AHMAD NAWAZ and anothers vs THE STATE

' SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Ahmad Nawaz and Naveed Ahmad appellants, father and son, were charge-sheeted for the commission of offence of Qatl-e-amd of Zakif Ali and Zahid Ali under section 302/34, P.P.C. And for causing injuries to Shahid Ali and Muhammad Amin under section 324/34, P.P.C. They pleaded not guilty. After trial they were convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C.

And were sentenced to death on two counts. They were also directed to pay Rs,200,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased in default whereof they had to suffer five years' R.I.

They were also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,25,000 each and in default to undergo one years' R.I. They were further convicted under section 337-D, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. Each with arsh of Rs,80,000 payable to the injured on realization, heirs of the deceased. The sentences were to run concurrently with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. This was vide judgment dated 8-3-2000. Their appeal against the same was heard by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court along with the Murder Reference, which was dismissed on 20-4-2006 confirming the death sentence and answering the reference in affirmative. On their Petition before this Court leave was granted on 27-11-2006, which order reads as follows:-- "The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner submits at the very outset that lie was not canvassing acquittal for the two petitioners and rightly so because the occurrence stood admitted by them and also because ample evidence was available on record through the testimony of one of the injured witnesses, namely, Shahid Ali (P.W.8) and the testimony offered by Muzaffar Ahmed (P.W.10) who was an independent and natural witness of the occurrence in question. The evidence offered by other injured witness Muhammad Amin (D.W.1) is of no assistance to the convict as he had admitted himself that convict party had filed a criminal complaint against him and further that when he was taken into custody in pursuance of the said complaint it was the convict party who had stood surety for him for his release on bail.

2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, prayed only for lesser of the two penalties for the petitioners as prescribed by section 302(b), P.P.C. On the ground that it had been admitted by Shahid Ali (P.W.8) himself through the statement made by him under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which had been brought on record through confrontation at the trial that the two convicts had come to the house of Liaqat Ali which Liaqat happened to be the son-in-law of Ahmed Nawaz convict and real maternal uncle of the two deceased persons and of the said Shahid (P.W.8) to 'Ventilate' their grievances regarding the two deceased persons having committed "some insolence with daughters of Ahmed Nawaz" and further that the mother of the said deceased had satisfied the convicts about the conduct of Zakif and Zahid Ali deceased vis-a-vis the said daughter of Ahmed Nawaz convict. It was added that there was also a possibility of the two convicts not having launched a premeditated assault on the deceased party because if they had come to the house of the said Liaqat for the said purpose then they would not have come armed only with CHURRI knowing that the deceased persons were at least four young brothers and were living in the immediate. Neighbourhood of said Liaqat.

3. The question whether the said reasons could be considered mitigating circumstances to show leniency to the two convicts justifying reduction in the quantum of punishment awarded to them, requires- examination for which purpose, this petition is allowed and ed".

2. Mr. Saif-ul-Malook, Advocate Supreme Court, reiterates the contentions urged at the leave stage and has endevoured to highlight the background in which the incident took place to persuade us that it was a case of grave provocation and self-defence, warranting mitigation of sentence. To the contrary the Mr. M. Aslam Sindhu Additional P.-G. Punjab and Mr. Ghulam Faird Sanotra, Advocate Supreme Court, for the complainant, fully support the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court. According to them there are no such circumstances as would call for reduction in the sentence.

3. As is evident from the perusal of the ing order the only point raised at that time and even now is the quantum of sentence i,e, conversion from death to life imprisonment. We have, therefore, examined the matter from the said point of view. It has been stated by the learned counsel at the very outset that Ahmad Nawaz appellant has died during his imprisonment in jail and appeal to that extent has abated. It is thus only the case of Naveed Ahmad, which need to be considered as to the legality and propriety of the death sentence awarded to him.

4. It may be observed that the occurrence more or less stand admitted. However the venue, the manner and details of the same may not be the same, as is sought to be stated by the prosecution. F.I.R. No,446 dated 28-7-1997 about the occurrence that took place at 10-00 p.m. On 28-7-1997 was lodged by Manzoor Hussain, the paternal uncle of the deceased Zakif Ali and Zahid Ali with Police Station Baghbanpura, Gujranwala. The substance of the occurrence as -noted by the learned Session Judge is that "On 28-7-1997, Manazar Hussain, complainant and Muzaffar, P.W.

Reached the house of Mst. Jamila Bibi (mother of the deceased persons) in response to her telephonic message that a quarrel ensued between her children and the accused persons, Ahmad Nawaz and Naveed Ahmad. At about 10-00 p.m. Ahmad Nawaz and Naveed Ahmad,' accused persons armed with daggers entered the house of Mst. Jamila Bibi, held her son Zakif Ali and dragged him out in the lane and delivered dagger blows to him in his abdomen, flank and other parts of the body. To save their brother Zakif Ali from the assailants, Zahid Ali and Shahid Ali reached the spot when Naveed Alimad, accused struck Zahid Ali with dagger in his abdomen.

Ahmad Nawaz, accused also gave dagger blows to Zahid Ali in his chest and left flank. Naveed Ahmad, accused also hit Shahid Ali, P.W. With dagger on his waist. In the meantime, Muhammad Amin, given up P.W., proceeded ahead to save the victims, when Ahmad Nawaz, accused gave him a dagger blow in the left flank. All the four injured fell down, who were removed to the hospital, but on reaching there Zakif All and Zahid All yielded to their injuries while Shahid Ali and Muhammad Amin, P.Ws. Were admitted as indoor patients."

5. There is no doubt as to the death of the two brothers, however, the accused had their own version about the said occurrence. They came out with the plea of grave provocation and self- defence. Besides the plea taken in their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., they appeared as Witness and also produced Muhammad Amin (D.W.1) an injured in the same occurrence. The prosecution had produced fourteen witnesses including Manzoor Hussain (P.W.7), Shahid Ali (P.W.8) and Muzaffar Ahmad (P. W.10) the eye-witnesses. While making the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C, Ahmad Nawaz responded to questions Nos.12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 as follows:-- "Q.12. Is it a fact that on 18-8-1997 whilst in police custody you pointed out and led to the recovery of blood-stained khanjer PI from underneath the bed from your son-in-law's Liaqat's house and does this khanjer belongs to you?

(A) Neither I led to the recovery of said dagger as suggested nor it belongs to me and as a matter of fact this dagger was procured by the complainant party from the market, stains of blood were manipulated in order to fabricate evidence and the recovery was falsely. .Foisted upon me. Q.13. It is in evidence that report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PU about khanjer P1 which was recovered from you in positive. What have you to say about it?

A. The recovery of khanjer and the stains of blood is a manipulated affair. Q.14 It is in evidence that reports of Serologist Exh.P.W., Exh.P.X., Exh.P.Y. And Exh.P.Z. Are positive in nature. What have you to say about it?

A. My answer is the same as the one in the preceding question. Q.15 Why this case against you and why the P.Ws.. Have deposed against you?

A. The witnesses of the complainant party inimically disposed against me in the background of the previous incident wherein my two daughters were publically scolded and insolent treatment was - meted out to them by the two deceased and their brother Shahid Ali P.W. They have given false evidence because the two deceased, being the aggressors, were stabbed by my son Naveed Ahmad co-accused. Q.16 It is in evidence that the occurrence took place on 29-7-1997 and you intentionally did not appear before the police till the date of your arrest i,e, 10-8-1997. What have you to say about this period of your intentional abscondance?

A. The allegation is false. As a matter of fact, myself and my son were escorted to the house of my son-in-law{{URDU TEXT}} ( .A61) ) Liaqat having been seriously injured at the hands of the two deceased and five of their companions. Immediately after the occurrence, the police, on the same night took me and the co-accused in an injured condition and confined us in the police lock-up instead of getting us medically examined. The police neither got us medically examined nor recorded our version of the occurrence, in collusion with the complainant party in order to frustrate our defence and to lend plausibility to the prosecution case which is intrinsically a false, cock and bull story which was fabricated in support of the prosecution and to harm our defence by callously suppressing the gross aggressiveness of the two deceased and five of their companions, despite the fact that we were the aggressed and the said deceased etc. Were plan aggressor. The story of we both being the victim of aggression was basically changed in complexion. This attitude of the police in collusion with the complainant party constrained us to have recourse to the Hon'ble High Court. It was in obedience to .Hon'ble High Court's order that our formal arrest was shown fictitiously on 10-8-1997 instead of 29-7-1997, our version of the occurrence was recorded and we were to go medically examined for injuries which were earlier suppressed to the police. Although the two deceased and their five companions were found guilty of aggression and causing injuries to both of us but the police did not prefer our cross challan case and ultimately we had to file a direct complaint. Q.17. Have you anything else to say?

A. On 28-7-1997 at about 4-00 p.m. My young unmarried daughter Nagina 25 years and Ashi 18 years were returning to house after visiting their elder sister Nabeela and while on way dirty jokes were cut on them and insolent behaviour was meted out to them by the .Two deceased accompanied by their brother Shahid Ali P.W. Myself, my brother Khalid Zaman and co-accused Naveed Ahmad ventilated our grievance before Jamila Bibi, mother of the deceased regarding the misbehavior of the deceased which was taken seriously ill by the two deceased and construed the same as their disgrace at our hands and they determined to attack us and wreak vengeance upon us. Myself and Naveed Ahmad proceeded to the house of my daughter Nabeela and at about 10- 00 p.m. Zakif Ali deceased armed with knife, Muzaffar and Zahid with iron pipes, Amin accused in the cross complaint armed with danda, Shahid, Ijaz and Iftikhar accused in the cross complaint with iron rods visited the house of my son-in-law Liaquat. Zakif Ali and Zahid Ali forced open the outer gale, trespassed into the house, caught me by the collar and dragged me into the street where five of their companions stated above were already present, they all belaboured me and caused me injuries including the breakage of a jaw and a bone of my left arm. I fell down on receipt of the injuries. The electricity supply was off. In the meantime, my son Naveed Ahmad rushed out having relieved himself the clutches of his sister who was preventing him under apprehension of his life. The moment Naveed Ahmad came out, Zahid Ali deceased to kill Naved Ahmad. Zakif Ali deceased attempted a knife blow on the abdomen of Naveed Ahmad but Naveed Ahmad averted the blow by catching hold of Zakif Ali from his wrist. A scuffle ensued between the two. Naveed Ahmad snatched the weapon from the hands of Zakif Ali whereupon Zakif Ali caught hold of a pacca brick and threw the same on Naveed Ahmad but it hit the foot of Naveed Ahmad.

Zakif Ali again caught hold of the brick and attempted a blow on the head of Naveed Ahmad but Naveed Ahmad saved himself by stabbing Zakif Ali. Shahid, Amin and Zahid were also attacked Naveed. Naveed Ahmad acting in exercise of right of private defence of his person as well as my person and caused injuries to Zakif Shahid, Amin and Zahid. The prosecution case against us is absolutely false."

' The same stance was adopted by his son Naveed Ahmad. The purpose of reproducing the version of the appellant in extenso is to have the idea of their defence. They also produced Muhammad Amin (D.W.1) and themselves appeared as D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively for supporting their defence plea.

6. It may be noted that the occurrence is of 29-7-1997 whereas they were arrested on 10-8-1997 and the recovery of Khanjar was shown from the house of his son-in-law on 18-8-1997. According to Manzoor Hussin (P.W.7) an eye-witness, the occurrence was also witnessed by Muzaffar Ahmad (P.W.10). They stated that the appellants were the assailants but surprisingly both of them, though statedly were present there, yet remained silent spectators at a distance of about eighteen feet.

Manzoor is a- close relation of the parties but parried the question as to any litigation inter-se the parties. The suggestion about taunting remarks and misbehavior by the deceased about the daughters of Ahmad Nawaz and sisters of Naveed Ahmad namely Nagina and Ashi was also denied. Shahid Ali (P.W.8) the brother of the deceased had also been put similar suggestion,. Such a denial by them was clearly against the facts or record. Muzaffar Ahmad (P.W.10) the other eye- witness- who had come there along with Manzoor Hussain, showed his ignorance as to which of the accused caused injury to Zakif Ali from the front, right or left side or about the seat of injuries sustained. He also admitted that he and Manzoor Ahmad (P.W.8) did not make any attempt to snatch Khanjar from the accused. It may be noticeable that his age was 40 years whereas the age of Manzoor Hussain was 44 years apart from them, there were statedly three young sons of Jamila in the house, but all of them did not make any effort to snatch and overpower the accused, which they could easily do. It casts serious doubts about the events as projected by them. It is in this context that the defence version i,e, plea of provocation and self-defence demonstrated by the appellants when considered in juxtaposition assumes material significance. Muhammad Amin (D.W.1) had been cited by the prosecution as an eye-witness but appeared as defence witness who saw Zahid and Zakif deceased dragging out Ahmad Nawaz 'from the house of Liaqat while Zakif was armed with khanjer and Zahid with an iron pipe, Shahid Ali P.W., Iftikhar, Ijaz, Muzaffar were holding iron rods and pipes. They gave beating to Ahmad Nawaz with their respective weapons. In the meantime, Naveed Ahmad accused emerged from the house of Liaqat and thus ensued quarrel and fight. In such a matter when a specific defence plea is taken by the accused, the court is obliged to keep in mind and act cautiously in believing the prosecution version and also to consider the possibility of the worth of the defence version. It needs no reiteration that the fundamental duty to bring home the guilt of the accused to the hilt is that of the prosecution and then the tenability of the defence version is considered, keeping in view the whole scenario. The Trial Court, whose judgment has been upheld by the learned Division Bench of the High Court has itself noted "that the only motive behind the occurrence was that on the day of occurrence, daughters of Ahmad Nawaz, accused visited the house of their married sister Mst. Nabeela wife of Liaqat Ali, a maternal uncle of the deceased persons, located in the lane of the deceased persons and while returning, they complained to their father and brother that the dedeased persons misbehaved with them. It was further noted "The accused persons put forward their defence version that deceased persons meted out insolence to the unmarried girls." Finally it was concluded that "the defence versions appears to be a cock-and-bull stoty." Such a. Jumping conclusion was fraught with several infirmities as according to the prosecution version.And contents of F.I.R., Manzoor and Muzaffar had come to the house of Mst. Jamila the same evening on her telephone call about such an incident.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the girls were not produced in defence for no reason has not impressed us as the whole episode centered around the complaint, they made to their father and brother -about the insulting conduct of the deceased. In the society we live, their non-appearance as witness can well be imagined. The same may be the reason for non-appearance of Mst. Jamila the mother of the deceased in whose presence and house, the occurrence was alleged to have taken place.

8. Let us now examine the factual and legal position as to the plea of provocation and self-defence as canvassed by the accused/appellant. In the background of the family relationship, it is not difficult to infer that some incident did take place on that day, which impelled Mst. Jamila to call Manzoor -P.W., telephonically at night time. According to the learned counsel it was insolence/humiliation of young girls, (daughters and sisters of the appellants) which gave rise to altercation eventually taking turn of an ugly and tragic episode resulting in the death of two young persons and injuries sustained by others including Ahmad Nawaz appellant. As per the provisions of Article 121 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and its illustration (b) when a plea of grave and sudden provocation is taken the burden to prove is on the accused. In this case by taking specific plea in their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And producing Muhammad Amin (D.W.1) and appearing themselves as (D.W.2) and (D.W.3) respectively, they substantially discharged such a burden. Except few minor discrepancies in the statements, -which is not very uncommon, their defence version appeared to be plausible and worth the credence.

9. At this juncture, reference may be made to Abdul Haque v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 1) where the appellant therein had taken the plea of provocation. It was observed by Sajjad Ali Shah, C.J. (as he then was) that "In this case Abdul Haque, who is accused of murder, claims the plea of grave and sudden provocation and states that he was deprived of power of self-control. In criminal jurisprudence general principle is that prosecution is to prove the case against the accused beyond doubt and this burden does not shift from prosecution even if accused takes up any particular plea and fails in it. If there is any room for benefit of doubt in the case of prosecution, the same will go to accused and not to prosecution. Section 105 of the old Evidence Act came up for detailed examination in the case of Safdar Ali v. The Crown (PLD 1953 FC 93) and it was held that it is the duty of the Court to review entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and defence and after examination of the whole evidence if the Court is of the opinion that there is reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the accused might be true, then such view would react on the whole prosecution case and accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as a right because prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt." The provocation made basis for self-defence was something said to him in Pushto by the deceased when he passed in front of Abdul Haque appellant, upon which he took out his pistol and fired shots set at the deceased. At page-34; it was noted and held that "True that there is admission of tiring by the appellant at the deceased but that admission is to be read not in isolation of but in conjunction with his specific plea that he was provoked by abuses in respect of his wife and wives of his tribe uttered by the deceased which he could not tolerate." It was thus held that "in the circumstances, we consider that plea of 'grave and sudden provocation on account of abusive language can be treated as mitigating circumstance in awarding sentence under Taizir even if this plea as such is not available and does not get any protection in the new amended law. "

(underlined by me for emphasis) The appeal was dismissed with the modification of his sentence to imprisonment for life. Ajmal Mian, J, (as he then was) while recording a separate note observed that the facts of the case do not warrant imposition of death sentence under clause (b) of section 302, P.P.C. But call for lesser sentence of imprisonment for life as proposed by the Hon'ble Chief.

Justice. The view of all five Hon'ble Judges was consistent on this aspect. In Muhammad Miran alias Imrani v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 956) while following the view taken in Abdul 'Hague's case, the Court took note of several other judgments on the subject and observed that "in view of the dictum in the cited case the benefit of provocation can be given in a matter of awardingsentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And as such the cases decided before the amendment iii the law involving family honour and provocation can be taken into consideration while determining the factum of sentence. It was held in "Ajun Shah v. The State" PLD 1967 SC 185: "That a man is after all a creature of his environment. His action therefore must be judged in the background of the society to which he belongs. Though he may not be entitled to rely on the doctrine of provocation, still the above circumstances may be taken into account for not imposing the extreme penalty. Rule laid down in "Muhammad Din alias Manna v. The State" 1976 SCM R 185 is to this effect:-- "Coming now to the question of sentence, we. Find that there is merit in the submission made by Ch. Fazal-i-Haq that the murder of Khushi Muhammad was motivated by a sense of family honour inasmuch as the sister of the appellant had repeatedly eloped with this man. In fazal Khan v. State (PLD 1964 SC 54), Ghulam Rasul v. Ali Akbar (PLD 1965 SC 363), Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (PLD 1966 SC 129) as well as in Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 185) it was observed that questions of family honour, touching the females of a family, were of almost overpowering importance to the agricultural tribes of the western regions and they feel bound in duty to go to very great lengths to vindicate that honour. It was held that this was a circumstance of which notice could appropriately be taken by the Courts in the matter of awarding sentence. In all these cases, sentence of transportation for life was considered as being appropriate. Following these precedents we are inclined to the view that in regard to the murder of Khushi Muhammad, the sentence of death was not called for. We would accordingly set it aside and instead substitute the sentence of imprisonment for life."

Accordingly appreciating that "the immoral act of vulgar and filthy abuses of the deceased resulted into his death, therefore, in such circumstances the accused in the light of the above decided cases would not be liable to maximum penalty of death." Thus by maintaining the conviction his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

In Mst. Mumtaz Begum v. Ghulam Farid (2003 SCM R 647) altercation between the deceased and the accused had taken place prior to the happening of the incident, relying upon the above Abdul Haque's case, and keeping such a prior happening of the incident in view it was observed that "it can be considered to be a factor for bringing his case under section 302(b), P.P.C. In the light of the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Abdul Hague v. The State". Thus, life imprisonment was awarded to the accused instead of death.

