' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Kamran son of Muhammad Nawaz, Caste Rajput Bhatti, resident of Baddar Colony Pattoki, District Kasur, appellant, along with Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Rizwan and Amar Saeed (since acquitted) was involved in case .F.I.R. No,236, dated 9- 6-2004, offence under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Pattoki, District Kasur and was tried by Mr. Abdul Haseeb Sheikh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur. The learned trial court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 8-2-2007 convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him to death as Ta'zir with direction to pay compensation to the legal heirs of deceased and in case of non-realization of compensation amount, to undergo S.I. For six months. The appellant was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C., and sentenced to R.I. For five years with fine of Rs,10,000 and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. For two months.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellant impugned the same by way of filing Criminal Appeal No,239 of 2007, whereas the learned trial court forwarded Murder Reference No,166 of 2007 for confirmation of death sentence in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C. 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 F.I.R. (Exh.PG) recorded on the statement of Arshad Ali son of Manzoor Hussain, complainant/P.W.5 is that he is resident of Mohalla Sharifpura, Old Mandi Pattoki, and being graduate had applied in WAPDA for employment and in those days when the occurrence took place, he was living in his house. Waqas Ali alias Channi younger brother of the complainant was handed over to Muhammad Shafi, maternal grandfather (NANA) by mother of the complainant since his childhood, who used to reside there and was student of 10th class. On 7- 6-2004 at 7-00 p.m. Waqas Ali went to bazar to purchase yogurt and when he was coming back Saeed alias Bondi son of Khushi Muhammad, Caste Machhi resident of Mohalla Sharifpura, Pattoki, Yazman Chheena Mohalla Sharifa Pura, Kamran son of Nawaz Caste Rajput Bhatti, resident of Rasoolpura Phool Nagar and also Baddar Colony Pattoki, Muhammad Yousaf son of Ali Muhammad, Caste Chheena, Mohalla Rasulpura Phool Nagar, who were in the habit of drinking and roaming in the area, while riding on Motorcycle HONDA-125 without number plate having been intoxicated ran up motorcycle upon Waqas Ali due to which yogurt was dropped and Waqas extended abuses and on his return he also told the complainant and his NANA Muhammad Shafi about the incident. The complainant and his NANA chased the accused persons while abusing them, however, they fled away. The abuses were heard by Saeed alias Bondi, who approached Muhammad Yousaf and Kamran and instigated them that Muhammad Shafi etc. Had been abusing and disgracing them and they should take revenge thereof. On the instigation of Saeed alias Bondi on 9-6-2004 in the evening Muhammad Yousaf son of Ali Muhammad and Kamran son of Nawaz Akhtar armed with pistols .30-bore while riding on HONDA Motorcycle 125 without number plate reached there and at 7:30 p.m. When as usual Waqas Ali was going to bazar to purchase yogurt and the complainant was also behind him, both the accused persons stopped Waqas and asked that they would teach him lesson for abusing and insulting them. Thereafter Kamran made a fire shot with his pistol, which landed on abdomen of Waqas on which the complainant tried to rescue his brother and the accused made another fire shot, which landed on left leg of the complainant and due to sustaining injuries both the complainant and his brother fell on the ground. Near the place of incident at Ladoo Pan Shop Muhammad Shafi son of Gulzar (NANA of the complainant) and Ghulam Murtaza son of Muhammad Shafi (Mamoon of the complainant) who were present there alongwith others witnessed the occurrence. Due to precarious health condition of Waqas, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, whereas, the complainant appeared in Police Station to record his statement.
4. Muhammad Ishaq, S.I. Recorded statement of the complainant (Exh.PG) and thereafter visited the spot. It is pertinent to mention here that Muhammad Ishaque, S.I. Was declared proclaimed offender in a criminal case before recording his statement during trial, therefore, Muhammad Masood, S.I. (P. W. 8) appeared as his secondary evidence. The Investigating Officer proceeded to THQ Hospital, Pattoki and prepared injury statement (Exh.PL) of Waqas Ali. He also visited the place of occurrence and secured blood-stained earth vide recovery memo Exh.PJ. Due to serious health condition Waqas Ali was shifted to Jinnah Hospital, where he died and after death the Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Exh.PN) and drafted application for postmortem examination (Exh.PM) and escorted the dead body to mortuary. After the postmortem examination last worn clothes of the deceased shirt (P-4) and pajama (P-5) were produced before the Investigating Officer, which he took into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PH. On the direction of the Investigating Officer and pointing out of the P.Ws., Nazir Ahmed Draftsman (P.W.4) prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as Exh.PF and Exh.PF/1. During the course of investigation motorcycle HONDA-125 (P-1) was produced, which the Investigating Officer took into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PB. Thereafter, the investigation came up before Muhammad Masood, S.I.
