THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal
Appeal No.702 of 2019
Confirmation Case No.32 of 2019
Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
Appellant: Rajesh
alias Raju son of Sheeva through Mr. Abdul Raheem, Advocate
Respondents: The
State through Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor
General Sindh.
Complainant: Shamsuddin
son of Muhammad Ayub through Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Channa, Advocate.
Date of
hearing: : 24.02.2021
Date of
announcement : 08.03.2021
J U D G M E N T
NAIMATULLAH
PHULPOTO, J.- Appellant Rajesh
alias Raju was tried by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC,
Karachi East for offence under section 302, PPC. After a full-fledged trial, appellant
was found guilty for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Nawabuddin; vide its judgment
dated 23.09.2019, appellant was convicted under section 302(b) PPC as Tazir and
sentenced to death. Appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3
Million in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.PC, to be paid to the legal heirs of the
deceased. In case of failure to pay such compensation, he was ordered to suffer
SI for six months.
2.
Brief facts of
the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 26.09.2017 at 0730
hours, appellant committed murder of Nawabuddin inside Saima General Hospital,
Gulshan-e-Hadeed Phase-I, District Malir Karachi. SIP Manzoor Hussain of P.S.
Steel Town received such information on 26.09.2017 from 15 helpline that murder
had been committed in the hospital. Above named SIP went to the Saima General
Hospital and found the dead body of one Nawabuddin, he inspected the same and found
one mobile phone Nokia Company lying near the dead body. IO had also collected
bloodstained earth and bloodstained plow from the place of wardat in presence
of mashirs Shamsuddin and Abdul Aleem, prepared such mashirnama and shifted the
dead body to the JPMC for conducting postmortem examination and report. IO
received last worn clothes of the deceased in sealed condition. He handed over
the dead body to his brother Shamsuddin for burial. At about 1300 hours, he
recorded statement of complainant Shamsuddin under section 154, Cr.PC on the
basis of such statement recorded FIR No.206/2017, under section 302, PPC
against unknown person. Then, he handed over the papers to the SIO for further
investigation. After receipt of investigation papers, SIP Arbab Ali visited the
place of wardat in presence of mashirs, prepared such mashirnama, he recorded
161, Cr.PC statements of PWs. IO visited
the room of accused, situated at 3rd Floor of the hospital but the
accused was not found there. On 27.09.2017, IO received spy information that
accused was present at Christian Colony, Mian Khan Jokhio Goth. IO proceeded
there along with complainant and police party, he arrested the accused from a
house, prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs. On personal search of
the accused, one CNIC and one touch mobile were recovered from his possession.
Such mashirnama was prepared. During interrogation appellant prepared to
produce the crime weapon used by him in the commission of offence so also the
clothes which accused/appellant was wearing at the time of the incident.
Thereafter, appellant led the police party to the Saima General Hospital and
from corner of the water tank he produced jeans, in which one knife was there along
with one black coloured mask before the IO, such mashirnama was prepared.
Appellant further disclosed during interrogation before the IO that after using
the ATM card of the deceased, he had thrown the same in WC of the washroom. IO
started search for recovery of ATM card from WC and called the sweepers. Finally
sweepers recovered backside of the ATM card of Bank Al-Habib, lying in the main
gutter. IO sealed the above mentioned articles in presence of mashirs and
returned to the police station. IO dispatched the cellular phone of the
deceased for forensic examination and received such report, in which it was
mentioned that deceased Nawabuddin had withdrawn Rs.21,000/-, which reflected
that appellant had used the ATM card of deceased unauthorizedly and withdrawn
Rs.21,000/-. IO issued notice to the Bank Manager for bank statement of
deceased and collected it, which showed that on 24.09.2021 Rs.21,000/- were
withdrawn from the account of the deceased through ATM. IO obtained CD from
Bank Al Habib, Phase-I, Gulshan-e-Hadeed from where ATM was used. During
investigation, CCTV footage of Saima Hospital was also collected by the IO from
Dr. Qamar, through his Incharge Abdul Sattar in USB. He prepared such
mashirnama in presence of the mashirs. Thereafter, IO sent clothes of the
deceased, bloodstained earth along with pant, knife, black mask recovered on
the pointation of the appellant as well as bloodstained plow to the chemical
examiner for analysis and report. All the reports were positive. IO produced
accused before the doctor for his medical examination, as accused/appellant had
received minor scratches at his chest at the time of incident, when deceased
had resisted. On conclusion of usual investigation, challan was submitted
against the accused under section 302, PPC.
