SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J- The convicts namely (i) Jafar Khan (ii) Sher Alam (iii) Sebab Khan (iv) Iqbal Hussain sons of Gul Dad Khan (v) Haji Nawab (vi) Usman Ghani (vii) Gul Nawab sons of Jafar Khan (appellants in the instant appeal), (viii) Bakht Zaman and (ix) Pehlawan sons of Gul Zarin (appellants in the connected Cr.A No. 241-M/2024) faced joint trial for the offences under sections 302, 457, 148, 149, 109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) read with section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 (A.A) reported vide case FIR No. 200 dated 11.04.2021 registered at Police Station Aloch District Shangla. On conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi/MCTC Shangla (Trial Court) vide judgment dated 21.09.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellants, the detail of which is as follows: Appellants Sher Alam, Sebab Khan, Iqbal Hussain & Haji Nawab
(i) Under Sections 148/149 PPC.
Imprisonment for 03 years each with fine of Rs.20,000/ each or in default thereof to undergo further 03 months S.I each.
(ii) Under Sections 457/149 PPC Imprisonment for 05 years each with fine of Rs.30,000/ each or in default thereof to undergo further 03 months S.I each.
(iii) Under Section 302(b)/149 PPC Death sentence each on four counts for the murders of Gul Zarin, Atta-ur-Rahman, Faiz-ur- Rahman and Aziz-ur-Rahman with payment of Rs.500,000/- each appellant to LRs of each deceased as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or, in case of default thereof, to undergo further six months S.I each.
(iv) Under Section 15 A.A.
Imprisonment for 03 years each with fine of Rs.30,000/- each or, in default thereof, to undergo further 02 months S.I each.
Appellants Jafar Khan, Usman Ghani, Gul Nawab
(i) Under Sections 148/149 PPC.
Imprisonment for 03 years each with fine of Rs.20,000/ each or in default thereof to undergo further 03 months S.I each.
(ii) Under Sections 457/149 PPC Imprisonment for 05 years each with fine of Rs.30,000/ each or in default thereof to undergo further 03 months S.I each.
(iii) Under Section 302(b)/149 PPC Life imprisonment each on four counts for the murders of Gul Zarin, Atta-ur-Rahman, Faiz- urRahman and Aziz-ur-Rahman with payment of Rs.500,000/- each appellant to LRs of the deceased as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or, in case of default thereof, to undergo further six months S.I each.
(iv) Under Section 15 A.A.
Imprisonment for 03 years each with fine of Rs.30,000/- each or, in default thereof, to undergo further 02 months S.I each.
Appellants Bakht Zaman and Pehlawan
(i) Under Sections 302/109 PPC.
Life imprisonment each on four counts for abetment of the murders of their father Gul Zarin and step-brothers Atta-ur-Rahman, Faiz-ur-Rahman and Aziz-ur-Rahman with payment of Rs.500,000/- each appellant to LRs of the deceased as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. or, in case of default thereof, to undergo further six months S.I each..
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellants.
Being aggrieved, appellants/convicts (i) Jafar Khan (ii) Sher Alam (iii) Sebab Khan (iv) Iqbal Hussain sons of Gul Dad Khan (v) Haji Nawab (vi) Usman Ghani (vii) Gul Nawab sons of Jafar Khan have jointly filed the instant appeal while appellants Bakht Zaman and Pehlawan (abettors) have challenged the judgment of the learned trial court through the connected Cr.A No. 241-M/2024.
Complainant Shazia has also filed the connected Cr.R No. 63-M/2024 seeking enhancement of the sentences of imprisonment awarded to appellants to normal penalty of death.
2. The harrowing incident occurred on the night of 11.04.2021 at around 01:00 A.M at the residence of Gul Zarin son of Manday, situated in Village Bugyar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Aloch, District Shangla. According to the prosecution, a group of unknown armed assailants, their faces muffled to conceal their identities, surreptitiously entered the house while the family was asleep. At the time of the occurrence, Mst. Shazia daughter of Gul Zarin and her sister-in-law Mst. Jehan Ranra (widow of deceased Atta-ur-Rahman) were asleep in one of the rooms, while her father Gul Zarin and brothers Aziz-urRahman, Atta-ur-Rahman and Faiz-ur-Rahman were resting in the adjoining rooms having no doors and the open veranda. Upon intrusion, the attackers stormed into the house, prompting the women to awaken in panic and raise hue and cry. In response, one of the assailants forcefully struck the bed of Mst. Jehan Ranra with the butt of his Kalashnikov and threatened both the women to remain silent. The alarmed cries, however, alerted the male family members on which the intruders exited the room and opened indiscriminate fire on Gul Zarin and his sons who sustained multiple firearm injuries and succumbed to their wounds at the scene, resulting in an unspeakable family tragedy that shook the local community. Upon receiving information, the local police arrived at the crime scene at approximately 03:00 A.M where Mst.
Shazia narrated the entire episode in the presence of Mst. Jehan Ranra, leading to registration of the report initially in the form of Murasila. The injury sheets and inquest reports of the deceased were prepared and the bodies were sent to hospital for the purpose of postmortem examination whereas the Murasila was sent to police station where the FIR was chalked out against unknown accused.
3. A Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was constituted for probing the matter. The key role in the investigation was played by Juma Rahman, the Investigating Officer. On the same day, he visited the crime scene, prepared the site plan on pointation of the eyewitnesses and recovered various incriminating articles, including blood samples, crime empties of 7.62 bore and 30 bore pistol, bullets whereas two energy-saver bulbs were subsequently taken into possession from the veranda. Notably a crime empty of 12-bore shotgun and blood-stained sand and earth were recovered from the link road outside of the house of occurrence. The mentioned crime empty was sealed in Parcel No. 14 whereas the blood-stained sand and earth were sealed in Parcel Nos. 15 to
17. Additionally, the blood-stained garments of the deceased were also secured through respective recovery memos. The details of these recoveries will be discussed at appropriate stages in the judgment. On 12.04.2021, the recovered empties, bullets, blood samples and blood-stained garments were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis under separate transit certificates. The relevant result spelt out from the FSL report (Ex.PK/2) regarding the empties sent to the lab on the very following day of the occurrence, is very important and needs reproduction in tabular form.
