' SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Sultan Ahmad son of (late) Haji. Gul Muhammad, a cloth trader, who departed from his home on 10-10-1998 to collect payments from his customers, did not return home. His family continued searching him. Haji Khair Muhammad his uncle was however contacted by Khan Muhammad appellant and Anwar Ali that they had abducted Sultan Ahmad for ransom and demanded a sum of Rs,1,000,000 for his release. Both sides remained in contact for arranging and paying the demanded ransom. It was finally conveyed that the amount should be paid on 29-10-1998. The complainant Haji Khair Muhammad informed the local Police. On the said date i,e, 29-10-1998, Khan Muhammad was apprehended by the Police officials from a Public Call Office (P.CO) near Pakistan Chowk, Larkana, who then disclosed about the killing of Sultan Ahmad and about the place of the dead body. On his lead and pointation the dead body of Sultan Ahmad was recovered from a room of the house of Nawab Chandio after digging the earth. During the course of investigation the appellant took the Police party on 30-10-1998 towards the Stadium, near Bus Stand, from where after removing the earth, he produced a revolver of 32 Bore containing five live bullets and one fired bullet, which was secured by the Police party. On due investigation he was initially charge sheeted by the Military Court along with co-accused, the trial however was transferred to the Court of Judge, Anti Terrorism court, Larkana, in view of the pronouncement in the case of Sheikh Liaquat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCM R 569). The appellants were convicted by the said Court on 11-11-1999, as, follows:-- "(i) Accused Khan Muhammad Bhutto, Abdullah alias Yaseen Ali Jagirani and Anwar Ali Shaikh are sentenced to death for having committed offence punishable under section 365-A, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And to pay fine of Rs, Fifty thousand each. They shall be hanged by their neck, till they are dead. In case of default in payment of fine, they will undergo R.I. For six months more.
(ii) Accused Khan Muhammad Bhutto, Abdullah alias Yaseen Ali and Anwar Ali Shaikh are 'his sentenced to death under section 7(i)(a) of A.T.Act, 1997 read with section 302, P.P.C., read with 34, P.P.C. For committing Qatl-e-amd of deceased Sultan Ahmad Shaikh. They shall be hanged by their necks till they are dead. The convicted accused are further directed under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To pay Rs, 100,000 (one lac) each, as compensation to the heirs of deceased Sultan Ahmed Shaikh. In case of default accused shall under R.I. For six months more. The amount of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Is deposited, may be paid to heirs of deceased Sultan Ahmad.
(iii) Accused Khan Muhammad Bhutto is sentenced to undergo R.I. For seven years for having committed offence under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance and to pay fine of Rs, Ten thousand and in case of non-payment of fine, he shall under R.I. For six months more.
(iv) Accused Abdullah alias Yaseen Ali Jagirani is also sentence to undergo R.I. For seven years for having committed an offence punishable under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance and to pay fine of Rs, Ten thousands and in case of non-payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. For six months.
(v) Accused Anwar Ali Shaikh is also sentenced to undergo R.I. For seven years for having committed an offence punishable under section 13(e) Arms Ordinance and to pay fine of Rs, Ten thousands and in case of non-payment of fine, he shall under R.I. For six months more."
' On appeal the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Larkana confirmed the sentence pronounced by the Trial Court. This was vide judgment dated 21-2-2003. On Jail Petition No,37 of 2003 leave was granted on 7-2-2005, which order reads as follows:-- "Petitioners conjunctively with Shaukat Ali alias Shaukat having been indicted by Judge, Anti- Terrorism court, Larkana separating from the absconding co-accused Munir Mirani and Qasim Bhutto, in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,61 of 29-10-1998 under sections 365-A/302/201/34, P.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, Larkana, at the instance of Haji Khair Muhammad (consequent upon transfer thereof from Military Court, Pano Akil under the Pakistan Armed Forces (Acting in 'Aid of civil Power) Ordinance XII of 1998, abolished in view of the pronouncement of this court in Sh. Liaquat Hussain 's case reported in 1999 SCM R 569, alleging kidnapping for ransom of his paternal nephew Sultan Ahmad, a wholesale cloth trader, who on 10-10-1998 having left for recovering the outstanding credit sale amount did not show up, thus raised their anxiety; on which count Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali Sheikh, petitioners came over a day latter and demanded a ransom of Rs,10,00,000 for the retrieval of Sultan Ahmad failing which he would be exterminated; to which he agreed requesting time to arrange the sum, who during the interregnum kept on telephonically pressing him for the ransom, amongst whom upon interception of the call by the Police, Khan Muhammad, was apprehended from a local telephone booth leading to recovery of the abductee's dead body from Nawab Chandio's house situated near Larkana Bus Stand, culminating into the petitioners conviction and sentences under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. To death each with a fine of Rs, 50,000 each or in default to suffer six months R.I.; under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 302/34, P.P.C. To death each, defraying Rs, 1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer six months' R.I.; under section 13(e), (d) & (e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, respectively to seven years' R.I. With a fine of Rs, 10,000 orin default to suffer six months' R.I. Availing the benefit perceived by section 382-B, Cr.P.C., recording the co-accused Shaukat Ali alias Shaukat's acquittal according him the benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 11-11-1999.