3.
Trial Court
framed charge against appellant Rajesh alias Raju under section 302, PPC.
Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.
At trial,
prosecution examined Dr. Qamaruddin Soomro (PW.1 ), Mst. Tunjeena Bibi (PW.2), Shamsuddin (PW.3),
Abdul Sattar (PW.4), Syed Hassan Mehdi (PW.5), Manzoor Hussain (PW.6), Arbab
Ali Channar (PW.7), Dr. Afzal Ahmed (PW.8), and Dr. Shiraz Ahmed (PW.9). Thereafter,
prosecution side was closed vide statement at Ex.41.
5.
Trial court
recorded statement of accused under section 342 Cr.PC at Ex.42, accused claimed
false implication in the case and denied the prosecution allegation and raised
plea that he has been falsely involved in this case at the influence of Dr.
Qamar. Accused declined to give statement on oath is disproof of prosecution
allegations and did not lead any evidence in the defence.
6.
Trial Court
after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of the
evidence available on record, vide its judgment dated 23.09.2019 convicted the
appellant under section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to death as stated above. Trial
court made Confirmation Reference to
this Court as required under Section 374, Cr.PC. Appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment filed the
instant appeal. By this single judgment, we intend to decide the aforesaid
appeal as well as Confirmation Reference No.32/2019 made by trial court.
7.
At the very outset,
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that instead of pressing this
appeal on merits of appellant’s case, he only prays for reduction of his
sentence of death to imprisonment for life. In this regard, he has relied upon many
mitigating circumstances available on the record warranting the reduction of
the appellant’s sentence.
8.
As against that,
learned Deputy Prosecutor General Sindh, appearing for the State, has
maintained that as long as the conviction of appellant is not disturbed by this
Court, he has nothing much to say on the question of sentence as the same lies
within the discretion of the Court. Learned D.P.G. has, however, submitted that
prosecution had failed to prove its motive at trial.
9.
Mr. Ghulam
Murtaza Channa, counsel for the complainant, argued that the appellant/accused
had committed brutal murder by causing 8 knife blows to the deceased, on vital
parts of his body. It is submitted that evidence of CCTV footage is
corroborated by the medical evidence and other pieces of evidence. As regards
to the motive, learned advocate for the complainant argued that prosecution
succeeded to prove its motive at trial and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10.
It may be
observed that learned advocate for appellant does not press the appeal on
merits but we firmly believe that it is the primary duty of the prosecution to
prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. We have re-examined
the prosecution evidence to satisfy ourselves whether the trial court has
rightly appreciated the evidence according to settled principles of law and
sentenced the appellant to death.
11.
In order to
prove unnatural death of the deceased, prosecution has examined Dr. Afzal Ahmed
(PW.8), who deposed that on 26.09.2017, SHO P.S. Steel Town referred to him the
dead body of Nawabuddin for conducting postmortem examination and report. Dr.
found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
1.
Incised wound
size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at right post auricular region skin deep.
2.
Incised wound
size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at right side neck, structure deep below the above one
injury.
3.
Incised wound
size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at right side neck, structure deep.
4.
Incised wound
size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at mid neck, structure deep.
5.
Incised wound
size 1.5 cm X 0.3cm at left side neck, structure deep.
6.
Stab wound size
1.5 cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at right side chest interiorly.
7.
Stab wound size
1.5cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at right side chest interiorly below the above one.
8.
Stab wound size
1.5 cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at mid of chest.
9.
Stab wound size
1.5 cm X 0.3cm cavity deep at mid struman.
According to the doctor, time between death and
postmortem examination was 3 to 4 hours. From the external as well as internal
examination of the dead body of Nawabuddin, doctor was of the opinion that
death of deceased had occurred due to cardio respiratory failure due to
neck/chest injuries resulting from sharp edged weapon. Trial court rightly came
to the conclusion that death of deceased was unnatural. We have also come to
the conclusion that deceased died of injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon as
described by the medical officer. Moreover, un-natural death of deceased has
not been disputed by the defence. Finding recorded by the trial court regarding
unnatural death of deceased requires no interference by this Court.
12.
Now the question
arises whether appellant had committed murder of deceased in the hospital on
26.09.2017 at 07:30 a.m. as alleged by the prosecution?
