HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.09 of 2007

Confirmation Case No.03 of 2007

Present:

Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto

Mr. Justice Ghulam Qadir Laghari

J U D G M E N T

Appellant: Asadullah son of Mehmood, through Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Qazi, Advocate

Respondent: The State through Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh.

Complainant: Rahmatullah through Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Memon, advocate

Date of hearing: 03/05/2016

Date of announcement: 12/05/2016

NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.--- Asadullah appellant was tried by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.I, Karachi for offences under sections 7(a) and (e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. By judgment dated 31.03.2007 appellant was convicted under sections 7(e) and (a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced to death on two counts. Forfeiture of his moveable and immovable properties to the extent of Rs.1,000,000/- was ordered. For offence under section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 fine of Rs.1,000,000/- was imposed, in case of default in payment of fine, appellant was ordered to suffer R.I. for six months and for offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000,000/- to legal heirs of deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.PC or in default of payment thereof to undergo SI for six months. Death sentence awarded to the appellant was subject to confirmation by this Court. Appellant challenged conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that complainant was a transporter. On 27.04.2006, he had gone to his work. He received telephonic information from his house that his daughter, namely, Laiba, aged about 2 ½ years (now deceased) was missing from the street near the house. Search for baby was made. Announcements in the Masjid(s) were also made but without any result. It is alleged that on 28.04.2006 at 0056 hours complainant was contacted by a caller on his mobile Cell No.0300-9250662 from the Cell No.0301-6960785, ransom of Rs.1,500,000/- was demanded from the complainant for the safe return of the baby, else threat was issued that his daughter would be sold to Sheikhs. Demand of the ransom was repeated by the caller on PTCL No.6647452. Thereafter, it is alleged that complainant was contacted several times by the culprits. On 28.04.2006 culprits reduced demand of ransom to Rs.1,000,000/-. In the meanwhile, complainant reported the matter to police station Taimuria against the unknown persons and SIP Sami Jan was assigned investigation by SSP, AVCC, Karachi. As there were negotiations between the complainant and the culprits and ransom was finally settled as Rs.300,000/. Complainant was asked by the culprits to put the ransom in a car at Rahmat-e-Alam Masjid street in Arfat Town, North Nazimabad, Karachi. Complainant had withdrawn money from United Bank Limited and noted number of first note of each packet. Ransom amount was taken by the culprits from the car parked at the pointed place. Complainant was informed that baby was available at TMC Ground, Gulberg, Karachi. When the complainant reached there, he found the dead body of his baby and the complainant took the dead body to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. After postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the complainant. Further statement of the complainant was recorded. IO examined PWs under section 161, Cr.PC. arrested accused Assadullah on 30.04.2006. On his pointation, ransom amount Rs.300,000/-, was recovered one mobile Nokia phone, Model 1100, cricket kit bag, three leg guard pads, one school neck tie, one school card of Kiran Academy of accused Assadullah, a pair of chappal of victim baby Laiba were also recovered from his house. IO inspected place of wardat from where baby was kidnapped for ransom and place from where the ransom amount was taken from the car. IO also inspected place where the dead body of the baby was thrown. Motorcycle bearing No.KBK-4640 and its documents were also secured. Confession of accused was recorded on 09.05.2006 before Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Karachi (Central).

3. On the conclusion of investigation, challan was submitted against the accused before learned Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Courts, Karachi on 12.05.2006. Case was transferred to the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Karachi, for disposal according to law.

4. Charge was framed against accused at Ex-4. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. At trial, prosecution examined Mr. Muhammad Aamir, Judicial Magistrate (PW-1), Dr. Yasmeen Qamar, WMO (PW-2), Zahoor Ahmed, Senior MLO (PW-3), Rehmatullah (PW-4), Abdul Mateen (PW-5), Muhammad Siraj (PW-6), Abdul Wahid (PW-7), Ameerullah (PW-8), Irfan (PW-9), ASI Taghafur Ali (PW-10), Syed Rasool (PW-11), SIP Zaheer Behzad (PW-12), Muhammad Faisal Zai (PW-13), Inspector Khuda Bux (PW-14), HC Muhammad Raees (PW-15),

6. Thereafter, case was transferred to learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi. Learned Judge, perused the charge at Ex-4 and found it defective, vide orders 11.12.2006 ordered for framing the amended charge and amended charge was framed on 14.12.2006 at Ex-4/1.