Type of empties Detail of empties Result.
30 bore Cl, C2 & C6Fired from one and the same 30 bore weapon 7.62 bore C3, C4 & C5Fired from one and the same 7.62 bore weapon 12 bore C712 bore empty. No opinion (being single empty)
During the course of investigation, it transpired that appellants Jafar Khan, Sher Alam and Sebab Khan (sons of Gul Dad Khan), along with Gul Nawab, Haji Nawab and Usman Ghani (sons of Jafar Khan) had committed the quadruple homicide while acting as hired assassins on the instructions of co-appellants Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan, who are sons of deceased Gul Zarin from another wife. The motive behind the incident was the resentment of the abettors over being denied their share in their father's property. All the accused were formally nominated based on the statement of the complainant Mst. Shazia and her sister-in-law Mst. Jehan Ranra. Except injured appellant Iqbal Hussain, the remaining appellants were arrested on 14.04.2021. During the investigation, on 18.04.2021 all the appellants except the abettors and Iqbal Hussain led the Investigating Officer to a cave where they had concealed the weapons used in the offence. On their pointation, one Kalashnikov, three pistols and three shotguns, including two trapdoor shotguns (commonly known as 3,3 4), two of which had an empty cartridge each lodged in the chambers, were recovered from the cave. The weapons were taken into possession, sealed on the spot and sent for forensic03 examination on 20.04.2021. The opinion of the Firearms Expert per FSL report EX.PK/4, after recovery of the weapons qua the empties already sent to FSL on 12.04.2021 is reproduced for ease of reference.
Type of weapon/ empties with name of accusedDetail of empties Result/ Remarks 30 bore pistol No. 3142 (Parcel 1)
(appellant Sher Alam)Cl, C2 & C6 (Parcel Nos. 5, 6 & 13) Fired from pistol No.3142 (P1) 30 bore weapon.
(Matching)
7.62 bore SMG No. 585 (Parcel 24) (Appellant Haji Nawab)C3, C4 & C5 (Parcel Nos. 7, 8 & 9) Fired from SMG No 585.
(Matching)
12 bore shotgun No. 149923 (Parcel-28) (Appellant Sebab)C7 (recovered from the spot) (Parcel- 14)
C9 (recovered from the chamber of rifle) (Parcel-29)Fired from shotgun No.149923 (Matching)
12 bore shotgun No. Nil (Parcel- 26) (Appellant Usman Ghani)C8 (recovered from the chamber)
(Parcel-27)Fired from shotgun No. Nil.
(Matching)
12 bore shotgun No. 2222 (Parcel-34) (Appellant Iqbal Hussain)C10 (recovered from the chamber)
(Parcel-35)Fired from shotgun No.2222 12 bore shotgun No. Nil (P- 26) (Matching)
30 bore Pistol No. Nil (Parcel-32)
(Appellant Jafar)Nil (Non-matching)
30 bore Pistol No. 111 (Parcel 36)
(Appellant Gul Nawab)Nil (Non-Matching)
4. The Investigating Officer also placed on record a copy of Daily Diary No. 38 dated 11.04.2021 (Ex.PW-7/2) lodged on the report of appellant Iqbal Hussain in injured condition. Keeping in view its direct relevance to the main occurrence, this report holds significant evidentiary value and will be referred to during the course of discussion; hence, its reproduction is warranted for the sake of proper reference.
This matter was also probed by police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C pursuant to which a Finding Report (Ex.PW-9/4) was submitted. From this report, it emerged that appellant Iqbal Hussain had in fact sustained injuries from the firing of his brother/co-accused Haji Nawab during the commission of the quadruple murders at the residence of Gul Zarin. During the course of inquiry, the statements of Said Ali, a Medical Technician, were recorded under Sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C, wherein he disclosed that appellant Sebab had approached him at his residence, informing him that appellant Iqbal Hussain had been accidentally injured by co-accused Sher Alam. However, the said technician declined to provide medical assistance. It is further noteworthy that based on a false version of events, a separate criminal case was registered against appellant Iqbal Hussain, wherein he was eventually convicted and sentenced on the basis of his own plea of guilt. During investigation, the Investigating Officer also took into possession the blood-stained garments of the appellants who had taken their injured co-accused Iqbal Hussain from the crime scene. A cot was also taken into possession from PW Muhammad Ayyub, cousin of Sher Alam etc which had been used for carrying injured accused. In support of this recovery, statement under section 164, Cr.P.C of Muhammad Ayub was recorded, however, he was abandoned being the cousin of accused.
Additionally, the accused pointed out the location where the conspiracy was hatched between appellants Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan with appellants Jafar Khan, Sher Alam and Haji Nawab, for committing the murders in consideration of Rs.500,000/-. On 19.04.2021, appellants Haji Nawab, Usman Ghani and Gul Nawab recorded their confessional statements before the Judicial Magistrate, whereas appellant Iqbal Hussain, who was then under treatment in hospital, recorded his judicial confession on 22.05.2021.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the court. After fulfilment of the requisite legal formalities, formal charges were framed against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to face the trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses and, thereafter, closed its evidence. Subsequently, the appellants were examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C during which they denied the allegations and professed innocence. They also retracted their earlier judicial confessions, alleging that the same were extracted under duress and severe police torture. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found the appellants guilty of the offences, hence, convicted and sentenced them accordingly vide judgment dated 21.09.2024. Since the details of the sentences have already been outlined in the first para of this judgment, reference thereto is not repeated here. Aggrieved by their convictions, the appellants have filed their respective appeals whereas the complainant has filed the revision petition.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the State and have carefully perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The principal objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments are summarized as under: The incident was reported with an inordinate and unexplained delay of two hours with further objections that the initial report was lodged against unknown persons and the appellants were nominated at a belated stage without disclosing the source of such information. The complainant did not identify the assailants at the time of occurrence and no identification parade was conducted through any eyewitness. The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of the complainant, who has materially improved her initial version. Key eyewitnesses, namely Mst. Parwana and Mst. Jehan Ranra, were deliberately withheld without any plausible justification, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The learned trial court erred in basing the conviction primarily on the testimony of related and interested witnesses, which lacked corroboration from any independent or impartial source. The confessional statements of appellants Sher Alam, Haji Nawab and Usman Ghani were recorded after a delay of five days, while that of appellant Iqbal Hussain was recorded after an unexplained delay of 45 days. It is contended that these statements were the result of torture, coercion and police pressure, thereby rendering them inadmissible and devoid of legal credibility. The recovery of the alleged weapons is manipulated and fictitious, devoid of evidentiary value and insufficient to lend support to the prosecution's version. No reliable evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the alleged conspiracy between the purported abettors Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan and the remaining accused. There is no credible or independent evidence on record to establish that the appellants Jafar Khan and his family members, were the actual perpetrators. No motive was mentioned in the FIR, and the prosecution failed to substantiate the subsequently introduced motive through any convincing or legally admissible evidence. The allegation that the abettors orchestrated the murder of their own father and brothers over a property dispute is inherently improbable and contrary to human conduct and common sense.
