' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR. NAQVI, J.---Qasim Ali son of Ashiq Hussain appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.388-J of 2006) and Muhammad Tariq son of Abdul Aziz appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.1396 of 2006), both Mughal Jogi by caste and residents of Dera Darbar Wala Mandiala Tega, District Gujranwala, along with Ghulam Farid son of Ashiq Hussain (since acquitted), were involved in case F.I.R. No.290 of 2005, dated 21-10-2005, offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Ferozewala, District Gujranwala and were tried by Mr. Muhammad Tamar Hayat Gondal, learned Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala, who vide judgment dated 9-9-2006 convicted Qasim appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him to death as Ta'zir, whereas the learned trial court con victed Tariq appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The learned trial court further directed both the appellants to pay Rs.1,00,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in case of default in payment thereof, to suffer S.I. For six months each.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, Qasim Ali and Muhammad Tariq/appellants impugned the same by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.388-J of 2006 while the learned trial Court forwarded Murder Reference No.96 of 2007 for confirmation of death sentence in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C. To the extent of Qasim Ali, appellant. Subsequently, Muhammad Tariq, appellant filed separate Criminal Appeal bearing No.1396 of 2006. As both the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment of the learned trial Court, therefore these are being disposed of through single judgment.
3. Prosecution story as contained in the complaint (Exh.PE) made by Muhammad Altaf complainant (P.W.7), on the basis of which F.I.R. (Exh.PE/I) was chalked out, is that he is a labourer.
Eight years prior to the occurrence, marriage of his sister namely Mst. Shakeela Bibi was solemnized with Ghulam Fareed son of Ashiq Hussain, caste Jogi, resident of Mandiala Tega, who was residing in a separate house and used to maltreat/beat Mst. Shakeela Bibi frequently. On 20-10-2005 (Wednesday), a quarrel took place between Mst. Shakeela Bibi and Ghulam Fareed. Upon receipt of information in this regard, the complainant along with his brother Muhammad Ashfaq and his mother Fatima Bibi went to Mandiala Tega and at night they were present in the house of their sister, where Ghulam Fareed, his brother Qasim and Tariq son of Abdul Aziz, caste Rehmani, residents of Mandiala Tega, were also present and during night, a lot of hot words were exchanged between them and Ghulam Fareed as well as his brother. After observing Sehri, they slept, when suddenly on hearing the noise of foot steps they awakened and saw that Qasim and Ghulam Fareed, armed with pistols and Tariq, empty handed, were standing near the cot of Mst. Shakeela Bibi. It was about 5-30 a.m. The complainant alleged that in his view, Qasim made a fire shot with his pistol, which landed on the back of his sister and made its exit from the belly whereas second fire shot was made by Ghulam Fareed landed on the left ear of Mst. Shakeela Bibi and exit from the right ear, whereupon Mst. Shakeela Bibi succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. The motive as alleged in the crime report was that there was a family dispute between Mst.
Shakeela Bibi and her husband Ghulam Fareed and due to this grudge the accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed the occurrence.
5. On 21-10-2005 the complainant appeared before Liaquat Ali, S.I. (P.W.10) and presented his application (Exh.PE) on the basis of which formai F.I.R. Was lodged. After the registration of the case the Investigating Officer in the company of the complainant as well as other police officials visited the place of occurrence, prepared injury statement (Exh.PH) and inquest report (Exh.PJ). The Investigation Officer handed over the dead body and necessary police papers to Ubaid Ullah 894/C (P.W.2) for escorting the same to the mortuary for postmortem examination. The Investigation Officer collected bloodstained earth &Om the place of occurrence, made it into a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Exh.PF. During spot inspection, the Investigation Officer also collected two empty cartridges of pistol .30 bore and took into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PG. He also recorded the statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. And prepared visual site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PK). On the same day, Ubaid Ullah 894/C (P.W.2) produced before him the last worn clothes of the deceased qameez (P-I), shalwar (P-2), dputta (P-3) and brazier ,(P-4) along with the phial containing pellets, which the Investigating Officer took into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PB. The Investigation Officer also recorded statements of the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Then the Investigation Officer handed over the case property to the Moharrar for its safe custody and onward transmission to the quarter concerned. On 25-10-2005, on the direction of the Investigation Officer and pointation of complainant as well as P.Ws., Masood Ahmad Bhatti, Draftsman (P.W.I) took rough notes of the place of occurrence and prepared scaled site plan (Exh.PA) and (Exh.PA/1), which was made part of the file by the Investigating Officer on 27- 10-2005. On 2-11-2005, the Investigating Officer arrested Qasim Ali/appellant and on 8-11-2005 during the course of investigating Qasim Ali/appellant after. Making disclosure led to the recovery of pistol .30 bore (P-6) from a room of his residential house lying in a big iron box The said pistol was unloaded and five live bullets were recovered which the Investigation Officer took into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PD. The case property was handed over to. The Moharrar and the appellant was remanded to judicial lock-up. On 3-11-2005, the Investigating Officer was transferred and he handed over the file to the Moharrar. On 11-11-2005, the investigation of the instant case was entrusted to Muhammad Akram, S.-I. (P.W.9),' who started search of Muhammad Tariq/appellant. On the same day i.e. On 11-11-2005, Muhammad Tariq appellant presented himself before the Investigating Officer and the Investigation Officer formally arrested him and sent to judicial lock-up on 12-11-2005. The Investigating Officer declared Ghulam Fareed accused innocent.