(P.W.8), who declared Saeed alias Bondi and Rizwan as innocent.
5. Having found the appellant and Yousaf co-accused guilty, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And sent the same to the court of Session en-routed through Illaqa Magistrate as provided under section 190(2), Cr.P.C. Primarily the charge was framed on 28-2-2005 and thereafter fresh charge was framed on 12-4-2005, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced as many as eight (8) prosecution witnesses.
6. Occular account in this case has come out from the statement of Arshad Ali complainant (P.W.5), which was supplemented by Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6) and Muhammad Sarwar (P.W.7).
Nazir Ahmed Draftsman (P.W.4) had prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PF and Exh.PF/1) on the pointing out of the P.Ws. The matter was partially investigated by Muhammad Masood, S.I. (P.W.8). Dr. Abdul Majid (P.W.1) in addition to medically examining the complainant/Arshad Ali (P.W.5) had also conducted postmortem examination upon the dead body of Waqas Ali deceased and found following injuries on his person:-- "(1) A lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x deep inward on front side of abdomen on left side 2.5 cm from midline 6 cm above the amblicus 18 cm from left nipple 2 cm below last rib, margins were inverted, brused, blackening was around the wound, there was hole in the kamiz corresponding to the wound (entry wound).
(2) An abrasion 12 cm x 2 cm on outer side of right leg lower part and outer side of right foot.
(3) An abrasion 3 x 1 cm on medial side of left toe."
' After conducting the postmortem examination, the doctor rendered the following opinion:-- "In my opinion the deceased had died due to haemmorrhage and shock caused by injury No, 1 . All injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injury No,1 was caused by fire arm weapon. Injuries Nos.2 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No,1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death was within 2 to 3 hours. Time between death and post mortem was within 15 hours."
'Statements of rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.
7. On 14-5-2005 learned DDA gave up Sarwar A.S.-I. And Rafique 314/C being unnecessary. Vide his statement recorded on 7-9-2006, the learned DDA gave up Saeed Ahmed (Ex-Moharrar) being died and Ghulam Haider, Ghulam Murtaza and Rafique 1040/C being unnecessary. On 23-11-2006 after tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PQ) and report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PR), the learned DDA closed the prosecution evidence.
8. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he opted to produce defence evidence and also opted to appear as his own witness in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution evidence. While replying to the question why this case against him and why the P. Ws. Deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition:-- "The inhabitants of the place where the incident happened were never joined in the investigation nor their version was recorded nor any one of them were nominated as a witness nor produced by the prosecution. The complainant and Muhammad Shafi other witness produced by the prosecution is maternal grand-father (Nana) of the deceased and the complainant. They do not own or possess any residential or business concern in the vicinity of the place where the incident happened. Their presence at the alleged time and place of occurrence has not been sufficiently explained by the prosecution. It is the evidence that both of them along with the deceased reside in the red-light area and are 'Kunjar' by profession. The Investigating Officer i,e, Muhammad Ishaque also is not a honest and dutiful official as admittedly he is a P.O. In a murder case. The I.O. In connivance with the complainant party suppressed the real facts and has fabricated a false story.
Actually my paternal uncle Abbas Akhtar Advocate Pattoki while handing over his brand new motorcycle to me sent me to purchase household articles from the Bazar and I was present in the Bazar in order to purchase desired articles when Waqas Ali Channi deceased while armed with pistol, complainant also armed with pistol (both brothers) came there. Waqas alias Channi tried to snatch motorcycle from me and I resisted on my resistance Waqas alias Channi while armed with pistol fired at me which hit on my leg. I along with my motorcycle fell down on the ground and the deceased climbed on me in order to overpower me for snatching the motorcycle. I, also tried while exercising my right of private defence and tried to snatch the pistol from the deceased. I succeeded in snatching the pistol from the deceased when the complainant fired at me but fortunately the fire did not hit me rather it hit on the steel wire of the rim of the wheel of motorcycle.
