Shaikh MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs THE STATE

' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.--- The appeal under section 25(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as A.T.A.), at the instance of appellant/convict Shaikh Muhammad Amjad, is directed against the judgment, dated 3-10-2001 by the learned Anti-Terrorism Court No,III, Karachi, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302(a), P.P.C. And sentenced to death. He has been further convicted under section 365-A, P.P.C. Read with section 7(e) of A.T.A.

And has been sentenced to death. On both counts he has been directed to be hanged by neck till his death and both the sentences have been awarded subject to confirmation by this Court under section 374, Cr.P.C. Read with section 30(2) of A.T.A. The learned trial Court has also submitted the proceedings for confirmation of the death sentences. The appellants has been further directed to pay an amount of Rs,2,00,000 as Diyat and on recovery thereof is to be paid to the heirs of deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The movable and immovable properties of the accused have also been confiscated to the Government. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to the appellant by the learned trial Court.

2. By this judgment we will dispose of the appeal as well as confirmation reference.

3. The prosecution case is that on 4-8-2001, at 15-20 hours, complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman lodged F.I.R. No,151 of 2001, at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karachi (South) stating that he is residing with his family at Bungalow No,28-E, 4th Gizri Street, D.H.S. Karachi. On 29-6-2001. He reached Karachi from Islamabad by Aeroplane. As soon as he came out of the Airport at 9-15 O'Clock in night, he received a call on his mobile phone which was made from the mobile phone of his son Shakir Latif bearing No,0303-7333660. He heard the call, and the caller warned him saying "we have kidnapped your son". The caller further threatened him that "in case, you inform this to police or any other agency, we will kill your son and throw his dead body, and I will continuously remain in contact with you".

When he reached his house, he came to know that his son Shakir Latif, who was engaged in the profession of law had gone to meet some client at Marriot Hotel and had not returned as yet. Due to fear he did not contact police or any other agency at that time. On 30-7-2001, the same caller again contacted him on phone at 8-30 O'Clock in the morning and threatened him saying "you should arrange for the amount, I will contact you later on". The said person again called him on phone at 7-45 O'Clock in the same evening and said "you should arrange for 2 crore rupees as ransom". Thereafter, said caller continued contacting him from the mobile phone of his son and from other different phone numbers demanding the amount. Ultimately on 4-8-2001, at 12-10 and 12-11 O'Clock he phone him and threatened that "if you do not pay 25 lacs rupees by evening, we will kill Shakir, and I will again contact you in the evening". He, therefore, immediately informed the matter to C.P.L.C. And lodged F.I.R for taking action.

4. After registration of F.I.R., the appellant was arrested on the same day at about 4-43 p.m. From Tele Card Telephone Booth, near Saddar Karachi. After his arrest the appellant made extra-judicial confession and led the police party alongwith C.P.L.C. Officials and the Mashirs to the discovery of dead body of deceased Shakir Latif. After completion of investigation, the appellant was challaned to face trial by A.T.C. Court No,III, at Karachi.

5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-- "P.W.1 Fazal-ur-Rehman son of Muhammad Latif, Exh.6, P.W.2 Ahmed Chinoy son of Abdul Razzak Chinoy Exh.10, P.W.3 Sahib Khan son of Haibullah Exh.24, P.W.4 Zafar Khursheed Ahsan son of Syed Shamshad Ali Exh.26, P.W.5 Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Ashraf Exh.28, P.W.6 Aftab Alam son of Junaid Alam Exh.29, P.W.7 Haji Altaf Hussain Mangi son of Gul Hussain Mangi Exh.32, P.W.8 Ejaz Latif son of Muhammad Latif, Exh.33, P.W.9 Nasir Latif son of Ejaz Latif Exh.35, P.W.10 Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate Exh.37, P.W.11 Muhammad Younus son of S.M. Younus Exh.39, P.W.12 Ejaz Ahmed son of Ahmeduddin Exh.40, P.W.13 Muhammad Amin son of Muhammad Bhai Exh.42, P.W.14 A.S.-I.

Nigar Ahmed son of Soofan Ali Exh.43, P.W.15 Rahmatullah Mooro, Judicial Magistrate Exh.44, P.W.16 Dr. Ghulam Hussain M.L.O. Exh.50, P.W.17 Akhtar Younus son of Younus Exh.54, P.W.18 Sajjad Ali, A.S.-I.

Police Exh.55, P.W.19 Irfan Ahmed S.-I. Police Exh.57, P.W.20 Sikandar Ali son of Khuda Bux, P.W.21 Dr. Muhammad Amin Yousufzai S.P. City, Exh.61, P.W.22 Javed Iqbal Inspector/Investigating Officer Exh.67."

6. P. W.1, complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman, father of deceased Shakir Latif deposed that, accused Shaikh Amjad is his next door neighbour. Mobile Phone 0303-7333660 was in the use of his son deceased Shakir Latif. He has further stated that Mobile Phone 0333-2114997 was in his use. He has deposed that on 29-7-2001 at about 9-15 p.m. He was at Airport when he received a call on his mobile phone which originated from the mobile telephone of his deceased son. The call was disconnected after simple hello. After one minute he received another telephone call from the mobile telephone of his deceased son. The person speaking from the other side warned him that his son Shakir Latif was in his custody and he asked to arrange ransom for his release, threatening that nobody should be informed about the matter else his son would be killed. The caller stated that the quantum of ransom money shall be intimated later.

' In utter confusion he reached to his house and inquired about his son from his wife. He was informed that the deceased had received a telephone call at 3-30 p.m. From his client and had gone to Marriot Hotel in Honda Civic Car No,ACQ-843 and had not returned as yet. The witness further stated that due to threat by the unknown person he did not inform the matter to anyone on 29-7-2001. However, after thinking over the matter at night he informed the matter to C.P.L.C. On 30-7-2001. On such report C.P.L.0 (Citizens Police Liaison Committee) kept his telephone under observation. His mobile phone was not kept under observation. On 30-7-2001, he again received a call on his mobile telephone at 8-30 a.m., which was also made from mobile telephone of his deceased son. This time, the caller demanded an amount of rupees two crores as ransom money for the release of his deceased son and again threatened not to inform the matter to the police or reporters, failing which he had to face dire consequences. On the same date he again received a call on his mobile telephone in the evening, from the mobile telephone of his son and the caller directed to arrange the ransom money forthwith. He informed the caller that he would not be able to arrange the amount of rupees two crores. On 31-7-2001, at about 10-00 a.m. He again received a telephone call on his mobile telephone from the mobile telephone of his deceased son and the caller reiterated his demand about the ransom. This time, he informed the caller that a file was with his son Shakir Latif, which belonged to Mandwiwala and Zafar, Advocates, who were demanding the said file. The caller was requested to return the file. He was further requested not to make any call from the mobile telephone of his son as Mandwiwala Advocates, have already informed High Court that the said file was taken away by Shakir Latif, with whom no contact was being made. The caller replied that he will inquire from Shakir Latif about the said file. On the same day at about 11- 00 a.m. He again received telephone call from the same person and this time the call was made from local ground line. The caller informed that the file shall be returned. He again pressed about the payment of ransom money. On 1-8-2001, he did not receive any telephone from the abductor and on 2-8-2001, at about 11-00 a.m. He received a telephone call from him on mobile phone.

Abductor reduced the quantum of ransom from rupees two crores to 25 lacs. The witness inquired about the health of his son and whether he is being provided with food or not and the. Caller informed that Shakir Latif was all right. On 3-8-2001, at about 12-00 noon, the witness again received telephone from the said person on mobile telephone and insisted for arrangement of ransom money. The witness informed that he cannot arrange the demanded money and that he can pay Rs,5,00,000 as ransom for release of his son. On 4-8-2001, the witness received a call between 12-00 noon and 1-00 p.m. And the caller asked to arrange rupees twenty-five lacs as ransom money. The caller further warned that the money should be arranged and paid in the evening and it should be treated as deadline. The witness has stated that he asked the caller to allow Shakir Latif to talk to him on which he told that he was at a distance of about 200 Kms. From Karachi and it was not possible for him to allow his son to talk to him. The witness has further stated that after this talk he was very much frightened and decided to report the matter to police. He, therefore, lodged the F.I.R. At 3-15 p.m. With Police Station Civil Lines. He has produced the F.I.R. Exh.8.

After lodging of F.I.R. On 4-8-2001, he again received a telephone call at 4-45 p.m., on his mobile telephone. He informed the caller that he was prepared to enhance the quantum of ransom money and can also send his car alongwith ransom money for release of his son. The conversation continued for about 2-1/2 to 3 minutes. While the conversation was going on the witness felt that the caller was in some difficulty and he heard several voices from the other side. At that point of time a person who was deputed on monitoring the calls by police/C.P.L.C. Took mobile phone from him. He was informed from the other side that police and C.P.L.C. Team had conducted raid and had apprehended the caller. On the same day he received another call on his telephone at about 5-00 p.m. With the news that his son was killed. He was informed that dead body of his deceased son was found in Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, Delton D.H.A, Karachi. On receiving this information he sent his elder brother Ejaz Latif to go there for confirmation. At about 8 or 8-30 p.m. The dead body of his son was brought at his house. At that time, he came to know that the kidnapper was his next door neighbour. The witness has further stated that the accused has killed his son on 29-7- 2001, by taking him from Hotel Marriot on the pretext of legal consultation in his rented Bungalow No,51/1.

7. He has stated that on 31-7-2001, when he had asked the caller that the file of Mandwiwala and Zafar, Advocates which was with his son may be returned, the caller had told that the witness can collect the said file from open plot situated in front of the Bungalow of witness. The said open plot is situated in front of the bungalow of accused Sheikh Amjad and the file was found lying in that empty plot. He has stated that the said file was also handed over to police after registration of F.I.R.

He produced the said file in Court, as Article P.1 and the seizure memo. Of the file as Exh.9. He has further stated that when the dead body of his son was brought to his house about 500 to 600 persons including the relatives and Mohallah peoples had collected and all of them were feeling sense of insecurity and fear and after coming to know that the act was committed by the next door neighbour, they attempted to set the bungalow of accused on fire. The police which had reached by that time intervened and saved the property of accused.

' In cross-examination, he has stated that Mr. Afzal Shigri, Ex-I.-G., Sindh, Commandant Police Academy Islamabad, was his friend. He has denied that the investigation was conducted by police under his influence and the Bar Association passed resolution under his influence. In cross- examination he has denied the suggestion that no ransom was demanded. He has denied the suggestion that the file of Mandwiwala and Zafar, Advocates, was not found by him from the empty plot in front of the bungalow of accused. He has further stated in cross-examination that he felt one or two times that the caller had tried to change his voice. He has denied suggestion that on 29-7-2001, his deceased son took the key of Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, Delton D.H.A., Karachi, from the accused and he alongwith a girl and another friend went to that bungalow of the accused and the incident took place because of his own negligence.

9. P.W.2, Ahmed Chinoy, has stated that he is businessman and Deputy Chief of District Central C.P.L.C. He was working on honorary and voluntary basis. He has deposed that on 30-7-2001, they received telephonic information from complainant/P.W.1, Fazal-ur-Rehman that his son Shakir Latif was missing from 29-7-2001. He had further informed that he had received telephonic call on his mobile telephone, which was made from the mobile telephone of his son Shakir Latif. This witness has corroborated P.W.1, on the point of receiving calls from the abductor. He has further stated that the complainant sought their help for recovery of his son. According to him the C.P.L.C. Was dealing in such cases for the last 10 to 12 years and on receiving information from the complainant his Telephone No,5833504 was kept under observation. Another telephone of complainant was also kept under observation and they started monitoring the calls which were being received on the telephones of complainant at his bungalow and on his mobile telephone. He has further stated that they monitored all the calls on the ground line telephone and mobile telephone of the complainant from 30-7-2001 to 4-8-2001. He has further stated that they had arranged for recording of telephone calls of the telephones of complainant in audio cassettes. He has stated that according to their working, they used to deploy 1 or 2 members of their organization at the residence of the victim and also used to monitor the incoming calls as well as used to record the same in audio cassette. According to him P.W.17, Akhtar Younus, was deputed at the bungalow of complainant to monitor and record the incoming calls. The places of origin of suspected calls were also confirmed during period of observation. He has stated that on 4-2-2001 they had advised the complainant to lodge the F.I.R. As by that time they had chalked out plan for arrest of the culprit on the basis of data which was collected from incoming calls and for that purpose the indulgence of police party was necessary. S.S.P. (South) was also consulted and various parties were constituted by the S.S.P. For their help. One party consisted of this witness, P.W. Babar Younus and Inspector Javed Iqbal of Police Station Civil Lines and his subordinates, who took position at Saddar near Jabees Hotel. At about 4-42 p.m. P.W. Akhtar Younus who was deputed at the bungalow of complainant informed them on wireless that one person who has been located at Telecard Booth, near Jabees Hotel Saddar was talking on telephone with the complainant. Within two minutes their party reached at Telecard Telephone Booth, which was situated in front of G.P.O. Saddar. On reaching near the Telephone Booth, they pointed out the same to police party who surrounded the same. When the police party surrounded the said Telephone Booth, the person who was talking threw the receiver and tried to escape from there. However, he was apprehended by the police and was handcuffed immediately. The witness stated that the accused present in Court was the same who was apprehended from the Telecard Telephone Booth. After apprehension of accused, he took the receiver and found that the call was still intact and the complainant was responding from other side. He requested the complainant to give telephone to P.W. Akhtar Younus, who was confirmed that the accused was apprehended by police. He further stated that at the time of arrest, personal search of the accused was taken by police and some visiting cards, including visiting card of deceased Shakir Latif, were secured from the possession of accused. According to him, he had also signed the visiting card of deceased Shakir Latif secured from the possession of accused, on its backside which he has produced Exh.11. The Telecard secured from the possession of accused has been produced as Exh.12. He has produced wallet of accused on which his name was printed as "S.M. Amjad". He stated that police secured mobile telephone as well as voice changer from the possession of accused at the time of his arrest. He produced the mobile telephone and voice changer as Articles P.3 and P.4 respectively. This witness acted as Mashir of recovery and produced the same as Exh.13. The co-Mashir was P.W. Babar Younus. He has further stated that after his arrest the accused was confused and terrified and volunteered to tell each and everything about deceased Shakir Latif, saying that he should not be tortured and beaten.

