' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Through this judgment we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 361-J of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No,2118 of 2005, both tiled by Shabaz Ali, appellant, Criminal Appeal No,2117 of 2005 filed by Muhammad Nawai appellant and Criminal Revision No,94 of 2005: filed by
(late) Muhammad Anwar, complainant, through his son Muhammad Ijaz for enhancement of compensation amount. Against Shahhaz Ali respondent No, 1/appellant and for conversion of sentence of Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No,2/appellant, to under section 302(b), P.P.C. From 302(c) P.P.C.
2. We, through the same judgment. Intend to dispose of Murder Reference No,44 of 2005, as well, sent by the learned trial Court, under section 374, Cr.P.C., for confirmation of the death sentence of Shahbaz Ali, appellant.
3. Shahbaz Ali, Muhammad Nawaz and Manak All alias, Maskeen (since acquitted) were tried in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Chiniot for an offence under section 302; P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. For causing murder of Abdul Rauf and Mst. Asmat Bibi. The occurrence took place on 23-6-2001 at Esha Vela in the area of Police Station. Lalian, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang.
The statement got recorded by Muhammad Anwar complainant, P.W.3 formed the basis for the registration of formal F.I.R. Exh.PC. The appellants and their co-accused were charged under sections, 302 and 34, P.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
4. The prosecution story narrated by Muhammad Anwar P.W.3 in his statement (F.I.R. Exh. PC) is that he along with his son Abdul Rauf (deceased) went to the fields to answer the call of nature at Esha Vela on 23-6-2001; they had a lantern with them; when they reached near the field of millet crop, of one Allah Bakhsh, the accused Shahbaz Ali (appellant) and Muhammad Nawaz (appellant) armed with hatchets, all of a sudden, attacked them; Shahbaz Ali (appellant) gave a hatchet blow on the head of Abdul Rauf who fell down in injured condition; thereafter Muhammad Nawaz and Shahbaz Ali appellants gave one hatchet blow apiece on the neck of fallen Abdul Rauf; meanwhile, their father Manak Ali, armed with a stick forcibly brought his daughter Mst. Asmat Bibi at the place of occurrence who, too was murdered by Shahbaz Ali and Muhammad Nawaz, appellants as they inflicted injuries on her chin and neck by means of their hatchets; on hue and cry of the complainant, Umar Hayat (P.W.4) and Abdul Majeed P.W. (not produced), who had a torch with them, per chance; reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence; the accused were identified by the complainant and other P. Ws. In the torch and lantern light; Abdul Rauf succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.; ' The motive behind the occurrence was that the accused suspected Abdul Rauf (deceased) of illicit liaison with Mst. Asmat Bibi and due to this grudge the accused, in furtherance of their common intention. Brutally murdered Abdul Rauf and Mst. Asmat Bibi.
5. The complainant (P.W.3) recorded his statement Exh.PC before Muhammad Ashraf SI, (P.W.10) at 9-30 p.m. On 23-6-2001 at Police Station Lilian for registration of formal F.I.R. (Exh.PC) No,44 of 2001, dated 23-6-2001, under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C.
6. During the investigation, Muhammad Ashraf SI/1.0., P.W.10 visited the place of occurrence and sent the dead bodies of Abdul Rauf and Mst. Asmat Bibi to the mortuary for necropsy through Muhammad Akram 772/C, P.W.9 and Fateh Sher 485/C P.W.12. He prepared injury statements, Exh.P.1, Exh.PM and inquest reports Exh.PK, Exh.PG qua Abdul Rauf and Mst. Asmat Bibi deceased respectively. He inspected the place of occurrence and took into possession blood-stained earth from two places vides recovery memos Exh. PA and Exh.PB. He prepared the visual site plan Exh.PN.
He secured the last worn clothes of both the deceased vide memos of recovery Exh.PL, and Exh.PP on 24-6-2001. He got prepared the scaled site plan in duplicated Exh.PQ and Exh.PQ/1, by Muhammad Afzal Patwari, P.W.11. He arrested Shahbaz Ali appellant on 29-6-2001 who led to the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet P-1 on 2-7-2001 which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PD, by the I.O. Attested by Muhammad Boota 851/C, P.W.5 and Muhammad Boota 186/C, P.W.
