Naqeebullah Mehsud Murder Case Judgment

Judgt of Spl. Case No.323, 627 and 628 of 2018.
The State V/s SSP Rao Anwar Ahmed Khan @ Others

1
Ex-128.
IN THE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO:XVI, KARACHI.

Before: Rashid Mustafa Solangi, Judge.
Special Case No.323/2018

The State
Versus
1. Anwar Ahmed Khan @ Rao Anwar S/o Nisar Ahmed Khan

2. Qamar Ahmed Shaikh S/o Pervez Ahmed Shaikh
3. Muhammad Yaseen S/o Ahmed Yar
4. Superd Hussain S/o Ghulam Hussain
5. Syed Raees Abbas S/o Syed Manzer Hussain
6. Khizer Hayat S/o Noor Muhammad …………………... Accused on bail.
7. Allah Yar Kaka S/o Jumma Khan

8. Muhammad Iqbal S/o Ahmed Yar
9. Arshad Ali S/o Mazher Ali
10. Ghulam Nazuk S/o Ghulam Akbar
11. Abdul Ali S/o Allah Bachayo
12. Shafiq Ahmed S/o Shafi Muhammad
13. Muhammad Anar S/o Umar Hayat
14. Ali Akbar S/o Muhammad Siddiq
15. Faisal Mehmood S/o Muhammad Naib
16. Khair Muhammad S/o Jamaluddin
17. Syed Imran Kazmi S/o Syed Masood Raza Kazmi
18. Shakeel Feroz S/o Ferozuddin …………..…………..Accused in custody.
Absconding accused.
1. Amanullah Marwat S/o Saeedullah Khan

2. Gadda Hussain S/o Faiz Muhammad Sergani
3. Mohsin Abbas S/o Noor Zaman
4. Sadaqat Hussain Shah S/o Ghulam Hussain Hamdani
5. Raja Shamim Mukhtar S/o Raja Mukhtar Hussain
6. Rana Riaz Ahmed S/o Fayaz Ahmed
7. Shaikh Muhammad Shoaib @ Shoaib Shooter
S/o Shaikh Asghar Ali ……………………………..Absconding accused.
FIR: No. 40/2018

U/S: 302/365-
A/114/109/204/342/
344/201/202/220/34 PPC
R/w 7 ATA 1997.
P.S.Sachal, Karachi.
FIR: No. 142/2018

U/S: 3/4 Explosive Sub. Act,
R/w 7 ATA 1997.
P.S. Shah Latif Town, Karachi.
2
FIR: No. 142/2018
U/S: 26 Sindh Arms Act 2013
R/w 7 ATA 1997.
P.S. Shah Latif Town, Karachi.
Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi and Mushtaque Ahmed, Advocates for accused Anwar
Ahmed Khan.
Mr. Peer Asadullah Shah Rashidi, Advocate for accused Ali Akbar.
Mr. Anwar Ali Shaikh, Advocate for accused Muhammad Yaseen, Supurd Husain,
Syed Raees Abbas and Syed Imran Raza Kazmi.
Mr. Malik Mazhar Hussain, Advocate for accused Qamar Ahmed Shaikh.
Mr. Farooq Hayat, Advocate for accused Shakeel Feroze.
Mr. Majeed Khoso, Advocate for accused Allah Yar Kaka.
Mr. Abid Zaman, Advocate for accused Abdul Ali, Arshad Ali, Shafiq Ahmed,
Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Anar, Khair Muhammad and Faisal Mehmood.
Mr. Ghulam Hasnain, Advocate for accused Ghulam Nazuk.
Mr. Rana Arshad, Advocate for accused Khizer Hayat.
Mr. Salahuddin Panhwar, Advocate for complainant party.
Mr. Muhammad Raza and Mr. Zulfiquar Haider, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh
for the State.
JUDGMENT
23.01.2023
1. Above-named accused were sent up for trial by Sachal and Shah Latif
Town Police Station, Karachi, in above crimes and submitted Challan before Anti-
Terrorism Court-III, Karachi for disposal according to law where all the PWs were
examined when the learned APG closed the side of the prosecution and thereafter the
case was transferred to this Anti-Terrorism Court No.XVI, Karachi for disposal
according to law, as the ATC-III, Karachi had fallen vacant.
2. Facts of the prosecution case arising out of FIR No.40/2018 of PS Sachal

lodged by Mahsood Khan are translated as under:
“At the moment it is submitted that an application has been received from
the complainant of the case as mentioned above, which is reproduced as
under: To the SHO Police Station Sachal Karachi.
Respected Sir,
It is submitted that I Muhammad Khan son of Mama Asal resident of

South Waziristan presently residing at Karachi. My son Naqeebullah
Masood who came at Karachi for work/labour. He was 24 years old and on
03.01.2018 at about 0300 O’ Clock in noon 8/9 officials of SSP Malir Rao
Anwar dressed in civil clothes picked him from Gul Sher Agha Hotal
Chapel Garden, Abul Hassan Isphani road, Karachi alongwith Hazrat Ali
son of Shakir Qaseed and Muhammad Qasim son of Daad, who were left
on 06.01.2018 at about 10.00 pm in night at Superhighway Karachi, while
my son was still kept in confinement by Rao Anwar and they switched off
3
the mobile phone of my son. My friends and relatives made search for him.
On 17.01.2018 through TV and newspaper news was published that my
son has been killed by Rao Anar and his associates in fake police encounter
on which IG Sindh has constituted an inquiry consisting of higher officers
of police, who in their findings have found the involvement of the Rao
Anwar and his subordinates. Besides the high-ups Sheroob Khan son of
Sharbat Khan and Humaiyun son of Muhammad and many more are the
witness of the incident. Therefore my claim is against SSP Rao Anwar
and his 8/9 subordinates (whose names need to be discovered) who
abducted my son Naqeebullah and kept him in illegal detention and killing
him in fake police encounter. Case is registered. This incident has spread
fear and terror amongst the people, case be lodged and action be taken.”
Police Action. I SHO Inspector Shakir Ali do hereby certify that the
application of the complainant of the case as mentioned in the column
No.1 alongwith the team of advocates was received and the same has been
reproduced word to word. The subject of the offence constitutes offences
under section 365-302-109-344-34 PPC R/W section 7 ATA. Case has
been registered against the accuse Rao Anwar and other 8/9 officials
(names to be discovered). Investigation of the case has been handed over to
SP Investigation Zone II Malir Mr. Abid Qaimkhani. Copies of the FIR
shall be distributed as per procedure. Signed in English.
3. After registration of the case, the investigation carried on and was finally
assigned to SSP Dr. Rizwan Ahmed Khan, who after usual investigation submitted the
Challan before the Honourable Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Courts, Karachi
Division, Karachi for disposal.
4. The copies of the case papers were supplied to the accused persons, as
required u/s 265-C Cr.P.C and obtained such receipt on 14.05.2018, 19.05.2018 and
28.05.2018 and also provide copies of cases papers to remaining accused at Sr.5 and 13
to 17 at Ex-02 and Ex-05.
5. Prescribed oath under section 16 ATA, 1997 was taken by the learned
Presiding Officer, Anti-Terrorism Court No.II, Karachi on 14.05.2018. On transfer of the
case to Anti-Terrorism Court No. III, Karachi the learned Presiding Officer, also took the
prescribed oath on 19.11.2018 at Ex-01, framed charge against the accused at Ex-08 and
recorded their pleas at Ex-09 to 26, and on transfer of the cases to this court the
4
undersigned, the Presiding Officer, Anti-Terrorism Court No.XVI, Karachi also took the
prescribed oath at Ex-109.
6. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined fifty one (51)
witnesses and exhibited the relevant papers, the summary of evidence alongwith
documents provided by each witnesses is given in the following tabular form:-
01. Direct evidence of abduction of abductees and deceased.
Name of PWs and Nature of his Document Produced

evidence
(i) PW-1 Mir Saghar Khan CJ/JM (i).letter of IO in terms of statements u/s 164
examined at Ex-27 who recorded Cr.P.C. at Ex-27/A and B, (ii).confessional
the statement of the witnesses u/s statement of eye witness Muhammad Qasim
164 Cr.P.C. also conducted the and Hazrat Ali at Ex-27/C and 27/D,
identification parade of six (06) (iii).letters to JM Dist. Malir for Identification
accused namely 1.Arshad Ali, Parade at Ex-27/E and 27/F, (iv).Identification
2.Abdul Aziz, 3.Shafique, 4.Allah Parade of accused HC Muhammad Iqbal, PC
Yar, 5.Ghulam Nazuk and Arshad Ali, ASI Allah Yar, PC Abdul Ali, PC
6.Muhammad Iqbal. Ghulam Nazak and PC Shafique Ahmed at Ex-
27/G, 27/H and 27/I, 27/K, 27/L and 27/M,
respectively and (v).letter to JM for IP at Ex-
27/J.
(ii) PW-03 Muhammad Qasim (i).memo of inspection of place of incident at

examined at Ex-29. He himself is Ex-29/A, (ii).sketch of place of incident (New
an abductee and eye witness of Quetta Gulsher Hotel) at Ex-29/B and
abduction. (iii).memo of pointation of inspection of the
place of captivity at Ex-29/C.
(iii) PW-05 Sharoob Khan Did not produce documents (herein referred
examined at Ex-32. He is a chance as DNPD)
eye-witness of abduction by police.
He also identified Akbar to be in
police party
(iv) PW-06 Hazrat Ali examined at
Ex. 33. He himself is an abductee
(v) PW-12 ASI Muhammad Asif (vi) PW-35 Humayoon (businessman)
(Site Superhighway) examined at examined at Ex-74. He is a chance eye witness
Ex-40 of the incident of abduction, he could not
I came back at Abbas Town identify any accused during his evidence.
Chowki on 04.01.2018; nothing had DNDP
happened at Abbas Chowk. DNPD
02. Evidence relating to Release of Abductee PW-03 and PW-06 while the deceased
Naqeebullah detained and handed over.
(i) PW-04 Shaheen Zaman (ii) PW-07 Saif-u-Rehman (MNA) examined

(Transporter) examined at Ex- at Ex-34. He went to police post alongwith
31. He alongwith Saif-ur-Rehman, Abdul Raheem Taj Muhammad, Amjad Khan
Abdul Raheem, Taj Muhammad, and Shaheen Aziz also reached. He rightly
Afsar Khan went to police post for identified Akbar. He also disclosed about
release of Naqeeb wrongly receiving of dead body of deceased
5
identified Iqbal instead of Akbar. Naqeebullah by his. DNPD
DNPD
(iii) PW-13 Afsar Khan (iv) PW-14 Taj Muhammad (Businessman)

(Transporter) examined at Ex-41. examined at Ex-43. He narrates that he
He is witness of release of Hazrat alongwith other witnesses had gone to police
Ali & Qasim who per his post for release of Naqeebullah and his two
deposition were handed over to friends. He also narrated the receiving of dead
him by accused Abar. He did not body by cousin of deceased Naqeebullah. He
identify Akbar. DNPD rightly identified Akbar.
(v) PW-19 Abdul Raheem Khan
(Businessman) examined at Ex-51.
He has narrated that he his friend
went to Police Post met with
accused Akbar for release of
Naqeebullah. He rightly identified
accused Akbar.
03. Evidence of first police witness who received information and/or reached at the
place of incident immediately, and concerned with the place of incident (murder)
(i).PW-11 Shahzadah Jahangir (Ex. (ii).PW-15 HC Zia Uddin examined at Ex-45.