According to this witness, the accused then confessed that after abduction of Shakir Latif, he administered Potassium Cyanide, to him in a glass of juice, which resulted in his death on the day of abduction. He also confessed that he had put the dead body of deceased Shakir Latif in the car of deceased which was available in the rented Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, Khayaban-e-Mujahid, Phase V, Defence. The accused further , informed that his Honda Civic VTI car was parked by him near the Telephone Booth and Police seized the said car bearing No,ABG-765. Thereafter, the accused voluntarily led the Mashirs and police party to his rented Bungalow No,51/1. On reaching there he pointed out that the key of the said bungalow was kept by him on the right side pillar of the outer door of bungalow in a sma ll place meant for light. He then took out the key and opened the lock and led the police party and Mashirs inside the bungalow. When they entered inside the bungalow the foul smell was coming. The car of the deceased Shakir Latif was parked there and the accused took the key of the said car from the place meant for Air-conditioner. By that time P.W.

Ejaz Latif, uncle of deceased Shakir Latif had also reached there. The accused then opened automatic lock of the car of deceased and then opened the dicky of the car with lever near the driving seat and then opened dicky, where dead body of deceased Shakir Latif, was found. The bad smell coming from the dead body, spread profusely all over. The accused pointed out that it was dead body of deceased Shakir Latif. The condition of the dead body was very bad and its colour had turned to be blackish. Deceased was wearing dusky colour pant and off-white cream colour shirt. His dead body was wrapped in polythene bag which was further tightened with red colour rope. P.W. Ejaz Latif, also identified the dead body of his nephew Shakir Latif. Police prepared the Mashirnama of the place of incident and recovery of the dead body. This witness acted as Mashir.

Co-Mashirs Babar Younus and Ejaz Latif, uncles of deceased Shakir Latif also signed the Mashirnama. He has produced the same as Exh.14. The police prepared inquest report of the dead body, which was signed by the same Mashirs. He produced the Mashirnama Exh.15. The witness further identified in Court, the key of car of deceased Shakir Latif, which was taken out by the accused from a place meant for Air-conditioner. He produced the same as Article P.6. He further produced a key-chain containing three keys Exh.P.7, saying that the accused opened the lock of rented bungalow with the said keys. The plastic bag in which dead body of deceased was found wrapped has also been produced Exh . P. 8 .

10. He further stated that on 6-8-2001, P.W. Akhtar Younus, handed over the record, regarding telephone calls of ground line telephone of the bungalow of the complainant, record of calls on mobile telephone of the complainant, record of the calls on the mobile telephone of deceased Shakir Latif, the list of Telecard Telephone Booth as well as one audio cassette of T.D.K. Company, containing conversation of the complainant and accused, to Inspector Javed. He produced the audio cassette Article P.9. He produced the seizure memo. Of audio cassette as Exh.16 and the record of telephone calls as Exh.17 to Exh.20. He stated that the C.P.L.C. Had obtained the list of record of telephone calls as well as list of Telecard Telephone Booth Exhs.19 and 20 from the concerned department through fax.

11. He further stated that on 7-8-2001, he and P.W. Babar Younus had gone to Police Station Civil Lines at about 1-30 p.m. In connection with the present case, where Inspector Javed was interrogating the accused. The accused informed during the interrogation that remaining quantity of Potassium Cyanide was available in his rented Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, Phase V, Defence.

The accused then led the Investigating Officer, and the witnesses to his rented bungalow. He led them to a room adjacent to Drawing Room. A black bottle on which Potassium Cyanide was written was taken out by the accused from an Almirah and produced before the police. The police secured the same and prepared Mashirnama. The bottle was seized at the spot. This witness identified the bottle containing Potassium Cyanide in Court and produced the same as Article P.10. The witness had signed the sealed cover of Article P.10 and identified the same in Court. He produced Mashirnama of the recovery of Potassium Cyanide Exh.21. He further deposed that the accused then led them to the Drawing Room and produced a jug and two glasses as well as two bottles of juice, from beneath a gray colour table. One bottle was sealed and the other had 3/4 contents of juice, on which "Turbo Orange Juice" was written. The accused further stated that from the bottle of Orange Juice, he filled the juice in glass and mixed with it, the Potassium Cyanide and offered the same to deceased Shakir Latif. The accused then took out the plastic shopping bag kept beneath the sofa set in the same Drawing Room which contained a pair of shoes of deceased as well as a pair of blackish hand-gloves and a book on Banking Laws. The accused stated that the black pair of shoes were of the deceased. The name of Mandwiwala and Zafar was written on the book on Banking Laws. He produced the same in Court as Article P.11. He produced the jug and two glasses secured at the pointation of accused from the rented bungalow and the Orange Juice bottle containing some juice in it. He further produced Mashirnama of the recovery of jug, glasses, bottle of juice, shoes of the deceased, hand-gloves and book on Banking Laws, Exh.22. He further stated that thereafter the police interrogated accused and inquired from where he had purchased Potassium Cyanide. The accused volunteered to lead the police to the shop from where he purchased the said Potassium Cyanide. He led the police party and Mashirs to a shop on the Napier Road, in the name and style of Karachi Scientific Traders, saying that he had purchased the Potassium Cyanide from said shop. P.W. Muhammad Arshad owner of the shop was present there.

He identified the accused and confirmed that some days earlier the accused had purchased the Potassium Cyanide from him. P.W. Muhammad Arshad further stated that the accused had introduced himself as Goldsmith and had stated that he was in need of Potassium Cyanide. He had purchased a bottle of Potassium Cyanide about 6/7 months earlier as well. The police prepared Mashirnama of the pointation of shop by the accused. This witness produced the Mashirnama, Exh.23.

12. In cross-examination the witness denied that keeping the telephone of complainant on observation is a sort of investigation but stated that it was a method of detection. He further stated that if police wishes to cite the workers of C.P.L.C., who are involved in the detection of some incident they act as witness and Mushirs. He denied that C,P,L,C, is a pro-Government or pro-police Organisation, He Stated that he was present at the time of arrest of accused being a member of C.P.L,C. And immediately after his arrest, the accused had disclosed about killing of deceased and voluntarily led them to the rented bungalow for recovery of dead body of the deceased, therefore, he acted as witness and Mashir. He further stated that even after detection, the C.P.L.C. Remains in touch with police, in the cases like the one in hand in order to submit their report to the Governor. In cross-examination he has further stated that the call of complainant, dated 30-7-2001 was noted in the report which they maintain regarding receipt of such information. He did not produce the entry regarding receipt of telephonic complaint of the complainant on 30-7-2001. He further stated that the complainant had informed them that kidnapper had threatened for dire consequences, if the matter was reported to police or any other agency and in order to keep secrecy and to avoid the reporting of matter in Press, they had advised complainant not to lodge F.I.R. On 30-7-2001.

However, when a plan regarding arrest of kidnapper was prepared on 4-8-2001, they advised the complainant to lodge the F.I.R. So that the assistance of police may be sought. He further stated that if a telephone is dialed from a ground line telephone on mobile phone, the number of ground line telephone and place can be detected, because of arrangements made on the telephone under observation. He stated that the telephone from ground line telephone on 2nd, 3rd and 4th August, by the kidnapper was detected because of observation instruments attached to the telephone of the complainant. He stated that all the conversation in between the kidnapper and complainant after keeping the telephone of complainant under observation were recorded in one audio cassette and not separately for each day. He further stated that the entire details regarding calls and its duration have been mentioned in the telephone record Exhs.19 and 20. He accepted the suggestion made in cross-examination to be correct, that immediately after arrest of the accused he voluntarily confessed about killing of deceased by administering Potassium Cyanide.

He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested in his presence and because of the movie, prepared in Marriot Hotel, showing the presence of accused, the witness has falsely implicated the accused. He denied the suggestion that in between 4-8-2001 and 7-8-2001 he alongwith police party visited the rented bungalow frequently and kept poison and other articles there which were secured on 7-8-2001. He denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested on mere suspicion.

13. P.W.3 Sahib Khan, Waiter in Marriot Hotel, deposed that accused alongwith another person visited Nadia Coffee Shop of Marriot Hotel on 29-7-2001. In view of the admission of accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he had called deceased Shakir Latif from his house on 29-7-2001 and had taken him to Marriot Hotel, the statement of P.W.3, Sahib Khan, is not required to be reproduced in detail. It would be sufficient to state that in his cross-examination this witness stated that the young man accompanying the accused on 29-7-2001 was wearing pant and shirt.

This part of his evidence corroborates the statement in the Mashirnama of recovery of dead body, which contains that at the time of recovery of dead body the deceased was wearing pant and shirt.

14. P.W.4 Major Retired Zaffar Khursheed Ahsan, Manager Safety and Security Karachi Morriot Hotel, produced the cassette recorded by the Close TV Circuit, system in the hotel. The accused has not denied his visit of the Marriot Hotel, alongwith deceased on 29-7-2001 and therefore, the evidence of this witness is also not required to be dilated in detail.

15. P.W.5 Muhammad Arshad, stated that he is running a shop namely Karachi Scientific Traders, dealing in laboratory chemical, glassware and apparatus. His shop is situated at Napier Road. On 7-8-2001 the accused came to his shop alongwith the police party and pointed out this witness as well as his shop to the police party and informed to police party that he had purchased Potassium Cyanide from him. This witness further stated that the accused had purchased a sealed pack bottle of Potassium Cyanide of 1 Kg., in the month of July, 2001. A sticker of Potassium Cyanide was affixed on the bottle. He further deposed that he sold the bottle of Potassium Cyanide for Rs,2,800.

He further stated that his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded before the Magistrate.

He identified the accused and the bottle of Potassium Cyanide in the Court. In cross-examination he stated that he possesses licence for sale of chemical and poison, which has been issued by the K.M.C. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of police.

16. P.W.6 Aftab Alam, Controller Administration Paktel Limited, stated that on 23-8-2001, S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, requested him to furnish the account of incoming and outgoing telephone calls of Mobile Telephone No,333660 which has been changed subsequently, as 7333660. He stated that the said mobile telephone was in the name of Latif Shakir Textile Mills. He stated that he supplied the record of incoming and outgoing calls of the aforesaid mobile telephone from 25-7-2001 to 4- 8-2001. According to telephone record 5 calls were made from this telephone in between 29-7- 2001 and 31-7-2001 on U-Phone Company bearing Connection No,0333-2114797. He produced the record of telephone calls Exh.31. In cross-examination he has stated that the place of telephone calls and voice of the person could not be detected from the mobile telephone.

' It is pertinent to observe here that the Mobile Telephone No,0333-7333660 was in the use of deceased and Mobile Telephone No,0333-2114797 was in the use of his father complainant P.W.1, Fazalur-Rehman.

17. P.W.7 Haji Altaf Hussain Mangi, stated that he is a landlord and businessman. Complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman and his son Shakir Latif were known to him. On 29-7-2001 at about 5 or 5-15 p.m., he was going from his house situated in Phase VI, D.H.A. And while passing from 10th Street Khayaban-e-Shamsheer, near Bungalow No,51/1, he saw a Honda Civic Car of silver colour in which two persons were sitting. Deceased Shakir Latif, was one of them. The other person was not known to him at that time. On seeing Shakir Latif, he stopped his car and asked him about his presence there, on which he replied that he had come there for providing some legal assistance to the person who was sitting with him. He stated that the other person sitting with the deceased confirmed the same. At that time he had seen the face of person with deceased Shakir Latif very closely. He further stated that on 4-8-2001, he was informed on telephone by a friend that deceased Shakir Latif was abducted on 29-7-2001. He was killed and his dead body was secured on 4-8-2001. On receiving this information he went to the house of complainant and saw that about 300/400 people had gathered there. He came to know that deceased was kidnapped for ransom and was killed by the kidnapper by administering poison to him. He was further informed that the culprit was next door neighbour of deceased. He identified the accused in Court to be the same person who was seen by him in the company of deceased Shakir Latif on 29-7-2001 at about 5 or 5-15 p.m. He further stated that the persons collected at the bungalow of complainant were hostile and in agitated mode and were bent upon to set ablaze the bungalow of accused but police reached there and saved the property. In cross-examination he stated that he had seen the deceased on the driving seat and had conversation with the deceased for about 10 seconds. He denied the suggestion that he and the complainant used to obtain loans from the accused prior to the incident.

18. P.W.8 Ejaz Latif, uncle of deceased Shakir Latif, has stated that deceased was missing since 29- 7-2001. On 4-8-2001, at about 5-00 p.m. He was present in the bungalow of his brother, where he received a telephone call, informing that Shakir Latif, has been killed. His brother complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman, asked him to go to Bungalow No,51/1, 10 Street for confirmation. He reached there at about 5-15 p.m. Police and C.P.L.C. Officials brought the accused there in hand-cuffs. The accused took out the key of bungalow from a hole, which was meant for electric bulb affixed on the outer door of bungalow and opened the outer door of the bungalow. All of them went inside the bungalow. After entering inside the bungalow, the accused took out key of the car from a hole in the wall which was meant for A.C. And opened the car from the remote of the said car. He opened the door of the car and then opened the dicky of the car in which dead body of deceased Shakir Latif was found wrapped in plastic cover. On opening the dicky, the bad smell profusely spread all over. The colour of dead body of deceased had turned blue and blackish. Police seized said car, its key and the dead body, under Mashirnama. The said car belonged to the deceased. He identified the car and its key, which were secured by the police. He stated that even on the day of recording of evidence in Court bad smell was coming from the car. He further identified the key of the bungalow, which was secured by the police. He produced the inquest report Exh.15, which was signed by him. He further stated that the dead body was taken to Jinnah Hospital. He had accompanied the dead body and after autopsy the dead body was handed over to him. He further stated that at the time of pointing out the dead body inside Bungalow No,15/1, the accused had confessed that he killed the deceased by administering poison to him and kept his dead body in the dicky of car owned by deceased.

19. P.W.9, Nasir Latif, cousin of the deceased and son of P.W.8, Ejaz Latif, stated that deceased had gone to Marriot Hotel on 29-7-2001 at about 3-20 or 4-00 p.m. And was thereafter, kidnapped for ransom. He stated that the kidnapper initially demanded a ransom of rupees two crores from complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman, for the release of deceased. He further stated that on 30-7-2001 at about 10-00 or 11-00 a.m. He was present at the house of complainant. The complainant told him that the kidnapper had informed that file of deceased Shakir Latif, has been kept by him near the wall of the complainant's bungalow and he asked this witness to go there and bring that file. He went to the place narrated by his uncle, but could not find any file there. He returned and informed his uncle. After sometime, complainant received another call from the kidnapper, who informed that file of deceased was kept in the empty plot situated opposite to the bungalow of complainant.

