' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.- Through this appeal under section 410 Cr.P.C. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 9-1-2010 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,337/2006 dated 4-4-2006 registered at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore for the offence under section 302 P.P.C., wherein the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) P.P.C.
And was sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) to the heirs of Muhammad Nadeem deceased under section 544-A Cr.P.C.
And in case of default thereof, he shall further undergo imprisonment for six months. The appellant has filed this criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence whereas the learned trial Court has sent, Reference under section 374, Cr.P.C. For confirmation or otherwise of his death sentence, which has been numbered as Murder Reference No,53 of 2010. We propose to decide both these matters together through this single judgment.
2. The first information report of the occurrence in which Muhammad Nadeem son of Haji Muhammad Latif complainant lost his life was lodged on the written application (Exh.PF) moved by the complainant Haji Muhammad Latif before the Station House Officer, Police Station Factory Area, Lahore and accordingly F.I.R. No,337/2006 dated 4=4-2006 was registered at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore for the offence under section 302, P.P.C. The story of the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. (Exh.PF/1) is that the complainant was residing at Faisalabad for the last 40 years along with his other family members and he was running a private business. His son Muhammad Nadeem aged about 27/28 years was married with the daughter of Haji Muhammad Hanif, who was the resident of House No,88-W Block, Defence Housing Authority Lahore. The marriage ceremony of his son Muhammad Nadeem was held on September, 2005 and his son was residing in a rented house situated in Street No,2, Chohan Chowk, New Iqbal Town Park. The in-laws of his son Nadeem purchased a house for their daughter in Shiraz Villas, Phase-III, Walton Road, Lahore, in which Zaheer Ahmad (husband of sister-in-law of the deceased) was also residing alongwith his wife and children. On the day of occurrence i,e, 4-4-2006, the complainant along with his son Naeem Latif, son-in-law Altaf Hussain son of Mukhtar Hussain and Driver Syed Murtaza came to see Nadeem at Iqbal Park, Lahore, whereupon Nadeem asked them that he would take them to visit his new house. Thereafter, they along with Nadeem and Zeba reached at Shiraz Villas Phase III Walton Road, Lahore Cantt. At 01-20 p.m. Where Zaheer accused and his wife Shama met them and took them in the drawing room. Accused Zaheer Ahrnad went inside the room saying that he would bring water for them, but he came back while holding pistol .30 bore in his right hand and shouted that he would teach them the lesson of showing new house. Accused made repeated fire shots at Nadeem, hitting him on front side of his chest and arm, due to which he fell down. They tried to apprehend Zaheer Ahrnad, but he fled away while making firing. Nadeem was being shifted to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries in the way. The motive behind the occurrence as revealed from the application (Exh.PF/1) of Haji Muhammad Latif was that the accused Zaheer Ahmad wanted not to vacate the house and for that reason, he has committed murder of Nadeem son of the complainant.
3. After registration of the first information report, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Tariq Pervaiz Inspector (P.W.12). On receipt of information of the occurrence, he alongwith Muhammad Javed and Khadim Hussain rushed to the place of occurrence, where the dead body of Nadeem deceased was lying on the cot. He prepared inquest report (Exh.PE), injury statement (Exh.PF), drafted application (Exh.PG) for postmortem examination of deceased and handed over the dead-body to Muhammad Javed and Khadim Hussain constables for postmortem. He inspected the place of occurrence and collected six empties and two leads through recovery memo. Exh.PC He recorded the statements of P.Ws. Under section 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared rough site plan (Exh.PJ). On 18-4-2006, the investigating officer arrested the appellant Zaheer Ahmad from Madina Colony and on 22-4-2006, the Investigating Officer recovered pistol (P-3) on the pointation of Zaheer Ahmad appellant. After completion of the investigation, challan was submitted against the appellant.
4. On 17-11-2006, formal charge under sections 302 P.P.C. Was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial of the instant case, Haji Muhammad Latif, complainant of this case had expired.' In order to prove its case against the appellant, the prosecution has produced as many as twelve prosecution witnesses before the learned trial Court. The eyewitness account was furnished by Naeem Latif (P.W.9), Mst.Zeba (P.W.10) and Syed Murtaza Khalid (P.W.11). They have rendered full support to the case of the prosecution. Tariq Pervaiz Inspector (P.W.12) has conducted the investigation of this case, in his statement, he has testified about the investigation conducted by him.
5. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr.Rafaqat Ali (P.W.7), who on 5-4-2006 had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Nadeem son of Muhammad Latif and found the following injuries:-- 1-A. An entry wound 1 x 1 cm on back of right side of trunk 3.5 cm from midline and 20 cm below from route of neck.