Police) examined at Ex-39. He is On 13.01.2018 being posted at SSP Office Malir
policeman posted at PS Shah Latif Jahangir Base as a wireless operator. He
on the day of the incident, after received information at about 1525 hours from
information of incident went to operator ASI Syed Salman Hyder.
place of incident; on the way to
place of incident he saw the then
SSP Rao Anwar also going to the
place of incident, which supports
the version of the accused Rao
Anwar so also getting support
from CDR relating to accused Rao
Anwar. DNPD
(ii).PW-20 ASI Muhammad Ali (iv).PW-23 ASI Muhammad Yaqoob
examined at Ex-53. He had issued examined at Ex-57. He pointed out place of
weapons being guard commander incident to Tapedar for drawing sketch.
at PS Shah Latif to police party
absconding accused, they used
weapon and deposited back.
(v).PW-36 Inspector Qurban Ali (i). clearance certificate at Ex-75/A.
examined at Ex-75
He deposed that BD inspector
inspected the grenades and issued
clearance certificate on 14.01.2018
in his presence regarding crime
No.17/2018.
(vi).PW-41 SIP Jan Muhammad
BDU
He is BD who inspected exploded
hand grenade at police station
Shah Latif on 14.08.2018 and
issued clearance certificates and
also later on issued final report.
(vii).PW-44 Muhammad Akram, (i).letter to DC Malir at Ex-89/A and (ii).sketch
6
Tapedar examined at Ex-89 of place of incident (murder) at Ex-89/B.
(viii).PW-46 SIP Syed Salman
Hyder Zaidi examined at Ex-92.
He narrated that on 13-01-2018 at
1520 and 1525 hours DSP Qamar
informed him that encounter was
going on in Sheedi Goth therefore
additional force was required, he
made entry in logbook.
(ix).PW-16 ASI Saleem Ahmed (i).departure entry at Ex-46/A, letter to MLO
Khan examined at Ex-46 Jinnah Hospital at Ex-46/B to 46/E, (ii).memo
Duty officer, after information of of inspection of dead body at Ex-46/F and to
police encounter went at place of 46/I, (iii).inquest report of the deceased
incident, found absconding Muhammad Ishaque, Nazar Jan and two other
accused present took the dead unknown at Ex-46/J to 46/M, (iv).letter to
bodies through ambulance to Incharge Chhipa at Ex-46/N, (v).letter to
JPMC where medico-legal process Incharge cold storage at Ex-46/O to 46/Q,
initiated, thereafter dead bodies (vi).death certificate of unknown deceased at
were kept in cold storage, returned Ex-46/R, (vii).death certificate of the deceased
vide entry No.48. He did not Nazar Jan and Ishaque at Ex-46/S and 46/T
deposed about presence of any and (viii).unknown person at Ex-46/U and
present accused at crime scene. (ix).entry of arrival at Ex-46/V.
(x).PW-17 ASI Mumtaz Ali
examined at Ex-47.
Duty officer, after information of
police encounter went at place of
incident, found absconding
accused present took the dead
bodies through ambulance to
JPMC where medico-legal process
initiated, thereafter dead bodies
were kept in cold storage, arrived
back vide entry No.48, he is mashir
of memos of dead bodies and
inquest reports prepared by ASI
Saleem/PW-16 he did not deposed
about presence of any present
accused at crime scene.
04. Evidence relating to medico legal process and receiving of dead bodies.
(i).PW-18 Abdul Ghaffar, Sr. (i).OPD slip at Ex-50/A, post mortem report of
MLO Jinnah Hospital examined the deceased Muhammad Ishaque at Ex-50/B,
at Ex-50. (ii).OPD slip at Ex-50/C, post mortem report
Post mortem of four dead bodies of unknown deceased at Ex-50/D, (iii).OPD
were conducted by him, two dead slip at Ex-50/E, (iv).post mortem report of the
bodies were identified to be of deceased Nazar at Ex-50/F, (v).OPD slip at Ex-
Muhammad Ishaque S/o Raheem 50/G and (vi).post mortem report of unknown
Bux 2.Nazar Jan S/o Itam Khan deceased at Ex-50/H.
(ii).PW-42 Jaffer Khan examined (i)Order of investigation in Distt. Bahawalpur,

at Ex-86. Punjab, (ii).entry of departure at Ex-86/B and
PW-42 was head of the team, 86/C, (iii).newspaper cutting of Khabrain
constituted with the order of AIG (Multan) at Ex-86/D, (iv).entry of departure to
Karachi who went to Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur at Ex-86/E, (v).letter to SHO
Punjab in relation to crime Bahawalpur at Ex-86/F, (vi).letter to DSP
No.17/2018 and met with Wahid Crime Branch for CRO at Ex-86/G (vii).letter
7
Bux S/o Khuda Bux brother of to Officer CTD Distt. Bahawalpur at Ex-86/H
deceased Muhammad Ishaque and (viii).letter to Distt. CTD Bahawalpur at
who disclosed that the deceased Ex-86/I, (ix).letter to Incharge CRO
Muhammad Ishaque was arrested Bahawalpur at Ex-86/J, (x).letter to Incharge
by Punjab police on 10.11.2016. He CRO Bahawalpur at Ex-86/K and (xi).entry at
also recorded statement of other Ex-86/L and progress report at Ex-86/M.
witnesses regarding arrest of the
deceased Muhammad Ishaque by
Punjab police on 10.04.2016 and
since then he was missing. He
further deposed that he met with
Muhammad Bux father of the
deceased Sabir who disclosed to
him that his deceased son Sabir
was arrested by Punjab police
which news was published on
10.11.2016. He further deposed
that relatives of deceased Ishaque
and Sabir came to know about the
death of Ishaque and Sabir on
19.01.2018 through Ummat
newspaper. He made the progress
report on arrival back in Karachi.
(iii).PW-45 Muhammad Yousuf (i). letter to Incharge Cold Storage Chheepa at
examined at Ex-91 brother of Ex-91/A and (ii).road certificate at Ex-91/B.
deceased Ishaque and received his
body.
(iv).PW-47 Abdul Qadir examined
at Ex-95. Cousin of Muhammad
Sabir (deceased) and received his
body.
05. Authors of FIRS
(i).PW-02 Inspector/SHO Syed (i).departure entry at Ex-28/A, (ii).letter to

Shakir Ali examined at Ex-28 is SHO Sachal at Ex-28/B and FIR No.40/2018 at
author of FIR. Ex-28/C.
(ii).PW-34 SIP Abdul Ghaffar (i).154 Cr.P.C. statement of SSP Abid Hussain
examined at Ex-72 is author of the Qaimkhani at Ex-72/A, (ii).Qaimi and FIR
FIR bearing crime No.142/2018 on No.142/20 at Ex-72/C and 72/B.
the basis of the statement u/s 154
Cr.P.C. of IO SSP Abid Hussain
Qaimkhani which was transferred
to SP Irfan Zaman for
investigation.
06. Evidence of Arrest, interrogation and pointation and/or of visit
(i).PW-09 SIP Amir examined (i).memo of place of incident, pointation and

He is witness relating to recovery at Ex-36/A,(ii).memo of arrest of
interrogation of six accused accused 1.Allah Yar Kaka, 2.Arshad Ali, 3.HC
mentioned their names in Muhammad Iqbal, 4.SIP Muhammad Yasin,
opposite, adjacent column 5.ASI Supard Hussain and 6.HC Khizar Hiyat
pointation by them police post at Ex-36/B, (iii).memo of pointation of place of
Abass Town and three accused incident (Agha Hotel) at Ex-36/C and
pointed out police post Sabzi (iv).memo of pointation of the captivity at Ex-
Mandi, collected CDR from media. 36/D and 36/E.
8
(ii).PW-21 SIP Mukhtiar Ahmed (i).departure at Ex-54/A, (ii).memo of arrest of

examined at Ex-54. accused PC Shakeel at Ex-54/B and (iii).entry
He arrested accused PC Shakeel of arrival at Ex-54/C.
on 12.04.2018
(iii).PW-22 ASI Akhtar Abbas (i).memo of formal rearrest of accused PC
examined at Ex-55. Shakeel Feroze at Ex-55/A.
IO SSP Rizwan rearrested accused
PC Shakeel.
(iv).PW-24 HC Zahid Iqbal (i).memo of arrest of accused SSP Rao Anwar
examined at Ex-58. Ahmed Khan at Ex-58/A.
He deposed that on 18.03.2018
arrested accused Rao Anwar in
Cr.No.40/2018 was rearrested by
IO Dr. Rizwan in Cr.No.142/2018.
(v).PW-25 ASI Arsalan Akbar (i).memo of inspection of place of incident
examined at Ex-60. (place of murder of deceased) at Ex-60/A.
He deposed that accused Rao
Anwar was interrogated taking
out from PS Malir by JIT and came
back at PS where memo was
prepared.
(vi).PW-27 Inspector Nafees-ur- (i).memo of pointation of place of incident
Rahman examined at Ex-62 (place of murder) by accused Qamar Ahmed
He deposed that on 25.02.2018 Shaikh at Ex-62/A.
accused DSP Qamar Ahmed
Shaikh pointed out the place of
encounter to SSP Abid Hussain
Qaimkhani in his presence.
(vii).PW-28 SIP Muhammad PW-29 ASI Anwar Ali examined at Ex-64.
Sharif examined at Ex-63. He is second witness of pointation of place of
He deposed that SSP Dr. Rizwan encounter by accused Rao Anwar to SSP Dr.
Ahmed Khan rearrested accused Rizwan Ahmed Khan, IO of the case. DNPD
Rao Anwar Ahmed Khan in crime
No.142/2018 as he was already
under arrest in crime No.40/2018.
DNPD
(viii).PW-30 Inspector Mumtaz (i).memo of inspection of place of incident
Ali examined at Ex-66 (Quetta Gulsher Agha Hotel) at Ex-66/A,
He being SIO of police station (ii).memo of arrest and recovery of accused
Sachal was present at police DSP Qamar Ahmed Shaikh at Ex-66/B.
station on 18.02.2018 when IO of
the case SSP Abid Qaimkhani
interrogated accused PC Abdul
Ali, PC Ghulam Nazuk and PC
Shafique (three accused only) and
pointed out the place of abduction
i.e. Agha Gulsher hotel. He further
deposed that 19.02.2018 accused
DSP Qamar Ahmed Shaikh was
arrested in his presence.
(ix).PW-31 SIP Shoukat Ali (i).memo of inspection of the place of incident
examined at Ex-67 is mushir of (murder) at Ex-67/A and (ii).its sketch at Ex-
visit of place of incident on 67/B.
07.03.2018 by DSP Irfan.
(x).PW-32 SIP Ali Murad (i).memo of arrest of accused DSP Qamar
examined at Ex-69 Ahmed Shaikh at Ex-69/A.
9
He is co-mushir of the visit of the
place of incident on 07.03.2018. He
is also witness of the rearrest of
accused DSP Qamar Ahmed
Shaikh from central jail in crime
No.142/2018.
(xi).PW-33 Inspector Muhammad (i). memo of arrest and recovery of accused PC
Hussain examined at Ex-70 Ghulam Nazuk, PC Abdul Ali and PC
He deposed that Abid Qaimkhani Shafique Ahmed at Ex-70/A.
arrested three accused on the
source of spy information namely
PC Ghulam Nazuk, PC Abdul Ali
and PC Shafique on 11.02.2018.
07. Evidence related to CDR and CD containing news clips
(i).PW-08 Inspector/SHO Ihsan (i).memo of recovery of CD of ARY News at

Ahmed examined Ex-35/A.
Witness of collection of CD.
(ii).PW-26 Inspector Muhammad (i).memo of possession of CDR at Ex-61/A, list

Hanif examined at Ex-61. of cell number of accused and CDR of DSP
He collected CDR through email Qamar Shaikh at Ex-61/B, (ii).google map of
being posted in office of SSP the place of incident and Rao Anwar at Ex-
Investigation-II. 61/D, (iii).CDR of accused Rao Anwar at Ex-
61/C, (iv).google map of place of incident and
accused Amanullah at Ex-61/F, (v).CDR of
accused Amanullah Marwat at Ex-61/E,
(vi).google map of place of incident and
accused Shoaib @ Shooter at Ex-61/H and his
CDR at Ex-61/G, (vii).google map of place of
incident and accused Khair Muhammad at Ex-
61/J and his CDR at Ex-61/I, (viii).google map
of place of incident and accused SI
Muhammad Anar at Ex-61/L and his CDR at
Ex-61/K, (ix).google map of place of incident
and accused Faisal Mehmood at Ex-61/N and
his CDR at Ex 61/M, (x).google map of place
of incident and accused Gada Hussain at Ex-
61/P and his CDR at Ex-61/O, (xi).google map
of place of incident and accused PC Raja
Shamim Mukhtar at Ex-61/R and his CDR at
Ex-61/Q, (xii).google map of place of incident
and accused Mohsin Abbas at Ex-61/S and
(xiii).google map of place of incident and place
of all accused on a page at Ex-61/U.
(iii).PW-37 Hafeez-ur-Rehman
examined at Ex-77.
He is witness of the cell No.0345-
2046776 to belong to absconding
accused, the then SHO of police
station Shah Latif Amanullah
Marwat.
(iv).PW-38 ASI Muhammad
Luqman examined at Ex-78.
He is witness of the cell No.0323-
10
2542543 belong to SHO Sohrab
Goth (he has not disclosed the
name of the SHO)
(v).PW-39 Asad Ali (Capital TV
reporter) examined at Ex-79.
He is reporter of Capital TV stating
that he had Ufone cell number of
accused save in his mobile (he has
not disclosed the cell number)
(vi.)PW-40 Nabeel Ahmed
(private job) examined at Ex-80.
He stated that had contacted
accused Rao Anwar SSP for 2/3
times (he has not disclosed the cell
number of accused)
08. IOs of the Case
(i).PW-10 Rtd Inspector Nasrullah (i). FIR No.17 to 21 of 2018 of PS Shah Latif
examined at Ex-37. Town at Ex-37/A to 37/E, (ii).memo of
The first IO of police encounter recovery of ammunition, hand grenade and
case, recovery of weapon and motorcycle at Ex-37/F, (iii).memo of
explosives arising out of FIR inspection of place of recovery at Ex-37/G and
bearing Cr.No.17 to 21 of 2018. its sketch at Ex-37/H, (iv).departure entry at
Ex-37/I and J, (v).letter for FSL at Ex-37/K,
(vi).memo of empties at Ex-37/L, (v).letter for
FSL at Ex-37/M, (vii).FSL report of 27 empties
at Ex-37/N, (viii).letter to Incharge Chemical
Examiner at Ex-37/O and (ix).Chemical
Examiner report at Ex-37/P.
(ii).PW-43 SP Muhammad Irfan (i). departure and arrival entries at Ex-87/A to