On 20-11-2005,, the Investigation Officer produced both the parties before Abdul Majid (DSP).
6. Having found the appellants guilty, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173, Cr.R.C. And sent the same to the Court of Session enrouted through the Illaqa Magistrate as provided under section 190(2), Cr.P.C, On 4-3-2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, formally charge-sheeted the appellants and other co-accused under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced as many as to witnesses.
7. Ocular account in this- case has come out from the statements of Muhammad Altaf (P.W.7) and Muhammad Ashfaq (P.W.8). Masood Ahmad Bhatti (P.W.1) had prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. Firstly the investigation was carried out by Liaquat Ali, S.-I. (P.W.10) and subsequently on his transfer; the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad, Akram S.-I. (P.W.9).
The investigation was also conducted by Abdul Majid, DSP. Dr. Shazia Bhutta, (P.W.3) had conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased and found following injuries on her person:--
(1) A firearm lacerated wound of entry with inverted margins, still ate shape 4.5 cm x 3 cm going deep with blackening burning around inside the wound; just in front of left ear on head.
(2) A firearm lacerated would of exit with everted margins 2 cm x 1 cm on front above right ear.
(3) A firearm lacerated wound of entry with inverted margins with abrasion and tattooing around the wound 1 cm x 1 cm going deep on back left upper side:of chest,
(4) A firearm lacerated wound of exit everted margins 3/4 cm x 3/4 cm on right side of abdomen above umbilicus 4 cm away from midline, a pallet.Removed, sealed and signed and handed over to police."
' After , conducting the postmortem examination, the doctor rendered the following opinion:-- "After careful external and internal examination of the dead body, in his opinion, death in this case had occurred due to injuries to vital centre of brain, resulting death in ordinary course of nature, caused. By Injures Nos.1 and 2. All injuries were ante mortem and caused by firearm weapons.
Probable time between injuries and death was immediate and between the death and postmortem was 12 to 18 hours".
' Statements of rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.
8. On 12-7-2006, the learned DDPP gave up Mst. Fatima Bibi and Muhammad Afzal, P.Ws., being unnecessary. Vide separate statement on 18-7-2006, the learned DDPP further gave up Muhammad Imran and Shaukat Ali P.Ws. Again being unnecessary. On 10-8-2006, the learned DDPP. (besides giving up Inayatullah 960/C, P.'W., tendered in evidence the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PL), report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PM), report of Serologist (Exh.PN) and closed the prosecution evidence.
9. Both the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein they opted neither to produce defence evidence nor to appear as their own witnesses in terms of section 340(2), Cr.F.C.
In disproof of the allegations levelled against them in the prosecution evidence. While replying to the question why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Deposed against him, Qasim Ali, appellant made the following deposition;- "I and my brother Ghulam Farid the husband of the deceased are the Labourers. I reside with my brother Ghulam Farid in one and the same house. Mst. Shakeela had developed illicit relations with Tariq accused. On the day of fateful occurrence, I along with Shakeela and my brother took Sehri two hours prior to the occurrence, Ghulam Farid husband of deceased Shakeela left the house for his job at the brick kiln of Ch. Ramzan adjacent to the village Mandiala Tega. I and my Bhabhi Shakeela deceased were alone at home. Two hours after taking Sehri, I woke up for proceeding to attend my job, I saw deceased Shakeela in a naked and objectionable position lying on the cot along with my co-accused Tariq. In the heat of passion and in consistent provocation condition and due to Ghairat, I lost my self-control and then and there I. Saw the pistol which was belonging to Tariq accused, I took the same and fired upon a Shakeela; meanwhile, accused Tariq succeeded in decamping from the scene of occurrence. This whole occurrence took in the heat of passion and in consistent/sudden and great provocation; I myself appeared before the police soon after the occurrence. None from the P.Ws. Or the complainant was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Later on when the P.Ws. And complainant came to know about the death of Shakeela, they concocted a false and frivolous story and falsely got this case registered against me and my brother Ghulam Farid. Ghulam Farid was not present at the spot. He was on his duty at the brick kiln of Ch. Ramzan, adjacent to the village. Motive has falsely been planted. The same was my first version/plea before the 1.0. And such plea found correct during the investigation by P.W.9 Muhammad Akram S.-I/I.O.