13.
In order to
prove its case, prosecution had examined 9 witnesses. Dr. Qamaruddin (PW.1) had
deposed that he runs Saima General Hospital in Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Phase-I,
Karachi. Nawabuddin Channa (now deceased) was receptionist/dispenser in his
hospital. Appellant and his wife were sanitary workers, in the said hospital. On
26.09.2017, complainant went to the upper floor of the hospital with his wife
at 0730 hours to 0745 hours. His staff informed him that Nawabuddin was lying
dead. Complainant gave information of the incident to the police and police
reached within no time. Complainant informed about the incident to the family
of the deceased. Dr. Qamaruddin had further deposed that CCTV is installed in
his hospital. At about 1100 hours, CCTV footage was watched and every staff member
of the hospital identified accused/appellant Rajesh alias Raju as culprit of
the incident. Doctor also identified him in CCTV footage.
14.
PW.2 Tunjeena
Bibi stated that deceased was her husband. On 24.09.2017, deceased told her
that he had bank account in Bank Al Habib and ATM card of said account was
missing and Rs.21,000/- have been withdrawn by someone by using the said ATM
card. She further deposed that on 26.09.2017 at 0745 hours she was informed by
somebody on mobile that dead body of her husband was lying in the Saima General
Hospital. She came in the hospital. FIR of the incident was lodged by
Shamsuddin, brother of deceased. She further deposed that murder of her husband
Nawabuddin has been committed by Rajesh alias Raju. Learned trial judge rightly
put up question from the wife of the deceased, as to how the accused could withdraw
money without pin number of ATM. It was replied by the wife of the deceased that
deceased was working with accused Rajesh alias Raju and he was aware about the
pin code.
15.
PW.3 Shamsuddin stated
that deceased was his brother, he used to work at Saima General Hospital. On
26.09.2017 at 0745 hours, he received a call from the mobile of his deceased
brother that condition of the deceased was critical. He came to hospital, found
brother murdered, saw the CCTV footage, in which one unknown person was causing
knife blows to his brother. Dr. Qamaruddin informed him that said culprit in
the CCTV, was Rajesh alias Raju. He has further deposed that Rajesh was
arrested and disclosed to the police that he had withdrawn Rs.21,000/- from the
account of deceased Nawabuddin by means of ATM card of deceased.
16.
Evidence of
Abdul Sattar (PW.4) is most important for just decision of this case. He had stated
that he was monitoring CCTV installed at Saima General Hospital since 2015. Nawabuddin
was murdered inside the hospital. CCTV footages of the incident were preserved in
USB, he had handed over the USB to the IO. USB was sealed by the IO in his
presence. Trial court played the CCTV footage of the incident in presence of PW
Abdul Sattar (CCTV monitor/incharge). He confirmed that accused/appellant
Rajesh was visible in the footage, who had committed the murder of Nawabuddin.
17.
Syed Hassan
Mehdi (PW.5) was the Manager of Bank Al Habib, Phase-I, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, he stated
that deceased Nawabuddin had a bank account in Bank Al Habib, Phase-II Branch,
Gulshan-e-Hadeed. Investigating officer of this case asked the Manager to
verify CCTV footage of ATM installed in the branch of 24.09.2017 wherein it was
stated that appellant by using ATM card of deceased had withdrawn Rs.21,000/-.
Manager provided footage of 24.09.2017 from 11:00 to 12:00 hours by collecting
the same from Saud Alam, Manager Bank Al Habib, Phase-II Branch,
Gulshan-e-Hadeed. Learned trial court has noted that footage was played in the
open court wherein a boy was using ATM machine. He had resemblance with the
accused present before the trial court. Quality of footage/cameras was poor.
Appellant/accused was not identified with certainty.
18.
SIP Manzoor
Hussain (PW.6) conducted initial investigation of this case as we have already
mentioned above. PW.7 Arbab Ali Channar had conducted the entire investigation
of this case. It has also been mentioned by us in the earlier part of the
judgment, need not to be repeated here. However, investigating officer
submitted the positive reports of the bloodstained knife/churri, clothes of the
deceased as well as of the clothes of appellant. It was the whole prosecution
evidence produced at the trial. Appellant had neither denied specifically his presence
in hospital on the day of occurrence nor offered any explanation about CCTV
footage against him.
19.