Zaman examined at Ex-87 87/C, (ii).letter to Home Secretary for
He received investigation of crime permission of Challan at Ex-87/D, (iii).letter to
No.142/2018 on 04.03.2018. He ATC Administrative Judge for permission of
recorded statement of the interrogation at Ex-87/E and (iv).its
witnesses including PW Qasim permission at Ex-87/F, (v).its entry at Ex-87/G
and Hazrat Ali, and visited the and (vi).permission order at Ex-87/H.
places of occurrence pointed out
by SSP Abid Hussain Qaimkhani.
He interrogated the accused and
rearrested them thereafter
investigation was transferred to
SSP Dr. Rizwan Ahmed Khan.
(iii).PW-50 Abid Hussain (i).order of investigation at Ex-103/A, memo

Qaimkhani, SSP West examined of recovery of SMG at Ex-103/B,
at Ex-103 (ii).photographs of Quetta Gulsher Agha Hotel
at Ex-103/C to 103/F, (iii).photographs of
Abbas Choki at Ex-103/G to 103/I,
(iv).photographs of place of incident
(murder/house) at Ex-103/J to 103/S, (v).letter
to Director Punjab Forensic Science Agency at
Ex-103/T, (vi).road certificate at Ex-103/U,
(vii).letter for inspection of chemical at Ex-
103/V, (viii).memo of arrest of accused Rao
Anwar at Ex-103/W, (ix).order of JIT at Ex-
11
103/X and 103/Y, (x).photographs of deceased
Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah at Ex-103/Z,
(xi).Nazar Jan at Ex-103/AA, (xii).Muhammad
Sabir at Ex-103/BB and (xiii).Muhammad
Ishaq at Ex-103/CC.
(iv).PW-51 Dr. Rizwan Ahmed (i).Human Rights case No.1949-K of 2018

Khan, DPO Sarghoda examined at regarding murder of Naseebullah Mahsood at
Ex-105 Ex-105/H and (ii).order at Ex-105/B,
(iii).departure and arrival entry at Ex-105/C
and 105/D, (iv).NOC for interrogation at Ex-
105/E, (v).entry for interrogation and
departure at Ex-105/F to 105/I, (vi).AIGP
Sindh letter to Joint Director IB for geo-fencing
of place of incident at Ex-105/J, (vii).forensic
and DNA at Ex-105/K and 105/L, (viii).screen
shots of photocopies of email outlook at Ex-
105/M to 105/M-120, (ix).letter to Registrar
Hon’ble Supreme Court for final JIT at Ex-
105/N, (x).order for permission of challan by
DIGP East Zone, Karachi at Ex-105/O and
105/P, (xi).letter to SSP for ACSE collection at
Ex-105/Q and (xii).letter of AIGP at Ex-105/R
road certificate at Ex-105/S and at Ex-62
(xiii).entry at Ex-105/T
09. Labs related evidence
(i).PW-48 Farhaj Bukhari, (i).FSL report at Ex-99/A, letter to Incharge

Incharge FSL examined at Ex-99. Forensic Science at Ex-99/B and
(ii).examination report at Ex-99/C, (iii).letter
to SSP for FSL of Govt. SMG at 99/D and
(iv).its report at Ex-99/E.
(ii).PW-49 Dr. Zahid Hassan (i).Incharge Chemical Examiner at Ex-100/A
Ansari examined at Ex-100. and (ii).its report at Ex-100/B and 100/C.
7. The statement of accused were recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C at Ex-110 to 127
wherein they denied the allegations leveled against them by the prosecution and
claimed to be innocent and prayed for justice in the end; they did not prefer to give
statement on oath.
8. The points for determinations in the instant case are as under:-
POINTS
1. Whether 1.Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah S/o Muhammad Khan,

2.Muhammad Ishaque S/o Raheem Bux, 3.Nazar jan S/o Utam
Jan and 4.Muhammad Sabir S/o Muhammad Bux were killed
on 13.01.2018 in declared fake police encounter followed by
registration of police FIRs which were disposed of in B-Class?
12
2. Whether on 3rd or 4th January 2018 deceased Naseebullah @

Naqeebullah alongwith his two friends namely Muhammad
Qasim and Hazrat Ali were abducted from Agha Gulsher Hotel,
Chapel Garden, Abu-ul-Hassan Isfahani road, Karachi?
3. Whether the deceased Naqeebullah, Hazrat Ali and

Muhammad Qasim were after their abduction detained at police
post Abbas Town and were tortured thereafter Hazrat Ali @
Muhammad Qasim were released while deceased Naqeebullah
was handed over to accused Rao Anwar by co-accused Ali
Akbar and others?
4. Whether present accused on 13.01.2018 directly participated in

the incident of firing at the deceased and having killed
1.Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah S/o Muhammad Khan,
2.Muhammad Ishaque S/o Raheem Bux, 3.Nazar jan S/o Utam
Jan and 4.Muhammad Sabir S/o Muhammad Bux?
5. Whether present accused have added or abated the killing of

four persons namely 1.Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah S/o
Muhammad Khan, 2.Muhammad Ishaque S/o Raheem Bux,
3.Nazar jan S/o Utam Jan and 4.Muhammad Sabir S/o
Muhammad Bux
6. Whether the present accused have the weapon and explosive

purportedly recovered from the above named deceased persons
to pretend the false encounter to be genuine encounter i.e. FIR
No.120/2018.
7. What should the judgment be?
9. My findings to the above points and reasons thereto are as under:
FINDINGS
Point No.1……………….….In affirmative.

Point No.2……………….….Not proved.
Point No.4……………….….Disproved.
Point No.6……………….….As under
Point No.7………....….…….The accused are acquitted
u/s 265-H(1)Cr.P.C.
13
REASONS
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and complainant party &
learned APG for the State and perused the record with their assistance and considered
the evidence produced by the prosecution on record.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant while reading out evidence
extensively has concluded arguments that the case of prosecution is proved beyond
shadow of doubt by highlighting following grounds.
a. The incident of abduction of abductee Hazrat Ali, Muhammad

Qasim and Naqeebullah is proved by way of direct evidence,
which is confidence inspiring and reliable.
b. The identification parade is effectively conducted against six

accused regarding their role of abduction of PWs and
deceased.
c. That circumstantial evidence in shape of CDR is auto-

generated documents which is reliable and connects the
accused Rao Anwar his team of co-accused with the incident
of abduction and murder.
d. The incident of murder is fully supported with medical

evidence.
e. The disposal of FIRs bearing crime No.17 to 21 of 2018 into B-

Class has not been challenged by the present accused, hence
fake encounter is proved.
f. Minor discrepancies and contradictions are natural, hence the

same are to be ignored by relying upon 1969 PCrLJ 491, 1971
PCrLJ 275, 1971 PCrLJ 1121.
g. The common intention of all accused despite their no direct

role in the incident of murder is established for conviction by
relying upon 2011 SCMR 1148, PLD 2007 SC 93, PLD 1975 SC
351, PLD 2001 SC 378 and 2005 PCrLJ 794.
h. He has argued that in cases of fake police encounter strict

view by the court is the rule by relying upon 2012 SCMR 1945.
i. The accused initially remained fugitive which is also a

circumstantial evidence against the accused by relying upon
1992 SCMR 1036 and 2020 PCrLJ 387, in the end he also relied
upon 2015 PCrLJ 628, 2020 PCrLJ Note 94, 2012 PCrLJ 345,
PLD 2007 SC 93, PLD 1971 Lah. 959, PLD 1959 Lah. 950, PLD
2016 SC 1, PLD 1965 SC 640, 1973 SCMR 69, 2005 PCrLJ 1442,
PLD 1996 SC 122, 1994 PCrLJ 757, (1984) 4 SCC 116, 2012
SCMR 1945, PLD 1963 Dacca 413, AIR 1998 SC 1850, AIR
1999 SC 644, (2004)4 SCC 158, 1992 SCMR 1036, 2020 PCrLJ
387, 2011 MLD 1214, 2005 SCMR 1568, 2012 PCrLJ 559, 1983
14
SCMR 697, PLD 2016 SC 484, 2013 YLR 1, 2016 PCrLJ 1860,
AIR 2012 SC 1357, 2014 YLR 2109, 1991 SCMR 2300, 2019
YLR 2316, AIR 2009 SC 152, 1974 SCMR 175, PLD 2019 SC
488, 1994 SCMR 1, 2002 SCMR 1586, 2009 SCMR 825, 1999
SCMR 1991, 2003 SCMR 522, 1981 SCMR 1092, PLD 1971
Lah. 959, PLD 1959 Lah. 950, 1986 PCrLJ 1736, AIR 1925 P.C-
1, 2018 YLR 304, 2009 MLD 1113, 2011 MLD 1405, 1995 SCMR
1144, PLD 2007 SC 249, PLD 1963 Pesh. 161, 1982 PCrLJ 720,
1983 PCrLJ 710, PLD 1978 SC 10, PLD 1964 SC 26, 1992 MLD
1522, PLD 2016 SC 484, PLD 2018 SC 595, 2002 SCMR 1586
and 2015 YLR 249.
12. Whereas learned defence counsels have pointed out the lacunae in the
prosecution case and according to them those lacunae put dents to the prosecution
case which lead to suspicions and doubts; the benefit of which must go to the
accused as per universal law. There are intensive arguments by each learned counsel
for respective accused; the collective arguments of the learned counsels are sum-up that
the case is fraught with dents and doubts, the benefit thereof is undeniable not as a
matter of grace but the matter of right of which the accused cannot be denuded,
however, some of the arguments of each learned counsel are reproduced as under:
13. Mr. Aamir Mansoob, the learned counsel for the accused Rao Anwar has
taken following pleas:
a) There is no direct evidence against the accused, the only

evidence against the accused is CDR produced during trial.
b) Per learned counsel through the CDR it is confirmed so also
admitted by the witnesses that Rao Anwar at the time of
incident was in moving position and reached at the spot when
the time of incident 1500 hours to 1520 hours was already
over.
c) That accused Rao Anwar has been booked in this case due to
professional jealousy.
d) The learned counsel has also highlighted the contradictions in
the evidence.
e) The JIT report produced during trial is defective and the same
is not admissible.
f) Accused Rao Anwar is not alleged the direct role in the
incident of murder.
g) No witness has identified the accused.
15
h) The version of the eye witnesses is fraught with material
contradiction, embellishment and dishonest improvement;
hence such witnesses cannot be relied upon.
i) There is delay in the FIR as well statement of witnesses
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. produced.
j) He has relied upon PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 223, 1998 SCMR 570,
2017 SCMR 486, 2015 SCMR 155, 2020 SCMR 1049, 1984
SCMR 930, 2009 SCMR 1382, 2017 SCMR 344, 2018 SCMR
772, 2019 SCMR 631, 2017 SCMR 1601, 2019 PCrLJ 1464, 2015
SCMR 840, PLD 2007 SC 93, PLD 2010 SC 47, 2022 SCMR
1187, 2006 SCMR 1886, Unreported SC Judgment Crl. Appeal
231 of 2022 (Case of Shakeel Ahmed), 2010 PCrLJ 1281 (Khi),
2021 SCMR 522, 2018 SCMR 391, PLD 2018 SC 178, PLD 2011
SC 350, Unreported Judgment High Court of Sindh Spl.
ATA J.A.No.202 of 2021, 2018 SCMR 2092, 2006 PCrLJ 1400,
2019 SCMR 129, 2021 SCMR 736, PLD 2019 SC 64.
14. Mr. Farooq Hayat, Advocate for accused Shakeel Feroze has additionally
argued that no evidence against accused Shakeel Feroze except his alleged location
drawn from cell No.0306-2509267 one day prior to the incident. He has strongly assailed
the veracity of the CDR produced and further contended as under:
a) The CDR produced per him is not supported through

attestation from any cellular company nor any official of
cellular company was produced to support the veracity of the
CDR.
b) Per him no such SIM was recovered nor mobile phone was
from the accused.
c) The CDR does not show that the said number is registered in
the name of the accused Shakeel Feroze.
d) The prosecution did not produce any witness who could say
that cell No.0306-2509267 is of accused Shakeel Feroze.
e) Disclosure as alleged against the accused regarding his
involvement in the incident is not supported as no
confessional statement was got recorded.
15. Mr. Anwar Shaikh, learned counsel for accused Muhammad Yaseen,
Supurd Hussain, Raees Abbas and Syed Imran Kazmi, and Mr. Rana Ahrshad,
16
Advocate for accused Khizar Hiyat have argued that there is no identification parade
against the accused. They are not nominated in the FIR, no CDR produced, there is no
recovery against the accused, no witness had identified the accused.
16. Mr. Malik Mazhar Hussain, the learned counsel for the accused DSP
Qamar has argued that DSP Qamar nominated only on the basis of CDR which per him
suggest that he arrived at the place of incident after the incident. He disowned the said
number.
17. Mr. Abid Zaman and Mr.Ghulam Hussain, learned counsels for the
accused Muhammad Anar, Khair Muhammad, Faisal Mehmood, Arshad Ali, Abdul
Ali, Shafique Ahmed, Muhammad Iqbal and Ghulam Nazuk; the last four accused are
the accused who were gone through the test of identification parade. The case against
the accused Muhammad Anar, Khair Muhammad and Faisal Mehmood is only the
allegations against them about their presence at the place of incident as per CDR which
has not been duly received and produced in accordance with the requirement of law.
18. Mr. Majeed Khoso, learned counsel for accused Allah Yar who was also
put to test of identification parade. Both the learned counsels have argued regarding
test of identification parade as under:
a. That no features of the accused and their description in terms of

height, physique, complex etc. has given in the FIR nor the
statement of witnesses namely Muhammad Qasim and Hazrat
Ali who participated in identification parade.
b. The identification parade was conducted on 14.02.2018 whereas

the accused were already in custody of the police in quarter-
guard on 25.01.2018, however their arrest were shown vide memo
dated 26.01.2018 at Ex-36/B.
c. That he contended that accused were already shown to the

witnesses.
d. They further contended that witness Muhammad Qasim and

Hazrat Ali failed to identify the accused during trial, hence, the
identification parade has no value of its own and cannot stand for
the test of reliability, in support of their contentions Mr. Abdul
Majeed Khoso, counsel for the accused Allah Yar Kaka has relied
17
upon 2022 YLR 1681 Sindh, 2021 YLR 2200 Balochistan, 2020
MLD 952 Sindh, 2022 YLR 503 Lahore, 2022 YLR 1822 Lahore,
2022 PCrLJ 338 Lahore, 2019 SCMR 631, 2022 PCrLJ Note 454
Lahore, 2022 PCrLJ 286 Balochistan, 2022 PCrLJ 1222 Peshawar,
PLD 2021 SC 600, 2022 YLR Not3 121, PLD 2019 SC 488, 2022
PCrLJ 505 Sindh and 2022 YLR 484 Sindh.
19. Mr. Peer Asadullah Shah Rashidi learned counsel for accused Ali Akbar
Malah has contended as under:
a. That no identification parade was conducted for accused Ali

