' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in case F.I.R. No,74/2010, dated 13-2-2010, for an offence under section 302 P.P.C. Read with section 34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Kamoke District Gujranwala for the murder of Amir Shehzad (deceased) son of the complainant. Vide judgment dated 21-8- 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala the appellant has been, convicted under section 302(b) P.P.C. And sentenced to death with a direction to pay Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only) as compensation under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to the legal heirs of Amir Shehzad (deceased) in default thereof the appellant is to undergo six months'
S.I.
2. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) has filed, this appeal whereas the learned trial Court has sent Murder Reference No,542 of 2010 for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant), as required under section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure. As both these matters have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, they are being decided together through this single judgment.
Case set out in the F.I.R.
3. F.I.R. (Exh.PF) was registered on the written application (Exh.PA) of Rana Muhammad Yameen (P.W.1) (complainant) who is a resident of Machhrala Khurd and runs a commission shop in old Ghala Mandi Kamoke. According to the F.I.R., Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ilyas brothers of the complainant were also working with him at the said commission shop. Complainant's son, namely, Amir Shehzad worked as Sub-Inspector in City Traffic Police and was performing his duty at Lahore Airport. He used to come at the commission shop after performing his duty. On 13-2-2010 at 12-00 noon complainant along with his two brothers namely Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ilyas were present at the commission shop. Amir Shehzad son of the complainant was also present there and all of them were sitting at the thara outside the commission shop. In the meanwhile, Bashir Ahmad (appellant) while armed with 30 bore pistol along with two unknown persons came on the commission shop. On his arrival he (Bashir Ahmad Butt) made two consecutive fires out of which one fire hit on the back side of the neck of Amir Shehzad and made an exit from the mouth.
Amir Shehzad smeared with blood started writhing in agony on the ground. The two unknown persons who were also armed stood present there while pointing their firearms on the complainant's side, therefore, the complainant and his two brothers could not go near Amir Shehzad (deceased). After the occurrence, the accused persons while brandishing their firearms fled away from the spot. Complainant and his brothers put Amir Shehzad in a car and were going to Civil Hospital Kamoke and on the way the deceased (Amir Shehzad) succumbed to the injuries.
Motive behind the occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R., was that few months prior to the occurrence Amir Shehzad (deceased) got his house painted from Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) and had paid his labour but Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) used to claim that he has been paid less labour and due to that trivial grudge Bashir Ahmad Butt etc committed the murder of Amir Shehzad. At the end of the F.I.R. It was averred that complainant along with his two brothers namely Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ilyas and other people had witnessed the occurrence.
Investigation
4. Muhammad Nawaz S.I. (P.W.9) was posted at Police Station City Kamoke. On 13-2-2010, investigation of this case was entrusted to him. He along with other police officials reached Tehsil Headquarters Hospital Kamoke. He inspected the dead-body of Amir Shehzad (deceased), prepared injury statement (Exh.PH) and inquest report (Exh.PJ). He drafted an application (Exh.PK) for postmortem examination and handed over the dead-body to Faisal Mahmood 3901/C (P.W.5) for postmortem examination. Thereafter he reached the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan (Exh.PM). He collected two crime empties (P.1/1-2) from the place of occurrence and took the same into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PB). He took into possession blood stained earth from the place of occurrence vide recovery memo (Exh.PC). After postmortem examination on the dead-body of Amir Shehzad (deceased) Faisal Mehmood 3901/C (P.W.5) produced before him the last worn clothes of the deceased i,e,, qameez (P.2), shaiwar (P.3), bunyan (P.4) and azarband (P.5) which were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PE). He got prepared scaled site plan (Exh.PD and Exh. PD/1) by Masood Ahmad Bhatti Draftsman (P.W.4). On 10-3-2010 he arrested Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant). On 18-3-2010 Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) got recovered pistol 30 bore (P.6) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PN). On 19-3-2010 the appellant was sent to the judicial lock up under the orders of learned Judicial Magistrate. Report under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction.
' Trial
5. The appellant was summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala to face the trial. Copies of the documents, as required under section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure, were provided to him and formal charge under section 302 P.P.C. Was framed against him on 14-7-2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in all. Ocular account was furnished by Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2). Medical evidence was furnished by Dr.Salman Kazmi (P.W.8).