(not produced). On completion of investigation he challaned Shahbaz Ali appellant but recorded an opinion of innocence qua Muhammad Nawaz appellant and Manak alias Maskeen (since acquitted).
7. The dead body of Abdul Rauf deceased was shifted to Rural Heath Center, Lilian where Dr. Ijaz Haider Khan, P.W.8 conducted its postmortem examination at 8-30 a.m. On 24-6-2001, vide postmortem examination report Exh.PH (pictorial diagram Exh.PH/1) and found following injuries thereupon:--
(1) An incised wound 11-1/2 c.m. x 4 c.m. Below the right cheek adjacent to the right mandible. On exploration the under line vital structures like blood vessels, trachea, etc. Were cut through and through.
(2) An incised wound 18-1/2 c.m. x 4-1/2 c.m. On the left side of neck right upto the ear lobule, the injury was in communication with the injury No,1 and all intervening structures were cut through and through.
' The cause of death, as recorded by the Medical Officer, was the shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries to the vital organs like major blood vessels of the neck etc, which were ante mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon.
' The probable time, elapsed between injuries and death was worked out by the Medical Officer as "immediate" and between death and postmortem as about 10 to 16 hours.
8. The dead body of Mst, Asmat Bibi deceased was also shifted to Rural Heath Center, Lalian where Dr. Bushra Naheed, W.M.0, P.W.6 conducted its postmortem examination at 9-30 a.m. On 24-6-2001, vide postmortem examination report Exh.PE, (pictorial diagrams Exh.PE/1 and Exh.PE/2) and found following injuries thereupon:--
(1) Above the chin 6 c.m. x 2 c.m.
(2) Left cheek 8 c.m. x3 c.m.
(3) Left side of chin 4 c.m. x 3 c.m.
(4) Below the chin on left side 9 c.m. x 3 c.m.
(5) Below injury No,4 on the neck 9 c.m. x 3 c.m.
(6) On the neck left side 11 x 4 c.m.
(7) On the right side on the neck 3 c.m. x 2 c.m.
(8) Right shoulder 4 c.m. x 3 c.m.
' The cause of death, as recorded by the Woman Medical Officer, was the shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries to the major blood vessels of the neck, which were ante-mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon.
' The probable time, elapsed between injuries and death was worked out by the Medical Officer as "within a few minutes" and between death and postmortem as about 10 to 15 hours.
9. In support of its case, the prosecution produced 12 P.Ws. Muhammad Anwar, P.W.3 and Umar Hayat P.W.4, are the witnesses of ocular account. Muhammad Boota 851/C, P.W.5 attested memo Exh.PD qua blood-stained axe P-1, got recovered by Shahbaz Ali, appellant, pursuant to his disclosure. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Bushra Naheed, W.M.O, P.W.6 and Dr. Ijaz Haider Khan, M.O., P.W.8 who performed autopsy on the dead bodies of Mst. Asmat Bibi and Abdul Rauf deceased. Muhammad Ashraf SI/1.0., P.W.10 recorded the formal Exh.PC on the statement of Muhammad Anwar (P.W.3) and conducted investigation in the case subsequent thereto.
Muhammad Afzal, Illaqa Patwari. P.W.1 prepared site plans in duplicate Exh.PQ, Exh.PQ/1 in the scale of 1 inch equal to 20 karams. Rest of the prosecution evidence is more or less formal in nature.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor tendered the reports of Chemical Examiner. Lahore, Exh.PR, Exh.PT and that of the Serologist Exh.PS and announced the prosecution case closed.
