2003 PLP 2175 (YLR)

RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.D-41 of 1999, Criminal Jail Appeal No.D-42 of 1999 and Confirmation Cases Nos.3 and 4 of 1999 as they arose out of one and same judgment. . Present criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 11-11-1999 passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana in Case No. 17 of 1999 State v. Khan Muhammad and others by which the learned Judge had convicted the appellants under section 365-A, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to death and to pay fine of Rs.50,000 each or in default thereof to suffer R.I. for 6 months more. They were also convicted under section 7(1)(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ATA) read with sections 302, 34, P.P.C. and sentenced them to death and to pay compensation of Rs.100,000 each to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to suffer R.I. for 6 months more. Each of the appellants, Khan Muhammad, Abdullah and Anwar Ali were convicted under sections 13(e), 13(d) and 13(e) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter referred as Arms Ordinance) respectively sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 or in default thereof to undergo R.I, for 6 months more, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. whereas co-accused Shoukat was acquitted of the charges. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that on 10-10-1998 deceased Sultan Ahmed left his house situated at Larkana for Ratodero and Naudero to collect payments from customers but he did not return to the house therefore, inmates of the house were worried. On 12-10-1998 the complainant Haji Khair Muhammad and P.Ws. Haji Dost Muhammad and Muhammad Alim were sitting in the Otaq of the complainant when appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali came there and informed them that they had abducted deceased Sultan Ahmed for ransom and he was in their possession and would be released after payment of Rs.10,00,000 by them. They further informed the complainant, that if the ransom amount was not paid or the matter was reported to police, then they would kill Sultan Ahmed. Therefore, the complainant party kept quiet but in the meantime the appellants continued contacting the complainant party on telephone to enquire about the collection of ransom amount which the complainant party promised to, pay the same. During the said contact on telephone, finally it was disclosed to the complainant that the amount should be paid on 29-10-1998. The complainant then informed the matter to the police but the S.H.O. did not record such information in any station diary or lodged any F.I.R. The S.H.O. Ali Gohar Lolai deputed Constables on P.C.Os, when on 29-10-1998 appellant Khan Muhammad was apprehended from a P.C.O. near Pakistan Chowk, Larkana as a suspect. The appellant Khan Muhammad was taken to the police station by the police where he disclosed to them that he was talking to complainant Khair Muhammad and that he had killed Sultan Ahmed and buried his body in the house of Nawab Chandio and showed his willingness to point out the said place. The S.H.O. informed the incident to, the complainant party, requested the Magistrate and Medical Officer to accompany him. Thereafter the appellant Khan Muhammad took the police party to a room of house of Nawab Chandio where on his pointation a place was dug and the dead body of Sultan Ahmed was recovered in presence of Mashirs, Magistrate, Medical Officer and police. A tired case of fire-arm weapon was also secured from there. The property was sealed at the spot. Thereafter the police prepared the Mashimama and inquest report of the dead body. The appellant Khan Muhammad, the property and the complainant were taken to the police station where the F.I.R. was lodged. The police started the investigation. On 30-10-1998 the appellant Khan Muhammad took the police party and Mashirs to Stadium near Bus Stand from where after removing earth, he produced a revolver of 32 bore containing five live bullets and one fired bullet which was secured by the police in presence of Mashirs. The S.H.O. brought the appellant and the property at the police where he lodged F.I.R. No. 62 of 1998 under section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance against the appellant. The appellant Khan Muhammad was interrogated who disclosed the names of his companions who committed the offence with him. On 31-10-1998, the appellant Khan Muhammad was produced before a Judicial Magistrate for recording his Judicial Confession who after recording the same sent the appellant to Judicial Custody. On 3-10-1998, the appellant Abdullah was arrested at 7-30 a. m. from bus stand of Larkana in presence of Mashirs. From his body search a pistol of 32 bore containing live bullets were secured and such Mashimama was prepared. The appellant Abdullah and the property were brought to the police station where F.I.R. No.63 of 1998 under section 13(d) of Arms Ordinance was registered against him. The appellant Abdullah led the police party and showed the place where the dead body was buried by them which was the same place which was shown by