MAULANA MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, J: --The for appellants namely, Javed Masih, Shamoon Masih, Arif Masih and Noor Masih were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.VII South Karachi under section 17(4) of the Offences Against the Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979). At the conclusion of the trial the accused, Javed Masih, Shamoon Masih and Arif Masih were convicted under section 302, F.P.C. And section 17(4) of the Ordinance and were sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.50,000 each, and in case of default in the payment of fine the defaulter was ordered to undergo imprisonment for 5 years. However, the accused Noor Masih was convicted under section 301 read with section 17(4) of the Ordinance and was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. All the for appellants preferred an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court. The appeal of Javed Masih, Shamoon Masih and Noor Masih was dismissed by the Federal Shariat Court. However, their conviction under section 17(4) of the Ordinance was set aside .And all their sentences under section 302, P.P.C. Were maintained, and the conviction of Noor Masih was converted from section 301, P.P.C. To section 302/34, P.P.C. But the sentence of life imprisonment was not changed. This joint appeal by special leave of this Court has been directed against the said judgment of 'the Federal Shariat Court.
2. The brief facts of this case, according to the prosecution, are that Muhammad Shafi, P.W.S is a Chowkidar in the Hirani Centre, a Building owned by Ibrahim Ali Bhai Trust situated at LI. Chundrigar Road, Karachi. In the morning of 13th of August, 1988 he came to his duty at 8-00 a.m..He proceeded to the Machine Room on the ground floor where he found the dead bodies of Turab Gul, a Chowkidar of the 4th floor of the same building and of Zahid Noor who was an employee of Ibrahim Ali Bhai Trust. Turab Gul was bleeding from his mouth. Being frightened of the scene, he went to the adjoining Building Al-Manzoor and informed Munsif Khan, P.W.6 (who was the Chowkidar of AI-Manzoor building) about the occurrence. Munsif Khan told him that on about 10- 00 p.m. In the preceding night he had seen Javed Masih, the appellant No.1 entering into the Hirani Centre alongrvith Turab Gul and Zahid Noor, the deceased persons. Both Muhammad Shari, P.W.S and Munsif Khan, P.W.6 entered the building where dead bodies were lying. Munsif Khan advised Muhammad Shafi to contact Ayub Khan, another Chowkidar working on the 5th floor of the same building. They proceeded to the 5th floor but they found that the door of that floor was also opened and Ayub Khan was also lying dead. His right hand was tied with electric wire and the other hand was tied with a nylon rope. Some blood was found on the floor and on the walls of the floor and also over the door span.
3. Munsif Khan, P.W.6, then returned back to his own building and informed Muhammad Mehdi, P.W.7, the Manager of AI-Manzoor Building about the occurrence and he conveyed the message to Shamim Ahmad Siddiqui, P.W.3, the Manager of Ibrahim Ali Bhai Trust who reached at the spot and found that some unknown persons after killing the three Chowkidars had taken away the valuable articles of Habib Group Action. He, therefore, lodged the formal F.LR. In the Police Station Civil Line, Karachi on 13-8-1988 at 10-30 a.m.
4. Being informed by Munsif Khan, P.W.6 that the deceased persons were seen in the eventful night with Javed Masih who happened to be a sweeper in the relevant building, the investigation was directed against Javed Masih who disclosed, during interrogation, the names of other three appellants also. They were arrested and some recoveries were effected from them and they were challaned in the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, who after concluding the trial convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.
5. In order to establish the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has produced as many as 27 witnesses. As leave in this case was granted for A reappraisal of evidence, it will be pertinent to give a substance of the evidence of some important witnesses.
6. Muhammad Hussain P.W.1 is the Mushir of Vardat who has attested the memo of Vardat. He is a Typist in Habib Mudaraba Management Ltd. Hirani Centre, 5th Floor. He has also deposed that the Managing Director of Habib Mudaraba had prepared the list of the articles which were found missing from the office on the day of occurrence. This list has been brought on the record as Exh.10.
It is in the form of a letter dated 13-8-1988, which is signed by Akbar Ali Fadoo P.W.4, the Managing Director Habib Mudaraba and is addressed to the Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Karachi. The articles which were found missing are described therein as under:-- Two Seiko wrist watches One Lassala wrist watch One Rado wrist watch Four Dunhill lighters.