The witness again went there and found the file kept below small slab duly wrapped in a black plastic polythene bag. He brought the same and handed over to the complainant. He verified that Article P.1, was the file which was brought by him from the empty plot. He stated that the said file was handed over to police on 6-8-2001.

20. P.W.10, Nadeem Azhar, Advocate, the then honorary Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, Karachi produced a copy of the resolution Exh.38 passed by the High Court Bar Association on 9-8- 2001 condemning the brutal murder of deceased Shakir Latif, Bar-at-Law. He stated in cross- examination that the meeting of Sindh High Court Bar Association was convened against the act of terrorism. He further stated that similar meetings were held at the time of brutal murders of Iqbal Raad, Advocate, Waqar Naqvi, Advocate, Sardar Advocate, Nabi Sher Junejo, Judge S.T.A. Court and Justice (R) Nizam Ahmed, who were also victims of terrorism.

21. P.W.11, Mehboob Younus, stated that he is Chowkidar, at Bungalow No,50/2, 10th Street, Khayaban-e-Mujahid, D.H.A. Phase V. Bungalow No,51/1, is situated just in. Front of the Bungalow No,50/2. He stated that the said bungalow was rented out and the previous tenants had vacated the same. Subsequently, it was obtained on rent by accused Shaikh Amjad. He deposed that he saw the accused coming and going through Bungalow No,51/1, twice and on both the occasions, the accused had talked to him. On one occasion, he had inquired about the water supply and he had informed that in their Bungalow water from water line was in use and on the second occasion he had talked about electricity. He identified accused in Court. In cross-examination, he stated that on 4-8-2001 at about 10-00 p.m. Police visited the place of occurrence and recorded his statement.

22. P. W.12 Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate has stated that deceased Barrister Shakir Latif, was known to him.

The deceased was working in the law firm namely Mandwiwala and Zafar Associates. This witness stated that he is also working in the same firm. He further stated that file of Suit No,1560 of 1999 was given to deceased Shakir Latif. An appeal was to be preferred before the High Court against the judgment in Suit No,1560 of 1999. The suit was conducted by Mr. M.K. Shiko, Advocate on behalf of State Bank of Pakistan and the State Bank of Pakistan, had engaged their firm to file Intra-Court Appeal against the judgment and decree. He confirmed that file of Suit No,1560 of 1999 Article P.1, in Court was the same which was given by his firm to the deceased. He also stated that the words "Mandwiwala and Zafar" written on opening page of this book was in his handwriting. He stated that 31-7-2001 was Monday and the deceased did not attend the office or law firm. On 4-8-2001 his dead body was discovered and he came to know about the murder of deceased.

' In cross-examination he stated that he and the deceased were jointly working on the file of Suit No,1560 of 1999 and he had himself given the said file to the deceased.

23. P.W.13, Muhammad Amin, working in electronic shop stated that he is dealing in electronic apparatus since 20 years. He stated that voice changer Article P.4, is used with telephone and with its use the voice of a person is changed.

24. P.W.14, A.S.-I. Nigar Ahmed, stated that on 4-8-2001, he was duty officer at Police Station Civil Lines and at about 15-20 hours, he recorded the F.I.R. Exh.8, on the narration of complainant Fazal- urRehman.

25. P.W.15, Rahmatullah, Judicial Magistrate, stated that on 10-8-2001 he recorded the statement of P.W. Muhammad Arshad, under section 164, Cr.P.C. Exh.45. On 11-8-2001, he recorded statement of Mst. Razia Nawazish Ali, Exh.47, under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 13-8-2001, accused Shaikh Amjad was produced before him for the purpose of recording his confessional statement. He took the accused in his custody and removed his handcuffs. He introduced himself to the accused and informed that he was brought for recording of his confessional statement. He was further informed that he was not bound to give the confessional statement, however, if he does so, it will be reduced in writing and it shall be used against him as evidence. He was further informed that whether he makes confessional statement or not, he shall not be handed over to police. The accused then informed that he has been subjected to torture and he does not want to get his confessional statement recorded. The accused, however, stated that he admits the responsibility regarding murder of Shaikh Qudoos and Shakir Latif and that he will give the details of murder during the course of his trial through his lawyer. He further stated that he made such endorsement, which he produced as Exh.49. He then remanded the accused to judicial custody. Exh.49 reads as follows:-- "ORDER ' The accused Shaikh Muhammad Amjad involved in the above alleged crime was produced before me by S.H.O./Inspector Javed Iqbal for making his confessional statement. The accused was informed that he is not bound to make confession or any statement. Before allotting time for reflection to accused; I enquired from accused as to why he is produced in this Court. He stated that Police/Investigating Officer forced him to confess the guilt and he remained in police custody since ten days under remand and during this time he was mentally tortured, pressurized by the police for making confession. He is not still prepared to make any statement but he wants to make statement through his lawyer before the trial Court whatever is so. The accused further disclosed that he was also threatened by the police that if he does not so confession and in case remanded to jail custody he will be taken out from jail in any other case and he will be handed over to C.I.A.

Police and he will be severely tortured by C.I.A. He further stated that he is still freighted and mentally upset due to threats by the police. However, the accused stated/confessed that he takes the responsibility of Shaikh Qudoos and Shakir Latif death and he will give the details during the trial through his lawyer as he been in the remand of the police for above two murders and he can only give the true picture if he is sured that he is not given to police from jail in some other case. In the above circumstances, the accused has declined to make any confession before the undersigned voluntarily, therefore, he is remanded to jail custody. Though the case/offence is triable by the Court of A.T.C. With directions accused be produced before the trial Court.

(Sd.) 13-8-2001. Rehmatullah Mooro, Judicial Magistrate-X, Karachi, South."

26. P.W.16 Dr. Sikandar Ali, the Senior Medico-Legal Officer, Jinnah Hospital has stated that on 4-8- 2001, at about 5-45 p.m., dead body of deceased Shakir Latif was brought by Inspector Javed Afridi for autopsy with the history of poisoning. The deceased was wearing off-white shirt and pant with brown belt. The condition of body was decomposed and the condition of clothes were old used and greasy. Rigour mortis passed away. Features were not identifiable and signs of decomposition were present with maggots creeping all over the body. The post-mortem lividity was not distinguishable. Tongue was swelling and in between the teeth. Pupils were not visible and the eyes were swollen and protuderent. Bloody fluid was coming from angles of mouth. The skins of hand and feet peeling off and hair had become loose. On external examination of the deceased he did not find any external mark of injury all over the body. On internal examination of the body no abnormal feature was found. The time between death and post-mortem was 5 to 7 days. The cause of death was reserved for chemical and his to pathological report. Following visceras were kept preserved and made glass jars for receiving the report:--

(1) Bottle No,1 contains stomach and piece of intestine.

(2) Bottle No,2 contains pieces of lung, liver, splin and kidney.

(3) Bottle No,3 contains sample of preservative.

(4) Bottle No,4, contains heart and kidney for histopathology.

' The glass jar were sealed, labelled and handed over to the Investigating Officer with sample of seal. On 28-8-2001, he received Chemical Analysis Report, dated 18-8-2001, with following finding:- "Cyanide detected from the visceras preserved for detection of poison."

' On such report the final cause of death was found as cardio respiratory failure due to cyanide poisoning. He produced post-mortem report and supplementary post-mortem report Exhs.52 and

53. He further produced the clothes of the deceased as Article P.16. He stated that the deceased was not wearing shoes when he had received the dead body. In cross-examination he stated that the symptoms of cyanide were not stated in the post-mortem report, for the reason that said symptoms were wiped of due to decomposition of the corpse of the deceased. He further stated that there are two types of known cyanide fatal namely sodium and potassium. He stated that he is not expert of poison and, therefore, he had reserved final opinion for want of chemical examination report.

27. P.W.17, Akhtar Younus, stated that he is working as volunteer with C.P.L.C. On 30-7-2001 he was present in the office of C.P.L.C. They received telephone from complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman, informing that his son has been kidnapped and the kidnapper had demanded ransom for his release. He has stated that the complainant sought their help. On receiving this information they kept the telephone of bungalow of complainant under observation. He further stated that they used to monitor all the incoming calls on telephones under observation, maintain its record and on the basis of incoming calls they used to make a plan and action for release of detenu. On 4-8-2001, he was deputed at the bungalow of complainant to monitor the incoming calls. At about 4-43 p.m., a call was received at the bungalow of complainant. The caller was demanding ransom from complainant for release of his son. Prior to this call, six parties were formed with the help of police and were deputed at different places from where the earlier calls were received. After receiving call at 4-43 p.m., he immediately informed P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, who was in a team covering the area of G.P.O., Saddar on wireless. The said telephone call was received from ground Telephone Booth No,5687749. He informed about the said telephone booth to P.W. Ahmed Chinoy on wireless. After about two minutes of communicating the information to P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, he asked the complainant to give the telephone to this witness. He then took the telephone from the complainant and P.W. Ahmed Ching)/ confirmed that the said call was received on the mobile telephone and the caller was apprehended. He further stated that on 6-8-2001, he handed over the record of telephone calls to Inspector Javed. He further handed over the record of telephone under observation Exh.17 and the plan regarding formation of parties and the Public Telecard Telephone Booth, Exh.18. He further handed over print out of mobile telephone of deceased as well as the print out of mobile telephone of complainant Fazal-ur-Rehman Exh.19. He has further stated that he handed over audio cassette to Inspector Javed, wherein the conversation in between the caller and complainant were recorded. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the entire investigation was conducted by them without informing police.

28. P.W.18, A.S.-I Sajjad Ali, stated that on 6-8-2001, he was posted at Police Station Civil Lines. He was on patrol duty in Mobile Van. At about 3-30 p.m. He was called at police station by S.H.O. When he reached police station, the S.H.O. Inspector Javed Iqbal as well as appellant Shaikh Amjad were present and appellant Shaikh Amjad volunteered to lead the police party to the place where he had kept the file of the deceased. He led the police party to a vacant plot in front of his bungalow and pointed out the same disclosing that he had kept the file of deceased there, beneath a small.Cemented block. Inspector Javed Iqbal, prepared the Mashirnama of the pointation of the plot and he signed the same as a Mashir. He produced the Mashirnama Exh.56.

29. P.W.19, Irfan Ahmed, stated that on 9-8-2001 he was posted as S.H.O., Boat Basin Police Station.

At about 12-00 midnight S.P. City called him in his office for a meeting. At that time S.P. City, handed over a video cassette of accused to Inspector Javed Iqbal at about 2-00 a.m. Seizure memo. Of securing the video cassette was prepared and he acted as Mashir. He produced Mashirnama Exh.58. He further produced video cassette Article P.17. In cross-examination he stated that P.17, contained confessional statement of appellant/accused.

30. P.W.20, Sikandar Ali, stated that he is working as Movie-maker at Kharadar. On 9-8-2001 he was called by police of Artillery Maidan, in the office of S.P. City for preparation of a movie film. He went there at about 12-30 or 12-35 a.m. He made preparations for making movie film and S.P. City asked from accused on which he volunteered to confess his guilt. According to him the accused wilfully and voluntarily gave confessional statement. He prepared the movie film Article P.17. In cross- examination he denied the suggestion that Police Officer themselves prepared the video cassette and he had been produced in Court for the said video cassette.

31. P.W.21 Dr. Muhammad Amin Yousufzai, S.P. City stated that on 4-8-2001, he was performing the additional duty of S.P. Clifton as Mr. Munir Ahmed Shaikh S.P. Clifton had proceeded on casual leave for three days. He was supervising the investigation of the present case in absence of Munir Ahmed Shaikh, as per directions of D.I.-G. And S.S.P., South. On return of Mr. Munir Ahmed Shaikh, he requested S.S.P. That Mr. Munir Ahmed Shaikh had returned and as such he may supervise the investigation of the present case but the S.S.P. And D.I.-G., verbally directed him to continue the supervision of the case as he has already supervised the case for the last three days. On the night of 8-8-2001, he asked Inspector Javed Iqbal, to produce accused/appellant Shaikh Amjad before him as he wanted to hear him. The appellant was produced before him at about 11-30 or 11-45 p.m.

Inspector Javed Iqbal, S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, as well as Inspector Irfan, the then S.H.O.

Police Station Boat Basin, were also present in his office. He went through the investigation conducted by them and after going through the investigation papers, he asked the appellant that he wanted to record his statement and the appellant voluntarily agreed for recording of his statemem. He then directed Inspector Javed, to make arrangements for recording and preparations of video cassette as a modern device provided under the law. The arrangements were made within half an hour and after completion of the said arrangements, he asked all other Police Officers to leave his office. He stated that prior to recording of statement the accused had stated the details of the present case before him and thus before recording of his voluntarily statement in video cassette, the appellant was warned that he was going to make a confessional statement, which may be used as evidence against him. The appellant stated that he is feeling uneasy after the incident and he was wilfully and voluntarily inclined to get his statement recorded.

The appellant further stated that he is literate person and know all the consequences of his confessional statement and he was going to get his confessional statement recorded truly and voluntarily to ease himself. The witness stated that before the recording of statement of appellant he was not tortured by anyone. The video cassette was thereafter, recorded in which the appellant confessed his guilt. After preparing the video film, the video film maker gave cassette to him and he handed over the said cassette to Inspector Javed informing that the said cassette contains the confessional statement of accused. Inspector Javed sealed the video cassette and prepared the seizure memo. The witness identified the video cassette as Article P.17 in Court. In cross- examination he admitted that the details of confessional statement of the accused recorded in video cassette Article P.17, have not been stated by him in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer or before the Court. He denied the suggestion that the video cassette was prepared by his subordinates.

32. P.W.22, Inspector Javed Iqbal, the Investigating Officer stated that on 4-8-2001, he received copy of F.I.R. In Crime No,151 of 2001, while on patrolling duty. After receiving the copy of F.I.R. Exh.8, he went to the office of C.P.L.C. As the complainant had already contacted C.P.L.C. On reaching the office of C.P.L.C. He was informed that the complainant was receiving telephone calls for release of his son on payment of ransom and; such calls were being dialed from the vicinity of G.P.O. Saddar and that teams to conduct the raid were also formed. He was further informed that the telephone of the bungalow of complainant was kept under observation. At that time S.-I. Police Shaukat, A.S.-I.