the appellant Khan Muhammad. Such Mashirnama was prepared. On the same date appellant Abdullah was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording the Judicial Confession who after recording the same remanded the appellant to Judicial Custody. On 5-10-1998 the appellant Anwar Ali was arrested from Brohi Level Crossing in presence of Mashirs but nothing was secured from his possession. He was taken to the police station where he was interrogated and then led the police and Mashirs to a house at Rasool Abad where from he removed earth and produced one 30 bore pistol containing five bullets in the magazine from the room of said house. The property was secured and sealed at the spot where the Mashimama was prepared. The appellant and the property were brought to the police station where the S.H.O. lodged the F.I.R. No.64 of 1998 under section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance against the appellant Anwar Ali. The appellant Anwar Ali also shown the place where they had buried the dead body of the deceased Sultan Ahmed to the police which was the same place as shown by the other two appellants. Such Mashimama was prepared. Thereafter on the same date, the appellant Anwar Ali was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording his judicial confession where the Magistrate after recording the judicial confession remanded him to judicial custody. On 23-10-1998 acquitted accused Shoukat was arrested. The arms and ammunition secured from the possession of appellants in sealed packets and empty bullet secured from the place of Wardat, were sent to Ballistic Expert for examination and report. In the meantime the statements of witnesses were also being recorded by the S.H.O. After post-mortem examination the blood-stained clothes of deceased were received by the S.H.O. through P.C. Munawar which he had secured. After completing the investigation the appellants were challaned in the Court of law. The case was sent to Military Court for trial where charge under sections 365-A, 302 and 34, P.P.C. and 7 of A.T.A. was framed against the appellants and acquitted accused Shoukat and absconding accused Muneer Ahmed and Qasim Bhutto and charge under section 13(e) of Arms Ordinance was framed against the appellant Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali whereas charge under section 13(d) was framed against accused Abdullah.-The appellants pleaded not guilty thereafter the trial began before the Military Court where following 10 witnesses were examined:- P. W.1 Khair Muhammad (Complainant before whom Extra-Judicial Confession was made by accused Khan Muhammad and Anwar and dead body was shown by Khan Muhammad). P. W.2 Haji Dost Muhammad (Eye-witness before whom Extra-Judicial Confession was made by accused Khan Muhammad and Anwar and dead body was shown by Khan Muhammad). P.W.3 Dr. Eijaz Ali (Medical Officer. He conducted post-mortem examination of dead body: P.W.4 Lal Muhammad (Tapedar. He prepared the sketch -of place of recovery of dead body). P. W.5 Mohabat Ali Channa (Magistrate before whom dead body was recovered on the pointation of the accused Khair Muhammad). P.W.6 Muhammad Yousif (Judicial Magistrate. He recorded the Judicial Confession of 'ail the appellants). P.W.7 H.C. Zakir Hussain (Mashir of arrest of accused Abdullah and recovery of unlicensed pistol from accused and fired case). P.W.8 Mushtaq Ahmed (Mashir of. recovery of dead body on the pointation of accused Khan Muhammad arrest of accused Khan Muhammad and recovery of revolver, arrest of Abdullah and recovery of unlicensed pistol, showing the place of burial of dead body, arrest of accused Anwar and showing the place of burial of dead body). P. W.9 Hassan Ali (Mashir of arrest of accused Anwar and recovery of unlicensed pistol). P. W.10 S.-I.P., Ali Gohar Lolai Investigation Office. Thereafter the appellants examined themselves in their defence. Acquitted accused Shoukat also examined himself in defence. The acquitted accused Shoukat examined a defence witness Saifullah. The appellant Anwar Ali examined Dost Muhammad. The appellant Abdullah examined Allah Dad, but appellant Khan Muhammad did not examine any witness in his defence. Thereafter the matter was heard and the case was reserved for judgment. The record of Military Court shows that on 13-2-1999, the appellants and Shoukat were awarded sentence thereafter the proceedings concluded. The proceedings before Military Courts were challenged before Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case Mehram Ali v. The State PLD 1998 SC page 1445 declared the trial before the Military Courts not in accordance with law and ordered that all the cases in which the sentences were not executed, stand transferred to Anti-Terrorism Courts. In pursuance of the said judgment present case was sent to Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur for trial which was received by the said Court on 19-2-1999. In pursuance of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, delivered in Moharram Ali (supra) de novo trial was not required by the Court but the proceedings were to be carried out from the stage from where the case was remanded