2016 P Cr (PLP)

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.

Appellant Shaukat Ali alias Baba along with acquitted accused was tried by learned Judge, ATC, No.V, Karachi Division Karachi in Special case No.11/2006, "State v. Shaukat Ali and others" in crime No.88/2006 under section 365-A, P.P.C. read with section 7, A.T.A. of PS Soldier Bazar, Karachi. After full dressed trial vide judgment dated 16.8.2006 appellant Shaukat Ali was convicted under section 365-A, read with section 7(e), A.T.A., 1997 and sentenced to death. It was ordered that appellant Shaukat Ali shall be hanged by neck till he is dead. Appellant's moveable and immovable properties were forfeited to the State. Co-accused Mujtaba Hussain alias Majoo son of Ghlam Ali, Mohammad Saleem son of Mohammad Hanif and Mohammad Shahzad alias Steel son of Allah Rakha were acquitted by the trial Court. Learned trial Court made reference to this Court for confirmation of death sentence awarded to accused Shaukat Ali. State filed appeal against acquittal of accused Mujtaba Hussain alias Majoo son of Ghlam Ali, Mohammad Saleem son of Mohammad Hanif and Mohammad Shahzad alias Steel son of Allah Rakha. Notices were issued to acquitted accused but the same returned un-served as acquitted accused were concealing themselves. By consent of counsel for parties, instant appeal was taken up for hearing and acquittal appeal was bifurcated, to avoid delay. By this judgment, we would decide aforesaid appeal filed by appellant Shaukat Ali and a reference for confirmation made by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 24.04.2006 at 0855 hours, the brother of the complainant namely Shabir Ali left home for his office situated at Gillani Centre, Tower Karachi, but he did not reach the office nor returned home in the evening. The family members of PW Shabir Ali started search for him but without any clue. On 25.4.2006 at 12- 15 p.m. the uncle of complainant PW Mohsin Raza received a call on his mobile phone No.0303-7286716 from cell No.0300-9200715 made by PW Shabir Ali who informed PW Mohsin Raza that he has been kidnapped for ransom and demand of Rs.20,00,000/- has been made for his release. It is further stated that one of the accused persons talked to PW Mohsin Raza on the cell and made demand of ransom of Rs.20,00,000/- for the release of Shabir Ali. It is further stated that Mohsin Raza, the uncle of Shabir Ali replied to the caller that it was huge amount. Caller issued threats that in case of non-payment of ransom dead body of Shabir Ali would be received by his relatives. Complainant Murtaza Ali, brother of Shabir Ali went to the police station and lodged FIR of the incident on 26.04.2006 at 0235 hours. It was recorded vide crime No.88/2006 under section 365-A, P.P.C.

3. Police started search for the recovery of the abductee. It is alleged that accused initiated negotiations with uncle of Shabir Ali for his release. Finally it was agreed, that complainant party would pay cash of Rs.4,00,000/- as ransom for the release of Shabir Ali. On 27.04.2006, the accused persons after receipt of ransom of Rs.4,00,000/- released Shabir Ali and he returned home. Investigation Officer recorded statement of Shabir Ali under section 161, Cr.P.C and prepared memo. of the place of payment of ransom pointed out by PW Mohsin Raza. Such mashirnama was prepared in presence of mashirs. On 08.05.2006, accused Shaukat and Mujtaba were arrested by the police at Young Husband road near Allah Rakha Park, Kharadar, Karachi on the pointation of abductee Shabir Ali. Police secured two unlicensed TT pistols from their possession for which they had no licences. Mashirnama of arrest and recovery was prepared in presence of mashirs. Police lodged separate two FIRs under section 13(d) of The Arms Ordinance, 1965 against both the accused on behalf of State. Accused Shahzad and Saleem were also arrested on the pointation of appellant Shaukat Ali. Such mashirnama was also prepared in presence of mashirs. During investigation abductee Shabir Ali identified car No.AJX-213 Suzuki Alto and car No.AFT-348 Toyota Corrolla such identification memo. of cars was prepared. On the conclusion of usual investigation, I.O. submitted challan against the accused under section 365-A, 7, A.T.A., 1997 in the Court of learned Administrative Judge, ATC, Karachi on 18.5.2006 showing above named accused in custody while name of accused Mohammad Nisar Baloch was placed in column No.2 of the challan. Thereafter, case was made over to learned Judge, ATC No.V for disposal according to law.