Police Bashir and other Police Officers were with him in mobile van. After arrangements for the raid, they proceeded from the office of C.P.L.C. He was in the team which was being led by P.W. Ahmed Chinoy and P.W. Babar Younus. They went near Jabees Hotel, Saddar and kept waiting there. At about 4-45 p.m. They received wireless message from worker of C.P.L.C. Directed to P.W. Ahmed Chinoy informing that the telephone talk is going on from a Telecard Telephone Booth No,5687749, which was near G.P.O. Saddar. On receiving such information, they immediately reached at the said Telecard Telephone Booth and cordoned it off. They apprehended accused/appellant, who was talking from that telecard telephone booth. Immediately, after the arrest of appellant. P.W.

Ahmed Chinoy took the Receiver of telephone and confirmed to another worker on other side of telephone that the telephone call was in progress from the same telecard telephone booth. After arrest of the accused, his personal search was conducted and a purse on which name Shaikh Amjad was written containing cash of Rs,60 as well as some visiting cards including visiting card of Shakir Latif, wrist watch of appellant, his telecard, his mobile telephone of Ericson Company, a telephone voice changer as well as his car parked nearby were secured. On inquiry he disclosed his name as Shaikh Amjad. Mashirnama of arrest and recovery Exh.13 were prepared. The Investigating Officer verified the same. He further stated that visiting card of Shakir Latif produced in Court was same on which signature of Mashir was obtained. He verified all the articles secured from accused. He then interrogated accused about abductee Shakir Latif and accused disclosed that on 29-7-2001, he had abducted Shakir Latif from Marriot Hotel and had taken him to rented Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, behind Delton Market D.H.A. Where he was killed by him by administering poison in juice. He volunteered to lead the police party and other witnesses to the dead body of deceased. The Investigating Officer alongwith P.W. Ahmed Chinoy and Babar Younus, as well as police party proceeded from there and the appellant led them to Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, behind Delton Market, D.H.A. Karachi. The appellant took out a key from the hole meant for electric bulb over the pillar of the main gate of bungalow and opened the main gate. The appellant then led the Investigating Officer and other witnesses inside the bungalow. They found a car of light golden colour bearing Regn. No,ACG-843, standing inside the bungalow. The appellant then took out the key of said car alongwith its remote from a hole for A.C. And then opened the driving door of the said car. He then opened the dicky of the car by pressing the lever beneath the driving seat.

He then opened dicky of the car in which dead body was found wrapped in a plastic bag tied with a red colour rope. The dead body was taken out which was identified by P.W. Ejaz Latif, to be of his nephew Shakir Latif. The Investigating Officer, verified the key of the car and plastic bag in the Court, which was secured from Bungalow No,51/1. He prepared Mashirnama regarding recovery of the dead body of deceased on the pointation of appellant Exh.14. He also prepared inquest report Exh.15 and sent the dead body to Jinnah Hospital in Edhi Ambulance alongwith P.W. Ejaz Latif. The appellant was also taken there and on further interrogation, he offered to Show the place in Marriot Hotel, where he had called the deceased and then had abducted him. On completion of autopsy the dead body was handed over to P.W. Ejaz Latif. The appellant led Investigating Officer 'to Marriot Hotel, where he pointed out the place ;n Nadia Coffee Shop, where appellant had taken coffee with the deceased. The Investigating Officer prepared Mashirnama of pointation Exh.25. The Investigating Officer further stated that the appellant then led to the place where he had kept file of deceased. The appellant then led police to the said place and Mashirnama of the pointation was prepared Exh.56. The Investigating Officer stated that thereafter, he lodged the appellant in police lock-up and then met Security Incharge of Marriot Hotel, Retired Major Ahsan, who informed that their hotel was covered with close circuit cameras and movie film of the visitors of the hotel is prepared round the clock. He was shown the video cassette dated 29-7-2001. On the request of Investigating Officer another cassette of the occasion showing visit of the appellant alongwith deceased was prepared. The Investigating Officer, then proceeded to the office of C.P.L.C. And collected the 4 prints of record of the ground telephone and mobile telephone of the complainant and the audio cassette was produced before him by P.W. Akhtar Younus. Mashirnama of securing these articles was prepared. The Investigating Officer stated that he recorded statement of complainant and his wife on 6-8-2001. He further stated that during the course of investigation, he visited the bungalow of complainant and the persons collected there told him that because of incident they were feeling sense of fear and insecurity.

' On 7-8-2001, the appellant/accused volunteered to lead the Investigating Officer, to Bungalow No,51/1, for recovery of remaining quantity of Potassium Cyanide. At that time P.W. Ahmed Chinoy and Babar Younus came to police station for collecting the report and were informed that the appellant was ready to lead them to the recovery of remaining quantity of Potassium Cyanide and they were requested to accompany the Investigating Officer, All of them, then proceeded to Bungalow No,51/1, and reached there at about 1=45 p.m, The appellant led them to a room inside bungalow adjacent to the Drawing Room and took out a black bottle from the cupboard having a label of Potassium Cyanide. Half quantity of Potassium Cyanide in powder form was found in the bottle. It was seized under Mashirnama of recovery Exh.21. The appellant then led them to Drawing Room and took out a jug and two glasses as well as one sealed bottle with the label "Turbo Juice" and another bottle of "Turbo Juice" having 3/4 quantity of juice, which were kept beneath the table.

The appellant further took out a black plastic shopper, which was kept beneath the sofa-set which contained a pair of gloves, a book on Banking Laws and a pair of shoes. The appellant disclosed that the book and shoes were of the deceased. He further informed that he had served juice to the deceased from the bottle, which was mixed with Potassium Cyanide. The Investigating Officer secured all these articles under Mashirnama Exh.24. The Investigating Officer, further stated that on further interrogation, the appellant volunteered to lead him to the shop from where he had purchased the Potassium Cyanide. He then led them to the shop of P.W. Arshad. The Investigating Officer, prepared Mashirnama of the pointation of the shop of P.W. Arshad Exh.23. P.W. Arshad, identified the appellant and disclosed that the appellant had purchased the bottle of Potassium Cyanide twice from him. The Investigating Officer then recorded statements of P.Ws. M. Arshad, Babar Younus and Ahmed Chinoy. The Investigating Officer further stated that on 9-8-2001, P.W.

Nadeem Azhar, Advocate-General Secretary, High Court Bar Association, produced a copy of resolution passed by the High Court Bar Association. On 9-8-2001, he recorded statement of Mst.

Razia Nawazish Ali, from whom the appellant had taken Bungalow No,51/1, on rent. On the midnight between 8th, and 9th August, 2001, he received message from S.P. City, to produce appellant/accused alongwith investigation papers. He produced the appellant before the S.P. City.

The Investigating Officer, has thereafter, corroborated the facts stated by P.W.21, Dr. M. Amin Yousufuzai, S.P. City. On 10-8-2001 P.W. Arshad was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. The appellant thereafter led to the recovery of pistol and revolver from Bungalow No,51/1. On 11-8-2001 statement of P.W. Mst. Razia Nawazish Ali, was recorded by Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. On the night of 12th August, 2001, the appellant expressed that he wants to confess his guilt and, therefore, on 13-8-2001, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording the confessional statement. The Magistrate recorded his statement and thereafter appellant was remanded in judicial custody. On 18-8-2001, the Investigating Officer received Chemical Examiner's report. Exh.68. The relevant part whereof reads as follows:- Description of articles contained in the parcel.

(1) Stomach and pieces of small intestine with its contents with is contents...Jarof deceased

(2) Jar Piece of lung, liver, spleen and kidney ...

JarShakir Latif son of Fazal-ur- Rehman

(3) Preservative sample .... Jar

(4) Black coloured plastic bottle with yellow cap labelled as 'Potassium Cyanide(KCN) Poison' containing white powderParcel

(5) Cream colour pant with belt .... Of deceased

(6) Off-white colour shirt .... Shakir Latif

(7) Multi-colour underwear... Son of Fazal-ur-

(8) Socks .. Pair ... Rehman in

(9) White colour piece of cloth Parcel.

(10) Red colour rope

(11) One glass Jug (empty and washed)

(12) Two water glass (empty washed) in parcel

(13) One plastic bottle with orange cap labelled as, "Turbo Sports Drink' containing 460 ml.

Orange colour. Fluid with orange flavour smell)

Result of Chemical Analysis ' Cyanide detected in the abovesaid articles Nos.One, two and four only.

' Cyanide not detected in the abovesaid remaining articles No, Three and eleven to thirteen.

' Human blood detected in the abovesaid articles Nos.Five to ten.

' The Investigating Officer thereafter collected the data of calls made from Telecard Telephone Booth No,5687749 and incoming calls on the telephone of complainant. He thereafter challaned the accused to face trial. In cross-examination the factum of arrest of accused from the Telecard Telephone Booth, has not been challenged. The Investigating Officer stated in cross-examination that during the whole investigation the accused revealed and confessed that he had killed deceased Barrister Shakir Latif. He denied the suggestion that confessional statement of the appellant/accused contained in cassette Article P.17 was obtained by using third degree torture. He further denied the suggestion that confession of accused was the result of torture. The statement of Investigating Officer that appellant/accused led to the recovery of dead body of the deceased and further led to the recovery of poison, jug, glasses, juice bottle, shoes and gloves of the deceased and pointation of the shop from where poison were purchased have also gone unchallenged.

33. The appellant/accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Admitted that he called the deceased at Hotel Marriot on 29-7-2001 at about 3-30 p.m. They took coffee and juice in Nadia Coffee Shop. He denied that he had taken Bungalow No51/1, on rent. He stated that he got the bungalow rented out to deceased from Mst. Razia Nawazish Ali. He denied that he had administered Potassium Cyanide to deceased by mixing the same in juice. He further denied that after killing deceased he wrapped dead body in a plastic cover and kept in the car of deceased inside the Bungalow No,51/1. He denied to have demanded ransom from the complainant Fazal-ur- Rehman. He further denied to have made various calls to complainant demanding ransom money.

He further denied that he was apprehended by joint team of C.P.L.C. And police party, when he was demanding ransom money from complainant from Telecard Telephone Booth No,5687749. He denied that after his arrest he led the police party to Bungalow No,51/1. He stated that on 4-8-2001, he was arrested at 11-30 a.m. From Gizri on suspicion. According to him he was taken to police station and inquired about deceased Shakir Latif and in response to the interrogation, he gave address of Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, Delton Market D.H.A., Karachi. He accompanied police party and pointed out the said bungalow to police. The police party ranged the call bell but there was no response from inside. The police party scaled over the wall of the bungalow and opened the door from inside where the car was found parked. He denied that he opened the dicky of the car from where dead body of deceased was recovered. He denied that he led to the recovery of Potassium Cyanide and other articles from Bungalow No,51/1. He further denied the pointation of shop of P.W. Arshad. He admitted that he obtained Bungalow No,51/1 from. Mst. Razia Nawazish Ali and during the course of his visit of the said bungalow he had conversation with P.W. Mehboob Younus, the Chowkidar of opposite side bungalow twice. He further stated that he was working as Estate Agent and therefore, took responsibility for renting out the bungalow of Mst. Razia Nawazish All and that he had friendship with Estate Agents, namely Ateeq, Naveed Merchant and Mable Homes etc. Through whom he was dealing in the business of Estate Agency. He admitted that statements of P.Ws. Muhammad Arshad and Mst. Razia Nawazish Ali Khan were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By the Magistrate in his presence. He further admitted that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording of his confessional statement on 13-8-2001, where he stated that he was responsible for murder of deceased Shakir Latif and will give details of incident before the trial Court. He admitted that in video cassette Article P.17, which was displayed in open Court in his presence and the presence of Advocates, he gave confessional statement before S.P.

City which was recorded. He, however, did not admit that the confessional statement was without any torture. He stated that it was obtained under duress. In reply to the question that when he was produced trial Court on 24-8-2001, at the time of submission of challan he had wilfully and voluntarily offered to confess the guilt and that he was consistently making such offer from 6-8- 2001, whenever produced before the Court as Administrative Judge, for the purpose of remand and that oq 24-8-2001, he filed a written statement before the trial Court in his own handwriting admitting that he had killed deceased mistakenly, he stated that the written statement filed in trial Court on 24-8-2001, is in his own handwriting and also bears his signatures. He produced the same Exh.73. However, he stated that the statement was filed because of torture by the police. He has stated that prior to 24-8-2001, on every occasion he was produced before the Court, he was threatened by police to confess the guilt of the presence case and therefore, he used to offer for recording of confessional statement. He admitted that on 24-8-2001 when he filed written statement Exh.73, he was in Central Prison. He stated that all the prosecution witnesses deposed under influence of complainant. When asked whether the prosecution witnesses and particularly P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, P.W. Akhtar Younus, Mehboob Younus and P.W. M. Arshad, had any personal grudge or enmity for falsely implicating him in this case, he replied in negative. The statement in the handwriting of appellant/accused filed in the trial Court reads as follows:-- ' To ' The Honourable Judge, A.T.C. Court No,3, Karachi.

LEGAL BINDING.

' My Lord, ' Every time I visit you, I am forced by the police to say in front of you Sir, I want to confess. I have no words to explain how I was tortured by the police, even now I am being tortured in the jail (1) Bund Ward from day I (2) Beating and Labour in Mapping of the floors (3) Demanding money for relaxation in work. I wish to add Afzal Shikri Ex-I.-G. Sindh Police and Ex-I.-G. Sindh Jail is a close associate of Shakir Lateef. May be his influence is behind the above.

FACTS SHAK'R LATEEF.-My next door neighbour for well over 10 years knew me well, his father mentioned me that he has completed his Bar Examinations. As I needed some legal opinion, so I phoned him from my house on Sat. When he is free, his answer was on Sunday. So, on Sunday I phone him from Karachi Gymkhana and fixed an appointment over a cup of tea in Marriot Hotel on the same day.

He arrived Marriot at 4 p.m. We both sat there for 1/2 an hour, during which I discussed my problems including one of China Town Restaurant. On his request that I went to see China Town Restaurant and wants to see some papers. We both moved to China Town in our own cars. After arriving China Town separately we saw the rest, close, so I left my car there and sat in Shakir's car and moved to my rented house to show him a legal notice. We entered the house with car parked outside. Is this a Kidnapping? In the house I offered him a orange juice and took a juice for myself.

