1. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-----This is a confirmation case, and appeal arising from the judgment of Sessions Judge, Dadu, dated 22-11-1977 in the Sessions Cases Nos. 606, 607 and 684 of 1976, whereby appellants Illahi Bux, Nabi Bux and Kevo were convicted under section 452, P. P. C.
2. And sentenced to undergo R. I. For two years and pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default of payment to suffer R. I. For further 9 months and also convicted under section 365, P. P. C. To undergo R. I. For three years and pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default of payment to undergo R. I. For 6 months. All accused were acquitted of the offence under section 323/34, P. P. C. Appellant Illahi Bux was alone convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default of payment to undergo R.I. For 12 months. The other appellants were acquitted of the offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. Illahi Bux was also acquitted of the offence under section 13-D of Arms Act.
3. By the same judgment the co-accused Soomar was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted from all the charges framed against him including the charge under section 382, P. P. C. There is no appeal or revision against these acquittals by anyone.
2. The facts and circumstances leading to, this confirmation and appeal as disclosed in the F. I. R.
4. Of Mirzo are that on 24-5-1976, the complainant Mirzo, his mother-in-law Mst. Khanzadi and his wife Mst. Asiat and the wife of his cousin Mst. Lakhan were sitting in the house of the complainant at Deh Boori, Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah, District Dadu at Tepahri time. The complainant recapitulated that about 11 months back one Sabaz Ali, the cousin of the complainant had abducted Mst. Darya Khatoon wife of the deceased brother of Illahi Bux and he was not traceable. Dispute in respect of this abduction between Illahi Bux and complainant Mirza had been settled by their nekmurd Raees Noor Nabi Khan and the com--plainant party had paid Rs. 5,000 to appellant Illahi Bux, But Illahi Bux and others have grudge against them. On 24-5-1976 at tipahri time while the complainant party was sitting in the house of appellant Illahi Bux, Nabi Bux and Kevo all sons of Allah Yar came in the house of the com--plainant, Illabi Bux had a gun in his hand while Nabi Bux and Kevo had a hatchet each. Accused said "we have to take revenge of woman from you", thereafter Illahi Bux caught Mst. Lakhan, deceased from her hand, accused Nabi Bux caught Mst. Asiat from her arm while accused Kevo caught Mst. Khanzadi upon which all these women and complainant raised cries. Mst. Lakhan refused to go, on account of which Illahi Bux fired from his gun which hurt Mst.
5. Lakhan on her face and she fell down. The other two accused dragged away the other two women beating them and they cried. On cries Ali Hassan and Amir Bux came running and saw accused dragging the ladies. None went near the accused due to fear. Complainant narrated the incident to the witnesses. Mst. Lakhan died. Complainant thereafter went to his nekmard Allan Chandio and narrated him the facts and on advice from him he went to Police Post, Mado.
6. F. I. R. Was registered on the same date at 21-30 hours, it was recorded by H. C. Ghulam Rasool. The H. C. Ghulam Rasool sent, the report to Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station, and himself reached the scene of offence. He prepared Mashirnama of vardat and recovered the crime empties from the scene of offence. Blood-stained earth was also secured and both the articles were sealed. He also saw the dead body of Mst. Lakhan and prepared the inquest and he thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Thereafter he handed over the investigation to Ghulam Rasool Jatoi S. H. O. Of Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station who had reached the spot on 25-5-1976, and who had recorded the copy of the entry from station- diary of the Police Post, Mado in 164, Cr. P. C.
7. Book of K. N. Shah Police Station on 25-5-1976 at 8-35 hours. He then proceeded to Police. Post, Mado and thereafter to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P. W. Amir Bux, Allan and Ali Hassan. On 26-5-1976 he arrested accused Illahi Bux from Nai Boori in presence of mashirs Haji Razi and Jhando and prepared Mashirnama. He recovered Mst. Asiat and Mst. Khanzadi from the possession of Illahi Bux and prepared mashirnama for the same. The women were identified by complainant' Mirzo. He also recorded- their statements and sent them to the hospital as they had injuries on their' persons. On 1-6-1976 he arrested accused Kevo and Nabi Bux in the presence of same mashirs under a masirnama. On interrogation, accused Nabi Bux and Kevo volunteered on 2-6-1976 to produce hatchets and the hatchets were recovered as found concealed in the ground as pointed out by the same accused under two separate mashir--namas. On 2-6-1976 S. H. O. Got 164, Cr. P. C. Statements of Mst. Asiat and Mst. Khanzadi recorded before Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M.