1-B. An exit wound 1.7x 1.2 cm on front of right side of chest 6 cm above from right nipple of 11'O Clock position 10 cm from midline towards right.
2-A An entry wound 1 x 1.2 cm on back of right side of chest 1.5 cm from midline and 22 cm below route of neck.
2-B An exit wound 1.5 x 1.5 cm on front of left chest 0.5 cm from midline and 14 cm from left nipple at 10' 0 Clock position.
3-A An entry wound 1 x 1 cm on back of left chest 1.5 cm from front midline 22 cm below from route of neck.
3-B An exit wound 1.5 x 1 cm on front of left chest 5 cm from midline and 11 cm from left nipple at l'O Clock.
4-A. An entry wound 1 x 1 cm on back of left chest 5 cm away from A midline 30 cm from route of neck.
5. An entry wound 1 x 1 cm on back of left side of chest 2 cm from midline 28 cm below from route of neck.
6. An entry wound 1 x 1.2 cm on back of right side of chest 28 cm below from route of neck and 7cm from midline.
7-A An entry wound 1 x 1.5 cm on front of left wrist joint.
7-B An exit wound on front of left arm 1.5 x 1.7 cm 2 cm above the left wrist joint 8-A An entry wound 1 x 1 cm on the right arm 18 cm below from top of shoulder and 18 cm above from the right elbow joint.
8-B An exit wound 1.5 x 1.5 cm at apex of right axilla.
8-C Re-entry wound 1.5 x 1.5 cm on outer side of right chest near the apex of right axilla.
9. An entry wound 1.5 x 1 cm on dorsome of right hand between the index and the middle finger 5 cm below the right wrist joint.
6. According to the opinion of the doctor, all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by firearm weapon. Injuries Nos.1 to 6 caused severe haemorrhage and shock, which resulted in death of Muhammad Nadeem. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 18 to 36 hours. Exh.PG is the postmortem report of the deceased Muhammad Nadeem.
7. After placing on record the report of Chemical. Examiner Exh.PN, report of Serologist Exh.P0 and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh. PP. The prosecution closed its evidence.
8. The appellant in his statement recorded under suction 342, Cr.P.C. Professed his innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. In reply to question, "why this case against you and why the P. Ws. Deposed against you", he stated as under:- "I am innocent and falsely involved in this case. P. Ws. Deposed against me due to enmity with them. None of them was present on the place of occurrence."
9. The appellant did not opt to record his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of allegation levelled against him by the prosecution, however, he produced Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Ashraf in his defence, whose statements were recorded by the learned trial Court as DW-I and DW-2 respectively.
10. At the conclusion of trial, after thrashing the entire evidence and evaluating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective versions, learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph No,1 of this judgment.
11. Learned coansel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment is against law and facts. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The complainant of this case had died during the trial and his evidence was not recorded in his lifetime which creates doubt in the contents of the F.I.R. It is admitted fact that before contracting marriage with deceased Nadeem, his wife Mst. Zeba (P.W.10) was divorced twice and there was every-likelihood that any of her former husband had committed murder of Nadeem deceased. The appellant has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant due to previous enmity. All the witnesses are related inter se so they are interested witnesses and there is no independent evidence on record to corroborate their statements. It is settled law that interested witnesses cannot be relied without independent corroboration which is lacking in this case. There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. It has come on record that father of Mst. Zeba had gifted her a House No,216-E, Sheraz Villas Lahore, the place of occurrence, before her marriage with Nadeern deceased and her real sister Shama Yasmin alongwith the appellant and their children were residing there and the appellant wanted to retain that house but it has also come on record that her father had also gifted another house comprising six marlas double storey to her sister Shama Yasmin and the appellant in Madina Colony so there was no reason for the appellant to nourish grudge against the deceased Nadeem in this regard. So the motive set up . By the prosecution in the case is false and has not been proved by the prosecution. Further contends that the recovery of pistol and crime empties have been planted upon the appellant as the recovery witnesses are fake as they contradict each other. The post-mortem examination of the deceased Nadeem was conducted with a delay of one day which also creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
There are glaring contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence as according to the scaled site plan Exh.PE the point from where the appellant made fire shots at the deceased Nadeem it should have been hit at front parts of his body whereas as per medical evidence the injuries sustained by the deceased Nadeem at front parts of his body are exit wounds which creates serious doubt in the prosecution story vis-a-vis the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Even otherwise the medical evidence is always treated to be in conformity with the death Abut it does not identify the appellant involved in the commission of offence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the appellant deserves acquittal from this Court.
12. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and they have unanimously contended that the appellant is nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role of causing firearm injuries on the person of deceased and the role attributed to him is borne but from the post-mortem report of the deceased Nadeem. The complainant had no enmity with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in this case. The parties are known to each other and there is no question of mistaken identity or substitution. The complainant had died during the course of trial. However, P.W.9 Naeem son of the complainant had deposed that his father got registered the case through the complaint Exh.PF. He is eyewitness of the occurrence; his statement is corroborated by Mst. Zeba wife of the deceased and Syed Murtaza Khalid Drivel of the complainant. All the three witnesses have corroborated the statement of one another. They have pointed out the place of occurrence which has not been disputed by the defence. The appellant was residing in the house which had been gifted to Mst. Zeba (P.W.10) by her father and the occurrence had taken place in the same house. Murtaza Khaiid P.W.11 is an independent eye-witness who also corroborates the statement of the eyewitnesses that the occurrence had taken place in the said house. The prosecution witnesses are consistent on each and every material point. There are minor discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses which cropped up with the passage of time and the same are not fatal to prosecution case. The report of Chemical Examiner confirmed that the blood through cotton was of human blood. The ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence as the firearm injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the same account has been given by the P. CVs. The recovery of weapon of offence had been affected from the appellant on his disclosure in the piesence of the witnesses and the weapon was sent to the Forensic Science Laboiatory for report. The six crime empties collected by the Investigating - Officer from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses had already been sent to the . Forensic: Science Laboratory. According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.PM all the six empties were found to be fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant. Thus the recovery of weapon of offence corroborates the eye- witnesses account. The motive has been established as the appellant wanted to retain the possession of the house which was gifted to Mst. Zeba (P.W.10) wife of the deceased by her father.
The deceased and his wife Mst. Zeba (P. W.10) wanted to get the possession of the house and for that purpose they visited the newly gifted house. The defence evidence produced by the appellant is not relevant as the defence witnesses did not appear before the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise they have net given any material evidence regarding the occurrence and have not created any doubt in the prosecution story so their statements cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and brought the guilt of the appellant to home successfully. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, he appeal of appellant dismissed.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, have given our anxious consideration to their arguments and have also minutely scanned the record with great care and caution.
14. The ocular account in this case has been furnished by Naeem Latif, son of the complainant (P.W.9), Mst. Zeba (P.W.19 and Syed Murtaza Khalid (P.W.11). It was a broad-daylight occurrence when in all the eve-witnesses had duly pointing accusing towards the appellant as the sole culprits who had perpetrated the offence and all of them had assigned him specific role of making repeated fixes on the person of deceased which resulted into his death. They had explained each and every segment of occurrence in the most scrupulous way during their statements adduced before the learned trial Court inasmuch as they had also explained the mode and manner of taking place the, occurrence, Although hey had to endure a lengthy cross-examination by the defence wherein the learned counsel for the defence had put a question that whether eye- witnesses P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.12 can swear on holy Quran in support of prosecution ease to which they also replied yes they are ready to swear on holy Quran that the appellant is the actual accused. During their evidence they had sufficiently proved their presence at the place of occurrence at relevant time and witnessing the occurrence vis-a-vis the culpability of the appellant in this case. To disprove the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence the learned counsel for the appellant unanimously argued that according to the statement of doctor (P.W.7) as well as Inquest Report Exh.PC./2 the decayed was not wearing shirt at the time of occurrence whereas all the eye-witnesses in their statements before the learned trial Court had stated that the deceased was wearing brown shirt with strips. This is minor contradiction and is not fatal to prosecution case. The learned counsel for the appellant have also vociferously criticized the place of occurrence and they have argued that the deceased nad been done to death by any of ex-husbands of Mst. Zeba (P.W.10) widow of the deceased who after the death of deceased had contracted fourth marriage with Naeem Latif (P.W.9) and the appellant had been entangled in this case due to some ulterior motive by the complainant. We may observe here that according to the site-plan Exh.PD/1 the Investigating Officer had taken blood through cotton from the place of occurrence and had prepared memo of possession Exh.PB which documents were not denied by the defence at all. The learned counsel for the appellant have ,laid great emphasis on the argument that according to the contents of the F.I.R. The deceased has received firearm injuries on his chest and arm which are front part of body but according to the medical evidence all the injuries on front side of the deceased are exit wounds which shows that the deceased had not been done to death as narrated in the F.I.R. In this context we shall observe here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in plethora of judgments that when repeated shots were fired by the accused upon his rivals, what about a human being, even a camera eye-view could not explain the exact location of the injuries that on which particular part the deceased has received injuries. In such like situation every person at the time of watching attack shows natural gesture to save his life first instead of noticing part of body of the victim/deceased.