Unluckily the glass he picked was an uncleaned glass in which the same day I had performed an experiment for making liquid gold Potassium Cyanide is one of chemical used, after needs most probably the glass was not properly washed, which must have left Cyanide in the bottom and thus mixing it with juice and drinking it must be the cause of popr Shakir Latif's death. He died in about 1/2 an hour without any pain just in sleeping state with one vomit. So, Sir I take 100% responsibility of this accidental death. I became very panic and thus decided to put the body in Shakir's car trunk and parked the car in the house, and left for Gymkhana to teak off the Telephone Slip because either the family knew Shakir was with me or this Slip will prove it. So, I took all the copies of the slip without anyone's knowledge. The next 4/5 days I did a drama of ransom to divert attention from my side when I had nothing to deliver against ransom. As I had a soft corner for Shakir's father, so instead of taking ransom I delivered some files to Mr. Fazal Lateef otherwise he will land up in trouble, and agreed to him for not using Shakirs' Mobile Phone. Thus, ,I got arrested while I was talking to. Mr. Fazal from a card phone I produced the car and confessed the above story. But I was tortured to change my story which I did even in front of Magistrate 164. But I did mentioned about police torture.

' Sir, I am ready to accept any sentence but do you think it should be tried in A.T.C. Court when no kidnapping and arms is involved.

' Sheikh Quddus murder is 100% false and is planted on me with torture.

' Rest I leave to Almighty God, but I do request for a fair trial and a full enquiry in the jail for torturing me in different forms.

' Sheikh Muhammad Amjad son of Sh. M. Amin (Sd.)"

34. The appellant examined himself in his defence on oath also under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He stated on oath that he knew deceased Shakir and his family since 1993 as they were his next door neighbour. He further stated that in the month of June, 2001, deceased Shakir Latif had stated to him that he was going to marry and was in need of separate accommodation. He requested the appellant to arrange for separate accommodation on hire basis. At that time Begum Razia Nawazish Ali, who was running a charitable hospital and was its President, of which the appellant was also a member had requested appellant to rent out her Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street Phase V D.H.A., Karachi. He got the bungalow rented out to deceased at monthly rent of Rs,25,000. The deceased paid advance of .6 months amounting to Rs,1,50,000 to him which he paid to Begum Razia Nawazish Ali and informed that the bungalow was rented out to one of his friends. The key of the said bungalow was handed over to deceased on 1-7-2001. The owner of the bungalow asked for execution of rent agreement but it was not executed. On 29-7-2001, the appellant requested the deceased on phone to come at Marriot Hotel for some discussion. The deceased reached there at about 4-00 p.m. And they took coffee and cold drinks in Nadia Coffee Shop Marriot Hotel. They remained there for about 45 minutes and the appellant discussed with the deceased about cancellation of power of attorney notice of which was served on him by his ex-wife Ghazafa. He requested the deceased for execution of rent agreement which was avoided by deceased on the pretext that he does not want to disclose this fact. The appellant further stated that thereafter, the deceased went away from Hotel Marriot, to attend some meeting. On 4-8-2001, at about 11-30 a.m.

He was going in his car near Gizri where he was arrested by police of Civil Lines Police Station and was taken to the police station. He has further stated that when he was brought to police station, the police did not torture him but inquired in harsh language about deceased Shakir Latif and he informed the police that the deceased had taken Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, D.H.A. Phase V, Karachi and then he led police to the aforesaid bungalow at about 1-00 p.m. According to him when they reached at the said bungalow, the police rang the outer call bell but there was no response. The police officials, therefore, scaled over the wall and opened the door of the bungalow from inside. He was made to sit in the Mobile Van at that time and after about 5 minutes some of the police officials came out from the bungalow and disclosed that the dead body of deceased was secured from there. After 15/20 minutes Edhi Ambulance also reached and thereafter he was taken to Police Station Darkhshan, where he was severely tortured and beaten by police. Because of severe torture to him, he admitted the guilt, so that they may not beat him. He was then shifted to Baghdadi Police Station and was kept there during the whole period of his remand in police custody. He further stated that whenever, he was produced before the trial Court as Incharge Administrative Judge, he used to be produced before the Court with the threat to confess the commission of offence before the Judge and therefore, he used to offer every time for recording of his confessional statement but the Judge of the trial Court directed him to get his confessional statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate. He further stated that on 6-8-2001, the senior police officials took him to bungalow adjacent to the bungalow of complainant and he was made to sit in a room. His bungalow was searched and the police took out his 6/7 passports, one book containing the formulas of preparation of cold drinks, telephone index, his valuable files and 4/5 pairs of his clothes, whereafter he was brought back to police station. He has further stated that a police party consisting of 3/4 Police Inspectors gave him a statement in writing and asked him to go through it saying that a film shall be prepared in which he had to read out the said statement which they had produced before him. He was in great torture and, therefore, he acceded to their demand. He has stated that video cassette Article P.17 is the said film which was prepared in the presence of S.P. He has further stated that he was informed by a police guard that complainant was a nephew of Ex-I.-G. Police, Afzal Shigri. He has further stated that he was tortured by the S.P.

City Police and he was tutored the statement which he had to make before the Judicial Magistrate.

He was ultimately produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who took him in his custody and administered the prescribed warning to him. The Magistrate suspected that the appellant was not in his senses and, therefore, inquired if he was under duress or compulsion for the recording of confessional statement and he showed the signs of torture to him. The Judicial Magistrate, therefore, declined to record his confessional statement and passed the order in that behalf. The appellant has stated that he entreated the Magistrate to insert one line from his side in his order to the effect that he admits the responsibility of death of deceased, so that he may not be further tortured by the police and the Magistrate wrote the said line on his request, whereafter he was sent back in judicial custody. He has further stated that he was tortured in the jail and was given a piece of paper and was forced to make confessional statement and, therefore, he had made statement in writing Exh.73, which he has produced in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He further stated that the place from where the file of deceased was allegedly secured was not surrounded by the bungalows from three sides, however, it was surrounded by bungalows from two sides.

35. In cross-examination he has stated that from 13-8-2001 till 24-8-2001, he was in judicial custody at Central Prison at Karachi. He has conceded that he did not submit any application in writing before the trial Court or before the High Court or high police officials, with the grievance that from 13-8-2001 till 24-9-2001 when his statement was recorded he was subjected to severe torture in the jail. In cross-examination he has further stated that he does not remember if the Judicial Magistrate had informed him that whether he gives confessional statement or not, he will be remanded to judicial custody. He further conceded that in his written statement Exh.73, he had not narrated the entire facts which he narrated in his statement on oath and that he had stated the said facts for the first time during the entire proceedings of the case. He has further conceded that when 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W. Begum Razia Nawazish Ali was recorded by the Magistrate, he was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine her and he had not cross-examined, confronting her that he had given Rs, 1,50,000 to her after receiving the same from deceased. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that P, Ws. Ahmed Chinoy and Babar Younus were not known to him before the day of his arrest and none of them had any enmity with him.

36. On the basis of evidence and material available on record the trial Court framed the following points for determination:--

(1) Whether on 29-7-2001, the deceased Barrister Shakir Latif expired after taking glass of juice mixed with Potassium Cyanide, as result of present incident?

(2) Whether on 29-7-2001 at about 4-00 p.m. The deceased Shakir Latif was induced and brought at Bungalow No,51/1, 10th Street, behind Delton Market, D.H.A., Phase V, Karachi after he was secretly and deceitful means induced by the accused for the purpose of claiming ransom from the complainant for his release and also demanded ransom of Rupees two crores from the complainant and finally reduced the quantum of ransom to Rs,25,00,000 for release of the deceased?

(3) Whether the accused intentionally mixed Potassium Cyanide in the glass of juice offered to the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased as such the accused is guilty of murder of the deceased or not?

(4) To what extent, if any, the accused is responsible for the present incident?

(5) What should the order be?"

37. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and appraisal of the evidence and material on record decided the points 1, 2 and 3 in affirmative and while deciding points Nos.4 and 5 held that the appellant/accused deceitfully abducted deceased and brought him in a rented bungalow where he intentionally committed the murder of deceased by administering Potassium Cyanide to him and, therefore, he was found guilty for both the charges.

The appellant was convicted on both the counts and on the point of sentence the learned trial Court held that if the commission of offence involve capital punishment, the normal sentence was death and that there were no mitigating circumstances for awarding lesser punishment. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced as narrated in the opening part of this judgment.

38. We have heard Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned Advocate-General, Sindh and Mr. Ilyas Khan, Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

39. The learned counsel for the appellant has mainly objected to the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, established under section 13 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. He has submitted that the jurisdiction to try the offence of murder and kidnapping is with the ordinary Courts and trial by the Anti-Terrorism Court, is an exception to the rule. He has contended that mere fact that an offence is a scheduled offence under the A.T.A. Is not sufficient per se to confer jurisdiction on A.T.C.

According to him the condition precedent is that in addition to the commission of scheduled offence it should be coupled with the act of terrorism as defined in section 6 of the A.T.A. According to the learned counsel, it is provided in the III Schedule to the A.T.A. In pursuance of section 2(t) thereof, that any act of terrorism within the meaning of A.T.A. Or any offence punishable under the A.T.A. Or any attempt to commit, or any aid or abetment of any conspiracy to commit, any of the aforesaid offences shall mean as scheduled offence. He has further argued that under subsection

(2) of section 6 of the A.T.A. Read with subsection (1)(a) of the said section an action shall fall within the meaning of terrorism if it involves the doing of anything that causes death or involves doing of anything that is likely to cause death or involves danger to a person's life or any act which involves kidnapping for ransom, hostage-taking or hijacking, shall mean the act of terrorism, provided the conditions spelt in section 6(1)(b) of A.T.A., are also fulfilled. It is provided in the later section that the use or threat should be so designed as to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society. He has contended that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the provisions contained in section 6(1)(c) of A.T.A. Are, not relevant which deal with the use of advancing a religious, sectarian or ethnic cause. He has urged that in order to constitute act of terrorism there should be an overt act designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society. The learned counsel has vehemently argued that the facts of this case as alleged by the prosecution do not attract the necessary ingredients constituting an act of terrorism as defined under section 6 of the A.T.A. He has contended that according to prosecution, when the appellant/convict committed the murder there were two persons only in the house; one the deceased and other the appellant. Either before or during the commission of offence no such act is alleged on the part of appellant which may attract the operation of A.T.A. And thereby conferring jurisdiction on A.T.C. The learned counsel has submitted that according to prosecution case, the murder was committed quietly and thereafter the dead body was put quietly and silent in the dicky of the car of deceased which was parked inside the house. The public knew nothing about the commission of alleged offence and, therefore, the question of causing any overawe to the Government, to the public or creating any sense of fear or insecurity in the society does not arise. He has further argued that there should be immediate impact of the act of terrorism on a section of public and society, while in this case nothing of the sort is alleged. According to prosecution case, the appellant after committing murder of the deceased very quietly tried to conceal the commission of offence and put the dead body in the dicky of the car to hide the offence. The learned counsel has submitted that an accused who tries to hide his crime cannot be said to cause any act of terrorism as defined in section 6 of the A.T.A. He has further submitted that in order to bring the offence within the purview of A.T.A. And to clothe the A.T.C. With the jurisdiction. The prosecution has examined four witnesses namely P.W.1, Fazal-ur-Rehman, P.W.7, Haji Altaf Hussain, P.W.10, Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Secretary High Court Bar Association, Karachi and P.W.22, Javed Iqbal, the Investigating Officer. P.W.1 Fazal- ur-Rehman and P.W.2 Haji Altaf Hussain, have stated that the persons gathered at the residence of deceased were furious and the public was feeling sense of insecurity and fear. The Investigating Officer P.W.22, Inspector Javed Iqbal, has also stated that when he reached the bungalow of complainant/father of the deceased, for investigation, he met the people gathered there who were expressing feeling of fear and insecurity because of the incident. P.W.10, Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Advocate, who produced the resolution of Managing Committee of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, has also stated that on the day of the publication of news of the brutal murder of deceased Shakir Latif Bar-atLaw, the members of the Bar were feeling insecurity and were demanding some action from the Bar on such type of terrorism. He has further stated that the members of the Bar were under the panic and feeling inconvenience in appearing before the Court and, ' therefore, a meeting was convened and resolution was passed wherein the members of the Bar unanimously expressed their immense shock, deep pain on the brutal murder of Barrister Shakir Latif and further expressed that the public was having sense of insecurity. Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, has submitted that the feeling expressed by the witnesses were not immediate in proximity of time to the commission of offence, but first the feelings if any were after several days of the commission of offence and secondly, they were figment of imagination created just for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the A.T.C. He has further argued that he is himself shocked on the gruesome murder of the deceased who was a young 3arrister, but a shocking murder is not an act of terrorism. Accordhg to him, it may be termed as a cruel, tragic and gruesome murder but it cannot be termed as an act of terrorism. He has next argued that, admittedly it is an unwitn'essed incident and thus it cannot be held to be the result of an act of terrorism as defined in section 6 of A.T.A. He has furthe submitted that two persons namely Allah Banday and Abdul Shakoor who are alleged to have expressed their feelings of fear and insecurity to the Investigating Officer, have not been examined.

40. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, vehemently argued that the Anti- Terrorism Court, established under A.T.A., has the jurisdiction to try only such cases which fulfil two conditions, first, commission of a scheduled offence and secondly, it being an act of terrorism as defined in section 6 of A.T.A. He has submitted that both these conditions are required to be satisfied at the one and same time in order to confer jurisdiction on A.T.C., failing which the offence alleged shall be triable by the ordinary Court. He has contended that the second condition precedent i,e, commission of scheduled offence coupled with the act of terrorism is not fulfilled in this case and, therefore, the trial of appellant by the A.T.C. Is without jurisdiction. He has submitted that for want of jurisdiction, the conviction and sentence be set aside and the case be remanded for trial by the ordinary Court. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:--

(1) Ghulam Qasim v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 175; (2) Mehram All v. Federation of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1156, (3) Muhammad Ashraf v. Ghulam Rabani 1998 PCr.LJ 773 and (4) Jahangir Akhtar Awan v. The State PLD 2000 Kar.

89.

41. In the first case, Ghulam Qasim v. The State (supra), it has lbeen held by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court that the material available .With the prosecution showed the commission of a scheduled offence exclusively triable by the Special Court constituted under section 5 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and, therefore, the judgment passed by Sessions Judge awarding conviction and sentence to the accused persons was without jurisdiction. The judgment was set aside and the case was remanded to the Special Court for retrial in accordance with the law.

42. In the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. Ghulam Rabbani (supra) a single Judge of the Peshawar High Court took the same view. In the cited case an accused was tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court and it was held that the offence was exclusively triable by the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Amendment Act, 1990, and therefore, the Sessions Judge was not competent to take cognizance. The judgment of the Sessions Judge was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Special Court for de novo trial.

