IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Jail Appeal No.D-69 of 2018.
For
the hearing of the main case.
Present:
Mr. JusticeNaimatullahPhulpoto.
Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi.
Appellants: Rahamdil through Mr.
Achar Khan Gabole, Advocate.
Complainant. Through Mr.
Suhail Ahmed Khoso, Advocate.
Respondent: The State through, Syed Sardar Ali Shah, D.P.G.
Date
of hearing: 14.01.2020 .
Date
of decision: 28.01.2020
J U D G M E N
T
ZULFIQAR
ALI SANGI,
J:- Appellant Rahamdil S/o Jeewan Gabole has
assailed the judgment dated06.06.2018
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ghotki in Sessions Case No.339of
2007 arising out of FIR No.87/2007 offence under sections 302, 324, 114,
148,149, 337H(ii) PPC Police Station, Khanpur Mahar whereby, he was convicted for
offence u/s302(b) PPC r/w section 114 PPC and sentenced to death as Ta’zir,
subject to confirmation of this Court and shall pay fine of Rs.200,000/- if the
amount is deposited by him which shall be paid to the legal heirs of deceased
Nazir Ahmed. In case of default, thereof the accused shall suffer SI for 06
months more.
2. Precisely, the prosecution case is that complainant
Abdul RazzakGabole lodged FIR at Police Station KhanpurMahar stating that on
account of the dispute over landed property accused Rahamdil and Pathan were
threatening him. It is stated that about 4/5 days before the alleged incident
accused persons took the paddy crop of complainant party, such case was
registered. On 06.10.2007, when he along with his sons Nazir Ahmed, Imdad and
TalibHussain was available at land situated in dehDilmuradGabole to look-after
crop, at about 5:00 pm. accused Rahamdil having rifle, Nazir, Liaqat, Gohram
sons of Sobho and Jeewan armed with K.Kovs, while Wazir,Ali Bux, Qurban,
GhulamHussain, Himat Ali, Rasheed and Mashooque having guns, Nazeer S/O pathan,
withroagar, Mohammad Ali with rifles and Pathan empty-handed as well as three
unidentified having K.Kovs by forming an unlawful assembly appeared. It is
alleged that accused PathanGabole instigated co-accused, on his instigation
accused Rahamdil madestraight fire of his rifle upon his son Nazir Ahmed, who
on receiving it on his head fell down by raising cries and rest of the accused
made straight fires upon complainant party. They spared themselvesgave sake of
Almighty Allah to accused thereafter co-villagers appeared. Accused on seeing them
went away by committing aerial firing, to create harassment and complainant saw
that his son Nazir Ahmed died at spot and blood was oozing. Complainant lodged
FIR on 06-10-07 at 1800 hours at police stationKhanpurMahar under sections
302,324,148,149,337-Hii,114 PPC and 13 DAO.During the investigation complainant,
Abdul Razzakmade further statement dated 04.10.2007 in which introduced three
accused to be Jumo @ Jamaluddin, Arbelo, and Dalel before I.O. of the case.
3. Aftertheusual
investigation, the police submitted challanagainst the appellant& others
accusedbefore the competent Court of law.
4. The learned
trial Court completed all legal formalities and framedcharge against the
appellants/accused to which theypleaded not guilty and claimed trial, such pleaswere
obtained from them. After the framing of charge,sometimes some accused
persons were absconding away and some were arrested therefore charge was
amended from time to time after the third charge 08 witnesses were examined and
again due to escaping and arrest of accused charge was amended lastly the sixth
charge was framed, on 18.02.2017.
5. To prove it’scase, the prosecution
examined PW-1complainant Abdul
Razzak at Ex. 83, who produced FIR and his further statement at Ex. 83/A and B.
