G. M. SHAH, J.----The appellant Ilyas Brohi (32) was sentenced to death by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad vide judgment dated 18th February 1978, under section 302, P. P. C., on the charge of committing the murder of Shah Nawaz Jakhrani (60), by firing from his gun. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo R. I. For one year. The amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, as compensation.
The appellant was further sentenced under section 307, P. P. C. To R. I. For five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to suffer R. I. For six months more, for firing at P. Ws. Muhammad Saleh, Sargeant Shamim Ahmad and causing gunshot injuries to P. W. Raza Muhammad. He was further sentenced under section 353, P. P. C. To R. I. For one year for intentionally preventing in order to deter, P. Ws. Saleh Muhammad and Sargeant Shamim Akhtar from discharging their duties as Police officers and under section 13-D of the Arms Act to R. I. For two years, for going armed with an unlicensed gun. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, except the sentences of fine. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction. This judgment will dispose of both, the appeal, as well as, the reference made by the learned Judge under section 374, Cr. P. C. For confirmation of the death sentence.
2. The incident, resulting in the murder of deceased Shah Nawaz Jakhrani (60) took place on 16-6- 1974 at about 11 a.m., in the 'Bazar' (Shopping Centre) of Jacobabad Town. Ali Nawaz and Ali Gul, brothers of the deceased, had accompanied him (deceased). His son Mandost had come with the deceased, from their village in Patfeedar, to Jacobabad, for shopping. The deceased Shah Nawaz and his son Mandost, who was at that time aged about 11 years, were making purchases at the shop of Rawachand (P. W. 7) in old 'Anaj Mandi' Jacobabad Bazar, Ali Nawaz and Ali Gul were having tea at the hotel of Haroon, near the Fish Market, at a distance of 2/3 paces away from the shop of Rewachand. The appellant came from the Western side, armed with a double barrel gun and fired at deceased Shah Nawaz, which hit him on his backside. He fired the second shot, which hit the deceased on the occipital region and he fell down and died at the spot. P. Ws. Ali Nawaz whose one leg is cut, and Ali Gul, rushed towards the deceased. The appellant, after firing at the deceased, ran with the gun, towards the Northern side of the Fish Market. Police constable, Muhammad Salt is who was on duty in the town and was going on his cycle towards Taj Mahal Hotel. When he reached near old 'Anaj Mandi', he heard two gun shot reports. At a distance of 20 paces away, he found a person lying murdered. He and the other public men present, chased the appellant, who was running away, carrying the gun. When he was about 30 to 40 paces away from the appellant, he was challenged by the appellant, not to follow him, otherwise he would kill him.
The appellant consequently, did fire at P. C. Muhammad Saleh, but missed him. The pellets hit a labourer Raza Muhammad, on his right thigh. The appellant continued running towards Jhatpat Naka, still followed by P. C. Muhammad Saleh. On the way S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed Sargent and P. C.
Babadur also joined in the chase. The appellant, while running, had again fired at A. S. 1. P. Shamim Ahmed, but missed, who also fired in the air towards the appellant, from his service revolver and asked the appellant to stop. The police and the public surrounded the appellant and caught him.
He was carrying a .12 bore D. B. B. L. Gun and a Bandolier containing 27 live cartridges. The licence of the gun, in the name of Gbamtbar Jakhrani, was also secured from the person of the appellant. The gun was opened and two (2) empty cartridges were found in the barrel, which were also secured under the Mashirnama (Exh. 12).
3. 1n the meantime, Ali Nawaz had aleady reached the City Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. Exh.
14, which was recorded at about 1 p. m. By S. H. O. Muhammad Akram. The first informer, Ali Nawaz took the S. H. O. To the vardat, situated in old `Anaj Mandi' Jacobabad Bazar. The dead body was lying on the road, in front of the shop of Rewachand and had gun--shot injuries. There was blood at the vardat. Two (2) blood-stained Bags containing the purchased articles were also lying under the dead body. At a distance of about .12 paces away, one empty cartridge of .12 bore was lying, A mashirnama of the vardat was prepared in presence of the mashirs. The dead body of deceased Shah Nawaz was sent to the M. O. Civil Hospital Jacobabad for post-mortem examination. P. W.
Raza Muhammad injured had already been taken by the public, to the Civil Hospital for treatment.
The S. H. O. Reached the Hospital and noted down the injuries on P. W. Raza Muhammad and recorded his statement. The S. H. O. Returned to the City Police Station, where Sargent Shamim Ahmed produced the appellant, at about 3 p. m. With the double-barrel gun and all the other articles secured by him. The place, where P. W. Raza Muhammad was injured, was also inspected by the Police. The S. H. O. Examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Some of the witnesses were also examined under sec--tion 164, Cr. P. C. Before the Makhtiarkar and F. C. M.
Jacobabad. The gun and the three (3) crime empties, one secured from the 'vardat' and two from inside the barrel of the gun, we're sent to the Ballistic Expert, who gave his report (Exh. 8) that all the three crime empties were fired from the same gun, secured from the appellant. The blood-stained articles were the earth and clothes of the deceased, which were sent to the Chemical Examiner and were all found stained with human blood. A separate case, under F. I. R. (Exh. 30) was registered and challaned against the appellant under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, for carrying the gun without licence.
4. The motive for the alleged crime, as stated in the F.1. R. Was that about 1.2/13 years back, the first informer and his family members, were living on their lands at Pat . Feeder, where Kamal Jakhrani, the relative of the appellant, had committed the theft, inside their house and was caught red handed. He had sustained injuries and later on died in the Hospital. Muhammad Ali Jakhrani cousin of Kamal Jakhrani had filed a report against the party of the first informer at Jhatpat Police Station, only 4/6 days before the occurrence in this case. The case was not proved and they were let of: In order to take revenge of Kamal Jakhrani, the appellant had murdered the deceased.
5. The autopsy on the dead body was performed on the same day (16-6-1974) by Dr. Shawak Ram, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Jacobabad. The following injuries were found on the dead body.
(1) Lacerated punctured wound about 1--- in D. M. x deep peritonial cavity on left chest back with blackening and charring of margins present. Wound of entrance.
(2) 7 lacerated punctured wounds each about 1/6' in D. M. Into deep peritonial cavity on left chest front with no left chest front with no blackening charring of margins. Wound of exit.
(3) Lacerated punctured wound 1/6' in D. M. x deep pleural cavity on right chest front with no blackening and charring on margins Wound of exit.
(4) Lacerated punctured wound about 3' in D. M. n deep brain matter on left temporal parietal region of the skull with slight blackening and charring of margins. Wound of enterance and exit.
Skull was opened and there was fracture at left temporal parietal region, membranes were punctured, brain matter was cut at the site of injury and congested.
From the internal and external examinations of the dead body, the doctor was of opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage/cereberal haemorrhage, as a result of the injuries above-mentioned, which were caused from a fire-arm. All the injuries were anti-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature, collectively, as well as, individually. The death was instantaneous.
6. On the same day, the doctor had also examined injured Raza Muhammad witness, who bad the following injuries on his body:- Lacerated punctured wound I' in diameter x deep muscle on right inguial region with no blackening and charring of margins. The injury was fresh and simple and was caused by the discharge from a fire-arm.
It is not disputed that the deceased had died of gunshot injuries and P. W. Raza Muhammad had received the injury caused by the discharge from a fire-arm. The statements of Dr. Shewak Ram, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital and the three eye-witnesses Ali Nawaz, Mandost and Ali Gul supported by P. W. Rewachand, satisfactorily prove this fact.
7. The appellant had, however, denied the prosecution allegations against him, and had contended that he was arrested from his village, in Deh Jani Dero, Jagir, which is at a distance of 1-- miles away from Jacobabad. He bas alleged that the Police had brought him from his house at about 3 p. m. And involved him in the case, at the instance of Sardar Khan Jakhrani and foisted all the incriminating articles on him. He further claimed that the gun and the cartridges were also foisted upon him.
8. The prosecution case rests on the following pieces of evidence:-
(i) Ocular evidence of three eye-witnesses, Ali Nawaz, Mandost and Ali Gul.
(ii) Motive.
(i.e) Chase and arrest of the appellant soon after the occurrence by witnesses Muhammad Saleh and Bahadur both Police Constables and A. S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed.
(iv) During the case, firing by the appellant at the police party resulting in the fire-arm injuries caused to P. W. Raza Muhammad.
(v) Recovery of the gun with two empty cartridges in the barrel.
(vi) Recovery of one empty cartridge from the place of occurrence (vardat).
(vii) Report of the Ballistic Expert that the crime empties, one secured from the vardat and two found inside the barrel of the gun, were fired from the same gun recovered from the appellant.
(viii) Medical evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque for the appellant and Mr. Murtaza Hussain for the State. With their assistance, we have also perused the record comprising of the evidence in the case. We are of the confirmed opinion that there is overwhelming and abundant evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
10. The eye-witness account against the appellant, is deposed by three witnesses. Ali Nawaz is the first informer. He and Ali Gul are both brothers inter se. They are brothers of the deceased. Mandost is the son of the deceased. According to P. W. Ali Nawaz, he, his brother Ali Gul, the deceased Shah Nawaz, and his son Mandost had gone from their village, Pat Feeder to Jacobabad for making purchases. The deceased and his son Mandost (P. W. 5) had gone together to the shop of Rewachand (P. W. 7) where the deceased had purchased flour, Gur, battery cells, etc. His brother Ali Nawaz, whose one leg is cut and is invalid, after making purchases, was sitting for having tea in the hotel of Haroon, which is close by to the shop of Rewachand. His another brother, Ali Gul (P. W. 6) was also sitting with him, as he had finished his shopping. All the three eye-witnesses are unanimous that they had witnessed the occurrence, when the appellant had fired at the deceased.
The distance between the Tea Hotel of Haroon and the shop of Rewachand, as shown in the sketch (Exh. 6) is about 21 feet only (7 yards). The deceased was allegedly fired upon, by the appellant, from almost the same distance of about 23 feet, when, after making the purchases, the deceased appeared to have come out of the shop. When the police visited the vardat and inspected the dead body, the two bundles (bags) containing flour and Gur (Jaggery) were found lying under the dead body. After murdering the deceased, the appellant ran towards the North. He was chased by P. W. Muhammad Saleh, Police Constable and other people from public. Ali Nawaz and his brother Ali Gul. Who had seen the appellant firing at the deceased, came rushing to the spot. Finding the deceased dead, Ali Gul stayed with the dead body and Ali Nawaz went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. The evidence of this witness has been criticised by Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque that he was not present there, and had not witnessed the occurrence, otherwise, he would have joined in the chase, to catch the appellant. It has come on the record that this witness has only one leg, and was, therefore, unable to follow the appellant. It is further contended that the F. I. R. Was lodged by this witness, after about two hours, when the appellant was already arrested and was brought to the Police Station. We do not find any force in this argument. Ali Nawaz has explained that when he had gone to the police station, he was made to sit there, for some time, in the meantime, when the S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed brought the appellant, his. F. I. R. Was recorded. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been brought out to discredit him.
10-A. P. W. Mandost was with his father, the deceased, at the time of occurrence. He had seen the appellant, firing at his father. The appellant was already known to him, as he had seen him in the neighbourhood of his village. The appellant had the turban on his head, with its one end stretch-- ing from one car to the other, covering the neck, as is usual with the 13aloch people of that area, particularly during the hot month of June. The face of the appellant was uncovered and was visible.
P. W. Mandost had seen the appellant, armed with a double-barrel gun, and firing with it, twice at his father and running away, followed by P. W. Muhammad Saleh P.C. And other public men.
Mandost was examined by the Police on the same day, soon after lodging of the F. I. R. His name was not mentioned in the F. I. R. His statement is criticised mainly on the ground that since his name did not appear in the F. I. R., he was not present with the deceased at the time of occurrence.
The age of Mandost, at the time of occurrence, was about 10 or 11 years. Finding the boy, a minor and very young, the police may not have written his name or the complainant himself might have thought it proper to keep him away. His statement otherwise, has not been shaken in the cross- examination.