The prosecution case is marred by serious contradictions and inconsistencies which raise substantial doubts regarding the involvement of the appellants, but the benefit of such doubt has not been extended to them in violation of settled legal principles.
8. Resolution of the objections so raised necessitates a thorough reappraisal of the evidence on record. As regards the delay in lodging the report, it is noteworthy that the names of the appellants were not mentioned in the initial report. This factor alone negates any inference of mala fide or false implication at the inception of the case. Therefore, the delay in reporting the incident does not appear to have caused any prejudice to the appellants. As to the broader impact of the delay on the case of prosecution, the surrounding circumstances are sufficient to account for it. Admittedly, the occurrence took place at midnight, in which all adult male members of the house, except a minor child, were brutally murdered, leaving only three female members of the family behind. In such a traumatic and chaotic environment, the inability of the surviving women to immediately contact the local police during the night is both natural and understandable. Thus, under no reasonable interpretation can the said delay be construed as beneficial to the appellant. In this regard, valuable guidance can be drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abid Hussain and another v. The State and others reported as 2024 SCMR 1608, wherein the apex Court comprehensively addressed the legal effect of delayed reporting in murder cases involving extraordinary or distressing circumstances. The relevant excerpt from the judgment is reproduced below to elucidate the principle and to aid in the proper appreciation of the delay in the instant case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "8. At this juncture, it is pertinent to highlight a persistent issue in the society. In instances of murder cases, people often hesitate to provide any sort of assistance to the victim or family of deceased, such as declining to provide their vehicles to transport the injured or deceased to hospitals. This reluctance typically arises from fears of involvement in the criminal cases and distrust of law enforcement. However, this reluctance leads to significant consequences, including delays in medical care for the injured and challenges for law enforcement/ investigations. This case is no exception to that, because, in this case also father of the deceased (complainant) strived hard to approach the Police Station to report the incident, he went in the bus therefore there was a delay of 2 and half hours in the lodging of FIR. In light of circumstances mentioned above, this delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. Reference can be made to the case of Nasrullah and others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1926), wherein this court has ruled that delay of 78 hours in lodging FIR was not fatal to the case of prosecution if there is a convincing explanation for the alleged delay. In the instant case, delay in lodging the FIR has plausibly been explained by the complainant. Even otherwise in the absence of previous enmity the delay in lodging the FIR would not matter much. The ocular account is fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case. Moreover, High Court in impugned judgment has considered the delay in lodging FIR with ample reasoning and has held that same is not fatal to prosecution case".
9. The belated nomination of the appellants, though is usually considered as a significant aspect in criminal cases but in the present case it finds adequate justification when examined in light of the attending circumstances of the case. In the initial report, the complainant did not allege any enmity with anyone, thereby eliminating any presumption of a false implication or misdirection of criminal liability toward innocent persons. Importantly, at the time of lodging the FIR, the complainant had not recognized the assailants, and in the face of such a traumatic and abrupt incident during night, she lacked any concrete clue to directly attribute the offence to specific individuals. Hence, the non-disclosure of the appellants' names in the initial report, viewed in this context, is not a circumstance that can be exploited in favour of the appellants. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the JIT, commencing from the possible motive, meticulously pieced together various segments of the episode, which led them to the conclusion that appellants Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan, sons of deceased Gul Zarin, had orchestrated the murders of their father and stepbrothers. It surfaced that, for this purpose, they had hired the remaining appellants for a sum of Rs.500,000/-. This investigative outcome was not the result of mere conjecture but a systematic probe that uncovered tangible links connecting the abettors and perpetrators. In this backdrop, the absence of the appellants' names from the FIR, particularly when their identities were deliberately concealed and they were unknown to the surviving witnesses, does not raise any suspicion about the authenticity of their subsequent nomination. If courts were to routinely discard such post-investigation revelations merely because the accused were not named initially, it would provide a dangerous incentive for perpetrators to mask their identities and evade liability. Such an approach would severely compromise the administration of justice. Furthermore, nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to suggest that the complainant had falsely implicated her stepbrothers and the remaining appellants out of mala fide intentions or for some ulterior motives. On the contrary, their consistent testimonies lend credence to the stance of prosecution. Therefore, the belated nomination, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, is not only explainable but also legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Guidance in this regard is taken from Muhammad Sohail alias Sohaila v. The State reported as 2021 SCMR 795. In the mentioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "4. Admittedly, the appellant or any of his co-accused/co-convict is not named in the FIR nor any suspicion has been shown in the FIR regarding the perpetrators of the incident. The occurrence, as per prosecution, took place in the shop of the complainant side and at the relevant time, complainant Abdul Rehman (PW4), his brother Attique ur Rehman, cousin Muhammad Saleem (PW5) and deceased Haji Muhammad Asghar were present along with employees working in the shop. While appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant Abdul Rehman (PW4) and Muhammad Saleem (PW5) remained consistent on all the material aspects of the case and the defence remained unsuccessful in bringing on record any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of prosecution witnesses for false implication of appellant and his co- accused/co-convicts in this case.