PW-2Imdad Ali at Ex. 84, PW-3 Abdul Raheem at Ex. 85. PW-4Medical Officer Dr. GhualmAsghar at
Ex.86 who produced postmortem report at Ex.86-A.PW-04Tapedar Wahid Bux was examined at Ex.87 who produced a sketch
of wardat at Ex.87-A. PW-5DSP Aijaz
Ali author of FIR was examined at Ex.88. PW-06
corpse bearer PCAzhar Ali was examined at Ex.89. PW-07 I.O. of the case ASI Anwar Ali at Ex.90 who produced
mashirnama of blood-stained earth of deceased Nazir Ahmed, receipt of handing
overof dead body, memo of arrest of accused Jumo and report of chemical
examiner at Ex.90-A to D.PW- 8 HC
Amanullah at Ex. 91, who produced memo of arrest and search of accused Jeevaqn
and Guhram, memo and search of accused Wazeer at Ex.91/ A and B. PW-9Habibullah at Ex. 92 who produced
memo of arrest and search of accused Arbello at Ex.92/A.PW-10 SIP Rano Khan was examined at Ex. 93, he produced the memo of
arrest and search of accused Mashooque at Ex. 93/A.PW-11 HC Zahoor Ahmed at Ex. 94 he produced the memo of arrest and
search of accused Daleel at Ex. 94/A. Thereafter, learned State counsel closed
the side of prosecution evidence vide statement at Ex:95.
6. After completion of
prosecution evidence, learned trial court recorded statements of the appellant
and co-accusedin terms of section 342 Cr.P.C at Ex.96 to 108, wherein they denied
the prosecution case andclaimed their innocence. However neither they examinedthemselves
on oath nor led evidence in theirdefense.
7. Thelearned trialCourt after
hearing the Counsel for the appellantsand learned DDPP for the State so alsoconsidering
the evidence, passed impugned judgment, which has been assailed through instant
appeals.
8. Learned
counsel for the appellant contended that FIR was registered on
06.10.2007 against present appellantsRahamdilGabole and 17 others; that all the
eye witnesses were related to each other and interested; that motive has not
been proved as prosecution has not been able to bring on record that, on which
date, time and place accused had prevented by the complainant party from the
purchase of land; that motive was directly against the complainant not against
the deceased because complainant had purchased that land in his own name; that
fire was not repeated by the appellant upon the deceased; that complainant and
another son were not made target by 18 armed accused persons; that accused was
absconder during investigation, then he was arrested after 04 years and
no incriminating article was recovered from him; that articles were sent to the
Chemical examiner with the delay of One month and 06 days; that only blood
stained earth was sent to the chemical examiner and last worn clothes of
deceased were not sent to chemical examiner; that both eye witnesses examined
by the prosecution are son and father and no independent witness examined at
the trial; that mashir is interested and on inimical terms with appellant as he
had lodged several FIRs against accused persons; that I.O. had not produced any
entry with regard to the inspection of place of wardat; that complainant had
made further statement and disclosed the names of those persons against whom he
had already lodged another FIR; that complainant party had improved the case with
regard to the shifting of dead body from the place of wardat to the hospital
and they have again said that they have shifted the dead body to the Police
Station; that presence of the complainant and eye witnesses at the time of
incident was doubtful because dead body was identified by other persons Ali
Hassan and Mohammad Pannah; that I.O has replied in cross-examination that only
complainant has appeared before him for lodging the FIR; that third eye witness has not been examined by
the prosecution, According to defence counsel his evidence has been withheld by the prosecution; that on
the same set of evidence 14 accused persons have been acquitted; that
complainant/State has failed to file appeal against such acquittal. He further
contended that it has come on record that at the time of inspection of wardat
there was darkness and no source of light has been shown on which blood was
collected from the place wardat; that in the inquest report and mashirnama of
inspection of dead body crime number is mentioned but with different ink, It is
argued that all the papers have been prepared by the police at Police
Station;that in the sketch prepared by Tapadarthere is no mention of paddy
crop; that in the sketch presence of PWs and their location has not been
mentioned; that PC Azhar Ali corpse bearer have deposed that no one from
complainant side was accompanied him to the hospital, corpse bearer has
received dead body at 6:00 p.m. and handed over to the Medical Officer at 7:00
p.m. and according to the evidence of Medical Officer post mortem was started
at 6:15 pm; thataccording to Medical Officer he completed postmortem
examination at 7:30 pm whereas constable stated that he handed over dead body
to the legal-heirs at 7:15 p.m; Learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that further statement of complainant has been recorded on
04.10.2007; Learned Counsel for the appellant in the light of above contentions
prayed for acquittal of the appellant by extending him the benefit of the doubt.