Akbar.
b. PW-06 Hazrat Ali during trial identified the accused Ali Akbar
to be same accused who was put in the test of identification
parade, hence identification of Ali Akbar Malah during trial by
the said witness is unreliable.
c. No CDR of accused was taken.
d. Additionally argued that no CDR of any accused alleged to have

to abducted Naqeebullah, Hazrat Ali and Qasim was collected.
e. The allegation of torture of PWs and even to deceased as alleged

is not established from medical evidence.
f. The evidence of PW-04, 05, 07, 13, 14 and 19 who have deposed
that they got released Hazrat Ali and Muhammad Qasim have
not deposed about any alleged amount demanded and or paid to
the accused, hence, motive of ransom amount/extortions
amount is completely discarded by the PWs.
g. That PW-13 Afsar Khan who has said that the custody of
abductee Muhammad Qasim was handed over to him but he did
not identify the accused Akbar.
Point No.01.
20. The unfortunate incident of killing four persons namely 1.Naseebullah @

Naqeebullah S/o Muhammad Khan, 2.Muhammad Ishaque S/o Raheem Bux, 3.Nazar
Jan S/o Utam Jan and 4.Muhammad Sabir S/o Muhammad Bux is established beyond
any reasonable shadow of doubt. From the very FIR bearing crime No.17 of 2018 at Ex-
18
37/A, which inter alia mentions that police encounter took place between culprits and
the police party namely complainant 1.SHO Amanullah Marwat alongwith staff namely
2.ASI Gada Hussain, 3.HC Sadaquat Ali Shah, 4.HC Mohsin Abbas, 5.PC Raja Shamim
Mukhtar and 6.PC Raja Riaz. The instant death of four persons of police encounter was
floated and duty officer of Shah Latif Town the PW-16 ASI Saleem Ahmed Khan
examined at Ex-46 and vide entry No.28 produced at Ex-46/A left police station Shah
Latif Town alongwith staff including PW-17 ASI Muhammad Ali at 1520 hours. They
reached at the place of encounter and found police party (absconding accused namely
1.SHO Amanullah Marwat alongwith staff namely 2.ASI Gada Hussain, 3.HC Sadaquat Ali
Shah, 4.HC Mohsin Abbas, 5.PC Raja Shamim Mukhtar and 6.PC Raja Riaz), which facts has
also narrated by PW-17 ASI Mumtaz Ali examined at Ex-47. He prepared memos of
dead bodies. He was disclosed the names of two deceased by absconding accused the
then SHO Amanullah Marwart, he brought the dead bodies of four deceased at JPMC
for medico-legal-process by moving applications to MLO produced at Ex-46/B to 46/E.
He also prepared memos of dead bodies at Ex-46/F to 46/I and inquest reports. He also
received cause of death certificates in respect of each deceased produced at Ex-46/R to
46/U; PW-17 Mumtaz Ali is the witness of memos of dead bodies as well inquest
report. From the documents produced by him it is crystal clear that two out of four
deceased were Nazar Jan S/o Utam Jan and Muhammad Ishaq S/o Raheem Bux where
as two dead bodies were unknown. The Sr. MLO of Jinnah Hospital Abdul Ghaffar
conducted the post mortem of each deceased was examined at Ex-50. He has also
endorsed the facts that two dead bodies were identified whereas two were not
identified. He found after post-mortem examination of Muhammad Ishaq S/o Raheem
Bux aged about 50 years as many as seven firearms injuries, six out of them have six
separate wound of exits; he has firearm injuries at head and face which was the
immediate cause of failure of cardio-respiration. He has deposed that unknown dead
body aged about 30-35 years had as many as three firearm injuries of entries with as
many wounds of exits which were the cause of cardio-respiratory failure. He conducted
post-mortem examination of Nazar Jan S/o Utam Jan aged about 25-30 years with one
firearm injury on his chest with wound of exit as well which was result of his cardio-
respiratory failure. He then conducted the post-mortem of unknown aged about 30-35
years and found firearm injuries with exists wounds resulting into cardio-respiratory
failure. He produced post-mortem at Ex-50/B, 50/D, 50/F and 50/H. The death of all
the four persons, hence proved to be due to receiving the above firearm injuries. PW-50
SP investigation Abid Hussain Qaimkhani examined at Ex-103 was the IO of crime
No.17 to 21 of 2018, has deposed at page-05 that he prepared the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
of the FIRs for disposal of the case in B-Class and got registered FIR bearing crime
No.142/2018 on the basis of statements u/s 154 Cr.P.C. The record reflects that B-Class
19
report as submitted has been approved by the then trial as admitted by SSP Abid
Hussain Qaimkhani in his cross-examination, which is still in field having not been
challanged by any person. PW-45 Muhammad Yousuf S/o Raheem Bux examined at
Ex-91 narrated that in the month of November, 2016 his brother Muhammad Ishaq was
taken away by some person in private clothes in a private car from their village in
district Bhawalpur, Punjab. He further narrated that from Ummat newspaper he came
to know that his brother Muhammad Ishaq has been killed in an encounter in Karachi.
He came to Karachi and contacted police station Shah Latif Town and sought a letter of
transit certificate produced at Ex-91/A and 91/B. PW-47 Abdul Qadir was examined at
Ex-95 who has deposed that his cousin Muhammad Sabir was taken away by unknown
persons from Multan, Punjab on 09.11.2016. He further narrated that he came to know
through media that Sabir was killed in alleged encounter at Karachi. He took the dead
body on 24.01.2018 and after one month his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded,
thereafter the statement was recorded by SP Abid Hussain Qaimkhani on 22.02.2018.
PW-07 Saif-ur-Rehman examined at Ex-34 has disclosed that dead body of Naqeebullah
was handed over to his cousin, funeral prayers offered at Sohrab Goth then dead body
was taken to the native village. PW-14 Taj Muhammad examined at Ex-43 has also
narrated the same facts that the dead body of Naqeebullah was handed over to his
cousin so also so deposed by PW-19 Abdul Raheem Khan examined at Ex—51.
21. From the above facts, unnatural killing of four persons namely
1.Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah S/o Muhammad Khan, 2.Muhammad Ishaque S/o
Raheem Bux, 3.Nazar Jan S/o Utam Jan and 4.Muhammad Sabir S/o Muhammad Bux
in a fake police encounter is proved, hence point No.-01 is answered in positive.
Popular emotions attached to the incident and Role of Media.
23. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has already above
mentioned produced as many as 51 PWs; out of them PW Hazrat Ali and Muhammad
Qasim being alleged abductee are the mainstay of the prosecution case. Before
appreciating the evidence it is deemed relevant to observe the instant case is one of the
highly high profile, widely published and infamous cases of its typical nature of high-
handiness and barbarity of the police whereby four persons were killed with declared
fake police encounter. The infamous murder of four lives of persons namely deceased
Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah, Muhammad Ishaque, Nazar Jan and Muhammad Sabir in
an staged police encounter case accentuated the barbaric style of the policing not only in
our society but the same attracted the attention of the world, as of till today the incident
and case proceedings have gained enough of space in media, be it print, social and/or
20
electronic. At the cost of extra(ism) and/or undesirability to quote out of evidence in
passing is that recently one of very high standard well reputed newspaper daily Dawn
in its editorial “Test case” published on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 (during pendency
of the trial) with starting sentence, “The trial of Rao Anwar for the murder of
Naqeebullah Mehsud is a test case. It will determine whether the criminal justice
system has the will to hold accountable a top police official---now retired--- whose
terrifying reputation as an ‘encounter specialist’ long preceded this particular killing
and yet who managed to thrive professionally.” has tendency to drive a judge in a
particular direction, but in such identical circumstances the Sou Moto proceedings
(Regarding Discussion in TV Talk Show with regard to Subjudice Matter) by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in PLD 2019 Supreme Court page-01 was a guideline
for this court not to be washed away with any of such unwanted and uncalled for
media opinion (trial) which should equally be guideline for all the media for self-
restraint and respect of the bounds of the law and ethics established from long drawn
experiences internally and externally while reporting pending cases in a way that
fundamental right of fair trial (Article-10-A of the Constitution) should not be eroded
and infringed upon with overzealous use of fundamental right of freedom of expression
(Article-19-A of the Constitution) particularly when the proceedings before Hon’ble
judicial forums are subjudice. It is high time rather need of the hour that the strings for
remaining within the settled bounds are to be internally and implicitly pulled by every
institute itself not only for its own flourish but also for the flourish of the entities and
very cause, they are meant for, however the bonafide critical analytical reports and
healthy criticism regarding the fate of lis by media is their welcome right after the
judgments are announced, reference case of Riaz Rahi (2011 SCMR 948).
24. The barbarity, heinousness howsoever grave be, cannot replace the
standard of appreciation of evidence; rather more the seriousness, gruesomeness,
barbarity and ruthlessness attached to the incident the more quality standards of the
evidence would be required; in this background, it is considered to peep into the
guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Naveed Asghar reported in PLD
2021 SC 600; para-10 whereof is reproduced:
“10. The ruthless and ghastly murder of five persons is a crime of heinous
nature; but the frightful nature of crime should not blur the eyes of justice,
allowing emotions triggered by the horrifying nature of the offence to
prejudge the accused. Cases are to be decided on the basis of evidence and
evidence alone and not on the basis of sentiments and emotions.
Gruesome, heinous or brutal nature of the offence may be relevant at the
stage of awarding suitable punishment after conviction; but it is totally
21
irrelevant at the stage of appraising or reappraising the evidence available
on record to determine guilt of the accused person, as possibility of an
innocent person having been wrongly involved in cases of such nature
cannot be ruled out. An accused person is presumed to be innocent till the
time he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and this presumption of
his innocence continues until the prosecution succeeds in proving the
charge against him beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legally
admissible, confidence inspiring, trustworthy and reliable evidence. No
matter how heinous the crime, the constitutional guarantee of fair trial
under Article 10A cannot be taken away from the accused. It is, therefore,
duty of the court to assess the probative value (weight) of every piece of
evidence available on record in accordance with the settled principles of
appreciation of evidence, in a dispassionate, systematic and structured
manner without being influenced by the nature of the allegations. Any
tendency to strain or stretch or haphazardly appreciate evidence to
reach a desired or popular decision in a case must be scrupulously
avoided or else highly deleterious results seriously affecting proper
administration of criminal justice will follow. It may be pertinent to
underline here that the principles of fair trial have now been guaranteed as
a Fundamental Right under Article 10-A of the Constitution and are to be
read as an integral part of every sub-constitutional legislative instrument
that deals with determination of civil rights and obligations of, or criminal
charge against, any person. (Boldness added for emphasis).
25. The entire file of evidence produced on record was thoroughly and
minutely sifted with intensive arguments and able assistance of the learned counsels of
the accused and complainant; it has surfaced on the record that there is no direct
evidence regarding the charge of murder of four persons namely deceased
Naseemullah @ Naqeebullah, Muhammad Ishaque, Nazar Jan and Muhammad Sabir in
extra judicial killing against the present accused. So the entire case of the prosecution in
terms of charge of murder in fake police-encounter has to be seen from the prism of
standards of appreciation of circumstantial evidence which require that chain of
evidence of prosecution case should so be connected that one end of the chain touches
the deceased and last end of chain touches the neck of the accused.
Direct evidence of abduction
26. The perusal of the evidence floats that there is ocular version/direct
evidence of abduction which is narrated by the PW-03 Muhammad Qasim and PW-06
22
Hazrat Ali who have thoroughly narrated as to how they alongwith their friend
deceased Naqeebullah were abducted from Agha Gulsher Hotel at 03:00 pm by police
accused and were brought at police check post Sachal where they were tortured and
detained for 72 hours (3 days) they were released while custody of deceased
Naqeebullah was handed over to accused Rao Anwar through accused Ali Akbar; they
have also deposed that they identified six accused during test of identification parade;
however, veracity of their narration of the evidence was shaken when dishonest
improvement of their part were brought in cross-examination which are reproduced as
under:
PW 03 Mohammad Qasim in his cross has stated, “It is correct that