Nasir Ali (P.W.10) witnessed the alleged recovery of pistol 30 bore (P.6) at the instance of appellant.
Muhammad Nawaz S.I. (P.W.9) investigated this case and while appearing in the witness box, narrated the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.
6. Learned DDPP gave up Muhammad Ilyas, Rao Nadeem and Tahir Iqbal (P.Ws.) being unnecessary vide statement dated 13-8-2010. He also closed the prosecution case on 17-8-2010 after tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PP), report of Serologist (Exh.PQ) and report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PR). Statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure on 17-8-2010 wherein he refuted all the prosecution allegations levelled against him. To a question as to why the case against him and why, the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) replied as under:- - "In fact I have gone to the police station to lodge complaint against Aamer Shehzad deceased for non-payment of my dues where complainant party lodged report against unknown persons but due to my complaint against Aamer Shehzad (since deceased) the complainant party nourished grudge against me and due to this reason they have falsely involved me in this case on concocted fake version. P.Ws. Are either been closed related to the complainant or police officials who have been deposed against me due to the above mentioned grudge."
7. The appellant made a statement on oath while appearing in support of his version as provided under section 340(2) Code of Criminal Procedure which is reproduced as under:-- "I am a labourer and used to paint the buildings. Two years ago I worked at the house of Aamer Shehzad deceased to paint his house which was situated in village Macharala. There was a dispute over payment of labour amount rupees 4500 between me and the deceased and some hot words were exchanged between me and the accused. I visited Police Station City Kamoke at 2-30/3-00 P.M. On the day of occurrence to lodge report regarding my dues against the deceased, where in the police station the complainant party met me I complained regarding non-payment of dues, they told me that you have murdered Aamer Shehzad deceased, thereafter they subjected me torture and then falsely involved me in this case. I had no knowledge regarding of deceased. I have been falsely involved in this case. I am innocent. Recovery of pistol was planted upon me. The concocted evidence has been produced against me. I had been involved in this case due to the grudge that I went to police station to lodge a complaint against the deceased."
' However, the appellant did not produce any evidence in his defence.
8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed above. Hence, this appeal and murder reference.
Arguments
9. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is a direct conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence which negates the presence of both the witnesses of ocular account i,e, Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2) at the spot at the relevant time. To substantiate this point, learned counsel for the appellant contends that it was the case of prosecution in the F.I.R. As well as before the learned trial court that the appellant while armed with 30 bore pistol came at the place of occurrence and made two consecutive fires out of which one fire landed on the back side of the neck of Amir Shehzad (deceased) and made an exit from the mouth but Dr. Salman Kazmi (P.W.8), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead- body of deceased, clearly mentioned in his postmortem report (Exh.PH) that the, fire hit on the lower part of lip and made an exit from the back of the neck and same was the statement of the doctor before the learned trial court; that Dr.Salman Kazmi (P.W.8) was not declared hostile by the prosecution and this contradiction alone is sufficient to discard the ocular account furnished by Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2). Learned counsel further contends that presence of both the witnesses of ocular account at the spot is also belied from another circumstance that this incident took place allegedly at 12-00 noon and as per prosecution case it was reported to the police at 12-35 p.m. But the post mortem examination on the dead- body of deceased was conducted at 7-30 p.m. i,e, after seven hours and thirty minutes of the occurrence whereas Tehsil Headquarters Hospital Kamoke is situated in the same area where the alleged incident took place and this delay, in conducting the postmortem examination also suggests that the witnesses of ocular account were not present at the spot at the relevant time.