7. Learned advocate for complainant submitted an application for cross-examination of PW-7 Abdul Wahid and PW-8 Amirullah after amendment of the charge. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 14.12.2006. Prosecution witnesses Abdul Wahid and Amirullah were cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.

8. Statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.PC at Ex-52 on 19.12.2006. Further statement of accused was recorded on 29.03.2007 at Ex-52/A and question No.10 was put to accused for his explanation. Accused denied the prosecution allegations and he examined in defence Tahir Jawaid (DW-1), Tariq Khan (DW-2), Amroz Khan (DW-3), Ghulam Qadeem (DW-4). Learned advocate for accused closed side on behalf of accused vide his statement at Ex.58.

9. After hearing the learned advocate for accused Assadullah and Special Public Prosecutor, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above

10. We have carefully heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the evidence.

11. During pendency of appeal, appellant Assadullah entered into compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased baby and filed compromise application with the prayer to accept the compromise and acquit him. Report was called from trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 about the genuineness or otherwise of the compromise. Learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Karachi submitted report dated 05.01.2016, in which it is mentioned that compromise was genuine and appears to be voluntarily and without any duress.

12. At the outset, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that instead of pressing appeal on merits of appellant’s case, he only prays for reduction of his death sentence to imprisonment for life on the ground of compromise. He argued that there is compromise between the parties warranting reduction of appellant’s sentence. Mr. Kazi submitted that compromise in the case triable under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is a mitigating circumstance. In support of his contentions he relied upon the cases of Muhammad Nawaz versus The State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 383) and Shahid Zafar and 3 others versus The State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 809).

13. Learned A.P.G., assisted by learned advocate for the complainant conceded to above legal position in view of compromise between the parties for converting death sentence to imprisonment for life.

14. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal on merits and requested for reduction of death sentence to imprisonment for life on the ground of compromise, but we have to satisfy ourselves whether prosecution has proved its case against the accused, as we believe that it is the primary duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Complainant Rahmatullah (PW-04) is father of deceased baby Laiba. On 27-04-2006 at about 7.00 p.m. while he was in his office, he received a telephone call from home that the deceased baby Liaba was missing. He reached at his house and went to search the baby and returned back at 12.30 a.m., without any clue. At about 12.56 a.m. he received a telephone call from cell phone number 0301-6960785. The caller demanded ransom of Rs.15,00,000/- for release of baby Liaba. The complainant told the caller that he could pay only Rs.50,000/- and was not in a position to arrange more money at the odd hours of night. The caller threatened him to arrange money by morning. In the morning he went to CPLC where he reported the matter. The CPLC official gave him tape recorder for observing call recording. He further deposed that while he was returning to his house at 10.30 a.m. he received another call from PTCL number 6647452 and the same caller repeated his demand. He told him that he was trying to collect the money from his friends. At about 1.30 p.m. he again received call from cell number 0301-6960785. Complainant requested caller to reduce the amount to which he agreed and demanded Rs.3,00,000/-. He further deposed that while he was offering the Fajar prayer he received a missed call on his cell phone and after the prayer he verified the number which was same i.e. 0301-6960785. Therefore, he rang the caller and informed him that the cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- would be encashed from the bank at 9.00 a.m. He then went to bank to encash the cheque but before going to bank he informed the CPLC Officials who advised him to delay the delivery of ransom amount. After encashing the cheque at 10.00 a.m. when he returned to his house, he received call from the accused who advised him to bring the money at Peoples Chowrangi which was at a distance of about 15 minutes by car. The complainant proceeded to the said place and when he reached at Zafar House, North Nazimabad, he received call from the accused who informed him that instead of coming to Peoples Chowrangi the complainant should bring the money at Allah Wali Masjid situated at North Nazimabad and wait for him for 15 minutes. As directed, the complainant reached Allah Wali Masjid and after 15 minutes he received another call from accused who directed him to reach Rehmat-e-Aalam Masjid situated at Arfat Town North Nazimabad, when the complainant reached at said Masjid, he received a call from accused who told him to park the car at Masjid-e-Rehmat-e-Aalam and leave the money in the car and also unlock the car. The complainant did so. He was told by the accused that he should proceed ahead and should not look backwards the accused would come and collect the money and leave Baby Liaba in the car. Thereafter, the complainant left the car and went to the adjoining street and after 10 minutes the accused again called him and informed that baby Liaba was present at the TMC Ground Gulburg and the complainant should go there to have the baby. When he reached TMC Ground the accused informed on phone that there was a room constructed at the end of the ground wherein baby Liaba was present. The complainant went to that room and found the heap of garbage lying in that room, on which dead body of his daughter was lying. The dead body was wrapped in a cricket leg guard pad and was swollen. He further deposed that he informed his father on phone and when he returned back to the place where he had parked his car, he did not find the ransom amount in the car. He took the car and proceeded to TMC Ground and took dead body of his daughter and came at the road side where his father and brother had also reached. He further deposed that his father went to PS Gulburg whereas he took the dead body to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and after a few minutes Police also reached there and referred the dead body for Post-mortem Examination. After post-mortem, dead body was handed over to his father. He further deposed that in the evening he pointed out the police the places from where his daughter was kidnaped and place where dead body was found lying and place where he had parked his car. Thereafter, on 30.4.2006 police came to his house and enquired about accused Asadullah. He pointed out the house of Asadullah to police. When Asadullah came out of his house, police enquired from him about SIM Card No.0301-6960785 which was disowned by him however, when police called P.W. Abdul Wahid who also lived in the neighbourhood, accused Asadullah admitted that the said SIM card belonged to him and he had thrown the same in the gutter drain. Thereafter, on the pointation of Asadullah ransom amount wrapped in a T-Shirt lying in an Almirah lying in his house was recovered. Other articles were also recovered on his pointation. Complainant further deposed that during the search for his deceased daughter accused Asadullah was with him and his cousin Ameerullah (PW-8) has deposed that accused Asadullah is son of his father’s sister whereas complainant is his cousin. On 27.04.