RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.----This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,28 of 1996 and Criminal Revision Application No,30 of 1996, as they arise out of common Judgment.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 23-1-1996, passed by learned Ist, Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, in Sessions Case No, 82 of 1990 (State v. Sattar and others) under sections, 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Judge convicted the appellants under section 302, P.P.0 read with section 149, P.P.0 and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs,50,000, or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For two years more. The appellants were further convicted under section 148, P.P.0 and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. For 3 years, with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
The trial Court directed each of the appellant to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, or in default thereof, to suffer R.I. For one year.
3. The complainant Ali Nawaz filed the revision application for enhancement of sentence of the appellants. During pending proceedings of the appeal and Revision application, the appellant Allah Rakhio died on 17-12-1998, therefore, the appeal stood abated against him.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal and revision application are that on 7-2-1990, the complainant Ali Nawaz, his brother deceased Shah Murad, P.Ws Shoukat Ali and his cousin Muhammad Aslam were returning from Taluka Hospital Kashmore to the shop of the complainant situated in Kashmore Town. At about 1.00 p.m., they came out from the hospital. Deceased Shah Murad was ahead of others. When the deceased reached on the road outside the hospital, the appellants Sattar, Amanullah and Bhooral armed with daggers, appellant Abdul Karim and accused Abdul Khaliq (who died during pending trial proceedings) armed with Lathis and deceased appellant Allah Rakhio armed with a revolver came there. The appellants challenged the deceased by saying that. They would take revenge of murder of Abdul Jabbar, brother of the appellant Sattar. The deceased accused Abdul Khaliq caught hold of the deceased from his backside. The appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah gave dagger blows to the deceased, which he received on his abdomen and other parts of his body. The appellant Abdul Karim gave Lathi blows to the deceased. The deceased appellant Allah Rakhio pointed his revolver towards the complainant and P.Ws and asked them not to go near the deceased. The deceased after receiving the injuries fell down on the ground. The complainant and P.Ws raised cries and asked the appellants not to kill the deceased. On the cries, many persons of Kashmore Town came there. On seeing the people, the appellants ran away. The complainant and P.Ws went to the deceased who was bleeding from his injuries and was lying unconscious. Therefore, the complainant and the P.Ws took the deceased to hospital for treatment. The complainant leaving the P.Ws with the deceased in the hospital went to the Police Station Kashmore for lodging the F.I.R.
5. The motive of the incident has been alleged that about six months prior to this incident Abdul Jabbar, the brother of appellant Sattar, was murdered. A case was registered in which Shahban, brother of the complainant and his other relatives namely Mashooq, Manzoor Ahmed, Hameed and Dadoo were challaned in the Court. In order to take the revenge of the murder of Abdul Jabbar, the incident took place.
6. The police after recording the F.I.R went to hospital where they saw the deceased lying injured. The police prepared the Mashirnama of his injuries. When Medical Officer received the deceased in injured condition at that time, he was unconscious but after giving him first aid, the deceased regained his senses, therefore, the doctor called the police to record the dying declaration.
The police arranged for a Magistrate who reached the hospital where he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in presence of the Medical Officer. Thereafter the deceased was referred to C.M.C., Hospital Larkana for further treatment. The complainant and his relatives were taking the deceased to hospital at Larkana but on the way he died, therefore, the deceased was brought back to Taluka Hospital Kashmore where the doctor conducted his postmortem examination.
7. The police visited the Wardat of this crime and prepared the Mashirnama. On 15-2-1990, the police arrested the appellant Abdul Karim and deceased appellant Allah Rakhio. On 16-2-1990, the appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah agreed to produce the bloodstained daggers and their blood-stained clothes, therefore, they separately took the police to their houses, produced the blood-stained daggers, and blood-stained clothes. The police secured the said articles separately and sealed them in presence of Mashirs. The appellants could not produce the licence of the daggers; therefore, separate F.I.Rs under section 13(e) of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 were lodged against them. On 19-2-1990, the deceased appellant Allah Rakhio produced an unlicensed revolver. In the meantime, the police recorded the statements of witnesses. The blood-stained daggers and blood-stained clothes of three appellants were sent to Chemical Analyser for examination and report. The report was in positive. After completing the investigation, the appellants and accused Abdul Khaliq were challaned in the Court of law. Before the charge was framed, the accused Abdul Khaliq died.