from Military Courts. Learned Anti-Terrorism Court Judge found that statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. of the appellants were not recorded therefore, he recorded the said statements on 21-10-1999. The appellants and acquitted accused were given chance to lead evidence as required under 340(2), Cr.P.C. or examined defence witnesses but they gave statements before the Court that they would not examine them on oath or lead any evidence but would rely upon their statements already recorded by the Military Court and the statements of witnesses examined by them in their defence. Thereafter the learned Anti Terrorism Court Judge heard the arguments and after going through the material available on the record acquitted accused Shoukat from all the charges but convicted the present appellants as mentioned above under the impugned judgment. The appellants were dissatisfied with the said judgment therefore they have preferred the present appeals. The trial Court had awarded death sentences therefore, references as required under section 374, Cr.P.C. were sent to this Court for confirmation of said sentences. We have heard the advocate for the appellants, Assistant A.-G. for the State and perused the record of this case with their assistance. Learned advocate for the appellants has stated that there are no eye-witnesses in this case to prove the charges of abduction and murder; that the case is based upon judicial confessions of the appellants which are not recorded in accordance with the law; that the confessions were not voluntarily but were made under duress; that the judicial confessions cannot be made the basis for the conviction unless corroborated by other pieces of evidence which is lacking in the present case. He has further stated that discovery of the dead body by the appellant Khan Muhammad has got no value as the witnesses were all interested being the relative of the deceased. He has further stated that extra-judicial confession made by the appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali before the complainant and witnesses is highly improbable as it is not appealing to the common sense that after commission of murder they would go to the complainant party and demand the ransom amount. He has further stated that the pistol and revolver have been foisted upon the appellants and that, the alleged five live, bullets recovered from each of appellant Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali were not available in the Court as such the recovery has not been proved in this case by the prosecution. He has further argued that the F.I.R. was lodged after completion of investigation therefore, the case is false. On the other hand learned Assistant A.-G. has stated that the case is based upon judicial confessions of the appellants which were recorded in accordance with law by the Magistrate by completing all the formalities which were required to be performed for recording of a judicial confession and that the required certificates have also been appended by the Magistrate. He has further stated that the judicial confessions have been supported by extra-judicial confessions of the appellant Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali before the complainant and witnesses; that the confessions are further supported by discovery of dead body on the pointation of appellant Khan Muhammad and subsequently showing the said place by other appellants; that judicial confessions are further supported by recovery of crime weapon from the possession of appellant Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali which is corroborated by the Ballistic Expert Report; that the judicial confessions were recorded promptly as the judicial confession of appellant Khan Muhammad was recorded within two days of his arrest and the confessions of the remaining appellants were recorded on the dates when they were arrested and that the judicial confessions are also supported and corroborated by the medical evidence. He has supported the impugned judgment. We have given due consideration to the arguments arid find that there are no eye witnesses in this case in respect of abduction and murder. But the case of the prosecution is based upon the disappearance of deceased Sultan Ahmed and on the following pieces of evidence:-- (1) Disappearance of deceased Sultan Ahmed from 10-10-1998. (2) Judicial confessions of the appellants. (3) Extra-Judicial Confessions of appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali before the complainant Khair Muhammad and P.W. Dost Muhammad in respect of kidnapping and demand of ransom amount. (4) Discovery of dead body on the pointation of Khan Muhammad showing the said place by the remaining appellants. (5) Recoveries of weapons. Disappearance of deceased.

On this point there is evidence of complainant Khair Muhammad and P.W. Dost Muhammad to, the effect that the deceased Sultan Ahmed was missing from 10-10-1998. The said statements have not been challenged by the appellants in the cross-examination. As such it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the deceased was missing from 10-10-1998. Judicial confessions.

