1. ' NAZIM HASSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 143, 180, 181, 187 and 203 of 1992 which are directed against the judgment dated 28-5-1992 of learned Judge Special Court No,III (STA) Karachi, whereby appellants Khawaja Hassanullah, Muhammad Akbar, Syed Ahmedullah, Muhammad Rafiq and Usman Zahid were convicted under section 365-A/34, P.P.C. Appellants Khawaja Hassanullah was sentenced to death, while the other appellants were awarded imprisonment for life.
2. ' F.I.R. Of this Case bearing No,252 of 1991 was registered on 11-4-1991 under section 365-A/34, P.P.C.
3. At about 9-50 a.m. At Police Station Ferozabad. The occurrence took place on said date at 9.40 a.m. The F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant Abdul Qayoom. It was recorded by S.I. Sattar Ali Shah.
4. ' The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on said date the complainant was serving as a Driver of Shaikh Rehmatuallah. It is alleged that Shaikh Rehmatullah had gone alongwith the complainant in Suzuki Car No,F-7375 for purchasing sweetmeat, as there was Quran-e-Khawani in the former's house. At about 9.40 a.m. While returning back they reached near house No,36-C Block No,6, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi. A Toyota Corolla white colour car came from behind and had hit their car from side. The complainant stopped his car. Three persons came out from said white car. One of them was armed with a pistol and two with the klashnikovs. Those persons caught hold the complainant and dragged him from. Car, while two persons forcibly abducted Shaikh Rehmatuallah and took him in their car. Within 10 minutes on the incident, the complainant lodged the F.I.R.
5. ' On 28-5-1991 Inspector Imam Bux Taggar received spy information that the culprits of crime No,60 of 1991 of Police Station Aziz Bhatti, were available in Bungalow No,4-A, 13-D/2 Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi. He formed a raiding party and at about 6.00 a.m. Raided said bungalow. The occupants of said bungalow started firing and police also fired in their defence. The police, however, arrested appellants Khawaja Hassanullah, Usman Zahid. And Muhammad Rafiq from said Bungalow. One person namely, Razzak succeeded in running away from there, but was chased by S.H.O. New Town and in police encounter he was killed. From possession of above named three appellants arms and ammunition, including 12 bore repeater gun 7 m.m. Rifle, and 9 m.m. Pistol with rounds and magazines were recovered.
6. ' He (inspector) interrogated abovenamed appellants at the scene of offence. At the pointing out of appellant Usman Zahid an amount ofRs,5,39,000 was recovered and necessary mashirnama was drawn (Exh.27). Likewise, at pointing out of appellant Khawaja Hassanullah from his house, situated in Dastagir Colony, an amount ofRs,80,000 was recovered and such mashimama was drawn. An amount ofRs,12,81,000 was recovered from appellant Rafiq under a mashiranama (Exh.29). During interrogation, above named appellants disclosed that the amount so recovered was the ransom, which they had extorted from different abductees, including. Doctor Ahsan, Shaikh Rehmatuallh, and Saleem Zahid. They also disclosed that Sajjad alias Kalia and Ellahi Bux alias Wadera were accomplice in these crimes. The Inspector raided . The house of Sajid Kalia but the latter was not available. However, one motorbike without document was recovered from there.. On pointing out of above named three appellants, appellant Akbar was also arrested and an unlicensed T.T. Pistol was recovered from him.
7. ' During interrogation, appellant Akbar disclosed that an amount ofRs,89.000 was in his possession, which he had obtained as ransom. Said amount was also recovered and a mashirnama was drawn. Golden Jewellery was also recovered from the bungalow referred to earlier. Three cars were recovered at his pointing out, from a bungalow of Block No,1 . Gulshan-e-lqbal Karachi. On 4-6-1991 the investigation of Crime No,60 of 1991 of Police Station Aziz Bhatti was also entrusted to him (Imam Bux) and he interrogated appellant Ahmedullah and acquitted accused Syed M. Shahid.
8. Said Shahid and appellant Ahmedullah were arrested by Saeed Ahmed Investigating Officer of Crime No,851 of 1990.
9. ' The Crime No 252 of 1991 was transferred to S.I.C. On 16-6-1991. Inspector Imam Bux handed over the file of this case to S.I. Sohail Ahmed, who on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet in this case against appellants Usman Zahid, Khawaja Hassanullah, Muhammad Fariq, Mohammad Akbar, Syed Ahmedullah, the acquitted accused Syed M. Shahid, absconding accused Sajid Kalia and Ellahi Bux before the concerned Court.
