' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,218-J of 2000 filed by Samar Jan William and Nazir Shahzad, appellants through jail who were convicted and sentenced by Judge Special Court No,1, Lahore vide judgment, dated 19-11-1999, as under:-- ' Samar Jan William, appellant: Death under section 302(b), P.P.C. And to pay compensation of Rs,1,00,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For 2 years.
' Death under section 365-A, P.P.C.
' 7 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,20,000 in default 6 months' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C.
' Nazir Shahzad appellant: Death and to pay compensation of Rs,1,00,000 in default 2 years' R.I.
Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
' Death under section 365-A, P.P.C.
' 7 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,20,000 in default six months' R.I. Under section 201, P.P.C.
' Criminal Appeal No,1227 of 1999 filed by Nazir Shahzad, appellant separately shall also be disposed of alongwith the Murder Reference No,518-T of 1999 for confirmation of death sentence or otherwise of the convicts-appellants.
2. Occurrence in this had taken place on 20-4-1998 at a distance of 3 kilometres from Police Station Nasserabad, District, Lahore while the matter was reported by Jabbar, complainant through written complaint Exh.P.F. And 4-35 p.m. On 21-4-1998 and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.F.1 was recorded by Muhammad Jameel, S.-I.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 20-4-1998, Junaid Jabbar, son of the complainant went to Al-Hajvery College of Business Administration near 7-UP Stop to attend his class of MBA at 10 a.m. On Vespa Scooter No,LER/2744 and did not return till 5-30 p.m. When he rang in the house on telephone and told that his scooter had become out of order and after getting the same repaired, he would return. Thereafter at 10-15 p.m., an obnoxious call was received on phone which was attended by wife of the complainant and on phone the person who called demanded Rs,1,00,000 as ransom for the release of his son. The person who called the phone also extended threats to wife of the complainant saying that no information about the incident should be given to the Police and gave 22-4-1998 as the last date for making the payment of ransom. Upon which, the F.I.R. Was got registered.
4. After registration of the formal F.I.R., Muhammad Jamil, S.-L went to college for inspection, recorded the statement of Chowkidar Muhammad Sharif, according to statement of the wife of the complainant, Junaid when left the house, he was wearing black pant, gray shirt, black belt and brown shoes, statement of Chief Executive of the College was also recorded, telephone calls were received by the complainant made by the accused for providing the amount of ransom, on the instructions of the Police, time and place was fixed for payment of ransom to the accused and from there both the accused were arrested, a sum of Rs,1,00,000 was recovered from Nazir Shahzad appellant which amount was secured vide memo. Exh.P.G. Vespa Scooter P.7 was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.1, during the interrogation, both the accused disclosed that after abducting Junaid, they had killed him and the dead body was thrown in. Rohi Nala in the area of Police Station Kahna which was also recovered on the pointation of the accused, after post- mortem examination, the last worn clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B., inquest report of the deceased was prepared as Exh.P.U., the accused also led to the recovery of plastic Dibba and the chain which they used to strangulate Junaid son of the complainant which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.J., CLI prints from the telephone exchange were got which were secured vide memo. Exh.P.V. And P.V./1 and after completion of the remaining formal investigation, both the accused were challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 13 witnesses in all, then the learned PP on 23-9-1999 closed the prosecution case, thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. After conclusion of the trial, the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for Nazir Shahzad, appellant after having read the entire prosecution evidence and other material available on record submits that it was an unseen occurrence rather a blind murder, there is no evidence of last seen against the appellant alleged confessional statement was not recorded in accordance with High Court Rules and Orders on the subject, the dead body allegedly recovered on the pointation of the appellant was not identifiable, it was a headless body, the head was never found by the Police, there is no evidence through doctor who conducted post- mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased to prove kerosene oil was sprinkled.
Muhammad Sharif, Chowkidar, P.W.7 did not implicate the appellant as accused having seen him with the deceased, he only took the name of Samar Jan, co-appellant, there was no motive with the appellant to kill the deceased, the appellant was arrested on 1-5-1998 but his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded on 9-5-1998 and the prosecution could not explain this delay, there is no evidence on record that the handcuffs of the appellant were removed at the time of recording his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. And the Police Officials were sent outside the Court-room, no question with regard to inducement was asked to the appellant, when the appellant had already murdered Junaid, there was no reason to demand the ransom, in fact the complainant toed the line of the Police and also those persons who were inimical towards the appellant and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant.
Learned counsel further submits that no case under section 356-A, P.P.C. Has been proved by the prosecution. Concluding his submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to clean acquittal.