in my statement dated 23-01-2018 I have not mentioned that it was
03rd or 04th of January and it was Thursday. It is correct that it is not
mentioned in my statement before the police that I alongwith
Hazrat Ali went to Ali Asif for purchase of clothes. It is correct that
it is not mentioned in my statement that when we reached at Al-
Asif we went to Sardar Hotel. It is correct that it is not mentioned in
my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that while we were sitting at Sardar
Hotel Naqeebullah sent a message to Hazrat Ali to come to chapel
Garden at Sher Agha Hotel. It is correct that in my statement before
police there is no mention that we were locked up at police post. It
is correct that in my statement before police it is not mentioned that
after 45 minutes one person came and folded our eyes tightly, I
complained for easing the eyes fold upon which he slapped me. It
is correct that in my police statement it is not mentioned that I
asked the police as to where we were being taken, he disclosed that
we are being taken to Rao Anwar from where you will be sent to
heaven. It is correct that in my statement before police it is not
mentioned that when we opened our eyes Naqeebullah asked as to
why we are brought here upon which I replied that I myself do not
know as to why we are brought here. It is correct that it is not
mentioned in my statement before the police that Naqeebullah
disclosed that he was maltreated at Sachal police post and ransom
of Rs.10,00,000/- was demanded from him for his release. It is
correct that it is not written in my statement before the police that
on the next day at Isha prayer time the door was knocked and some
officers were about to enter the room, we blind folded our eyes, we
stood up and some officers asked our names, we told them our
names after which Naqeebullah was taken away from the room. It
is correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my 161 Cr.P.C
statement that after Naqeebullah was taken away from room we
heard the cries for which I told Hazrat Ali that perhaps
Naqeebullah is being maltreated. It is correct to suggest that it is
not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that after one hour
police came, we blind folded our eyes then Hazrat Ali was taken
23
away and that I then heard the cries of Hazrat Ali. It is correct that
in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C it is not mentioned that after some
time I was also taken away and the strip on my eyes was doubled.
It is correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement that
police officer asked as to what I was doing in Bubai and then he
gave me slap. It is correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my
statement before police that then I was laid on a table and water
mixed with Naswar was put in my nose. It is correct to suggest that
it is not mentioned in my statement before police that I was
becoming unconscious due to water mixed with Naswar therefore,
the police stopped putting wather in my nose. It is correct to
suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement before police that
after we were back to the room we shared the tortured exercised
upon us. It is correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my
statement before the police that Hazrat Ali disclosed that water
mixed with Naswar was put in their nose 11/12 times. It is correct
to suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement made before
police that on 3rd day at about 10/11 p.m the door was knocked, we
blind foled our eyes, officers entered in the room and Naqeeebullah
was taken away and after a while we heard cries of Naqeebullah. It
is correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement before
the police after Naqeebullah was taken away on 3rd day he did not
return. It is correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my
statement before the police that when the police took us out in the
evening between Asar and Magrib prayer time, I asked them where
are we were being taken to, they replied that we are being taken to
the place from where we were brought. It is correct to suggest that
it is not mentioned in my statement before the police that when we
opened our eyes we found ourselves in the same lockup where we
were initially locked up. It is correct to suggest that it is not
mentioned in my police statement that after removing the strip we
offered Isha prayer and then we were taken to the police office
room where the officer informed us that we are being released. It is
correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement before
police that we were restrained to tell any person about the
Naqeebullah otherwise the consequences will be serious. It is
correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement before
police that police had taken our NIC, Passport etc; and that the
same were returned to us.
PW 06 Hazrat Ali in his cross has stated , “It is correct that I have
not stated in my 161 Cr.P.C statement that I received message from
Naqeebullah for meeting while we were at Sardar Hotel. It is
correct that in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C it is not mentioned
that we were confined in a lockup. It is correct that I have not
stated in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that an official came and
inquired about my personal particulars. It is correct that it is not
mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that Qasim complained
24
that his blind fold strip was too tight and that the police official had
slapped him. It is correct that it is not mentioned in my statement
U/S 161 Cr.P.C that we asked as to where we are being taken upon
which he replied that we are being taken to Rao Anwar from where
we will be sent to heaven. It is correct that I have not mentioned in
my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that fetters were applied on our feet
when we were taken to unknown place. It is correct that it is not
mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that we were asked to
blind fold our eyes whenever any officer comes in for any purpose.
It is correct that it is not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C
that when our blind folds were removed we asked each other as to
what was happening with us. It is correct that it is not mentioned in
my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that Naqeebullah disclosed that he
was maltreated at police post and an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was
demanded from him for his release. It is correct that it is not
mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that some officer came
at night time to whom we disclosed our full particulars. It is correct
that it is not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that an
officer came at night time who took away Naqeebullah and then we
heard his cries and we assumed that he was being maltreated. It is
correct that it is not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C
that I was taken away and my blind fold strip was doubled. It is
that my hands were tied on back side, I was laid on table and then
water mixed with Naswar was put in my nose 6/7 times. It is
that I was kept aside and same practice was done with Qasim. It is
that we were then again taken to the room and fetters were applied.
It is correct that it is not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C
that on the next day some officer came at about 11:00 or 12:00 a.m
and took away Naqeebullah. It is correct that it is not mentioned in
my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that on the next day when
Naqeebullah was taken away we were brought to Sachal Choki. It
is correct that it is not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C
that an officer took us to Sachal Choki in the evening. It is correct
that it is not mentioned in my statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C that we
were confined in lockup and we were called by police officer with
big mustaches and returned personal belongings and asked us not
to disclose anything about Naqeebullah. It is correct that there is no
mention in my statement before the police that I had identified the
Rao Anwar through his voice while he was making the press
conference on media.
27. From the evidence in the shape of cross-examination reproduced above

the deliberate largescale improvements to toe the prosecution case as made by each of
the PWs i.e. PW-03 and PW-06 (said to be abductee) cannot be said to be innocent
25
improvement hence reduces the witnesses to be unreliable as the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Sardar Bibi reported in 2017 SCMR 344 in para-02 Pl.(g) at page 349 has
held as under:
“Such dishonest and deliberate improvement and omission made

them unreliable and they are not trustworthy witnesses. It is held in
the case of Amir Zaman v. Mahboob and others (1985 SCMR 685)
that testimony of witnesses containing material improvements are
not believable and trustworthy. Likewise in Akhtar Ali’s case (2008
SCMR 6) it was held that when a witness made improvement
dishonestly to strengthen the prosecution’s case then his credibility
becomes doubtful on the well-known principle of criminal
jurisprudence that improvement once found deliberate and
dishonest, cast serious doubt on the veracity of such witness. In
Khalid Javed’s case (2003 SCMR 149) such witness who improved
his version during the trial was found wholly unreliable. Further
reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Mohammad
Shafique Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1981 SC 472). Syed Saeed
Mohammad Shah and another v. The State (1993 SCMR 550) and
Mohammad Saleem v. Mohammad Azam (2011 SCMR 474).
28. Such view of Hon’ble Supreme Court was also reiterated in para-03 at
page 777 in case of Muhammad Mansha V. the State reported in 2018 SCMR as under:
“Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the eye-witnesses had
made dishonest improvements in their statements then it is not safe
to place reliance on their statements. It is also settled by this Court
that whenever a witness made dishonest improvement in his
version in order to bring his case in line with the medical evidence
or in order to strengthen the prosecution case then his testimony is
not worthy of credence. The witnesses in this case have also made
dishonest improvement in order to bring the case in line with the
medical evidence (as observed by the learned High Court), in that
eventuality conviction was not sustainable on the testimony of the
said witnesses.”
29. As discussed above, the reliability and credibility of both the witnesses in
terms of their dishonest improvement has already been shaken which has been more
damaged when during cross-examination PW-03 has admitted that his statement u/s
161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.01.2018; he has admitted in his cross-examination, “It is
correct to suggest that we did not complaint any authority about abduction till
26
23.01.2018”. He has also admitted in cross-examination that, “It is correct to suggest that
none of my family members had made a complaint to any authority since their missing
for 72 hours.” The evidence of PW-06 Hazrat Ali said to be an abductee, is also silent
regarding any complaint made by him against the police for his abduction. PW-03
and PW-06 being friends of deceased Naqeebullah and themselves victim, should have
chosen to communicate such fact to any of the relative of Naqeebullah or should have
got recorded their statement before any forum particularly after murder of Naqeebullah
on 13.01.2018, which came in their knowledge through media immediately, but they did
not do so. PW-06 Hazrat Ali in his cross-examination at page-04 has admitted, “After we
were let off I did not report the incident of abduction to any police station or any authority till
23.01.2018. PW-03 has admitted in cross-examination at page-08, “It is correct to suggest
that we did not complaint any authority about our abduction till 23.01.2018.”; in similar
circumstance in case of Muhammad Siddique reported in PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 283 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court shown suspicion on veracity of friend witness who chose to
remain silent for only 24 hours, whereas in the instant case both the PWs remained
silent upto 23.01.2018 whereas incident of abduction is 3rd/4th January, their release is
6th/7th January and killing of Naqeebullah is 13.01.2018.
30. Mahsood Khan unfortunate father of deceased Naqeebullah in pursuit of

justice during the proceeding of this case for mysterious killing of his son is reported to
have died during the trial, hence was not produced by prosecution for examination. The
instant case in fact per prosecution started through moving the law into motion with the
statement of late Mahsood Khan (father of deceased Naqeebullah) u/s 154 Cr.P.C.
which was produced by PW-02 the then SHO Syed Shakir Ali at Ex-28/B which was
incorporated into FIR bearing Crime No.40/2018 produced at Ex-28/C, the translation
whereof is already reproduced wherein it is mentioned that IG Sindh constituted an
inquiry consisting of higher officials of police who have found involvement of accused
Rao Anwar and his subordinate . During cross-examination at page-02 PW-50 first IO/
SSP Abid Hussain Qaimkhani Has admitted, “It is correct to suggest that after
registration of crime No.40/2018 of police station Sachal on 23.01.2018 the inquiry
committee concluded the inquiry proceedings and forwarded its finding dated
25.01.2018 to me.” From bare reading of FIR the complainant has come to know about
the killing of his son Naqeebullah from media on 17.01.2018 (after four days of incident of
murders); inference whereof is inescapable that he was not informed by PW-03 and PW-
06 Muhammad Qasim and Hazrat Ali about the abduction of his son which fact as
above mentioned is a blow on the veracity of the contention of the abductees/witnesses
that they were abducted by the police alongwith deceased.
27
31. The contention of the facts by PW-03 that they were at Sadar hotel when
Naqeebullah sent a message to Hazrat Ali to come at Chapel Garden at Sher Agha hotel,
which fact has also been deposed by PW-06 that he received message from Naqeebullah
(mode of receiving message was not deposed by any of the PW).
32. The first IO PW-50 Abid Hussain Qaimkhani during cross-examination at
page-01 has said, “It is correct to suggest that I did not collect CDR of PW Hazrat Ali,
Muhammad Qasim, Sheroof Khan, Hamayoon and deceased Naqeebullah @
Naseebullah during investigation.”; both the PWs have deposed that personal articles
were given back to them by the police at the time of their release. It is therefore,
deducible that presence of both the said witnesses/abductees and deceased
Naqeebullah at Agha Gul Sher hotel on 3rd or 4th January, 2018 is not scientifically and
digitally proved, moreover such withholding of the evidence by investigating agency
has the tendency of adverse inference as required under Article 129(g) of Qanoon-e-
Shahadat Order 1984, particularly when possession of mobile phone with the deceased
Naqeebullah is also mentioned in the very statement of complainant u/s 154 Cr.P.C.
and FIR at Ex-28/B and 28/C stating therein that, “They (police accused) switched off
mobile phone of my son.”
33. The complainant has in the FIR registered on 23.01.2018 in company of
team of his lawyers has mentioned that the police released Hazrat Ali and Muhammad
Qasim on 06.01.2018 at about 10:00 pm at Superhighway, Karachi whereas no such
release has been stated by any of the abductees/witnesses, creating a question mark in
the veracity of the statements of PWs. The IO SSP Abid Hussain Qaimkhani has
admitted in cross-examination at Ex—103 that he had tried to collect location of five
numbers of deceased Naseemullah @ Naqeebullah. He does not remember the location
of 03 numbers. The location of call No.0303-0455427 on 04-01-2018 at 1419 hours is at
1419 hours is at Al-Asif Square. He further said in cross-examination that he does not
remember the location of 0348-4429063 and 0333-3311866 on 04-10-2018 at Al-Asif
Square. He does not deny such locations, he simply says he does remember; he is trying
to evade the answer; and by not producing the CDR of deceased Naqeebullah in
particular circumstances would invoke Art 129(g) of Qanoon—e-Shahadat Order 1984
for adverse inference; Concludingly abduction of deceased Naqeebullah from Agha
Shergul Hotel alongwith Hazrat Ali and Muhammad Qasim is not digitally proved.
28
Contradiction regarding the date of abduction and date of

release of both the abductee.
34. In sequel to the above discussion regarding reliability on the direct