From the close
scrutiny of the evidence, we have come to the conclusion that prosecution
proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Dr.
Qamaruddin (PW.1) and Abdul Sattar (PW.4) have clearly stated that they had
identified the appellant in CCTV footage while causing knife blows to the
deceased, in Saima General Hospital. It may be mentioned here that appellant
was sweeper in the Saima General Hospital and deceased was receptionist/dispenser
in the said hospital. PWs 1 and 4 knew the appellant since long. Evidence of
Abdul Sattar (PW.4), CCTV operator of the Saima General Hospital is quite
reliable and trustworthy. He had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant
in the murder of the deceased. Whole prosecution case is basically structured
upon his evidence. Examination-in-chief of PW.4 Abdul Sattar is reproduced as
under:
“I am working as Monitor of CCTV installed at Saima
General Hospital since 2015. The incident of murder of one Nawab Deen was
committed in our hospital and I had taken such CCTV footage and recorded in one
USB of 16gb Kingston. I see Article-A is same USB. On 01.10.2017 I handed over
the same USB Recording to IO through memo on which I signed as a witness. I
produce such memo at Ex.14 which is same, correct and bears my signature. The
USB was sealed in the Parcel. I see the parcel present in Court from which USB
is produced bears my signature. Accused present in Court is Rajesh and he is
also clearly visible in the footage who had committed murder.”
Accuracy of recording
of CCTV footage in the hospital has been proved through the evidence of Abdul
Sattar (PW-4), he was the person who was monitoring the CCTV footage in the
hospital. Video was played before the trial court, appellant was visible in the
video, he was identified by Abdul Sattar (PW.4) and Dr. Qamaruddin (PW.1) as
the appellant was sanitary worker in the hospital. Safe custody of the CCTV
footage after its preparation till production before the trial court has been
proved. We have no hesitation to rely upon the piece of CCTV footage against
the appellant.
20.
Dr. Qamaruddin
(PW.1), the owner of Saima General Hospital had also watched the CCTV footage
and identified the appellant, he was causing churri blows to the deceased.
Medical evidence corroborated the CCTV footage evidence. Churri used in the
commission of offence was voluntarily produced by the accused from the corner
of water tank, on third floor of the hospital, it was bloodstained and report
of the chemical examiner was positive. As regard to the piece of CCTV footage
is concerned, not a single question has been put by the defence counsel to the
prosecution witnesses regarding tampering with the USB. It is already observed
that prosecution has proved safe custody of USB/CCTV footage. A judge and more
so a trial judge, acts as a gatekeeper of the scientific evidence and must,
therefore, enjoy a good sense and understanding of science. As science grows so
will the forensic techniques, tools and devices; therefore, courts must be open
to developments in forensic science and embrace new techniques and devices to
resolve a dispute, provided the said technique and device is well established
and widely accepted in the scientific community as a credible and reliable
technique or device. Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is our
gateway allowing modern forensic science to come into our courtrooms. Article
164 provides that courts may allow to be produced any evidence that may have
become available because of modern devices and techniques. Proviso to Article
164 read with Article 59, inter alia, allows
modern forensic science to enter courts through the credible and valued
scientific opinions of experts as evidence, in order to arrive at the truth as
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ali Haider alias Pappu vs.
Jameel Hussain, etc. (Criminal Petition No.513/2010) decided on 07.01.2021.
21.
As it is
observed above, we find that evidence of Abdul Sattar (PW.4), CCTV operator and
Doctor Qamaruddin (PW.1) is quite reliable and beyond any doubt. Evidence of
Dr. Afzal Ahmad (PW.8), who produced the postmortem report, fully supports the
prosecution case. The chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery
of churri, positive reports of the chemical examiners is firm and continuous,
leaving no margin for the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. The
prosecution has thus proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, we are not persuaded to take the different view from the view taken
by the trial court, so far as the conviction against the appellant is
concerned.
22.