43. In the case of Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court, while examining the provisions contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 held that the offence mentioned in the scheduled should have nexus with the object mentioned in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act.

44. In the last case, Jehangir Akhtar Awan v. The State (supra) a Division Bench of this Court struck down the notification issued by the Provincial Government, transferring a case pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi South, to the Court of Special Judge, acting under the A.T.A., 1997.

In the said case the relevant facts were that deceased was kidnapped and done to death, whereafter the dead body was disposed of. A Division Bench, of this Court while considering the contention that the act attributed to the petitioner do not constitute a "terrorist act" within the meaning of A.T.A. Observed that according to alleged confession of the petitioner he committed murder of the deceased with hammer which was not a weapon. Further, in order to dispose of the dead body, the petitioner secretly cut it into pieces and threw it away. He had taken all possible steps to conceal the offence. After these observations it was held as follows:- "An act of terrorism is a preplanned and organized system of intimidation. Its requisites and attributes are that such act and its effects are made known to the people and widely circulated with exaggeration. It is neither hidden nor disguised. It means an act, which is committed with the sole object to terrorise the people and to feel them insecure. These ingredients are not in the instant case."

45. On the other hand, Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned Advocate-General, Sindh, and Mr. Ilyas Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that the appellant could submit an application before the A.T.C. Under section 23 of the A.T.A. For transfer of the case to the. Court having jurisdiction but it was not done, and therefore, the appellant cannot be allowed to take this plea at the appellate stage. We are not persuaded to agree with the submission because the question of jurisdiction is a question of law and can always be raised by any party at any stage including the appeal. However, if the objection to the jurisdiction is taken at appellate stage it should to involve recording of further evidence and should be on the basis of material already available on record. We are, further of the opinion that so far, the question of jurisdiction of a Court is concerned, a Court itself is required before proceeding with the case to examine whether it has jurisdiction in law to proceed with the case or not. Merely because a party to the proceedings has not taken any objection to the jurisdiction, out of ignorance or for want of proper advice, shall neither debar a party from taking such objection at the appellate stage nor the silence of a party or even waiver shall confer jurisdiction on a Court not vested in it in law. The question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the case and renders the entire proceedings as corum non judice, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings and rendering the judgment illegal and void, therefore, it is the duty of every Court to examine itself if it has jurisdiction to proceed with the case or not and the objection in this behalf can be raised at any 'stage. Objection to the jurisdiction of a Court is in the nature of "objection to the proceedings" and not an "objection in the proceedings" and thus primarily it is an issue between a party on whom the jurisdiction is exercised and the Court. In a very erudite judgment, his Lordship Mr. Justice Manzur Qadir, C.J. Held in the case of Akhtar Ali Parvez v. Altafur Rehman PLD 1963 Lah. 390, while dealing with the competence of an Special Tribunal as follows:-- "12. It seems to me that a distinction exists between an issue as to the very existence of the authority to adjudicate, and those other issues which arise as between the parties and which are to be determined by the authority that has the power to resolve them. An issue concerning the very existence of the power to decide, is not an issue between the parties, though the existence of that power may be asserted by one party and denied by the other. It is, in reality, an issue between the Court itself and the party over whom the Court is asked to exercise power. The issues as to the rights or liabilities of the parties, on the other hand, affect only the parties and arise only as between them. They have the Court unaffected. This point may be put in another way. Objections raised 'to' the proceedings must be distinguished from objections raised 'in' the proceedings."

' It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Messrs Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v.

The Commissioner of Income-tax North Zone (W.P.) Lahore PLD 1965 SC 443, that "it is open to a Court before which a point of jurisdiction is raised to deal with it at the very last stage, even if the point was not raised at any earlier stage provided that all the evidence necessary for the determination of the point is available on record so that no further evidence is recorded for reaching a satisfactory conclusion".

46. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Rashid Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 271 as under:-- "So far as the first point is concerned that the objection should have been taken in the trial Court and any subsequent objection raised before the High Court or this Court could not be taken into consideration. Reliance was placed on the case of Abdul Rashid v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 2, S.M.K.

Alvi v. The Crown PLD 1953 FC 189, Gokulchand Dwarkadas Moraka v. The King PLD 1948 PC 11, Nirode Chandra Biswa s and others v. The State PLD 1958 Dacca 90, F.D. Costa v. The State PLD 1959 Dacca 744, Abdul Khaliq v. The State PLD 1963 Kar. 26, Qazi Mushtaq Ahmad v. Muhammad Ramzan and another 1970 PCr.LJ 1181 and Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1970 PCr.LJ 1189. The trend of these decisions is that objection of this nature should be taken in the trial Court and an objection raised at the appellate stage is not fatal to the case. It will be noticed that in the present case no objection about the sanction was taken before the trial Court. An objection to this effect was taken before the High Court and before this Court. In my view, the latest view of this Court in the case of Mansab Ali v. Amir and others is a complete answer to these questions. It has been held by this Court in the abovementioned case that if a mandatory condition for the exercise of a jurisdiction before a Court, tribunal, or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction. Any order passed in continuation of these proceedings in appeal or revision equally suffer from illegality and are without jurisdiction. It was further held in the case of Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Staff Union that 'question relating purely to the jurisdiction of the Court should be raised at any stage of the proceedings'. In this connection, the following observation is relevant- ' Where the Court is not properly constituted at all the proceedings must be held to be coram non judice and, therefore, non-existent in the eye of law. There can also be no doubt that in such circumstances 'it could never be too late to admit and give effect to the plea that the order was a nullity', as was observed by the Privy Council in the case of Chief Kwame Asante Tredahone v. Chief Kwame 9 DLR 686 (PC)'.

' In view of this clear observation of this Court, I am of the view that the appellant was entitled to raise objection in the High Court and the High Court should have decided this point raised before it.

In the circumstances, of the present case, this Court also is competent to go into this question." "

47. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the contention that the objection to the jurisdiction of A.T.C. Cannot be raised at the appellate stage in this case.

48. Coming to the merits of the contention, the learned Advocate- General, has submitted that there can be no cavil to the proposition that a Special Court constituted under A.T.A. Has the jurisdiction to try the case, if both the conditions as spelt out by Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad are fulfilled. In view of this concession made by the learned Advocate-General, it is held that an Anti- Terrorism Court, established under A.T.A. Shall have jurisdiction to try an offence if the alleged offence is scheduled offence and as put by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mahram Ali's case (supra) has nexus with sections 6, 7 and 8 of the A.T.A.

49. However, the learned Advocate-General, has submitted that the controversy stands resolved by the Honourable Supreme Court, in a recent judgment dated 11-9-2001 in Criminal Appeals Nos.257, 292 and 293 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No,75 of 2001, Syed Hussain Abbas v. The State and others. The learned Advocate-General, has submitted that in the cited case the relevant facts were that challan was submitted in A.T.C. Which was transferred from the A.T.C. And revision preferred against the transfer of the case was dismissed by the High Court of Sindh. The State preferred appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court held that the High Court while deciding revision filed by the State did not consider the provisions of section 6(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which runs as under:-- "(b) the use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or . Overawe the Government or the public or a section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society."

' The Honourable Supreme Court further observed that section 365-A, P.P.C., under which the charge-sheet was submitted before the Court and the language of section 6(b) showed that the offence was committed which created fear and insecurity in the society and which adversely affected the harmony among different sections of the people. Prima facie keeping in view the evidence so collected by police against the respondents, the charge-sheet was rightly filed before the A.T.C. But High Court without considering the fact that the offence alleged is a scheduled offence, which is covered by section 6(b) of the Act, wrongly dismissed the revision application filed by the State. It was held that the transfer order of the trial Court and the impugned order of High Court dismissing the revision applications was not sustainable in law.

50. On the basis of Above observations of Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Advocate- General, has submitted that the offences under sections 302, P.P.C. And 365-A, P.P.C. Are admittedly the scheduled offences and the prosecution has collected sufficient material to show that the incident was so callous, brutal, shocking and gruesome that it sent a waive of insecurity and fear in the society at large. Mr. Raja Qureshi, has submitted that the facts of the cases before the Honourable Supreme Court, did not indicate any immediate impact on the society at large but it had ultimate impact to create panic, fear and insecurity in the society. He has submitted that in this case, the prosecution has showed that the people collected in large number at the residence of complainant and they were feeling insecurity on coming to know the fact of abduction of the deceased and his subsequent murder. He has submitted that even the entire community, of Advocates started feeling insecurity and were under the sense of fear which is demonstrated from the resolution of the Bar Association. He has further submitted that the words used in section 6(1)

(b) are that, "terrorism means the use or threat as designed to coerce or overawe the Government or the public or a section of a public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society".

51. We have carefully considered the respective contentions of the learned. Advocates for the parties. The prosecution has collected sufficient material to create a nexus between the scheduled offences allegedly committed by the appellant and sections 6, 7 and 8 of A.T.A., as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mehram Ali's case. We find that the prosecution has brought sufficient material on record to establish that the act committed by the appellant fell within the purview of sections 6 and 7 of A.T.A. The offences allegedly committed by the appellant are admittedly scheduled offences, and therefore, both the conditions precedent for conferring jurisdiction on the A.T.C. Are fulfilled. On very careful examination of the provisions contained in section 6(1)(b) of A.T.A. We find that the Legislature has nowhere provided that an act shall be an act of terrorism if it creates immediate and instantaneous impact on the society at large or it is made known to the people either by the culprits or by their act. It no where provides that such act should be committed openly, in the eyes' of people and should not be hidden or disguised. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jahangir Akhtar Awan (supra) on which the learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance is of no help to him for the simple reason that in the cited judgment the unamended section 6 of A.T.A. Came for consideration. Section 6 of A.T.A. Has been substituted by Ordinance No,29 of 2001, dated 15-8-2001 and the said provision came for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court. It is admitted principle of interpretation of statute that the Courts while interpreting any provision of law are required to give plain meaning to the plain language of statute and are neither supposed to add anything to the statute nor to substract anything out of it. In very exceptional cases, the omissions can be provided by the Court, but where no such necessity C arises the Court should always adhere to the meaning conveyed by reading the plain language of law. There is another established principle of the interpretation of statute that, wherever a definition clause is provided in any statute by the Legislature then the said definition is to be adhere to for the purpose of said act and no meaning is to be assigned to any term, expression or word other than provided by the Legislature itself, with the help of dictionaries or in accordance with the common connotation. The assistance of dictionaries and the books on interpretation of the words and phrases are to be resorted to when the words, phrases and terms used in a statute have not been defined by the Legislature itself. We find that under section 2 of the A.T.A., it is provided that unless, there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the meanings and definitions given in section 2 shall be taken for the purpose of the Act. It is provided in section 2(x) that "terrorism" or "act of terrorism" has the meaning as assigned to it in section 6. Thus no Court under the established principles of the interpretation of the statutes is supposed to assign any meaning to the word "terrorism" or "act of terrorism" other than the one given in section 6 of the A.T.A. Itself. The contention of Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, that in order to constitute "terrorism", an act should be overt, it should not be disguised, hidden or concealed or it should have immediate and instant effect on the people or it should be immediately known to people and widely circulated is not in consonance with the definition of terrorism given in section 6(1)(b) of A.T.A. We are not persuaded to read these words in the definition given by the Legislature in the above sections. The sole requirement of the language used in section 6(1)(b) of A.T.A. Is, that, if any use or threat is designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the Government or the public or the section of the public or community or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society, it shall be treated as an act of terrorism. The word overawe has not been defined in the act, and therefore, for the purposes of determining the connotation of this word, we have to fall back on the dictionaries and legal Thesaurus. In Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, the word "overawe" has been given the meaning, "to daunt by arousing fear or reverence". In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the word "overawe" has been assigned meaning, "to restrain, control, or repress by awe; to keep in awe by superior influence". In Roget's Thesaurus, the word "overawe" has been related to such fear which frightens, terrifies, appal, horrify. The expression overawe or intimidate public or a section of the public or community is to be read in the context of the provisions contained in section 6 itself, and thus if any action in which use or threat is so designed which puts the public, a section of public, a community a sect or society at large in the feeling or sense of fear and insecurity, it shall come within the purview of definition of terrorism given in section 6 of A.T.A. As it stands at present. It would be irrespective of the fact whether it creates awe, fear, intimidation, sense of insecurity, immediately on commission of offence or it is after the discovery of the commission of offence. The determining factor is, that whenever the public, a section of public, a community or society becomes aware of the commission of offence either immediately on the commission of offence or at any subsequent time on discovery of the commission of offence, is put to the mental, psychological and physical condition envisaged in section 6(1)(b), it should be deemed to be an act of terrorism. We are of the considered opinion that such connotation only shall be in consonance with the intention of Legislature, the purpose of law which is specified in the preamble i,e, prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences and would be in accordance with the spirit and language of the law. The commission of every offence is irksome, painful, distressing and abhorrent. So long it remains confined to the victim or victims or their near and dear ones, it does not amount to terrorism as defined in section 6(1)(b) of the A.T.A., but when any such offence is committed, which by its very nature or because of the manner and method of the commission evokes excited painful emotion of danger, alarm or apprehension terrifying any section of public, public at large, community or a sect, it results in creation of sense of fear and insecurity in the society at large and thereby enters into the realm of terrorism. If any offence is committed to avenge an enmity or dispute or to settle a score on account of any known and visible reasons in the conduct of human being or a crime is committed in relation to the life, liberty, property, honour and dignity of any person which is taken by the society as a normal crime or a criminal act of ordinary nature, it remains confined to the commission of an offence simplicitor and does not amount to an act of terrorism. However, if an offence is committed without any background of any enmity, dispute, provocation or any known and common reason for commission of offence and the nature, manner and method of the commission of offence is such that the public at large individually and collectively feel apprehension that anyone of them can at any time be subjected to similar act of brutality and callousness it takes the public at large and society or a particular group or sect of society into the grip of apprehension, sense of insecurity, fear and intimidation, disturbing the physical and mental peace and tranquillity of the people, giving impression that the writ of Government has been rendered ineffective, with the result that nobody is safe in pursuing ordinary pursuits of life, then such acts certainly amount to an act of terrorism as defined in section 6(1)(b) of the A.T.A. Now applying this criteria to the facts of the present case, we find that the deceased had no enmity or dispute with the appellant and there were no circumstances which may result in his murder and subsequent harassme nt of his family by attempting to knock out ransom money.

The discovery of all these acts, was bound to send a wave of shock, apprehension, sense of extreme painful emotion and excitement of danger as well as alarm to the entire residents of the locality and was bound to evoke the sense of insecurity, shock and intimidation in the community of Advocates, which is evident from the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the High Court Bar Association.

52. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded to agree with the submission of Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the condition precedent for conferring jurisdiction on A.T.C., established under A.T.A. Was lacking and therefore, the judgment passed by the A.T.C. Is without jurisdiction. We are persuaded to agree with the submission of learned Advocate-General, that the conditions prescribed in law stand fully satisfied and the A.T.C.

Had the jurisdiction to try the appellant for the offences of abduction for ransom and murder.

53. Coming to the merits of the case Mr. Shaikh Mir Muhammad, contended that there is no evidence on record that the appellant had taken the deceased from Hotel Marriot to the place of incident by any deceitful means or by any inducement. According to learned counsel, the appellant and the deceased both drove their respective cars from Hotel Marriot to China House, where the appellant left his car and both of them proceeded to Bungalow No,51/1, in the car of the deceased. He has submitted that, since the deceased himself drove his car from Hotel Marriot to China House and then to Bungalow No,51/1, therefore, no case of any abduction has been made out. He has further submitted that according to prosecution itself the deceased was not alive after 29-7-2001 and, therefore, could not be released even after payment of ransom to the appellant. He has argued that ransom could not be demanded for a dead person, and therefore, the ingredients of offence under section 365-A, Cr.P.C. Were not fulfilled. According to the learned counsel it was simply a case of cheating.

54. He has further argued that it is an unwitnessed incident. There are no eye-witnesses and except the extra-judicial confessions/admissions of the appellant and the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of appellant there is no independent evidence on record. At this stage, we would like to observe that although the learned trial Court excluded the video cassette Article P.17, containing the confession of accused from consideration and no conviction was recorded on the basis of said confession but at the insistence of learned counsel for the appellant, the video cassette Article P.17 was displaying in the Court. As already observed, the learned trial Court excluded the confession of appellant recorded in the office of S.P. From consideration but the learned Advocate for the appellant still argued that the confession could not be relied upon by placing reliance on Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. He contended that the confessional statement of an accused has been provided protection by law and any confession in presence of police has been made inadmissible in evidence.

55. He further argued that P.W. Ahmed Chinoy has remained associated with the investigation throughout, and therefore, his evidence is to be considered with great caution. He has further argued that P.W.7 Haji Altaf Hussain Mangi, is a chance witness and his evidence also does not inspire confidence. In the end, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to have realized that there is overwhelming evidence on record connecting the appellant with the death of deceased Shakir Latif and therefore, he contended that the admission of appellant be accepted as it is, viz. It was an accidental death. The learned counsel was referring to the written statement filed by the appellant in his own handwriting Exh.73, with the trial Judge, at the time of submission of challan against him. In the said statement, the appellant stated in his own handwriting that he discussed his problems with the deceased in the Marriot Hotel and thereafter, they proceeded to China Town Restaurant and from there to the rented house of appellant. The appellant posed a questioning his written statement Exh.73, "is this a kidnapping". He further stated in his written that in his house he offered deceased, the Orange juice and took juice himself as well, unluckily, the glass, which the deceased took, was an uncleaned glass in which on the same day he performed an experiment for making liquid gold by mixing Potassium Cyanide. The glass was not properly washed and the Potassium Cyanide must have been left in the bottom, which was mixed with the juice. The drinking of said juice must be the cause of poor Shakir Latif's death. He has further stated that deceased died in about half an hour without any pain just in sleeping state with one vomiting. He has further stated that, "So, Sir I take 100% responsibility of this accidental death".

56. He has further stated in this statement, that he became very panicky and thus decided to put the body of Shakir Latif in car trunk and parked the car in the house and left for Gymkhana to take off the telephone slip because the slip will prove that Shakir was with him. He has also stated in his written statement Exh.73, that "the next 4/5 days I did demand ransom to divert attention from my side when I had nothing to deliver against the ransom. As I had soft corner for Shakir's father so instead of taking ransom I delivered files to Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman, otherwise he will land up in trouble and agreed to him for not using Shakir Latif's mobile phone. Thus, I got arrested while I was talking to Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman from a card phone. I produced the car and confessed the above story. I was tortured to change my story, which I did in front of Magistrate 164, but I did mention about police torture. Sir, I am ready to accept any sentence but do you think it should be tried in A.T.C. Court when no kidnapping and arms is involved".

57. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, fully supported the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. He submitted that overwhelming circumstantial evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution and has succeeded in bringing home the guilt to the appellant/convict up to the hilt. He has submitted that the witnesses may speak lie but the circumstances do not.

58. He has contended that the last seen evidence stands established by the admission of appellant himself even in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And P.W.7, Haji Altaf Hussain Mangi, who is totally independent and has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. This witness has stated that he had seen deceased in the company of appellant near Bungalow No,51/1, at about 5-00 or 5-15 p.m., on the day of incident i,e, 29-7-2001. He has fully stood the test of cross-examination and his testimony has not been shacked. P.W.11, Mehboob Younus, Chowkidar of Bungalow No,50/2 has belied the contention of appellant that the Bungalow No,51/1, was obtained on rent by the deceased. He has clearly stated that the accused had taken bungalow on rent and had seen the accused visiting the said bungalow before the incident. His testimony also has gone unchallenged. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant accepted that he had conversation with P.W. Mehboob, twice at Bungalow No,51/1, prior to the incident.

59. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has further submitted that pointation of the dead body at the instance of appellant and extra-judicial confession has been established with the testimony of P.W.2, Ahmed Chinoy, P.W.22, Javed Iqbal and P.W.8, Ejaz Latif. The testimony of the Investigating Officer, on these points has gone totally unchallenged and no question has been asked denying the pointation of dead body of deceased by the appellant and recovery of the dead body and other articles at the instance of accused. He has submitted that the appellant in his statement on oath Exh.74, has stated that he was arrested on 4-8-2001 at about 11-30 a.m., from Gizri, when he was going in his car and he was not tortured by the police. On interrogation he informed police that the deceased had taken Bungalow No,51/1 and then the appellant led the police and Mashirs to the said bungalow and the dead body of deceased was secured from there.

60. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, has further submitted that the purchase of Potassium Cyanide which caused death of the deceased is established with the evidence of seller P.W.

Muhammad Arshad, Mashir P.W. Ahmed Chinoy and Investigating Officer P.W.22 Javed Iqbal. They have also proved that the shop of P.W. Muhammad Arshad was pointed out by the appellant.

61. He has further submitted that the recovery of the shoes of deceased and the book on Banking law belonging to Mandwiwala and Zafar, Advocates at the pointation of appellant stands established with the evidence of P.W.2, Ahmed Chinoy, P.W.12, Ejaz Ahmed and P.W.22, Javed Iqbal.

He has next contended that telephone calls made by the appellant to the father of deceased Shakir Latif, have been established wit he testimony of P.W.17, Akhtar Younus, P.W.6, Aftab Alam, P.W.1, Fazal-ur-Rehman and P.W.22, Javed Iqbal.

62. He has further contended that the pointing out of the place where the appellant left file which was with the deceased at the time of abduction and death has been proved with the evidence of P.W.18, A.S.-I. Sajjad Ali, P.W.28, Ejaz. Ahmed, P.W.9, Nasir Latif and P.W.1, Fazal-ur-Rehnan.

63. He has further submitted that the extra-judicial confession is fully proved with the evidence of P.W.2, Ahmed Chinoy.

64. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, has further submitted that the admission of guilt by the appellant stands proved with the testimony of P.W.15, Rahmatullah, the Judicial Magistrate and particularly the order dated 13-5-2001 which contains the fact that the accused stated that he takes the responsibility of death of deceased Shakir Latif and further statement that he will give details during the trial. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has admitted that he had stated before the Magistrate that he was not prepared to give the confessional statement but he was responsible for the murder of deceased Shakir Latif. In his statement on oath under section 342(2), Cr.P.C. He has stated that Magistrate had recorded his admission on his insistence. He has further stated that he made this statement in order to save himself from torture but in cross- examination, he has admitted that on the said date he was in judicial custody and not in police custody. The learned S.S.P., has further submitted that the admission on the part of appellant is proved with his written statement Exh.73 as well.

65. The learned S.S.P., has further submitted that the cause of death i,e, administering of poison stands established with the evidence of Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Ghulam Hussain Shaikh and the Chemical Examiner's Report.

66. On the point of motive, he has submitted that the statement of P.W.1, Fazal-ur-Rehman and the record of telephone calls fully establish that the appellant did demand ransom although he had already killed the deceased. According to Mr. Ilyas Khan, the appellant had kicked the deceased as he was only person who could give ocular testimony against the appellant and the appellant wanted to obliterate the said evidence.

67. He has lastly submitted that the abduction of deceased by the accused stands established with the evidence of last seen, admission of appellant himself and demanding of ransom.

68. Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, has vehemently argued that the offence of kidnapping for ransom and causing death of the deceased the appellant stands fully established and looking to the callousness of the appellant and severity of the offence, the learned trial Court has rightly awarded the sentence of death which should be confirmed by this Court.

69. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned Advocates for the parties and have given a very careful consideration to the evidence on record.

70. Although, we observed while watching the display of cassette record Article P/17, containing confession of appellant recorded in the office of S.P, that the appellant appeared to be totally relaxed and appeared to be without any strain and stress, but still we are of the considered opinion that the said confessional statement is not admissible in evidence. The learned S.P.P., realising the legal position did not support the prosecution version that by virtue of the provision contained in Article 164, Cr.P.C. Of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the video cassette recorded in the office of S.P. Be accepted as confessional statement of the appellant. He, however, submitted that it may be treated as admission on the part of appellant. We are not persuaded, to agree with this contention as well, for the reason that the confessional statement of the appellant contained in the video cassette is a confession for all intents and purposes and any confession made to a police officer or in the custody of a police officer unless it is made in the immediate presence of Magistrate cannot be proved against the appellant, by virtue of the provisions contained in Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is, therefore, held that the learned trial Court very rightly excluded the confessional statement of the appellant recorded in the office of S.P. From consideration.

71. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the evidence of P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, should be excluded and at least his testimony should be examined with great caution. His contention was that P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, is a stock-witness who has acted as Mashir for several times during the course of investigation. We do not find any substance in the contention, for the simple reason that the appellant has stated in his statement that P.W. Ahmed Chinoy has no enmity or reason for falsely implicating the appellant in the commission of offence. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Raqib Khan v. The State 2000 SCMR 163, that "It is settled principle of law by now that interested witness, is the one who has an animus for false charge". Mr. M. Ilyas Khan, has further placed reliance on the case of Mst. Gallan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 674. The relevant facts of this case were that minor daughter of the complainant disappeared and it was reported that the deceased had gone to the house of appellant and thereafter, did not returnn. After about 6 days foul smell was found coming from the house of appellant on which the complainant and other witnesses went to the house of the appellant and on inquiries she made extra-judicial confession that she has murdered daughter of complainant.

During the investigation, the appellant/convict led to the recovery of dead body of deceased from a room of her house. It was in putrefaction stage and was wrapped in polythene cover and then inserted into gunny bag. The dead body was recovered from an iron box which was open on the pointation of the appellant at the time of recovery of dead body. The dead body was recovered on the day F.I.R. Was recorded. Objection was raised to the veracity of the evidence of the father of complainant and another Mashir on the point of extra-judicial confession and recovery of dead body on the pointation of the convict. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, held that the recovery of dead body from the house of appellant on her pointation provided a strong corroborative factor to extra-judicial confession made before the father of deceased and another witnesses. It was further observed that the father of deceased was not likely to falsely implicate the appellant by substituting her for the real culprit and evidence of another person who was a respectable person of the locality and disinterested and natural witness could be safely relied upon about the extra-judicial confession. Coming to the facts of this case, we find that, P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, is a respectable person and admittedly he is an independent witness having no animus for falsely implicating the appellant and his presence at the time of various recoveries on the pointation of appellant is fully explained by the fact that he is an active member of C.P.L.C., which is actively engaged in detection of crimes in Karachi for the 10 to 12 years and is performing a very commendable job. A perusal of evidence in this case also shows that without the help of C.P.L.C.

And its workers namely P.W. Ahmed Chinoy, P.W.17, Akhtar Younus and others the police could not have succeeded in detecting the crime and the investigation would not have taken place in such scientific manner which is a rarity in this country. We are, therefore, convinced that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of P.W. Ahmed Chinoy.

72. We have already reproduced the entire prosecution evidence in the earlier part of this judgment. The admission of appellant is contained in his handwritten statement Exh.73, handed over by him to the trial Court and in his statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on his own insistence. The appellant has although denied his arrest from the telephone telecard booth, but it is proved up to the hilt with the statement of P.W. Ahmed Chinoy and the Investigating Officer. We have already observed that the statement of Investigating Officer on the point of arrest of the appellant from the telephone telecard booth, extra-judicial confession, leading to the discovery of dead body of the deceased and pointing out of the dead body of the deceased and recovery thereof at the instance of the appellant and further recoveries of the other incriminating articles including the recovery of bottle containing remaining Potassium Cyanide and pointing out of the shop from where he purchased the said poison have gone unchallenged. When the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read with the statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. As well as under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. To the effect that after his arrest he was not tortured by the police but was merely interrogated in harsh language and in response to the inquiry about deceased Shakir Latif, he led the police to Bungalow No,51/1, from where the dead body of deceased was recovered, no room is left for any doubt that the appellant led to the recovery of dead body of the deceased and other incriminating articles. Now, the question arises whether this evidence is sufficient for conviction of accused/appellant for the commission ' of abduction for ransom punishable under section 365-A, Cr.P.C. Read with section 7(2) of the A.T.A. And the offence of committing murder punishable under section 302, P.P.C. Our answer to the question is in affirmative.

73. We are fortified in our views by several judgments in similar circumstances. In the case of Ketab Ali v. The State 1970 PCr.LJ 415 (Dacca), the prosecution case was that the deceased went to fetch gold ornaments from the goldsmith but did not return. The decapitated corpse of deceased was found floating in the canal tied up with the trunk of banana trees. F.I.R. Was recorded and the Investigating Officer arrested accused who led to the recovery of severed human head wrapped in a piece of cloth. He also led to the recovery of crime weapon and pointed out the place from where the banana trees were dug. There was no eyewitness in the case and after conviction of accused under section 302, P.P.C., the appeal and confirmation reference were heard. The learned Judges of the Dacca High Court were called upon to consider whether the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution was such as to be incompatible with the innocence of the condemned prisoner.

