JUDGMENT SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---This common judgment will dispose of:--
(i) Murder Reference No.849 of 2003 for confirmation or otherwise of Death Sentence of Imtiaz son of Sikandar. Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2003 filed by Imtiaz, convict.
(ii) Criminal Revision No.431 of 2004 filed by the complainant Ghulam Abbas for enhancement of compensation amount.
2. Imtiaz son of Sikandar was tried in case F.I.R. No.39 of 1997 dated 25-3-1997, registered at Police Station Shah Kot, for the offences under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149 of P.P.C., at the instance of Ghulam Abbas, complainant (P.W.1) for causing Qatl-e-Amd of Qalb-e-Abbas. Learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide his judgment dated 28-10-2003 convicted Imtiaz, appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to Death as Ta'azir. He was also held liable to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. And in case of default to further undergo six months' S.I.
3. Imtiaz, appellant through Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2003 has challenged his conviction and sentence as mentioned above, while Ghulam Abbas, complainant through Criminal Revision No.431 of 2003 has challenged the validity of the judgment only to the extent of awarding of compensation amount under section 544-A of Cr.PC and prayed for enhancement of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant-convict remained absconder for a considerable period and after his arrest his trial was conducted By the learned trial court independently, and subsequently he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution story as set out in the F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 recorded on the basis of complaint Exh.PA is that complainant Ghulam Abbas was resident of Chak No.52/12.L and he was cultivator. He son Qalb-e-Abbas was a student of 7th Class in Higher Secondary School Akanwala Bangla. On 21-3-1997 at about 8-00 a.m., the complainant along with Muhammad Latif son of Mumtaz Khan caste Baloch resident of the said Chak was going on a Tractor towards Akanwala Bangla in order to get diesel for tractor. He further mentioned that his son Qalb-e-Abbas along with Qamar-ul-Zaman a student of 9th Class were going to the school on foot at Akanwala Bangla.
They were about two acres ahead of the complainant. Qamar-ul-Zaman was behind Qalb-e- Abbas. When Qalb-e-Abbas and Qamar-ul-Zarnan were about on acre away from the Abbas Petrol Pump, Imtiaz and Ghulam Shabbir armed with 12-bore gun and Zahoor Ahmad armed with a carbine came there from the side of Bangla Akanwala. They were on a motorcycle. He further stated that Imtiaz raised Lalkara that he would take revenge of his brother and he fired a shot with his.12-bore,gun hitting the left leg of Qalb-e-Abbas. Thereafter, Ghulam Shabbir fired a shot with his.12-bore gun hitting the right leg of Qalb-eAbbas at his knee in consequence of which Qalb-e- Abbas fell down. Thereafter Zahoor. Ahmad accused fired with his carbine over Qalb-e-Abbas which hit his left leg. Then Imtiaz accused again fired a shot with his.12-bore gun hitting Qalb-e- Abbas at his right knee on the outer side. The complainant further stated that they due to fear did not step forward and witnessed the occurrence.!The complainant further mentioned that the+ accused committed this occurrence at the abetment of Mirza accused. Thereafter, all the three accused, after having committed the occurrence, fled away along with their weapon of offence.
The complainant further mentioned that they took care of his son Qalb-e-Abbas and took him to 96/12L Hospital and the M.O. Of the said hospital referred Qalb-e-Abbas to Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur. On 19-7-1997 his son, succumbed to the injuries in Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur.
5. The motive behind the occurrence was stated that. The brother of Imtiaz accused was injured by some unknown persons and the accused had suspicion that he was injured by the complainant party and due to that grudge, the accused have injured the son of the complainant.. He - further mentioned that he could not report the matter to police earlier because his daughter had died at evening time on the date of occurrence:
6. The case to the extent of other three co-accused persons namely Mirza son ' of Mathaila, Ghulam Shabbir son of Muhammad Bakhsh and Zahoor Ahmad son of Muhammad Bakhsh -has already been decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chichawatni on 31-1-2002 and the present accused was declared as proclaimed offender.
7. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial court for trial. Charge against the accused was framed to which, lie pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Iii order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as twelve (12) P:was.
P.W.1 Ghulam Abbas is the complainant of this case. He has deposed, about the ocular account of the occurrence.
P.W.2 Qamar-ul-Zaman was the eye-witness of the occurrence who supported the statement of the complainant.
P.W.3 Mulazim 'Hussain, Lamberdar was the witness of recovery of.12-bore gun from the appellant.
P.W.4 Mukhtar Ahmad A.S.-I. Was a formal witness who on 25-3-1997 on receipt of the complaint Exh.PA, drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1.
P.W.5 Dr. Syed Zamir-ul-Hassan, Medical Officer on 21-3-1997 medically examined Qalb-e-Abbas and found the following injuries on his person.
(i) A punctured wound 3-1/4 cm X 3-1/4 cm X deep going on outer aspect of right knee. Edges were inverted blackening and tattooing was present. This was wound of entrance.
(ii) Multiple punctured wound in an area, of 10 X 5 cin each measuring 112 cm X 1/2 cm deep going on inner aspect of right knee. Edges were everted. This was wound of exit.
(i.e) Punctured wound 5-1/4 cm 'X 5-1/4 cm X deep going on front of right knee. Blackening and tattooing was present. It was wound of entry.
(iv) A punctured wound 3 1/4 cm X 3 1/2 cm X -deep going on back of right knee. Edges were everted. It was a wound of exit.
(v) Multiple punctured wound in an area of 11 cm X 5 cm on inner aspect of left leg each measuring 1 cm X 1/2 cm X deep going. Edges were inverted. These were wounds of entry and were 15cm above left knee.
(vi) Multiple punctured wound in an area of 8 cm X 3- cm on outer aspect of left leg. Edges were everted, measuring 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm X 1/2 cm X deep going 15cm above left ankle. It was a wound of exit.
(vii) A punctured wound 3 1/2 cni x 3 1/2 cm X deep going on outer aspect of left leg. Blackening present 5 cm below left knee. This was wound of entrance. 'i.e)Multiple punctured wound in an area of 4 1/2 cm X 3 1/2 cm X deep going on inner aspect, of left leg 4 cm below left knee.' Each measuring 1/2 x 1/2 cm X deep going. Edges were everted. It was wound of exit.
P.W.6 Ghulam Rasool Patwari Halqa was a formal witness who on 25-8-1997 prepared site plans of the place of occurrence Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1.
P.W.7 Muhammad Azam Bajwa, Inspector arrested Muhammad Imtiaz accused, who was proclaimed offender, on 5-2-2002 and on 10-2-2002 the said accused led to the recovery of gun P- 3, got prepared site plan of recovery Exh.PE/1.
P.W.8 Muhammad Raees S.-I./ S.H.O. Also conducted the partial investigation of this case and deposed regarding the investigation.
P.W.9 Dr. Altaf Malik, Medical Superintendent, Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur deposed that as per record of the hospital, Qalib Abbas son of 'Ghulam Abbas no Chak No.52/12.L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal was admitted in Orthopadic Unit by Hospital, on 3-7-1997 as a case of Reflex Sympthetic Dystrophy of both lower limps after history of fire-arm injury three months ago.
Later on in consequence of. This injury due to prolonged bed ridden, he died due to pulmonary embolism vide indoor Register No.3362/ 20332. He expired on 19-7-1997 in that hospital. Exh.PJ is the original death certificate issued by him. It was duly signed by him. Exh.PJ/1 was the attested copy of the hospital record hi this respect.
P.W.10 Muhammad Akhtar HC/952,- is the formal witness of-the prosecution. The I.O. Handed over to him sealed parcel said to contain blood-stained earth for safe custody in Malkhana. Afterwards he handed over the same to Safdar Iqbal, Constable/1147 on the Same day for its onward transmission to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore.