Two ball pens (S.T. Dupont)
One ball pen with calculator one wrist watch Raymondweil five cross ball pens Khas Deposit Certificates amounting to Rs. Five million, bearing numbers J-216101 to J-216130 for Rs.100,000 each (30 Nos) and No.H-243537 to H-243576 for Rs.50,000 each (40 Nos.).,
7. Sharaim Siddiqi P.W.3 is the complainant who has proved the contents of the F.I.R. Where the incident has been mentioned without any reference to the appellants.
8. Akbar Ali Fadoo P.W.4 is the Managing Director of Habib Mudaraba, the office of which is situated at the 5th floor of the relevant building. He has proved the letter dated 13-8-1988 Irxh.10 signed by him containing the list of the missing articles as detailed above. He has also signed the recovery memo of the rope and the electric wire used for electrocuting the deceased victim. He has also signed the letter Exh.16 whereby he informed the S.H.O., Civil Lines that he has written letters to the Standard Chartered Bank and the Citi Bank to stop encasement of the Khas Deposit Certificates. He also received a confirmation letter from Citi Bank dated 16-8-1988 Exh.17 and a similar letter from Standard Chartered Bank dated 16-8-1988 Exh.18 to the effect that they have marked caution on the relevant Khas Deposit Certificates in their books. All these letters contain the numbers of the certificates as mentioned in para.6 above.
9. Muhammad Shah P.W.S is the person who saw the dead bodies of Turab Gul and Zahid Noor for the first time. He has signed the inquest report Exh.20 prepared by the Inspector Incharge Civil Lines. He has also witnessed the arrest of Javed Masih and the recoveries effected from him.
10. Munsif Khan P.W.6 is the Chowkidar of Al-Manzoor Building adjoining to the Hirani Centre. He has given the `Last Seen Evidence' to the effect that on 12th of August 1988 at 10-00 p.m. He saw Turab Gul and Ayub in the company of Javed Masih around the Hirani Centre. Then, Javed Masih brought another person, namely Noor Masih. The deceased Turab Gul disclosed to this witness that Javed Masih had brought a video film and they wanted to view it. Munsif P.W. Asked Turab Gul about Zahid Noor on which he replied that he was inside the building. On the next morning the witness was informed by Muhammad Shaft P.W.S that Turab Gul and Zahid Noor were lying dead on the ground floor.
11. Munsif Khan also stated that Javed Masih was employed in the ground floor of the Hirani Centre and he knew him well. Therefore, he escorted the police to get him arrested. On personal search of Javed Masih one key was recovered from his pocket. Later on, he led to the recovery of two Seiko wrist watches from a suitcase, and his blood-stained clothes from a bag. The shirt of Javed contained 6 stains of blood while the Shalwar had 4 stains of blood. One cassette titled "Bikhre Moti" was also secured from the same bag. The memo. Of all these recoveries Exh.22 was signed and proved by Munsif Khan P.W.6 and Muhammad Shaft P.W.S.
12. Ghulam Qadir P.W.12 is a Sanitory Inspector of Karachi City Railway Station. He deposed that Arif Masih and Shamoon Masih used to serve under him as sweepers. They were absent from their duty since 11-8-1988.
13. Imdad P.W.13 is an officer of Export Promotion Bureau. According to the site plan E.Xh. 67, the display centre of this bureau is situated on the ground floor of the Hirani Centre. Imdad has deposed that Javed Masih used to serve in his department as a sweeper and he had the key of the library section of the Bureau and was authorized to open the office in the absence of the Chowkidar who was on leave on the day of occurrence.
14. Muniruddin P.W.14 is the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade wherein Munsif P.W.6 correctly recognized Javed Masih and Noor Masih, but did not recognize Arif Masih and Shamoon Masih.
15. Muniruddin, the Magistrate has again appeared as P.W.15 to state that on 27-8-1988 he had recorded the confessional' statement of Noor Masih under section 164, Cr.P.C., Exh.50, and observed all the formalities to satisfy himself about the voluntary nature of the statement.
16. The substance of the confessional statement of Noor Masih is that in the night preceding the night of occurrence his friend Javed Masih called him to his home where Arif Masih and Shamoon Masih also arrived. Javed proposed to all of them that they should murder the three Chowkidars of his office in order to rob money from it. Noor Masih was not agreeable to the proposal in the beginning, bL: Javed Masih threatened him that he, along with his two other friends, would do the job and then get him involved in the case.
