But during the course of investigation and on the basis of sound material, appellants, were rightly implicated in the case, that the identification parade was held according to the High Court Rules and no illegality was committed in this regard; that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the P.Ws. Including the victim/abductee P.W.8, that the ocular account in this case is corroborated by the evidence of recovery of ransom amount from the appellants and during the cross-exanimation nothing was brought on the record which could help the appellants and so much so the ransom amount recovered from the appellants was not claimed by them; that perusal of the whole evidence proved that victim Awais was abducted and kept in the house of Ghulam Nabi, that Yasin Janguwa (P.W.4) is an independent witness of payment of ransom money, that the P.Ws. Have no enmity to falsely depose against the appellant, that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellants and that the sentences awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court be maintained while appeals filed by them against their respective sentences be dismissed. The learned DPG has adopted arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
9. Mr. Asghar Ali Gill, Advocate has also filed Crl. A. No,988/2008 (Mian Muhammad Jamil v. The State and another) against the acquittal of Mst. Razia. He contended that although the prosecution has proved its case against the said acquitted accused but the learned Trial Court has wrongly acquitted her on surmises and conjectures.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length for many days, have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance and have also attended to every possible angle presented and demonstrated by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
11. The most important feature of this case is that there is absolutely no enmity between the appellants and the family of the abductee Awais Saqib (P.W.8). No serious enmity was even suggested to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examinations which consist of number of pages. The child Awais Saqib (P.W.8) was abducted on 27-9-2007 at about 4-30 p.m. And the matter was reported to the police on the same day through Exh. P.A. At about 9-10 p.m. While formal F.I.R. Was lodged at about 9-30 p. m. None was nominated in the F.I.R.. Had there been any malice or ill-will on the part of the complainant against the appellants, they could easily be implicated in the F.I.R.
12. In this case, the star witness of t] prosecution is abductee Awais Saq (PW8). He was examined by the learns Trial Court and certain questions were p to him to ascertain whether he understan the questions and gives their ration answers as required under Article 3 of t] Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Th witness gave very rational answers to the questions put to him which are as under:- - Q.1 What is your name? Ans. My name is Awais Saqib.
Q.2 In which class you read? Ans. My Class is two. Q.3 Can you recite 1st Kalma?
Ans. P.W. Is correctly recite Tayyaba.
QA If anyone tell lie what happens? I Ans. It is sin. Thereafter, he made a very confidence inspiring statement which reads as under:- "I was going in the street to purchase GUBBARAS and I purchased GUBBARAS and I was returning to my house then Kashaf accused present in the Court (the P.W. Named Kashaf accused and pointed out towards him apprehended me and he had put me in the vehicle. In the vehicle Kashaf accused, Bhalo, Abdul Nabi and Moona Darling (the P.W. Pointed towards Tallat Yasmeen Shahzadi accused present in the Court), they took me towards motorway, then they had served me juice and I became senseless. On the following day, came into my senses then I inquired from them that where am I and they said that in Kashmir. Then I asked them to take me towards my father and mother. I started weeping. They kept me in a house there and in the said house, Waseem accused present in the Court (the P.W. Pointed towards Waseem accused), Nadeem accused present in the Court (the P.W. Pointed towards Nadeem accused), Saleem accused present in the Court (the P.W.
Pointed towards Saleem accused present in the Court), Kashif accused present in the Court and Anees accused piesent in the Court (the P.W. Pointed towards Anees accused present in the Court) and Baloo. I was kept in that house for ten days. The accused used to guard me in the said house. I had joined the identification parade in jail at Lahore and I had identified Waseem accused, Nadeem accused and Saleem accused, accused present in the Court. Thereafter, I joined the identification parade in Jail at Lahore and I had identified Moona Darling accused present in the Court."
Perusal of the above statement of abductee Awais Saqib (P.W.8) shows that B he has fully implicated the appellants.
' However, to reach at a just decision of the case, the appellants/accused persons can be B divided into two categories i.e, firstly, those who took part in the abduction of the said abductee child Awais Saqib (P.W.8) or demanded/received ransom and, secondly, who only wrongfully confined him in a house.
13. At first we would like to take up the case of appellants Kashif, Anees and Mst. Tallat Yasmeen Shahzadi @ Moona. The abductee Awais Saqib (PW8) has categorically stated in his statement during the trial that he was picked up by Kashaf appellant who put him in the vehicle in which other accused persons namely, Balo, Abdul Nabi and Mst. Tallat Yasmeen Shahzadi @ Moona were also sitting. The defence could not shatter the credibility of this witness during cross-examination. This evidence of the child does inspire confidence coupled with the fact that the other two P.Ws., namely, Mian Muhammad Jameel (PW2) and Dr. Shahid Jameel (P.W.3) have also fully implicated these accused persons. These accused persons were correctly identified by different Prosecution witnesses during the course of identification parades held in jail on 31-10-2007 and on 15-11-2007 respectively under the supervision of Muhammad Farhan Nabi, Civil/Judicial Magistrate (PW12) who too appeared during the trial and remained consistent on all material aspects of the test identification parade. Kashif, Anees and Tallat Yasmin Shahzadi @ Moona appellant were correctly identified by Mian Muhammad Jamil (P.W.2). Kashif and Anees appellants were also identified by Dr. Shahid Jamil (PW3) but he could not identify Tallat Yasmin Shahzadi @ Moona appellant. The abductee child Awais Saqib (P.W.8) also correctly identified Tallat Yasmin Shahzadi @ Moona appellant. The objections raised by the learned defence counsel regarding the holding of identification parade that it was held in violation to the rules and procedure, are not sustainable in law as we have gone I through the proceedings/report prepared by the learned Magistrate Muhammad Farhan Nabi (P. W.12) regarding the identification parade and noted that this identification parade was substantially held in accordance with the rules prescribed by this Court.