Now we will take up judicial confessions of the appellants. In order to prove the confessions of the appellants, the prosecution have examined Judicial Magistrate Muhammad Yousif who has stated that on 31-10-1998 at 10-00 p. m. the S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai produced the appellant Khan Muhammad for recording his judicial confessions. He got the handcuffs of the appellant removed and turned out the police out of the Court. He informed the appellant that he was before a Magistrate and that he was not bound to give confessional statement and if he did so it would be used against him. He then gave 3 hours time to appellant for reflection purpose and by that time the appellant was in the custody of the peon of the Court. Thereafter he recorded the judicial confession of the appellants in his own hand and mentioned all the required formalities and answers of the appellants in the judicial confession, as clear from it. His evidence further reveals that on 3-10-1998 and 5-11-1998 appellants Abdullah and Anwar Ali were produced before him for recording their judicial confessions and after completing all the required formalities he recorded their confessions and appended required certificates. The photographs of the appellants were also affixed with the judicial confessions of each appellant. This witness was subjected to cross-examination in which he- denied the suggestion of the appellants that the confessions were not recorded properly and that the confessions were under pressure. He further clarified the position in the cross- examination that he had examined the body of appellant but he did not find any mark of violence over there. It is also clear from his cross-examination that appellants did not complain to him of any maltreatment. He also stated that the statements given by the appellants were of their own free will and they replied the same in a question put to them. He has further clarified the position that the offence was same, committed by the appellants together therefore, there was resemblance in their confessional statements. After considering the evidence or Magistrate, we are of the considered view that Magistrate had complied with all the requirements of law which were required to have been taken for recording a judicial confession. He had asked the material questions from the appellants and the same, are available in the confessional statements of each appellants alongwith their replies. After satisfying himself that the confessions made by the appellants were voluntarily and true then he recorded the confessions of the appellants. He also appended the required certificates with the confessions. The evidence of Magistrate has not been shaken by the appellants in the cross examination. The confessional statements were -recorded in accordance with law therefore, they are presumed to be genuine documents within the meaning of Article 91 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, thus snaking of confessions by the appellants before the Judicial Magistrate have been proved beyond any shadow of doubt therefore they have significant value in law providing the effectual proof. Thus confessional statements of the appellants are voluntarily and true. The only requirement laid down by law is that the confessions should be free from blemish of compulsion, inducement, threat or promise, which in the present case are proved to be free from such infirmities. Learned Advocate for the appellants has attacked the confessions of the appellants on the ground that the questions and statements of the appellants were not recorded by the Magistrate in his own-hand. We have gone through the statement of Magistrate in which he has categorically stated that he had recorded the statement in his own hand in Sindhi Language. He read the same to the appellants which they acknowledged to be correct and then they affixed their thumb -impressions and signatures. The said statement of the Magistrate has not been challenged in the cross-examination by asking a question that he did not do so nor denied the said fact by asking any question to him with regard to said statement. As such when the said portion of the statement of Magistrate was not challenged in the cross-examination then it is presumed to be accepted to be true by the appellants. At this stage without denial of the above fact the argument has no force. It is pointed out that the appellants in their statements recorded under 342, Cr.P.C. have denied their recording of confessions before the Magistrate as such the confessions are termed to be retracted confessions. In such a situation, it is a well-settled principle of law that retracted confessions of accused persons should be supported and corroborated by other evidence on material particulars. It has been held in the case of Muhammad Gul v. The State 1991 SCMR 942 and at page 955 their lordships have observed as under:-- "I may also observe that the retracted confession is sufficient to make basis of recording conviction but the Court as a rule of prudence seeks corroboration of the same on all material particulars." Keeping in view the above principle we will examine confessions of respondents as to see whether they are getting any support of corroboration from any other piece of evidence, before the same are made basis for the conviction of the appellants. After examining confessional statements of appellants it is clear that all the confessions have resemblance with each other. Apparently for the reason that the offence was committed jointly by them, therefore, the confessional statement of appellant Khan Muhammad as appearing in the paper book is reproduced which reads as under:-- "I do hereby state that on 10-10-1998, on Saturday, I, Muneer Mirani, abducted Sultan Ahmed Shaikh, who was trader of cloths waiting for conveyance, under Peepul tree near Naudero stop. We took him in Shoukat Jatoi's car, we all reached at Metlo village, then Anwar Ali Shaikh took out pistol from his folding and put upon Sultan Ahmed Shaikh asked him to handover all money. We found Rs.900 (nine hundred rupees), one Telephone Tele-card etc. from his pocket, which were kept by Anwar Ali Shaikh, then Sultan Shaikh asked us that why are you desecrating with me, I am just crying, then Anwar Ali Shaikh threatened him that if you will make noise, will be killed. Thereafter we kept him locked in the rental house of Nawab Chandio