P.W.11 Safdar Iqbal, 1147/C Constable transmitted the sealed parsel said to contain blood-stained earth to the Chemical Examiner.
P.W.12 Muhammad Aslam A.S.-I. Recorded the statement of the complainant Exh.PA which was read over to him and he signed it as a token of its correctness. He also conducted the investigations of the case and deposed regarding the investigation conducted by them.
8. The Deputy District Attorney gave up Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din A.S.4., Muhammad Iqbal 127/C, Muhammad Ayub 1068/C, Ghulam Nabi, Mulazim Hussain son of Latif, Karam Din son of Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Latif son of Mumtaz, Ashiq son of Sarwar and Muhammad Rafique son of Karam Din.
P.Was. Being unnecessary and tendered in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PL, that of Serologist Exh.PM and the report of *Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore Exh.PK and closed the prosecution case.
9. After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342 of Cr.P.C. Wherein he stated that he did not want to appear and depose on oath as required under section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. However, he tendered in defence evidence the attested copy of F.I.R.
No.208 of 1996, under section 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Shah Kot as Exh.DA, Certified copy of Revision Petition Exh.DB, order dated 22-10-1997 passed by ASJ, Sahiwal, Exh.DB/1 copy of bail order Exh.DC titled "Jafer Hussain and others v. The State", copy of report of Tehsildar, Exh.DD dated 26-9- 2003, site plan of the house of the accused Exh.DE (both under objection) and the photostat copy of Indoor Ticket dated 18-11-1996 containing the willingness of imputation of leg of Murtaza, issued by Nishtar Hospital, Multan, as Mark-B (both under objection). In reply to the question that why this case is against you and why the P.Was. Have deposed against you, the appellant replied as under:- "I have been involved in this case falsely; actually it was un-seen occurrence committed by some unknown persons and I have been involved in this case as a counterblast of case F.I.R. No.208 of 1994, registered under section 324/34, P. P.C. With Police Station Shah Kot against the complainant party by me for causing injuries to my brother Murtaza. t was not absconding and the police, in connivance with the complainant party declared me absconder in the papers. I was never required by the police. I did not lead to the alleged recovery and gun P-3 was planted against me in connivance with the complainant party and the same does not belong to me. I am innocent. The P.
Was. Are closely related to the deceased and inter se, hence, they have deposed falsely."
10. After conclusion of the trial, aforesaid sentence and conviction was recorded by the learned trial Court.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is extra ordinary delay of four days in lodging the. F.I.R. Which makes the whole prosecution story as doubtful; that in fact Imtiaz, appellant got a case F.I.R. No.208 of 1996 registered for the offence under sections 324 and 34 of P.P.C. Against the complainant Ghulam Abbas for causing injuries to his 'brother so, the appellant has been falsely involved in this case due to enmity; that in order to prove ocular account Ghulam Abbas P.W.1, father of the deceased, Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2, a relative of the deceased were produced and no independent person has been produced by the prosecution to prove their case; that the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired twice at the leg of the deceased which is non-vital part of the body and had the appellant intention to commit the murder of the deceased, he must had fired at some vital part of the deceased; that deceased died in the hospital on 19-7-1997 after about four months of the occurrence, in the meanwhile the injured came to his house and again he was admitted in the hospital due to some complication; that no post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased Qalb-e- Abbas and complainant himself refused to get the post mortem examination done on his deceased son, so, no cause of death is available on the record, therefore, no offence under section 302, of P.P.C. Is made out; that although gun was recovered at the pointation of the appellant but as no empty was secured from the place of occurrence so the recovery of gun is not a corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant. It has further been stated that though the appellant was arrested on 5-2-2002 but no proceeding under sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. Were initiated against him so he could not stated to be absconder. It has lastly been argued that at the most the offence under section 324 of P.P.C. Is made out against the appellant.