A scuffle was going on between me and the deceased for the control of pistol and during the scuffle pistol went off incidentally and deceased was hit with a very close range. The complainant never sustained any fire arm injury. He fabricated injuries on his person I order to ward off the charge of dacoity with the active connivance of the I.O. I was lifted in the injured condition from the place where the incident took place by the I.O. He also prepared my injury statement and sent me to T.H.Q. Hospital, Pattoki for treatment in the company of Muhammad Rafique Constable 1048/C who produced me in the injured condition before Dr. Abdul Majeed, Medical Officer, Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Pattoki (who had already examined Waqas alias Channi deceased in the injured condition) at 10-50 p.m. On 9-6-2004. I produce attested copy of my MLR as Exh.DB. The I.O.
Is so much partisan that he never appended my MLR nor injury statement so prepared by him for my medical examination. I am innocent and is bearing the agony of this protracted trial since 9-6- 2004."
' In defence Dr. Abdul Majeed, Medical Officer, who had medically examined the appellant, appeared as D.W.1, whereas, Muhammad Nawaz Akhtar, father of the appellant recorded his statement as D.W.2. The appellant also made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C; wherein he reiterated the stance advanced in the statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
9. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the learned trial court, while evaluating the evidence available on record found the version of the prosecution proved beyond any shadow of doubt, resulting into conviction of the appellant in the above stated terms.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant while advancing his arguments submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned trial court has been passed in a stereotype manner without adverting to the real facts of the case floating on the record and only on the basis of flimsy grounds. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the story advanced in the crime report does not appeal to reason and presence of the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is also doubtful especially when they were not the residents of the same locality being permanently residing in 'red-light area' and they were also having no business in the same vicinity.
Learned counsel forcefully argued that no shopkeeper or person from the surrounding area was produced during the course of trial in order to establish that the deceased had allegedly gone to purchase yogurt. As a matter of fact, learned counsel vehemently contended, the appellant and Arshad Ali complainant (P.W.5) were dacoites, who had attempted to snatch HONDA Motorcycle of the appellant and on resistance shown by the appellant, the fire shot made by the complainant hit Waqas Ali. Learned counsel added that before sustaining injury Waqas Ali deceased had also made a fire shot with his pistol thereby inflicting injury on the person of the appellant, who was medically examined by doctor in the company of police official and statement of Dr. Abdul Majeed (D.W.1) in this regard fully substantiates the defence version. Learned counsel added that injury on the person of Arshad Ali complainant (P.W.5) was self-suffered in order to show his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. It was further argued on behalf of the appellant that medical evidence is in conflict with the occular account especially the dimension of injury is at variance with the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PF and Exh.PF/1). Learned counsel went on arguing that during the course of investigation Saeed alias Bondi and Rizwan, co-accused were found innocent and such findings of the Investigating Officer were never challenged before any higher forum, hence bulk of prosecution case was found false. Learned counsel went on arguing that on the same set of evidence three co-accused were acquitted by the learned trial court and it was not justified in passing conviction against the appellant on the basis of such uncorroborated and sketchy evidence especially when the pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant was not found in working condition. Learned counsel added that the empties collected from the place of occurrence did not match with the pistol recovered from the appellant, hence this circumstance does not advance the prosecution case. Learned counsel urged that as per prosecution own version the appellant made a single fire shot upon the person of deceased and he did not repeat the same, hence if the prosecution version is presumed to be true even then the death penalty is uncalled for in the circumstances. Learned counsel in the end prayed for indulgence of the Court.
11. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while controverting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant supported the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the appellant is well-nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role of making firing upon abdomen of Waqas Ali deceased and Arshad Ali injured P.W./complainant and fire shot made by him on the person of Waqas Ali proved fatal. It was argued that parties being previously known to each other and the occurrence having taken place in the evening time, no question of misidentification arises and even the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not denied. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that occular account in this case has come out from the statements of the complainant and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6), who remained consistent with regard to salient features of the prosecution version and nevertheless they were cross-examined at length, however, the defence failed to shatter their testimony in any manner whatsoever and it absolutely failed to create even a single crack in their testimony. It was further argued that both the prosecution witnesses of occular account are most natural witnesses and the defence had failed to advance a single circumstance whereby it could be established that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time especially when Arshad Ali complainant had received injury during the occurrence, hence his presence at the place of occurrence is established beyond doubt, which fact is proved from the MLR of the injured available on the record.