4. A formal charge against accused Shaukat Ali, Mujtaba Hussain, Mohammad Saleem and Mohammad Shahzad was framed at Exh.3 under section 365-A and 7, A.T.A., 1997 accused met the charge with denial and claimed to be tried.

5. At the trial, prosecution examined Murtaza Ali PW-1, who produced FIR Exh.9, M. Moen Khan PW-2, who produced memo of place of confinement Exh.11, PC Fareed Ahmed PW-3, who produced memo. of audio cassette and telephone data as Exh.13, data of mobile phone as Exh.14, memo. of arrest of accused Shahzad as Exh.15, memo. of arrest of accused Mohammad Saleem as Exh.16, Naseem PW-4, Salman Siddiq PW- 5 who produced carbon copies of Sada Bahar Rent A Car Exhs.19 and 20, seizure memo of vehicles Exh.21, Mohsin Raza PW-6 who produced memo of place of payment of ransom Exh.23 and notice from AVCC for identification Exh 24, Ms. Shazia Asif Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate East PW-7 who produced copy of application for holding identification parade as Exh.26, objection of advocate for accused Shaukat as Exh.27, statement of I.O. about date of arrest of accused as Exh.28, memo of identification parade Exh.29, S. Salman Ahmed PW-8 who produced copy of application of I.O. for cassette and mobile data Exh.32, Shabir Ali PW-9 who produced copy of note of Rs.5 as Exh.34, memo of place of abduction Exh.35, memo of place of release as Exh.36, memo of arrest of accused and recovery of weapons as Exh.37, notice for identification parade as Exh.38, memo of identification of cars used in crime as Exh.39, Tahir Naseer I.O. PW-10 who produced order entrusting investigation to him by SSP Investigation-I, Karachi as Exh.41, cassettes recording Exh.42, notices for identification served upon accused as Exhs.43, 44 and 45, SIP Khan Nawaz PW -11 statement of prosecutor for closing side as Exh.47, Atiqur Rahman CW, who produced letter as Exh.C/1 and data of mobile phone 0300-9200715 as Exh.C/2.

6. Statements of accused

1. Mujtaba Hussain,

2. Mohammad Shahzad,

3. Mohammad Saleem and

4. Shaukat Ali under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exhs.48 to

51. Appellant Shaukat Ali has denied the prosecution allegations and stated that prosecution case is false. He has denied the receipt of ransom for the release of Shabir Ali. Appellant Shaukat Ali has also denied the data of mobile used by him for demanding the ransom and cassette containing the conversation. He has also denied his arrest and recovery of unlicensed pistol. He has further denied the arrest of co-accused Mohammad Shahzad, on his pointation during interrogation. Appellant Shaukat Ali has also denied that he was identified by PWs Shabir Ali and Mohsin Raza in the identification parade held by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on 11.5.2006. He has further stated that PWs have deposed against him falsely and they are interested. In a question, what else he has to say? Appellant Shaukat Ali has replied that he was picked up from his house and brought at AVCC where co-accused were already there and he did not know them. Other prosecution allegations have also been denied by appellant Shaukat Ali in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant Shaukat Ali did not examine himself on oath in disproof of prosecution allegations. No evidence in defence has been led.

7. On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, trial Court after assessment of the evidence convicted the appellant Shaukat Ali as stated above and acquitted co-accused by judgment dated 16.08.2006.

8. In order to ascertain whether trial Court has appreciated the evidence in respect of appellant Shaukat Ali in accordance with settled principles of law, we have scanned the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

9. Complainant Murtaza Ali has stated that Shabir Ali is his brother. He is in private service, run by his uncle Mohsin Raza and his office is situated at Jillani Centre Tower, Karachi. On 24.04.2006 his brother Shabir Ali left house at 9-00 a.m. but did not reach office nor he returned home till night. Thereafter, complainant started search for his brother through the relatives and friends but without any clue. On 25.04.2006 at 12-15 p.m. his uncle Mohsin Raza received a call from his brother and informed PW Mohsin Raza that he has been kidnapped for ransom and demand of Rs.20,00,000/- has been made. Complainant has stated that Mohsin Raza replied to the caller that they would be able to arrange only Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, he has stated that a number of calls were received from the accused for ransom and threat was issued that in case of non- payment abductee Shabir Ali would be murdered. On 26.04.2006 at 02-00 a.m. he went to police station and lodged FIR regarding kidnapping for ransom of his brother. He has produced FIR as Exh.9. In the cross-examination to advocate for accused Shaukat Ali complainant has replied that he was not present when his uncle received a mobile call from culprits for demand of the ransom.

