Judgment Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Jail Appeal No. D – 113 of 2013

Conf. Case No. D – 08 of 2013

 

 

Before :

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho

 

 

Date of hearing                    :           25.09.2019.

 

Date of announcement      :           10.10.2019.

 

 

Mr. A. R. Faruq Pirzada, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Shahid Ali K. Memon, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General.

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J. – Farooque son of Gaji, appellant and Malhoo were tried by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo in Sessions Case No.222/2005. After regular trial, vide judgment dated 10.12.2013, appellant Farooque and Malhoo were convicted under Sections 147, 148, PPC for two years R.I and to pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) each, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of the default in the payment of the fine, they were ordered to suffer S.I for one month. Appellant Farooque and Malhoo were also convicted under Section 452, PPC for five years R.I and to pay the fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) each, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of the default thereof, they were ordered to suffer S.I for three months. Both accused were also convicted under Section 337‑H(2) for 06 months R.I and to pay the fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), to be paid to the complainant; in case of the default thereof, they were ordered to suffer S.I for two months more. Accused Farooque Chandio was also convicted under Section 302(b) read with Section 149, PPC as Ta’zir and sentenced to death. However, death sentence was subject to confirmation by this Court. Appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac), to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544‑A, Cr.P.C; in case of the default in the payment of the compensation, he was ordered to suffer S.I for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Trial Court extended the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C to the accused.

2.         Prosecution case as unfolded at trial is that present incident occurred on 13.09.2005 at 04:00 p.m. On the day of incident, complainant Rahzan alias Raza Muhammad along with his nephew Paroo and relatives Mir Khan and Ali Muhammad was present in the house of his nephew. It is alleged that at 04:00 p.m. accused Farooque son of Gaji, Gaji son of Wadhyo, Malhoo and Mustoo both sons of Aadit, Ramzan son of Jumo and Khushhal son of Ali along with one unidentified person trespassed to the house. Out of them, it is stated that Ramzan was armed with gun and rest of the accused were armed with Kalashnikovs. It is further stated that accused Gaji instigated co-accused Farooque, not to spare Paroo, nephew of the complainant. At his instigation accused Farooque fired from his Kalashnikov; the fire hit to Paroo, and he fell down and accused went away while making aerial firing. Complainant party saw that deceased had received firearm injury at his left belly. Paroo succumbed to the injuries at spot. Thereafter, dead body was taken to Taluka Hospital, Ubauro where complainant made to sit PWs over the dead body of his nephew. He went to the Police Station Ubauro, District Ghotki and lodged the report. It was recorded vide Crime No.118/2005 for offences under Sections 302, 452, 147, 149, 337-H(2), 504, 114, PPC.

3.         ASI Haji Muhammad started the investigation of the case. He proceeded to Taluka Hospital, Ubauro, inspected the dead body and prepared the inquest report in presence of the mashirs. He noted firearm injury on the left side of abdomen of the deceased; it was through and through. Thereafter, the dead body was referred to the Medical Officer through PC Khaleel Ahmed for conducting the postmortem examination and report. Investigation Officer visited the place of wardat at 2300 hours, on the pointation of the complainant, in presence of the mashirs and secured ten (10) empty shells of 7.62, collected bloodstained earth and sealed the same at spot. Empty shells and bloodstained earth were dispatched to the experts for their reports. Inspector Aftab Hussain conducted further investigation of the crime. He arrested accused Farooque and Malhoo on 03.10.2005 at 1340 hours in presence of mashirs PCs Imran Ali and Mukhtiar Ali, and prepared such mashirnama. I.O recorded 161, Cr.P.C statements of the PWs. On 12.10.2015, during interrogation, accused Farooque prepared to produce crime weapon used by him in the commission of the offence and led police party to his otaq and produced Kalashnikov. It was secured by the Investigation Officer in presence of the mashirs. Accused stated that it was without permit / license. Accused and case property were brought at the police station where he lodged an FIR against the accused on behalf of the State vide Crime No.140/2005 under Section 13(e), Arms Ordinance, 1965. On 13.10.2005, Investigation Officer produced the accused before the Ist Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Ubauro where his confessional statement was recorded. However, accused Gaji, Malhoo, Mustoo, Ramzan and Khushhal were let off by the police during investigation and their names were placed in column No.2 of the challan. On the conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted against accused Farooque under Sections 302, 452, 147, 504, 149, 114, 337-H(2) PPC.

4.         Trial Court joined accused Malhoo and framed the charge against accused Farooque and Malhoo at Ex.02. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.         At the trial, prosecution examined ten (10) PWs. Thereafter, prosecution side was closed.