' To a similar question, 'Muhammad Tariq, appellant made the following deposition:- "The family of the deceased suspected that the deceased had illicit relations with me, due to which, I have been nominated in this case falsely. I have no concern with this occurrence. I was not present at the place of occurrence at the fateful time. The P. Ws. Are related with complainant. On the asking of complainant, I have been implicated in this case. I am innocent."
' Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record found the version of the prosecution proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt resulting into their convictions in the afore-stated terms.
10. Learned counsel for Oasim Ali appellant (Criminal Appeal No.3884 of 2006) while opening his arguments submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed in a slipshod manner without adverting to the facts. Of the case, which even otherwise is in sheer violation to the evidence available on the record. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the occurrence had takeri place on 21-10-2005 at 5-30 a.m, whereas, the matter. Was reported to the police on the same day at 10-45 a.m. i.e. With a delay of more than five hours without plausible explanation, which straightway creates doubt in the prosecution version especially with regard to the presence of the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel next argued that nevertheless as per prosecution version, the appellant has been ascribed the role of making firing with pistol, however, while conducting postmortem examination, Dr. Shazia Bhutta (P.W.3) observed pellets in the cavity of injuries Nos.3 and 4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that neither any corresponding hole is mentioned in the recovery memo Exh.PB of the last worn clothes of the deceased nor while appearing before the learned trial court, P.W.3 had specifically mentioned this fact, which aspect lends support to the defence plea advanced by the appellant that the deceased was in compromising position at the time of her death. Learned counsel next argued that Ghulam Farid co-accused (since acquitted) was also assigned the role of making firing upon the head of the deceased, which as per medical evidence proved fatal, however, he was declared innocent and his name was placed in column No.2 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel contended that nevertheless he was attributed the motive part but the learned trial court also extended him the benefit of doubt and no appeal against his acquittal was filed.
Learned counsel further argued that as the occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment, hence the learned trial Court was not justified in sentencing the appellant to death and in view of contradictions in the prosecution evidence, which squarely lend support to the defence plea advanced by the appellant, the case falls within the ambit of mitigation and his sentence is liable to be converted into alternative sentence of life imprisonment provided under the statute.
11. Learned counsel representing Tariq (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1396 of 2006) while supporting the arguments of learned counsel for Qasim Ali appellant on the delay in lodging the crime report, withholding the evidence of Mst. Fatima Bibi and acquittal of Ghulam Farid co accused further argued that even as per prosecution own version Tariq appellant was empty handed at the relevant time and perusal of the crime report reveals that he has not, been ascribed any overt act. Learned counsel further, argued that nothing was recovered from the appellant.
Learned counsel further argued that in absence of any direct role vis-a-vis lack of material tangible evjdence to connect Tariq appellant with the commission of offence, the learned trial Court was not justified in passing conviction against him especially when no evidence with regard to common intention, was adduced by the prosecution against Muhammad Tariq/appellant.
Learned counsel in the circumstances prayed for clean acquittal of the appellant from the charges.
12.. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General while controverting the assertions made by learned counsel for the appellants supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. He argued that presence of the prosecution witnesses (Muhammad Altaf complainant and Muhammad Ashfaq eye-witness) at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was but natural, who along with Mst. Fatima Bibi on the complaints of Mst. Shakeela Bibi (deceased), their real sister had visited her house, where the occurrence had taken place. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General next argued that the pen-picture of the occurrence given by the prosecution witnesses of the occular account remained un-rebutted and nevertheless, they were cross- examined at length but the defence failed to shatter their testimony. It was further contended that both the appellants in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of sister of the complainant. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General next averred that the medical evidence. Fully substantiates the prosecution version. It was vehemently contended that pistol .30-bore was recovered from Qasim Ali appellant and the same matched with the empties collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence and report of Forensic Science Laboratory in this regard is positive. - Even otherwise, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General argued that the occurrence, has not been denied by Qasim Ali appellant. Regarding giving up Mst.. Fatima Bibi, learned Deputy. Prosecutor-General argued that the prosecution is not duty bound to advance the complete evidence rather it can adduce evidence of its choice. Learned Deputy Prosecutor- General urged that the deceased was real sister of Muhammad Altaf complainant and Muhammad Ashfaq eyewitness, who had no ill-will to have falsely substituied the appellants in place of real assailants. Regarding the contention of learned counsel representing Qasim Ali appellant qua extenuating circumstances, learned Deputy Prosecutor General finally argued that in view of facts and circumstances there is no occasion of mitigating circumstance and the death sentence is the only, answer to the act committed by Qasim Ali/appellant,
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced from both, sides and perused the record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab.