8. Accused Illahi Bux on interrogation volunteered to produce the gun and on 6-6-1976 be took Investigation Officer Ghulam Rasool Jatoi and the same mashirs to Nai Bori and from the back of it he took out one single barrel gun from underneath the sand where it was lying concealed.
9. Thereafter the gun was secured and mashirnama prepared. Illahi Bux was not able to produce Licence for the gun and hence a separate F. I. R. Under section l3-D, Arms Act was recorded. After recording the statements of the mashirs and completing other formalities, the challan was presented in Court on 10-6-1976. Blood-stained earth was sent to Chemical Analyser and the report of the Chemical Analyser is that the earth was stained with human blood. Crime empty recovered from scene of offence and the gun recovered at the instance of accused Illahi Bux was sent to the Ballistic Expert and the report of the Ballistic Expert is that the crime empty was fired from the same gun. The hatchets recovered from Nabi Bux and Kevo were not sent to the Chemical Expert as they were not blood-stained.
10. The post-mortem of Mst. Lakhan was carried out by Dr. Abdul Khaliq on 25-5-1976 who found 57 pellet wounds on her face, neck, shoulder, chest and abdomen etc. The post-mortem was carried out on 25-5-1976 between 3 and 4-15 p.m. And time between death and post-mortem was about 24 hours. Thus death occurred at about 4 p.m. The Doctor found semi-digested food in the stomach of the deceased which shows that death occurred about 3 or 4 hours after taking lunch.
11. The cause of death according to the Doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of fire- arm injuries. Injuries Nos. 11 to 12 individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to the opinion of the doctor the injuries resulted from more than one shots and appeared to have been caused from a distance of 6 feet. The Doctor was however also of the view that if the assailant was at some distance from the deceased then all the injuries may have been caused with one shot.
12. The same doctor also examined Mst. Asiat on 26-5-1976 and found 5 contusions on her body which were simple in nature and were caused by bard and blunt substance. On the same day the same Doctor examined Mst. Khanzadi and found one lacerated wound and four contusions on her body which were simple in nature and appeared to have been caused with some hard and blunt substance. Injuries upon both persons were about 48 hours old.
13. The complainant Mirzo also filed a private complaint on 8-6-19'76 under sections 302, 366, 451, 323/34, P. P. C. Before the District Magistrate, Dadu where he alleged that the Police had not correctly recorded the F. I. R. And had left out the name of one Soomar. The complainant said that the F. I. R. Had hot been read out to him. The complainant stated that Soomar had also caught hold of Mst. Lakhan and he had hatchet in his hand while accused Kevo had a lathi in his hand. The complainant farther stated that accused Soomar had removed gun and bandolier of cartridges belonging to Abdul Ghafoor, the husband of deceased Mst. Lakhan, who had gone away to Khairpur Nathan Shah. He further stated in this complaint that correct names of the witnesses who came on the cries, namely Laung and Ghulam Mohammad were not recorded in the F. I. R. The complaint was sent by the District Magistrate Dadu to Civil Judge and F. C. M., Khairpur, Nathan Shah who recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr. P. C. On 9-6-1976. This complaint was sent up by the Magistrate to the Sessions Judge, Dadu who took cognizance against all the accused includ--ing accused Soomar under sections 302, 456 and 366 read with 34, P. P. C.
14. On application from the District Public Prosecutor that all the three cases should be tried together the cases were consolidated and consolidated charge was framed against all the accused on 3- 5-1977 and all the accused were charged under sections 452, 302/34, 323/34 and 366, P. P. C.