10. As regards the non-identification of the assailants by the complainant and the omission on the part of the prosecution to conduct a test identification parade, it is important to note that the foundational version of the prosecution, as reflected in the FIR, is that the assailants had muffled their faces at the time of the attack. In such circumstances, it was not reasonably possible for the complainant to identify the perpetrators during the commission of the offence. Consequently, the omission of the Investigating Officer to hold a test identification parade becomes inconsequential; as such an exercise would have been inherently futile. It is well-settled law that holding a test identification parade is not a mandatory legal requirement in every case. Where the identity of the accused is otherwise established through reliable and convincing evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, the absence of test identification proceedings does not vitiate the prosecution case. In the present case, the probative value of other incriminating material, including confessional statements, recoveries, and motive can suffice to prove the involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Aziz v.
The State and another reported as PLD 1999 Quetta 1, wherein it was held that: "There is no cavil to the proposition that before the identification parade the witness must disclose the context in which he identified the accused i.e. the part played by the accused during the commission of the offence and as to how and under what circumstances he identified the accused. However, if identity of the accused persons is proved by other convincing evidence, non-identification or absence of identification test will be immaterial".
In view of the above principles, the omission to conduct identification proceedings in the present case cannot be treated as a fatal flaw, particularly when the identity of the accused stands established through other credible pieces of evidence on record.
11. At the outset, we acknowledge the inconsistencies and improvements in the testimony of the complainant Mst. Shazia (PW-15). Notably, during her examination-in-chief, PW-15 stated for the first time in court that one of the assailants' mask had slipped off during the attack enabling her to see that attacker's face. Further claimed that the total number of attackers was nine and also made the addition that the intruders were calling that Haji Nawab, one of the assailants had been hit. These specific details were not mentioned in the FIR she lodged after the incident. Such discrepancies between the initial report and the testimony presented before the trial court were highlighted during arguments, hence, their impact on credibility of PW-15 needs to be addressed.
We emphasize that we have scrutinized these improvements with care, rather than ignoring them, as it is the duty of the Court to consider whether they can damage the reliability of the account presented by the complainant. In assessing these inconsistencies, the court is mindful of the social and psychological context in which statements of the complainant were made. She is the survivor of a traumatic and tragic incident and it is well-recognized that victims of violent crimes may not recount every detail with perfect consistency when under duress. Shock, fear and emotional distress at the time of the FIR can result in certain details being omitted or blurred. It is common that an FIR is not an exhaustive encyclopedia of all facts but rather a prompt report meant to set the law in motion; a witness who has just undergone a horrifying ordeal might only provide the core facts initially, with finer details surfacing later as her memory clears and she gains confidence that the justice system will listen. In this case, the omission on the part of the complainant regarding the assailant's exposed face, the exact number of attackers and sustaining injury by one of them in her early report may well be attributable to the immediate shock and confusion following the attack. By the time she testified in court, she may have felt the need to emphasize parts of her story to help ensure the perpetrators were punished. The Court cannot lose sight of the human response to such a tragic incident: a victim may genuinely believe an embellishment is necessary to convey the full horror of what occurred or to avoid any chance of the attackers' escaping justice. Such behavior, while technically an "improvement" in testimony, does not necessarily spring from a deceptive motive; it can arise from an earnest attempt to ensure justice in the face of fear and vulnerability. It is a fundamental principle of law that if a witness deliberately improves his version of events during trial to buttress the prosecution case, the embellished portions of his testimony are to be viewed with suspicion. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that whenever it is found that a witness has made a dishonest improvement in order to strengthen the prosecution, that improved portion of the statement must be discarded.
In Muhammad Arif v. The State reported as 2019 SCMR 631, for instance, the apex court reproved that when a witness improves his statement and it is observed that the said improvement was made dishonestly to strengthen the prosecution case, such portion of his statement is to be discarded out of consideration. Similarly, in Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that once it is shown that a witness has consciously tailored or augmented his testimony to plug gaps then it is not safe to place reliance on his statements, as such testimony becomes not worthy of credence. These authorities underscore that courts must be vigilant against after-the-fact embellishments which may be aimed at securing a conviction at all costs. The proper judicial response to a proved dishonest improvement is to exclude the tainted portion from consideration and examine whether the residual testimony is still credible and sufficient to sustain the charge. In other words, a witness's dishonest exaggeration affects only the embellished portion of his statement and does not automatically discredit the entirety of his testimony, especially if the remainder finds support from other evidence. This approach reflects a balanced evidentiary rule: it penalizes falsehood but salvages the truth in a witness's account, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Applying the above principles to the present case, it is to be determined whether the new assertions of the complainant (PW-15) were the product of a malicious design to mislead or simply an understandable human response under the circumstances that prevailed. On careful evaluation, we find no mala fide intent underlying these improvements. There is no indication that PW-15 fabricated the mask-slipping incident or surfaced the injuries sustained by one of the assailants or inflated the number of assailants to falsely implicate an innocent person; indeed, the identity of the accused as perpetrators had already been surfaced during the course of investigation. Her additions did not introduce any new perpetrator or fundamentally change the nature of the accusation rather, they reinforced the identification of those she had already charged. It appears that PW-15, as a distraught victim, was motivated by a desire to ensure that the culprits would not escape punishment. This is markedly different from a witness who fabricates evidence out of vendetta or for personal gain. Here, the witness had endured a grievous misdemeanor; her overriding concern was that justice should be done. In that pursuit, she over-emphasized certain aspects of her recollection (likely believing them to be true or crucial) without any intent to deceive the Court about the core incident. The court understands that when someone recalls a traumatic event in public, he/she may unintentionally add or emphasize details due to stress and the seriousness of the moment. We are, therefore, persuaded that the credibility of the complainant, in essence, remains intact. Her embellishments were born of apprehension and shock, not out of any plot to pervert the course of justice.