Regarding the defence plea advanced by the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it has come on record during the course of investigation that when the police had gone to the house of the appellant to arrest him after two and a half hours of the occurrence, he in order to commit suicide had fired with his pistol; thereby inflicting injury at his shin of left leg and he was shifted to hospital; where he was also medically examined and while appearing in the witness box as D.W.1, Dr. Abdul Majeed had admitted that he had medically examined the appellant at 10- 50 p.m. And the injury was fresh at that time. Moreover, he had also conceded that there was possibility that the injury was self-suffered, which fact supports the prosecution case. It was vehemently argued that co-accused were not assigned any overt act qua making firing and their acquittal by the learned trial court does not favour the case of the appellant as he has been attributed the main role of firing upon the deceased as well as, on the person of Arshad Ali, injured P.W./complainant. Learned DDPP further contended that during the course of investigation the appellant was found guilty and his name was placed in Column No,3 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. In the end, learned counsel for the complainant argued that as the prosecution proved its case against the appellant to the hilt, who had committed the murder of a teenager (16/17 years) brother of the complainant student of 10th class, hence the learned trial court was justified in passing conviction, which is in direct proportionate to the act done by the accused.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned DDPP.
13. As per prosecution version the occurrence had taken place on 9-6-2004 at 7-30 p.m., whereas it was reported to the police at 7-45 p.m. On the same day. Hence, beyond any stretch of imagination it was a promptly lodged F.I.R. In which name of the appellant duly figures with the role of inflicting fire arm injury with pistol .30-bore at the abdomen of Waqas Ali, deceased brother of the complainant, which subsequently proved fatal. Moreover, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the complainant the parties being known to each other vis-a-vis the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the evening when ordinarily in the hot days of June the sun-sets at 7-15 p.m. No question of misidentification arises. Even otherwise, it is not a case of substitution as presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not denied even by defence nevertheless an effortless attempt was made by the appellant to prove that the complainant and his deceased brother were the dacoity/vagabond, however, the same could neither be proved during the course of investigation nor anything in this regard could be brought on record during the course of trial.
14. Prosecution version of the occular account has been advanced in the statements of Arshad Ali (P.W.5) complainant and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6). Both the prosecution witnesses have remained coherent with each other on salient features of the prosecution version and nevertheless they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, the defence failed to shatter their testimony. The pen-picture of the occurrence with regard to time of occurrence, as well as, manner of occurrence put forth by P.W.5 and P.W.6 straightway appeals to reason. Even otherwise Arshad Ali complainant/P.W.5 had received firearm injury during the occurrence, which was substantiated by the MLR of the injured and further supplemented in the statement of Dr. Abdul Majid (P.W.1) and this fact straightway supports the prosecution case that he was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The nature and dimension of injury inflicted upon the deceased and Arshad Ali injured P.W. i,e, 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm further lends support to the prosecution case with regard to weapon of offence. Nevertheless it was the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that both the complainant and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6) are closely related to the deceased and they are interested witnesses, however, by now it has been the consistent view of the superior courts of the country that mere close relationship of the prosecution witness with deceased could not discard his testimony if even otherwise the same is trustworthy appealing to reason and corroborated by any independent circumstance.
The defence version advanced by the appellant that the deceased and Arshad Ali had tried to commit dacoity and that the appellant had received injury at the hands of deceased is equivocal.
The appellant in order to prove his version, during the course of trial, had produced Dr. Abdul Majeed in the witness box as D.W.1. However, the testimony of this witness if scrutinized with care and caution it straightway discards the defence version as during the cross-examination in reply to a question, the doctor had stated as under:-- "It is correct that I medically examined accused Kamran on 9-6-2004 at about 10:50 p.m. I mentioned the duration of injuries in Exh.DB as fresh it might be few minutes before medical examination. There is possibility if anybody hit fire upon himself then these injuries can be caused."
' This portion of evidence of a witness produced in defence when juxtaposed with the prosecution case that when after two and a half hours of the occurrence the Investigating Officer had raided the house of the appellant in order to arrest him, in order to commit suicide he had made fire shot with his pistol, which landed on his shin of left leg, makes it abundant clear that the injury on the person of appellant was self-suffered and as rightly contended by learned counsel for the complainant it was caused in order to create cross-version, which needless to mention was disbelieved even during the course of investigation and such findings of the Investigating Officer were never challenged before any higher forum.