10. So far as motive is concerned, learned counsel contends that the appellant had to receive certain amount from the deceased for the services rendered by him for painting his house and due to the said reason he has been falsely implicated in this case. So far as recovery of .30 bore pistol (P.6) at the instance of appellant is concerned, learned counsel contends that this recovery was allegedly effected from the house of the appellant; that Nasir Ali (P. W.10) has admitted in his cross examination that at the time of recovery proceedings no other person was present in the house and jisti petti from which recovery of pistol was allegedly effected, was also open at that time; that empties were taken into possession on 13-2-2010 and the same were received in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 6-3-2010 i,e, after twenty one days and there is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to why the empties were kept in the malkhana for such a long period and as such no reliance can be placed on the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory; that the appellant also appeared as his own witness as required under section 340(2) Code of Criminal Procedure and made his statement on oath; that the defence plea disclosed by the appellant while making his statements under sections 342 and 340(2) Code of Criminal Procedure is more probable and convincing and finds support from the prosecution's own case; that viewing from all angles prosecution case, is of doubtful nature and the appellant is entitled to acquittal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case-law titled as Jumma v. The State (2011 SCM R 1428) and Amin Ali and another v. The State (2011 SCM R 323).
11. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes this appeal on the grounds that the incident took place in front of the thara of the commission shop of the complainant; that the place of occurrence has not been denied or disputed by the defence; that presence of the complainant as well as the other witness of ocular account namely Iqbal (P.W.2) at the thara of their own shop is quite natural and probable.
So far as delay in conducting the postmortem upon the dead-body of deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant contends that no question was put to the doctor regarding the delay in the postmortem examination, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution from the fact that the postmortem examination was conducted after about seven hours of the occurrence; that the incident took place on 13-2-2010 at 12:00 noon and the matter was reported to the police at 12:35 i,e, just after thirty five minutes of its happening; that it is a case of single accused so far as the actual occurrence of firing at Amir Shehzad (deceased) is concerned and substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon as kith and kin of the deceased especially father and real uncles of the deceased would not implicate an innocent person by letting off the real culprit; that both the eye-witnesses namely Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2) had no enmity against the appellant for his false implication. So far as discrepancy between ocular account and medical evidence as pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant contends that complainant and Iqbal (P.W.2) the other witness of ocular account being commoners were not expected to give the exact locale of injury especially in state of panic but the fact remains that Amir Shehzad (deceased) died of firearm injuries; that motive has been proved in accordance with law and the same has been admitted by the appellant in his statements recorded under sections 342 and 340(2), Code ,of Criminal Procedure by stating that Amir Shehzad (deceased) had to pay some amount to him regarding the services rendered by him for painting his house; that the ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence and corroborated by the recovery of 30 bore pistol (P.6) at the instance of appellant coupled with the positive report of FSL (Exh.PR); that version of the appellant disclosed by him in his statements under sections 342 and 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure is an afterthought and no witness in support thereof was examined by the appellant except his own statement which is highly improbable and does not appeal to a prudent mind; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and there is no merit in this appeal; that the appellant committed brutal murder of Amir Shehzad (deceased) by causing firearm injury at vital parts of his body and as such does not deserve any leniency even in the quantum of sentence.
' Held
12. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant at considerable length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
F.I.R. And Delay, if any
13. This unfortunate incident, wherein Amir Shehzad son of the complainant lost his life as per prosecution, took place at 12-00 noon on 13-2-2010 in the area of Purani Ghalla Mandi at the commission shop of complainant within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Kamoke District Gujranwala. Matter was reported to the Police by Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) at 12:35 p.m. i,e, just after IA thirty five minutes of the occurrence, through his application (Exh.PA) on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. (Exh.PF) was chalked out through rapt No,17. Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was one kilometer. Even the postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased was conducted on the same day at 7:30 p.m. i,e, after seven hours and thirty minutes of the occurrence. Considering all the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that matter was reported to the police with due promptitude which rules out the chances' of deliberations/consultations.
' Ocular Account
14. Ocular account was furnished by Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2). Both of them are real brothers inter se and are closely related to the deceased as Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant is father of Amir Shehzad (deceased) whereas Iqbal is his paternal uncle. This occurrence took place at the thara of commission shop, of complainant. The place of occurrence has not been disputed by the appellant. It has not been denied by the defence that the complainant was not having a commission shop at the time of occurrence and no question was put to him in this respect during the course of his cross examination, therefore, presence of the complainant at the spot at the relevant time is quite natural and probable.