evidence of star witnesses who are said to be abductee regarding the date of incident
also raises eyebrows about the incident of abduction from hotel having really taken
place at all. As above discussed the well-thought, consulted, based on findings as the
committee consisted by IGP per FIR incident of abduction is said to have been taken
place on 03.01.2018. Both the PWs have as above reproduced admitted that it is not
mentioned in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that incident of abduction was on 3 rd or 4th
which is improvement as above discussed. The PW-03 during his cross-examination
had bottom line of page No.07 admitted that they were released after 72 hours on the 3rd
day. PW-06 has also in cross-examination said at page-04, “We were let of after 72 hours
after our abduction, (meaning thereby that if abduction was on 3 rd they were released
on 6th and if the incident of abduction was on 4th they were released on 7th of January.)
PW-03 at page-08 in cross-examination has admitted, “It is correct to suggest that in the
memo at Ex-29/C it is mentioned that we disclosed that on 04.01.2018 at about 3:00 pm
we were taken away from Agha Gulsher Hotel and that we were taken to Abbas Town
police post on 04.01.2018. Vol. says that we were taken away on 3 rd or 4th January. It is
correct to suggest that it is not mentioned in my statement before police that it was 3 rd
or 4th January when we were taken away from Agha Gulsher Hotel.” PW-05 Sheroof
examined at Ex-32 who is said to be chance witness of abduction during chief has said
that at the time of incident was 3/4 January, 2018 Thursday whereas in his cross-
examination he has admitted at page-02, “The contentions of my statement was read over to
me by IO. It is incorrect to suggest that the date, time and place of incident is not mentioned in
my statement(confronted it is so recorded).” His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is recorded on
24.01.2018, he has admitted that he did not intimate any authority about the incident.
He has admitted that he also belong to South Waziristan and there has been some
criminal case against him. He also admitted during cross at page-03 that accused Ali
Akbar was not present at Agha Gulsher Hotel on 3rd or 4th January. His evidence is
fraught with improvement, moreover he is a chance witness without having established
his presence at the crime scene; anyway he is also uncertain about the date of incident.
There is another eye witness namely Humayoon examined as PW-35 at Ex-74 who has
said that incident is dated 03.01.2018; he is also from Waziristan and also is a chance
witness. He has admitted that he did not inform about the incident to any political
office or police till his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.01.2018. He has also
denied the suggestion that he was not present at Agha Gulsher Hotel on 03.01.2018.
29
It is also well-settled principle by now that once there appears a single doubt as to the
presence of the claimed eye-witness at the crime scene, it would be sufficient to discard
his testimony as a whole as held by the superior court as under:
Mst. Rukhsana Begum and others v. Sajjad and others reported in

2017 SCMR 596---(d) Criminal trial ----Witness whose presence at
the crime spot was doubtful---Reliance---Scope---Single doubt
reasonably showing that a witness’s presence on the crime spot was
doubtful during the occurrence, it would be sufficient to discard his
testimony as a whole---Said principle may be pressed into service
in cases where such witness was seriously inimical or appeared to
be chance witness. ”
Muhammad Ashraf @ Acchu v. The State reported in 2019 SCMR

652 ---S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence ---
Concocted evidence provided by chance witnesses---Where the
Court reached a conclusion that the eyewitnesses were chance
witnesses; they had not witnessed the occurrence and the
prosecution story was concocted by the prosecution witnesses, then
the case of the accused merited plain acquittal.
Muhammad Ilyas V/s Muhammad Abid reported in 2017 SCMR

54 ---Eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they had failed to
bring any evidence on the record establishing the stated reason for
their presence close to the deceased at the relevant time---Eye-
witnesses produced by the prosecution had also seriously
contradicted each other on many important aspects of the case.”
35. Testimony of chance witness ordinarily, was not accepted unless
justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the
relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about
his absence from the crime spot; in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness might
have been relied upon, provided some convincing explanation appealing to prudent
mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place,
otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspected evidence and
could not be accepted without a pinch of salt; the references may be made in cases
reported in Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419; Javed Ahmed
alias Jaida v. The State 1978 SCMR 114; Muhammad Ahmed and another v. The State
and others 1997 SCMR 89; Imran Ashraf and others v. The State 2001 SCMR 424 and
Zafar Hayat v. The State 1995 SCMR 896.

30
Evidence of release of the abductee PW-03 and PW-06
36. From the evidence above discussed the date of incident is very much
unclear rather same is confusing; to clear the controversy PW-13, 14, 19 and 35 who are
related to the release of the abductee i.e. PW-03 and PW-06. Admittedly the statement of
PW-13 Afsar Khan u/s 161 Cr.P.C. as per his cross-examination at Ex—41 was recorded
on 14.04.2018 (such delayed statement of the PW has no value in the eyes of law),
however he is also not sure that the incident was 3rd or 4th January and is very much
uncertain whether abductee was released after 2/3 days. He has further during chief
said that both the abductees were handed over to him and he sent them in Rickshaw in
their house, which fact is in contradiction with the statements of abductees so also with
contents of FIR, hence PW-13 is highly unreliable. He has admitted in cross-examination
that brother of Hazrat Ali PW-06 had died in the encounter with the police; he has
admitted that he belongs to Waziristan. PW-14 Taj Muhammad also belongs to
Mahsood Tribe. He has in cross-examination admitted at page-03, Saif-ur-Rehman
disclosed on 07.01.2018 that Naqeebullah was abducted alongwith his friend two days
back (means on 05.01.2018). He has admitted that his statement was recorded on
24.02.2018. PW-19 Abdul Raheem Khan examined at Ex-51 has said that on 07.01.2018
he received a call from Saif-ur-Rehman who asked him to reach Sohrab Goth and
thereafter he alongwith other witnesses including Saif-ur-Rehman went to the police
station for release of Agha Gulsher Hotel. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was also
recorded on 24.02.2018 by IO Abid Hussain Qaimkhani. He has admitted that he is
Mahsood Tribe belonging to Waziristan. The IO SSP Abid Hussain Qaimkhani
examined at Ex-103 has admitted that he has not associated any other witness
than the persons belonging to Waziristan, he has admitted that witness disclosed
the date of incident to be 03-01-2018, no witness from locality adjacent to Agha
Sher Hotel was examined by him and so admitted. He has admitted that
statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C of Qasim, Hazrat Ali, Sharoob and Humayoun
suggest that abduction took place on 03-01-2018 and released on 06-01-2018. He
has admitted that PWs Shaheen Zaman, Saif U Rehman, Taj Muhammad and
Abdul Naeem disclosed in their statements that they were in contact with each
other on the night of 06-01-2018 at about 1145 p.m and has settled to approach
the police for the release of abductee on the next day i.e 07-01-2018. He has
admitted the date of incident in Ex- 36/C is mentioned as 04-01-2018 so also in
Ex- 66/A so also in case diary dated 23-01-2018 so also in Ex- 29/A. He has
admitted that there is no further statement of complainant wherein date of
incident was rectified at his request. He has also admitted that no further
31
statement of PW Hazrat Ali and Qasim was recorded for rectifying the date of to
be 04-01-2018.
37. From the sort of evidence there cannot be two opinion that exact date of
abduction and release of abductees Muhammad Qasim and Hazrat Ali is not known to
anyone including PW-03 and PW-06 who are said to be the abductees; no independent
witness from the hotel nor its owner, its employee were made as witness, hence very
abduction of the PWs 03 and 06 is shrouded in the cloud of myth and doubt.
Unexplained delay in FIR and statement of witnesses
38. Let alone the circumstances discussed above the dark shadow of silence of
fatality and unreliability is inseparable from the body of statement of complainant u/s
154 Cr.P.C. recorded on 03.01.2018 despite per complainant he came to know about the
incident through media on 17.01.2018, delayed FIR, belated statement of Hazrat Ali and
Muhammad Qasid (both abductees) u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 23.08.2018 as per their
depositions however, Abid Hussain Qaimkhani during cross-examination at its page
No.5 of Ex-105 admitted that statement of Hazrat Ali Muhammad Qasim, Sheroof and
Humayoon were recorded on same day. PW-35 Humayoon has admitted that the
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is dated 24.01.2018 whereas PW-05 Sheroof has also during
chief stated that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.01.2018. PW-04 Shah
Zamin in his cross-examination has admitted that the statement was recorded on
24.02.2018, PW-13 Afsar Khan has admitted that his statement was recorded on
14.04.2018 (after delay of three months). Statement of PW-14 Taj Muhammad, PW-19
Abdul Raheem and PW-07 Saif-ur-Rehman have been admitted by them to be recorded
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2018 (delay of more than one month). Delay of one or two days
without explanation has time and again been held by Hon’ble Superior courts to be fatal
and testimony of such witnesses could not safely been relied upon (reference may be
made Muhammad Asif V. the State 2017 SCMR 486, Rahat Ali 2010 SCMR 584,
Mehmood Ahmed v. the State 1995 SCMR 127.
Identification parade
39. Another stressed upon evidence by the prosecution is identification

parade of the accused who allegedly committed the abduction; the identification of six
accused namely 1.Arshad Ali, 2.Abdul Aziz, 3.Shafique, 4.Allah Yar, 5.Ghulam Nazuk
and 6.Muhammad Iqbal was conducted. To summarize this aspect of evidence it has
inter alia come on evidence that no description, features, complexion, physique etc. was
32
given by the witnesses of identification parade namely PW-03 Muhammad Qasim, PW-
06 Hazrat Ali in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., as admitted by PW-03 at page-09 that
the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. does not mention that he can identify the culprits if
produced before him, the ages of the dummies were different, The IO SSP Abid
Hussain Qaimkhani during his cross examination at Ex- 103 at page 05 has admitted
that in the statements of PWs there is no mention of description or stature of the
accused, hence such identification parade coupled with circumstances discussed above
cannot withstand the test of reliability, the reference may be made 2017 SCMR 1546,
2018 SCMR 577, PLD 2019 SC 488, 2011 SCMR 537 AND 2010 SCMR 1189, however
some placitum are reproduced as under:
2017 SCMR 524 Javed Khan @ Bacha and another V/s the State---
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Complainant had not mentioned
any features of the assailants either in the FIR or in his statement
recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., therefore there was no benchmark
against which to test whether the accused persons, who he had
identified after over a year of the crime, and who he had fleetingly
seen, were in fact the actual culprits--Neither of the two Magistrates
had certified that in the identification proceedings the other
persons, amongst whom the appellants were placed, were of
similar age, height, built and clouring. [underline for emphasis added]
2011 SCMR 563 Sabir Ali @ Fauji V/s The State --- (d) Penal Code
(XLV of 1860)---S.302(b)---Identification parade---Identification test
is of no value if description of accused is not given in the FIR
[p.570].
40. The memo of arrest produced at Ex-36/B also admitted by PW-50 IO Abid
Hussain Qaimkhani that accused Allah Yar, Arshad Ali, Muhammad Iqbal, Yasin,
Khizer Hayat and Abdul Ali were arrested on 26.01.2018 whereas identification parade
is conducted on 31.01.2018 produced at Ex-27/F of accused Allah Yar, Arshad Ali and
Muhammad Iqbal. It is pertinent to mention that no CDR of any of the accused who
underwent in identification parade was produced nor the CDR of alleged abductees
and deceased despite the fact that deceased was with mobile phone and per cross
examination IO Abid Hussain Qaimkhani tried to collect his location of five of his cell
numbers. The PW-06 Hazrat Ali examined at Ex-33 during cross examination at page-08
has stated that he picked-up three persons out of row of about 15. Per his admission it
was joint identification parade which is always held to be improper identification
parade not worthy of reliance (reference Khanwar Khan 2019 PLD SC 488 and
Kamaluddin @ Kamla V. the State reported in 2018 SCMR 577.
33
41. It is well settled law that identification parade is not requirement of law as
has also been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant by relying upon some
of the case laws in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that identification parade
of the accused during trial, if trustworthy, sufficient for holding him guilty for
conviction, (ref. Gazanfar Ali V. State 2012 SCMR 215), but such arguments do not fit
well in the circumstances of this case, since the PWs given facts and circumstances
discussed above have rendered themselves highly unreliable. Even during trial PW-03
has wrongly identified even those accused who were put in identification parade such
note by the then trial court during recording the evidence of PW-03 has put which is
reproduced:
(Note: The witness has pointed out accused Khair Muhammad,

Allahyar, Arshad Ali, Faisal Mehmood, Mohammad Anar and Ali
Akbar as persons picked out in identification test). Three of the
accused pointed out by me were involved in our abduction and
were identified during identification test, for rest of the three I am
bit confused. 17/18 months have passed since the incident
therefore, I am bit confused about identification.
42. PW-06 Hazrat Ali has also wrongly identified Ali Akbar to be the accused
whom he had identified during identification parade; he has not identified accused
Allah Yar and also shown confusion in identification for accused Shafiq Ahmed at the
end of deposition recorded by the then trial court at page-03 at Ex-36.
43. Cumulative effect of circumstances appearing as above in terms of

untrustworthiness of witness/abductee Muhammad Qasim and Hazrat Ali, when very
incident of abduction as alleged by prosecution is not proved, the identification parade
under such circumstances alone cannot be relied upon for establishing the case of
prosecution beyond reasonable shadow of doubt; the case laws relied upon by the
learned counsel for the complainant (2020 SCMR 342) with all humble reverence is
distinguishable.
Embellished evidence of motive
44. As if by now PWs have not rendered themselves unreliable, untrust

worthy, tagged with dishonest improvement, leveled with material contradictions with
belated statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. they additionally made another embellishment for
the first time during their evidence in the trial court that Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten
hundred thousand only) were demanded for the release by the police accused which
34
was admittedly not so stated by them in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. no such
allegation is leveled in the FIR nor such fact has been deposed by any of the PWs related
to the facts of efforts of release of the abductee and deceased. The motive for the first
time averred by abductee PW-03 and PW-06 only adds to their unreliability; the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hashim Qasim & another V/s. the State reported
in 2017 SCMR 986 has held as under:
Pl.(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S.302(b)—Qatl-i-amd---