12. On the other hand learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that delay in lodging F.I.R. Has been explained by the complainant as on the same evening daughter of the complainant namely Mst. Musarrat Bibi died and due to that reason the complainant could not lodge the report; that the prosecution has proved motive that the appellant lodged a case against the complainant Ghulam Abbas under section 324 of P.P.C. And due to that reason appellant has taken revenge from his son so prosecution has proved motive of the occurrence; that the appellant is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role that he was armed with gun.12-bore and he fired twice on Qalb-e-Abbas which landed on left leg and right leg of the deceased; that medico legal examination conducted 'by Dr. Syed Zameer-ul-Hassan confirms the injuries attributed t9 the appellant on the person of the deceased; that the appellant remained absconder for about more than four years and his abscondence is a corroborative circumstance against the appellant; that the appellant led to the recovery of gun and according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, the gun was in working condition so, the recovery of gun is a corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant; that learned counsel for the complainant stated that as Dr. Altaf Malik P.W.9 has given the cause of death of the deceased, so the offence under section 302 of P.P.C. Has been proved against the appellant whereas learned Law Officer has frankly conceded that as post mortem examination was not conducted-on the body of the deceased and complainant is himself Responsible for that so no offence under section 302 of P.P.C.
Made out against the appellant and at the most offence under section 324 of P.P.0 is made out against the appellant, in the given circumstances.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
14. This occurrence took place on 21-3-1997 at 8-00 a.m., whereas the complainant lodged report Exh.PA on 25-3-1997 at about 8-30 a.m. With the delay of four days. The reason for delay in lodging F.I.R. Given by the complainant is that he could not report the matter on the day of occurrence as his daughter Mst. Musarrat Bibi died on the same evening after hearing the death of her brother, with the shock and that he was busy in the treatment of his son and could not approach the police.
15. The appellant produced a copy of death certificate which reveals that Mst. Musarrat Bibi died on 25-3-1997 so, the reason of the delay in lodging F.I.R. Given by the complainant is falsified by the record as according to the complainant she died on the day of occurrence. It is pertinent to mention here that as per version of the complainant her daughter Mst. Musarrat Bibi died on the day of occurrence, after hearing the death of his brother but in this case Qalb-e-Abbas received injuries on the day of occurrence and he died on 19-7-1997 after about four months of the occurrence. So, this extra ordinary delay in lodging shows that it was lodged after deliberations and consultations. Perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that Ghulam Shabir and Zahoor Ahmad have also been involved in this 'case who are not related to the appellant Imtiaz and no motive has been alleged by the complainant against them so to their extent their false involvement could not be ruled out.
16. Now coming to the motive part of the prosecution story, about four months prior to this occurrence some body injured brother of the appellant Imtiaz and Imtiaz, appellant had suspicion that complainant party was involved In that occurrence. And due to this grudge, accused had injured his son.
17. To prove motive, prosecution produced Ghulam Abbas P.W.1. Perusal of his statement reveals that a case F.I.R. No.208 of 1996 was registered against him (complainant) and he was nominated in said F.I.R. And allegation against him was that he caused injuries to Murtaza, brother of the appellant Imtiaz. The perusal of record also reveals that Murtaza, brother of the appellant was given injuries on his leg by the complainant and the doctor had to-cut his leg in order to save his life. In the present case Qalb-e-Abbas, the son of the complainant received all injuries on his legs A which reveals that in order to take revenge of Mutraza, who was injured by the complainant, Imtiaz, appellant, gave injuries on the legs Of Qalb-e-Abbas son of the complainant Registration of the F.I.R. No.208 of 1996 by the appellant Imtiaz against Ghulam Abbas, father of the deceased, has not been disputed By the defence during cross-examination. So the prosecution has proved the motive of the occurrence given by them in the F.I.R.