2. Whose findings on appeal were affirmed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Larkana vide the impugned judgment dated 30-1-2003. Hence the captioned petition for leave to appeal through Jail.
3. Which we are inclined to grant having heard the learned counsel at some length being of the opinion that the matter warrants appraisement of the entire evidence for safe administration of justice.
2. Mr. Muhammad Zairian Bhatti; the learned counsel for the appellant has endeavored to point out the lapses and flaws on the part of the Police in the matter and conduct of investigation, which according to him was not consistent with the law; and that the whole case was .Built upon circumstantial evidence which required substantial corroboration but was lacking in the instant case. It is also contended that Khan Muhammad appellant was minor at the time of commission of offence, who could not be awarded death penalty. The 'learned Additional Prosecutor-General Sindh, has vehemently argued the matter, supporting the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court of Sindh He contends that conviction is supported by the evidence on the record and is consistent with law on the subject. According to him, assuming there was any irregularity the same does not result in reversing the sentence in view of section 537, Cr.P.C. It is contended that recovery of dead body at the pointation of the appellant corroborates his confessional statement.
3. There is no cavil that the prosecution has relied mainly on the circumstantial evidence but fully corroborated. Khair Muhammad (P.W.1), and Haji Dost Muhammad (P.W.2), are natural and reliable witnesses of recovery of dead body of Sultan Ahmad (deceased). The prosecution also produced Dr. Ijaz Ali (P.W.3); who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body, Lal Muhammad (P.W.4), Tapedar, who prepared the sketch of place of recovery of dead body, Mohabat Ali Channa (P.W.5); In whose presence the dead body was recovered, Muhammad Yousaf (P.W.6); Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the judicial confession of the appellant, Zakir Hussain (P.W.7), H.C., Mashir of recovery of unlicensed pistol from the appellant, Mushtaq Ahmad (P.W.8), Mashir of recovery of dead body on the pointation of Khan Muhammad appellant and the recovery of revolver, Hassan Ali (P.W.9), Mashir of arrest of accused Anwar and recovery of unlicensed pistol and Ali Gohar Lalti SIP (P.W.10), the Investigating Officer. A part from the ocular account and evidence in the case the undeniable facts on the record are the disclosures and the confessional statements. The disclosures made by Khan Muhammad, who led the Police party to the place/room of the house of Nawab Chandio (on rent), where the dead body of Sultan Ahmad (deceased) had been buried, the medical evidence and recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of appellant are of unimpeachable nature. Such discovery and recovery of dead body of the deceased on the pointation of the appellant finds full support and corroboration from the statements of Khair Muhammad, Haji Dost Muhammad, Mohabat Ali Channa, Mushtaq Ahmad and SI Ali Gohar Lolai.
The crime weapon used was produced by Khan Muhammad himself from the place near Stadium, where it had been concealed after digging the earth along with five live bullets and one fired bullet.
The report of the Chemical Analyzer was another corroborative piece of evidence that the bullet had been fired from the said revolver. Their testimony, the recoveries made, the confessional statements and the medical evidence corroborate each other leading to the conclusion that Sultan Ahmad (deceased) was abducted for ransom and thereafter killed. The evidentiary value of the recovery of dead body at the pointation of the appellant can not be undermined on any valid ground. In Hakim Ali v. The State (1971 SCM R 412) a statement of the accused leading to recovery of incriminating articles was found to be a good piece of evidence of corroboration. In that case the petitioner/accused had taken the Investigating Officer to a field and "brought out the decapitated head of the deceased, wrapped up in the loi. In Sh. Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 704), it was observed that "the Banglow in question was in possession of the appellant from where the dead body was recovered. It was also established by an unimpeachable evidence that recoveries of dead body, car or other articles were made on the lead, provided by the appellant. All above pieces of evidence under Article 40 ibid are admissible and were proved by conclusive evidence. It was accordingly held that all such pieces of circumstantial evidence when combined together provided strong chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible conclusion that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased."
4. Keeping all the pieces of evidence that became subject matter of consideration before the trial Court, it convicted the appellant, On further appraisal undertaken by the High Court the conviction was maintained. On re-appraisal of evidence, we find no justification whatsoever to depart from the conclusions drawn by the High Court.
5. The contention of the learned counsel as to the investigation and the F.I.R. Registered later, has been adverted to by the learned Division Bench of the High Court. It was considered a lapse on the part of the Police Officer, who probably thought of deputing the Police personnel at the PCOs to keep watch and vigilance as the appellant had been making telephonic calls for ransom. This itself is not sufficient to demolish the evidence of unimpeachable veracity which became the basis for the conviction for the appellants nor the conviction can be reversed on this ground only.
6. As to the minority of Khan Muhammad appellant suffice it to observe, that it had never been pleaded so before the courts below. No sufficient material exists on record to give effect to such a plea by this court.
7. As a result of the above re-appraisal of the matter, we find no valid basis for interfering with the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.