' On which he received injuries. We may observe here that it is not the case of the prosecution that the eye-witnesses had witnessed the occurrence from another place. Admittedly all of them were sitting besides the deceased in the same room at the time of occurrence. So such type of discrepancies in the medical evidence and the ocular account does not carry much weight especially in the circumstances when otherwise the ocular account is proved through trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence.
15. It has been observed by us that the matter was reported to the police on the application submitted by Muhammad Latif complainant without any delay as the occurrence took place in this case on 4-4-2006 at 1-20 pm and the F.I.R. Had been chalked out al the same day at 1-50 p.m.
Within a span of thirty minutes whereas the Police Station is 2 kilometers away towards North from the place of occurrence. So the matter has been reported in this case with sufficient promptitude and there is no unconscionable or inexcusable delay in registration of the F.I.R. While referring the Post-mortem Examination Report the learned counsel for the appellant seriously contend that the Dr. Rafaqat Ali (P.W.7) had conducted the post-moi tem of the deceased on 5-4-2006 at 12-15 p.m.
With one day delay which shows that first the matter was consulted and thereafter with active connivance of the police the F.I.R. Was lodged. In this context we have minutely perused the Post- mortem Examination Report of the deceased wherein it has specifically been mentioned that the deadbody was lodged in hospital on 4-4-2006 at 4-15 p.m. If there is any delay that is on the part of doctor and delay alone cannot destroy the prosecution case in presence of the confidence inspiring Il evidence. Thus, we have not seen any element of consultations or deliberations over the matter on the part of the prosecution.
16. Even otherwise we have observed that the parties to this ease are known to each other, they are closely related to each other so there is no chance of mistaken identity or substitution of the appellant with real culprit. Admittedly P.W.9 and P.W.10 are kith and kin and they would not allow the real culprit to go scot-free and substitute him with the appellant. It is now well-settled principle of law that the fact of relationship of the witnesses with the complainant or with the deceased and their inimical behaviour towards the appellant, if any alone would not be sufficient to smash the evidence addeiced by such witnesses. Such P.Ws. Can be believed if intrinsic worth of their testimony inspires confidence of the court and the same leads to an inference that the witnesses were present at the scene of the crime at relevant time and F they have seen the occurrence.
Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ahmad and another v. The State and others (1997 SCM R 89). Even otherwise the rule requiring independent corroboration . Of testimony of interested witnesses is a rule of prudence which is not to be applied rigidly in each case. There can be cases like the present one where implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of an interested witness if it otherwise inspires the confidence of the Court.
17. Now adverting to the plea taken by the appellant in his evidence before the learned trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein the while answering question No, 4 the appellant had specifically taken stance which is under:- "The deceased was murdered by any of the ex-husband of his wife Mst. Zeba (P. W.10). The matter remained pending due to dispute of the family members who committed the offence. As last after about 12 days I was falsely involved in this case."
We, however, may observe here that the bald plea taken by the defence in the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Get recorded by the appellant before the learned trial Court that the deceased was murdered by one of ex-husbands of P.W.10 Mst. Zeba is an afterthought taken at belated stage just to save his skin. Law is quite settled on the point that when a particular plea is taken by an accused in his defence the burden of proof shifts on his shoulder to prove the same through reliable oral as well as documentary evidence which is missing in this case. Thus, we are not ready to believe the defence plea taken by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C .
18. The medical evidence had been furnished in this case by Dr. Rafaqat Ali Senior Demonstrator, Department of Forensic Medicine KEMU, Lahore who had conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased and while appearing before the learned trial Court as P.W.7 he had sufficiently explained the locale as well as nature of injuries the weapon used by 'the appellant for committing the murder of the deceased and the time between injuries and death in addition to the time between death and the Post-mortem Examination. According to the doctor the death in this case had occurred due to damage to vital structure of chest (lungs and heart) and also damage to liver in abdomen leading a profuse hemorrhage and shock due to cumulative effect Injuries Nos. 1 to 6.
Thus, the medical evidence provides full support to the prosecution version.