8. On 15-7-1991, the trial Court framed the charge under sections 302, 148, 149 P.P.0 against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty.
9. In support of the case, the prosecution examined the following nine witnesses:-- S.No, P.W.No, Name of P.W Brief summary of Evidence
1. P.W.1 Ali Nawaz Complainant/eye-witness. He gave the details of the incident, as mentioned above.
2. P.W.2 Shoukat Ali Eye-witness. He also gave the same details as stated by P.W.1.
3. P.W.3 Abdul Fattah S.D.M. Shikarpur. On 7-2-1990, he was Assistant Mukhtiarkar and IInd. Class Magistrate Kashmore. He recorded the dying declaration of the decreased.
4. P.W.4 Muhammad Hayat Tapedar. He produced the sketch of Wardat.
5. P.W.5 Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed Medical Officer: He examined the deceased in injured condition and found nine injuries on his person. Out of them, seven injuries were incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon such as dagger or knife and two injuries were lacerated wounds caused by Lathi. He declared the deceased fit to give his statement; therefore, under his permission dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate in his presence and certified the same to be so recorded.
6. P.W.6 P. C. Muhammad ChuttalHe handed over the dead body to Medical Officer for post-mortem examination.
7. P.W.7 Liaqat Ali Mashir of injuries on the person of deceased, lace of Wardat from where blood-stained earth was secured and sealed. Mashir of dead body and inquest report, arrest of appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah.
8. P.W.8 Imdad Ali Mashir of arrest of appellant Abdul Karim, deceased appellant Allah Rakhio, and securing of a lathi from the possession of the appellant Abdul Karim. Mashir of production of blood-- staineddaggers and blood-stained clothesby the appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah from their houses, which they produced separately one after other. The Articles were sealed and Mashirnamas were prepared. He identified the said Articles to be the same, which were lying in the Court.
9. P.W.9 SIP. Raza Muhammad Muhammad Investigating Officer. He gave the Details of his investigation and produced Chemical Analyser report, which is in positive.
8. The appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied all the allegations of the prosecution. They did not take any defence plea.
9. The appellants examined defence witnesses, out of them two defence witnesses, Qadir Nawaz and Abdul Rasheed deposed that on 7-2-1990, there was no strike in Kashmore Town and the shops were opened. D.W.3 Yar Muhammad deposed that on 16-2-1990, he was present in his shop from 7.00 a.m. To 7.00 p.m., but he did not see police bring the appellant Bhooral to his house or secure anything from there.
10. After considering the material available on the record and hearing the parties' Counsel, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants, as mentioned above under the impugned Judgment.
11. The appellants and the complainant Ali Nawaz were dissatisfied with the said Judgment; therefore, they have preferred the appeal and Revision application respectively.
12. We have heard the Advocates for the appellants, complainant and state counsel in both the matters and perused the record of this case very carefully.
13. The learned Advocate for the appellants has stated that the prosecution have relied upon 3 pieces of evidence viz. (1) Dying Declaration (2) Ocular testimony and (3) recoveries. He has challenged the dying declaration on the ground that the injuries on the person of deceased were such by which the deceased was not able to speak, as just after the incident he became unconscious. He referred to the evidence of the complainant Ali Nawaz. He has further stated that even if the deceased had regained his senses for few minutes, then, also he would not have been able to give the dying declaration because of the nature of the injuries; that the dying declaration was tutored as the witnesses were with the deceased before recording his dying declaration. He has attacked the dying declaration by saying that the deceased had implicated only 3 appellants whereas the case of the prosecution is that the accused were 6 in number; that the deceased had not shown the presence of any eye-witness at the scene of incident and talked in a singular form, therefore, the presence of complainant and eye-witnesses have been belied by the dying declaration. He has further stated that the dying declaration is neither supported nor corroborated by any piece of evidence; therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. In support of his above submissions he has relied upon the cases of Faqir Ali v. State (1997 PCr.LJ 1453), (2)
Sikandar v. State (1990 PCr.LJ 396), (3) Ghulam Sarwar v. State (1978 SCMR 33), (4) Tawaib Khan v. State (PLD 1970 SC 13), (5) Sher Bahadur v. State (1972 SCMR 651), (6) Muhammad Yasin v. State (1978 SCMR 303) (7) Sultan v. State (1970 PCr.LJ 751).
16. He had further stated that the ocular testimony is untrustworthy as the witnesses are interested, hostile and inimical to the appellants, because of the murder of Abdul Jabbar, in which one of the brothers of complainant and his relatives were involved, therefore, the evidence of such witnesses requires strong and independent corroboration, which is lacking in the present case and that even the dying declaration is not corroborating the ocular testimony. He has further stated that according to the ocular testimony the purpose of going to hospital was to consult a Doctor about the ailment of the mother of the complainant but they could not meet the Doctor, therefore, they were returning; has not been proved as the mother of the complainant was not examined; that the conduct of P.W Shoukat by leaving the deceased in the hospital and going to his house when he was asked to leave the hospital by the Magistrate for recording the dying declaration is not natural; that the witnesses were not present at the wardat at the time of incident but were present at their houses and when they came to know about the incident they reached the hospital; that the independent witnesses available at the scene of incident were not examined. He has relied upon the case of Magrio v. State (1978 PCr.LJ 243). He has further stated that the motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved and that the motive is a double-edged weapon, which cuts both ends. He has relied upon Sahib Masih v. State (1982 SCMR 178). He has further stated that mere motive is not sufficient to convict the appellants and relied upon Muhammad Hassan v. State PLD 1982 Lah.
577).
17. The learned advocate for the complainant has stated that dying declaration was true and voluntarily made; that the deceased was in proper senses at the time of giving dying declaration which was certified to be so by the Medical Officer as he gave First aid to the deceased when he was brought before him in unconscious condition; that after regaining his senses, the Medical Officer informed the police who brought the Magistrate and then the dying declaration was recorded; that the deceased was not a man of questionable character and has been supported by promptly lodged F.I.R. In support of his submissions he has relied upon (1)
Niamat Ali v. State (1981 SCMR 61) (2) Shabaz v. Crown (PLD 1953 Lah. 566) (3) Taj Muhammad v. The Stae (PLD 1960 (W.P) Lah. 723),
(4) Aslam v. State (1997 SCMR 1284), (5) Ayaz Ali Shah v. State (1997 SCMR 1296) and (6) Mehrban v. State (1974 PCr.LJ 543). He has further stated that the prosecution have proved the recoveries of blood-stained daggers and bloodstained clothes from the possession of appellants Sattar, Amanullah and Bhooral; that the ocular testimony is reliable; that there are no contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses; that the ocular testimony by itself is sufficient to convict the appellants; that mere relationship inter se between the P.Ws. Is no ground to discredit their evidence. He has further stated that the prosecution have proved the case against the appellants; therefore, the normal sentence of death may be awarded to the appellants. He has further stated that the trial Court has not given reasons for awarding lessor sentence; that there are no mitigating circumstances for awarding lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. He has relied upon Muqddar Shah v. State (1974 SCMR 242) and Jetharam v.
Weram (1986 SCMR 1056).
18. The learned State counsel has adopted the arguments of the Advocate for the complainant and further added that the Chemical Analyser report with regard to blood-stained daggers and blood-stained clothes of appellants, Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah is in positive which is connecting the appellants with the commission of this crime. He has further stated that the motive alleged by the prosecution in this case has been proved; therefore, the appellants had reason to cause the death of the deceased.
He has further stated that dying declaration is true which is a substantive piece of evidence and can be relied upon even without any corroboration. He has relied upon Jawad v. State (2003 SCMR 1530). He has supported the impugned Judgment. As regards the sentence he has stated that the case of capital punishment has not been made out as the deceased has received nine injuries, out of them, seven injuries were caused with daggers; four injuries were caused on the vital part of the body whereas the remaining three injuries were caused on the non-vital part of the body and rest two injuries were caused by lathi, therefore, it is not known as to which one of the injuries were caused by which appellant so as to fix the responsibility on the appellants of causing fatal blows, therefore, these are mitigating circumstances which can be extended to the appellants in maintaining the sentence awarded by the trial Court.
19. In reply to arguments about enhancement of sentence, the learned Advocate for the appellant has taken the stand of learned State counsel and has relied upon a case of Ghulam Abbas v. State (PLD 1991 SC 1059).
20. We have given due consideration to the arguments and have. Gone through the evidence with the help of learned counsel.
From the evidence, we find that the prosecution have relied upon the following pieces of evidence:
(i) Motive
(ii) Dying Declaration.
(iii) Ocular testimony, and
(iv) Recoveries.
21. First, we will take up motive. The prosecution alleges that Abdul Jabbar, the brother of appellant Sattar was murdered in which Shahban, the brother of the complainant and his relatives were challaned and the present incident took place clue to that murder.
P.W.1 complainant deposed that the appellants duly armed with weapons when intercepted the deceased, they challenged him by saying that they would take the revenge of the murder of deceased Abdul Jabbar. The appellants in the cross-examination did not challenge the above statement but on the contrary, they obtained details of the said murder from him. The complainant admitted in the cross-examination that six months prior to the incident, Abdul Jabbar was murdered but he did not know who committed that murder, however, his brother Shahban and his relatives were challaned in the said murder case. He also admitted the suggestion made by the appellants that all the appellants were related to each other and members of one and same family. From the above position, it is clear that the motive as alleged by the prosecution about the incident has been admitted by the appellants.
22. Now we will take up the dying declaration. On this important piece of evidence, the statement of Medical Officer Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed reveals that when deceased Shah Murad was brought to him in injured condition, at that time he was unconscious.
Therefore, first aid treatment was given to him in the Casualty Ward, with the result that the deceased regained his senses.
Therefore, he informed the above facts to the police and asked them to make necessary arrangements for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. The police started preparing the documents and in the meantime, a Magistrate came. Then he accompanied the Magistrate to the Casualty Ward where the persons present there were turned out from the room. Then the Magistrate recorded the statement of injured and he appended the required certificate on the dying declaration. After seeing the dying declaration, he confirmed the above position.
23. The case of the prosecution is that just after the incident the deceased became unconscious. As such, the said case is supported and corroborated by the medical evidence. The prosecution have examined Magistrate Abdul Fattah. His evidence reveals that on 7-2-1990, the police gave him a letter for recording the dying declaration of Shah Murad; therefore, he went to Taluka Hospital Kashmore where he found several persons standing. They were turned out of the room. He inquired from the Medical Officer Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed as to whether the injured Shah Murad was in a position to give his statement, to which he replied in affirmative. Therefore, he asked necessary questions from the injured who replied the same and then he recorded the statement of the deceased in verbatim and obtained his LTI on it. His evidence further reveals that he asked the deceased to sign the statement but he put his LTI. The Medical Officer also gave such certificate, which is available on the dying declaration, and the same bears his signature. He has produced the dying declaration as Exh.22-A. Both the witnesses were subjected to cross- examination but the appellants did not deny the fact of recording of the dying declaration. No question was asked from the Medical Officer with regard to the objections raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
24. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased regained his senses after first aid treatment and thereafter the dying declaration was recorded. It is pertinent to point out that the incident took place at about 1-00 p.m. The deceased was brought in the hospital in unconscious conditions. The Medical Officer started giving him first aid, with the result that the deceased regained his senses and immediately thereafter, the arrangements were made for recording the dying declaration. As A such, there was no time left with anybody to consult with the deceased or tutor him the dying declaration. The dying declaration consists of few sentences, by itself shows that the same was true and without any consultation. It will be advantageous to reproduce the dying declaration, which is as under;- ' At about 1-00 p.m., I was going out of the hospital from its northern gate. On the way Sattar alias Saui, (2) Bhooral son of Fakir Bux,
(3) Amanoo alias Amanullah son of Khaliq and others, by caste Kasai, whom I shall identify, if, seen again, caused dagger blows on my abdomen. We have a dispute which is going on. I cannot sign.
24.From the above dying declaration, it is clear that the deceased was going all alone when the three appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah and other unidentified persons by caste Kasai armed with daggers caused him blows. Whereas the case of the prosecution is that apart from the above named three appellants, other appellants Abdul Khaliq, the father of appellant Amanullah, Abdul Karim and Allah Rakhio were also named in the F.I.R with specific role of taking part in the incident. Ocular testimony, has been led on the above lines. According to the prosecution case, all the appellants are related to each other and belong to one and same family, therefore, the deceased must be knowing all those persons, out of them, one was the father of appellant Atnanullah.But the deceased was so fair that he gave the names of three persons to whom he identified and shown the remaining persons as unidentified persons, therefore, he disclosed in dying declaration that he would be able to identify the other culprits, if he sees them again. Had the deceased been tutored then he would have given the names of other accused persons as stated by the witnesses. Thus, the allegation of tutored dying declaration has been falsified. It can further be verified that the deceased had shown himself alone at the time incident. Whereas the case of the prosecution is that the complainant and . Two P.Ws were also with the deceased. But, the same has been falsified by the dying declaration. After considering the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the faculty of speaking of the deceased was not affected at the time of recording of the dying declaration which he regained after giving him First Aid by the medical C officer; therefore, he gave the dying declaration which was properly recorded by the Magistrate in presence of the medical officer. Thus the dying declaration is true and voluntary made.
25. Now, we will take *Up the ocular testimony. The ocular testimony is consisted of the evidence of two P.Ws viz. Complainant Ali Nawaz and .P.W. Mushtaq. They have given the same details of the incident as mentioned above in the earlier part of the judgment; therefore, it will be only repetition of the same facts if they are given. Both the P.Ws have shown themselves eye-witnesses of the incident. But the said fact has not been proved from the dying declaration, as according to dying declaration the deceased was all alone when he was coming out from Taluka Hospital. Had these two witnesses been with the deceased, then the deceased would have named them, or at least, he could have used the sentence in plural form in his dying declaration. However, the words I was going out of Taluka Hospital, clearly demonstrate that he was all alone. As such the dying declaration has excluded the presence of both the eye-witnesses from the Wardat at the ' time of - incident. Furthermore, both the eye-witnesses are not only related to the deceased, but they are interested in the matter and hostile to the appellants, because of the murder of deceased Abdul Jabbar. In the murder case of Abdul Jabbar, the brother and relatives of the complainant were challaned. Therefore, the evidence of eye- witnesses requires strong and independent corroboration with regard to their presence at the scene of incident, which is lacking in the present case. On the contrary, their presence at the Wardat and time of incident has been excluded by the dying declaration.
Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, it is very unsafe to rely upon the ocular testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses.
27. Now, we will take up the recoveries of blood-stained daggers and blood-stained clothes of the appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah. The prosecution have relied upon the evidence of P.W.9 SIP Raza Muhammad (Investigating Officer) P.W. Mashir Imdad Ali. The evidence of P.W.9 reveals that during interrogation all the three appellants agreed to produce the weapons and their blood- stained clothes, therefore, they took them to their houses along with Mashir Imdad Ali and Co-Mashir Nawab Ali. First, the appellant Sattar produced the blood-stained dagger and blood stained clothes from his house. Then the appellant Amanullah produced the bloodstained dagger and blood-stained clothes from his house. Lastly the appellant Bhooral produced a bloodstained dagger and blood-stained clothes from his house. The said properties were secured under the three Mashirnamas (Exhs.27-B, 27-C and 27-D).