11. P. W. Ali Gul is the last eye-witness in the case. He is the brother of the deceased, as well as Ali Nawaz, the complainant. He had come from his Village alongwith the deceased and his son Mandost, and first informant Ali Nawaz, for making purchases in Jacobabad. Their Village is about 12/13 miles away from Jacobabad. They bad come by bus and had reached the Town easy, at about 8 a. m. He and Ali Nawaz had finished shopping and had come to the tea hotel of Haroon, whereas the deceased and his son, had gone to the shop of P. W. Rewachand, at a distance of hardly about 5/6 paces away, from where, they were sitting in the Hotel. He has stated that at about. 10-30 or 11 a. m. He had seen the appellant firing two shots from his double barrel gun at the deceased, who, on receipt of the injuries, fell down dead. This witness had also seen the appellant running away with the gun towards the North. Ali Gul stayed with the dead body and Ali Nawaz had gone to lodge the F. I. R. He had further stated that the face of the appellant was unmuffled and he was clearly seen by him.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, has argued that the eye-witnesses are closely related and are hostile to the appellant, as per the facts narrated in the F. I. R. He has submitted that it is unusual that the witness being related inter se, would not join in the chase to apprehend the culprit. He further contended that the incident had taken place in the busy Bazar of Jacobabad and many persons from, the public had also chased the appellant, particularly Mir Khan, who was named in the F. I. R. And had come running to the place of occurrence and had also chased the appellant. It has also come on the record that Mir Khan is also related to the deceased, as is deposed by P. W. Mandos His examination, as a witness in the Court would not have made an difference favourable to the appellant. His evidence, in any case, would have been criticised as interested. The other people from the public either had reached later on, or may have been reluctant to appear in Court to, avoid hostility with the appellant and his tribe. In the case of Yaqoob Shah v. The State (PLD 1976 SC 53) it was observed:- "It is a frequent experience of criminal Courts that many a gruesome tragedy is enacted, with scores of on-lookers around, yet the assassin is allowed to operate without any let or hinderance and. Is allowed to escape from the scene, with impunity. Not only that, these `independent' on- lookers are not even prepared to say in Court what they have seen and thereby risk animosity of the assassin or his partisans. It is a pity that it is not realised that this callousness is not only cowardly but is also in violation of the Islamic injunctions. Islam imposes a solemn duty upon its followers in unqualified terms to speak the truth, even if that were to conflict with their personal interest or the interest of their kith and kin."
It is not the quantity of the evidence that is necessary to establish the charge, but the quality, with which the Court is to be satisfied, as regards its truthfulness and reliability. In this case, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 11 a. m. The F. I. R. Was lodged, after two hours by a person, whose one leg is cut. The appellant was chased by P. W. Muhammad Saleh, who is, though a police constable, but nothing has been alleged against him either in the cross- examination or the statement under section 342, Cr. P. C., of the appellant, as to why he was falsely implicating the appellant, instead of the real culprit. After being apprehended by S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed, the appellant was brought at the Police Station at about 11-45 a. m. The S. H. O. Was not there, and was reported to have left, for the `vardat'. The chain of circumstances is so firmly linked together that no other inference is possible to be drawn, except that of the guilt the appellant. The deceased was admittedly present at the time of occurrence, outside the shop of P. W. Rewachand, from where he had purchased the flour, gur and other articles. His dead body was found lying aside the shop. The articles he had purchased from the shop, were found bags underneath the dead body. After firing two shots at the deceased, appellant had run towards the North. In his statement P. W. Rewachand, the shopkeeper had stated that he knew the deceased, who had come to his shop for purchasing the Atta (flour) at about 8-30 a. m. The deceased had gone away and again returned at 11 or 11-30 a. m. At that time, he heard the gunshot reports and saw the deceased falling down. He saw a person with a. Gun and a bandolier, running away, at a distance of 2 to 4 paces away from his shop. He saw his face muffled, but his eyes were visible. It is possible that the turban, with its ends round the neck, is taken as, the face being muffled. Some police constables and people from the public had followed that person in order to arrest him. This witness had at that time, seen the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. His statement provides corroboration to the ocular testimony, as well as supports the version of P. W. Muhammad Saleh, the police constable.
Next is the statement of Muhammad Saleh. His evidence is the pivot of the case. He was the police constable posted at P. S. City Jacobabad. At the time of occurrence, he was deputed, on duty, at the house of one Qadiani Abdul Majid in Jacobabad Town, from 6 a. m. To 10 a. m. At about 10.30 a. m. He was going on bicycle to Taj Mahal Hotel to take meals. When he reached near old `Anaj Mandi' he heard two gunshot reports. About 20 paces away, he saw the deceased murdered. He noticed the appellant running away, carrying a gun. He was told by the persons collected there that after committing the murder, the appellant was running away to escape. He chased the appellant on the cycle. When he went closer to him at a distance of about 30 to 40 paces, the appellant challenged him, not to follow him, otherwise, he would murder him. While running, the appellant had fired at Muhammad Saleh twice, but missed him, and instead, the shot hit P. W. Raza Muhammad, a labourer. The appellant tried to escape in the lanes, but Muhammad Saleh continued chasing him, followed by P. C. Bahadur and other persons from the public. Finally the appellant proceeded towards the Jhatpat Naka. S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed was in charge of traffic duty patrolling the Town. At about 11 a. In. He had reached the Jhatpat Naka. The appellant was seen running towards the Naka P. W. Muhammad Saleh continued chasing him, shouting that the appellant had committed the murder and he was funning away. P. Ws. Shamim Ahmed and P. C.
Bahadur and this witness, Muhammad Saleh, were also fired upon by the appellant, who was seen loading and unloading the gun, and firing at those, who were trying to catch him. When the appellant was sur--rounded by the police and the public, he stopped and was arrested carrying the gun, a bandolier containing 27 live cartridges of numbers S. G. And L. G. The gun contained two empty cartridges. S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed P. C. Bahadur and this witness, brought the appellant to the police station. There is no cross-examination of this witness on the point, as to why this witness was deposing against the appellant. No hostility against the appellant, or interest of this witness, in any of the eye-witnesses, is shown in the cross-examination. The statement of this witness has gone almost unchallenged, on the question of chase, arrest of the appellant and the recovery of the gun and the two empties from inside the gun barrel.
13. Mr. Khalid Ishaque has then referred to the motive and has argued that though the motive was mentioned in the F. I. R. But was later on, given up, when the evidence was recorded at the trial. In the F.I.R. It was alleged that about 12-13 years before the occurrence one Kamal Jakhrani was caught red-handed committing theft, in the house of the complainant. He had received injuries, which resulted in his death, in the hospital. About 4-5 days before the date of incident, one Muhammad Ali Jakhrani, a cousin of the appellant had lodged a report at the police station Jhatpat, but the case was not proved and the complainant and others were let of. In order to take revenge, the deceased was murdered. In Tribal Feuds, life for life is taken, in revenge, no matter, who was responsible for the killing. The motive, whatever it was, whether Kamal Jakhrani died of the injuries, sustained by him, in the house of the complainant, or not, it could not, by itself be a circumstance, in proof of the charge of murder against the appellant. Motive may be useful in appreciating and evaluating the evidence in a case, but by itself, it is no proof of the crime charged. We have no evidence in a this case, even to suggest that the motive was false. Since motive vas not pursued at the trial, no other inference can be drawn, to doubt the eyewitness account, which is supported by strong pieces of circumstantial evidence.
14. The incident admittedly took place during the busy hours of the day in the main bazar of Jacobabad. The appellant was known to the eye--witnesses and was chased and caught with the gun. The question of identi--fication, therefore does not arise. P. Ws. Rewachand and Raza Muhammad had not seen the face of the appellant and did not identify him. They have given their explanation, but the other facts deposed by them, directly connect the appellants with the commission of the crime, inasmuch as, P. W. Rewachand admits that he saw the deceased being shot at and falling down outside his shop. He also saw a person armed with a gun and carrying a bandolier of cartridges running away. He also saw some police constables and people from the public chasing the culprit. Likewise the evidence of p. W. Raza Muhammad injured, also connected the appellant with the crime. He saw one person armed with a D. B. Gun coming from the Bazar side, being chased by the police. That person fired at the police, but missed and the pellet, hit him (Raze Muhammad) and he fell down. This witness was injured and was examined by the doctor. It is understandable why these two witnesses were not able to see the face of the appellant. However their evidence does connect the appellant, with the crime, leaving' no doubt in our mind that the appellant alone was responsible for killing the deceased.
15. Next place of evidence against the appellant is of the recovery of the empty from the place of occurrence, as per the Mashirnama Exh. 25 and the Gun secured by S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed from the possession of the appellant, under the Mashirnama Exh.
12. The vardat was visited by S. H. O.
Muhammad Akram, in presence of the complainant, who had shown him, the place and the dead body, etc. Which was inspected in presence of the mashirs, one of whom, Sardar Khan was examined in the Court. He had supported the prosecution case, by deposing that the police had secured the empty cartridge from the vardat, and had sealed it, in his presence. Mashir Sardar Khan is a Zamindar, who had no personal grudge against the appellant. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness, to suggest his hostility towards the appellant. The gun was secured by S. I. P. Shamim Ahmed, in presence of the two police constables Muhammad Saleh and Bahadur. This gun was a licensed one. The licence was in the name of Ghamtar Jakhrani. There is no reason for the police, to falsely implicate the appellant, if he was not carrying the gun. The evidence of the recovery of the gun is of course, of Police Officers. They are as good witnesses, as any other person. The standard of judging their evidence is the same, on which any other witness is judged. Merely because they are the Police Officers, their version cannot be discarded, without some material on the record. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to doubt their version. We accordingly accept the evidence of recovery of the empty from the vardat and the gun containing the two empties from the appellant, as a corroboration of the, eye-witness account, furnished by the throe witnesses Ali Nawaz, Mandost and Ali Gul.
16. The next piece of evidence is the report containing the opinion of the Ballistic Expert Mukhtar Ahmad (P, W. 2). Though his evince was excluded by the learned trial Judge, from consideration, nevertheless, it can safely be considered, as a supporting piece of evidence, to the extent that the empty secured from the Vardat, which was scaled at the spot--- was fired from the gun recovered from the appellant.
16. The conduct of the appellant in this case is in itself a circumstance, which supports the version of the prosecution. The appellant was seen armed with a gun at the vardat, by the tree eye- witnesses, firing at the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The appellant ran carrying the gun, in order to escape. He was chased. The appellant had fired at P.W. Muhammad Saleh and Shamim Ahmed, but missed and caused injuries to P. W. Raza Muhammad The appellant was finally surrounded and arrested by the police and the gun containing the two empty cartridges, as well as, the bandolier were recovered from him. His conduct, therefore, directly connects the appellant with the commission of the crime.
18. The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the three eye---witaiesses. Dr: Shawak Ram, who had performed the autopsy on the dead body of Shah Nawaz, had found two injuries of entrance. There were blackening and charring marks around the wounds indicating that the deceased was fired from a close range, as was stated by the eye-witnesses, The dead body was received at 2-30 p.m. By the doctor. The probable time between death and the post-mortem was within six (6) hours. The death was instantaneous. It shows that the deceased was murdered at the spot. At the time, as is deposed by the eye-witnesses. . We find it difficult to agree with Mr. Khalid Ishaque that the deceased must have died at 8 a.m. As the rigor mortis appears within 6 to 12 hours, which was already present.
19. In his statement the appellant had claimed that he was involved at the instance of one Sardar Khan Jakhrani, and the gun and cartridges, were foisted upon him. There is no cross-examination of any or the witnesses, to substantiate the contention of the appellant, nor any evidence was adduced in support of it. In this case, nothing has been brought on the record, to even suggest, as to why the real assailant was allowed to escape it, and in his place the appellant was falsely implicated by the police at the instance of the first informer. Such a substitution in a case of a single culprit is not possible, where the crime was committed in the busy bazar of Jacobabad, during day time, and the assailant was chased, and caught, with the weapon of offence.
20. The learned Judge who had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and marking their demcanour had accepted the prosecution version. On perusal of the entire evidence, we have no reason to disagree with him. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. We would accordingly maintain his conviction. There are no mitigating circumstances, to interfere with the death sentence awarded by the trial Court. We would accordingly confirm the death sentence and dismiss the appeal.