11. The appellant Shahbaz Ali, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charges against him and on a question, "Why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you" he replied as under:-- "All the P.Ws. Related inter se with complainant who is the father of deceased Abdul Raouf while Umar Hayat P.W. Is nephew as well as damaad of complainant. In fact, Abdul Rauf deceased had developed illicit relations with my sister Mst. Asmat Bibi. I and my father Manak Ali alias Miskeen co- accused forbade Abdul Raouf deceased from visiting our house but he had not accepted our request. At the time of occurrence, my co-accused Manak Ali alias Miskeen (my father) and my co-accused Muhammad Nawaz (my brother) were not present at the time of occurrence. My father Manak Ali alias Miskeen co-accused is aged about 80 years was sick in my house while my co-accused Muhammad Nawaz (my brother) on labour duty of Manak son of Murad caste Qasab with his tractor trolley and was present in the Haveli of Allah Bukhsh son of Sadda caste Awan resident of Lalian in connection with levelling his Haveli with earth at the time of occurrence. At the night of occurrence, I had seen cricket match in the house of my friend on T.V. After seeing the cricket match, I reached in my house. My sister Mst, Asmat Bibi was not present in the house. I started her search and found Mst. Asmat Bibi and Abdul Rauf in the crop of "Bajra" in naked position. At that time, both Mst. Asmat Bibi and Abdul Rauf was in a scuffling position (Japhha ki Halat). The night of occurrence was a dark night. The height of Bajra crop was of about 5/6 feet.
When I reached near the Bajra crop and I heard their voices (Khusar-Phhusar) on which I became emotional and could not control myself and took the hatchet from nearby house and inflicted hatchet blows on Mst. Asmat Bibi and Abdul Rauf due to GHA1RAT and sudden provocation. After the occurrence, I went to Police Station Lalian and surrender myself before the police along with weapon of offence and narrated whole the occurrence mentioned above before the police. At the time of occurrence, I was about 16-1/2 years of age."
' In reply to another question, "Do you want to say anything else", Shahbaz Ali, appellant replied as under:-- "I alone committed the murder of Abdul Rauf and Mst. Asmat Bibi due to sudden provocation and GHA1RAT. My co-accused namely Muhammad Nawaz (my brother) and Manak Ali alias Miskeen (my father) have been falsely implicated in this case due to their relationship with me."
12. The appellant Muhammad Nawaz, in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also denied the charges against him and on a question, "Why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you" he replied as under:-- "I endorse the statement of my co-accused namely Shahbaz Ali (my younger brother)".
' Both the appellants neither opted to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. As their own witness to repel the charges against them, nor they "produced any defence evidence.
13. After perusing the material on the record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, vide judgment dated 24-12-2004 as under:-- Shahbaz Ali, Appellant: Under section 302(b), P.P.C.
Death, on two counts with order to pay Rs,1,00,000, on two-counts, as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default thereof to undergo six months' S.I.
Muhammad Nawaz, appellant.
Under section 302(c), P.P.C.
' 10 years' R.1 with order to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Abdul Rauf deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C, in default thereof, to undergo six months' S.I.
' The co-accused of the appellant, Manak Ali alias Miskeen, however, was acquitted by the learned trial court through the same judgment.
14. The appellants' learned counsel contends that Abdul Rauf (deceased) and Mst. Asmat Bibi (deceased) were found in objectionable position by Shahbaz Ali, appellant, during the dark hours of the night in a field due to which he alone, committed their murder in frenzy, having lost self- control, under grave and sudden provocation; the story narrated by the witnesses of ocular account is preposterous and does not appeal to reason and logic; the motive set up by the prosecution lends corroboration to the defence plea, raised by Shahbaz Ali, appellant and the prosecution case by no means can travel beyond the scope of section 302(c), P.P.C; Mst. Asmat Bibi is the real sister of Shahbaz Ali, appellant who admits to have committed the occurrence and has taken a specific plea in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. By contending that he exploded into action when he found his sister and her paramour Abdul Rauf deceased, involved in sex game; the mode of the occurrence also suggests that the defence plea adopted by Shahbaz Ali, appellant is nothing but the whole truth, which is nearer to human psyche, behaviour and conduct; the dead bodies of both the deceased were found bottomless by Muhammad Ashraf, SI/1.0., P.W.10 who in his statement has admitted to have put their shalwars on to cover their naked genitalia which leads to the conclusion that both the deceased were in compromising position at the time of occurrence; the appellant, Shahbaz Ali has not committed an intentional or cold- blooded murder but his reaction to the provocative linkage of the two deceased at the time of occurrence is natural which could cause loss of self-control and result into any eventuality; it is not a case of Qatl-e-amd but it is a case of grave and sudden provocation which is punishable under section 302(c), P.P.C, hence, the sentence awarded to Shahbaz Ali, appellant is liable to he set aside; the impugned judgment is ridiculous to the extent of Muhammad Nawaz appellant as the learned trial court has convicted him under section 302(c), P.P.C. Without any reason and rhyme so his conviction and sentence is not maintainable at all and he merits acquittal in this case. Relies upon Pathan Khan v. Manzoor Ahmad and another (2004 SCM R 720) and Amanullah and others v. The State (2006 YLR 209).
15. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand, contends that the motive behind the occurrence was that the accused persons had the suspicions about the existence of illicit relations of Abdul Rauf deceased with Mst. Asmat Bibi and they caused the cold-blooded murder of both the deceased in a pre-meditated manner; P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the truthful witnesses who saw both the appellants commit the murder of both the deceased ruthlessly by means of their hatchets in furtherance of their common intention; the medical evidence is in conformity with the ocular account and the nature of injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased shows that heavy sharp- edged weapons have been used by the assailants to kill the ill-fates youths, as is the case, set up by the prosecution; the occurrence took place at Esha Vela and the matter was reported to the police with utmost promptitude i,e,, at 9-30 p.m. Which excludes all the hypothesis of deliberations or consultations on the part of the complainant side; Muhammad Nawaz appellant also acted heartlessly at the time of occurrence and he is an accused in the equal degree like his co- appellant so he ought to be dealt with in the same manner; lastly contends that the appeals of the appellants may be dismissed and the revision petition riled by the complainant may be allowed in terms of the prayer made therein.
' Learned State counsel has also opposed the appeals filed by the appellants and endorsed the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant.
16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with required degree of care and caution. Muhammad Anwar, complainant P.W.3 admittedly is the father of Abdul Rauf deceased, Umar Hayyat, P.W.4 is a nephew and son-in-law (damad) of P.W.3. Whereas, Abdul Majeed, P.W. (not produced) is the nephew of the wife of the complainant. The occurrence took place in a field of Millet crop owned by one Allah Buksh at Esha Vela. The crucial point to adjudge the veracity of the prosecution case is whether the witnesses of the ocular account (P.W.3 and P.W.4) were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and could witness the occurrence, as claimed by them in their testimonies.
17. The complainant P.W.3 has deposed about in his statement-inchief that the accused were supported by the prominent political figures of the area and the I.O. Did not record his 'statement as well as the statements of his 'witnesses correctly but were tampered with by him. By this assertion. The complainant in fact has caused the self-destruction of the prosecution case. He has taken an unusual stance that he carried a lantern when he along with his son Abdul Raul went to the fields to ease themselves. In his anxiety to show the presence of some light at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, he has adopted the said plea otherwise, it does not happen in Punjab plains that one living in a village would go to the fields to ease oneself with a lantern in hand. The villagers usually go to the fields to attend to the call of nature, either in the early hours of the night or in the wee hours of the night so as to conceal themselves from being viewed by others and this are but natural. The complainant P.W.3 has stated that his house was situated at a distance of about 1-1/2 or 2 acres from the place of occurrence and it looks strange that he would carry a lantern in his hand for going to, the fields which usually does not happen in our village life.
The residential houses in our villages were not fitted with sanitary accessories about 8/10 years back and the people would usually go to the fields to ease themselves and they always preferred the sheath of darkness cover their bodies when they would be sitting in the open, to urinate or excrete faeces. So to carry a lantern or a lit device for going to the fields at night for the said purpose is hardly believable. According to P.W.3 when they reached the fields of Allah Bukhsh suddenly Shahbaz and Nawaz appellants armed with hatchets, appeared at the scene and attacked them. He has frankly admitted in his statement that it was a dark night and there was no moon-light. The height of the Bajra crop was about 3/4 inches. Umar Hayat P.W.4 and Abdul Majeed P.W. (not produced) reached the place of occurrence on hearing the shrieks of the complainant who witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 5 Karams i,e, 27/28 feet. P.W.3 has further contended that the police reached the place of occurrence and arranged the gas limps and tube-lights etc. For doing their duty at the place of occurrence. He has admitted in his statement that the dead body of Abdul Rauf deceased and that of Mst. Asmat Bibi lay at the spot when police reached there. He denied a suggestion that the shalwars of both the deceased were lying on their ankles and that their lower halves were naked, whereas, Muhammad Ashraf SI/I.O., P.W.10 has stated in his testimony that both the dead bodies were lying at the spot bottomless and that he had drawn upwards their shalwars from their ankles so as to cover their nudity. This is the most important and crucial aspect of the prosecution case.