10. ' Necessary charge under section 365134, P.P.C. Was framed against the appellants and acquitted accused Muhammad Shahid.
11. ' At trial, the prosecution examined Shaikh Rehmatullah. Nadeem Rehmatullah, Niaz Hussain Shah S.D.M.. S.I. Police (SIC) Sohail Ahmed, Safdar Sultan Inspector Police, S.I. Police Abdul Sattar Shah, and Imam Bux Taggar D.S.P. (SIC, East) Appellants Khawaja Hassan, Muhammad Akbar, Muhammad Rafiq, Usman Zahid and Ahmedullah, in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Have denied the prosecution's allegation and claimed to be innocent. Appellant Khawaja Hassan denied that, he, appellant Ahmedullah and co-accused Abdul Razzak, now dead, were in the car in which Shaikh Rehmatullah was abducted. About the amount ofRs,80,000 recovered at his pointing out, he maintained that it was not ransom, but it was life long saving of his widow mother, which according to him, was forcibly taken away by the police.
12. ' Appellant Muhammad Akbar maintained that amount recovered at his pointing out was not ransom, but it was saving of his parents, which was snatched by the police. Like appellant Khawaja Hassan, he claimed that he was a student.
13. ' Appellant Khawaja Hassanullah, Ahmedullah, Muhammad Akbar, Usman Zahid, and Muhammad Rafiq examined themselves on oath. All these appellants examined Munawar Ali Khan, Muhammad Jaffer, Noreen Bano, Muhammad Akmal Khan, Mastajab Anwar, Hajira Habib and Mst. Noor Jehan as their defence witnesses.
14. ' On assessm ent of the evidence brought on record, learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned earlier.
15. ' In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, we consider it necessary to give a short resume of the evidence available on record.
16. ' Abductee Shaikh Rehmatullah stated that on 11-4-1991 at about 9.30 a.m. He was abducted by three persons, who were in white Corolla car and were armed with Klashnikoves and pistols. He deposed that he was compelled to sit in their car and they took him to a bungalow, which was in Gulshan-e-lqbal. Two persons stood as guard over him and they used to remain inside the room where he was confined. According to him, he was chained with a cot and those guards used to sleep over it and he used to sleep on the ground. He stated that he was detained for 9 days. He also stated that said guard, deceased Razzak, and other 3/4 persons used to ask him to agree with the demand regarding payment of ransom. They used to say him that when payment would be made he would be released. Those persons had also taken from him phone number of his house and contacted his son Nadeem Rehmat. He also deposed that an amount ofRs,6,50,000 as ransom was settled, which was paid by his son on 18-4-1991. On the following day viz 19-4-1991 he was taken in a car by three persons and was released on Khalid-Bin-Waleed Road, Karachi at 8.00 p.m.
17. ' He claimed that in identification test, which was held' on 9th July, 1991, he had correctly picked up the persons, who had abducted him. He stated that appellants Khawaja Hassan, Syed Ahmedullah and deceased Razzak had abducted him. He also stated that appellant Muhammad Rafiq stood as a guard over him, while he was confined in said bungalow. He also stated that appellants Muhammad Akbar, Usman Zahid and acquitted accused Syed Muhammad Shahid used to come in the room where he was confined and used to persuade him for the payment of ransom. He also stated that appellants Muhammad Akbar, Usman Zahid, Muhammad Rafiq and acquitted accused Muhammad Shahid neither lifted him nore dropped him on Khalid-Bin-Waleed Road at the time of his release. He mentioned that his statement was recorded on 9-7-1991. He denied the suggestion that, before identification .Test, photographs of few persons were shown to him. He stated that he had not submitted any Bank Book or any other record pertaining to the money paid as ransom. He specifically stated that he had not seen the accused before identification parade. According to him, 20/21 persons were dummies. He also stated that for some time he practised as a Lawyer at Gujrat. According to him, his driver Qayum has already left service.