15. Accused Soomar alone was charged under section 382, C. P. C. And accused Illahi Bux was charged alone under section 13-D, Arms Act, thereafter trial proceeded and the prosecution examined three eye-witnesses, namely complainant Mirzo, Mst. Khanzadi and P. W. Mst. Asiat whose depositions were corroborated by p. Ws. Ghulam Ahmed, Loung and Allan Khan. Prosecution also examined Haji Razi and Jhando. The two Investigating Officers, namely H, C. Ghulam Rasool and S. H. O. Ghulam Rasool Jatoi and Doctor Abdul Khaliq were also examined apart from some formal witnesses. Thereafter the case of the prosecution was closed. The statements of accused were recorded who denied the incident and stated that the P. Ws. Had deposed against them due to enmity and the complainant and his party had abducted some Broohi women who in turn abducted their women in retaliation and the police got back the women from Broohis. The statement of Illahi Bux was adopted by his brothers Nabi Bux and Kevo. Soomar denied the allegation against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated as the prosecution witnesses were on inimical terms with him due to matrimonial dispute and that he was related to Illahi Bux.
16. The accused examined no one in their defence. The prosecution has relied upon (1) Oral statements of eye-witnesses (i) Complainant Mirzo, (ii) P. W. Mst. Khanzadi, the injured mother-in- law of complainant, (iii) P. W. Mst. Asiat, the injured wife of Mirzo and P. Ws. (iv) Ghulam Mohammad and (v) Loung. Other pieces of evidence are (2) Recovery of hatchets from accused Nabi Bux and Kevo which were not stained with blood and were therefore left out of consideration and (3) recovery of gun at the instance of Illahi Bux coupled with the recovery of one crime empty from the scene of offence to be read along with the report of the Ballistic Expert which connects the crime empty with the gun as having been fired from the same. (4) Corroboration in support of the statement of Mirzo has been sought from the statement of Allan Khan who is nekmard of the complaining party and to whom the incident was related by Mirzo. (5) The medical evidence of Dr. Abdul Khaliq has been used by the prosecution to prove the injuries upon the deceas--ed Asst.
17. Lakhan and the other two ladies injured Mst. Khanzadi and Mst. Asiat. (6) Motive relied upon is the desire to take revenge for the abduction of Mm Darya Khatoon widow of deceased brother of Illahi Bux by Sabz Ali who was the cousin of complainant Mirzo and the consequent resistance of Mst.
18. Lakhan to be abducted resulting in her being fired at by Illahi Bux.
19. Time of offence, viz. Tipahri time on 24-5-1976 (approximately between 4 & 5 p.m.) as given in the F.
20. I. R. Tallies with the time of death as suggested in the post-mortem report as the post-mortem was started on 25-5-1976 at 3 p.m. And finished at 4-15 p.m. And probable time that elapsed between death and post-mortem is stated to be about 24 hours: Place of death being the house of complainant Mirzo is the same as, given in F. I. R. And deposed to by P. Ws. Mirzo, Khanzadi and Asiat the alleged eye-witness and the mashir P. W. Jhando as well as shown in the Mashirnama of vardat Exh. 18 which describes the place where the dead body was found as the house of complainant in Deh Boori wherefrom stained earth was secured and sealed and it was certified by the Chemical Examiner to be stained with human blood vide report Exh. 40.
21. F. I. R. Is filed within a reasonable time at 9-30 p.m. Within about 5 hours of the incident in view of the fact that Mirzo places the incident at tipahri time which is approximately between 4 and 5 p.m.
22. In the month of ban and Mirzo bad first to travel about 2 to 3 miles to the house of AllanNekmard, and thereafter Mirzo had to go to Police post which was about 10 miles away from the vardat.
23. Therefore, considering the distances involved about 4 to 5 hours would approximately be required to complete the work of the complainant. There was thus no unreasonable delay involved in filing the F.1. R.
24. Similarly there was no delay in reporting the incident to the Nekmard Allan Khan, whose deposition corroborates the version of the complainant, as the incident was reported to him by complainant Mirzo on 24-5-1976, at tipahri time.
25. Mirzo is a natural witness who could be in his own house at the relevant time.
26. Similarly his wife Mst. Asiat and Mst. Khanzadi are the natural witnesses who could be present in that house. Moreover the presence of Mst. Asiat and Mst. Khanzadi cannot be doubted as they have suffered 5 simple injuries each on the various parts of their bodies as deposed to by P. W. 13 Dr: Abdul Ghafoor.