14. Admittedly in the instant case the occurrence had taken place on 21-10-2005 at 5-30 a.m, whereas, the matter was reported to the police at 10-45 a.m, i.e. After a delay of more than five hours nevertheless inter se distance_ between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 7- KMs. The inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has not been properly explained by the prosecution, which creates doubt qua their presence at the place occurrence at the relevant time especially when the same was lodged on the basis of application presented by Muhammad Altaf complainant (P.W.7). Apart from this three persons are nominated in the crime report out of which Ghulam Farid (since acquitted) and Qasim Ali/appellant are real brothers inter se, whereas, Muhammad Tariq son of Abdul Aziz (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1396 of 2006) is stranger to both the brothers nevertheless there is some evidence on the record that he was friend of Qasim Ali/appellant. The occurrence in this case was advanced through occular. Account Furnished by Muhammad Altaf complainant (P.W.7) and Muhammad Ashfaq (P.W.8). Both the prosecution witnesses are unanimous on this aspect that they had come to the house of Shakeela Bibi/ deceased on receipt. Of complaint by her regarding maltreatment of her husband Ghulam Farid.
As per prosecution version both P.W.7 and P.W.8 were also accompanied by Mst. Fatima Bibi, their mother, however, the evidence of Mst. Fatima Bibi was withheld by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. As far as the story advanced by the prosecution through occular account, is concerned that does not appeal to reason especially the presence of Muhammad Tariq, who is also shown to be present around the charpai of the deceased empty handed, whereas, as per defence version specific stance was taken by Qasim Ali/appellant during his first plea that in fact Muhammad Tariq co-appellant and Mst. Shakeela Bibi/deceased were found in compromising position, which infuriated him and he while utilizing the pistol belonging to Muhammad Tariq co- appellant had committed the murder. The plea of the defence was never rebutted by the prosecution as well as by the Investigating Officer. Apart from this the prosecution had alleged that 'Ghulam Farid co-accused had also made firing. The role ascribed to Ghulam Farid is more lethal and proved fatal as per the role ascribed to Qasim. Moreover, he was also ascribed motive part of the occurrence, who was found innocent during the course of investigation and his name was placed in column No.2 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. The premium of innocence administered to Ghulam Farid was never challenged by the prosecution meaning thereby that they had accepted the police investigation. According to the medical evidence it has A been categorically stated by Dr. Shazia Bhutta (P.W.3) that injury ascribed to Ghulam Farid co-accused (since acquitted) was proved fatal and injuries Nos.1 and 2 were caused by Ghulam Farid. As per prosecution version Qasim Ali/appellant was holding pistol .30-bore at the time of occurrence. The empty is recovered from the place of occurrence also matched with the recovery and as such the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is positive but from the perusal of the postmortem examination, the injury ascribed to the appellant does reveal that pellets were recovered from the cavity of the injury during the course of internal examination, which too belies the occular account of the prosecution version. Moreover, on the same set of evidence, the learned trial court had acquitted Ghulam Farid co-accused. The acquittal of Ghulam Farid has not been challenged, by the prosecution, which reflects that the prosecution was satisfied with the findings rendered by the learned trial court to his extent. The first plea of the Qasim Ali/appellant that he had seen Mst.
Shakeela Bibi in compromising position with Muhammad Tariq/appellant makes the case of the prosecution of two versions as stance taken by both the appellants is at variance from each other, which is not rebutted by the prosecution.
15. As far as the culpability of Qasim Ali and Muhammad Tariq, appellants is concerned, the case of Tariq is entirely on different footing. According to the prosecution own version he is stated to be empty handed and no overt act, whatsoever, is ascribed to him. Neither anything was recovered from him nor there is any corroborating documentary evidence in the shape of report of Forensic Science Laboratory. Moreover, nevertheless common intention is a status of mind that can be inferred from the attending circumstances but mere presence of a person on the spot does not necessarily attract the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. Therefore, without any direct/indirect evidence coupled with the fact that no over act has been ascribed to him, it seems that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case qua the accusation alleged against Muhammad Tariq/appellant and as rightly contended by his learned counsel, the learned trial court was not was justified in passing conviction against him. Resultantly, justified in passing conviction against him by allowing Criminal Appeal No.1396 of 2006, Muhammad Tariq appellant is acquitted of the charge in case F.I.R. No.290 of 2005 dated 21-10-2005, offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Ferozewala, District Gujranwala. Sentence of Muhammad Tariq appellant already stands suspended by this Court vide order dated 20-11-2008 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1 of 2008. His surety is discharged from his liability.