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. or 2.30 p.m. when he left his house for going to Sohrab Goth, he saw deceased baby Liaba in the lap of accused Asadullah who took her in his house. When he returned back from Sohrab Goth at 8.15 pm, he came to know about missing of baby Liaba. He informed complainant Rahmatullah the above facts, complainant did not suspect accused Asadullah. Abdul Mateen (PW-5) deposed that he was doing job of car washing. On 20.4.2006, while he was washing a taxi car, he found a SIM Card lying on the rear side of the car. At that time, his nephews Amanullah and Mohammad Siraj came to see him and he handed over the SIM card to them. Mohammad Siraj (PW-6) deposed that P.W. Abdul Mateen is his maternal uncle. On 20.4.2006, he alongwith his brother Amanullah went to meet Abdul Mateen who was washing a taxi car and he gave him a SIM card and told him that he had found the same from the rear portion of the taxi. He further deposed that he inserted the said SIM Card in his Cell Phone and found the number of SIM 0301-6960785 and he talked with his friend Shahid. Thereafter, he handed over the SIM card to his friend Abdul Wahid. Abdul Wahid (PW-7) deposed that accused Asadullah is his friend and resident of same Mohallah. P.W. Mohammad Siraj met him on 20.4.2006 and gave him a SIM card having No.0301-6960785. The said SIM card remained with him for two days and thereafter he handed over the same to accused Asadullah. After ten days, he came to know that Baby Laiba has been murdered. Irfan (PW-9) deposed that on 28.4.2006 accused Asad came at their PCO and asked him to leave him alone and sat outside as he wanted to use the telephone set of PCO. After using the telephone, Asadullah came out and paid charges of Rs.10/-. Syed Rasool (PW-11) deposed that on 29.04.2006 Baby Liaba disappeared. On the same day complainant informed him that dead body of Baby Liaba was lying at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. Police prepared inquest report as well as memo of inspection of dead body in his presence. Mohammad Faisal Zai (PW-13) deposed that on 27.4.2006 at about 3.00 p.m. accused Asadullah had hired a motorcycle from him and returned the same on the same day at 3.45 p.m. On 03.5.2006 SIP Sami Jan after enquiring about the hiring of motorcycle, took away the said motorcycle alongwith one page of the register containing entries of hired motorcycles. Sami Jan (PW-16) was the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that he went to the house of the complainant and then to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and came to know that the dead body after autopsy was handed over to complainant. He then inspected the place of incident, place from where the dead body was recovered and the place where the amount of ransom was paid and prepared such memos. On 30.4.2006 P.W. Abdul Wahid told him that SIM No.0301-6960785 was given by him to accused Asadullah. He asked the complainant to bring accused Asadullah who brought the accused before him and after interrogation the accused disclosed that he had thrown the said SIM in the drain. Accused also admitted that he had killed the baby on 27.4.2006 and also produced ransom amount, one neck tie, one kitbag, a pair of baby chappal, a set of mobile telephone and a school card. He arrested accused Asadullah and secured the said articles and prepared such memos in presence of mashirs. He further deposed that accused led him to Khan Autos and admitted that he had hired motorcycle from there. Accused also led IO to the place in TMC ground and pointed out place where he had thrown dead body of baby Laiba. Accused prepared to give confessional statement. IO produced him before the Magistrate who recorded his confessional statement. Mr. Muhammad Aamir (PW-1) Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time, recorded confessional statement of accused Asadullah. He deposed that on 09.5.2006 accused was produced before him, he removed his handcuffs and gave his custody to the court staff and police officials were asked to leave the courtroom. He then complied with all the formalities prescribed under the law. He also enquired from the accused as to whether he was subjected to maltreatment or given any threat or promise by anyone to extract confession which was denied by the accused. No marks of violence were found on the person of the accused. Magistrate then gave two hours’ time to the accused for reflection, during that period nobody had any access to the accused. He further deposed that after satisfying himself that the accused was giving the statement voluntarily, he recorded his confessional statement.