6.         Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant Farooque denied the prosecution allegations and raised plea that crime weapon has been foisted upon him. Regarding Judicial confession, it is stated that it was obtained by force and coercion. In reply to the question No.11, appellant has replied as under:

“ Yes Sir. I am innocent and not committed the alleged offence. Sir prior one day of above incident I had gone to village Sharif Dist. Rahimyar Khan and stayed at the Oataque of Soomar Abbasi, where I stayed at night as his guest and left the Oataque of my friend Soomar on 13‑9-2005 at 05:00 P.M. and came to my village, where D.W Amin Chandio informed me that Paroo Dashti was murdered by thief. Sir co-accused Malhoo is brother of my sister. We have been falsely implicated in this case due to “Karap” allegation. I pray for justice. ”

            Accused Farooque did not examine himself on oath, however, he has examined in defence DWs Soomar Khan and Muhammad Ameen. Accused Malhoo had also denied the prosecution allegation, but he did not lead any evidence and declined to give statement on oath.

7.         Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of the evidence, vide judgment dated 10.12.2013, convicted both accused and sentenced as stated above. Trial Court made Reference to this Court for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant Farooque.

8.         By this single judgment, we intend to decide the appeal filed by Farooque appellant and confirmation Reference made by the trial Court.

9.         The facts of this case as well as evidence find and elaborate mention in the judgment of the trial Court and, therefore, same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.

10.       Mr. A. R. Faruq Pirzada, learned advocate for appellant Farooque argued that appellant was minor at the time of commission of the offence, but unfortunately, such plea was not raised by him during the investigation as well as during the trial. Mr. Pirzada further submitted that the appellant had filed bail application before this Court and had raised plea that he was minor at the time of offence, and medical board was constituted to determine his age and medical board opined on 24.07.2012 that appellant was aged about 16/17 years. It is submitted that it was the case of juvenile offender, but this legal aspect was not considered by the trial Court. So far the merits of the case are concerned, it is argued that ocular evidence is contradictory to the medical evidence, with regard to the distance from which fires were made upon the deceased. It is submitted that complainant and PWs were closely related to the deceased and their evidence required independent corroboration, which is lacking in this case. Mr. Pirzada argued that confession of the accused was recorded after nine (09) days of his arrest; such confessional statement was not true and voluntary. It is argued that motive, as setup in the FIR, has not been established at the trial; that recovery mashirs of the Kalashnikov were not independent and respectable persons of the locality; that prosecution has failed to prove recovery of the Kalashnikov through the independent mashirs. Lastly, it is contended that in case, the Court is not convinced from his arguments to acquit the accused Farooque, then death sentence may be converted to the imprisonment for life. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases reported as Javaid Iqbal v. The State (1982 SCMR 447), WAPDA and 2 others v. Muhammad Hussain Gul (1993 SCMR 2337), Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Haleem alias Humayun and others (2004 SCMR 218), Rehmat Ullah alias Raja v. Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and others (2004 SCMR 1861), Abdul Malik and another v. The State and others (2008 SCMR 61), Malik Sajjad Ahmad v. The State and another (2006 P.Cr.L.J 211), Muhammad Raheel alias Shafique v. The State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 145), Hamzo and another v. The State (1983 P.Cr.L.J 892), Muhammad Israr and another v. The State (2002 P.Cr.L.J 1072), Manzur v. The State (PLD 1973 Lahore 714), Yousif v. The State (PLD 1988 Karachi 521), Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat son of Hadait Ullah (PLD 2019 SC 527), Sarfraz alias Shaffa v. The State and 3 others (2007 SMCR 758), Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 777), Umar Hayat v. Jahangir and another (2002 SCMR 629), Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25), Syed Abdul Baqi Shah v. The State (1997 SCMR 32), Papu alias Akbar v. The State (1993 P.Cr.L.J 1011), Sohail Iqbal v. The State (1993 SCMR 2377) and Muhammad Ali, ETC v. The State (2002 AC 435).

11.       Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General assisted by Mr. Shahid Ali K. Memon, advocate for the complainant, argued that accused Farooque was aged about 16/17 years at the time of occurrence; now, he is aged about 29 years. Ocular evidence was corroborated by medical evidence. It is further argued that confessional statement of accused was true and voluntary; that prosecution has proved its case against the accused but failed to prove motive at trial. Learned Additional P.G submitted that death sentence may be converted to the imprisonment for life. Learned Additional P.G relied upon the cases reported as Muhammad Akram and others v. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed and others (2006 SCMR 1496) and Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 777).

