1. ' FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI, J.---The present appellant has called in question the judgment, dated 29-3-1993 passed by the learned Special Judge for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Larkana whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,one lac in case of default to suffer R.I. For three years more under section 302 read with sections 396 and 149, P.P.C. He was further convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. For 10 years and fine of Rs,50,000 and in case of default to suffer R.I. For 2 years more under sections 307, 324, read with section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.
2. ' The facts of the case are that the complainant S.I.P. Mian Khan was working as S.H.O. Of Police Station Bakrani in the month of June, 1991. On 20-6-1991, he alongwith his staff namely A.S.-I.
3. Ghulam Sarwar, P.C. Jogi Khan, P.C. Qurban Ali, P.C. Muhammad Nawaz and driver H.C. Muhammad Rafique, left the police station for patrol duty in the area, vide Entry No,28 at 1640 hours in a police mobile. When they reached near Molvi minor canal on road leading from Larkana to Dokri, they were confronted by 12/14 culprits who were armed with K.Ks., rifle and guns, and on approach of police party the culprits fired upon the vehicle indiscriminately in which A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar, P.C.
4. Jogi Khan, P.C. Qurban Ali, H.C. Rafique Ahmed and S.I.P. Mian Khan got injured while the culprits robbed them of service/official weapons and a Walky Talky and made their escape good. It is further the case of prosecution that A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar, P.C. Jogi Khan and P.C. Qurban Ali succumbed to their injuries on the Wardat while Mian Khan and Muhammad Rafique were removed to hospital at Larkana in some private vehicle for first aid.
5. ' It is further alleged that the S.I.P. Ghulam Qadir was acting as Incharge of the Police Station Bakrani at the relevant time and he received spy information about the encounter, death of police persons, injuries received by the police personnel, therefore, he immediately left the police station and visited the hospital at Larkana where he recorded 154, Cr.P.C. Statement of complainant Mian Khan and sent the same to police station for incorporating the same in 154, Cr.P.C. Book. He also prepared Mashirnama of injuries on the persons of Mian Khan and Rafique and then after giving letter to Medical Officer he proceeded to place of Wardat where he prepared a memo. Of inspection of Wardat and noticed police vehicle duly damaged, blood-stained earth, dead bodies of three deceased, empties of rounds etc. He held inquest on the persons of deceased and then dispatched the bodies to hospital for post-mortem. He also recorded the statements of witnesses.
6. He also secured blood-stained earth and empties.
7. ' On 30-6-1991 Mr. Barkat Ali Domki was working as S.H.O. Of Police Station Bakrani. He arrested the present accused at 6-00 a.m. On a Katcha path near tube-well of one Kadir Bux and secured a K.K.
8. Fitted with magazine full of rounds from licence and brought him to police station after preparing the memo. Of arrest. A case under Arms Ordinance was also registered against the accused separately. After other usual investigation the accused was challaned in this case as he was named in this F.I.R. As well as in case under Arms Ordinance separately on 1-7-1991.
9. ' There were several absconders mentioned in the charge-sheet, therefore, non-bailable warrants of arrest against them was issued but the police could not arrest them and process was returned unexecuted. Hence case was ordered to proceed under section 512, Cr.P.C. Against the absconders and proclamations under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Were also ordered to issue by my learned predecessor vide his order, dated 28-10-1991.
10. ' Charge was framed against the accused at Exh.2 on 23-9-1992 to which he pleaded not guilty and as the accused was not able to engage his counsel, therefore, a counsel for him was appointed by this Court on the State expenses since the offence charged carries capital punishment.
11. ' The prosecution examined P.W. Muhammad Rafique at Exh.4, Zamir Hussain Exh.5, Muhammad Nawaz Exh.6, Ghulam Sarwar Exh.7, Allandino Exh.8, Dr. Amir Ali Exh.9, Ghulam Qadir Exh.10, Mian Khan Exh.11, Fazal Muhammad Exh.13, and Barkat Ali Exh.14 while learned A.P.P. Closed the side of prosecution vide his statement at Exh.15.
12. ' The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. At Exh.16, denies to have committed the murders of A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar, P.C. Jogi and P.C. Qurban so also to have caused injuries to Mian Khan and Muhammad Rafique or robber of the firearms from them including Walky Talky. He further denied to have been arrested on 30-6-1991 by S.I.P. Barkat Ali or that any recovery of K.K.
13. Was made from him. He alleges his enmity with one Wahid Bux Bughio over lands. According to him said Wahid Bux wants to grabbe his lands and has implicated him in this case and other cases. He has not been examined himself on oath but has examined one Muhammad Uris Channa in his defence, as according to him he was arrested from the hotel of said Uris Channa.
14. ' Learned Trial Court formulated the points for determination as under:-- ' Point No,1 Whether A.S.-I. Ghulam Sarwar, P.C. Jogi Khan and P.C. Qurban Ali were murdered by causing them fire-arm injuries on the date and time of incident?
15. ' Point No,2. Whether complainant Mian Khan and H.C. Muhammad Rafique were caused injuries besides Muhammad Nawaz was fired at by the culprits with fire-arms with common object of culprits to cause murder of any of them?
16. ' Point No,3. Whether the culprits robbed 3 SMG rifles, one Walky Talky, one G-III and ammunition from complainant and other P. Written statement?
17. ' Point No,4. Whether the culprits were more in number Lan five and were differently armed with deadly weapons such as K.Ks. Rifles and guns?
18. ' Point No,5. What offence if any the accused committed?
19. ' After going through the material available on record and the evidence adduced, the Trial Court passed the judgment in above terms.
20. ' At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we had called Jail Roll from Central Prison Sukkur with regard to the sentence served out by the appellant and the remission which he has earned and the unexpired period. Today the Jail Roll has been placed on record and according to the Jail Roll the appellant has served the sentence for 9 years, 9 months and 7 days upto 6-4-2001 and has earned remission of 15 years, 7 months and 6 days and the remission period is two years and 10 months. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has served out sentence and the rest of the period be treated as undergone.
21. ' Learned counsel for the State has recorded no objection on such proposal, given by the appellant.
22. ' We have taken into consideration the Jail Roll. Accordingly the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and with this modification, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other offence.