Being afraid of this threat, he went to Javed's home on the next day. Javed took him to his office and on their way to the office, Arif Masih and Shamoon Masih also joined them. Javed, along with a Chowkidar of his office, went to a shop of video-cassettes from where he brought a cassette. He saw the Chowkidar viewing the film on the VCR. He sat besides him while Javed was standing nearby. After a while Javed went outside and came back with Arif and Shamoon. Javed threw a coil of rope in the neck of the Chowkidar and threw him on the ground from his back side. Shamoon and Arif tied him with the rope, and Javed gave an electric shock to the naked toe of his left leg, and he died on the spot. Then, Javed went outside and called another Chowkidar. When he came near the door, Javed knocked him down on the ground and Arif and Shamoon tied his hands and legs with a rope and brought him inside the room where the other Chowkidar was lying dead.
Javed gave him an electric shock on his stomach, and he also breathed his last. Then Javed brought all his three companions to the fifth floor where another Chowkidar was sleeping. He ordered him to open the door, and as soon as the Chowkidar opened the door, Javed Masih threw the rope on his neck and dragged him towards the centre of the door where he was knocked down.
All the three persons i.e. Noor Masih, Arif and Shamoon tied his hands and legs. Then, Javed gave him also the electric current and he died within five minutes.
17. Noor Masih has further stated that after all the three Chowkidars were killed, Javed took his companions to the second floor of the building where Javed opened the door of an office and broke an almirah with a hammer and took out money from it. Then he took all of them to the third floor where also he broke a safe open and took out money. Thereafter he took them to the fifth floor where Arif, Shamoon and Javed broke another almirah and took out some valuable articles including watches, a lighter, pens, some bonds and some cash amount. Then, all of them came downstairs where the robbed property was distributed and Noor Masih was given Rs.38,000 and a watch. This operation came to an end at 3-30 a.m.
18, Taj Muhammad P.W.17 a taxi driver, is a public witness who witnessed the arrest of Shamoon Masih, Aril Masih and Noor Masih. S.H.O. Tariq had requested him to join a police raid arranged by him to arrest the three accused persons. According to him, they reached Hijrat Colony where they saw a locked house situated at 'Ganda Nala'. The S.H.O. Broke the lock open, they entered the house and found all the three persons sitting on a cot. The witness identified them in the Court.
19. The witness further stated that during the personal search of Noor Masih, a cash amount of Rs.38,041 and one Rado wrist watch was recovered. From Arif Masih, an amount of Rs.18,500 and one golden wrist watch and from Shamoon Masih Rs.17,000, one lighter, one ball pen and one calculator was secured. Then, Shamoon Masih pointed out to a tin box and after digging the ground from beneath it an envelope was discovered which contained the Khan Deposit Certificates.
20. The memo of these recoveries is Exh.54 which is signed by Taj Muhammad P.W.17 and one Sayyid Anwar Shah (not produced). The memo describes the serial numbers of the Khas Deposit Certificates which are the same as mentioned in para. 6 of this judgment.
21. Dr. Aftab Azizi P.W.18 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Haji Ayub, the deceased, from 1-00 p.m. To 2-00 p.m. On 13-8-1988. He found two lacerated wounds on his skull, one ligature mark round the neck, one electric burn round the right little finger proximal phalyn where one electric wire was folded around, and one electric burn round the left little finger proximal phalyn.
The doctor's observation about the cause of death was as under: "In my opinion the cause of death was asphyxial leading to cardio--respiratory failure resulting from electric shock and strangulation. The probable time between death and post-mortem examination was about 10 to 12 hours."
22. Sirajuddin P.W.23 owns a video-cassette shop at LI Chundrigar Road. He deposed that he had given a video-cassette of the film `Kanwar Lal' on rent to Javed Masih on 12-8-1988 p.m. And that he had given to the police a photo--stat copy of a page from the register maintained by him, where it was recorded that the film had been issued to Javed Masih. This photostat copy is Exh.64.
23. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal P.W.25 conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of Turab Gul and Zahid Noor. He found two electric burns on the left and right foot and one ligature mark round the neck of Turab Gul. With respect to Zahid Noor, he found the electric burns on the right hand, left fore--arm and the abdomen. He also observed one legature mark round the neck. The cause of death of both of them was observed as Asphyxia leading to cardio-respiratory failure resulting from electrocution and strangulation.