15. There is no denial to the fact that prosecution version of the occular account finds full support from the medical evidence with regard to time of occurrence and locale/seat of injury. After conducting postmortem examination Dr. Abdul Majeed (P.W.1) had opined that injury on the abdomen of Waqas Ali ascribed to the appellant was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
16. It has also come on record during the statement of the appellant recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. That he was previously involved in three criminal cases i,e, F.I.R. No, 215 of 2001, offence under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(iv), 337-L(2), 379, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Chunian, F.I.R. No,272/ 2002, offence under sections 337-H(2), 354, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Phool Nagar and F.I.R. No, 384/2005, offence under sections 353, 506, 186, 148, 149, P.P.C. Nevertheless learned counsel for the appellant had emphasized that the complainant and his deceased brothers were dacoits, who had attempted to snatch his motorcycle, however, he failed to point out any criminal history either of the deceased or the complainant or that of Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6).
17. I also find much weight in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant is brother of the deceased, whose family was deprived from young lad without his fault and was having no or previous enmity to have substituted the appellant in place of real culprits. Fact also remains that during the course of investigation the accusations levelled against the appellant in the crime report were found correct and his name was placed in Column No,3 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C.
18. The weapon of offence i,e, pistol .30-bore (P-2), which was used by the appellant is a lethal weapon and one shot made by such a gun is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, which had happened in the instant case. The locale of injury also imprints the intent of the assailant. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that fire shot was not repeated, has no force as the fire made by him and the locale of injury was more than sufficient to take away the life of an innocent person, who was a young/teenager guy, student of 10th class. The normal sentence for culpable homicide amounting to murder is sentence of death. The prosecution witnesses were not tested on the touchstone of Tazkia-tul-shahood, therefore, the learned trial court was justified to convict the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., as Ta'zir. Nevertheless learned counsel for the appellant while referring to report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PR) had emphasized that the pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant was found not in working condition, however, it is the consistent view of the superior courts of the country that the recovery is a corroborative piece of evidence and it is never considered as mainstay of prosecution for conviction or acquittal of any person in isolation and conviction can be passed provided occular account leaves no room for doubt about involvement of the culprit in commission of offence and medical evidence fully corroborates the same. Reference in this regard can be made to the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of ABDUL GHAFOOR v. THE STATE 2000 SCM R 919. Similar view was held by Hon'ble Federal Shariat Court in Raja Sarfraz Azam's case 2002 YLR 1932.
' In the case in hand the occurrence is admitted and as per prosecution version put forth in the evidence of Arshad Ali complainant (P.W.5) and Muhammad Shafi (P.W.6) the appellant had made two fire shots one at the abdomen of Waqas Ali and second at the left leg of Arshad Ali complainant and thereafter he fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occular account finds full corroboration from the medical evidence especially with regard to weapon of offence as the dimension of injury inflicted upon the deceased and injured P.W./complainant is 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm. At the cost of repetition we may mention here that the occurrence is even not only admitted by the appellant himself rather the story advanced in defence evidence as well as in the statement recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The same elaborates the prosecution version. Hence, when the appellant was so desperate that he had attempted to commit suicide thereby making fire shot at his leg before his arrest, there is possibility that he must have thrown the pistol in such a way, which might have deteriorated its working condition.
Moreover, blood-stained earth collected by the Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection vide recovery memo Exh.PJ was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner and according to the report (Exh.PQ), the same was stained with blood, which straightway supports the prosecution case.
19. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Rizwan and Amar Saeed co-accused were acquitted by the learned trial court on the same set of evidence is concerned, admittedly as per contents of the crime report no overt act was ascribed to them, hence the learned trial court while extending them the benefit of doubt had acquitted of the charge and their acquittal in no way favours the case of the appellant.
20. Upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has substantiated its case through leading evidence by the most natural witnesses of the occurrence, who remained coherent on salient features of the prosecution version. The medical evidence fully substantiates the prosecution case especially the locale of injury and time between death and postmortem examination. Recovery of pistol from the appellant is also a circumstance, which fully establishes the prosecution case and the complainant being real brother of the deceased was having no previous enmity with the appellant to have falsely involved him in the instant case. Hence, by any stretch of imagination, the prosecution case is fully proved beyond iota of reasonable doubt and we are constrained to observe that the learned trial court was well justified in passing conviction against the appellant and sentencing him to death as he had deprived the complainant family from their young lad. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No,239 of 2007 filed by Kamran appellant is DISMISSED IN TOTO, as a consequence whereof, the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court on 8-2-2007 is upheld.
' Murder Reference No, 166 of 2007 forwarded by the learned trial court in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C., for confirmation of sentence of death inflicted upon Kamran convict succeeds, which is answered in AFFIRMATIVE. Death sentence is CONFIRMED.