10. The recent trend of the Courts with regard to the awarding of penalty is evident from several precedents. In the case of Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir and.Another, (PLD 2007 SC 111), it was held that "This is settled law that provisions of sections 306 to 308, P.P.C. Attract only in the cases of Qatl-e-amd liable to qisas under section 302(A), P.P.C. And not in the cases in which sentence for Qatl-e-amd has been awarded as tazir under section 302(b), P.P.C. The difference of punishment for Qatl-e-amd as qisas and tazir provided under sections 302(a) and 302(b), P.P.C. Respectively is that in a case of qisas, Court has no discretion in the matter of sentence whereas in case of tazir Court may award either of the sentence provided under section 302(b), P.P.C. And exercise of this discretion in the case of sentence of tazir would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no cavil to the proposition that an offender, is absolved from sentence of death by way of qisas if he is minor at the time of occurrence but in a case in which qisas is not enforceable, the Court in a case of Qatl-e-amd, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, award the offender the punishment of death or imprisonment of life by way of tazir. The proposition has also been discussed in Ghulam Murtaza v. State 2004 SCM R 4; Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman 1999 SCM R, 2203, Muhammad Akram v. State 2003 SCM R 855 and Abdus Salam v. State 2000 SCM R 338." The Court while maintaining the conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Awarded him sentence of life imprisonment under the same provision and also granted him the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State (2007 SCM R 1413) while considering the penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-eamd it was observed that "No doubt, normal penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-e-amd provided under law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case." In Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCM R 502) it has been noted that:- "In other words, the law has conferred discretion upon the Court to withhold the penalty of death and to award the punishment of imprisonment for life, if the outlook of a particular case requires that course. Question arises, as to what could be those facts and circumstances in which penalty of death must be imposed and lesser penalty of life imprisonment should not be awarded. The analysis of all the cases has led us to a conclusion that from the facts and circumstances of the case, if the Court finds the manner and method of incident, to be in the nature of brutality, horrific, heinous, shocking, involving terrorist nature, creating panic to the society as a whole or in part, callous and cold-blooded, in such cases G (which list is not exhaustive), the penalty of death must not be withheld. In other words, grave inhuman attitude, acts, manners, method and the criminality of actions are the constituents, elements and the instances, where punishment of death must be awarded." The Court is therefore, expected to proceed very carefully and cautiously in the exercise'of such discretion and not to ignore the circumstances and cause of occurrence.

11. Since there are concurrent findings by the learned Courts below as to the plea of the appellants, with respect we have to observe that it was at least a case of counter-version, where defence version could not outrightly be repelled or ruled out. It could, at the most be said that the appellants, father and brother of the girls, exceeded their right of self-defence As observed in Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967 SC 185), that the actions of the men "must be judged in the background of the society" to which they belong, though they may not be entitled to strictly rely upon the doctrine of provocation and self-defence, still such circumstances need to be taken into consideration, while awarding penalty, particularly when under section 302(b), P.P.C., the Court has the discretion and option to award life imprisonment, where the circumstances so warrant. Such a careful and cautious approach deserves to be adopted, where the prosecution version lacks meticulous proof and the truth remains shrouded by mystery. If all such circumstances as are borne by the record had been brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench of the High Court perhaps the sentence of death would not have been confirmed. The present appellants may not be entitled to clean acquittal as they themselves admitted the occurrence (though not as put forth by the prosecution) but certainly deserve leniency and don't deserve the extreme penalty of death i,e,, extinction from this world. We are thus persuaded by the facts and circumstances of this case to substitute the penalty of death with life imprisonment, maintaining the conviction.

12. The appeal is partly allowed as above, maintaining the conviction and other sentences, with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

Sentence reduced.