KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,69 of 1991 directed against the judgment dated 29-7-1991 passed by Special Court, Lahore whereby he convicted the appellants under section 302. P.P.C. and sentenced them alongwith their co-accused (P.Os.) to death sentence with fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default one year's RA. They were also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The brief facts as narrated by Pervez Mehmood, Station Master, Railway Station Lahore are that on 5-7-1987 two bomb blasted, one at the Taxi Stand just outside the Railway Station and the other at Platform No,2 of the Lahore Railway Station in which several persons were killed and injured.
3. After receipt of information about the said occurrence the police completed all the necessary formalities and then the Investigating Officer, Inspector Railway Station Police took into possession bloodstained earth from Platform No,2 vide memo. Exh.P.E. He also took into possession bloodstained earth from the Taxi Stand outside Railway Station. Lahore vide memo. Exh.P.F. Last- worn clothes were also received by him which he took into possession vide memo. Exh. P. H. Ater thorough investigation four accused namely Rehmat Ali alias Baba, Ghulam Sakhi the present appellants and Said Rehman and Ziarat Gul (P.Os.) were challaned and were tried by the learned trial Court. The P.Os. were tried in absentia.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 29 witnesses including.
Investigating Officer, Doctor, eye-witnesses and other relevant witnesses. No documentary proof was produced by the prosecution. Thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that in the F.I.R., lodged by the Station Master, Lahore Railway Station, Lahore P.W.1 neither the names of the appellants or eye- witnesses are mentioned. No recovery was effected from the appellant, that the entire prosecution case is based on the confessional statement of both the appellants recorded by two different Magistrates at Peshawar and Mardan respectively. Learned counsel submits that under what circumstances, the present appellants were detained and made the confessional statement has not come on record. The learned Magistrates who had recorded the statement have admitted that the statement was not recorded in Pashto language which was made by the appellants. Learned counsel submits that in fact the Magistrate himself had not recorded the confessions but what the police supplied to him they treated the same as confessional statement, that as far as confessional statement of Ghulam Sakhi appellant Exh.P.K. is concerned in the last page on one side R.O.A.0 is written while on the other side it was recorded i,e, certificate under section 364, Cr.P.C. He submits that learned Magistrate should have given a certificate to the effect that said confession was made without duress and coercion. Learned counsel submits that no corroboration can be sought from the statement of Ghulam Sakina examined as P.W.12 because she stated only to the extent that both the appellants had stayed at her house for one night and she saw two type of powders with the appellants that she did not know that out of that powder bombs were being made so her statement has got no corroborative value. So far as P.W.9 Zahir Shah approver is concerned, he was declared hostile and he did not support the prosecution case and Court had ordered for his separate trial and that in the absence of independent evidence sentence of capital punishment cannot be maintained.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that in such-like cases independent evidence is not possible. He submits that the criteria of appreciation in such-like cases is totally different from other cases. Learned counsel ubmits that non-mentioning of the names of he accused in the F.I.R. in such-like cases as not possible. Learned counsel submits that confessional statement made by both the appellant is fully corroborated by the statement of Ghulam Sakina and he supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record. In the instant case matter was reported to the police on the same day i,e, 5-7-1987 by Pervaiz Mehmood, Station Master P.'W.1 in which 8 persons their lives and 29 persons were injured. In such-like occurrence it is not possible to identify the accused persons because such-like persons/terrorists choose important places where there are rush of people, then they place some bag having bomb and disappear therefrom and all this is not possible for any public person to identify any of the accused. The criteria of appreciation of evidence in such:like cases would be totally different to that of which is in the murder cases or in the cases of robbery or dacoity. In the instant case both the appellants namely Ghulam Sakhi and Rehmat Ali alias Baba have made confessional statement at Peshawar before Sultanat Khan, Magistrate First Class, P.W.18 and Nazir Hussain Additional Deputy Commissioner respectively, examined as P.W.17. Saltanat Khan P.W. had recorded the statement of Rehmat Ali alias Baba which is very detailed one statement of Ghulam Sakhi was recorded Nazir Hussain, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar which is also detailed one. Learned Magistrate and Additional Deputy Commissioner have explained in their statements that both the appellants had made confessions in Pashto language and the same were translated, one by learned Magistrate Saltanat Khan in Urdu and the other in English by Nazir Hussain. Both these Magistrate and Additional Deputy Commissioner have appeared at Lahore before the learned trial Court. They made their statements and were cross-examined. They are Judicial Officers. There is no reason to disbelieve them. They had no enmity against the present appellants, what appellants had stated in their confessional statements they had recorded. If there are some lapse on their part that can be ignored being treated them as minor. There was another accused namely Zahir Shah. He became approver. He made a statement and he was granted pardon. He appeared in the Court and he did not support the prosecution case and as declared hostile and was cross-examined. His statement was brought on record during cross-examination and his statement is corroborated by the confessional statement of both the appellants. Then there is statement of Sakina Bibi who appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.12. She is also Pathan by caste. She had stated that both the appellants alongwith others stayed at her house and in the night she woke up and saw that the accused were mixing powder and she asked the two appellants that what they were doing they stated that to earn a lot of profit and then they had used the said powder in a wrongful manner. We think that there is sufficient material evidence on the record to maintain the conviction.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also going through the confessional statements of Sakina Bibi and Zahir Shah approver, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants. This type of people had been playing the havoc with the innocent persons of this country. They were sent from Afghanistan by their intelligence agencies to make blasts. Hundred of innocent persons in whole of Pakistan have lost their lives and they had been doing this for a little money amounting to Rs,40,000 or 45,000. In this view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence is maintained.