Reappraisal of evidence --- Benefit of doubt---Motive not
established---Motive was set up after the arrest of the accused; if the
motive was really in existence, then, in the FIR or at least at a
subsequent stage before the discovery of the dead body and arrest of
the accused, the complainant might have disclosed it, being a very
important factor because on that basis, the investigator would have
taken step to interrogate all the accused persons before their actual
arrest---Motive was revealed for the first time by some other
arrested suspects in the crime and then it was put into the mouth of
the complainant---Motive belatedly set up appeared to be self-
manufactured with the connivance of the police---Prosecution had
failed to establish its case against the accused persons, who were
acquitted of all charges by extending them the benefit of doubt.
CDR, Circumstantial evidence

45. Before deciding the reliability and admissibility of CDR collected and
produced in the evidence, it is for convenience deemed fit to categorize the accused.
The first category of the accused is the accused of abduction of deceased Naqeebullah,
PW-03 Muhammad Qasim and PW-06 Hazrat Ali and those are six accused namely
1.Arshad Ali, 2.Abdul Aziz, 3.Shafique Ahmed, 4.Allah Yar, 5.Ghulam Nazuk and
6.Muhammad Iqbal who were undergone the test for identification parade. Whereas
accused Ali Akbar is said to have detained the deceased and abductee, released PW-03
and PW-06 while handing over the custody of abductee deceased Naqeebullah to co-
accused Rao Anwar. The CDR of accused PC Shakil, Rao Anwar, Qamar Ahmed
Shaikh, Faisal Mahmood, Muhammad Anar and Khair Muhammad produced and they
are alleged to have remained in contact with rather added and abetted the absconding
accused who had staged police encounter by killing the four persons and having
fabricated the evidence by foisting weapon on each deceased so also fabricating story of
35
hurling of hand grenade by the deceased; whereas the role of rest of the present accused
without producing CDR namely 1.Muhammad Yasin, Supard Hussain, Rais Abbas,
Khizir Hiyat and Imran Kazmi is their assistance and abatement of the incident of
murder and fabrication of foisting weapon and explosive over the deceased. The
accused who directly participating in the fake encounter case followed by registration
of false FIRs bearing crime No.17 to 21 of 2018 are absconding accused
namely1.Amanullah Marwat 2.Gadda Hussain 3.Mohsin Abbas, 4.Sadaqat Hussain
Shah, 5.Raja Shamim Mukhtar, 6.Rana Riaz Ahmed and 7.Shaikh Muhammad Shoaib @
Shoaib Shooter and their case after recording the evidence of CW SSP Dr. Rizwan at Ex-
04 were declared absconders and perpetual NWBs were issued vide order dated
09.02.2018.
46. The direct evidence of abduction by alleged abductees i.e. PW-03 and PW-
06 have for the reasons elaborated above failed whereas the remaining evidence is the
circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence may sometimes be conclusive, but it
must always be narrowly examined. In cases like the present one that rest entirely on
circumstantial evidence, it is of the utmost importance that the circumstances should be
ascertained with minute care and caution, before any conclusion or inference adverse
to the accused person is drawn. The process of inference and deduction involved in
such cases is of a delicate and perplexing character, liable to numerous causes of fallacy.
This danger points the need for great caution in accepting proof of the facts and
circumstances, before they are held to be established for the purpose of drawing
inferences therefrom. A mere concurrence of circumstances, some or all of which are
supported by defective or inadequate evidence, can create a specious appearance,
leading to fallacious inferences. Hence, it is necessary that only such circumstances
should be accepted as the basis of inferences that are, on careful examination of the
evidence, found to be well-established. A high quality of evidence is, therefore, required
to prove the facts and circumstances from which the inference of the guilt of the accused
person is to be drawn. (Naveed Asghar v. State PLD 2020 Supreme Court 600).
47. One of the most relied upon evidence in the instant case by the
prosecution is the CDR in terms of location of accused at the place of incident of
murder; the relevant PWs regarding CDR are PW-26 Inspector Muhammad Hanif, PW-
50 SSP Abid Hussain Qaimkhani and last PW-51 SSP Dr. Rizwan. PW-26 examined at
36
Ex-61 has admitted during cross-examination regarding defects of CDR such as CDR
does not mention the email address through which the same was sought, 2.CDR not
received with covering letter of cellular company, 3.CDR does not bear the stamp and
signature of issuing authority. He has admitted the location of Rao Anwar on 3rd and 4th
January 2018 (date of incident of abduction) at Malir Cantt from 2:30 hours to 13:05
hours, the relevant extract of cross-examination regarding CDR of all three relevant
PWs for sake of convenience are reproduced in the para to follow.
48. PW-26 Muhammad Hanif stated in his cross-examination, “It is correct to
suggest tht the movement of the cell phone entering within the vicinity of tower, its
entry time is shown in the CDR. It is correct that on the 3rd page of the Ex:61/C there is
entry of cell phone of Rao Anwar at 15:21:37 which shows that Rao Anwar entered at
that time within the vicinity of tower….It is correct that according to Ex:61/C the
position of Rao Anwar at 15:21:37 hours was within the range of Tower No.KHI-9555
and at about 15:25:09 his location was within the range of Tower No.KHI/1075. It is
correct that the CDR indicates that Rao Anwar was in moving condition at that time in
between this time. ….I cannot say that according to the CDR of said number Rao Anwar
was in moving position between 15:22:23 hours and onwards as there was change of
tower numbers. It is correct that according to CDR Ex:61/I cell phone No.03008990362
(Rao Anwar) was in moving position within the tourist farm house from 15:13:47 to
15:24:27 hours (time of incident of at place of incident). It is correct that according to
CDR Ex:61/K location of Mohammad Anar at about 15:34:54 is within the range of KHI-
9555 and then at about 15:42:07 his location was within the range of KHI-1075 therefore,
he appears to be in moving position. It is correct that the location of Faisal Mehmood
was not within the tower of place of incident from 14:43:10 till 15:49:43(hence CDR
against him produced is inconsequential)…..It is correct that according to CDR Ex:61/B
the location of Qamar Shaikh was at Razzaqabad police station at about 15:08:00 hours.
It is correct that from Razzaqabad Police Training Centre there is distance of 25 minutes’
drive to place of occurrence.
49. PW-50 Abid Hussain Qaimkhani stated in his cross-examination, “I do not
remember whether I had tried to collect the CDR of PWs Hazrat Ali, Qasim, Sharoob
Khan, Humayoon and deceased Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah. It is correct to suggest that
I did not collect CDR of PWs Hazrat Ali, Qasim, Sharoob Khan, Humayoon and
37
deceased Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah during investigation. It is correct to suggest that I
had tried to collect location of 5 numbers of deceased Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah. I do
not remember the location of 03 numbers. The location of cell number 0303-0455427 on
04-01-2018 at 1419 hours was at Al-Asif Square, I do not remember that the location of
cell phone number 0348-4429063, on 04.01.2018 at about 12:52 p.m was at Al-Asif
Square, the location of cell number 0333-3311866 on 04.01.2018 at about 15:25 p.m was at
Al-Asif Square. It is not correct that after knowing the location of numbers of
Naqeebullah, I did not collect location of PWs Hazrat Ali and Qasim…..It is correct to
suggest that the incident of crime No.17 to 21 of 2018 of PS Shah Latif Town took place
at about 1500 to 1520 hours. It is correct to suggest that according to FIR No.142 of 2018
of PS Shah Latif Town, the time of incident is mentioned as 1500 to 1520 hours. It is
correct to suggest that accused Rao Anwar was neither complainant nor witness in any
of the cases bearing crime No.17 to 21 of 2018. It is correct to suggest that on 13.01.2018
Rao Anwar was SSP Malir. ….It is correct to suggest that the voice IP of accused Rao
Anwar was not arranged by me during first remand period. …..It is correct to suggest
that trackers are installed in every police mobile. It is correct to suggest that I did not
collect the tracker reports of any police mobile. It is incorrect to suggest that I had
collected the tracker records of police mobile but since the tracker record did not
establish the evidence against accused therefore I did not make it the part of the record.
It is correct to suggest that drivers are provided for police mobiles. It is correct to
suggest that I did not record statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of drivers of police mobile in
use of DSP Qamar Shaikh. ….I did not collect CDR of any of the police officials alleged
to have abducted Naqeebullah and his two friends…..It is correct to suggest that I did
not collect the record of tracker company of police mobile of PP Abbas Town in respect
of 3rd and 4th of January 2018.
50. PW-51 Dr. Rizwan Ahmed Khan, stated in his cross-examination, “I did
not produce accused for his voice identification through PWs. I did not arrange voice IP
of accused Rao Anwar through PW Qasim and Hazrat Ali. ….It is correct that the copies
of emails addressed to me have not been produced on record. It is correct that cell
phone of any accused was not sent for forensic analysis. It is correct that place of
incident in CDR Ex.105/M-36 is not mentioned. …It is correct that at the location of cell
phone number 0300-2023318 (Rao Anwar) on 13.01.2018 at 1435 hours the location was
at Malir Cant Khairpur Line. The location of same at about 1521 hours, on the same date
38
was at KHI-29555 was at Malir Farms. At about 1523 the location of cell number was at
KHI-29555…..It is correct that the location of same cell ID at about 1527 hours was
within sector KHI-29555. It is correct that Ex.105/M-116 does not contain entry of
13.01.2018 of cell No.0300-2023318 of 1525 of sector KHI-31075 is deleted from CDR. It is
correct that according to Ex.105/M-115 the activity of cell phone 0300-2023318 is within
the sector KHI-31075 at 1525 p.m. It is correct that one of the number i.e. 0336-
3080041mentioned on page 11 of Ex.105/N is incorrect. Voluntarily says, it was typing
mistake. ….It is correct that if one cell phone moves from the range of one tower to the
range of another tower, the mobile phone will catch signals from the another tower….It
is correct that the range of tower may be 1 kilometer and may be 8 kilometers. …It is
correct that we did not contact cellular companies for CDR. It is correct that CDR was
received in MS-excel form. ….I did not collect that CDR of witnesses of incident of
abduction from Gulsher Agha Hotel. I did not collect CDR of the witnesses who
claimed to have approach the police for release of Hazrat Ali and Qasim. It is not correct
that edited CDR has been produced in the Court. ….It is correct that the cell phone
received from accused Shakeel was not sent for forensic test. It is correct that I did not
collect the entry of register 19 about seizure of mobile phones from accused Shakeel.
…..Cell phone No.0305-2509267 is not in the name of Shakeel. Voluntarily says it is in
the name of his mother and was in use of accused Shakeel. I did not record the
statement of mother of the accused Shakeel. The verisys of registered ownership of SIM
was obtained but the same is not produced before the Court. It is correct that I did not
record statement of any witness to justify that the cell phone number is registered in the
name of mother of accused and was in use of accused Shakeel.
51. Circumstantial evidence sometime is too strong to break but the same is to be
in sequence of the rest of the circumstances in one chain whereof one end of the same
touches the dead body and the second end the neck of the accused without which one
single circumstance howsoever strong cannot be sufficiently proved to the extent of
eliminating any hypothesis of innocence of accused. CDR also produced as
circumstantial evidence against accused without any other evidence and that too, CDR
in itself is defective on many counts such as non-attestation of cellular company,
admittedly edition in it, non-production of any witness related to cellular company,
non-sending of any mobile phone relating to CDR to FSL, no voice recording produced,
no call record found between the accused Rao Anwar with absconding accused,
39
admitted arrival of accused Rao Anwar at the place of incident after the incident like
many other (police force) and media personnel cannot alone be held to be reliable for
conviction reference (case of Orangzaib 2010 P.Cr.L.J 1281 view upheld in case
Orangzeb 2018 SCMR 391, Azeem Khan 2016 SCMR 274, Ishtiaque Ahmed PLD 2019
SC 675).
In case titled ‘The State through P.G. Sindh and others. Ahmed
Omar Sheikh and others’ reported in 2021 SCMR 873 in para-55 it was held
that:
“This single piece of evidence could not be more than
circumstantial evidence, and would not alone, suffice to
prove that accused was guilty of committing criminal
conspiracy to abduct deceased for ransom”
52. There are chances of fabricating evidence in cases that are based solely on
circumstantial evidence; therefore, the court, in such cases, should take extra care and
caution to examine the evidence with pure judicial approach on strict legal standards to
satisfy itself about its proof, probative value and reliability. When there are apparent
indications of possibility of fabricating evidence by the investigating officer in making
the case, the court must be watchful against the trap, which may misled to drawing a
false inference, and satisfy itself about the fair and genuine collection of such evidence.
The failure of the court to observe such care and caution can adversely affect the proper
and safe administration of criminal justice, (Hashim Qasim v. State 2017 SCMR 986;
Fayyaz Ahmed v. State 2017 SCMR 2026).
53. It is by now well entrenched law that preponderance of evidence as required