15. We are satisfied that confession of accused was voluntary. Prosecution evidence as discussed above was quite reliable and confidence inspiring. Complainant had no motive to falsely implicate accused in this case. We have no hesitation to hold that prosecution had proved its case against the accused.

16. Learned counsel for appellant did not press the appeal on merits. Parents of the deceased baby voluntarily appeared before this Court and admitted the contents of the compromise application and stated that they have forgiven accused, who is related to them for better relations between the parties in future. We are satisfied that compromise is voluntary and without any duress.

17. In view of the above, merits of the case pertaining to the offence under section 302(b), PPC are no more required to be dilated upon because of the compromise to the said extent is acceptable under the law. Offence under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is not compoundable in terms of section 345, Cr.PC. Mr. Kazi has argued that compromise has been effected between the parties during the pendency of the appeal, death sentence may be converted to imprisonment for life in the light of case law in the above cited authorities.

18. In the case of MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus The STATE (PLD 2014 SC 383) in the Criminal Review Petition, compromise between the parties was accepted (only) to the extent of conviction under section 302(b), PPC and accused was acquitted of said charge. Death sentence under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 awarded to the accused was converted to life imprisonment. It is held as follows:-

“6. It is to be noted that the merits of the case pertaining to the. offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. are no more required to be dilated upon because of the compromise to the said extent is acceptable, However, the question as to whether or not the offence under section 7 ATA, 1997 is compoundable in terms of section 345, Cr.P.C. or the ATA, 1997, especially in presence of an earlier judgment maintaining the judgment of the High Court, when the compromise was effected during the pendency of the review petition. This question is required to be decided keeping in view that as the legal heirs had forgiven the petitioner would he still be liable to capital punishment under section 7 ATA, 1997. In this regard, it is to be noted that the learned trial Court opined that the offence under section 353, P.P.C. stood proved as the deceased Muhammad Mumtaz, Constable while performing his official duty was fired at and killed by him. Thus, offence tinder section 7 of ATA, 1997 is also established against the accused because he murdered the deceased while performing his official duty without having any personal enmity against him, which amounted to create terror and insecurity in the vicinity. These findings were supported by the statement of prosecution witnesses.

7. The learned High Court on having taken into consideration the statements of eye-witnesses (Police Officials) as well as recoveries, concluded that the deceased was murdered when he was on official duty, which findings were upheld by the learned High Court as well as this Court.

8. It is to be noted that the act of terrorism, though is interlinked with the principal offence i.e. 302(b), P.P.C., falls under a different provision of law i.e. section 6(2)(n) of ATA. Deceased Muhammad Mumtaz was on official duty at the time of the occurrence as it is evident from the statements of P.Ws. that he was in uniform and was causing arrest of nominated accused along with raiding police party but to terrorize the police the accused opened fire, which caused his (Muhammad Mumtaz) death and also created obstruction in the discharge of their duty. Sentence under section 302(b) attracts the provision of section 353, P.P.C., which he has already undergone. Thus, the offence under section 6(2)(n) of ATA also stands established against the petitioner, which provides the meaning of terrorism and any such action that falls within the meaning of said section, involving serious violence against a member of the police force, armed forces, civil armed forces, or a public servant. This offence stood established, in view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, particularly, accepting the conviction/sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. as he has entered into compromise with the deceased, however as far as the second count of death sentence under section 7 ATA is concerned, it has got its own implications and is not compoundable under section 345 subsections (5) and (7) of Cr.P.C. This Court examined this very proposition in the case of Muhammad Rawab v. State (2005 SCMR 1170), reliance on which has also been placed by the Sessions Judge when the compromise under section 302(b), P.P.C. and 7 of ATA was submitted. Learned Special Judge gave effect the compromise only to the extent of 302(b), P.P.C., whereas compromise under section 7 ATA was not allowed to be compounded in view of the law referred to hereinabove.

9. However, this fact can also not be over sighted that in respect of murder of Muhammad Mumtaz, Constable, the petitioner was also sentenced to death and now the parties have compounded the offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and according to the record compensation has also been paid. Therefore, question for quantum of sentence under section 7 of ATA can be examined in view of the judgment in the case of M. Ashraf Bhatti v. M. Aasam Butt (PLD 2006 SC 182) wherein after the compromise between the parties sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment.

10. It is to be noted that both the sentences i.e. death and life imprisonment are legal sentences, therefore, under the circumstances either of them can be awarded to him. Thus in view of the peculiar circumstances noted hereinabove, sentence of death under section 7 ATA, 1997 is converted into life imprisonment without extending benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. as the same was not allowed by the trial Court, first appellate Court as well as by this Court in the judgment under review.

11. Accordingly, compromise between the parties is accepted to the extent of conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. However, the death sentence under section 7 of ATA is converted into life imprisonment and the review petition is disposed of. Accordingly Criminal Petition No.651-L of 2009 is converted into appeal and is allowed, whereby the order of the High Court dated May, 16, 2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1249 of 2009 is modified to that extent.