18. ' He admitted that he had filed an application before trial Court for return ofRs,6,50,000 paid by him as ransom. He denied the suggestion that he was never abducted and he showed himself abductee only to draw said amount. He admitted that he had mentioned in his application that police recoveredRs,19,80,000 and the amount ofRs,6,50,000 be returned to him which was paid as ransom. He specifically stated that his son Nadeem. Rehmat, after his release, informed him that aforesaid amount was paid as ransom. He admitted that he had not mentioned before the police that two guards were kept in the room and that he only stated that he was detained in said bungalow having the guard. He denied that defence suggestion that he had falsely involved accused Shahid at the instance of police, as accused Razzak was murdered by the police and that Shahid was likely to depose against police. He also denied the suggestion that appellant Usman Zahid was involved at the instance of the police.
19. ' P.W. Nadeen Rehmat is the son of the abductee. He deposed that on 18-4-1991 the amount of ransom was settled, which he arranged. According to him, he was directed to reach near Milian Marriage Hall. He reached there between 2.00 and 3-00 p.m. Two persons on motor-cycle came there twice 'and then disappeared. He watched their activities. Ali of a sudden, a' person.
20. Approached his car and sat in it. He took the bag which Contained ransom money and asked him to drive the car. After some time, he was directed to stop the car and to get out of it. He started walking towards main road and said person fired three shots. One shot hit him, and he sustained an injury on left foot, he reached Agha Khan Hospital. His car was taken away by those persons. He deposed that appellant Muhammad Akbar was one of the persons, who had come to collect ransom.
21. ' P.W. Niaz Hussain Shah, S.D.M. Stated that on 9-7-1991 he held identification parade. He deposed that there were eight accused and 30 dummies. According to him abductee Shaikh Rehamtullah identified six accused namely, Usman Zahid, Khawaja Hassanullah, Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Akbar; Muhammad Shahid and Syed Ahmedullah and failed to identify Jaffer and Ayub. He admitted in cross-examination that he had not mentioned about height, age, or features of those dummies.
22. ' Appellant Khawaja Hassanullah in his statement recorded on Oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, deposed that the he was not a regular student in any College, but he was appearing as a private student in Intermediate examination. He stated that his mother was not working any where and that about one and half years prior to the incident, she left the job. According to him, she used to earnRs,1,500 p.m. He also deposed that his family consisted of six members. His brother Khawaja Azmatullah was a salesman and was gettingRs,2,000 p.m. He stated that the amount ofRs,80,000 recovered from him was not his share of ransom. He admittted that he had not moved any application before trial Court for return of said amount,.But added that his mother, or his Advocate may apply for return of said amount.
23. ' Appellant Ahmedullah in his statement recorded on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Deposed that on 28-5-1991 at about 4.00 or 4-30 a.m. In the morning police came at his house alongwith said Razzak and inquired about Sajid alias Kalia. He (Ahmedullah) informed the police that Sajid was his elder brother and had left the house about 2 years. Ago. He stated that the police had taken away a motor-cycle from his house, which belonged to his another brother. Aminullah.
24. According to him, the police took him and his brother Aminullah to New Town Police Station. He also deposed that he was kept in lock-up, but his brother Aminullah was released. He also stated that on the day of identification parade he was shown to Shaikh Rehamtullah. In cross-examination, he stated that he was not maltreated by the police. He also stated that his brother 'Sajid was not in Pakistan. He admitted that he had no personal grudge. With the Magistrate. Who conducted the identification parade. He also admitted that there was no enmity between him and abductees Shaikh Rehmatullah, Zahid Hussain, Saleem. Zahid and Nadeem. When he was asked to explain as to why he. Had not applied for return of motor-cycle when it belonged to him, he replied that he did not know that why his Advocate had not done so.
25. ' Appellant Muhammad Akbar deposed that on 28-5-1991 the police personnel in plain clothes entered into his house and misbehaved with his parents, sisters, elder brother and maltreated him (Muhammad Akbar). According to him, they took away jewellry, cash, ornaments and dowry of his sisters. He was taken to Police Station New Town and was kept there for one week and was shown to the peoples, including S. Rehmatullah and Zahid Hussain. He stated thatRs,89,000 were taken away by the police. In cross-examination, he denied that he was a member of late Razzak gang. He also denied that said amount ofRs,89,000 was his share of ransom, which was paid by different abductees. He admitted that he had no enmity with Shaikh Rehmatullah, Saleem Zahid and Doctor Ehsanul Haq, the abductee. He also admitted' that he had no enmity with Investigating Officer and Inspector Imam Bux Taggar. According to him, he was ignorant of law, as such had not submitted any application to the Magistrate that he was shown to the witnesses before identification parade.