10. PW-6 Mohsin Raza has deposed that he runs an agency situated at Jilani centre Tower, Karachi. His nephew Shabir Ali and some other persons work with him in his office. On 24.04.2006, his nephew Shabir Ali did not reach to his office till evening and he went to the home and enquired about Shabir Ali. He was informed that Shabir Ali had left the house for his office at morning time and did not return back thereafter he has deposed that search for Shabir Ali was made, on 25.04.2006 at 12-15 p.m. he received a call on his mobile No. 0303-7286716 from cell No. 0300-9200715 from his nephew Shabir Ali who informed him that he has been kidnapped for ransom and culprits have made demand of Rs.20,00,000/-. PW Mohsin Raza has stated that one of the culprits also talked to him on the mobile for ransom and he replied him that it was huge amount. On 26.4.2006, Rs.4,00,000/- were to be paid as ransom for the release of Shabir Ali. Accused directed PW Mohsin Raza to bring the ransom amount at Taj Peshawari Hotel, Kharadar. He went to the said hotel by taking ransom amount. Accused gave him a call on cell and asked him to reach at Masooma Line and put the ransom there. After sometime again call was received by PW Mohsin Raza that Agencies were watching them, therefore, they would not be able to pick up the ransom amount. Thereafter, bag of ransom was taken by Mohsin Raza from there and kept waiting for another call. He received a call and was directed by the culprits to reach at Buns Road. He went there with ransom amount. Accused persons called and said him to reach at Dilpasand Sweet House, MA Jinnah Road, Karachi at footpath and put the ransom amount in the iron enclosure. PW Mohsin Raza did what he was asked. After keeping the ransom, he sat on a chair at Dilpasand Sweet House. After some time, a boy wearing pants-shirt appeared and took the bag of ransom of Rs.4,00,000/-, crossed the road and went away. Thereafter, call was made to Mohsin Raza by the accused persons that ransom has been received by them and Shabir Ali would soon return home. He has further stated that his nephew Shabir Ali returned home in the evening of 27.04.2006 and narrated him the whole story. He has further stated that he had pointed out the place to SIP Tahir Naseer from where appellant Shaukat Ali had taken ransom near Dilpasand Sweet House. Such mashirnama was prepared in presence of mashirs. He produced it as Exh.23. His statement was also recorded. He informed CPLC about the kidnapping of his nephew Shabir Ali for ransom. He has further stated that he had handed-over cassette containing conversation with the accused persons to the CPLC on 27.04 2006. PW Mohsin Raza clearly stated that accused Shaukat Ali present in Court is the same who had taken away bag containing ransom amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from iron enclosure situated at MA Jinnah Road, opposite Dilpasand Sweet House. He has further stated that on 11.05.2006 he received notice that identification parade of accused would be held by the Magistrate on 13.05.2006. He went to the said Court where identification parade was held before Judicial Magistrate. 12 persons were standing in a queue including appellant Shaukat Ali. He picked up accused Shaukat Ali in the identification parade and could not identify the remaining culprits. In the cross-examination to learned counsel for the appellant Shaukat Ali, he replied that he did not go to AVCC on 25.04.2006. He has replied that his statement was recorded on 27.04.2006. He has admitted that he is not voice expert.