27. The versions given by all these three P. Ws. Is consistent with each other except on minor details.
28. Every one of them has however given two versions of the incident. In the earliest version given in the F. I. R. By Mirzo on 24-5-1976 and the version given by Mst. Khanzadi and Mst. Asiat in their statements under section 161 of Cr. P. C. Before the Police at the time of their recovery on 26-5-1976 and also even in the 164, Cr. P. C: statements of these ladies recorded by the Mukhtiarkar and the first Class Magistrate of Khairpur Nathan Shah on 2-6-1976, they have all stated that on the fateful day at about tipahari time Illahi Bux with his two brothers Nabi Bux and Kevo came to their house and demanded compensation for abduction of Darya Khatoon by Sabzali. Ilahi Bux had a gun and Nabi Bux and Kevo had hatchets. Ilahi Bux caught hold of Mst. Lakhan deceased wife of Abdul Ghafoor and Nabi Bux caught hold of Mst. Asiat and Kevo caught hold of Mst. Khanzadi and started dragging them Mst. Lakhan refused to go and resisted upon which ltlahi Bux fired gun at her and she. Fell down. The other two women were beaten with hatchet handles and were taken away.
29. Therefore from 24-5-1976 to 2-6-1976 the version of all 3 prosecution witnesses seems to be the same: Mirzo says that Soomar had been arrested by Police but he was released and on his release Mirzo realized that Soomar has b-.En left out by Police from the F. I. R. Purposely on account of his being an influential man and therefore Mirzo filed a direct. Complaint before the District Magistrate and involved Soomar fully in the incident and alleged that his F. I. R. Had not been correctly recorded and the names of the Ghulam Mohammad and Loung as the persons who came on cries had been left out.
30. The learned Sessions Judge has refused to believe the later version of the incident to be correct and he has given reasonable grounds for the game and we agree with him that after all Soomar could not be that much influential that for his sake the Head Constable Ghulam Rasool of. Mado Police Post and S. H. O. Ghulam Rasool Jatoi of Khairpur Nathan Shah Police Station and on the top of it the Mukhtiarkar and First Class Magistrate of K. N. Shah could have all gone so much out of the way as to exclude entirely the name and activity of soomar and the means of Ghulam Ahmed and Loung from the F. I. R. And from the statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of Cr. P. C. Such serious allegations cannot be accepted against all the responsible officers of the State and particularly against a Magistrate who is a judicial officer, unless a proper foundation for the same is first established. But such foundation is lacking in this case and hence the bare allegation that Soomar's name and activity and the names of Ghulam and Loung were purposely left out by the three concerned officers is not sub--stantiated and it is therefore clear -that the F. I. R. Was correctly recorded and the statements under sections 161 and 164 of Cr. P. C. Were also recorded as stated by these witnesses and therefore the improved version of Mirzo and the two women is to be discarded and their original version alone has to be considered.
31. What prompted complainant Mirzo to improve or change the version between 2-6-1976 and 8-6- 1976 is just a matter of guess. No sensible person could give a different version of the incident after the statement of the star witnesses of the prosecution, who were injured and whose presence could not be doubted, bad been recorded by the police as well as by the Magistrate and that too after 15 days of the initial report. The only purpose seems to be to get the whole initial prosecution story discredited and demolished rather than to secure the conviction of the guilty person who had been left out.
32. It seems that the two parties who are very closely related to each other were made to realize by common relations or friends or realized it themselves that they had gone too far in this hoary business and it was time to call a halt. And so probably they made up their differences. Then they must have thought of the way how to avoid the results of this case. Since they could not completely change their whole story in view of statements having been recorded by a Magistrate, they must have sought advice and then devised a scheme to introduce such elements of suspicion and doubt in the, prosecution case which would be difficult to get over and with that end in view the improved version of the incident was introduced and the injured women were also made to conform to the same so that the version of even these eye-witnesses whose presence would not be challenged becomes tainted with suspicion.
33. All this is however a surmise on our part and we cannot base our judgment upon the same even though it looks reasonable. We have to confine ourselves to circumstances of the case appearing on the record.
34. Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that in view of the admitted enmity between the parties as admitted by all the prosecution witnesses and in view of the fact that all the alleged eye-witnesses have implicated an innocent person Soomar as an accused they are not worth relying upon and their whole evidence should be rejected. In the alternative he contends that the evidence of such partisan and partially false witnesses should not be relied upon unless it receives independent corroboration. He relies for this proposition upon PLD 1963 SC 40 which lays down that independent corroboration is to be insisted upon in case of interested and inimical witnesses. He also relies upon PLD 1966 Kar. 637 where it was held that where names of two persons were added as accused who were not mentioned in the F. I. R. And those two accused where acquitted by Court then independent corrobora--tion was necessary in support of the prosecution witnesses before the rest of the accused could be convicted.
35. Mr. Murtuza Hussain, learned counsel for the State has on the other hand relied upon PLD 1973 SC 418 where it was held that the maxim of ---falsus in uno falsus in omnibns" cannot be made applicable to the administration. Of Criminal Justice in Pakistan and therefore Courts are under a duty to sift "Chaff from the grain". Mr. Murtaza however conceded that in view of trouble between the parties it would be safe to seek corroboration of the testimony of the eye-witnesses in this case.
36. Therefore we will try to sift truth and falsehood in the statements of prosecution witnesses. W e have discarded the changed or improved version of the prosecution witnesses in respect of Soomar and his alleged participa--tion in the crime or his removing the gun or bandolier of cartridges. On the same ground we cannot rely upon the testimony of P. Ws. Ghulam Ahmed and Loung as their names were neither mentioned in the F. I. R. By Mirzo or stated by the ladies Khanzadi and Asiat in their statements before the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr. P. C. And the inclusion of their names was an afterthought.
37. Now the remaining part of the depositions of the three eye-witnesses namely Mirzo, Khanzadi and Asiat is that there was a dispute between them and Illahi Bux on the abduction of Darya Khatoon by Sabzali and their Nekmard Rais Noor Nabi and settled the dispute and they had paid Rs 5000 and a girl to Illahi Bux. They all state that they were sitting in their house at about tipahri time when.
38. Illahi Bux, armed with a gun, Nabi Bux and Soomar both armed with hatchets and Kevo armed with a lathi came in their and Ilahi Bux declared, "we have to take the revenge of woman from you.".
39. Illahi Bux and Soomar caught hold of Mst. Lakhan, Nabi Bux caught hold of Mst. Asiat and Kevo caught hold of Me. Khanzadi and they dragged them on which they raised cries. Mst. Lakhan refused to go upon which Illahi Bux fired upon her with his gun and she fell down. The accused threatened other persons not to come near, Nabi Bux caused injuries to Mst. Khanzadi and Kevo gave blows to Mst. Asiat and they carried with them Mst. Khanzadi and Asiat. They also state that Ghulam Ahmed and Loung had come on their cries.
40. There is no divergence or contradiction in the statements of these 3 eye-witnesses in respect of the part played by Illahi Bux, There is some divergence in respect of Kevo having a lathi or hatchet and as to which lady was dragged and beaten by which of the accused. Kevo is described to be having a lathi instead of a hatchet as disclosed in the F. I. R. But the same is not a matter of great significance as there is no allegation in these deposi--tions of Kevo having caused injuries by the sharp side of hatchet. Kevo is alleged to have caused injuries by the handle of hatchet in the F. I R.
41. This contradiction is not of such a nature as to demolish the entire testimony. The divergence about Kevo having dragged and beaten either Mst. Khanzadi or Mst. Asiat and Nabi Bux having dragged and beaten either Mst Asiat or Mst. Khanzadi between statement of complainant Mirzo on one side and statements of Asiat and Khanzadi on the other side is again not of a material nature.
42. In fact in this respect the statement of Mirzo in Court and his statement in F. I. R. Are to the effect that Nabi Bux caught and beat Mst. Asiat and Kevo caught and beat Mst. Khanzadi. Even the 164, Cr.