26. He admitted that he had no enmity with P.W. Nadeem. When he was asked to explain as to why he had not applied for return of the amount ofRs,89,000 as being of his family, he replied that he was ignorant of law and thought that he would get it after conclusion of the trial.
27. ' Appellant Usman Zahid deposed that before 28-5-1991 he was working at a Video Shop. Jaffer and his family members used to reside there, where he was working. On 27-5-1991, he had gone to bungalow No,A/4, Block 13-D/2 Gulshan-e-lqbal at the night for his professional work and stayed in said house. Said Razzak was also there. At about 3.00 a.m. The doors were knocked from outside.
28. Razzak saw the police personnels and told them not to fire, as he was coming out. The police, however, had broken the door, entered the room, and arrested Razzak The police personnels misbehaved with Razzak and with him. They made him sit in a mobile in which Jaffer, Ayub, and Salman were already there. Razzak was in another mobile, when they were in front of House No,A/4, he heard reports of klashnikov's burst. It was about 5.30 a.m. He saw the police personnel putting the dead body of Razzak in a mobile. According to him, on 6-7-1991 .He was shown to Zahid Hussain, Saleem Zahid, and to some other persons. He stated that he was also shown to Shaikh Rehmatullah. He mentioned that no firing took place when he was arrested on 28-5-1991 from bungalow No,A/4 Gulshan-e-Iqbal. In cross, he admitted that his video shop was 4 or 5 k.m away from bungalow No,A/4 Gulshan-e-Iqbal. He deposed that Jaffer used to reside in said bungalow alongwith Razzak. He denied that the amount ofRs,5,30,000 was ransom, which was paid by the relatives of the abductees. He denied that he was a member of the gang of said Razzak. He also denied that he was present in the house, where abductees Shaikh Rehmatullah, Saleem Zahid, and Ehsanul Haq were detained. He admitted that there was no enmity between him and abductees Shaikh Rehmatullah, Saleem Zahid, and P.W. Zahid Hussain. He also had no enmity with police personnel.
29. ' Appellant Muhammad Rafiq deposed that said Razzak was his nephew. On 18-54991, he had come from Punjab to see him, He resided with him. He stated that neither he abducted any person nor acted as guard over any abductee. He denied the suggestion that the police, at his pointing out, recovered the amount from Razzak's house. He also denied that amount ofRs,12,81,000 was the same which said Razzak and his companions including him had extorted from the family members of the abductee. He admitted that he had no enmity with abductees Shaikh Rehmatullah, Saleem Zahid, Doctor Ehsan, P.Ws. Nadeem, Zahid Hussain and police officials of this case.
30. ' D.W. Munawar All Khan, who is maternal uncle of appellant Akbar, in cross-examination, stated that he did not know about the activities of appellant Akbar. He also stated that he was not aware about his movement during the day.
31. ' D.W. Nawab Ali Shaikh, Muhammad Jaffer, Noreen Llano, Mohammkad Akmal Khan, Mustajab Anwar. Hajira Haseeb, Noor Jehan and Aminullah deposed on the lines the appellants had testified.'
32. ' It is contended by Mr. Abdul Qadir Halepoto, learned counsel for appellant Khawaja Hassanullah that the testimony of abductee Shaikh Rehamtullah and his son Nadeem Rehmat did not inspire confidence and the conviction could not be based upon. He also argued that identification test of the appellant was of lid value, as it was held after 3 months of the incident. He submitted that identification of the appellant in Court at the time of trial was also of no value since the appellant was a complete stranger to the abductee and the latter at the most could have had only a fleeting glimpse of his abductors. He argued that the appellant was shown to the abductee by the police before the identification parade and it being so no credence could be attached to the evidence of the abductee.