            Additional Prosecutor General further pointed out that accused Malhoo had filed appeal against his conviction and sentence, but during the pendency of the appeal, after undergoing the sentence, he was released and appeal has been dismissed as not pressed.

12.       We have carefully heard the learned advocate for the appellant and learned Assistant Prosecutor General assisted by learned advocate for the complainant and perused the evidence minutely.

13.       Dr. Liaqat Ali has deposed that on 13.09.2005, he was posted as Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital, Ubauro. On the same date, he received the dead body of Paroo son of Thalho aged about 28 years for conducting the postmortem examination. Medical Officer started postmortem examination at 09:00 p.m. and finished it at 10:30 p.m. On the external examination of the dead body, Medical Officer found following injuries:

“ Injury No.1/A: Lacerated punctured wound measuring 1 cm x diameter margins inverted, blackening and charring present at left iliac region of abdomen (wound of entrance).

Injury No.1/B: Lacerated punctured wound measuring 1.5 cm x diameter margins everted at upper part of lateral aspect of right buttock, wound is through and through (wound of exit). ”

            On internal examination, Medical Officer found the damages in the large and small intestine. From the external as well as internal examination of the dead body, Medical Officer was of the opinion that death had occurred due to shock and hemorrhage, and injury was caused by discharge from the firearm. The probable time elapsed between injury and death was two hours and time elapsed between death and postmortem examination was about six hours. From the evidence of the Medical Officer, it is established that the deceased had sustained injury by means of the firearm. Ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence as discussed above.

14.       Complainant Rahzan alias Raza Muhammad (PW-1) has deposed that present incident took place in the house of the deceased Paroo on 13.09.2005 at 04:00 p.m. At the time of incident, he along with his nephew Paroo (now deceased) and relatives Mir Khan and Ali Muhammad were sitting in the house of his nephew. At 04:00 p.m., accused persons namely Farooque, Gaji, Malhoo, Mustoo, Ramzan, Khushhal and one unidentified person trespassed into the house. Out of them, Ramzan was armed with gun while rest accused were armed with Kalashnikovs. He has further deposed that appellant Farooque at the instigation of accused Gaji fired upon his nephew Paroo and fire of Kalashnikov hit him and he fell down. Accused while abusing and making aerial firing ran away. Complainant party saw that Paroo had sustained firearm injury at his left belly and it was through and through, and he was dead. Thereafter, dead body was taken to the hospital. Complainant while leaving the witnesses over the dead body, in the hospital went to the police station and lodged an FIR. It was recorded vide Crime No.118/2005 under Sections 302, 452, 147, 149, 337-H(2), 504, 114, PPC. Complainant has produced it before the trial Court at Ex.5/A.

15.       Mir Khan (PW-2) was also eyewitness of the incident. He has given the entire episode of the incident as narrated by the complainant, and clearly stated that the appellant fired upon deceased Paroo and fire hit him, and he died at spot. Thereafter, dead body was taken to the hospital. Complainant made him to sit over the dead body and went to the police station and lodged the FIR.

16.       Case was partly investigated by ASI Haji Muhammad. He had inspected place of wardat and secured 10 empties of 7.62, collected bloodstained earth from the place of wardat, prepared inquest report, dispatched dead body to the hospital for conducting the postmortem examination report. Rest of the evidence has been collected by SIP Aftab Hussain. He arrested the accused on 03.10.2005. He had recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of the PWs on 04.10.2005. On 12.10.2005, Investigation Officer interrogated accused Farooque Chandio, who prepared to produce Kalashnikov used by him in the offence and led police party and produced Kalashnikov from his otaq in presence of the mashirs; it was sealed at spot. He dispatched the weapon to the ballistic expert for the report. He had also produced accused before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Ubauro for recording his confessional statement. Both Investigation Officers denied the suggestion that appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Mashirs of arrest and recovery have also supported the case of prosecution.

17.       Mr. Muhammad Islam-ul-Haq (PW-6) has deposed that on 13.10.2005, he was posted as Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Ubauro. On the same date, SIP / IO Aftab Hussain Farooqi produced before him accused Farooque son of Gaji Chandio for recording his confessional statement in Crime No.118/2005 of P.S Ubauro. He removed the handcuffs of the accused and provided him two hours’ time for reflection from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Thereafter, put up certain questions in order to satisfy whether accused was making confession voluntarily or under some inducement. After satisfaction, he recorded the confession of the accused and produced it at Ex.12/B. He categorically stated that confession of the accused was true and voluntarily.