11. PW Shabir Ali is the victim and star witness of the case. He has stated that he is working in a shipping company. Its office is situated at Jilani Centre Tower, Karachi. Company is run by his uncle Mohsin Raza. On 24.04.2006 as usual he left his house for duty and reached at Soldier Bazar near bus stop No.2 at about 9-05 a.m. he received a telephonic call from his office, after finishing the call of his office colleague, he saw that one Alto Car stopped near him in which four accused persons were sitting. Out of them, two culprits alighted from the car and one of them had a pistol and introduced himself official of CIA and asked Shabir Ali to accompany them to CIA office as he has been called by Incharge of CIA. Forcibly he was made to sit on the rare seat of the car and both the accused persons sat with him on rare seat and drove the car fast towards Guru Munder. Culprits directed him to bow his head and keep quiet. They snatched purse, mobile and keys. Car was stopped after half an hour journey in front of a house. All the culprits alighted from the car. Shabir Ali was also directed to get down from the car and he was taken to the upper storey of the house where there was a store type room where a lady and child were present. Shabir Ali was made to sit in the said room. After ome time, one of the accused informed him that he has been Kidnapped for ransom. It has been brought on record that PW Shabir Ali raised his hand before the trial Court to appellant Shaukat Ali that he was the person who informed him that he has been kidnapped for ransom. Shabir Ali replied to the culprits that his family could arrange only Rs.1,00,000/- then he was mentally tortured. Two accused persons guarded over him at night time in the same house. On 25.04.2006 remaining two accused persons Mujtaba and Saleem came to the house where Shabir Ali was detained and directed him to call his father to make arrangement of Rs.20,00,000/- ransom. He informed the culprits that his father was sick and patient of blood pressure. Then he talked from his cell No.0300-9200715 to uncle Mohsin Raza on his cell No.03037286716 and informed him that he has been kidnapped for ransom and culprits were demanding Rs.20,00,000/- for his release. He has further deposed that accused Shaukat Ali also talked to his uncle Mohsin Raza and his uncle replied that it was huge amount and same could not be arranged by them. Thereafter accused demanded Rs.15,00,000/- for the release of Shabir Ali. He has further stated that his uncle replied that they would try to arrange such amount. He stated that deal was finalized between accused and his uncle in Rs.4,00,000/- for his release on 26.04.2006. His uncle informed that he has made arrangement of Rs.4,00,000/- and enquired from the accused that where the amount was to be paid to them. After some time, two accused left the place and two accused remained with Shabir Ali. At evening time accused informed on telephone to accused Shahzad and Saleem that they have not received the ransom amount because there were some Agency persons standing over there. They could not collect the ransom amount. Further he has deposed that accused Shahzad and Saleem tied the hands and feet of Shabir Ali and put him in a store. In the evening time, accused Shaukat Ali and Mujtaba came back and asked Shabir Ali to call his uncle to make the payment else he would be murdered. Between the night of 26 and 27.04.2006 all the four accused took him in a black coloured Toyota car and came to Lee Market area where they handed over him to another person who took him in his house where family was there. All the accused persons left that place. He remained in the said house for whole night. On 27.04.2006 at 8-30 a.m. accused Mujtaba and Shaukat Ali came there and informed that they have received the ransom and they were going to release Shabir Ali. Accused persons released Shabir Ali by giving him cash of Rs.500/- and dropped him in garden area. He was also given 5 rupees note on which mobile number was written. Shabir Ali was directed that when he would reach home, he should inform the accused on mobile No.0334-3298677. Complainant came home and informed the accused that he had reached home. In the evening time, Shabir Ali was informed by his uncle that he has paid Rs.4,00,000/- for his release on 27.04.2006 at 5-00 p.m. I.O. came to his house and he narrated him the facts. He also pointed out the place from where he was kidnapped. I.O. prepared such mashirnama on his pointation in presence of mashirs and produced it as Exh.35. At 6-00 p.m. he had also pointed out the place to the I.O. where he was released. Such mashirnama was also prepared in presence of mashirs which produced as Exh.36. He has further stated that his 161, Cr.P.C. statement was recorded by I.O. On 08.05.2006 he received a call from I.O. who asked him to reach at AVCC. He went there at 2-00 p.m. where SIP Tahir Naseer along with his subordinate staff took Shabir Ali in the police mobile for the search of accused persons involved in the offence and proceeded from Garden to Lee Market Mithardar and reached Kharadar at Young Husband Road where he has deposed that there was a wooden bench in the Allah Din Park on which accused Mujtaba and Shaukat Ali were sitting. Shabir Ali identified them and pointed out to the I.O. that they were involved in his kidnapping for ransom. I.O. arrested both accused in presence of mashirs, conducted their personal search. From the search of accused Shaukat Ali TT pistol containing three live bullets and cash of Rs.140/- were recovered. Shaukat Ali had no licence for the weapon carried by him. From the personal search of accused Mujtaba one TT pistol containing four live bullets and cash of Rs.120/- were recovered. I.O. enquired the names from both the culprits and they disclosed the same names as pointed out by PW Shabir Ali. Both the accused had no licences for the weapons carried by them. Mashirnama was prepared in presence of mashirs. He has produced such mashirnama as Exh.37. On 11.05.2006 I.O. went to the house of Shabir Ali and served notice upon him regarding holding of identification parade before Magistrate on 13.05.2006. On 13.05.2006 Shabir Ali appeared before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate along with his uncle Mohsin Raza where identification parade was held by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate. PW Shabir Ali identified accused Shaukat Ali, Shahzad and Saleem. PW Shabir Ali, has stated that on 24.04.2006 he was kidnapped by accused Shahzad and Saleem by show of weapons whereas accused Mujtaba and Shaukat Ali were sitting in the car at that time. In the cross-examination to Mr. Fazal-ur-Rahman Awan Advocate for accused Shaukat Ali he has denied the suggestion that he had made drama to get money from his uncle. He has admitted that I.O. did not call private persons to act as mashirs in this case. He has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