43. P. a statements of Mst. Khanzadi and Asiat are also to the same effect. But in their statements in Court both Khanzadi and Asiat have changed Nabi into Kevo and Kevo into Nabi Bux: as their abductors. This change ma be due to some confusion or lapse bf memory on the part of either or ma eon be prompted but this is not of material significance as the ladies has received injuries, which are proved by the doctor, and they have abducted and were natural persons to be present at the place of incident and their version about Illahi Bux is the same. Even the presence of Mirzo cannot be denied as it was his house where the Murder took place and therefore he could naturally be present in his house. Moreover he had gone to his Nekmard without any loss of time on the same day and has thereafter lodged his report at the police post after travelling more than ten miles. The version given in the F. I. R. Corroborates complainant's testimony in Court in respect of murder of Mst. Lakhan by Illahi Bux, and the eventual abduction of Mst. Khanzadi and Mst. Asiat by Nabi Bux, Kevo and Illahi Bux and only that part of his statement in Court where Soomar has been added as a culprit and the removal of gun and bandolier by Soomar and coming of Ghulam Ahmed and Loung is not believed as the same is at variance with the F. I. R. Which has been held to have been correctly recorded without unreasonable delay. The statements in Court of the eye-- witnesses in respect of murder of Mst. Lakhan and injuries upon Mst. Khanzadi and Asiat is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that Mst. Lakhan was killed by gunshot injuries and Mst. Khanzadi and Asiat had received simple injuries on their persons. Mr. Hayat has submitted that the evidence of the doctor does not corroborate the statements of eye-witnesses as the doctor states that the injuries on Mst. Lakhan could be the result of more than one gunshot. But the same doctor has later clarified that if the assailant was at some distance from the deceased then all the injuries may have been caused by one shot. Mr. Hayat states that while dragging Mst.
44. Lakhan it was not possible for Illahi Bux to shoot her. But this is of no consequence as everyone of the eye-witnesses states that he shot at her, on her refusal to go with him. Therefore corroboration is available in medical evidence. Further corroboration is provided by the presence of motive on account of the abduction of widow of the deceased brother of Illahi Bux and other appellants by Subzali. All the three appellant are brothers. All the three eye-witnesses are uniform in the matter of this motive and their statements are supported by the independent statement of their Nekmard Allan. Thus the offences under sections 452 and 366, P. P. C. Are clearly proved against the appellant. Similarly the offence under section 302, P. P. C. Is proved against Illahi Bux.
45. The circumstance of the recovery of a shot-gun on 6-6-1976, at the instance of Illahi Bux has been correctly discarded by the trial Judge as one of the mashirs, namely Razi has given a go-by to the prosecution case and he was declared hostile while the other mashir, namely Jhando bad remained with the police throughout between 25-5-1976 and 6-6-1976 arid he had thus shown keen interest in the prosecution and could not be regarded as an independent person and hence his presence at the time of recovery was of no consequence and could not be regarded as sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 103, Cr. P. C. Moreover the Investigating Officer had stated that Illahi Bux was denying to produce the crime weapon on 26-5-1976 and upto 5-6- 1976. Illahi Bux was not ready to produce the gun in spite of repeated interrogation. What changed him suddenly that on 6-6.1976 he pointed out the gun is anybody's guess. But in these - circumstances the recovery of the gun has been rightly discarded by the learned Sessions Judge.
46. Therefore since the recovery of gun is doubtful, the report of the ballistic expert loses it's significance and the same has also to be left out of consideration and this important corroborating piece of evidence is lost for the prosecution. Similarly the trial Judge has disbelieved the recovery of the women from the possession of Illahi Bux on account of certain discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. And investigating officer and therefore the same is not relied upon. But this does not change the situation as there are other corroborative circumstances available as discussed earlier which are Sufficient to sustain the conviction.
47. In fact the eye-witnesses being natural witnesses whose presence cannot be denied it would be difficult to conceive that they would conceal the real culprit and substitute some other innocent person on account of suspicion. This is not a case where it could be said that it was unwitnessed crime and therefore substitution on account of suspicion took place. The incident took place in the house of the complainant and his wife and mother-in-law were injured and abducted in his presence and the wife of his, cousin murdered and report was made to the Nekmard and F.I.R. Was lodged without unreasonable delay and all the story was narrated. Therefore it would be rather difficult to believe that someone, other than the real culprit has been involved, whatever was the addition to the first story and afterthought in respect of Soomar has already been discarded by us for the purpose of sifting grain from chaff. But the abduction of the women and the murder of Mst.
48. Lakhan has been proved convincingly.
49. We therefore dismiss this appeal and confirm the death sentence upon Illahi Bux as we do not find any extenuating circumstance for reducing the death sentence.