19. In the case of M. ASHRAF BHATTI and Others vs. M. AASAM BHUTT and Others (PLD 2006 SC 182) parties had compromised the matter and death sentence was converted to that of life imprisonment in view of compromise between the accused and legal heirs of deceased. It is held as under:

7. In view of the facts that parties have compromised the matter and compensation has already been received by the complainants therefore, permission is accorded to compound the offence under section 345(2), Cr.P.C. Now we would advert to examine whether in the cases like one in hand where brutal murder of two young boys has been committed when they were confined in judicial lock-up, in a shocking manner which has outraged the public conscience, the convicts are liable for punishment on the principle of Fasad-fil-Arz. The facts of the case and material available on record reveal that petitioners/convicts have committed crime in a brutal manner of the deceased who were confined in lock-up. Therefore, considering them sitting ducks, they took the law in their hands, without caring that police stations or Court premises are considered such places where law protects the life of citizens. Therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under section 311, P.P.C. the sentence of death of the two convicts namely Naheeb Butt alias Bhutto and Moazzam Butt is reduced from death to life imprisonment under section 302, P.P.C. and under section 7(b) of A.T.A. on both the counts. Similarly sentences awarded to Muhammad Aasam and Shahbaz alias Dodi for imprisonment of life under section 302(b), P.P.C. is reduced to 14 years and sentence awarded to them for life imprisonment under section 7(b) of A.T.A. is kept intact on both the counts with benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C., which has already been extended to them by the Lahore High Court. Remaining sentences awarded to them are kept intact. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

20. In the case of SHAHID ZAFAR and 3 others vs. The STATE (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 809), while relying upon the case of MUHAMMAD NAWAZ (supra) had converted the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life, under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 where legal heirs had compromised the matter with the accused and appeal was partly allowed. Relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-

“9. Insofar as the compounding of the offences is concerned by the appellants reached through compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased, it would be seen that Section 7 (a) of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 is not compoundable and hence the learned High Court correctly dismissed such compromise applications. Even otherwise we are of the opinion that the cruel and gruesome murder of the deceased who had been begging for his life from the appellants certainly amounted to Fasad-Fil-Arz within the meaning of Section 311, P.P.C. and hence there could not be any question of acceptance of compromise between the parties. However having said as much we are also aware that in the case of Muhammad Nawaz (Supra) this Court had converted the sentence of death to that of life imprisonment under Section 7(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act 1997 where the legal heirs had compounded the matter with the accused as in the present case. Consequently we would partly allow Criminal Appeal No.8-K of 2014 by directing that the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant Shahid Zafar be reduced to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeals Nos.9-K and 10-K of 2014 are dismissed. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.11-K of 2014 is concerned viz. Afsar Khan, it would be seen that his role was only confined to that of beating and handing over the deceased into the custody of the rangers personnel where-after the said incident occurred. Hence it cannot be said that he shared any common intention with the other Appellants of murdering the deceased and at the most therefore he could be convicted under section 337(2)(a) P.P.C. for which the maximum sentence is two years along with Daman under Section 337-A(i), P.P.C.”

21. In the cases of Muhammad Nawaz versus The State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 383), Shahid Zafar and 3 others versus The State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 809) and M. ASHRAF BHATTI and Others vs. M. AASAM BHUTT and Others (PLD 2006 SC 182) compromise between the parties has been accepted to the extent of section 302(b), PPC and accused were acquitted of charge, however, death sentence under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was converted to imprisonment for life.

22. Legal heirs of deceased had compounded the matter with accused Asadullah in the present case and parents of the deceased baby appeared before this Court and stated that they have entered into the compromise with accused voluntarily. As such permission is accorded to compound the offence under section 345(2), Cr.PC to the extent of Section 302(b) PPC only. Appellant Asadullah is acquitted for offence under section 302(b), PPC only. However, in view of the compromise between the accused and legal heirs of deceased and peculiar circumstances of the case instant case, death sentence under section 7(a) and 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is converted to imprisonment for life. Compensation of Rs.1,000,000/- is reduced to Rs.500,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased or in default thereof to undergo SI for 6 months. Forfeiture of property as directed by trial Court is maintained. As sentence has been reduced from death to imprisonment for life, both sentences shall run concurrently and benefit section 382-B, Cr.PC shall be extended to him. This appeal is, thus partly allowed and reference for confirmation of death sentence made by the trial Court is answered in negative.

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

J U D G E

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS