' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1252 of 2004 (Muhammad Imran v. The State) and Murder Reference No,862 of 2004 sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant, as both these matters arise out of the same judgment dated 30-6-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby, appellant was convicted, for the murder of Sajjad Nazir, under section 302(b) P.P.C. And sentenced to death with a fine of Rs,1,00,000 in default whereof to undergo two years' R.I. With a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs,2,00,000 as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof to further undergo S.I. For six months. However, benefit of doubt was extended to Rehmat Ali co-accused by way of acquittal from the charge. Criminal Appeal No,1438 of 2004 filed against his acquittal was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 1-11-2004 while Criminal Revision No,787 of 2004 filed for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded to the appellant, was dismissed for non-prosecution on 9-12-2004.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant) in the F.I.R.(Exh.PD/1) are that on the night between 26/27th June, 2003 at about 12-30 a.m., in the street of Master Abdul Hameed Wali, in the house of Dr. Zulfiqar, at the end of "Khatam Sharif", her deceased son Sajjad Nazir, came out of the "Baithak" of the said Dr. Zulfiqar and started distributing sweet amongst "Mohallahdaars", when, the appellant, who was armed with .222 rifle, made straight three shots while the fourth shot hit her son Sajjad Nazir (deceased) at the right side of neck and made an exit on the left side of his shoulder. According to the complainant her said son fell down on the ground in the injured condition. It has been mentioned by the complainant in the F.I.R. That her son Sajjad Nazir was taken to the Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, where he succumbed to the said injury. The motive stated in the F.I.R. Was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased which took place two months prior to the occurrence.
3. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court, copies were distributed to the accused as required under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charge was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses during the trial. The prosecution gave up Asif Sohail, Haji Ikhlaq Ahmad and Iftikhar Ahmad being unnecessary, tendered in evidence the reports of the Chemical Examiner (Exh.PM), Serologist (Exh.PN), Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PP) and closed the prosecution evidence. The appellant/accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He did not opt to depose on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. But produced a copy of Arms license of rifle .44 bore of acquitted co-accused Rehmat (Exh.DC) and closed the defence evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the occurrence as alleged; that the statements of both the eye-witnesses do not inspire confidence; that the presence of independent witnesses is established at the spot but none from them has been produced by the prosecution; that the medical evidence negates the presence of the eye- witnesses at the spot because both of them i.e, P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi and P.W.11 Abdul Sattar have stated that the deceased received one firearm shot whereas there are three injuries on the body of the deceased and doctor i.e, P. W.12 Dr. Muhammad Riaz Nadeem, who conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased, opined that those injuries are the result of a single fire; that, 'moreover, both the eye-witnesses have stated that the deceased received injury from the front side whereas from the medical evidence it is clear that the shot was fired from the left which firstly hit his shoulder, then his chest and then made an exit from the neck; that as per both the P.Ws.
There was one wound on the neck of the deceased whereas as per medical evidence, the said wound is a wound of exit; that the F.I.R. Was got recorded after deliberations and consultations as the F.I.R. Was got registered on the basis of an application but P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant) has stated that she was not aware as to who drafted the said application and that as per complainant (P.W.10), she submitted this application to the police at the hospital whereas, as per P.W.7 Tariq Mehmood, it was submitted at the spot.
' Learned counsel further contends that the motive set out in the F.I.R. Was there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant two months prior to the occurrence but no detail of quarrel was mentioned by the complainant either in F.I.R. Or her statement before the Court; that two witnesses i.e, P.W.7 Tariq Mehmood and P.W.8 Zulqarnain though stated detail of the motive but both of them have been disbelieved by the learned trial Court as primarily they were witnesses of conspiracy/abetment and even motive stated by them is altogether different.
' Learned counsel has vehemently argued that both the, eyewitnesses are closely related to the deceased. P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi is real mother of the deceased while P.W.11 Abdul Sattar is his real maternal uncle; that presence of P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi at the spot is highly improbable because she has admitted that no womenfolk was present there and that she remained standing in the street for about three hours which does not appeal to common sense. Similarly, presence of P.W.11 Abdul Sattar at the place of occurrence is also improbable because admittedly he is resident of a place which was two kilometers away from the place of occurrence; that another point which makes their testimony doubtful is that both these witnesses have made dishonest improvements in their statements in Court to become natural witnesses of the occurrence because in the F.I.R. It was alleged that the deceased was distributing sweet but P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi has stated in Court that he did not distribute the sweet. Similarly, according to the learned counsel, position of P.W.11 Abdul Sattar has stated before the police that the deceased started distributing sweet but his stand before the learned trial Court was different which makes his presence at the spot doubtful. Even otherwise, learned counsel contends that statement of P.W.11 Abdul Sattar cannot be believed in the circumstances of the case as he claims to have witnessed the occurrence while sitting in the "Baithak" while the occurrence took place outside the "Baithak", so, presence of both these witnesses at the spot, at the time of occurrence, is against the natural happening of events.
' While advancing his submissions learned counsel contends that that the rifle which has allegedly been recovered from the appellant was .44 bore which, as per Arms License (Exh.DC) belonged to appellant's father; that the prosecution case is that an empty was recovered from the spot on 27- 6-2003 but the same was not dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory till the arrest of the appellant on 7-7-2003 who, on 21-7-2003, led to the recovery of .44 bore rifle and both were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory together on 8-8-2003, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such a report. He has placed reliance on Mushtaq and 3 others v. The State (2008 SCM R 1) especially when there is no mention of the said crime empty in the site plan.
' While coming to the statement of the appellant made under section 342, Cr.P.C., learned counsel has contended that the deceased has died accidentally which argument finds support from the medical evidence as the deceased received firearm injury on the shoulder which after entering made an exit from the other side of neck and direction of the injury is from downward to upward and as such the medical evidence clearly suggests that the possibility of accidental death cannot be ruled out. While concluding his submissions learned counsel submits that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, benefit of doubt be extended to the appellant and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, appellant is entitled to acquittal. However, learned counsel submits, as an alternative, that if this Court is not convinced with the argument of acquittal then it is not a case of capital sentence for the reasons that the appellant is of young age: that there was no previous enmity between both the parties and the appellant did not repeat the fire. In support of the above submissions, learned counsel has relied on Hakim Ali and others v. The State (1971 SCM R 432), Waqar Nazir and others v. The State (2007 SCM R 661), Ashiq Hussain v. The State (1993 SCM R 417), Ali Sher v. The State (1990 SCM R 317), Haq Nawaz alias Haku v. The State (2008 M LD 686), The State v. Muhammad Hanif (1992 SCM R 2047), Faiz and others v. The State (1983 SCM R 76) and Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan and others (PLD 1991 SC 520).
6. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while vehemently opposing this appeal, contends that presence of both the eyewitnesses of the occurrence i.e, P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi and P.W.11 Abdul Sattar was a quite natural because P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi is the real mother of the deceased and is the resident of the village where the occurrence took place coupled with the fact that the place of occurrence is just at a distance of few yards from her house and if the village culture is taken into consideration then her presence at the "Mehfal" is quite natural; that even otherwise, substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon; that similarly, P.W.11 Abdul Sattar cannot be declared as a chance witness as on such like occasions people go to attend such type of pious meetings even from far flung areas so was the reason that this witness was present in the said "Mehfal" as he was a resident of a place which was just two kilometers from the place of occurrence; that the matter was reported to the police immediately after the occurrence wherein the whole details were mentioned; that P.W.10 Mst.
Safia Bibi has given natural description of events as she stated that there was a quarrel but it is the defence who had brought details of the motive in the cross- examination of the lady; that both these eye-witnesses cannot be termed as interested and inimical witnesses as they are natural witnesses of the occurrence; that plea of the appellant taken in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is highly improbable because no witness was produced by him in his defence before the Court; that no reliance can be placed on the statement of the police officer as opinion of the police is inadmissible in evidence; that first version of the appellant before the police is of no avail to him because he was arrested on 7th July, 2003 i.e, about eleven days after the occurrence and date of his arrest has not been disputed by the defence side; that even the said version/plea has not been proved, as burden to prove the said plea was on the shoulders of the appellant in view of Article .121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; that there is no conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account as both the witnesses have stated before the Court that the deceased received the fire shot on the neck; that both the witnesses were never confronted on this point and that as the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, have given anxious consideration to their arguments and have also scanned the evidence on record with the able assistance of learned Advocates for the parties.
8. Occurrence in this case took place between the night of 26/27th June, 2003 at about 12-30 a.m., the matter was reported to P.W.13 Muhammad Razaq S.-I. By P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant) real mother of the deceased Sajjad Nazir at 1.30 a.m. In the Civil Hospital Gujranwala, the formal F.I.R. Was registered at about 1-55 a.m. While the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was about one kilometer.
9. In this case, the time, date and place of incident is admitted by both the sides. It is also not denied by the appellant side that the deceased Sajjad Nazir died because of firearm injury but narration of the occurrence in a different manner, so, it is a case of two versions one put forth by the prosecution and the other set out by the accused. Now it is to be seen as to which of the two versions is more probable and fits in the circumstances of the case keeping in view that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The prosecution case consists of ocular account, medical evidence, motive and the evidence of recovery.
10. Ocular account in this case has been furnished by P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant) who is real mother of the deceased Sajjad Nazir and P.W.11 Abdul Sattar who was real maternal uncle of the deceased and real brother of the complainant.
11. As far as testimony of P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant) is concerned, she was resident of the same vicinity where the occurrence took place. It has come on record that her residence was at a distance of few houses from the place of occurrence and the factum of participation of her deceased son Sajjad Nazir in the "Mehfal" in question is also not denied, so, keeping in view the factum of old age, her presence at the place of occurrence at the time when her son was distributing sweet in the street at the end of the "Mehfal" appears to be natural. The next eyewitness is P.W.11 Abdul Sattar who is real maternal uncle of the deceased. It has come on record that he was the resident of a place, which was two kilometers away from the place of occurrence.
According to the said witness, he had come at the place of occurrence to attend the place of occurrence is quite natural because in the village life it is "Mehfal". In our view the stand taken by this P.W. Qua his presence at very common that on such like occasions, people of the adjoining villages come for participation coupled with the fact that especially P.W.11's "Banja" (deceased Sajjad Nazir) was active participant of the said "Mehfal". Even otherwise, there is nothing on record that both these witnesses had any enmity with the appellant to falsely depose against him. It is settled law that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which weighs with the Court and conviction can be maintained on the basis of testimony of an interested witness, if the same inspires confidence. We have fortified our view by a judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the case of Farooq Khan v. The State (2008 SCM R 917), wherein, at page 921, it has been held as under:-- "11. ...There is a rule that the statement of an interested witness can be taken into consideration for corroboration and mere C relationship with the deceased is not 'sufficient' to discredit the witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused. The principles for accepting the testimony of interested witness are set out in Nazir v. The State (PLD 1962 SC 269) and Shehruddin v.
Allhaj Rakhio (1989 SCM R 1461)...." (Emphasis supplied)
12. Apart from above, the medical evidence furnished by P.W.12 Dr. Muhammad Riaz Nadeem who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 27-6-2003 at about '10-25 a.m. Who found following injuries on his person:--
(i) A lacerated firearm wound 1 x 0.5 c.m. x deep going at left shoulder, laterally looks wound of entry.
(ii) A lacerated firearm wound at left side of chest upper part just at clavicle making grove 5 x 4 c.m. x bone expose, with fracture of clavicle.
(iii) A lacerated firearm wound 2 x 1.5 cm at right side of neck, 7 cm from the sternal notch and 8 cm from right ear, looks wound of exit".
13. According to the opinion of the said doctor, all the above mentioned three injuries were the result of a single bullet. As per the same doctor, the probable time of injury and death was within ten minutes while between death and postmortem examination was within 12 houRs, The occurrence in question admittedly took place at about 12-30 a.m. (night) while the postmortem examination was conducted at about 10-25 a.m. Which coincides with the time of occurrence given by the prosecution. In this scenario, argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account, is of no avail to him because the medical evidence is almost in line with the ocular account as there was only one injury on the person of the deceased and it is not disputed even by the defence that the appellant died because of one firearm injury. So far as contention of appellant's learned counsel that it was upward and not downwards, is a minor discrepancy which, in our view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case has no bearing effects on the merits of .The case. In this regard reliance is placed on Muhammad Riaz v. Muhammad Zaman and another (PLD 2005 SC 484), the Apex Court of the country in the judicial hierarchy, while dilating upon the point of contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account in an appeal against acquittal and while setting aside the acquittal of the respondents, at page 1073, held as under:-- " It would be seen that the deposition of the witness was seeking corroboration from the medical evidence to the extent of nature and seat of injuries and the presence of lacerated and incised wounds found on the person of the deceased , would suggest the use of firearm and sharp edged weapon in the occurrence, therefore, the conflict of medical evidence with ocular account, if any, as pointed out by the High Court was only to the extent of statement of doctor according to which one shot was fired. The material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence in a criminal case may create doubt in the prosecution case and if the eye-witnesses are inimical and interested, this doubt may lead to reasonable possibility of the witnesses being not truthful or an inference can be drawn that they by suppressing the truth, made a dishonest statement but it is settled proposition of law that mere relationship or enmity is not sufficient to discard the evidence of a natural................. Witness or hold him not truthful and trustworthy. This is not an inflexible rule that in all circumstances such contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence must be treated to be injurious to the credibility of a witness and his evidence must be excluded from consideration or he must be held not truthful witness rather the ultimate test of veracity of a witness is the inherent merit of his own statement.. " (Emphasis supplied)
14. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. Was a delayed one, has no force because the matter was reported to the police only after an hour of the occurrence and that too in the Civil Hospital where the deceased was brought in the injured condition which rules out consultations and deliberations on the part of the complainant coupled with the fact that when the same facts stand mentioned in the Inquest Report (Exh.PJ). The submission of appellant's learned counsel that according to one witness matter was reported to the police at the spot while according to the other P.W. At the hospital, is inconsequential because it was reported by the real mother of the deceased through a written application who was an elderly woman having no knowledge of the legal requirements while the argument in question is only of technical in nature.
15. As far as motive part of the prosecution case is concerned, it does not appear to be probable because in the F.I.R. Has been stated by the complainant that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased about two months prior to the occurrence but details of the said quarrel find no mention in it, rather, it was the defence who, through cross-examination on P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant), brought details of the said quarrel but, in our view, the said quarrel, if any, could not be the cause of the instant occurrence and it appears that some altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased at the spot which has not been brought on record by both the sides. Same is the position of recovery of rifle at the hands of the appellant because it has come on record that the crime empty recovered from the spot on 27-6-2003 and the rifle taken into possession at the instance of the appellant on 21-7-2003 (Exh. PC) were sent to the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory together on 8-8-2003 after the arrest of the appellant, therefore, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is of no avail to the prosecution in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mushtaq and 3 others v. The State (2008 SCM R 1). If motive, recovery of rifle from the appellant and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory are excluded from the prosecution evidence, even then there is sufficient evidence on the record in the form of ocular account furnished by P.W.10 Mst. Safia Bibi (complainant), P.W.11 Abdul Sattar and the medical evidence, which, in our considered view, is sufficient for maintaining conviction of the appellant.
16. The appellant has taken a specific plea in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the said plea was also put to the prosecution witnesses which was vehemently denied by them. In answer to a question "why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you", the appellant stated as under:-- "The real facts of the case are that on the eventful night Imran son of Meraj Din r/o Maniawala, Gujranwala came to the house who called me outside and asked me that Hafiz Ashraf had arranged Mehfal-e-Samah and he asked to bring rifle from the house of Master Rehmat Ali for guard purposes. On which I handed over .44 bore licensed rifle of my father to him. After a short while I also went to hear Mehfal-e-Samah which was being convened in the house of Dr. Zulfiqar Ali. I sat there along with Babar, Meraj, Liaqat Ali, Ejaz who were present there. Ishaq was also holding rifle and rifle of my father Master Rehmat Ali was in the possession of Ejaz. When Mehfal-e- Samah was near to end, Ejaz started firing in the air. After hearing the reports of fire shots, Hafiz Ashraf asked him who is firing out-side and stop him. He asked Ejaz that why he made firing, therefore, he took the 'rifle and started walking towards his house. In the meantime, Sajjad Nazir deceased reached at the spot who stopped him after giving a call, he caught hold the barrel' of my rifle and asked me where I was going. I told that I am going to my house to sleep on which Sajjad deceased asked me that sweet is yet to be distributed. He insisted me friendly not to go home and pulled my rifle. I detached the magazine of the rifle on which I asked him to leave as I have to go my house. Under these circumstances, the rifle went of and the bullet which was in the chamber of rifle hit Sajjad. This occurrence took place accidentally and I did not fire on Sajjad Nazir deceased. I have been falsely implicated in this case. The facts and circumstances have been twisted by the complainant. I did not commit Qatl-eAmd of Sajjad Nazir deceased. Unfortunately Sajjad Nazir received injury accidentally. All the P.Ws. Are closely related to the deceased and inter se."
17. After minute analysis of the above quoted statement of the appellant made under section 342, Cr.p.C., we have noted that none of the persons named by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., to substantiate his plea, was produced before the learned trial Court. So much so, father of the appellant, to whom the rifle in question belonged, was also accused in this case, but, while making statement before the Court under section 342, Cr.P.C., he has stated nothing to the effect that he had handed over the rifle to his son(appellant). Even the appellant has not made any statement in this regard under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, case of the appellant is that the deceased pulled his rifle when it triggered off accidentally but this is negated by the medical evidence as there is no blacking or burning around the wound. Under Article 121 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984, when an accused takes a specific plea to bring his case within exceptions, then the onus lies on him to prove the same but the appellant has failed to discharge the said onus. Article 121 ibid reads as under:-- "121. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exception.-When a person is accused of any offence the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Pakistan Penal Code Act (XLV of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."
' In this connection, reliance can be placed on a judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Dur Naz and another v. Yousuf and another (2005 SCM R 1906), wherein, while dilating upon the defence plea, the Apex Court at page 1912, observed as under:- " It is also settled principle of law that when defence plea is raised by an accused, the burden to prove the same lies on his shoulders, In the instant case when said plea is examined in juxtaposition to the case of prosecution seems to be untrue. Reference can be made to the case of Abdul Wahid v. The State (2003 SCM R 668) wherein it was held that initial burden to prove the guilt against the accused lies upon the prosecution, but when a specific plea has been raised by the accused in defence then both are to be considered in juxtaposition and the one which is nearer to the truth is to be given weight".
(Emphasis supplied).
18. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that plea of the appellant was his first version before the police, is concerned, we have noted that the appellant was arrested on 7-7- 2003 and he gave his version on 20-7-2003 i.e, after 13 days of the occurrence. Moreover, had there been any truth in this plea, the appellant should have been before the police immediately after the occurrence. The date of arrest of the appellant is not disputed or denied by the appellant during the trial, therefore, the circumstances are suggestive of the fact that the plea put forth by the appellant is neither plausible nor convincing and appears to be an afterthought while, comparatively, the prosecution story if kept in juxtaposition, appears to be plausible and inspires confidence. The precedent case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable and is not applicable in this case. Even otherwise, every criminal case is decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
19. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. For the murder of Sajjad Nazir appellant is hereby maintained.
20. However, we have noted that it is not a case of capital punishment and there are mitigating circumstances in this case, firstly, the appellant fired only one shot on the deceased, secondly, appellant was 18/19 years of age at the time of occurrence (as per police record), thirdly, it is shrouded in mystery as to what happened immediately before the occurrence, and, lastly, the prosecution has failed to prove its motive. To fortify our view, reliance is placed on Muhammad Ayaz Khan v. Murtaza and others (2008 SCM R 984), wherein at page 986, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, has been pleased to hold as under:-- "7 The High Court having considered the circumstances leading to the occurrence modified the sentence with the consideration that motive set up by the prosecution was not proved and the immediate cause for the occurrence was also not unfolded. This is correct that motive is not always an essential element of murder and weakness or absence of motive by itself may not be a valid reason for lesser punishment but in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to bring on record the material facts relating to the manner of taking place the occurrence and the immediate cause of occurrence, therefore, apart from the motive, the mystery in the circumstances leading to the occurrence would create a sufficient mitigation in favour of the accused for lesser punishment."
' In Muhammad Amin v. The State (2007 SCM R 1019), the learned Apex Court, while giving reference to the case of Muhammad Afzal v. State (1999 SCM R 2851), Ijaz Hussain & The State (2002 SCM R 1455) and Umar Hayat v. Jahangir and another (2002 SCM R 629), was pleased to convert sentence of death of the accused in the said case to imprisonment for life while in the case of Mirza Zaheer Ahmad and another v. State and others 2003 SCM R 1164 single shot was considered to be a mitigating circumstance.
21. Therefore, considering these points and other attending circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it is not a case of capital sentence. Therefore, while maintaining appellant's L conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., his sentence of death is converted into imprisonment for life while allowing him benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. We have noted that the amount of fine, as ordered by the learned trial Court, is against the law, therefore, the same is set-aside. The amount of compensation of Rs,2,00,000 and the imprisonment in its default thereof, as awarded by the learned trial Court, shall remain intact. This appeal stands disposed of with the above modification in the quantum of sentence.
' Murder Reference is answered in the Negative and sentence of death is Not Confirmed.