Reliance is placed on the cases of Mst. Rukhsana Begum and others V.Sajjad and
others (2017 SCMR 596),Noor Muhammad V.
The State and another(2010 SCMR 97),Muhammad Asif V. The State (2017 SCMR 486),
Irfan Ali V. The State (2015 SCMR 840),Imtiaz alias Taj V.The State and others
(2018 SCMR 344),Munir Ahmed and another V. The State and others(2019 SCMR 79),AltafHussain
V. The State (2019 SCMR 274),Shoaib and another V. The State (2002 YLR 204), Guhram
and 2 others V. The State(2018 P.Cr.L.JNote108),Muhammad Rafique and others V.
The State and others (2010 SCMR 385),Lal Khan V.The State (2006 SCMR 1846) andFayaz
Ahmed V. The State ( 2017 SCMR 2026).
9. Learned DPG contended that roleagainst the acquitted accused
was only presence they had neither taken an active part in the incident nor
acted in furtherance of common object, therefore, they were rightly acquitted
by the trial court; he relied upon case of Muhammad Sharif and others V. The State and
others (2019 SCMR 1368) and contended that in the reported case the role against
acquitted accused was generalized in nature and Honourable Supreme Court has
maintained conviction against whom there was specific attribution. Learned DPG further
contended that no evidence of sharing common object was produced by the
prosecution against the acquitted accused; that though ocular and medical
evidence established the accusation against the present appellant but the
prosecution not established motive against the present appellant and in these
circumstances death sentencemay be converted into life; that prosecution has
established the case against the appellant by producing trustworthy and
reliable evidence that the appellant murdered deceased by making 04 fire shorts
upon him.He relied upon the case reported in Haq Nawaz V. The State (2018 SCMR
21).
10. Learned counsel for the complainant by adopting the arguments of
DPG has contended that evidence was recorded after about 11 years of the
incident, As such, the minor contradictions had occurred and such are not of
such like which create dent in the prosecution case; that no major
contradiction is pointed out by the learned counsel of appellant; that accused
were armed with deadly weapons, for the reasons complainant and his son made no
efforts to rescue the deceased; thatdeceased was son of complainant and
prosecution has established the motive; that complainant and eyewitnesses have
clearly stated that 4/5 days before the incident threats were issued by the
accused as to why they have purchased the lands; that it was day time incident;
that prosecution established the case against the appellant beyond the shadow
of doubt; lastly he also prayed that appeal of the appellant may be dismissed
and conviction awarded by the trial court may be maintained. Heplaced reliance on
the cases of Sona Khan aliasSonhra V. The State (2017 MLD 388),Muhammad
IqbalMakrani V.The State (2015 P.Cr.L.J 1251), andDadullah and another V.The
State(2015 SCMR 856).
11. We have heard learned Counsel for
the parties and have examined the record carefully with their able assistance.
12. We havecarefully examined the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses on our assessment of evidence, we found that the
prosecution has established it’s case against the appellant Rahamdil beyond reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy and
confidence-inspiring, oral, medical as well as documentary evidence. The
evidence of important witnesses is, therefore, discussed as under:-
13. PW-1, Complainant who was also eye witness of the incident namely
Abdul Razzak deposed before the trial court that on 06-10-2007 he alongwith his
son Nazir and Imdad and Talib went to the land to look after the crop, then at
about 05-00 pm accused Rahamdil having rifle,Ali Bux and Wazeer with guns,
Jiwan, Gohar, Nazir, Liaqat, Dalel and Arbello with KKs, Pathan empty-handed
while GhulamHussain with gun, Nazir S/O Pathan with roger rifle, Rasheed and
Himat with gun arrived they are and accused Pathan instigated other accused
that complainant not left the land, therefore, they do not spareand on such
accused Rahamdil straight fire from his rifle upon the son of complainant
Nazir, who received the same and fell by raising cries and was died at the spot,
other accused fire in the air and went away.