The properties were sealed and were sent to Chemical Analyser for examination and report. The report was produced as Exh.30. The Chemical Analyser reported that all the articles were stained with human blood. The evidence of Investigating Officer is corroborated by Mashir Imdad. Ali who has given the same details of the recoveries both the witnesses were subjected to the cross-examination but nothing has come on record to discredit their evidence. The appellants have pointed out no contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of both these witnesses on the above point. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the said evidence. As such, the prosecution have proved the recoveries of above articles in this case.
27-A. After scrutinizing the evidence available on the record, we are of the considered view that in the dying declaration only three appellants viz. Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah have been involved. There involvement has been further proved from the production of bloodstained daggers and blood-stained clothes by them, as such, the dying declaration is fully supported and corroborated by the recoveries, which is sufficient to convict the appellants as regards the appellant Abdul Karim, the deceased in the dying declaration has not involved him or any other nominated accused (except the appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah). The ocular evidence has not impressed us about the involvement of the appellant Abdul Karim or any other nominated accused therefore, we extend benefit of doubt to the appellant Abdul Karim.
27-B. As regards sentence, it is well settled principle of law that normal sentence for an offence punishable under section 302, P.P.0 is F death. However, if there are some mitigating circumstances, then a lesser sentence can be awarded. In the present case, the deceased had received in all nine injures, out of them; four injuries are on his abdomen and chest caused by dagger, which can be termed as fatal injures. Three injuries are also caused by dagger on other parts of the body of the deceased, out of which, one is on his arm, another is on his ring finger of the right hand and the third is on his right thigh. These injures are caused on non-vital parts of his body. As such, they can be termed as non-fatal. The remaining two injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance on the legs of the deceased. These injuries are on the non-vital parts of the his body and are non-fatal.
28. In the dying declaration, the deceased had not assigned the role of causing the four fatal injuries to any of the appellants individually. However, a general allegation was levelled that the three appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah and other unidentified persons had caused all the injuries. As such, it is not known as to which one of the appellants or other unidentified persons caused the said four fatal injuries, therefore, specific responsibility cannot be fixed on any of the appellants which regard to the said injuries. Thus, no case for awarding capital punishment has been made out.
29. The above view is supported by a case of Shehruddin v. Allah Rakhio reported in 1989 SCMR 1461. In the said case while allowing acquittal appeal the Honourable Supreme Court awarded. Sentence of imprisonment for life to the accused on the ground that it could not be ascertained as to whose shot hit the deceased. In another case of Allandad v. State (1995 SCMR 142) the Honourable Supreme Court altered death sentence to imprisonment for life on the ground that it was not proved with certainty as to who fired the fatal shot. Similar view was taken in cases of Saeed v. State reported in 1984 SCMR 1069 and Atta Mohammad v. State reported in 1985 SCMR 36.
30. After considering the evidence available on the record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution have proved the case against the appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah only; therefore, convictions and sentences are maintained. The case of the appellant Abdul Karim is doubtful; therefore, he is given the benefit of doubt. He is acquitted from the charge.
31. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 2-10-2003, by which we had disposed of the above Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Application in the following manner: "For the reasons to be recorded separately, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to appellant Abdul Karim, are set aside including the direction for payment of compensation. He is present on bail. He is acquitted and Set at liberty.
The conviction of appellants Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah and sentence awarded to them for the offences under section 302/149 and 148 P.P.C, are maintained including the compensation of Rs,50,000 awarded under section 544-A, Cr.P.0 payable by each of them, with the modification that in case of default in payment of compensation they should suffer further six months imprisonment.
The concession under - section 382-B, Cr.P.C., already allowed to the appellants Sattar Bhooral and Amanullah is maintained. Criminal Revision No,30/96 is dismissed. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The bail bonds of the appellants. Sattar, Bhooral and Amanullah are cancelled. The trial Court should arrest them and remand them to custody for serving out their sentences. Bail bonds of Abdul Karim who is present in Court stand discharged. The appeal abates as against Allah Rakhio who died during pendency of this appeal."