in appreciation of evidence in civil cases --- however the strong probability attached to
the evidence ------ cannot replace the universally accepted rule of proof beyond
reasonable shadow of doubt as required in approbation of evidence in criminal cases. It
is well settled law that when direct evidence failed corroboratory evidence alone will
not be consequential for the prosecution (Ref. Dr. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz
2007 SCMR 1427.
POINTATION OF PLACE OF INCIDENT AND JIT
54. The rest of evidence is mostly regarding arrest of each accused and their later
pointation of the places of incident which per prosecution case was already in the
knowledge of investigation agency; no recovery of any type of incriminating material is
said to have been effected from any of the present accused, recovery of empties from
crime scene having not matched with the official weapons of absconding accused has
40
no relevance with the present accused none of present accused is said to be member of
police party (absconding accused) who participated in the fake police encounter; their
interrogation reports only mentioning in JIT without having been produced is in
admissible evidence (Hidayatullah case 2018 SCMR 2092). As for report of JIT is
concerned, the same has been held to be inadmissible evidence in case of province of
Punjab reported in PLD 2018 Supreme Court 178; Para 13 whereof for case of reference
is reproduced:
“The learned counsel has mainly relied upon the report of JIT and
also read certain paragraphs therefrom but the said report is an
opinion of the members of JIT, and it can be considered, at the most
as a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is settled by now that report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence, as laid down
by this Court in the case of Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and
another v. The state (1993 SCMR 550). The trial Court will
appreciate the same if supported by some admissible
material/evidence because the Court has to see the material and
cannot decide the case upon any opinion of Police Officer/s, even
of a high rank of Inspector General of Police.”
55. The learned counsel for the complainant who has diligently assisted and
proceeded throughout trial has as of last ditch effort submitted to take some inferences
favourable to him from statement of accused, first of all no such fact has been
highlighted which could rise inference against the accused; even otherwise the
prosecution has to stand on its own legs by proving the case, at the cost of repetition,
beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.
56. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the

prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and it is not for the
accused to disprove the case against him who may take any and as many
defenses as he likes to the allegations against him as the onus rests on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt as was held in the case
of Muhammad Shah v. State (2010 SCMR 1009) and if there is any doubt in the
prosecution’s case the benefit must go to the accused. As was held in the case of
Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) that if there is a single circumstance,
which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused,
then the accused will be entitled to the benefit and as a matter of grace and
concession -as a matter of right. Such principle was recently reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Jabbar v. State (2019 SCMR 129)”.
57. In sequel to para-23 & 24 of this judgment regarding gruesome nature of the
incident and popularity attached to this case, it may be noted that Courts despite being
41
main component of criminal justice system can only act upon evidence and material
presented before them, which is to be collected by the executive. Courts cannot be
blamed if the executive/police fail in their duty. Evidence collected by executive/police
must be evaluated according to the laws and rules and judicial standards. Government
has to ensure that cogent evidence to support prosecution is collected and presented in
the court (reference Karachi Badamni case PLD 2011 SC 997). Since the sufficient
evidence in terms of reliability, cohesion, trustworthiness has not been collected nor
produced regarding happening of incident of abduction of abductees Hazrat Ali,
Muhammad Qasim and deceased Naqeebullah, no sufficient reliable evidence beyond
reasonable shadow of doubts regarding participation of the present accused in the fake
police encounter and their sharing of common intention with absconding accused is
produced, the right of benefit of doubt cannot be withheld even in high profile cases
like this one.
58. Corollary to the what has been at length discussed above so also having
crept in evidence summarily at the cost of repetition to say namely (i) unexplained long
delay in registering the FIR therefore weighs highly against the prosecution case (Zafar
v. State 2018 SCMR 326), (ii) no role assigned to the accused during identification
parade (Mian Suhail Ahmed v. State 2019 SCMR 952) (iii) no description of accused
undergone through identification parade found in FIR nor in statement of witnesses
U/S 161 Cr.P.C regarding their feature, complexion, exact height, age etc. (iv) dishonest
improvement made to bring the version in line with prosecution case, (v) date of
incident whether to be 3rd, 4th and/or 5th January is not sure to the witnesses including
abductee PW-3 and PW-6; (vi) belated statement of PWs U/S 161 Cr.P.C, (vii) no
independent witness and natural witness produced from Agha Sher Hotel regarding
the incident of abduction, (viii) no CDR of cell number of deceased Naqeebullah and
abductee was produced despite cell phone per FIR of deceased Naqeebullah was
switched off (ix) material contradiction found regarding release of abductee in terms
of date and place, (x) no CDR of police party accused that are alleged to have abducted
the PWs was produced. (xi) no tracker record of police mobile vehicles despite installed
collected, (xii) no witness has identified any accused with the role of his presence at
Sachal police post when they went for release of deceased Naqeebullah except accused
Akbar, (xiii) the abductees have not stated the role of any accused nor identified any
accused to be present during their three day detention at police post (xiv) none of the
present accused is alleged any direct role in the incident of murder (xv) CDR of present
accused is not proved in accordance with law (xvi) CD containing press conference
without examining the maker and news person is inadmissible (ref. para-68 of St. V.
Ahmed Omar Shaikh 2021 SCMR 873 (xvii) even otherwise CDR of accused Rao Anwar
42
shows his arrival at crime scene after the incident was over (xviii) PW-11 has supported
the version of accused Rao Anwar that he reached after the incident (xix) the first police
party i.e PW-16 author of inquest report and memo of dead body so also PW-17 who
accompanied PW-16 immediately at crime scene have not deposed about the presence
of any present accused but absconding accused (xx) PW-05 and PW-35 said to be
eyewitnesses are chance witnesses without having established their presence (xxi) ----
evasive identification of accused by PWs during trial (xxii) no evidence of pre-planned
meeting, planning and conspiracy to prove the common intention of the present
accused with absconding accused lead this court to inescapable conclusion that
prosecution has completely failed to prove the incident of abduction and captivity
whereas charge of murder against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable shadow
of doubt coupled with other contradictions, defects in prosecution’s case not discussed
and reproduced lest case against absconding accused should prejudice;
59. It is universal law as well as of Islamic jurisprudence regarding benefit of

doubt that “Mistake of Qazi (judge) in releasing a criminal was better than his mistake
in punishing an innocent” (Ayub Masih v. State PLD 2002 SC 1048). It has time and
again been held by the Superior Courts that benefit of any slightest doubt must go to
the accused not as matter of grace, but matter of right.
60. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant with
all due reverence are distinguishable of facts and circumstances of this case.
Point No.7.
61. I am of the considered view that the prosecution since has failed to bring
home guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and for giving benefit of doubt
to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating
doubt. One single circumstance leading towards the real doubt is sufficient to acquit the
accused. I, therefore, extend benefit of doubt to accused Anwar Ahmed Khan @ Rao
Anwar S/o Nisar Ahmed Khan, 2.Qamar Ahmed Shaikh S/o Pervez Ahmed Shaikh,
3.Muhammad Yaseen S/o Ahmed Yar, 4.Superd Hussain S/o Ghulam Hussain, 5.Syed
Raees Abbas S/o Syed Manzer Hussain, 6.Khizer Hayat S/o Noor Muhammad present
on bail whereas accused 7.Allah Yar Kaka S/o Jumma Khan, 8.Muhammad Iqbal S/o
Ahmed Yar, 9.Arshad Ali S/o Mazher Ali, 10.Ghulam Nazuk S/o Ghulam Akbar,
11.Abdul Ali S/o Allah Bachayo, 12.Shafiq Ahmed S/o Shafi Muhammad,
13.Muhammad Anar S/o Umar Hayat, 14.Ali Akbar S/o Muhammad Siddiq, 15.Faisal
Mehmood S/o Muhammad Naib, 16.Khair Muhammad S/o Jamaluddin, 17.Syed
Imran Kazmi S/o Syed Masood Raza Kazmi, 18.Shakeel Feroz S/o Ferozuddin,
43
present in custody; acquit them from the above cases under Section 265-H(i)Cr.P.C.
Accused produced in custody are remanded back to jail with a direction to release them
forthwith, if not required in any other custody case. Whereas the accused on bail, their
bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Issue perpetual warrant against
absconding accused 1.Amanullah Marwat S/o Saeedullah Khan, 2.Gadda Hussain S/o
Faiz Muhammad Sergani, 3.Mohsin Abbas S/o Noor Zaman, 4.Sadaqat Hussain Shah
S/o Ghulam Hussain Hamdani, 5.Raja Shamim Mukhtar S/o Raja Mukhtar Hussain,
6.Rana Riaz Ahmed S/o Fayaz Ahmed, 7.Shaikh Muhammad Shoaib @ Shoaib
Shooter S/o Shaikh Asghar Ali through SHO concerned.
62. The copy of this judgment be given to the accused, APG and the
judgment & R&Ps be sent to the Hon’ble High Court of Sindh as required u/s 25(2) of
ATA 1997.
63. Announced in open court.
64. Given under my hand and the seal of this Court

on this 23rd day of January, 2023.
(Rashid Mustafa Solangi)

Judge
Anti-Terrorism Court No.XVI
Karachi.
PROPERTY ORDER
The case property viz. pistol, empties and particles of hand grenade be deposited in
District Armory of concerned District of Karachi or in Malkhana through
Investigation Officer, to be produced in the competent court of law when/if
absconder accused are arrested, whereas personal belongings if any be returned to
accused, after proper verification, after lapse of appeal period, under intimation to
this court
(Rashid Mustafa Solangi)

Judge
Anti-Terrorism Court No.XVI
Karachi.

Naqeebullah Mehsud Murder Case Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Naqeebullah Mehsud Murder Case Judgment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Naqeebullah Mehsud Murder Case Judgment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What is the judgment of the court?

What is the judgment of the court?

Judgt of Spl. Case No.323, 627 and 628 of 2018.

The State V/s SSP Rao Anwar Ahmed Khan @ Others

IN THE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO:XVI, KARACHI.

Special Case No.323/2018

1. Anwar Ahmed Khan @ Rao Anwar S/o Nisar Ahmed Khan

7. Allah Yar Kaka S/o Jumma Khan

1. Amanullah Marwat S/o Saeedullah Khan

FIR: No. 40/2018

FIR: No. 142/2018

2. Facts of the prosecution case arising out of FIR No.40/2018 of PS Sachal

It is submitted that I Muhammad Khan son of Mama Asal resident of

01. Direct evidence of abduction of abductees and deceased.

Name of PWs and Nature of his Document Produced

(ii) PW-03 Muhammad Qasim (i).memo of inspection of place of incident at

(i) PW-04 Shaheen Zaman (ii) PW-07 Saif-u-Rehman (MNA) examined

(iii) PW-13 Afsar Khan (iv) PW-14 Taj Muhammad (Businessman)

(i).PW-11 Shahzadah Jahangir (Ex. (ii).PW-15 HC Zia Uddin examined at Ex-45.

(ii).PW-42 Jaffer Khan examined (i)Order of investigation in Distt. Bahawalpur,

05. Authors of FIRS

(i).PW-02 Inspector/SHO Syed (i).departure entry at Ex-28/A, (ii).letter to

06. Evidence of Arrest, interrogation and pointation and/or of visit

(i).PW-09 SIP Amir examined (i).memo of place of incident, pointation and

(ii).PW-21 SIP Mukhtiar Ahmed (i).departure at Ex-54/A, (ii).memo of arrest of

07. Evidence related to CDR and CD containing news clips

(i).PW-08 Inspector/SHO Ihsan (i).memo of recovery of CD of ARY News at

(ii).PW-26 Inspector Muhammad (i).memo of possession of CDR at Ex-61/A, list

08. IOs of the Case

(ii).PW-43 SP Muhammad Irfan (i). departure and arrival entries at Ex-87/A to

(iii).PW-50 Abid Hussain (i).order of investigation at Ex-103/A, memo

(iv).PW-51 Dr. Rizwan Ahmed (i).Human Rights case No.1949-K of 2018

09. Labs related evidence

(i).PW-48 Farhaj Bukhari, (i).FSL report at Ex-99/A, letter to Incharge

8. The points for determinations in the instant case are as under:-

1. Whether 1.Naseebullah @ Naqeebullah S/o Muhammad Khan,

2. Whether on 3rd or 4th January 2018 deceased Naseebullah @

3. Whether the deceased Naqeebullah, Hazrat Ali and

4. Whether present accused on 13.01.2018 directly participated in

5. Whether present accused have added or abated the killing of

6. Whether the present accused have the weapon and explosive

7. What should the judgment be?

9. My findings to the above points and reasons thereto are as under:

Point No.1……………….….In affirmative.

a. The incident of abduction of abductee Hazrat Ali, Muhammad

b. The identification parade is effectively conducted against six

c. That circumstantial evidence in shape of CDR is auto-

d. The incident of murder is fully supported with medical

e. The disposal of FIRs bearing crime No.17 to 21 of 2018 into B-

f. Minor discrepancies and contradictions are natural, hence the

g. The common intention of all accused despite their no direct

h. He has argued that in cases of fake police encounter strict

i. The accused initially remained fugitive which is also a

a) There is no direct evidence against the accused, the only

a) The CDR produced per him is not supported through

a. That no features of the accused and their description in terms of

b. The identification parade was conducted on 14.02.2018 whereas