16. As far as case of Qasim Ali/ appellant is concerned, there is no denial to this fact that he is assigned the role of causing injury on the vital part of the body, which finds full support from the medical evidence. Not only empties were collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence rather on his arrest pistol .30-bore was also recovered and report of Forensic Science Laboratory in this regard is positive. The plea of Qasim Ali appellant that he had committed the occurrence also supplements the prosecution version. Therefore, it can safely be held that Qasim Ali/appellant was one of the assailants, who had made fire shot at the deceased.
17. Now the question of utmost care, before this Court is that whether the learned trial court was justified in sentencing him to death or alternative sentence of life imprisonment would be in exact proportionate to the act committed by Qasim Ali/appellant. Admittedly the story advanced by the prosecution witnesses of the occular account when examined on the touchstone of other attending circumstances makes their presence at the place of occurrence questionable. Moreover, as per postmortem examination, Injury No.3 is on back upper side of chest, whereas, injury No.4 is exit wound of Injury No.3 and tattooing was also present, however, from the perusal of recovery memo of last worn clothes of the deceased (Exh.PB) there is no mentioning that whether any corresponding holes were present at her clothes. Dr. Shazia Bhutta (P.W.3) while appearing in the witness box also did not specifically mention that at the time of postmortem examination she observed any corresponding hole on the clothes of the deceased. When this aspect of the case is juxtaposed with the plea, taken by the appellant that he on having seen the deceased in compromising position with Muhammad Tariq co-accused, he had made fire shots, the plea of the appellant seems reasonable, which creates doubt in the authenticity of the prosecution version to some extent and it reveals that the occurrence had taken place at the spur of moment. In its ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Israr Ali v. The State (2007 SCM R 525), it was held that:- ---Sentence, quantum of--- Principle---Question of sentence demanded utmost care on the part of court dealing with life and liberties of people---Accused persons are also entitled to extenuating benefit of doubt on the question of sentence."
18. Apart from this principle, which is based upon the principle of expectancy of life, this Court is also apprised of the fact that punishment awarded under section 302(b), P.P.C., as Ta'zir relates to death or imprisonment for life. Both the sentences are available under this head but the circumstances are not spelled out in section 302(b), P.P.C., in which either of the two punishments can be awarded. In the un-amended section 302, P.P.C., the Court was not required to advance any reason for death sentence in a murder case but if court of law awards lesser punishment while considering it appropriate sentence for murder it was required to give reasons for it prior to amendment in section 302 P.P.C., but after that amendment in section 302, P.P.C., it has become difficult and the horizon of the infliction of punishment_has been broaded in view of Criminal Law (Second Amendment), Ordinance, 1990 promulgated from time-to-time since 1990, in view of section 338-F, P.P.C., as in Islam except for just cause and reason, a life cannot be taken away or put to an end. Therefore, seeking guidance from this solitary judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that in the absence of production of any independent witness, co-accused Ghulam Farid having been assigned the role of firearm injury coupled with the motive was not only found innocent rather he was extended the benefit of doubt by the learned trial court and no appeal against his acquittal was filed, the doctor while conducting postmortem examination had not observed any hole on the clothes worn by the deceased coupled with the first plea of the appellant, which remained the same till recording his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. And recovery of pellets from Injuries Nos.3 and 4 despite the fact that appellant was armed with pistol .30-bore, persuades this Court to extend benefit of doubt qua infliction of sentence to the appellant and the same is considered as mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that to meet the ends of justice for the safe dispensation of criminal justice, the sentence of death inflicted by the learned trial court is not justified and the same is converted into imprisonment for life. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Riaz and another v. The .State and another (2007 SCM R 1413); wherein their Lordships in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan have held as under:-- "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."
19. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.388-J of 2006 is dismissed with modification in sentence from death to imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C., as Ta'zir. However, the burden of fine in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Imposed by the learned trial court shall remain intact. Qasim Ali appellant is also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
' Murder Reference No.96 of 2007 forwarded by the learned trial court in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C.
For confirmation of death sentence , inflicted upon Qasim Ali/appellant is answered in NEGATIVE.
Death sentence is NOT.