12. Ms. Shazia Asif, Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate East, Karachi has deposed that on 11.05.2006 I.O. of this case produced before her an application for holding the identification parade of accused in this case after observing legal formalities. She held identification parade of accused Shaukat Ali, Mohammad Shahzad and Mohammad Saleem through PWs Mohsin Raza and Shabir Ali. PW Shabir Ali identified accused Mohammad Shahzad, Shaukat Ali and Mohammad Saleem. He has further deposed that PW Mohsin Raza identified accused Shaukat Ali. Memo of identification parade was prepared in presence of mashirs. In the cross-examination to Mr. Fazal-ur-Rahman Awan Advocate for Shaukat Ali, Magistrate has replied that PW Shabir Ali informed her that he had seen accused Shaukat Ali at police station. Magistrate had denied the suggestion that some of dummies were police officials in plain clothes. She has also denied the suggestion that accused were not produced with muffled faces at the time of identification parade.

13. Tahir Hussain I.O. has deposed that he had conducted investigation of the case. In cross-examination, denied suggestion for deposing falsely against the accused. CW Atiq-ur -Rahman has stated that he serves in Mobilink Company and produced data of Cell No.0300-9200715 from 24.4.2006 to 28.04.2006.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant Shaukat Ali argued that there was delay in lodging of FIR for which no explanation has been furnished; there was also delay in holding of the identification parade. It is further contended that there was no reliable evidence that ransom amount was collected by appellant Shaukat Ali from the place in front of Dilpasand Sweet House. It is submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on so many material points and on same set of evidence co-accused have been acquitted case of prosecution is doubtful. Lastly, it is submitted that in absence of strong reasons death sentence has been awarded to the appellant by the trial Court and it was unwarranted in the law.

15. Mr. Khadim Hussain Khoonharo, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, appearing for the State argued that PW -Shabir Ali who was kidnapped for ransom has fully implicated appellant Shaukat Ali in the commission of offence; PW Mohsin Raza has also involved the appellant Shaukat Ali that he took ransom opposite Dilpasand Sweet House. Both the prosecution witnesses have picked up appellant Shaukat Ali in the identification parade; place of kidnapping for ransom was also pointed out by PW-Shabir Ali and place of ransom was also indicated by prosecution witness. Evidence of PW Shabir Ali who was in the captivity of appellant Shaukat Ali and others was trust worthy and confidence inspiring; prosecution witnesses particularly abductee Shabir Ali had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate appellant Shaukat Ali in this heinous offence. It is argued that trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record and for the sound reasons convicted and sentenced appellant Shaukat Ali. Lastly, it is submitted that appeal against acquittal of co-accused is pending adjudication.