33. ' Mr. Iqtedar All Hashmi Advocate, who appeared for appellant Akbar argued that learned trial Court had placed reliance on some pieces of evidence, which Some how showed involvement of the appellant in the crime, but major portion,of the evidence and more particularly the cross-,examination was totally ignored. He contended that most important witness was driver Abdul Qayum and he was not examined. He submitted that the testimony of P.W. Rehmatullah and Nadeem was full of contradictions and had no intrinsic value and in all fairness it should have been discarded. He also argued that the identification test was held- after about .3 months of the incident and 42 days of the arrest of the appellant and it being so the test was of no significance.
34. He contended that the amount recovered from the. House of deceased Razzak was wrongly treated by trial Court as ransom of various cases.
35. ' Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed and Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, who respectively appeared for Muhammad Rafiq and Usman Zahid, have adopted the pleas of two abovenamed senior counsel.
36. Nobody appeared for appellant Syed Ahmedullah at the time of argument, but his case is identifical to that of the other appellants.
37. ' In support of above contentions, learned counsel cited (1) Muhammad Afzal and another v. The State 1982 SCM R 129 (2) Ghulam Rasool and 3 others v. The State, 1988 SCM R 557 (3) Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. The State and others 1992 SCM R 2088(4) Mullairi Vajram and others v.
38. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1992 SCMR 204 (5) State through Advocate-General Sindh Karachi v.
39. Farman Hussain and others PLD 1995 SC 1 (6) Zakir Khan and others v. The State 1995 SCM R 1793 and (7) Mehmood Ahmed and three others v. The State and others 1995 SCM R 127.
40. ' In case of Muhammad Afzal, it was held that there was no provision in law that identification proceedings should be held in cases where a crime is committed by persons unknown to the witness or for the matter in any type of cases. Further, it was held that identification test by itself has no independent value. In this case 1914 A.C. 545 was referred, wherein it was held that "its relevancy is to show that the witness was able to identify at the time and to exclude the idea that the identification of the prisoner in the dock was an after thought or a mistake". Also, it was held that if the identity of the accused was proved by other covincing evidence, direct or circumstantial, the absence of identification test proceedings will be immaterial. In case of Ghulam Rasool it was held that it was inherent defect if the role of accused at the time of commission of the offence was not described by the witness. In case of Asghar All it was observed that the witness must disclose the context in which he identified the accused. In case of Mullagiri Vajram, it was held that when conviction of accused was based on evidence of eye-witnesses, who were found reliable and was not based on identification parade, such conviction could not be set aside on the plea that identification was not reliable, as witness had seen the accused in police lock-up. In case of State through Advocate-General Sindh it was held that the approach of the Court in matters like the case of kidnapping for ransom should be daynamic and if the Court is satisfied that the offence has been committed in the manner in which it has been alleged by the prosecution, the technicalities should be overlooked without causing any miscarriage of justice. It was also held that identification test was essential if witness gets a momentary glimpse of accused and claims that he would be able to identify him, In case of Zakir Khan it was held that where the witness (kidnapee) had remained with accused persons during captivity and had clearly seen their faces holding of an identification parade was not a mandatory requirement. In case of Mehmood Ahmed it was observed that identification of accused in the identification parade without attributing to them their roles in the crime is of no evidence value.
41. ' Coming back to the pleas raised by learned counsel for the appellants, it is noted that abudctee Shaikh Rehmatullh, in broad daylight, was abudcted by appellants Khawaja Hasson, Syed Ahmedullah and deceased Razzak. His car was blocked, its key was taken, and he was dragged and forced to sit in the car of the abductors. For more than half an hour, he travelled with the abductors in the car and for 9 days remained in their captivity. He specifically stated that appellant Rafiq was a guard of the place, where he was confined. During 9 days of his capitivity, he must have seen him on many occasions. Appellants Muhammad Akbar and Usman Zahid were the persons who at several occasions, conversed with him and persuaded him for paying ransom.
42. There could not be mistake of identity of appellants Khawaja Hassan, syed Ahmedulah, Akbar, Rafiq and Usman Zahid. It is not a case that the abductee had only seen the fleeting glimps of abovenamed persons, but he remained with them and also conversed with them.