situated near Bus Stand, Larkana. Then Shoukat Jatoi went away driving car. Thereafter we tied the hands of Sultan Ahmed on back side, his mouth was tied, and legs were tied with cloth with cot, we put the lock on the door of the room and Anwar Ali Shaikh remained sit in the viranda. We all of three persons went away after locking the main door of the house. On the next day (Sunday) I, Abdullah Jagirani and Muneer Miram returned back to same house where we consulted together that what we should do now. Then Anwar Ali Shaikh said that I have got telephone number from Sultan Ahmed and I am now disgusted, he further said that let us kill him, we replied him "as you wish". Then Anwar Ali Shaikh fired with pistol upon Sultan Ahmed, I had a revolver also and fired upon Sultan Ahmed which hit him and he died. Thereafter we dug the earth in the room and buried him face towards earth and put sand and earth upon, then locking the door we left the house and went away. On 12-10-1998, and Anwar Ali Shaikh met with Khair Muhammad Shaikh at his Otaq and said to him that Sultan Ahmed is in our possession, we have kidnapped him. We demanded amount of Rs. Ten lacs as ransom. We said him that if you will not give us demanded amount or will inform police, we will kill him, who replied that they will arrange and pay the demanded amount, then we departed from there. We continued to contact through telephone with relatives of Sultan Ahmed severally, demanded the amount. Two days back I was talking with relatives of Sultan Ahmed Shaikh on telephone booth at Pakistan Chowk, then police apprehended me, I disclosed to police about the above fact and pointed that the dead body of Sultan Ahmed is lying buried in the house of Nawab Chandio which is taken out. Revolver which was used at the time of occurrence has been taken out from hidden place and handed over to police yesterday." The confession of the other appellants are also on the same line excepting the confession of appellant Abdullah on the point of causing fire-arm injury to the deceased as he stated that the said injuries were caused by the appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali but the remaining facts are same. The first portion of the confessional statement is with regard to abduction of deceased Sultan Ahmed. It has been mentioned in the confessional statement that the appellants had abducted the deceased on 10-10-1998 from bus stand under a tree near Naudero Bus Stop. As we have already observed that there are no eye-witnesses in this case with regard to abduction but the evidence of complainant Khair Muhammad and P.W. Haji Dost Muhammad reveal that the deceased was missing from 10-10-1998 as he was to go to Ratodero and Naudero to collect payment from his customers, who was cloth trader. Thus the confessional statement to the extent that deceased Sultan Ahmed was missing from 10-10-1998, is supported and corroborated by the above pieces of evidence.

3. Extra-judicial confession.

The second piece of evidence is with regard to extra-judicial confessions of appellants Khan Muhammad Anwar Ali before the complainant Khair Muhammad and Haji Dost Muhammad. The confessional statements of Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali show that on 12-10-1998 they went to Otaq of Khair Muhammad where they informed the complainant that the deceased was abducted by them and would be released after payment of ransom amount of Rs.10,00,000 and further disclosed to them that if the amount was not paid or the matter was reported to the police then they would kill the deceased on which the complainant stated that they would arrange for the amount. Thereafter they were in continuous contact with them on telephone. The confessional statement of Abdullah reveals that appellant Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali demanded money of ransom from the relatives of the deceased Sultan Ahmed and were contacting them through telephone. The above portion of confessional statements of the appellants is supported and corroborated by complainant Khan Muhammad and P. W. Haji Dost Muhammad. They have categorically stated that on 12-10-1998 they were present in the Otaq when the appellant Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali came and narrated the above mentioned facts to them. The said portion of the statements of these witnesses was neither challenged nor denied by the appellants in the cross-examination. As such the above portion of the confessional statements of the appellants has been proved through the extra -judicial confession of the appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali before the above named witnesses.

4. Discovery of dead body.

Appellant Khan Muhammad in his confessional statement disclosed that two days prior to recording of his confessional statement on (29-10-1998) he was apprehended from a telephone booth at Pakistani Chowk, Larkana while talking to relatives of the deceased Sultan Ahmed when the police apprehended him. He disclosed the facts of abduction and causing murder of the deceased by them and pointed out the place where the dead body of deceased Sultan Ahmed was lying buried in the house of Nawab Chandio which was taken out from there. This piece of evidence has been supported and corroborated from the statements of Khair Muhammad, P.W. Haji Dost Muhammad, Magistrate Mohabbat Ali Channa, Mashir Mushtaq Ahmed and S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai. Their evidence reveals that S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai had apprehended the appellants on the above mentioned date and place anal then he disclosed the said facts and led the police party to the house of Nawab Chandio from where dead body was recovered on his pointation. The Magistrate Mohabbat Ali Channa, Mashir Mushtaq Ahmed, the complainant Khair Muhammad and P.W. Haji Dost Muhammad were present at the time of recovery of dead body. Their statements show that in their presence the dead body was recovered as such the above piece of confessional statement of appellant Khan Muhammad has been supported and corroborated from the evidence. The confessional statements of remaining appellants also disclosed that they had shown the said place to the police which the Mashirs Mushtaq Ahmed, Hassan Ali and S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai have supported the said stand of the other appellants. Medical evidence.