14. PW-2 namelyImdad Ali who is also an eye witness of the incident deposed
before the trial court that his father had purchased the land on such accused
Rahamdil and Pathan were annoyed and were pressing to leave the land. On
06-10-2007 he alongwith his brother Nazir, TalibHussain and his father Abdul
Razzak went to the lands for look after then at about 05.00 pm accused Rahamdil
with rifle, Muhammad Ali withrifle, Pathan empty-handed, Nazir S/O Pathan with
roger rifle, Gohram, Liaqat, Nazir S/O Sobho, Jiwan, Jamaluddin, Dalel, Arbelo
with K.KsGhulamHussain, Rasheed, Himat Ali, Mashoque, Qurban, Ali Bux and Wazir
with guns came there and on arrival accused Pathan instigated other accused, on
his instigation accused Rahamdil straight fire from his rifle upon his brother
Nazir Ahmed, which hit him, who fell by raising cries and died at the spot,
rest of accused fired in the air and wentaway.
15. PW- 03, Mashir
of the case namely Abdul Raheem was examined before the trial court who deposed
that on 06-10-2007, he and co-mashir Muhammad Pannahafter hearing about the
murder of deceased Nazir went towards hospital, where they saw dead body of the
deceased Nazir in the mortuary room and ASI Anwar Mahar also appeared there,
who checked the dead body, he further deposed that they saw there was a firearm
injury on backside of his head through and through, the deceased was wearing
green color clothes, such inquest report was prepared by ASI in his presence so
also ASI prepared mashirnama of inspection of deadbody in the hospital in his
presence and co-mashir was Muhammad Pannah. He deposed that on the same day ASI
visited the place of wardat and collected blood-stained earth and sealed on the
spot so also collected 30 empties of KK, 10 empties cartridge of 12 bore and 03
empties of 7 MM rifle and sealed the recovered articles at the spot and
prepared the memo at the spot.
16. PW- 04 namely DoctorGhulamAsghar was examined who conducted the postmortem who
found the following injuries received by the deceased.
1. One
circular lacerated firearm, wound with inverted margins 1/3 cm in diameter x
skull cavity deep through and through on above middle, part of left occipital
region of skull (wound of entry).
2. One
circular lacerated firearm wound with inverted margins, 04 cm x 03cmx through
and through on middle of right parietal region of skull with brain matter out (wound
of exit).
17. PW-08 namely Ali Anwar the Investigation Officer was examined
before the trial court who deposed that on 06-10-2007 he was posted as SHO at
P.S KhanpurMahar, on that day SHO Aijaz Ahmed Memon of P.S KhanpurMahar
informed him through telephone that a deadbody of deceased Nazir Ahmed lying in
mortuary room of the hospital, who had received firearm injuries on backside of
his head. He prepared such inquest reports and mashirnama of the deadbody in a hospital
in the presence of the mashirs. He deposed that after the legal formalities he
handed over the dead body through P.C Azhar Ali to M.O for postmortem and the
return back to PS wherefrom he collected the copy of FIR from WHC and proceeded
toward the place of wardat and collected 30 empties of K.K, 10 empties of 12
bore and 04 empties of rifle so also blood-stained earth which he sealed at the
spot. He recorded statements of PWs and sent blood-stained earth to the
chemical examiner, from where he received a report dated: 22-11-2007. He
further deposed that on the day of incident PC Azhar Ali Bullo brought the worn
clothes of deceased at a police station and handedover to him, he prepared the
mshirnama,the body of deceased was then handedover to the Lrs by PC Azhar Ali
under the receipt. He deposed that accused Jumo was arrested by him under
mashirnama, he recorded the further statement of the complainant, and he
produced certain documents before the trial court including chemical examiners
report.
18. The contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant isthat co-accused have been acquitted by the trial court on
the same set of evidence, therefore, the principle of falsus in unofalsus in
omnibus applies to present case, has no force as the evidence produced by the
prosecution established the case against only appellant Rahamdil. Acquittal of
other co-accused has not been challenged by the complainant or the State, in
such a situation Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of MUNIR
AHMAD and another V The STATE and others( 2019 SCMR 79),has held as
under:-
4. As stated
in para 1 above, four persons including Munir Ahmad (appellant) were nominated
in the FIR. Out of them three namely Munir Ahmad, Khurshid and Ibrahim were
attributed joint role of firing at the deceased. Firearm injury on the person
of AsifRaza injured was attributed to Muhammad Aslam. Muhammad Ibrahim and
Muhammad Aslam were acquitted by the learned trial court and Criminal Appeal
No.1954 of 2009 filed by the complainant against their acquittal was dismissed
by the learned appellate court, which has not been assailed any further either
by the complainant or by the State. Khurshid Ahmad was acquitted by the learned
appellate court. The question which
requires consideration by this Court is as to whether the evidence which has
been disbelieved to the extent of three co-accused of the appellant who have been
acquitted by the learned courts below can be believed to the extent of the
appellant? By now it is well settled that principle of falsus in unofalsus in
omnibus is not applicable in our system designed for dispensation of justice in
criminal cases and courts are required to sift grain from the chaff in order to
reach at a just conclusion. If some independent and strong corroboration is
available the set of witnesses which has been disbelieved to the extent of
acquitted co-accused of the appellant can be believed to the extent of the
appellant.
19. We
have carefully considered the entire evidence of
the prosecution and found that prosecution not produced any evidence against
acquitted accused persons before the trial court about sharing of theircommon
intention with the appellantRahamdil for murdering the deceased nor they take
an active role in the murder of deceased. Prosecution/complainant has also not
challenged the said acquittal by filing the Acquittal appeal. We found the
reasons given by the trial court in the impugned judgment about the acquittal
ofco-accused are in accordance with the law and were discussed in the point No:
3 of the judgment which is reproduced as under:-
Point
No:3
This
point is in connection with the offence of attempt to qatl-i-amd as well as
aerial firing to create harassment allegedly committed by the rest of the
accused facing trial including absconding. No doubt complainant Abdul Razzak
and eye witness Imdad Ali have deposed against them that they allegedly
committed straight firing upon complainant party but they spared themselves
which is very much surprising as the story of prosecution according to FIR is
that; all accused were armed except Pathan and at his instigation accused
Rahamdilmurdered deceased Nazir Ahmed by causing him firearm injuries and rest
of the 16 accused persons committed straight firing upon complainant party with
intention to commit qatl-i-amd, but the complainant and P.Ws spared themselves
with the result they received not a single scratch, though mashir of wardat
Abdul Raheem in cross-examination has very clearly stated that; neither there
was any tree nor the watercourse. It is also pertinent to mention here that as
per prosecution story shown in FIR three accused were unidentified at the time
of incident and after lodging FIR complainant through his further statement
dated: 04-10-2007 recorded before I.O has introduced three accused namely
Jamaluddin, Arbelo and Dalel, but his statement recorded before police has got
no legal sanctity as he was not produced before any magisterial court for
holding identification test, therefore presence of rest of the accused named
above on the date, time and place of alleged incident as well as their
participation appears to be absolutely unbelievable, hence I am of the
considered view that the prosecution on this point has failed to establish its
case, thus without hesitation, I have been satisfied that the point No:3 is not
proved.
20. Another contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that all the witnesses are related to each other including
the mashir, therefore, they are interested and their evidence cannot be relied
upon has also no force as eyewitnesses belongs to the same family and are
residing in the same house, wherefrom they went to their land forlooking after
the same, where accused Rahmdil by firing from his rifle murdered deceased
Nazir Ali.It is a well-settled principle of law that the mere relationship of
the witnesses is no ground to discard their testimonyunless anduntil their enmity with accused is established and the evidence
is given on account of such enmity. Trial court has undertaken an
exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and rightly concluded
the guilt of the appellant upon independent evaluation of the evidence we have
not been able to take a view of the matter different from that taken by the
court below for the reasons that ocular evidence is corroborated by medical
evidence.Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan
in case of NasirIqbal @ Nasra and another V. The State(2016 S C M R
2152),has held as under:-
8. In the above circumstances, we found
that the ocular evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses to be creditworthy and
confidence inspiring and we have not been able to observe any defect or
material lacunas in their evidence; their presence at the spot had been
established beyond any shadow of doubt; both the eye-witnesses were of course
closely related to the deceased but fact of the matter remains that their mere
relationship would not render them to be interested or partisan witnesses when
the same has been corroborated with the medical evidence as well as the
recoveries of crime weapon and the motive has fully been proved as such in our
view no interference is required in conviction of the appellants.