19. So far as the recovery of weapon of offence is concerned we have observed that the occurrence had taken place in this case on 4-4-2006, the crime-empties were collected by the Investigating Officer from the spot on the same day, they were sent seprately to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 15-4-2006, the appellant was arrested in connection with this case on 18-4-2006, pistol (P3) was recovered from his possession on 22-4-2006 and the same had admittedly sent to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory on the same day. According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory all the six empties collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence matched with the pistol recovered from the appellant. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh.PM in this regard is positive. We are, therefore, of the definite view that the recovery effected from the appellant provide full corroboration to the ocular account in this case.
20. The motive set up in the F.I.R. Is stated to be a dispute over ownership of house where the occurrence took place. We, however, remained unable to find out from the record any documentary material from where it can be established that the father of Mst. Zeba (P, W.10) had gifted to her house where the occurrence took place. Even the description of said house (number of the house) had not been mentioned by the prosecution so as to establish the motive set up by the prosecution in this case. No independent witness in support of gift of the house in favour of Mst.
Zeba (P.W.10) had been produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. We are not ready to believe that the appellant had been done to death on the issue of ownership of house.
Thus, motive set up by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Is not proved.
21. For what has been discussed above the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt through confidence inspiring evidence of ocular account, recovery of weapon of offence and medical evidence. However, at the same time, we have noticed some peculiar features of this case and we are of the view that this case carries some exceptional/mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant which are as under:--
(a) The motive set up- by the prosecution has not been believed by us and law is quite settled that when the prosecution set up a motive in the F.I.R. It was none else but the prosecution who has to prove the same with cogent and trustworthy evidence.
(b) The occurrence in this case took place at the spur of moment without any premeditation because it was the deceased who along with the complainant and other eyewitnesses had proceeded towards the place of occurrence. It seems that the appellant had no mense rea to commit the murder of the deceased. It was not a pre-planned murder. The cause of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased before the occurrence is shrouded in mystery.
22. After attending all the circumstances of this case we are of the definite view that sentence of death awarded to Zaheer Ahmad appellant is not justified in this case and the capital sentence of death passed against him by the learned trial Court appeared to us to be harsh enough to be sustained as motive set up by the prosecution has not proved in this case rather the same remains shrouded in mystery. It is settled law that once motive is set forth by the prosecution then the prosecution is duty bound to prove the same; in this case the prosecution miserably failed to prove motive. Law is quite settled by now on the point that motive part of the prosecution story can be considered, to determine the quantum of sentence of an accused in a murder case, if motive is not proved then this fact can be taken as mitigating circumstance. Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Yaseen v. The State (2011 SCM R 905), Iftikhar Mehmood and another v. Qaiser lftikhar and others (2011 SCM R 1165) and Hasil Khan v. The State (2012 SCM R 1936) wherein it has been held as under-- "We agree with the proposition that motive is not sine qua non for the proof of commission of the crime and at time motive is not known to any other person other than the deceased or the accused person which never surfaced on the record. However, it cannot be denied that motive is always very relevant to determine the quantum of sentence that might be awarded to a person against whom charge of murder is proved."
We would also like to observe here that an accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding his question of sentence. Reliance is placed upon Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State (2009 SCM R 1188). In another judgment reported as. Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki v. The State and another (1993 SCM R 1660), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the prosecution is bound by law to exclude all possible extenuating circumstances in order to bring the charge home to an accused for award of normal penalty of death. We have also fortified our view qua the quantum of sentence by the case reported as Sharafat All Khan v. The State (2010 SCM R 1205), wherein the Honible Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "In Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State *(2007 SCM R 1413), while considering the penalty for an act of commission of qatl-eamd it was observed "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. Reference in the context may also be made to Iftikhar Ahmad Khan v. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCM R 502)."
This fact along with other circumstances is considered by us as mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant. So taking the same into consideration in favour of appellant Zaheer Ahmad we feel that the capital punishment of death will not serve the interests of justice in this case. The above narrated peculiar features of this case convince us that life imprisonment wouldb be absolutely in, apt with the circumstances of this case. Thus, we convert the death sentence of Zaheer Ahmad appellant into life imprisonment under section 302(b), P.P.C.
23. However, conviction to the extent of payment of compensation by the appellant to the legal heirs of Muhammad Nadeem deceased amounting to Rs,2,00,000 or in default of payment thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months is maintained and upheld. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also extended in favour of the appellant. Criminal Appeal No, 202-J of 2011 is, therefore, dismissed with the above modification made in the sentence of the appellant.
24. Murder Reference No, 53 of 2010 is answered in the negative and the death sentence of the appellant is not confirmed.
Sentence reduced. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.