The confessional statements of the three appellants show that the appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali fired one shot each at the deceased which hit him and he died at the spot. This statement has been fully supported and corroborated by the medical evidence as according to the Medical Officer, the deceased was found to have two fire-arm injuries on his person with wounds of entry and exit. The Medical Officer also opined that deceased had died instantaneously and the time between death and post-mortem was 2 to 3 weeks. The post-mortem was conducted on 29-10-1998. All these timings are corresponding with the above confessional statements of the appellants. According to the confessional statements, the deceased was killed on 11-10-1998, after 18 days of the incident which is corresponding with the opinion of the doctor that deceased had died about 2/3 week back. A perusal of evidence of Medical Officer shows that he found one injury of lacerated wound which was 7 c.m. x 3 c.m. at occipital region of skull any according to the doctor this injury was caused by hard and blunt substance and was ante- mortem. The prosecution have not explained as to hoof this injury was caused to the deceased during his lifetime. None of the appellants claimed that they had caused any injury to the deceased with hard and blunt substance nor this injury could be said to have been caused while throwing the dead body in the ditch as the injury was anti -mortem. The appellants have not explained as to how this injury was received by the deceased. The possibility of receiving this type of injury during the captivity of deceased or before that cannot be ruled out. Furthermore because of this minor and small discrepancy, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. This discrepancy can be overlooked in view of the circumstances of the present case then there is overwhelming evidence available on the record to connect the appellants with the commission of this crime. Apart fro the above discrepancy the confessional statements of the appellants are fully supported and corroborated by the medical evidence.

5. Recoveries.

The confessional statement of appellant Khan Muhammad shows that he had produced the revolver used in the commission of crime before the police from the place where he had concealed the same. In order to support the said statement, the prosecution have examined P.W.8 Mushtaque Ahmed and S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai. Their evidence reveals that the appellant led them to a place near Stadium and after digging earth produced a revolver and 5 live bullets and tired bullet which they had secured and sealed and such Mashirnama was prepared. The appellant has not produced any licence of the said revolver. The revolver and empty bullets were sent to Chemical Analyser for examination and report. The said report has been produced as Exh.K.K. which reveals that said bullet was fired from the revolver. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by the defence counsel but nothing has come on record to discard their evidence as such it has been proved that appellant Khan Muhammad had produced an unlicensed revolver which according to him was used in the commission of this crime. The, confessional s statement of Abdullah reveals that when he was arrested at that time unlicensed pistol was secured from his possession. The above piece of confessional statement is supported and corroborated by Mashir H.C. Zakir Hussain and S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai. Their evidence reveals that the appellant was arrested from the Bus Stand and an unlicensed pistol containing 3 live bullets was secured from his possession. These witnesses were cross- examined by the defence counsel. No discrepancy or contradictions s have been found in their evidence. Their evidence has not been shaken in the cross-examination, as such the prosecution have proved the above piece of evidence. As regards the accused Anwar Ali, he stated in the confession that he had produced an unlicensed pistol, which he used at the time of occurrence. His statement has also been supported and corroborated by P.W. Hassan Ali and S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai. Their evidence reveals that appellant Anwar Ali took them to a room of house of Rasool-Abad situated at Rice Canal and produced a pistol alongwith 5 live bullets which was secured, sealed and Mashirnama was prepared. The pistol and empty cartridges secured from the Wardat were sent to Ballistic Expert for examination and report. The said report has been produced as Exh. K.K. which shows that empty bullet was fired from the pistol. As such the confessional statement of appellant Anwar Ali has been supported and corroborated by the above piece of evidence. The pistol was unlicensed as tithe appellant failed to produce the licence before the police and Court. As such the prosecution have been able to prove that unlicensed pistol was secured from the possession of the appellant Anwar Ali. A perusal of confessions of all the three appellants collectively shows that each confession is supporting and corroborating other confessional statement of co-accused. Under Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such person is proved then the Court can take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against other accused persons. The said provision reads as under:-- "

43. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons is proved,-- (a) such confession shall be proof against the person; making it; and (b) the Court may take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against such other person." Thus the confession made by each accused can be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence against other co -accused and through these confessions, the confessions of other accused are supported and corroborated. From the above position it is clear that the judicial confessions of all appellants have been supported and corroborated by the above pieces of evidence as such it is sufficient to make the basis for recording the conviction of the appellants. No doubt the appellant Abdullah had not caused any fire arm injury to the deceased but he had fully participated in the commission of abduction and murder of the deceased as he had agreed when the proposal was put before him by the other appellants to kill the deceased. Not only that he had further participated in the subsequent acts by concealing and burying the dead body in the room of house of Nawab, as such he also shared common intention with the other appellants in killing the deceased Sultan Ahmed. Whereas he had actively participated in the abduction of Sultan Ahmed. Therefore, he is equally responsible for the murder of the deceased alongwith other appellants. Now we will take up the defence of the appellants. The appellant Khan Muhammad in his statement stated that he had taken cloth on loan from P.W.8 Mushtaq Ahmed therefore on 26-10-1998 P.W.8 demanded money from him but he could not pay him the same therefore, he was handed over to the police who kept him in the lock up and told him to pay the money and then he would be released. He further stated that on 29-10-1998 police took him out from lock-up and asked him to sign papers but he refused therefore, he was tortured and then he signed the papers: He further stated that the police arrested him from his house in presence of Noor Muhammad and Ali Hassan Bhutto. He denied that he had pointed out the place of recovery of dead body of Sultan Ahmed or produced the revolver before the poise. He also denied that he went to Khair Muhammad 'and demanded ransom money from him or he made voluntarily confessional statement. In order to prove his defence he had not led any evidence in support of his contention. He even did not examine Noor Muhammad and Ali Hassan Bhutto in whose presence he was allegedly arrested. The plea taken by the appellant Khan Muhammad with regard to taking loan from P.W.8 Mushtaq Ahmed, was not put to him as no such question was asked from him in cross examination. From the above position, it appears that the defence taken by the accused is afterthought. The appellant Abdullah in his statement stated that about two months prior to his arrest, an amount of Rs.250 was due against appellant Khan Muhammad as a result of playing game on his shop, therefore, a scuffle took place between them in presence of Allah Dad and Hussain Bux. He further deposed that he has enmity with A.S.-I. Iqbal Soomro because the A.S.-I. wanted to forcibly occupy his plot at Rice Canal. Because of the said enmity the A.S.-I. had arrested his brother therefore, he gave applications to the higher authorities and then he was arrested and involved in this case as he failed to pay the money to police. He denied that he had produced the pistol before the police or confessed his guilt before the Magistrate. In his support, he examined Allah Dad who stated that the appellant had Carom Board shop where appellant Khan Muhammad used to come and play; that there was a scuffle between them over payment of money and he separated them. He also stated that there was a dispute between the appellant Abdullah and A.S.-I. Iqbal over the plot in which brother of the appellant was arrested. The appellant was also arrested by the police. From the above statement of the appellant it appears that he had dispute with appellant Khan Muhammad but no question was asked from Khan Muhammad about the said dispute nor appellant Khan Muhammad in his statement stated any thing about the said dispute. However, the dispute was of a minor nature as only scuffle had taken place which was later on averted with the help of D.W. Allah Dad. There is no evidence on record to show that thereafter the relations between the appellants were not cordial hence the defence taken by the appellant is of no help to him. Appellant Anwar Ali took the defence that he and appellant Khan Muhammad went to the shop of P.W. Mushtaq Ahmed where they gave him Rs.500 and took 3 suits on loan. Then appellant paid Rs.1,000 to P.W. Mushtaq Ahmed. He further stated that on 20th he was arrested by the police in presence of Dost Muhammad and Murtaza. He was taken to the police station where he was tortured and then obtained his thumb-impression on some papers forcibly. He denied to have made confession before Magistrate or shown the place of incident to the police or produced unlicensed pistol. He further stated that he was involved in the case falsely. In support of the case he examined witness Dost Muhammad who stated that on 28-10-1998, the police came and arrested the appellant. On his enquiry he was informed that he was a suspect of an accident case. On the next day they came to know through newspapers that accused was involved in the murder case of Sultan Ahmed Shaikh. On 30-10-1998 he went to the police station where he found appellant lying unconscious. He requested the police to release the appellant but they refused. From the evidence of D.W. Dost Muhammad it appears that the appellant was arrested on 28-10-1998. In this case, the incident took place on 10-10-1998 and afterwards there is no evidence led by the accused to disprove the allegation of the prosecution. The statement of D. W. Dost Muhammad that he went to the police station where he found the appellant lying unconscious appears to be unbelievable because if the police had tortured the appellant and was lying unconscious then it must have been at a place where no body could see the said act. The accused cannot be kept open for the public to see him lying unconscious in police custody. It is also pointed out that this witness has stated that the appellant was arrested on 28th whereas the appellant himself stated that he was arrested on 20th. As such both the statements are contradictory to each other. However this witness appears to be interested witness. His evidence is not supported by any other witness therefore, it cannot be safely relied upon in presence of overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution in this case to connect the appellant with the commission of this