21. learned counsel for the appellant pointed
out some minor contradiction in the evidence which in our view are not
sufficient to discard the evidence of natural witnesses as the same always
remain available in every case as no one can give evidence like photograph and
the minor contradiction if available in the case such may be ignored, further
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded after above 10 years of
the incident and such minor contradiction are natural due to lapse of such time.
Reliance is placed on the case ofZakir
Khan V. The State (1995 SCMR 1793) wherein honorable Supreme court of
Pakistan has held as under:-
13. The evidence recorded in the case further
indicates that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported each other on
all material points.? However, emphasis has been laid by Mr. Motiani upon the
improvements which can be found by him in their respective statements made
before the Court and some minor contradictions in their evidence were also
pointed out. A contradiction, unlike an omission, is an inconsistency between
the earlier version of a witness and his subsequent version before the Court.
The rule is now well established that only material contradictions are to be
taken into consideration by the Court while minor discrepancies found in the
evidence of witnesses, which generally occur, are to be overlooked. There is
also a tendency on the part of witnesses in this country to overstate a fact or
to make improvements in their depositions before the Court. But a mere omission
by witness to disclose a certain fact to the Investigating Officer would not
render his testimony unreliable unless the improvement made by the witness
while giving evidence before the Court has sufficient probative force to bring
home the guilt to the accused.
22. On our reassessment of the evidence the
important part of which we have discussed above, we find that the eyewitnesses
fully supported the case of prosecution who were the natural witnesses, the
incident was daytime, the evidence of witnesses was fully supported by medical
evidence, long and unexplained abscondence of appellant Rahamdil,as such the
prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant
through trustworthy, reliable, cogent, oral as well as supportive evidence.
23. We have specifically 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 not been established by it. It is
a well-settled principle of law that a criminal case is to be decided based
onthe totality of impressions gathered from the circumstances of the case and
not on the narrow ground of cross-examination or otherwise of a witness on a
particular fact stated by him. A similar view had been expressed by the HonourableSupreme
Court of Pakistan in the case of State v. Rab Nawaz and another (PLD 1974 SC
87) wherein Honourable Supreme Court has observed that a criminal case is to be
decided based onthe totality of circumstances and not based on a single
element. We have noticed the motive setup by the prosecution was dispute upon
the purchase of land but the prosecution failed to establish such survey numbers
or the area of the said land even it was not brought by the prosecution in
evidence that where the land was situated as in cross-examination complainant
could not reply that on which date appellant had prevented the complainant from
purchase of disputed land. No complaint was made by the complainant party
before the incident,even the investigating officer of the case had failed to
collect any material in support of the asserted motive. The motive asserted by
the prosecution had, thus, remained far from being proved. The appellant has no
direct enmity with the complainant party but he had murdered on the instigation
of co-accused Pathan.It has been held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in
many cases 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 a capital charge and a reference in this
respect may be made to the cases of Ahmad Nawaz v. The State (2011 SCMR 593),
IftikharMehmood and another v. QaiserIftikhar 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), SabirHussain alias Sabri v.The State (2013
SCMR 1554), ZeeshanAfzal 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 NadeemWaqas 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). In the instant case,we find that in the absence of proof
of the asserted motive the real cause of occurrence had remained shrouded in
mystery such factor has put us to caution in the matter of the appellant's
sentence of death.
24. Thus, based on the particulars facts and
circumstances of this case and by relying on the above-cited precedents and the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above this appeal is
dismissed to the extent of the appellant's conviction for the offence under
section 302(b), P.P.C. but the same is partly allowed to the extent of his sentence
of death which is reduced to imprisonment for life. The order passed by the
trial court regarding payment of compensation by the appellant to the heirs of
the deceased as well as the order in respect of imprisonment in default of
payment of compensation is, however, maintained. The benefit under section
382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended to the appellant.The confirmation reference
made by the trial court answered as negative.
25. In view of the above, this appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
JUDGE