As regards to
the quantum of sentence is concerned, prosecution has failed to prove the motive
at the trial. In the FIR, motive has not set up but during investigation,
investigating officer interrogated the accused and collected the material that
the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased because the appellant
had got the ATM card of the deceased secretly and used it unauthorizedly and
had withdrawn an amount of Rs.21,000/- form the account of the deceased by
means of ATM card but in order to
substantiate it at trial, prosecution had failed to collect the independent
piece of evidence to prove the motive at trial. PW.5 Syed Hassan Mehdi,
Manager of Bank Al Habib, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, was examined by the prosecution, he
deposed that Saud Alam, Manager Bank Al Habib, Phase-II Branch,
Gulshan-e-Hadeed had provided him footage of the ATM machine room, when the
same was played before the trial court, picture of user was not visible. ATM
card of the deceased was also used. There is nothing on record as to how the
appellant came to know about the valid PIN number of the ATM Card of the
deceased. Investigating officer could not recover the ATM Card of the deceased
from the possession of the appellant but stated that it was thrown by the
accused in the gutter. Said piece of evidence/recovery has not been established
at trial by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence. IO had also failed to
interrogate/investigate the accused/appellant with regard to the use of amount
of Rs.21,000/- allegedly withdrawn by the appellant from the account of the
deceased by means of ATM card.
23.
In the view of
above, learned D.P.G. has rightly argued that prosecution has proved its case
against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt but the prosecution has failed
to establish the motive at trial and submitted that there are mitigating
circumstances in this case, death sentence of the appellant may be reduced to
the imprisonment for life.
24.
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 case of Mst. NAZIA ANWAR versus
The STATE and others (2018 SCMR 911). Relevant portion 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.
5. For what
has been 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 her 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 regarding imprisonment in default of payment of compensation are,
however, maintained. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be extended
to the appellant.”
25.
As regards to
the sentence of death passed against the appellant, we have already observed
that prosecution has failed to prove the motive at trial. Prosecution had also failed
to examine Saud Alam, Manager of Bank Al Habib, Phase-II, Gulshan-e-Hadeed
Branch, who had handed over the CCTV footage of ATM machine room to Syed Hassan
Mehdi (PW.5). Prosecution has no explanation for such omission. Syed Hassan
Mehdi (PW.5) watched the CCTV footage of the ATM machine room, he clearly
deposed that culprit could not be identified as efficiency of cameras was poor.
Evidence of Shamsuddin (PW.3), brother of deceased, was hearsay evidence. Sweepers,
who searched a piece of ATM Card were not examined before the trial court. Therefore,
we have decided to exercise caution in the matter of appellant’s sentence of
death. Reliance is placed upon the case of Javed Zaki alias Ali Nadeem vs. The
State (Criminal Appeal No.431/2005) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
judgment dated 02.03.2015. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:
“4. As regards the sentence of death passed
against the appellant we have already observed that the ocular account of the
murder in issue furnished by Shahzad complainant has not been found by us to be
totally reliable and, therefore, we have decided to exercise caution in the
matter of the appellant’s sentence of death. Apart from that the appellant
has already spent about thirteen years in jail including about twelve years
having been spent by him in a death cell by now. Moreover, the recovery of a
firearm allegedly effected from the appellant during the investigation and
subsequent matching of a crime-empty with the recovered firearm have not been
found by us to be reliable pieces of evidence because Mehboob Ellahi, S.I.
(PW.16) had clearly acknowledged before the learned trial court that the
crime-empty had been sealed into a parcel after many months of its recovery and
that the crime-empty had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after
recovery of the firearm. Another reason prompting us to exercise caution in the
matter of the appellant’s sentence of death is that the test identification
parade held in this case vis-ŕ-vis the appellant has been found by us to be
quite laconic for various reasons. In these circumstances we have felt
persuaded to reduce the sentence of death passed against the appellant to
imprisonment for life. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed to the extent of
the convictions of the appellant recorded and upheld by the learned courts
below, the sentences passed against the appellant in respect of the offences
under section 324, PPC and section 13-D of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965
are maintained and the sentence of death passed against the appellant for an
offence under section 396, PPC is reduced to imprisonment for life. All the
sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellant shall run concurrently
to each other and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.PC shall be extended to
him. This appeal is disposed of these terms.”
26.
For the above
stated reasons, this appeal is dismissed to the extent of appellant’s
conviction for the offence under section 302(b), PPC, recorded by the trial
court through the impugned judgment but the same is partly allowed to the
extent of appellant’s sentence of death, which is reduced to the imprisonment
for life. Confirmation Reference No.32/2019 is answered in ‘NEGATIVE’. Apart
from the above reduction in the sentence, compensation ordered by the trial
court to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased in the impugned judgment
shall remain intact. Appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Section
382-B, Cr.PC.
27.
In the view of above,
this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS