IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
AT KARACHI
MR. JUSTICE
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR
REFERENCE NO.5/2010
(Reference made by Additional Sessions Judge,
Kandiaro)
……………..
CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO.401/2010
Appellants : Qadan alias Qadir Bux & another,
Through:
Mr. A. Q. Halepota, advocate.
Respondent : The
State,
Through: Mr. Ali Haider Saleem,
A.P.G.
……………
Date
of hearing: 20thNovember, 20th
and 23rd December, 2013.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J: Through this appeal, appellants
have assailed judgment dated 31st May 2010, in Sessions
case No.158 of 2004 (Re-The State V. Qadan
alias Qadir Bux & others) whereby the trial court convicted both appellants u/s 303(b) PPC and sentenced
to death, coupled with compensation of Rs.100,000/- (each accused), payable to
legal heirs of deceased; while through same judgment co-accused Abdul Hafeez
was acquitted. Whereas, learned trial Court has sent Reference under section
174 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts of the prosecution
case are that on 05.05.2004, complainant Hafiz Ajeeb-u- Rehman lodged F.I.R,
contending therein that “complainant’s cousin Amjad Hussain was working as
labourer in Karachi, and about six months back accused Abdul Hafeez and others
had a clan dispute with complainant party, thus they were extending threats
that they will commit murder of Amjad Hussain. On 04.05.2004, in the morning,
Amjad Hussain had returned from Karachi, and was available in house. At night,
after taking meal, Amjad Hussain intended to visit the village, while he was prevented,
due to enmity, but he insisted that he is going due to call of nature in the
garden of Ghulam Muhammad and will return back soon. It is further contended that after some time
they heard cries on which complainant alongwith Muhammad Moosa and Gulshad Agro
and other co-villagers rushed there ,while raising Hakals (Lalkara); on moon
light and torch lights , they identified accused Qadan alias Qader Bux Agro ,
armed with gun, Nadeem Agro, having Danda
and they were causing butt, barrel and Danda wafts to Amjad Hussain ,
but on reaching complainant party they fled away, while Amjad Hussain fallen
down. Complainant party found injuries on neck, chest, head, and near ear;
blood was oozing; subsequently complainant party brought injured Amjad Hussain
for medical treatment at Kandiaro hospital but he succumbed to his injuries;
therefore complainant lodged F.I.R that Accused Qadan alias Qader Bux and
Nadeem Agro has committed this murder.
3. It is further revealed that after lodgment of
F.I.R; police conducted the investigation thereby, inspected crime seen, dead
body, prepared such mashirnama’s; secured blood stained bushes and one live
cartridge of 12 bore from place of incident; arrested both appellants from link
road leading from Muhbat Dero to village Kouro who produced crime weapons i.e
Danda and gun. Both eye witnesses of incident namely Gulshad and Mohammad Moosa
through their 161 Cr.PC statement nominated accused Qadan alias Qadir Bux,
Nadeem, Mehrab and Hubdar but later both these eye witnesses in their statement
dated 17.5.2004 exonerated accused Hubdar and Mehrab, however, involved accused
Abdul Hafeez. After completing investigation, police submitted the challan /
charge sheet whereby sending accused Qadan alias Qadar Bux and Nadeem to face
their trial while accused Abdul Hafeez was shown as let-off, who was
subsequently joined as an accused.
4. After compliance of provision of Section 265(c )
Cr.PC, the charge was framed against both appellants and co-accused Abdul
Hafeez as Ex.3 to 5 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial
vide their respective pleas.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution
examined complainant Ajeeb-ur-Rehman at Ex.67 who produced the FIR at Ex.6/A;
PW-2 eye witness Gulshad at Ex.7; PW Mashir Sohrab at Ex.98 who produced
mashirnama of inspection of dead body, inquest report, mashirnama of place of
vardat, mashirnama of arrest of both accused, mashirnama of recovery of Gun
from accused Qadan alias Qadir Bux at Ex.8/A to 8/E respectively; PW- eye
witness Mohammad Moosa was given up; PW Dr. Mohammad Yaqoob Channar was
examined at Ex.10 who produced post mortem report at Ex10/A; Tapedar Chanesar
Khan at Ex.11 who produced sketch of vardat at Es.11/A; I.O ASI Wali Mohammad
Bughio at Ex.12 who produced mashirnama of recovery of Danda from accused
Nadeem and chemical examiner’s report at E.12/A and 12/B respectively and
lastly crops bearer HC Mohammad Motiyal at Ex.13, who produced the receipt of
dead body at Ex.13/A. Thereafter, side was closed by prosecution vide statement
at Ex.14.
6. The statements of accused person(s) were
recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C respectively, wherein they professed their
innocence. However, none of the accused persons came forward to examine himself
on Oath or to lead evidence in his defence, as provided under section 340(2),
Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, has contended
following plea(s):-
(1).
That there has been a delay of more than three hours in reporting
/ lodging the FIR though the police station happened to be only at the distance
of 2 K.Ms;
(2).
That conduct of the alleged eye witnesses of the incident has
remained questionable from very beginning for simple reason that they remained
introducing and exonerating the persons from the offence hence testimony of
such persons was never sufficient to hold a conviction;
(3).
Prosecution did not examine the PW Moosa though he was eye witness
of the incident and thus with-holding of such material witness should result in
extending a benefit in favour of the appellants;
(4).
Prosecution claimed that alleged incident was witnessed under
torch lights which were handed over to the I.O but no such torch light was ever
produced during course of trial hence such aspect of the case was causing
serious dent towards prosecution story;
(5).
Both witnesses of ocular account do not conform each other
regarding motive for the offence as one witness stated that it was due to
declaration of deceased as KARO while other eye witness Gulshad stated motive
as brothery(Clan) dispute;
(6).
The recovery of the crime weapons is not admissible and cannot be
used against the appellants.
(7).
That incident was in fact, an unseen incident and complainant
party falsely knitted the story due to enmity with the appellants. Reliance in
support of the arguments was placed on the case laws reported as Tayyab Hussain
Shah vs. the State (2000 SCMR 683), NLR 2001 Cr. 198, Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah & another vs. the
State (2009 SCMR 436), Ali Gohar & others vs. the State (1986 SCMR 730), Habibullah
& others vs. the State (PLD 1969 SC 127) and, Ismail & others vs. the State (1983
P CrLJ 823).
7. Learned APG while refuting the contentions raised
by rival side, argued that judgment of the learned trial court is well
reasoned; there has been pleaded nothing on record to substantiate false
involvement of the appellants / convicts in the instant case; the complainant
party is closely related with the deceased hence chances of false involvement
is not probable; hence trial court has rightly convicted them.
8. We have
carefully gone through the entire evidence and considered the submissions made
at the bar before us in light of the same.
9. Scanning of
the available record shows that incident is reported to have taken place on
04.5.2004 at 10.00 p.m which was reported by the PW-complainant Hafiz
Ajeeb-ur-Rehman with police station Muhabat Dero on 05.5.2004 at 0130 hours. This
shows that the matter was reported with the police within 3 and half hours of
the incident. The police station was located at the distance of 2/3 K.M. The
complainant Hafiz Ajeeb-ur-Rehman has claimed himself to be the cousin of the
deceased which claim has never been challenged / questioned by the defence. A
time of three and half hours cannot be taken as a delay in reporting the matter with a view to allow deliberation and
consultation on part of the complainant party, particularly when it was claimed
by the complainant party that they first tried to carry the deceased to
hospital but he succumbed to injuries in the way so the dead body was brought
back at the village. It is against the human behaviour and experience
that effect (s) and emotion (s) of witnessing murder of one’s blood-relation
will be influenced over other consideration particularly when one (he) does not
have sufficient reason for deliberation and consultation. This is so which has
resulted in wording the legal proposition that promptness in reporting matter
of murder (s) always lessens chances of deliberation and consultation which, in
such matters (murder cases), let complainant party for exaggeration or widening
the net. Even otherwise, the general principle is that
delay by itself in lodging the FIR is
not material. Factors to be considered by the Courts are firstly that such
delay stands reasonably explained and secondly that the prosecution has not
derived any undue advantage through the delay involved. Reference can be made
to the case of Muhammad Nadeem v. State reported in 2011 SCMR 872.
10. To examine
the plea that complainant party remained changing their stances with regard to
involvement of number of persons in the murder of the deceased, we have meticulously
examined the available material. To prove the ocular account the prosecution
has produced the evidence of two witnesses only i.e complainant Ajeeb-ur-Rehman
and PW-2 Gulshad. The examination-in-chief of both these witnesses is
reproduced hereunder:-
|
Complainant
Ajeeb-ur-Rehman Deceased Amjad Hussain was my cousin. PW Gulshad and Mohammad
Moosa are my maternal uncles. This incident took place on 04.5.2004. It was
about 9.00 pm, and I was available at house of deceased Amjad alongwith
Mohammad Moosa and Gulshad Ahmed and were
chit-chatting with the deceased Amjad Hussain. The deceased Amjad Hussain
told us that he was going out of house to attend the call of nature, to
which, we prevented him not to go out because of the enmity with the accused
who had leveled allegation of Karap against the deceased. The deceased went
out side of the house to attend the call of nature. In the meantime we heard
the cries of deceased to which I, PWs Gulshad and Mohammad Moosa and
co-villagers rushed there. We went at the |
PW-2 Gulshad I know the complainant Mujeeb Rehman who is my relative.
Deceased Amjad Hussain was son of my sister. The incident took place on
04.5.2004 it was 10.00 pm, when I alongwith complainant and Mohammad Moosa
were present at the house of the deceased Amjad Hussain and we were chit
chatting with the deceased Amjad Hussain. In the mean time the deceased told
us that he was going to attend the call of nature out side of the house.
After few minutes we heard the cries of deceased to which we rushed and when
reached at the |
The perusal of the above shows that these witnesses strongly remained
sticking with the version / stand of the FIR but introduced acquitted accused
Abdul Hafeez with an allegation at the close of their examination-in-chief that
“murder was at instance of accused Abdul
Hafeez”. The perusal of the FIR shows that the acquitted accused Abdul
Hafeez was not named in the FIR by the complainant. It is not the case of the
defence that the complainant party ever tried to substitute or replace the
persons, nominated in the FIR but on the other hand it stood patent and evident
from the examination of these evidence that they firmly stood with their first
stand (FIR), which was reported within 3 and half hours of incident and only
appellants were named. From examination of the evidence of these witnesses
surfaced that they strongly stuck regarding every minute details, so given in
the FIR i.e:
i)
the place of company of complainant party with deceased Amjad
Hussain ;
ii)
the place of occurrence;
iii)
manner whereby witness
reached at the place of occurrence;
iv)
weapon (s) with which the appellants were armed;
v)
role (s) assigned to them;
11. Here it is
necessary to add that a contradiction is
not material unless it is grave in nature and causes a serious dent in the
prosecution claim. Statement of the witnesses have to be read as a whole and
the court should not pick up a sentence in isolation from the entire statement
and ignoring its proper reference, use the same against or in favour of a
party.
12. We are
conscious that in our society a trend of widening the net has developed but
such could come only when the defence comes with a plea of deliberation on part
of the complainant. Even otherwise a
blood relation is not supposed to substitute the real culprits with innocence
while reporting the matter of murder of his blood-relation.
13. It is pertinent
to mention that the very conduct of the said witnesses in firmly sticking with
their very first stand (FIR) and also speaks so, as it is evident from the
evidence of these witnesses that they did not claim the presence of the
acquitted accused Abdul Hafeez at the place of incident and even not attempted
to attribute any specific role to such acquitted accused Abdul Hafeez. Thus,
reference to acquittal of the accused Abdul Hafeez alone cannot be taken
sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses, particularly when the
principle of safe Criminal
Administration of Justice no where insists that mere acquittal of one or
more accused should result in acquittal of all. This is so for the simple
reason that principle of “falsus in uno
falsus in omnibus” is no more applicable. The reference, if any, can well
be made to case of Iftikhar Hussain and another Vs.
state (2004 SCMR 1185) wherein it was held that:
“It is true that principle of falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus is no more applicable as on following this principle, the evidence of a
witness is to be accepted or discarded as a whole for the purpose of convicting
or acquitting an accused persons, therefore, keeping in view prevailing
circumstances, the Courts for safe administration of justice follow the
principle of appraisal of evidence i.e sifting of grain out of chaff i.e if an
ocular testimony of a witness is to be disbelieved against a particular set of
accused and is to be believed against another set of the accused facing the
same trial then the Court must search for independent corroboration on material
particulars as has been held in number of cases decided by the superior Courts”
14. Now we would come to the plea of non-examination
of other eye-witness of the case namely Moosa. It would suffice to say It is
the prerogative of prosecution to produce evidence as may be necessary to prove
the charge and may give up the witnesses after sufficient evidence is brought
on record because as a rule of Criminal jurisprudence, prosecution
evidence is not tested on the basis of the quantify but qualify of evidence
which is to be insisted. It is always within the wisdom of either
party to produce evidence of as many witnesses as are found necessary by it to
prove a certain charge or fact. Exercise of such prerogative should not
always be taken as adverse particularly
where the rival party could, well within its substantial right, bring any such
witness as their witness. A reference to provision of Section 265-F(7) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 would make it clear that within meaning of
such provision the accused can competently ask for examination of any witness
or production of any document. We are guided on this point from the case of Saeed
Khan and 5 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 849) wherein it was held that:
“It is prerogative of prosecution to produce evidence as may be
necessary, to prove the charge and may give up the witness after sufficient
evidence is brought on record. No inference can be drawn about the testimony of
the remaining witnesses. In case the defence relies on the fact that they do
not support the case of prosecution they can always be examined in defence. No
adverse presumption is to be drawn in the absence of any positive evidence as
held by this Court in the case of Mazhar Ali vs. The State 2005 SCMR 523.
15. At
this juncture, it would be conducive to refer the following portion of
the evidence of said witnesses which follows as under:-
PW Complainant Ajeeb-ur-Rehman:
“The co-villagers
Subhan, Allah Warayo, Punhal, Ghulam Mohammad Koural
accompanied with us”
PW Gulshad:
“The villagers Punhal,
Koural, Subhan, Koural and Allah Warayo accompanied with us”
Above portion conforms to the stand of the complainant, made in
FIR, but made it evident and patent that there were also other villagers, whom
prosecution claimed, as eye witnesses of the incident. Despite the position
being so, the perusal of the record shows that defence did not make any such
attempt to bring any of such claimed eye witnesses into witness box. Accordingly,
in view of above we do not find substance in the plea of the defence that
giving up of PW Moosa should result in drawing an adverse inference against the
prosecution who, within its wisdom considered it sufficient to examine one of
two brothers (eye witnesses) as examined PW Gulshad and given up PW Mohammad
Moosa are brothers as is evident from admission of the PW-complainant that “Mohammad
Moosa and Gulshad P.Ws are brothers”.
16. Before
responding to the plea of non-production of Torch Light, we feel it quite
necessary to make it clear here that torch
light was claimed by prosecution as one of the source of light at time of
witnessing the incident because it is a night time incident. The FIR would show
that the complainant had claimed therein that they saw the incident under moon light and torch light. Thus it
becomes evident that torch light was
not claimed as sole source of light. The torch
light in itself is not a direct piece of evidence but it could, at the
best, provide a corroboration to claim of identification of appellants or could
lead to an otherwise view. There can be no denial to the fact that a torch light is available and people in
the village do keep same for going out in night hours. The scanning of the
available material shows that parties happened to be known to each other which
stands clear from responses, given by complainant during his
cross-examination:-
“The accused are our
distant relatives. Accused are residing after leaving 2/3 houses from our house.”
The complainant party, in the first stand, only involved / named
present appellants while claiming to have identified them properly through the
two sources of the lights i.e moon light
and torch light, therefore, mere non-production of the torch light cannot adversely affect the evidence of these witnesses.
Besides, this it is important that the defence at no stage has claimed their
identity by the witnesses to be a mistaken due to darkness hence it is safe to
say that the defence never came with a plea or least suggestion that their
involvement was the result of mistaken identity.
17. Moreover, we
also examined this aspect of the case from another angle. The complainant in
his cross examination stated that “The wardat was inspected on torch lights.
We handed over the torch lights to the police at wardat”. The
complainant specifically claimed to have handed over the torch lights to the Investigating officer on the very day of the incident.
It is worth to mention here that the defence did not put any question least a
suggestion to the Investigating Officer ASI Wali Mohammad regarding claim of
the complainant to have handed over the torch
light to him. Even otherwise, this sole ground with regard to failure of
the investigating officer for not securing under mashirnama is not fatal to the
case of prosecution.
18. As regards to the plea of the witnesses being related and
inter-se, it would be material to make it clear that it is not the relationship
which makes one a witness of truth or otherwise. It is now a well settled
principle of law that “Evidence of
witness cannot be disbelieved merely on his relationship with parties as held
in case of Zulfiqar Ahmed vs. the State, reported as 2011 SCMR 492.
19. HERE one
thing is worth understanding that term ‘related’
should not be confused with the term ‘interested’
because both are entirely independent to each other. There is a
considerable distinction between the terms ‘related’
and ‘interested’ because the
interested witness needs not necessarily be a related but it is the person who has
such a motive on account of enmity or any other consideration that due to such
enmity or consideration he has prepared himself to depose falsely. The term ‘related’ is positive in its meaning
while the term ‘interested’ is
negative in its meaning because the term a related
is not necessarily obtaining favour for one but the an ‘interested’ is always to gain favour for whom or what he / she is
interested with. Though the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove
truthfulness of a related witness but where the defence claims the witness to
be ‘interested’ burden shifts upon
defence to establish that witness had
such a motive on account of enmity or any other consideration which compelled
him to depose falsely as held in case of Khizar Hayat vs. the State, reported
as 2011 SCMR 429.
20. In the instant case the claim of
the complainant and PW Gulshad regarding following facts have not been
challenged or denied by the defence:
PW complainant Ajeeb-ur-Rehman
“It was about 9.00 pm, and I was available at house of deceased
Amjad alongwith Mohammad Moosa and Gulshad Ahmed and were
chit chatting with the deceased Amjad Hussain”
“My house and house of deceased Amjad Hussain are adjacent to each
other”
“Mohammad Moosa and Gulshad P.Ws are brothers. These P.Ws reside after
leaving 2/3 houses from our houses”
PW Gulshad
“The incident……. When I alongwith complainant and Mohammad Moosa
were present at the house of the deceased Amjad Hussain and we were chit
chatting with the deceased Amjad Hussain”
The record is evident
that the defence did not question / challenge such claim of the prosecution
hence the legal presumption, within meaning of the Article 129 of the
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, allows taking presumption that presence of the
witnesses was rather admitted by the defence. Both the witnesses have remained
unwavering with each other in respect of all material aspects i.e from moment
of deceased Amjad going out on call of nature; attracting of these witnesses on
cries; and their act of rushing on such cries, which was quite natural. The
witnesses have also given conforming details of the weapons with which the
appellants were armed and even the use of such weapons on person of the
deceased Amjad in the garden of the Ghulam Mohammad Agro. The defence has not
challenged any of the claims of these witnesses rather the defence strengthened
the claim of the prosecution which is evident from cross- examination of these
witnesses which is as follows:-
PW complainant Ajeeb-ur-Rehman:
“It is a fact that I
have given the details of Karap in F.I.R. The deceased had shifted to Karachi
as soon as he was suspected to be Karo where he had remained for about 6
months”
PW Gulshad:
“Deceased was suspected as Karo by the
accused”
There has been brought nothing on record by the defence which
could show that these witnesses were having any such an enmity or consideration
which motivated them to depose falsely against appellants on charge of murder
of their blood-relation. It is the direct evidence which is decisive and even
statement of the sole eye witness, if found confidence inspiring, is sufficient
to hold conviction even in a murder case. The reference, if any, can be made to
the case of Niazuddin and another v. The State reported as 2011 SCMR 725.
21. It is
germane to mention that it is settled principle of law that the medical evidence is decisive and most
reliable source in proving the nature of
injuries, time of occurrence, death and the kind of weapons. The position,
being so, make it obligatory that whenever prosecution, through direct
evidence, claims nature of injury or
injuries, time of occurrence, death and the kind of weapons to be in a
particular manner then Safe Criminal Administration of Justice demands that
such direct evidence be examined
with reference to medical evidence because it could be the medical evidence
alone which could corroborate such claim (direct evidence) of prosecution or
could result in causing a dent in such claim of the prosecution.
22. Thus, it
would be significant to examine evidence of the PW-4 Dr. Muhammad Yakoob in juxtaposition
of ocular account.
As per PWs
Ajeeb-ur-Rehman and Gulshad, they found that appellant Qadar was armed with gun
and Nadeem was armed with Danda who caused butt
of the gun and Danda blows to the deceased. Here one thing requires an
explanation that though appellant Qadar was alleged to be armed with gun but he
was attributed role of causing butt of
gun which may have been for the reason that a fire report creates much
sound hence could have resulted in attracting the villagers. However, as per available
material the prosecution claims the injuries to be result of hard and blunt substance. Let’s see
what the PW Dr. Mohammad Yakoob stated about weapon (s), used for causing such
injuries. PW Dr. Mohammad Yakoob, in his evidence so also in the post mortem
report described the injuries to be ‘lacerated’
which could only be result of hitting of hard and blunt substance. Even
this witness, in his opinion, has stated that “death of the deceased is ……….. as the result
of brain injuries which are mentioned above, caused by hard and blunt substance”.
Hence, medical evidence fully supports the ocular account to extent of weapon
for kind of injuries.
23. As per
prosecution the time of occurrence was 10.00 p.m, and it was also claim of the
prosecution witnesses (eye-witnesses) that injured was being taken to hospital
but in the way he succumbed to injuries. This claim of the prosecution also
finds support from the medical evidence whereby the medical officer has spoken
about time of occurrence/injuries, succumbing to injuries and post mortem as
under:-
“Time between the injuries and death approximately one hour,
and between death and postmortem 6 to 7 hours”
Here it is worth to add here that since the expert gives opinion about time of
death on basis of his experience and expertise therefore, margin up to 3 or 4 hours
can be given and such a difference should not be taken as fatal to ocular
account. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the medical evidence
corroborates the ocular account in respect of all material things which medical
evidence could.
24. So far as to
the recovery of crime weapon(s), i.e Gun and DANDA effected from the appellants,
there is no cavil in proposition of law that the recovery at the pointation of
disclosure of the accused is admissible under Article 40 of the
Qanun-e-Shahadat order which only requires that there should be i) statement / information by accused and
ii) which should lead to discovery / recover, reference if any can be drawn
from the case of Mst. Askar Jan & others vs. Muhammad Daud & others, reported
as 2010 SCMR 1604. In the instant case the prosecution came with a plea
that both appellants during their arrest volunteered to produce the crime
weapons and subsequent to such disclosure they did produce such crime weapons
i.e Danda and gun hence prosecution established the recovery of crime weapons
too. Even otherwise, mere failure of the recovery is not fatal for prosecution
nor could be taken as to disbelieve the direct evidence if same is corroborated
by medical evidence and also comes as natural and confidence inspiring.
25. In view of
above discussion, we are of the firm view that the prosecution successfully
established the guilt against the appellants but we find the quantum of
sentence, awarded by the learned trial court, as harsh. The prosecution did establish that it were the present
appellants who caused injuries to deceased by following the deceased during
night hours, having weapons in their hands which were sufficient to establish
the intent of both appellants regarding using such weapons so as to cause
murder. At the same time, it is also matter of record that some of the injuries
on person of the deceased were on non-vital parts of the body and medical
evidence proved that it was injury on skull which resulted into death. It was
not established that as to which of the two appellants caused such injuries.
26. Further, the
witnesses also did not remained in same line regarding motive which may be for
reason of honour; therefore, these
should have been taken as mitigating circumstances. No special quantum of
mitigation for converting death sentence into imprisonment for life is required
but even an iota of evidence toward mitigation is sufficient to justify lesser
sentence Reference can be made to the case of Dilawar Hussain Vs. the State,
reported in 2013 SCMR 1582.
27. Accordingly,
we maintained the conviction, so awarded by the trial court, but while converting
it from death to imprisonment for life. The compensation
awarded by trial court is maintained. The appellants will be entitled to avail
the benefit of section 382 B CrPC.
28. Since there
are extenuating circumstances in this case, not calling for confirmation of
death sentence, as such Reference No.5/2010 is answered in negative.
Consequently death sentence is not confirmed.
J U D G E
Imran/PA