43. ' Admittedly, all the appellants, in their cross-examination, categorically admitted that the abductee and P. Ws. Had no enmity with the appellants. In fact, they were perfect strangers for each other. The abductee if a business man, while the appellants, as appears from the evidence, are involved in various criminal' - cases mostly of abduction. P.W. Nadeem Rehmat had sufficient opportunity to see appellant Akbar, when he had come with deceased Razzak for collecting ransom. An event like above leaves behind an indelible impression on the mind and it continues for sufficient period. The ordeal, which the abductee and his son faced, could not be blotted out from their minds. Abductee suffered mental agony with a probability of death.
44. ' Money recovered from possession of the appellants also showed their involvement. It was beyond their known sources of income and was ransom, which they had extorted from the relatives of the abudctees.
45. Sole purpose of identification is to ensure that an intent person, either deliberately or, by mistake is not involved. The identification is not a legal requirement. However, when it is necessary, it is the duty of the Court to examine that all possible steps were taken for holding fair identification and the witnesses, at their own, correctly picked up, the culprits. In case of perfect strangers and where more than one person are involved in the commission of such offence, it becomes more necessary for the Court to know about the alleged role played by each culprits to finally determine their complicity in the commission of crime. It is an exercise to extract the truth from the heap of probabilities.
46. In cases of abduction for ransom, it is not necessary that all the culprits must have collectively done all the criminal acts together from the stage of abduction till extortion of money, In, such cases mostly, the work is divided. Abduction is done by a few, of them, place of confinement is guarded by others and ransom is extorted by one or two of them. This is done under a planning.
47. The object of all is to extort money. Therefore, the punishment could be the same irrespective of the role played by each of them.
48. ' In identification test no illegality seems to have been committed. We are of the view that in this particular case there was no need for identification as the C offence was proved by the irrefutable testimony of P.Ws., particularly of abductee and his son. Mere fact that driver Qayum was no examined it would not create any doubt about credibility of the prosecution version. He left the job and his whereabouts were not known. Star witness was abductee and he stood the test of cross- examination. Even otherwise, it is general trend now a days that the people avoid, to depose against persons who are involved in atrocious offences. The case is to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants have no force and the case of the prosecution stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
49. The statements of the appellants on oath and their defence witnesses did not create any dent in the prosecution version. On the contrary, their evidence gives the impression that the family members of the appellants were aware of their activities.. It is not established that they were innocent.
50. ' The appellants were tried under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975.
51. Section 8 of said Act, which speaks about burden of proof is as follows:-- ' "Section 8. Burden of Proof.---When any person accused of having committed as scheduled offence is found to be in possession of, or to have under his control any article or thing which is capable of being used for; or in connection with the commission of such offence, or is apprehended, in circumstances which lead to raise a reasonable suspicion that he had committed such offence, he shall be presumed to have committed the offence unless he can prove that he had not in fact committed the offence." Mr. Abdul Qadir Halepoto learned counsel for the appellant argued that burden of proof, under all circumstances remains on the prosecution. He also argued that burden of proof under said section is only shifted on the accused in case of recovery of any article, viz fire arm, which is capable of being used. For commission of offence. It is true that initially burden of -proof always remains on the prosecution, but once it is discharged, it is shifted on the accused.
52. The rule of construction is that, what has been actually expressed in the Statute is the intention of the legislature. Therefore, if the language used is unambiguous and is in accordance with the object of the Statute itself, it has to be given effect notwithstanding the remote consequence.
53. Redundancy cannot be attributed to any provision of the Statute. The Courts have repeated held in number of cases that the law should be served and not destroyed. 'One of the principle of interpretation of Statute is that every word used in the Statute is intended to have some effect and no word is to be regarded as redundant. The Courts. As a rule, lean against interpretation which directly or indirectly renders words unnecessary. Every part of section is to serve the purpose for which it was enacted.
54. ' The words in aforesaid section "is apprehended in circumstances which lead to a reasonable suspicion" are not with regard to any article or thing but about "reasonable suspicion" of committing such offence. Once the requirements of aforesaid section are fulfilled the burden of proof at the stage of trial will be H on the accused. In this case, it was upon the appellants who failed to discharge it.
55. ' On 18-3-1998 after hearing the arguments we had dismissed the appeals. The death sentence of the appellant Khawaja Hassanullah, however, was I altered to life imprisonment as his case is identical to that of other appellants, who have been awarded life imprisonment. The entire properties of all the appellants are confiscated to the State. They would be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. These are the reasons for short order announced on the above date.