24. Abdulhadi Khan P.W.26 is the chemical analyser who has proved his report Exh.72 wherein he found articles Nos. 1 to 9 and 12 (being different articles found with the deceased persons) stained with human blood. He also found stains of human blood on Article 14 which was the Shalwar of Javed Masih. The stains found on the shirt of Javed Masih (Article 13) were too insufficient to form an opinion about their origin.
25 Muhammad Sadiq P.W.27 is the S.H.O. At Civil Line Police Station who has acted as investigation officer in this case and he has given the details of his investigation.
26. All the for appellants, while giving statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied all the charges against them. They also refused to accept that anything was recovered from them. They also appeared in the witness-box under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Javaed Masih advanced no plea except denial. H claimed that he did not even know his other co-accused persons. However, a the remaining three appellants took the plea that they had been arrested frog the village Budha Guraya, District Gujranwala on 17-8-1988. Noor Masih also disowned the confessional statement referred to in para.l6 of this judgment.
27. They also examined Muhammad Iqbal D.WS and Nusrat Mariyan D.W.7, the sister of Noor Masih who have supported the defence plea that the three appellants were arrested from District Gujranwala on 17-8-1988. On a~ application moved on behalf .Of the three appellants, Aurangzeb A.S.I. Wa called to the witness-box as D.W.6. He clarified that at one stage he had gone to P.S. Wirqua in District Gujranwala, but he was informed that the required accused persons had left the place, therefore he came back to Karachi. The entry found in the daily diary about his departure from Karachi relates to the event.
28. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was a blind murder not witnessed by anyone; that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the appellant; responsible for such a blind murder; that the recovered articles were not produced in the Court; that the cash amount and other articles alleged to be secured from the appellants were not claimed by anyone; that the only direct evidence against the appellants is the confession made by Noor Masih, but its voluntary nature is doubtful, because, according to Noor Masih, it has been extracted from him through coercive measures and by putting his mother and sister under the threats of dishonouring them. The learned counsel further contended that in any case the confession made by Noor Masih is exculpatory in nature and it cannot be used against the other accused persons.
29. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution, coupled with the confession made by Noor Masih, has established the guilt of the appellants and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced.
30. We have heard both the learned counsels at length and have scrutinized the record with due precaution. It is true that the actual incident was not witnessed by anyone except the culprits or the victims themselves. Murder and robbery was committed in the late hours of the night at a place where nobody was supposed to be present except the Chowkidars themselves who were brutally murdered. Therefore, no direct evidence could be expected in these circumstances. It is only circumstantial evidence that could be furnished in the given situation. We have, therefore, to see whether the material brought by the prosecution on record was sufficient to convict the appellants.
In order to examine this question, it will be just and proper to take the case of each one of the foul appellants separately.
31. We first take the case of Noor Masih. He has given a detailed amount of the occurrence in his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Which has already been summarized in para. 16 above.
Muniruddin A.C.M. Has appeared as P.W.15 who has recorded this statement. He removed the handcuffs of Noor Masih, sent the police outside, introduced himself to Noor Masih, and not only informed him twice that he was not bound to give any statement, but also gave him two hours time for reflection. The Magistrate also examined his body and found no injury therein. After recording the statement he was sent to jail.
32. It is true that Noor Masih has disowned this statement at the trial, but his standpoint is contradictory. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has flatly denied that he had made any confessional statement. Similarly, in his statement under section 340(2) he at first, said, "The statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the Court was not made by me as it was in a language which I do not understand," but in the same breath he said, "The police obtained the confessional statement by coercive methods." He also stated that he had some physical injuries when he was produced before the magistrate. But the magistrate has expressly said that he did not find any injury on his person.
33. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on his statement at the trial, and his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Can safely be used against him. He has admitted in that statement that he not only accompanied Javed Masih throughout the brutal operation, but also helped him in tying the hands and legs of Haji Ayub, the deceased
34. His confession is corroborated by the testimony of Munsif Khan P.W.6 who had seen him along with Javed Masih in the eventful Wight. It is further corroborated by his arrest from a locked house and by the recovery of Rs.38,000 and a Rado watch from him. The amount recovered from him is more than the. Amounts recovered from Arif and Shamoon. Therefore, his participation in the crime is proved to the hilt. His ,conviction is well-founded and the learned trial Court has given him maximum benefit by awarding him life imprisonment instead of capital punishment. His appeal is therefore dismissed.