18. The ocular account in this case has been furnished by P.W.1 Ghulam Abbas and Qamar-ul- Zaman P.W.2. P.W.1 is father of the deceased. According to his evidence, he along with Muhammad Lateef, who is his maternal nephew, were proceeding on a Tractor towards Bangla Akan Wala in order to purchase Diesel and that he saw the occurrence from a distance of two acres. During investigation P.W.1 Ghulam Abbas did not produce the Tractor on which they were proceeding at the time of occurrence. Ghulam Abbas, father of the deceased is a chance witness and he has created a false reason that he along with Muhammad Latif were proceeding two acres behind his son and Qamar-ul-Zaman. Keeping in view the extraordinary delay in lodging F.I.R. We are of the considered view that Ghulam Abbas P.W.1 was not present at the spot at the time of ocurrence.
Had he be available at the time of occurrence he must have reported the matter to the Police, immediately. The extra ordinary delay of four days in lodging F.I.R. Is also suggestive of the fact that the complainant was not present at the time of occurrence rather the injured was shifted to the hospital and he was informed thereafter, so, the evidence of Ghulam Abbas, 'father of the deceased is not reliable.
19. So far as the evidence of Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2 is concerned, he was proceeding to school along with Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased at the time of occurrence and Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2 has also stated that he-along with Qalb.-e-Abbas, deceased, was going to school in order to sit in examination as the examination has commenced.. Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2 is natural witness as he was also studying in the same school in which Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased was studying. Both were proceeding to school, when occurrence took place so the evidence of Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2 is reliable and he is natural witness of the occurrence. He has categorically stated that when he along with Qalb-e-Abbas were proceeding towards school, Imtiaz., appellant armed with.12-bore gun along with his co-accused reached there and raised Lalkara that he was going to take C revenge of his brother and fired with his gun on Qalb-e-Abbas hitting him on his left leg whereas second fire of Imtiaz, appellant hit on the right knee of Qalb-e-Abbas. Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2 remained constant on each and every material point during his cross-examination. No relationship of Qamar-ul-Zaman P. W. With the complainant party has even been suggested by the defence.
So, he is an independent witness. His evidence is reliable and confidence inspiring. He was cross- examined by the defence but his evidence could not be shattered by the defence in any manner.
He has proved prosecution story in toto without any addition or omission. Neither he made any improvement in leis statement nor his statement was confronted with his previous statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. So, in our view the prosecution _has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2.,
20. The evidence of Qamar-ul-Zaman P.W.2 finds support from the evidence of Dr. Syed Zameer- ul-Hassan P.W.5 who conducted medico legal examination on the person of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased in an injured condition, on 21-3-1997," at 9-20 a.m. The doctor observed fire arm injuries on the left leg and right knee of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased. Both these injuries were attributed to the appellant Imtiaz. The occurrence took place on 21-3-1997 at 8-00 a.m. Whereas Qalb-eAbbas, injured was medically examined at 9-20 a.m. And according to the opinion of the doctor these injuries were caused-within the duration of 1 to 2 hours so the time of occurrence also find corroboration from the evidence of the doctor.
21. The medico-Legal report Exh.PF of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased, in injured condition, reveals that no injury of the Qalb-e-Abbas was declared to be dangerous to life by the doctor as all the injuries were on legs, the non-vital parts of the body. The perusal of the record reveals that Qalbe-Abbas was admitted in Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and he was discharged from the. Said hospital and he came to his house. He was again admitted in Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur for the second time on 6-5-1997. He was again discharged and he cane back to his house. Thereafter, he was admitted in Babawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur for the 3rd time on 3- 7-1997 and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries on 19-7-1997. Perusal of record reveals that during this period he remained conscious but during this period his dying declaration was, not recorded by the I.O. After the death of Qalb-e-Abbas, no post mortem examination was conducted upon his dead body. The perusal of statement of Muhammad Aslant A.S.-1. P.W.12 reveals that he wanted to get the deceased Qalb-e-Abbas' examined through autopsy but complainant party hurriedly buried the deceased and complainant party was not inclined that post mortem examination should be conducted on the dead body of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased. It is also pertinent to mention here that District Magistrate, Sahiwal vide his order dated 10-9-1997 ordered that post mortem examination on the dead body of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased be conducted.