After examining the entire evidence in detail, the learned Judges held that, "law is now clearly well- settled that although a confession by an accused caused by inducement threat or promise, or a confession to the police or when in police custody, is inadmissible in evidence by reason of sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act (corresponding to Articles 37, 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984), yet the bar is removed, if his statement contains any information leading to the discovery of a fact, for example, the stolen property, weapon of crime, body of the deceased from some place of concealment. This was exactly the position in the present case".

74. The learned Judge of the Dacca High Court further observed that on the basis of circumstantial evidence which consisted of recovery of the severed head of the deceased and other incriminating articles there was no doubt in their mind that the deceased was murdered and the prosecution successfully established beyond any shadow of doubt that the condemned prisoner was responsible for the commission of murder. It was further observed that the circumstances proved, were quite incompatible with the innocence of the condemned prisoner and they firmly fixed the guilt on the contemned prisoner as one of the participant of the murder. In the said case since two co-accused persons were acquitted and it was established on record that more than one person were involved in the murder, therefore, the sentence of death was commuted to transportation of life.

75. In the case of Farid Muhammad v. The State PLD 1959 Pesh. 12, there was circumstantial evidence of the pointing out the place from where, the dead body of deceased was recovered. It was held as follows:-- "The accused/appellant should have disclosed to the Court as to how did he come to know of the presence of the dead body in the ditch from where it was recovered. If the accused person does not give the reasonable explanation of a certain fact proved in the case, then it is perfectly legitimate for the Court to raise a presumption against him. If a person was killed and his dead body is recovered at the instance of the accused, then the presumption would be that the accused had a hand in the murder."

' In the said case also other accused persons were acquitted but the sentence of death awarded to the appellant was confirmed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile West Pakistan High Court Peshawar Bench.

76. In the case of Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 1958 SC 290, the appellant indicated a place in a freshly ploughed field, where the dead body of deceased was buried. The said place was dug out and the dead body of deceased was recovered. The appellant also led police to an abandoned but and produced a spear-blade. It was stained with the blood but by the time it reached the Serologist, the blood had disintegrated so that it could not be ascertained whether it was of human origin. The Honourable Supreme Court while examining the prosecution evidence, observed that the deceased was found missing and after lodging of F.I.R. Police promptly arrested the accused persons leading to the recoveries, namely blood-stained earth from the spot, where the murder was committed, dead body and spear-blade which was probably weapon of offence. The appellant/convict denied the recoveries but produced no evidence in defence and there was nothing in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that the recoveries were procured by irregular method or that they did not take place in the manner stated by the Investigating Officer and the supporting witnesses. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that the question arising for consideration was, whether upon the evidence which was accepted against the appellant a conclusion can be reached beyond reasonable doubt that he was directly connected with the killing and burial of the deceased. The Honourable Justice Cornelius, speaking for the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the circumstance to which great importance should be attached is that the appellant knew the exact place in the field where the dead body was buried.

The evidence did not indicate that he took any time in searching for this place but he led immediately to the right place and pointed out the place where the deceased was buried. Two prosecution witnesses supported the Investigating Officer. The Honourable Supreme Court further observed that the production of crime weapon in a natural way without loss of time or delay excludes the possibility of fabrication and establishes a chain of evidence on which a strong case for direct participation of the appellant in the murder of deceased can justly be placed. A very important observation was made by the Honourable Supreme Court to the effect that "In view of the fact that all the evidence is circumstantial it is necessary that cumulatively its effect should be to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused". The Honourable Supreme Court ultimately held that on the basis of circumstantial evidence it was established beyond doubt that the appellant was connected with the murder of deceased and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

77. In the case of Billmoria v. The State PLD 1958 SC 313, leave was granted by the Honourable Supreme Court to consider whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction of the appellant for murder and robbery. In the cited case a Booking Clerk of the Airport Halt, Railway Station, Karachi, was murdered. There were no eye-witnesses and the deceased was found dead on his cot at the railway platform. The appellant was subsequently arrested and the appellant led to the recovery of clothes of the deceased and some other articles belonging to him. The appellant furnished no explanation as to why witnesses deposed against him. No evidence was produced in defence. No suggestion was made to the Police Officers that there was any falsity in their evidence, which might, lead to the conclusion that these recoveries were fake. The Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:-- "Thus practically everything which was robbed from the murdered man was recovered from Billmoria's possession on the fourth day following the discovery of the crime. This is a very strong circumstance favouring the belief that he was the person who removed these things, following the murder, and the natural inference is that he was directly concerned in the murder. When it is also found that he had concealed, alongwith some of the deceased's goods, a weapon of the exact type with which the murder was in all probability committed, the inference become almost irresistible on the basis of a complete chain of circumstances, that he himself committed the crime."

78. The Honourable Supreme Court further observed as follows:-- "The chain of circumstances in this case is so strong that in order to create a reasonable doubt regarding the natural conclusion that the murder was committed by Billmoria, it was necessary for him to establish exculpatory circumstances of a concrete kind, and in the absence of either proof or suggestion by him that he received the goods from another, in a manner unconnected with the murder, it is difficult to conceive of any circumstance which might have been effect of creating such a doubt, except perhaps an allegation supported by reliable proof, that at some time when.

The .Murder was committed, Billmoria was in some other place. There is no such allegation, and as has been seen, Billmoria led no evidence in his defence at the trial."

' With the above observations and findings the conviction for commission of murder was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

79. In the case of Faiz Ahmed v. The State PLD 1960 SC 8, Muhammad Munir, C.J., observed as follows:-- "Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length we are clearly of the view that the circumstantial evidence in this case is so overwhelming that no inference from it is reasonably possible other than that the appellant took part in the murder of Muhammad Ashraf. The missing man has not been heard since. His bicycle to which was tied a rope and a piece of cloth was recovered from the canal. One of the clothes which he carried with himself in a small bag was recovered from a gunny bag which lay buried and the small bag itself was found hidden in a bush.

The clothes in the gunny bag were all stained with human blood, and human blood was also found in the cotton field by which he had to pass on his way to Piplan. From that field were also recovered his handkerchief and several spots where blood drops had fallen. On these facts, there can be no doubt that Muhammad Ashraf was murdered in the cotton field. The appellant is connected with this murder because the trail of blood starting from the cotton field was traced to the place where he lay with a wounded hand and at his pointing out the bag which the deceased was carrying with himself at the time of his death was recovered from the gunny bag which the appellant had buried in the house of his brother. We are, therefore, fully satisfied that the conviction of the appellant can safely be maintained even if the evidence of the approver be excluded."

' In this case the appellant was convicted on the evidence of recoveries only and the Honourable Supreme Court upheld conviction and dismissed the appeal.

80.In the case of Abdus Samad v. The State PLD 1964 SC 167, the appellant was convicted for kidnapping a six years old girl and of having subsequently murdered her. No direct evidence was available. The child was said to have been last-seen with the appellant/convict. The appellant had stated to a witness that he was taking away the child for getting some sweets for the child. The child never returned. The parents searched the child. The appellant was contacted who stated to a witness that he got some sweets for the child and then sent her back. The version of appellant was that he was falsely implicated because one witness was annoyed on account of the appellant's having developed intimate terms with the sister of the witness. The child disappeared on 9-8-1960 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 14-8-1960. The accused was arrested on 15-8-1960. During the interrogation, the appellant/convict agreed to show the place where the dead body of the girl was lying. He led police party to a lonely hill some 4 miles from Hyderabad City. He indicated a spot in bushes saying that the dead body was lying there. Nobody was found there as it seemed that it had devoured by animals. However, inside the bush they found two small pieces of cloth and some long human hairs. A few paces from the bushes two other pieces of similar cloth were found. At a distance of about 100 paces from the bush, a human skull was found. Large numbers of animal bones were on the hill together with a few human bones. The police party picked up about 35 of these bones, which they thought were human. The skull and bones were sent to an Anatomical Expert, who found that most of the bones were of animals but the skull was of human, and there was also a left collar bone, one right and one left rib, and two bones from the right arm, and all of these were estimated to belong to a child of about the age of six. It was found that the death was fairly recent. Judging by the long hairs it was a female child. The hairs were identified by the father of the deceased child. He also identified the pieces of cloth found on the spot, which were from the frock, which the girl was wearing when she was kidnapped. All the disclosures were not made by the appellant/convict at the same time. The appellant/convict was taken by the police party again to the same spot and the appellant led to the recovery of a tin box without a lid. The significance of the tin box was that the prosecution believed that the accused had taken the small girl to lonely place, having equipped himself with some oil in the tin aforesaid and there he raped the girl and in the process she died and he threw her body in the bush. The tin was traced with the help of the accused to the shop of a street-stall vendor, which was shown to the police by the appellant. The vendor recognized the box as one he had sold to accused/appellant about 18 to 20 days before when a small girl was with the appellant. The place from where oil bought was also shown by the appellant to the police subsequently. The vendor of the oil recognized the appellant as purchaser of small quantity of oil from him. The witness had stated that the appellant had visited his hotel with a small girl and there they had taken two cups of tea and cake. The said hotel was also shown to the police by the appellant. The appellant was convicted and the appeal preferred was dismissed by the High Court expressing opinion that, "the circumstantial evidence has been established by reliable and cogent evidence' and that they could not think of any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant and none was suggested. It was further observed by the High Court, that the recovery of the remains, which in their opinion, were connected with the missing girl, from a desolate place four miles away from the place where the child was residing show that the accused had exclusive knowledge of the presence of the remains at that place.

Reliance was placed on extra-judicial confession also proved by one witness.

81. The Honourable Supreme Court, did not believe the extrajudicial confession allegedly made to the witness. However, the Honourable Supreme. Court observed as follows:-- "As regards the identification of the remains, scanty though they were it is proved beyond doubt that these were bones from the skeleton of a child aged about six years and the presence of long hairs in the bush pointed out by the accused is sufficient to establish that the child was a girl.

Further identification is provided by the pieces of cloth recovered from the bush which were recognized by the father and by a person who had made the frock not long before."

82. The Honourable Supreme Court further observed that the remains were found from a very lonely place where no person would ordinarily go to search clues to the child missing from the town four miles away, a reason has to be found why the police went to that place at all, and no other reason is offered than that the accused himself led them to that place. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that the child was last-seen alive in the company of accused and that he had exclusive knowledge of the place where its remains were eventually found and the accused gave no explanation as to how the child met its death and these circumstances were sufficient to establish the charge of kidnapping and murder against the accused, being sufficient to exclude all possibility of his being innocent of the death of the child.

83. Apply the guidelines given by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cases, to the facts of the present case, we find that there are much more stronger circumstances leading to the involvement of appellant in the abduction and death of the deceased Shakir Latif. As already discussed, the prosecution has established up to the hilt and beyond any doubt that the deceased Shakir Latif was last-seen in the company of appellant, he thereafter disappeared and was not traceable for several days. The appellant made several telephone calls to P.W. Fazalur-Rehman, father of the deceased. This fact is proved with the help of C.P.L.C. Workers who kept the telephone of complainant under observation. It was traced out that on 4-8-2001, the appellant was talking to P. W.1, Fazal-ur-Rehman, from a Telecard Telephone Booth in Sadar. The appellant was arrested from the Telecard Telephone Booth, while talking to the father of deceased and then he led to the recovery of dead body of deceased from the dicky of the car of deceased parked inside the Bungalow No,51/1. It is also established that Bungalow No,51/1, was in possession of appellant which fact stands established with the evidence of P.W.11 Mehboob Younus, Chowkidar of Bungalow No,50/2. The accused has admitted in his statement that he had conversation with this witness at Bungalow No,51/1, twice before the incident. The prosecution has also established that the appellant led to the recovery of shoes and gloves of the deceased and a law book which was with the deceased. It is proved by P.W.12, Ejaz Ahmed, Advocate, the partner of the deceased in the law firm namely Mandwiwala and Zafar Associates. The prosecution also established that the appellant led to the recovery of juice bottle and the Potassium Cyanide, which was mixed with the juice and which was found to be the cause of death of deceased. The circumstantial evidence consisting of recovery of dead body of the deceased and other incriminating articles leads to the presumption of involvement of the appellant in the abduction for ransom and murder of the deceased. The corroboration is available in the extra-judicial confession proved through P.W.

Ahmed Chinoy, P.W. Ejaz Latif and the admission of the appellant contained in his handwritten statement Exh.73. There is nothing on the record to believe that the appellant caused death of the deceased by accident as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The reason being that the appellant has not stated that he was not aware of the fact that Potassium Cyanide is a very deadly poison. There is no question of believing that the glass in which Potassium Cyanide was mixed for the purpose of an experiment was left at the table without being properly washed and it resulted in the death of deceased.

84. For the foregoing reasons, we are convinced beyond any doubt that the evidence led by the prosecution and the admission made by the appellant collectively establish the guilt of the appellant for abduction of the deceased Shakir Latif for ransom and causing his death by administering poison. There is nothing on the record leading to the presumption of innocence of the appellant. The evidence on record is sufficient to exclude all possibilities of the appellant being innocent of the abduction and death of the deceased Shakir Latif.

85. We, therefore, hold that the appellant was rightly convicted by the learned trial Court on the charge of abduction for ransom and murder. Now, we will consider if the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is justified. In the case of Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 205, the Honourable Supreme Court while considering the issue if the sentence of death awarded was appropriate, observed as follows:-- "The sentence of death was also appropriately awarded to Khan Muhammad, appellant, who attacked the deceased with such brutal force that the blade of his hatchet was stuck in the back of the unfortunate victim."

86. In another case Barkat Ali v. The State 1976 SCMR 368, the Honourable Supreme Court while declining the request for reducing the sentence of death observed as follows:-- "The sentence in the present case is in every way legal. It was a cold-blooded murder and there were no extenuating circumstances."

87. We find that, the appellant preplanned the abduction and murder of deceased in pursuance of his pre-meditated planning of administering poison to the deceased and thereafter attempted to knock out ransom money from his father. It is a case of cold-blooded murder and the entire conduct of the appellant is highly callous. A young blooming Barrister was done to death in a gruesome manner, sending a wave of shock to the entire community of Advocates, creating sense of fear and insecurity in the public, and therefore, there are no mitigating circumstances for awarding lessor punishment. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is, therefore, upheld. The confirmation reference is accepted and the appeal stands dismissed.