35. We come now to the case of Javed Masih. According to the statement of Noor Masih under section 164, Cr.P.C. He was the main character of the whole satanic game, but the learned counsel for the appellants argued before, us !;hat the statement of Noor Masih being exculpatory in nature cannot be used against him. This argument of the learned counsel has been specifically noted in the leave granting order also.
36. We have paid due attention to this aspect of the case and have gone through the confessional statement of Noor Masih with care and caution. He has admitted that on 11-8-1988 he was invited by Javed Masih to participate in the murder of three Chowkidars of his office. It means that one day earlier he was well-aware of the evil game Javed Masih was designing to play. Still, he went to join him and remained with him from beginning to the end. His plea that Javed had threatened him of being roped in the murder case does in no way' exonerate him from his participation in the conspiracy. Moreover, he has himself admitted that he, along with Arif and Shamoon, had tied the hands and legs of Haji Ayub after he was knocked down by Javed. It is a clear admission on his part that he actively participated in the murder of Haji Ayub. In these circumstances his statement cannot be termed as exculpatory. It is rather aninculpatory statement which can be used against his co-accused persons also.
37. However, it is true that the solitary statement of an accomplice should not form the basis of conviction of other accused persons unless it is ` corroborated by some other circumstantial or ocular evidence. We have, F therefore, to see whether the statement of Noor Masih is corroborated by other pieces of evidence.
38. Javed Masih has admitted while appearing as D.W.1 that he was serving is the office of Export Corporation situated on the ground floor in Hirani Centre. Imdad P.W.13 has deposed that Javed had the key of one section of that office, Munsif Khan P.W.6 had seen him at 10-00 p.m. In the eventful night in the company of Turab Gul and Haji Ayub, the deceased persons. Turab Gul also informed Munsif Khan that Javed had brought a video film which they were going to watch.
Sirajuddin P.W.23 has testified that he had given the video film "Kanwar Lal" on rent to Javed in the night of ~ occurrence. It also appears that he remained absent from his duty in the period between 13.8. And 15.8, because he was arrested on 15.8 from Railway Phatak. Had he been attending his duty, he could have been arrested on 14.8. Munsit Khan P.W.6 and Muhammad Shaft P.WS have witnessed the arrest of Javea on 15-8-1988 where after he led to the recovery of his blood-stained clothes. His Shalwar was found by Abdulhadi Khan P.W.26 stained with human blood. Javed Masih has admitted in his statement under section 34C(2), Cr.P.C. That none of these prosecution witnesses had any enmity with him.
39. All these circumstances provide very strong corroboration to the confessional, statement of Noor Masih. The results of the post-mortem examination also match with the details given by him in the statement. The G guilt of Javed Masih has been fully proved and his conviction and sentence needs no interference by this Court. His appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
40. Shamoon Masih was also an active partner of Javed Masih according to the confessional statement of Noor Masih. This statement is corroborated by the testimony of Sirajuddin P.W.23 who has deposed that Javed and Shamoon both had come to his shop for taking the video film "Kanwar Lal". This witness has not been cross-examined by the counsel of Shamoon Masih. Rather, he has submitted a written statement Fach.65 wherein he has written: "No cross on behalf of accused Arif Masih, Noor Masih and Shamoon Masih". The statement of Noor Masih is further corroborated by Ghulam Qadir. P.W.12 under whom Shamooa used to work as sweeper. He has deposed that he was absent from his duty since 11-8-1988.
41. The strongest corroboration is his arrest from a locked house where he has also led to the recovery of the Khan Deposit Certificates from a pitch under a `dibba' of breads. This recovery is witnessed by Taj Muhammad P.W.17. The recovery memo. Is Exh.54 where the serial numbers are also mentioned. These are the same numbers as disclosed by Akbar Ali Fadoo P.W.4 in his letter Exh.10 as the serial numbers of the certificates robbed from his office.
42. The learned counsel argued in favour of Shamoon that he was actually arrested from Punjab and that no question has been asked from him under section 342 about the recovery of these certificates on his pointation.
43. So far as the factum of his arrest is concerned, it is proved on' the record through an independent witness Taj Muhammad P.W.17 and Muhammad Siddiq Tariq P.W.27 that he was arrested on 21-8-1988 from a locked house in Hijrat Colony, Karachi. Although, Shamoon has denied this fact in his examination-in-chief, yet.He has made an admission during the crossexamination in the following words: "It is correct that the house of Hijrat Colony, from where we werearrested was full of dirt and also heap of woods. It is also correct that there was one `dibba' of breads along with 2/3 other dibbas."
44. It is true that no question was asked from Shamoon under section 342 about the recovery of the certificates on his pointation. But when he appeared as D.W. Under section 340(2) he was asked during the cross-examination about this recovery.
45. The learned counsel further contended that Muhammad Tariq Siddiq P.W.27, who is the LO. In this case, has denied that the Khas Deposit Certificates were recovered from Shamoon. We have checked the record. In fact, the relevant portion of his cross-examination is as under:--- "It is correct that these three accused (Arif, Shamoon and Noor Masih), have pointed to the Khas Deposit Certificates to be presentinto the pitch. It is incorrect to say that pointation was made only by accused Shamoon Masih."
It is, therefore, dear that the I.O. Did not deny the fact that the certificates were recovered on the pointation of Shamoon. Instead, he claims that theywere recovered on the pointation of all the three persons including Shamoon Masih. This statement of the I.O. Is a little discrepant with the recovery memo. F.Xh.54 where it is mentioned that the recovery of the certificates was effected on the pointation of Shamoon. Taj Muhammad P.W.17 also has named Shamoon only. As the recovery memo. Was prepared on the spot, it is more authentic. The inclusion of two other persons in the statement of the 1.0. May be due to the lapse of time, but it does is no way exonerate Shamoon from the liability of this recovery.
45. The learned counsel for the appellants raised another objection that instead of the original Khas Desposit Certificates, only their photostat copies were produced in Court. But nothing turns out to this objection, because the serial numbers of the certificates were duly mentioned in the letter dated 13-8-1988 F.Xh.10 and any in the letters dated 16-8-1988 issued by City Bank. (Fxh.17) and by the Standard Chartered Bank (Exh.18) whereby it was confirmed that the certificates bearing .These numbers belonged to the Habib Mudaraba Management. The same serial numbers are mentioned is the recovery memo. F.Xh.54 which was prepared on 27-8-1988. In these circumstances, there remains no doubt in the fact that the recovered certificates were the same as were found missing by the Habib Mudarabah. In the case of such certificates, the serial numbers are more important khan their original papers, and after ascertaining their numbers, it was useless to retain the original certificates of as huge an amount as five million rupees.
46. The learned counsel further contended that the recoveries from the house of Hijrat Colony were effected in dear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. It is admitted by the LO. That no person from the locality was associated in the operation. Therefore, these recoveries are illegal and cannot form basis of conviction.
47. It is true that 'the requirements of section 103, Cr.P.C. Were not fully observed by the LO. Instead of the persons residing in the same locality, he has picked up a public witness from PIDC. But we cannot overlook the fact that the persons of the same locality generally do not come forward to act as witnesses against such criminals. Therefore, if the I.O, has picked up two witnesses from a place not very far from the place of raid, it cannot render the recoveries doubtful or ineffective.
48. For the reasons given above, the guilt of Shamoon is also established beyond any reasonable doubt. His appeal is also merits dismissal.
49. Now remains the case of Arif Masih. According to the confessional statement of Noor Masih he was also an active partner in the commission of the offence. But we feel that the corroborative evidence against him is not so strong as is the case of the former three culprits. He was not seen by anybody' at or around the place of incident in the night of occurrence, nor was he seen by any independent witness at that time in the company of the deceased ' persons or in the company of anyone of the three culprits. The things recovered from him are Rs.18,500 and a wrist watch, but nobody has appeared in the Court to say, nor any other evidence is led to prove, that this wrist watch was the same as was found missing from the office of Habib Mudaraba. It is true that an amount of Rs.18,500 is not normally supposed to be present in the pocket of a sweeper, but in order to connect this amount to the robbed amount one has to make some conjectures, and in the absence of some other evidence it will not be safe to treat it as a strong corroboration to the statement of Naor Masih. Therefore, his case is not free from doubt.
50. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal of Arif Masih is allowed. He is acquitted - on* the benefit of doubt. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. However, the guilt of other three appellant, l namely Javed Masih, Shamoon Masih and Noor Masih is fully proved. They have committed the murder of three innocent pnnr men with such an in,uixaz brutality that they deserve no leniency. All the sentences awarded to them, including the sentences of death awarded to Javed Masih and Shamoon Mask are upheld and their appeals are dismissed.