Complainant Ghulam Abbas filed Revision Petition against the order dated 10-9-1997 of the District Magistrate before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, copy of Revision Petition is Exh.DB. In this Revision Petition, the complainant sougl that order of the learned District Magistrate dated 10-9- 1997 whereby he ordered for disinterment of the grave of Qalb-e-Abbas for the purpose of its post mortem examination, be declared illegal. On 22-10-1997 the Criminal Revision of the complainant Ghulam Abbas was dismissed and order of the District Magistrate for conducting post mortem examination on the dead body was upheld. The copy of the order dated 22-10-1997 is Exh.DB/1.
Learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that- after the dismissal of Revision, Petition, the complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Jurisdiction go that the post mortem examination should not be conducted on the dead body of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased and ultimately autopsy was not conducted on the dead body of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased due to the effort of the complainant himself.
22. Prosecution has produced Dr. Altaf Malik, P.W.9, who has deposed that as per record of the Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur, Qalb-e-Abbas died due to pulmonary ambulizm and basic cause to pulmonary ambulizm was first injury received on the person of Qalb-e-Abbas. Doctor has admitted that Qalb-e-Abbas never remained under his personal treatment and his opinion was based on the record of the hospital. The evidence of this P.W. Is secondary evidence. The record is silent that why the doctor -under whose treatment Qalb-e-Abbas remained, till his death, was not produced. This doctor simply issued death certificate after going through the record. However, according to the opinion of this doctor the deceased expired due to complication of the injury. As doctor has no direct knowledge of the treatment of Qalb-e-Abbas so his opinion regarding the cause of death cannot be given much weight. As no post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Qalb-e-Abbas, so, the cause of death of Qalb-e-Abbas, deceased cannot be ascertained with certainty. Learned Law Officer has rankly conceded that as prosecution did not prove the cause of death in this case, so, no offence under section 302, of P.P.C. Is made out.
Learned counsel for the complainant was also unable to controvert the contention raised by the learned Law Officer as he also could not satisfy this court regarding the cause of death of the deceased.
23. So far as the recovery of gun from the appellant is concerned, he lead to the recovery of.12-bore gun P-3 from his residential room on 10-2-2002. Perusal of the record, reveals that no empty was secured from the place of occurrence so in the absence of report of Forensic Science Laboratory in this regard the recovery of gun from the possession of the appellant is inconsequential and cannot be used against him.
24. Appellant Imtiaz also absconded H himself after the occurrence and was arrested on 5-2-2002 of the occurrence. Absconsion of the corroborative piece him.
25. After about five years The extraordinary appellant is also a of evidence against For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution could not prove the charge under section 302 of P.P.C. Against Imtiaz, appellant, so, we set aside the conviction of Imtiaz, appellant under section 302(b) of P.P.C. However, in our view. The prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt under section 324 of P.P.C. So, accordingly, we convict him under section 324 of P.P.C. And sentence to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment with. a fine of Rs.1,00,000. In default of payment of fine, the convict will further undergo Six Months, simple imprisonment. The benefit under section 382(b) of Cr.P.C. Is also extended in favour of the petitioner,
26. With this modification, Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2003, filed by the appellant Imtiaz is partly accepted.
27. Criminal Revision No. 431 of 2003 filed by the complainant to enhance the compensation amount under section 544-A of Cr.P.C., is also dismissed as the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. Has been set aside by us.
MURDER REFERENCE IS ANSWERED IN NEGATIVE. DEATH SENTENCE IS NOT CONFIRME.