Consequently, in line with the legal principles cited, we deem it safe and just to disregard the embellished portions of her testimony while considering the rest of her evidence on its own merits.
12. As regards the non-production of Mst. Jehan Ranra and Mst. Parwana, who were cited in the FIR as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, this omission, though generally a relevant consideration in criminal trials, must be examined in its proper context. The failure to produce eyewitnesses may raise an adverse inference only where the prosecution abandons neutral or independent witnesses while relying solely on related or interested ones. However, in the present case, both Mst. Jehan Ranra and Mst. Parwana stood in the same category as the complainant Mst. Shazia (PW-15), with respect to their relationship to the deceased. Mst. Jehan Ranra is the widow of deceased Atta-ur- Rahman, while Mst. Parwana is the daughter of deceased Gul Zarin and sister of the remaining three deceased. Thus, they were equally close relatives of the victims and their testimonies would not have altered the nature of the prosecution reliance on related witnesses. It is a settled principle of law that the decision to produce or withhold a particular witness during trial lies within the discretion of the prosecution. Unless mala fide or deliberate suppression is demonstrated, such non-production cannot by itself be treated as fatal to the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zia Ullah v. The State reported as 1993 SCMR 155 held that the prosecution is not under an obligation to examine each and every witness mentioned in the list of witnesses particularly where it forms the opinion that the witness is either unnecessary or have been won over by the accused. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the non- examination of Mst. Jehan Ranra and Mst. Parwana does not carry any adverse consequence for the case of prosecution.
13. With regard to the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants concerning the prosecution's reliance on related witnesses namely, Mst. Shazia (PW-15), the complainant and eyewitness of the occurrence, and Umar Zada (PW-10), Mst. Amrozia (PW-14), Aqal Rahman (PW16) and Ghani Rahman (PW-19), all of whom are close relatives of the deceased, it is necessary to evaluate this criticism in light of settled legal principles and the factual matrix of the case. Mst. Shazia (PW-15) was not only a natural but also a most relevant witness, being a resident of the very house where the occurrence took place. The incident occurred in the dead of night inside a residential setting and she was among the few surviving adults present at the time. Her testimony, therefore, is not only admissible but forms the core of the prosecution case and her appearance before the court was fully justified. As for the other witnesses produced to establish the motive, particularly the alleged property dispute between the deceased and the abettors (appellants Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan), they were closely related to both the parties. In view of their familial ties and proximity, it is natural that they would possess better knowledge of the longstanding property-related tensions and interpersonal dynamics within the family. It is well- established that mere relationship of a witness to the victim is not sufficient to discard his testimony. What matters is the intrinsic worth of his statement, its consistency with the surrounding facts and whether it inspires confidence. In this regard, valuable guidance can be drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Saleem v. The State reported as PLJ 2010 SC 953, wherein it was held the statement of a witness must be in consonance with the probabilities, fitting in the circumstances of the case and inspiring confidence in the mind of a reasonable and prudent person. If these elements are present, even the statement of a worst enemy of the accused may be accepted without corroboration; conversely, if these elements are missing, the testimony of a pious man can be discarded without hesitation. In the present case, the witnesses produced by the prosecution have given coherent, consistent and plausible statements, and their relationship with the deceased does not detract from the credibility of their testimonies. Hence, the objection regarding their familial connection with the deceased is without merit and cannot be made a ground to discredit their otherwise trustworthy testimonies.
13. Turning to the confessional statements of appellants Haji Nawab, Usman Ghani, Gul Nawab and Iqbal Hussain. Before evaluating the evidentiary worth of these statements, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce the same for ready perusal.
Confessional statement of appellant Haji Nawab son of Jafar Khan.
Confessional statement of Usman Ghani son of Jafar Khan Confessional statement of Gul Nawab son of Jafar Khan Confessional statement of Iqbal Hussain son of Gul Dad Khan
14. There can be no two opinions on the well-settled legal proposition that a judicial confession, if found to be voluntary, true and recorded in accordance with law, can form the basis for conviction against its maker. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants has objected the validity of the confessional statements primarily on three grounds: (i) the alleged delay of five days (in case of Iqbal Hussain more than a month) in recording the same, (ii) the claim that the confessions were obtained under duress and police pressure, and (iii) the fact that the appellants later retracted their statements. These objections, however, are not borne out by the record. It is evident from the testimony of the learned Judicial Magistrate (PW-17) and the associated proceedings that due procedural safeguards were observed prior to the recording of the confessions. The order dated 19.04.2021 passed by the said Magistrate in response to an application (Ex.PW-18/28) moved by the Investigating Officer, categorically reveals that 08 accused persons namely Sebab Khan, Sher Alam Khan, Jafar Khan, Bakht Zaman, and Pahlawan along with the three confessing appellants Haji Nawab, Usman Ghani and Gul Nawab were produced on the same date before him for recording of confessional statements. Notably, the learned Magistrate, after interacting with all the accused so produced, declined to record the confessions of the first five individuals as they had refused to admit their guilt. This fact is highly significant, as it directly negates the allegation that the confessions were extracted through torture or coercion. Had all the accused been subjected to uniform police pressure or custodial abuse, as suggested by the appellants' counsel, it is unlikely that only three would have opted to confess while the others remained silent. This differential response reinforces the conclusion that the four confessing appellants spoke voluntarily and of their own free will. Moreover, the subsequent retraction of the confessions does not ipso facto render them inadmissible or unreliable. It is a trite principle of law that retracted confessions, if otherwise recorded in accordance with law and found to be truthful and voluntary, may still be relied upon for conviction. Retractions made after judicial confessions are often viewed with caution, as they are typically self-serving and motivated by a desire to value of the confessions. In view of the foregoing analysis, and in light of the confessional statements being voluntary, duly recorded in accordance with the law and corroborated by other substantial evidence linking the appellants with the commission of the offence, we find no hesitation in affirming the trial court's reliance upon the said confessions to uphold the conviction of the confessing appellants.