Similarly, presence of Iqbal (P.W.2) is also established at the spot at the relevant time because C he is the real brother of complainant and also partner in the said commission shop and moreover this fact has not been seriously questioned by the defence side. Even otherwise both these witnesses have no serious enmity or towards the appellant for his false implication in this case. Their testimonies cannot be discarded merely because of their inter se relationship as well as. With the deceased, especially when they have no deep rooted enmity with the appellant for his false implication. In this respect we respectfully refer to the case of "Haji v. The State" (2010 SCM R 650) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "Both the ocular witnesses undoubtedly are inter se related and to the deceased but their relationship ipso facto would not reflect adversely against the veracity of the evidence of these witnesses in absence of any motive wanting in the case, to falsely involve the appellant with the commission of the offence and there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that they were inimical towards the appellant and mere inter se relationship as above noted would not be a reason to discard their evidence which otherwise in our considered opinion is confidence-inspiring for the purpose of conviction of the appellant on the capital charge being natural and reliable witnesses of the incident."
' It is a case of single accused so far as the actual occurrence of firing at Amir Shehzad (deceased) is concerned and substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon as kith and kin of the deceased especially real father and real paternal uncle would not implicate an innocent person by letting off the real culprit. Therefore, we hold that both the witnesses of ocular account namely Rana Muhammad Yameen (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2) were present at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence.
' Motive
15. Motive as set out in the F.I.R., as well as, narrated before the learned trial court was that few months prior to the occurrence Amir Shehzad (deceased) hired the services of Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) for painting his house and paid labour to him but appellant claimed that he had been paid less labour and due to the said grudge he committed the murder of Amir Shehzad. Both the witnesses of ocular account while appearing before the learned trial court furnished the evidence of motive. The motive was not disputed by the defence rather got clarified during the course of cross-examination of Rana Muhammad Yameen (complainant). Relevant portion of his cross- examination is as under:-- "Two months before the occurrence the accused present in court came to me and complained regarding the dispute of amount of labour between me and deceased. Accused present in court told me that Rs,3000/3500 as his labour is due towards the deceased who is not paying the same."
Moreover, the appellant in his statement recorded under sections 342 and 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted the motive by stating that Amir Shehzad (deceased) had to pay some amount to him regarding G the services rendered by him for painting his house and he had gone to the police station to lodge complaint against Amir Shehzad. The appellant did not produce any independent witness in support of his defence. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to the mind of a prudent person that the complainant party would involve the appellant in the murder of their son merely on the trivial issue that the appellant demanded labour for painting the house and for that purpose he was present in the police station. Therefore, the version of the appellant does not fit in the overall circumstances of the case. Hence, we are of the H view that the prosecution has successfully proved the motive.
Recovery
16. It is the case of the prosecution in the F.I.R. As well as before the learned trial court that Bashir Ahmad Butt (appellant) came at the spot while armed with a 30 bore pistol and made two fires at Amir Shehzad (deceased). During the spot inspection on 13-2-2010 two crime empties (P.1/1-2) of pistol 30 bore were collected and taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PB). The said empties were kept in the malkhana and sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 6-3- 2010. The appellant was arrested on 10-3-2010 and during the course of investigation recovery of 30 bore pistol (P.6) was effected at the instance of Bashir Ahmad (appellant) on 18-3-2010 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PN). The said pistol was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory and received there on 29-3-2010. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh. PR) reveals that the empties collected from the spot were fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant, therefore, the ocular account in this case is corroborated by the recovery of pistol 30 bore at the instance of the appellant coupled with the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PR).
Medical Evidence
17. So far as medical evidence is concerned, Dr. Muhammad Salman Kazmi (P.W.8), who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Amir Shehzad (deceased) noted two firearms injuries on the person of deceased. In the postmortem report (Exh.PG) he noted injury No,1 on the middle of lower lip with inverted margins and injury No,2 on the back of neck with averted margins.