16. We have come to conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against appellant Shaukat Ali for the reasons that PW Shabir Ali has clearly deposed that present appellant along with others kidnapped him for ransom and detained him in a room. Appellant Shaukat Ali demanded ransom from him and talked to PW Mohsin Raza for arranging the ransom. Appellant Shaukat Ali has been identified by PW Shabir Ali before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in the identification parade as well as in the trial Court. PW Mohsin Raza has also deposed that ransom was kept by him in an iron enclosure in front of Dilpasand Sweet House and accused Shaukat Ali took the ransom and went away. Appellant Shaukat Ali has been identified by PW Mohsin Raza before the Magistrate as well as before the trial Court. Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate has also deposed that PWs identified appellant Shaukat Ali in identification parade. Court witness has also produced mobile data. Such documentary evidence goes unchallenged. Contention of learned defence counsel that incident had occurred on 24.04.2006 appellant Shaukat Ali was arrested on 08.05.2006 and identification parade was held with delay on 13.05.2006. There is no substance in the contention of defence counsel for the reasons that even otherwise, the holding of identification parade is not mandatory and it is merely as corroborative piece of evidence. PWs Shabir Ali and Mohsin Raza have identified the accused in the Court and their evidence inspired confidence and the same is consistent on all material points and there is nothing in evidence of above named witnesses to suggest that they have deposed falsely. The delay in holding of identification parade would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Reliance is placed upon the case of Ghazanfar Ali alias Pappu and another v. State, 2012 SCMR

215. Mere delay in lodging of the FIR in this case was also not fatal to the prosecution case for the reasons that it has been explained that PW Shabir Ali did not return home till evening. Efforts were made by complainant party for his search through his friends and relatives thereafter they received a call for ransom and complainant went to the police station and lodged FIR. There is also no force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there are discrepancies and deviations in the evidence. Minor discrepancies or shortfalls would not be sufficient to cut the roots of the prosecution case. The courts are always to be dynamic in approaching true facts of the kidnapping for ransom case and drawing correct and rational inference and conclusions arising out of the facts and circumstances of each case. Reliance can be placed on the case of Ghulam Hussain Soomro v. State, PLD 2007 SC 71, in which Honourable Supreme Court has held as under: "We have anxiously attended to the submissions of the learned counsel and found from the record that the delay in lodging FIR has been adequately explained and accounted for. In any event, mere delay in lodging of the FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution case though in some cases it might militate against the bona fides of the prosecution. In the cases involving kidnapping of young ones for extorting huge ransom, parents as well as the investigating police invariably endeavor their best to locate the victim rather than promptly lodging FIR for fear of death of victim, which may sometimes prove adverse inference against the prosecution on the ground of delay alone in lodging the FIR."

17. As regards to contention of learned counsel for the appellant Shaukat Ali that co-accused, on same set of evidence have been acquitted by trial Court. It is primary duty of trial Court to sift grain from the chaff. We find that trial Court on the basis of huge evidence has rightly convicted appellant Shaukat Ali. Case of acquitted accused is yet to be examined by this Court. No benefit of acquittal of co-accused can be extended to the appellant.

18. Thus, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2006 are hereby maintained, however, quantum of the punishment needs our serious attention. Maximum sentence provided under section 365-A, P.P.C. is imprisonment for life whereas under section 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 sentence of death or imprisonment for life is provided for an offence of kidnapping for ransom and forfeiture of the property but in the present case as there is difference in the quantum of the punishment provided under section 365-A, P.P.C. and 7(e) of Anti‑Terrorists Act, the nature of the offence under both these provisions is substantially same and consequently in absence of very strong reasons we are not inclined to maintain the death sentence but looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, convert death sentence into imprisonment fore life while relying on judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Hussain v. State (PLD 2008 SC 110), which read as under: "

8. We having considered the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, have not been able to find out any substance in these petitions for enhancement of sentence as notwithstanding the difference in the quantum of punishment provided under section 365-A, P.P.C. and section 7(e), A.T.A. 1997, the nature of offence under both these provisions is substantially same and consequently in absence of a very strong reason, we are not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of sentence.

9. In the light of foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in all these five connected petitions and the same are accordingly, dismissed. Leave is refused."

19. For the above stated reasons, we hold that prosecution has proved its case against appellant Shaukat Ali and trial Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with settled principles of law and judgment is based upon sound reasons and requires no interference and same is maintained. However, with modification that death sentence awarded to appellant Shaukat Ali alias Baba is converted into imprisonment for life and forfeiture of his property as ordered by trial Court. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended to the appellant Shaukat Ali.

20. Appeal filed by appellant Shaukat Ali is dismissed with above modification. Reference made by trial Court for confirmation of death sentence, awarded to appellant Shaukat Ali is answered in negative. MH/S-11/Sindh Order accordingly.