18.       We have carefully examined the respective contentions as adduced on behalf of the appellant and for State in the light of evidence brought on record by the prosecution and defence theory in juxtaposition. A careful scrutiny of the entire evidence would reveal that prosecution case mainly hinges on the ocular account furnished by complainant Rahzan alias Raza Muhammad and PW Mir Khan, medical evidence, positive reports of the ballistic and chemical examiners and confession of accused Farooque. After having an in depth scrutiny of the eye account furnished by above named eyewitnesses, it can be inferred safely that they were trustworthy and their statements have rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court. It is worth-mentioning that they have highlighted each and every aspect of the tragic incident occurred in the house and stood firm to the test of cross-examination and nothing advantageous could be elicited rendering any help to the case of appellant. There are neither any glaring contradictions in their statements nor any dishonest exaggeration. Contention of the defence counsel that medical evidence is contradictory to the ocular evidence with regard to the distance from which fire was made, deep scrutiny of evidence reflects that there is no such contradiction as Medical Officer has opined that deceased had charring and blackening. Eyewitnesses have deposed that fire was made from the distance of 03/04 feet. Learned counsel for appellant was asked to mention the specific glaring contradictions but he could not point out any contradiction which can be termed as a major contradiction. It is an admitted position that with the passage of the time and the PWs having background of the village, minor contradictions do creep which can be ignored safely. Inter se relationship of complainant Rahzan alias Raza Muhammad (PW-1) and eyewitness Mir Khan (PW-2) is not disputed but merely on the basis of inter se relationship, the statements of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded because it is not the relationship but the intrinsic value of the evidence which matters. It is well-settled by now that interested witness is one who has a motive to falsely implicate an accused or has some enmity which was never alleged seriously. There is no rule of law that statement of the interested witness cannot be taken into consideration without corroboration and even uncorroborated version can be relied upon if supported by the surrounding circumstances. Reliance is placed upon the case of Khadim Hussain v. The State (2010 SCMR 1090).

19.       Confessional statement before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Ubauro (PW-6), though retracted subsequently present formidable piece of evidence. After having been administered warnings and cautions, statement has been recorded. It is found by us as voluntary, natural and truthful with relevant details compatible with salient features of the case. The fact that appellant was for nine (09) days in police custody does not lead to the conclusion that he was tortured. Remaining of accused persons for some time in police custody does not affect their judicial confessions as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada v. Sohbat Khan and 3 others, The State v. Sohabat Khan and 2 others (PLD 1972 Supreme Court 363). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

“ It may be noted that the learned trial Judge and the High Court have discarded the judicial confessions on the ground that they had been in the police custody for sometime before they were produced before him for getting their confessions recorded and that they were not asked question as to how long they had been in the police custody and why they had been chosen to get their confessions recorded. In our opinion, the reasons given by the learned trial Court and the High Court on this point are unsatisfactory. The fact that Sohbat Khan was for some time in the police custody does not lead to the conclusion that he was tutored. Remaining of accused persons for some time in police custody does not effect their judicial confessions. Mr. Azazuddin, A. C. M., who recorded the statements has clearly stated in his statement that full opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the circumstances in which they were giving their statements and complied with the pro forma which was available for recording the judicial confessions. This shows that the confessions were made voluntarily. ”

            In the view of evidence available on the record and respectfully relying upon above cited authority, we have no hesitation to hold that confession made by the accused Farooque was true and voluntary.

20.       As regards to the contention of learned advocate for appellant Farooque that accused was aged about 16/17 years at the time of commission of the offence as per report of the Medical Board held during the hearing of his bail application, plea that accused was minor was neither raised during investigation nor during trial. However, Mr. Pirzada submits that at present, age of appellant would be 29/30 years. In the above circumstances, proper course for this Court is to decide the case on merits while keeping in view the contentions of Mr. Pirzada that appellant was aged about 16/17 years at the time of commission of offence. In the case of Muhammad Akram and others v. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed and others (2006 SCMR 1496), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that High Court awarded lesser sentence to the accused for the reasons that at the time of recording of his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., his age was 20/21 years, which came to be about 17/18 years at the time of occurrence and lesser penalty awarded by the trial Court was found proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:

“ 7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions and the learned State Counsel. The trial Court as well as the High Court after due appreciation of the prosecution evidence, believed the presence and statements of the complainant Muhammad Akram P.W.10 and Mushtaq Ahmed P.W.11 as natural witnesses. Both of them were proved to be going towards the coach stand in order to see Abdul Sattar and others in jail who were involved in the murder case of Ghulam Muhammad, father of the convict-respondent Mushtaq Ahmed. The case was reported with the police promptly. The medical evidence also supported the ocular version of the case. The occurrence took place inside the shop of Ghulam Rasool and the eye-witnesses were standing on the other side of the road as per site plan (Exh.P.A.). The High Court rightly observed that it was not possible for the eye-witnesses from that distance to say with exactitude as to which of the respondents had fired a fatal shot at the deceased. The High Court awarded lesser sentence to Kashmir respondent for the reason that at the time of recording of his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. his age was 20/21 years which came to be about 17/18 years at the time of occurrence. The discretion exercised by the High Court in awarding lesser penalty to the respondents was proper and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, albeit the offence against them stood proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. These are not fit cases for grant of leave to appeal. ”

21.       We would have ordinarily remanded the matter back to the trial Court to hold a proper inquiry in the matter and to determine the question of the convict's age afresh but since some other material is available on record which offers a valid ground to sustain a sentence of imprisonment for life and not to award the normal penalty of death to Farooque convict in case his conviction is maintained. Therefore, in order to avoid further delay, we have decided to dispose of the matter on its present record. Reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 777).

22.       After close scrutiny of the evidence, we have come to conclusion that complainant and PWs had witnessed the incident for the reasons that they were residing in the same village and it was day time incident. Both parties are known to each other. Ocular evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence. No doubt, as per report of the Medical Board, age of the accused at the time of incident was 16/17 years, which requires lesser penalty in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, motive as setup by the prosecution in the FIR has also not been established at trial. Law is settled by now that if prosecution asserts the motive but fails to prove the same, then such failure on the part of the prosecution may let against the sentence of death passed by the trial Court and reference in this respect may be made to the recent Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State and others (2018 SCMR 911). Relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:

“ 4.      I have particularly attended to the sentence of death passed against the appellant and have noticed in that context that the motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established. According to the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant the motive was based upon borrowing of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant from the deceased and on the issue of repayment of that loan a heated exchange had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. Mst. Sadiqa Bibi complainant (PW2) was the only witness produced by the prosecution regarding the alleged motive but in her deposition made before the trial court the complainant had admitted that the appellant and the deceased were on very good and friendly terms, no date or time of borrowing of the relevant amount by the appellant from the deceased had been specified by the complainant, the complainant was not present when the money had been borrowed by the appellant from the deceased, no date, time or place of the altercation taking place between the appellant and the deceased over repayment of the borrowed amount had been specified by the complainant and admittedly the complainant was not present when the said altercation had taken place. In these circumstances it is quite obvious to me that the motive asserted by the prosecution had remained utterly unproved. The law is settled by now that if the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Ahmad Nawaz v. The State (2011 SCMR 593), Iftikhar Mehmood and another v. Qaiser Iftikhar and others (2011 SCMR 1165), Muhammad Mumtaz v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 267), Muhammad Imran alias Asif v. The State (2013 SCMR 782), Sabir Hussain alias Sabri v. The State (2013 SCMR 1554), Zeeshan Afzal alias Shani and another v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 1602), Naveed alias Needu and others v. The State and others (2014 SCMR 1464), Muhammad Nadeem Waqas and another v. The State (2014 SCMR 1658), Muhammad Asif v. Muhammad Akhtar and others (2016 SCMR 2035) and Qaddan and others v. The State (2017 SCMR 148). After going through the entire record of the case from cover to cover and after attending to different aspects of this case I have found that although it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased yet the story of the prosecution has many inherent obscurities ingrained therein. It is intriguing as to why the appellant would bring her four months old baby-boy to the spot and put the baby-boy on the floor and then start belabouring the deceased with a dagger in order to kill her. I have, thus, entertained no manner of doubt that the real cause of occurrence was something different which had been completely suppressed by both the parties to the case and that real cause of occurrence had remained shrouded in mystery. Such circumstances of this case have put me to caution in the matter of the appellant's sentence and in the peculiar circumstances of the case I have decided to withhold the sentence of death passed against the appellant. ”

23.       For what has been discussed above, this appeal is dismissed to the extent of appellant’s conviction for offence under Section 302 (b), PPC, but the same is partly allowed to the extent of his death sentence, which is reduced to the imprisonment for life. The benefit under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C shall be extended to the appellant. Reference made by the trial Court for confirmation of death sentence is answered in negative.

24.       The appeal and confirmation Reference are disposed of in the above terms.

 

 

J U D G E

 

J U D G E

Abdul Basit