7. Learned counsel for Samar Jan, appellant adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for Nazir Shahzad, co-appellant but adds that no fire-arm was used in the occurrence for killing the deceased, occurrence had taken place on 20-5-1998 while the post-mortem examination was conducted on 1-5-1998 when the doctor has given the time between the death and post-mortem as 15/20 days, so it does not fit in with the prosecution case. Further adds that Samar Jan appellant had not killed the deceased and according to his confessional statement the case if any made out against the appellant is that of abetment and not of actual murder so his case is not of capital punishment. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has relied upon AIR 1946 Patna 169, PLD 1962 Pesh. 91; PLD 1967 Kar. 233; PLD 1972 Supreme Court 363; AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1965; 1998 PCr.LJ 854, 1998 SCM R 1718 and 2669.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is last seen evidence, both the appellants made confessional statements which are Exh.P.M. And Exh.P.N., the appellants were apprehended by the Police immediately after receipt of ransom from the complainant dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointation of the appellants, scooter and all articles belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance and pointation of the appellants and that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellants. They in nutshell support the judgment of the learned trial Court.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance and the case-law produced by learned counsel for the appellants. Both the deceased/complainant and the accused-appellants are Christian. Junaid Jabbar was a student of MBA studying in Al-Hajvery College of Business Administration. He was last seen in a van in the company of Samar Jan by Muhammad Sharif, Chowkidar of the College examined as P.W.7. Not a single question was put to P.W.7, so his testimony remained unshaken and it means that what he stated was admitted to be correct by the appellants. The deceased had left the house on 20-4- 1998 at 10 a.m. For Al-Hajvery College. At about 5-30 p.m., the deceased gave a telephone call to his father-complainant that he was speaking from New Campus and his scooter had gone out of order, he would be coming to the house sooner the scooter became in order. Thereafter another call was received by the wife of the complainant at 10-15 p.m. Whereby a demand of Rs,1,00,000 was raised as ransom for the release of Junaid, deceased with the further threat that if the matter was reported to the Police, it would not be good for them. Jabbar P. Ditta, complainant while appearing as P.W.9 gave a detailed statement before the learned trial Court about receiving of telephone calls, demand of ransom, information to the Police, taking of the ransom amount of Rs,1,00,000 to an appointed place that is Chowk Dalgaran, Lahore, coming of Nazir Shahzad, appellant at the said place, delivery of Rs,1,00,000 and then arrest by the Police of both the accused. The dead body of the deceased Junaid was recovered on the pointation of the appellants from a Rohi Nala which was identified by father-complainant and uncle of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. Scooter the registration number of which was changed from original to a bogus one was also recovered from the possession of the appellants apart from other incriminating articles. The scooter and other articles belonging to the deceased were also identified by the complainant. It is correct that it was headless dead body but the father- complainant identified the same from the belt, trouser and the shoes which the deceased was wearing on 20-4-1998, the day of his abduction for ransom. The chain with which the deceased was strangulated and put to death was also got recovered by the appellants alongwith plastic cane of kerosene oil. Conversations of the appellants were recorded on CLI and the record was taken into possession by the Police from the telephone exchange as Exh.P.V. And Exh.P.V./1 by Nofil Zahoor, S.-I. (P.W.12) wrist-watch of the deceased was got recovered by Samar Jan, appellant. Parts of the van in which the dead body of Junaid was taken to Rohi Nala and later on met an accident was also got recovered by the appellants from the shop of a Kabaria, namely, Iftikhar. The confessional statement of both appellants under section 164, Cr.P.C. Were recorded by Arshad Mehmood, Magistrate 1st Class (P.W.11). No suggestion was put to him that the statements were not recorded in accordance with High Court Rules and Orders and that the statements were not made voluntarily rather were obtained under duress, coercion and inducement. The learned Magistrate before recording the statements put many questions to the appellants which shows the volunteemess of both the appellants. The accused were also given half an hour time to think over before making the statement. After recording the statements, learned Magistrate directed the Police to take the appellants to judicial lock-up after getting necessary orders from the concerned Court and that was done. We have ourselves gone through the confessional statements of the appellants Exh.P.M. And Exh.P.N. And we are satisfied with the volunteerness and genuineness of these statements.
' There was no previous background of enmity between the parties. It was not a case of false implication. As far as submission of learned counsel for the appellants that after having killed Junaid, son of the complainant, there was no reason to demand the ransom is concerned, it has no force as it depends upon the mind of an accused in which way he reacts.
10. We are aware of the fact that it is a case of circumstantial evidence but in the instant case, the prosecution has fully proved its case through last seen evidence furnished by Muhammad Sharif, Chowkidar of the College examined as P.W.7, recovery of ransom money of Rs,1,00,000 and immediate arrest of the appellants thereafter, recovery of scooter and other articles including wrist-watch belonging to the deceased having been identified by the complainant, recovery of chain with which the deceased was strangulated and done to death, and that of the plastic cane of kerosene oil and above all the confessional statements of the accused recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By a learned Magistrate. It is by now well-settled that circumstantial evidence should be so interconnected that it forms such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other, neck of the accused thereby excluding all the hypothesis of his innocence. For this proposition of law, reliance can be placed upon Sarfraz Khan v. The State (1996 SCM R 188). In the case of Khalid Javed v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1968) a Division Bench of this Court by observing that the confessional statement of one of the accused recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. After observing all the legal formalities and corroborated the total prosecution case which contained all the details and the manner in which both the accused had murdered the deceased, confirmed the death sentence. Applying the law enunciated in the report, the conclusion we draw is that it were the appellants who abducted Junaid son of the complainant for ransom and then murdered him. In other words, the prosecution has been successful in proving what it alleged beyond any reasonable doubt.
11. We have respectfully gone through the precedents cited by learned counsel for the appellant. As to any proposition of law, there can be no cavil but every criminal case has its own facts and has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The facts of the case in hand are totally different to the facts of those cases, so the same are not applicable in the instant case.
12. After critical analysis of the entire prosecution evidence brought on record and the law cited, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant to its hilt. Resultantly, appeal jointly filed by both the appellants through jail and the appeal filed by Nazir Shahzad, appellant from an Advocate are dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is maintained. Death sentence is confirmed. Murder reference is replied in the affirmative.
' Death sentence confirmed.