18. Though, an attempt has been made by P.W.3 and P.W.4 in their testimonies to justify the presence of the dead body of Mst. Asmat Bibi at the same point where the dead body of Abdul Rauf was lying by adopting the version that Manak alias Miskeen had forcibly driven the female deceased to the place of occurrence by holding a Dang in his hand yet it does not appeal to reason and logic for the reason, if he was possessed with the intention of committing the murder of his daughter, he and his co-accused could have done so at his residential house, instead of dragging her to the place of occurrence and letting others lower her shalwar so as to expose her private parts which could not be tolerated by any father or any brother regardless of the character of such a lady. Had it been a pre-meditated or a pre-concerted attack, the dead bodies of both the deceased would not have been found lying close to each other and both the deceased could have been done to death by the accused-appellants at the places of their availability.
19. The naked halves of both the deceased and the lying of both the dead bodies in close proximity inter se, is an irrebuttable circumstance which leads to the conclusion that the defence plea raised by the accused appeals to common prudence and the scenery painted by the prosecution is like a spoilt piece of abstract art which hardly conveyany sense or meaning. The complainant P.W.3 has deposed about the occurrence in two parts, in the F.I.R. Exh.PC, one relating to the murder of Abdul Rauf deceased and the other relating to the murder of Mst. Asmat Bibi who according to the version of both the P.Ws. Was brought to the place of occurrence by her father. The statements of both the P.Ws. Are full of contradictions and discrepancies which cannot be considered by us trustworthy or worth-credence because of inherent defects. Their statements per se are incredible and devoid of any iota of truth.
20. After perusal of the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 their evidence does not appear to be confidence-inspiring. They have failed to offer any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot at the relevant time. The inaction on their part to save the lives of the deceased persons is also a strong circumstance which reflects upon the veracity of their versions. P.W.3 being the father of Abdul Raut deceased was required to show courage and valor to come to the rescue of his in- trouble son but by having not done so has left a big interrogative mark on his presence at the place of occurrence. Had he been present at the place of occurrence he would have rather died than being a silent spectator of the butchering of his son at the hands of the accused. Umar Hayyat P.W.4 too, has badly failed to establish his presence at the place of occurrence as he has admitted in his testimony that he had no specific purpose to be present on the scene of occurrence and he per-chance, had reached there on hearing the hue and cry of the complainant.
P.W.3 with a view to show the nearness of the residential house of P.W.4 has contended and denied the suggestion that he was a resident of Noorpur Tibbi Mohallah, Lalian which is a far-off place from the place of occurrence, whereas, P.W.4 in his testimony frankly admitted that he lived, in the said Mohallah and that he was not a resident of Mohallah Railway Station where complainant P.W.3 lived.
21. The place of occurrence is situated in the fields which does not touch any thoroughfare or the passage, so to he there in the dark hours of the night, P.W.4 was duty bound to show the purpose of his visit/presence at the said spot at the relevant time of the occurrence, but he except for contending that he had reached there in connection with some personal work, could not specify the said piece of work nor he has been able to impress us by his version regarding his presence at the spot at the relevant time.
22. The prosecution could not establish during the course of the trial as to under what circumstances the shalwars of both the deceased stood removed from their bodies. Had they been present at the spot at that time they must have given an account of the fact as to who was the person resnsible who had committed the absurdity of removing the shalwars of th the deceased, thus exposing their private parts to the public at large. They have also failed to establish as to wherefrom Manak alias Miskeen who was a man of about 80 years had brought his youthful daughter to the place of occurrence. Had the P.Ws. And the deceased informed the appellants and their acquitted co-accused about their program to go to the field of the occurrence at a specific time, so as to enable them to reach there, being armed, with their girl? The answer to this query is naturally in negative, if so, how come the complainant, P.W.3 and Umar Hayyat P.W.4 would reach there at the nick of the hour to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution case in fact is a plethora of improbabilities and uncertainties, which cannot B equate the straightforward and truthful connecting evidence. The prosecution version does not appeal to mind that after the murder of Abdul Rauf deceased, the appellants had brought their own girl at the spot and also murdered her there but the P.Ws. Could not do anything except for watching the proceedings silently and apathetically.