14. Moreover, there is another prosecution witness, namely, Muhammad Yaseen Jangwa (PW4) who stated in Court that the ransom amount was delivered to three persons two of whom were Kashif and Anees. This witness has absolutely no enmity with the accused side and as even he is not related to the complainant party, therefore, his testimony appears to be confidence inspiring. Most of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are relatable to technicalities and it is settled law that while dealing with such like cases approach of the Court should be dynamic one and technicalities to be overlooked. We see no reason for false implication of the appellants by the complainant or the P.Ws coupled with the fact that during the course of investigation conducted by P.W.14 Ahmad Goraya, Inspector, an amount of Rs,2 lac was recovered from Kashaf (Exh.PF), Rs, 3 lac from Anees (Exh.PC), and Rs,1,95,000 from Talat Yasmeen Shahzadi @ Moona F (Exh. PG) which recovery was duly witnessed by the witnesses, therefore, it has further strengthened the prosecution case qua abduction and receipt of the amount of ransom so far as these three appellants are concerned. The contention of the learned counsel for these appellants that these recoveries were planted on the appellants appears to be highly improbable in the circumstances of the case. In this backdrop of the case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt against appellants Kashif, Anees and Mst. Tallat Yasmeen Shahzadi Moona beyond and shadow of doubt as they have participated in the abduction of the child and two of them were also present at F the time when the ransom amount was received, meaning thereby, that the element of common intention is fully applicable qua them, therefore, conviction of these three appellants under section 365-A P.P.C. And section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is maintained. The precedent case law relied upon by the learned counsel for these appellants is distinguishable and is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because every criminal case has its own facts and circumstances. However, so far as quantum of sentence awarded to appellants Kashif and Anees is concerned we are of the view that since two main accused of the case, namely, Ghulam Nabi and Asif were killed in a police encounter and the abductee child was luckily recovered, therefore, their sentence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Is G converted from death to imprisonment for life each while their further sentence under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is also converted from death to imprisonment for life each, which, in our affirmed view, would meet the ends of justice. Their other sentences are kept in tact while benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended to them and both the above sentences are directed to run concurrently.
15. Now we would like to take up the case of remaining three appellants, namely Waseem, Nadeem and Saleem. They were identified by the abductee Awais Saqib H (P.W.8) who has correctly identified these .Three appellants in the identification parade and who also stated in Court that these were the person who, along with others, were present at the place where he was illegally confined. After having scanned the whole evidence, we have noted that there is no evidence against these three appellants to the effect that they were present at the time of abduction of abductee Awais Saqib (PW8) or at the time of receipt of ransom amount and his consequent release. Now the question arises whether these appellants knew the intention of their three co- accused, namely, applicants Kashif, Anees and Mst. Tallat Yasmeen Shahzadi Moona, regarding abduction, demand and receipt of ransom amount. There is no such evidence. As far as supplementary statements of the Prosecution Witnesses (wherein their names are mentioned) are concerned, it is observed that those are hearsay. However, the prosecution has proved that they along with others kept the abductee child Awais Saqib (PW8) in the illegal confinement for more than ten days, so, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of the case we are of the view that provisions of section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 are not attracted to their extent. It is settled law that when two views are possible then the view favouring the accused should be given weight so is the position in the case. Therefore, after having extended them benefit of doubt conviction of three appellants, namely, Waseem, Nadeem and Saleem under section 365-A, P.P.C. And section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is set aside and they are acquitted from the said charges. So far as role of these appellants is concerned, as we have already held that they are responsible for illegal confinement of the abductee Awais Saqib (PW8) for a period of more than ten days, therefore, they are convicted under section 344, P.P.C. And sentenced to three years R.I. Each with a fine of Rs, one lac each in default whereof to further undergo six months S.-I. Each. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is H also given to them. So far as order of the learned trial Court regarding return of ransom amount to the complainant and confiscation of car in favour of the State is concerned, the same is kept intact.
16. In the afore-referred circumstances, Criminal Appeal No,912 of 2008 (Kashif and another v. The State), Criminal No,896 of 2008 (Waseem and others v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1027 of 2008 (Saleem v. The State), Criminal Appeal No,1028 of 2008 (Muhammad Nadeem v. The State) are partly allowed with the above modifications in the quantum of sentence.
17. As far as Criminal Appeal No,1310/2009 (Talat Yasmin Shehzadi @ Moona v. The State) is concerned, as she has already been dealt with by the learned trial Court leniently, therefore, no further leniency is called for to her extent and the appeal is hereby dismissed after having maintained the sentences awarded to her which are directed to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is extended.
18. So far as Criminal Appeal No,988/2008 (Mian Muhammad Jamil v. State and others) is concerned , it was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of Mst. Razia Bibi. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court for her acquittal to the effect that she was not seen in the company of the kidnappers, the money was not recovered from her house but was received from the house of Asif who was closely related to her and her extra-judicial confession allegedly made before P.W.11 Mukhtar who was police constable, is against the human conduct, therefore, Criminal No,988/2008 filed against her acquittal is hereby dismissed having no merit.
'Capital Sentence Reference is answered in the NEGATIVE and sentence of death awarded to Kashif, Anees, Nadeem and Saleem appellants is NOT CONFIRMED.