crime. Learned advocate for the appellants has put great emphasis on the fact that the act of the appellants by approaching the complainant party for demand of ransom amount after killing the deceased, is highly unnatural because no sensible person could go to the relatives of abductee for demand of ransom amount when he was already killed. Basing upon the above contentions, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution is false. Apparently the argument of learned advocate for the appellants appears to have some force but it is to be seen as to who had committed this offence? This apprehension or above judgment can be made for a normal sensible and law-abiding citizen but in the present case it will be seen that the act was committed by a person having criminal intention. To become a criminal, is by itself an unnatural act as no sensible or law-abiding citizen would prefer to be a criminal. A person can become a criminal on various counts such as economical condition, mental pressure, excess of police and other act of society so on so forth. Therefore, when a person becomes a criminal his thinking, attitude and action would be changed from the attitude, thinking and acts of a normal and law-abiding citizen. An act which is natural for a normal sensible and law abiding citizen would become unnatural for a criminal and an act which is natural for a criminal would be viewed as unnatural from the angle of a normal and sensible person. The criminal people have different phenomenon to assert their position by showing their superiority over like minded persons, like courageous act which from their angle would put them in a higher position in the society of criminal people therefore, different and unusual acts are done by a criminal to assert their position. If viewed from the angle of criminal minded people, then the action of appellants would not become an unnatural but because it is being viewed from the angle of a normal sensible and law-abiding citizen therefore, the action of the appellants can be termed as unnatural. However, the action of kidnapping by itself is an unnatural act, the commission of murder, burying of dead body in the house are by itself unnatural acts if viewed from the angle of a normal sensible and law-abiding citizen. If viewed from this angle then the case of prosecution cannot be thrown out of consideration for the simple reason that the appellants Khan Muhammad and Anwar Ali themselves admitted that after committing the murder of the deceased Sultan Ahmed they went to the complainant party and told them that they had kidnapped the deceased therefore, the ransom amount should be paid. The said stand has been fully supported and corroborated by complainant Khair Muhammad and P.W. Haji Dost Muhammad who have categorically stated that both the appellants approached them and told them that they had kidnapped the deceased therefore ransom amount should be paid. In such a situation, it is for the appellants to explain as to under which circumstances they were compelled to adopt the said act but they have failed to explain. As such the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellants have no force at all. Learned advocate for the appellant has further emphasized on the point that investigation was completed before lodging of the F.I.R. therefore, the case of the prosecution is not reliable and was prepared falsely. It is pointed out that the purpose of the F.I.R. is to set the law into motion. In this case the complainant had stated that he had informed the incident to S.-I.P. All Gohar Lolai about the incident on 29-10-1998 at noon time on telephone. This statement of the complainant has been supported by S.-I. P. Ali Gohar Lolai that the complainant had informed him about the incident but he had given the date as 28-10-1998 instead of 29-10-1998. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the information was conveyed to the police officer in respect of a cognizable offence. It was the duty of the police officer to have recorded such statement in the station diary or in 154, Cr.P.C. book by calling the complainant at the police station but it appears that the S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai did not perform his duties in accordance with law. Instead of recording such fact in the record of police station he started deputing his subordinates over the P.C.Os. and then he was successful in apprehending appellant Khan Muhammad who disclosed the above facts which led to the recovery of dead body and then F.I.R. was lodged. As such a part of investigation inquiry, was conducted by the police before actually lodging of the F.I.R. in order to ascertain the correctness of the report received by the S.I.P. In such a situation at the most the F.I.R. recorded before the preliminary investigation can be termed as inadmissible evidence but this irregularity by itself is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case as a false. Reliance is placed in a case of Hassan v. State 1989 PCr.LJ (Karachi) 809 and Karim Bux v. State 1976 PCr.LJ 911 (D.B.). This negligence of duty not the part of S.-I.P. Ali Gohar Lolai has made him liable for taking action against him under section 29 of the then Police Act, 1861 and for taking action under section 166, P.P.C. In the present case the entire case is based upon the judicial confessions of the appellants which have been proved to be true and voluntarily made and supported and corroborated by other pieces of evidence therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out of consideration or treated to be false. After considering the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution have proved their case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt as such the impugned judgment does not require any interference. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 30-1-2003 by which we had dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.D-41 of 1999, Criminal Jail Appeal No.D-42 of 1999 and allowed the Confirmation Cases Nos.3 and 4 of 1999. H.B.T./K-85/K Appeals dismissed.