15. The confessional statements of the appellants receive substantial and independent corroboration from the circumstantial and forensic evidence available on record. Significantly, on 11.04.2021, the very next day following the incident, the Investigating Team collected blood-stained earth and sand, along with multiple crime empties, including three of 7.62 bore (C3, C4, C5), three of 30 bore (C1, C2, C6), and one of 12 bore shotgun (C7), from various locations inside and outside the house where the occurrence had taken place. These items were promptly dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis on the following day. The FSL report (Ex.PK/2) revealed the following results: -Cl, C2 & C6 = Fired from one and the same 30 bore weapon. -C3, C4 & C5 = Fired from one and the same 7.62 bore weapon. - C7 Shotgun, no further opinion being a standalone cartridge. escape criminal liability. In this regard, authoritative guidance is found in the case of Dadullah and another v. The State reported as 2015 SCMR 856, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the admissibility of voluntary confessions, even if later retracted, provided they inspire confidence and are corroborated by other evidence on record. As to the objection regarding the delay in recording the confessions, it is equally devoid of substance. Mere lapse of time between arrest and recording of the confessional statement per se does not vitiate its evidentiary value. What is crucial is whether the delay was reasonably explained and whether the confession was recorded in a free atmosphere without any inducement, threat, or coercion. In Maieed v. The State reported as 2010 SCMR 55, the apex Court held that no hard and fast rule can be prescribed as to the precise timeframe within which a confession must be recorded. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances. The Court further emphasized in the aforesaid judgment that delay alone is not sufficient to discredit a confession if it otherwise appears to be voluntary and trustworthy. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever on record to suggest that the appellants were subjected to physical or mental torture during the intervening period of police custody. Hence, the element of delay cannot be held fatal to the admissibility or probative The appellants were subsequently nominated and arrested on 14.04.2021. During the course of investigation, on 18.04.2021, the recovery of weapons was effected at the instance of the appellants from a cave in a nearby mountain. The recovered arms included: three pistols of 30 bore, one SMG of 7.62 bore, and three 12 bore shotguns, two of which still had empty shells stuck in their chambers. These were dispatched to the FSL on 20.04.2021 for ballistic comparison with the crime empties previously sent.
The FSL report (Ex.PK/4) conclusively matched the following weapons with the empties recovered from the crime scene: Cl, C2 & C6 = Fired from 30 bore pistol No. 3142 of appellant Sher Alam C3, C4 & C5 = Fired from 7.62 bore SMG No. 585 of appellant Haji Nawab. C7 (spot) & C9 (stuck in chamber = Fired from shotgun No. 149923 of appellant Sebab.
This chain of events presents a seamless and compelling corroboration of the confessional statements through independent forensic evidence. The timeline is of particular importance because the crime empties were recovered and sent to FSL on 12.04.2021, prior to the nomination or arrest of the appellants on 14.04.2021. This sequence rules out any possibility of manipulation or post-arrest fabrication. The ballistic match thus emerges as a critical piece of corroborative evidence, reinforcing the prosecution case by independently linking three of the appellants Sher Alam, Haji Nawab, and Sebab with the weapons used by them in the commission of the offence. In such circumstances, the probative force of the confessions, duly supported by scientific findings, cannot be brushed aside.
16. Another significant link in the chain of corroborative circumstances is the injuries sustained by appellant Iqbal Hussain, along with the false narrative he put forth to conceal its origin. As per Madd No. 38 dated 11.04.2021, which has already been reproduced in Para No. 4 of this judgment, Iqbal Hussain reported to the police that on the same morning at about 05:00 A.M, he had visited the residence of his brother Sher Alam to have a newly purchased pistol inspected. According to his version, while Sher Alam was checking the weapon, it accidentally discharged, causing bullet injuries to his back, abdomen and arm. However, the highly unnatural and implausible nature of this explanation aroused suspicion. Upon further inquiry, the police uncovered the truth that Iqbal Hussain had actually sustained the injuries during the incident involving the murder of four persons. His concocted story was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to mislead the investigation and cover up his active involvement in the crime. The fabricated report not only failed to withstand scrutiny, but ultimately backfired on him, proving to be a classic case of digging one's own grave by trying to mislead the investigation. The falsehood became a telling circumstance, a metaphorical thorn stuck in his own throat highlighting both his consciousness of guilt and desperate attempt at evasion. This piece of evidence, independently verified through medical and investigative findings, significantly bolsters the prosecution case and serves as a compelling corroboration of his participation in the crime. It is an incriminating circumstance that cannot be ignored or treated as innocuous.
17. The postmortem examination reports of all the deceased persons unequivocally establish that each of them sustained fatal firearm injuries, which resulted in instantaneous death at the scene of occurrence. The medico-legal findings provide critical corroboration to the prosecution case, not only confirming the cause of death but also reinforcing the mode and manner of the offence as alleged. Importantly, the nature, location and multiplicity of the injuries, as recorded in the autopsy reports, clearly reflect the use of lethal firearms, including both bullets and pellets, consistent with the weapons later recovered during the investigation on pointation of the appellants. The presence of entry and exit wounds caused by high-velocity bullets, as well as burst wounds, matches the ballistic characteristics of the 30 bore pistols, 7.62 bore SMG and 12 bore shotguns recovered on pointation of the appellants/assailants. This medical evidence serves as an independent and scientific verification of both the ocular account and the judicial confessions, further tightening the prosecution case by ruling out any possibility of false implication or concoction. In this regard, the postmortem reports form an unassailable link in the chain of incriminating circumstances that connect the appellants with the brutal and fatal assault on the deceased persons.
18. Turning back to the culpability of all the appellants in light of the confessional statements and circumstantial evidence discussed above in detail. A comparative analysis of the confessional statements of the appellants reveals that, notwithstanding minor inconsistencies, all four confessions are broadly consistent and corroborative on the core issue namely, that the murders of the four deceased were the outcome of the active and joint participation of six appellants, namely Haji Nawab, Sher Alam, Gul Nawab, Usman Ghani, Iqbal Hussain, and Sebab, who acted in furtherance of their common object while inside and outside the house of deceased Gul Zarin. While these statements do not align perfectly in every detail, the discrepancies largely pertain to peripheral matters such as the precise motive behind the intrusion, the number of intruders who entered versus those who remained outside, the individualized roles played by each appellant and the injuries sustained by appellant Iqbal Hussain.
These differences relate to subsidiary and less material aspects of the incident and do not, in themselves, erode the common narrative concerning the core offence. The divergence among the confessions which remained the focus of the arguments concerns the alleged role of abettors Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan. There is no denial of the fact that the claim that these two abettors orchestrated the murders by offering a payment of Rs. 500,000/- is found only in the confession of appellant Iqbal Hussain and the remaining three confessing appellants, while admitting their involvement in the offence, make no mention of this conspiracy or any financial inducement by the said abettors, however, examination of the confessions made before the police shows that this narrative of acting pursuant to a financial agreement was absent in their earlier statements. The emergence of this claim only in the later judicial confession of Iqbal Hussain indicates a material departure from the earlier version, potentially suggesting a calculated attempt to deflect culpability or to save the abettors. This scenario raises an important legal question: where multiple confessional statements, found to be true and voluntary, are consistent in implicating their makers in the core criminal act, but differ on ancillary details and on the involvement of co-accused not confessing, can such confessions be used against the non-confessing co-accused or to establish a broader conspiracy? In this regard, Article 43 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, allows that when two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by one of them which also affects the others may be taken into consideration against them. We are cognizant of the settled principle that such a confession is not substantive evidence and cannot be made the sole basis of conviction for co-accused unless corroborated by independent and reliable evidence, however, the corroborative evidence of independent nature has already been discussed above. In sum, the confessions in this case can safely be relied upon against their makers due to their voluntariness and internal consistency on the essential act of murders and duly corroborated by direct and circumstantial evidence. As regards its evidentiary value against the other co-accused, though these subsidiary contradictions do not materially damage the evidentiary worth of the confessions against the confessing appellants themselves but would limit their I (it inside and outside the house of deceased Gul Zarin. While these statements do not align perfectly in every detail, the discrepancies largely pertain to peripheral matters such as the precise motive behind the intrusion, the number of intruders who entered versus those who remained outside, the individualized roles played by each appellant and the injuries sustained by appellant Iqbal Hussain.
These differences relate to subsidiary and less material aspects of the incident and do not, in themselves, erode the common narrative concerning the core offence. The divergence among the confessions which remained the focus of the arguments concerns the alleged role of abettors Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan. There is no denial of the fact that the claim that these two abettors orchestrated the murders by offering a payment of Rs. 500,000/- is found only in the confession of appellant Iqbal Hussain and the remaining three confessing appellants, while admitting their involvement in the offence, make no mention of this conspiracy or any financial inducement by the said abettors, however, examination of the confessions made before the police shows that this narrative of acting pursuant to a financial agreement was absent in their earlier statements. The emergence of this claim only in the later judicial confession of Iqbal Hussain indicates a material departure from the earlier version, potentially suggesting a calculated attempt to deflect culpability or to save the abettors. This scenario raises an important legal question: where multiple confessional statements, found to be true and voluntary, are consistent in implicating their makers in the core criminal act, but differ on ancillary details and on the involvement of co-accused not confessing, can such confessions be used against the non-confessing co-accused or to establish a broader conspiracy? In this regard, Article 43 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, allows that when two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by one of them which also affects the others may be taken into consideration against them. We are cognizant of the settled principle that such a confession is not substantive evidence and cannot be made the sole basis of conviction for co-accused unless corroborated by independent and reliable evidence, however, the corroborative evidence of independent nature has already been discussed above. In sum, the confessions in this case can safely be relied upon against their makers due to their voluntariness and internal consistency on the essential act of murders and duly corroborated by direct and circumstantial evidence. As regards its evidentiary value against the other co-accused, though these subsidiary contradictions do not materially damage the evidentiary worth of the confessions against the confessing appellants themselves but would limit their probative value when extended to implicate others not similarly placed in absence of independent corroboration.
Therefore, independent corroboration is to be sought for determination of guilt of the abettors and the remaining assailants who had not confessed their guilt. In this context, Article 43 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is instructive which is reproduced below for convenience.
43. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.-- When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons is proved,
(a) such confession shall be proof against the person; making it; and
(b) the Court may take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against such other person.
Explanation. "Offence", as used in this Article, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.
The aforesaid provision of law provides that when two or more persons are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of them affects not only the maker but also the co-accused, such a confession may be taken into consideration against the co-accused as a piece of corroborative evidence. Reliance is placed on "Mushtaq and others V/s. The State" reported as 2012 SCMR 109 wherein it was held by the apex Court that: "9. Whereas confessional statement of an accused can be made the basis of his conviction for the crime, the confessional statement of a co-accused can only be taken as circumstance against him, but no conviction can be recorded upon it. The confessional statements of Gul Wali Khan and Ghulam Khaliq can be used to corroborate that of Mushtaq to the extent of facts admitted by the latter but not as regards the part denied by him. This is in line with the principle that the confessional statement of an accused is to be accepted as a whole. As Mushtaq appellant did not admit to have killed the deceased, he cannot be held responsible for the killing on the confessional statements of the co-accused. Additionally, unlike Gul Wali Khan and Ghulam Khaliq, he had no personal motive for killing the deceased. He was employed in another household and had no grouse against the deceased".
Similar view is reflected from the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court in the case of "Atlas Khan V/s. The State" reported as 1995 P Cr.L J 1996. It was held the in the said judgment that: "We have very minutely considered these contentions and we do not agree with the learned counsel for the reason that under the provisions of Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat the Court can take into consideration a confession made by one person against the person making it and can also take it into consideration as circumstantial evidence against other person. The confession, which had been corroborated by other evidence, made by acquitted accused being inculpatory could also be lawfully used against the appellant".
19. Although subsidiary contradictions do exist in the confessional statements of the appellants, the core fact of the murder of four individuals at the hands of the assailants consistently emerges as an admitted circumstance across all judicial confessions. When these confessions are collectively examined in the light of the corroborative evidence on record, they form a continuous chain that links all the appellants including the abettors to the commission of the murders either through their active participation or by way of abetment.
20. So far as the burden of prosecution in establishing the criminal conspiracy is concerned, proof of the mentioned crime is uniquely challenging because a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy. By its very nature, conspirators do not commit their crime in the open or leave direct evidence of their agreement. Consequently, the courts recognize that direct evidence of a conspiracy is rarely available, and instead circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from conduct often form the basis of proof in such situations. In evaluating circumstantial evidence of conspiracy, the role of the motive and opportunity should not be overlooked. A strong motive though does not by itself prove the guilt, but it bolsters the prosecution case when combined with other facts. Ultimately, when the totality of evidence is weighed by considering the same as a whole, we find the circumstantial evidence of conspiracy as overwhelming forming a reasonable ground for conviction of the conspirators despite the lack of direct proof of the planning.
21. The prosecution has adduced sufficient direct and documentary evidence to establish the motive that surfaced during the course of investigation. According to the complainant, the appellants Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan, her step-brothers, were aggrieved with their father Gul Zarin for not giving them a share in his property. In this context, they had instituted a civil suit against him, which was dismissed by the civil court vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 in favour of Gul Zarin. The prosecution witnesses further disclosed that although Gul Zarin had initially transferred some land to the abettors in connection whereof, they had paid him Rs.70,000/-, which Gul Zarin subsequently repossessed and sold the same to Sohail and Wahaj through a deed (Ex.
PW-11/1) after the abettors allegedly failed to support him financially. Sohail was examined as PW-11 to substantiate this transaction. Additionally, Umar Zada (PW-10), a cousin of both the complainant and the abettors, testified that upon the death of Gul Zarin's wife, who was the stepmother of the abettors, he advised them to attend the funeral rites. However, they refused, declaring that their father would have to face the consequences of the injustice he had committed. During cross- examination, the defence counsel elicited an admission from the complainant (PW-15), confirming that her father had sold a portion of land and denied the suggestion that her step-brothers were visiting him. She also confirmed in her cross-examination that efforts to resolve the land dispute through two Jirgas failed as the step-brothers remained unwilling to compromise. Another cousin, Aqal Zaman (PW-16), corroborated the earlier claim regarding the payment of Rs.70,000/- and stated that despite receiving the amount, the deceased had neither returned the money nor retained the land with the abettors. He also recounted an incident where, while digging grave for the stepmother in the disputed land about a year before the incident, he was restrained by appellant Pahlawan. The cumulative effect of this evidence clearly demonstrates the deeply strained relationship between the deceased and the abettors arising from the unresolved land dispute. The prosecution has, therefore, successfully discharged its burden in proving the motive behind the crime as alleged by the complainant.
22. In culmination of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing an unbroken and convincing chain of evidence linking the appellants with the commission of the offence. The judicial confessions of the assailants, found to be voluntary, truthful, and recorded in accordance with law, stand corroborated by compelling forensic evidence including recovery of weapons, positive ballistic matches and the nature of injuries noted in the postmortem reports. The prosecution has also brought on record substantial circumstantial material such as the implausible explanation of injuries by appellant Iqbal Hussain, his medically verified participation in the incident and recoveries at the instance of the accused, which independently fortify the narrative of prosecution. As regards the abettors, although the allegation of conspiracy surfaced explicitly in only one confession, the same is adequately supported by the established motive, the nature and timing of the conspiracy meetings and the conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence, forming a coherent picture of premeditation. The cumulative assessment of ocular, forensic and circumstantial evidence leads to one inescapable conclusion: that the six assailants actively participated in the brutal murders while Jafar Khan was at the back of them planning the entire episode and commanding them to commit the murders in consideration of Rs.500,000/- from the abettors Bakht Zaman and Pahlawan who orchestrated the offence with clear intent and motive. In such circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court do not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and warrant no interference.
23. Regarding the quantum of sentences, the penalty of death awarded to four appellants namely Haji Nawab, Sher Alam, Sebab Khan and Iqbal Hussain needs consideration in light of the attending facts and circumstances of the present case. Two of them namely Haji Nawab and Iqbal Hussain are in their prime youth and all of them belong to same family as Sher Alam, Sebab Khan and Iqbal Hussain are brothers inter se while Haji Nawab is their uncle. They had no direct motive against the deceased nor there was previous blood feud of them with deceased Gul Zarin and his sons. In addition, there are minor contradictions in the case of prosecution. Though the same are not substantial enough to damage the prosecution case, however, same can be considered as a mitigating factor. In the above context, the sentence of life imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. It is settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of "Abrar Ahmad Farooq and others v. The State and another" reported as PLD 2024 S.C 815 that for determining the quantum of sentence, each case has to be judged upon its own facts and circumstances. A single mitigating circumstance, available in a particular case, would be sufficient to put a Judge on guard for not awarding the penalty of death but imprisonment for life.
25. In light of the above discussion, this appeal is partially allowed, the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge /Zilla Qazi/Judge MCTC, Shangla dated 21.09.2024 in case F.I.R No. 200 dated 11.04.2021 under sections 302, 457, 148, 149, 109/34 P.P.C, 15 A.A registered at P.S Aloch, District Shangla, is modified by converting the sentences of death awarded to appellants/convicts (i) Sher Alam (ii) Sebab Khan (iii) Iqbal Hussain sons of Gul Dad Khan and (iv)
Haji Nawab son of Jaffar Khan u/s 302(b)/149 P.P.0 to life imprisonment on four counts. The remaining sentences imposed upon all the appellants by the trial court shall remain intact. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.0 is given to the appellants. The sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Murder Reference Nos. 08-M, 09-M, 10-M & 11- M/2024 are answered in negative. The connected Cr.A No. 241-M/2024 and Cr.R No. 63-M/2024 are dismissed being devoid of merits.
26. Above are the reasons of our short order of the even date.