23. The complainant and his witnesses took a strange turn during the course of investigation and recorded their supplementary statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which we find placed on the record in the shape of Exh.DA, Exh.DB and. Exh.DC wherein they have changed the entire tenor of the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer, P.W.10 has admitted in his testimony that the complainant and the other eyewitnesses had departed from their earlier versions as contained in F.I.R. And in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., whereby, they in their bid to justify their presence as well as that or Mst. Asmat Bibi deceased at the place of occurrence, introduced altogether new details and facts which were discrepant to the statements, already made by them during the course of investigation. P.W.3, as discussed above has also hinted at that his statement as well as those of his witnesses had been tampered with by the police during the course of investigation which strengthens the impression that their belatedly recorded statements were at variance with their earlier statements. So this fact is also detrimental to the ocular account which we have already observed to be unreliable, incredible and unacceptable.
24. As we have disbelieved the ocular account, furnished by P.W.3 and P.W.4 hence, to discuss the other prosecution evidence would be sheer wastage of time and energy. In this eventuality the version of the accused or the defence plea raised by Shahbaz Ali, appellant-accused shall have to .Be looked upon for the purpose of ultimate decision of the instant case. Muhammad Nawaz appellant has outrightly denied the prosecution case and has professed his innocence by contending that he was neither present at the spot nor had taken part in the incident in any manner. It is well-settled principle of law, if the prosecution version is rejected and disbelieved then, the defence plea raised by the accused shall be believed in toto without scrutiny. The plea of the accused cannot be considered in piecemeal nor it can be dealt with in a pick and chose manner, to the liking of the prosecution. According to the defence version, Shahbaz Ali, appellant has contended to have committed the occurrence alone under grave and sudden provocation when he found his real sister Mst. Asmat Bibi deceased, clung to Abdul Rauf deceased in naked, objectionable condition at the time of occurrence. When the defence plea is put in juxtaposition to the prosecution case, the defence version appears to be more plausible as the P.Ws., for the reasons recorded hereinabove, have failed to substantiate their case through confidence-inspiring evidence. It is a general tendency in the society and a matter of common observation that the close relatives, friends and sympathizers of the principal accused are also named in the occurrence by different attributions, so as to cast the net too wide and implicate as many innocent persons as possible in the case to stop them from extending any help to the main accused.
According to the defence plea of Muhammad Nawaz appellant, he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he had been falsely implicated in this case under a conspiracy hatched up by the complainant and his witnesses so, it has become a case of no evidence to his extent and he deserves .To be acquitted of the murder charge.
25. As such Criminal Appeal No, 2117 o1 2005 filed by Muhammad Nawaz appellant is accepted, resultantly, his conviction and sentence is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other criminal case.
26. So far as the case of Shahbaz All appellant-accused is concerned, according to his own version he is guilty of an offence under section 302(c), P.P.C. Hence, his conviction and sentence under section 302(b) set aside and he is convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced to 14 years' R.I. On two counts, which shall run concurrently with benefit of section 382(b), Cr.P.C.
27. Both the above said deceased were not Masoom ud Dam as they were caught in compromising position in the dark hours of the night and done to death, hence, we are not inclined to award compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as contemplated under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. With this modification in the nature of conviction and quantum of sentence, Criminal Appeal No,3614 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No,2118 of 2005 both filed on behalf of Shahbaz Ali appellant- accused stand disposed, of.
28. The Criminal Revision No,94 of 2005 filed on behalf of the complainant for enhancement of sentence or the appellants-accused, for the foregoing reasons, is dismissed.
29. The Murder Reference No,44 of 2005, in view of above, is answered in the negative.