The complainant stated in the F.I.R. That the appellant made two consecutive fires with 30 bore pistol out of which one hit the neck of the deceased and made an exit from the mouth and same was his stance before the learned trial court. Similarly, the other witness of ocular account namely Iqbal (P.W.2) stated on the same lines while appearing before the learned trial court. The contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence is regarding the point of entry and exit of the bullet fired by the appellant and is not regarding the general location of the fire shot, which in this case is the Head (i,e,, the part of the body above the shoulders) of the deceased. The ocular account is straightforward and convincing for the J reasons that witnesses who are themselves in the range of fire, are expected to run for cover in the heat of the moment. Being panic-stricken and shocked their narration of events based on a sudden glance cannot be expected to be punctiliously accurate and precise. The identification of the general location of the fire shot has been identified as the Head of the deceased which means "part of the body containing the brain, special sense organs and mouth" according to Butterworth's Medical Dictionary which is substantially corroborated by the medical evidence. Additionally, the possibility of an instantaneous turning of the head by the deceased in response to a close range fire in the face cannot be ruled out. Hence, variation between the ocular account and medical evidence to the extent of point of entry of the bullet in the present circumstances of the case, does not appear to be a major variation. When considered in the backdrop of the attending circumstances, the variation does not go to the root of the case so as to dislodge the case of the prosecution. It is a case of single fire, single accused and the eye-witness account substantially corroborates the medical evidence that the fire shot landed in the head of the deceased. In this- respect we respectfully refer to the case of "Muhammad Afzal and 3 others v. The State" (1999 SCM R 1991) wherein the august Supreme Court at page 1998 has observed as under:-- "...It is settled principle that casual discrepancies or conflicts appearing in medical evidence and ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons. Obviously momentary glance, during turmoil when live shots are fired, witnesses make only tentative assessment about where such fire- shot appears to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to mention its location with exactitude. However, in the instant case medical evidence predominantly corroborates broad details of injures suffered by deceased at the hands of petitioners and co-accused. Even otherwise, since eye account of witnesses is confidence inspiring, the same shall prevail and trivial difference in medical evidence will give way without having adverse impact..."
18. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and others (2011) 4 SCC 324) Supreme Court of India has held:-- "30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
' In the light of the above, the variation between the ocular account and the medical evidence is not material as to discredit the case set up by the prosecution.
19. The fact remains that the deceased received firearm injury. In this respect the statement of the doctor i,e, Dr. Salman Kazmi (P.W.8) is also relevant who in his examination-in-chief stated as under:-- "In my opinion all the injuries were antemortem and were caused by firearm, cause of death was head injury including excessive blood loss, however, I have not stated entry and exit wound categorically in my opinion because of difficulty in case of evaluating close range firearm wound."
' From the above, it is established that the ocular account is substantially supported by the medical evidence.
Conviction
20. There is cogent, cleared and convincing incriminating evidence on the record against the appellant in the form of straightforward and confidence inspiring ocular account furnished by Rana Muhammad Yameen complainant (P.W.1) and Iqbal (P.W.2) substantially supported by the medical evidence i,e, postmortem examination report (Exh.PG), statement of Dr. Salman Kazmi (P.W.8) corroborated by motive and, as well as, recovery of pistol 30 bore (P.6) at the instance of appellant coupled with the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PG) to maintain conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) P.P.C., which is accordingly maintained. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable as it turns on its own facts.
' Punishment
21. We are of the view that the instant case is not a case for capital punishment for the following reasons:-
(a) Motive as set up by the prosecution suggests that there was no deep rooted enmity between the parties and possibility of something else happening at the spot prior to the occurrence between the complainant party and the appellant cannot be ruled out.
(b) Only a single entry wound was observed on the dead body of Amir Shehzad (deceased) during the post mortem examination.
22. Moreover, by now it is well recognized principle of law that the accused is entitled for the benefit of any doubt as an extenuating circumstance, while deciding question of sentence. We, here, respectfully refer to an observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State" (2009 SCM R 1188), wherein at page 1191; the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has emphasized as under:- "9. It will not be out of place to emphasize that in criminal cases, the question of quantum of sentence requires utmost care and caution on the part of the Courts, as such decisions restrict the life and liberties of the people. Indeed the accused persons are also entitled to extenuating benefit of doubt to the extent of quantum of sentence."
23. In this backdrop of the situation, while maintaining the conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., we alter the sentence of Bashir Ahmad Butt, appellant from punishment of death to imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation and the sentence of imprisonment in default thereof as ordered by the learned trial court are maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure is also extended to the appellant. With the above modification in conviction and quantum of sentence, the appeal in hand is dismissed.
24. Murder Reference No,542 of 2010 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death awarded to Bashir Ahmad Butt (convict) is NOT CONFIRMED.