A: RAFIMAN, J.---Aleem-ud-Din son of Abdul Hameed, Caste Arain aged 22 years, resident of Katchi Abadi near Civil Hospital, Multan, was. Tried under section 302, P. P. C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan.
He was found guilty and- was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgment dated 31-5-1979.. The amount of fine on realisation was ordered to be paid to the heirs of Muhammad Yaseen deceased. The case has also been referred to this Court under section 374, Cr. P. C. For confirmation of the sentence of death awarded, to Aleem-ud-Din who has also filed appeal against the order of conviction passed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. This order would dispose of the aforementioned criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 748/79) and Murder Reference No. 199/79.
2. The appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of Muhammad Yaseen brother of Muhammad Yamin complainant (P. W. 9), on 21-9-1978 at about Maghrabwela in front of Kucha Suleman inside Bohar Gate, Multan when Muhammad Yaseen deceased accompanied by his brother Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9, Liloo P. W. 10 and Muhammad Siddique P. W. (not produced) was going to attend a marriage. The appellant attacked Muhammad Yaseen and gave him a hatchet blow on the left side of his chest resulting his death at the spot. The motive for committing the murder of Muhammad Yaseen as disclosed in the F.
1. R., Exh. P. E. Which was recorded by Khan Muhammad, A. S. 1. Police Station Kup, Multan at 7-30 p.m. Was that Muhammad Yaseen deceased had given a beating to Aleem-ud-Din appellant about two days prior to the occurrence when the latter had kissed the deceased near the Star Hotel.
3. The case was investigated by khan Muhammad A. S. 1. P. W. 11 who after recording the F..1. R.
Reached at the spot where the dead body of Muhammad Yaseen was lying in pool of blood. He prepared the inquest report Exh. P. W. 11/A and despatched the dead body for post-mortem examination under the escort of Muhammad Younis Foot Constable P. W.
1. He collected the blood- stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh. P. F: and made it into a sealed parcel.
4. On 22-9-1978, Khan Muhammad P. W. 11 took into possession Chaddar P. 1, Kurta P. 2, and Vest P. 3 of the deceased. All these clothes were blood-stained arid were produced before him after the post-mortem examination by Muhammad Younis P. W.
1. On the same day, the appellant was arrested. Blood-stained shirt P. 5 which he was wearing at the time of his arrest was got removed from his person and was taken into possession vide memo: Exh. P. D. It was put into a sealed parcel.
On 26-9-1978, Aleem-ud-Din appellant while in custody .Led to the recovery of hatchet P. 4 from under a tree surrounded by bushes in Hassan Parwana graveyard. Recovery memo Exh. P. C. Was prepared and the hatchet P. 4 was made into a sealed parcel. Plan Exh. P. W. 11/B of the place of recovery was also prepared by the investigating Officer. Site plan in duplicate Exh. P. W. 11/C and Exh. P. W. 11/D was got prepared by Ghulam Sarwar Draftsman. After completing the investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned and sent up for trial:
5. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge against the appellant, produced 11 witnesses in all.
The evidence of Muhammad Younis F. C. P. W. 1, Muhammad Ismail, A. S. I. P. W. 2; Muhammad Bakhsh F. C. P. W. 3, and Muhammad Anwar F. C. P. W. 5 was of formal nature. P. W. 4, Dr. Allah Nawaz, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Multan, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Yawn deceased on 22-9-1978 at 8-30 a.m. Found the following injuries on the dead body.
"(1) An incised wound 4 --x 1 -- ' x left chest cavity deep, half inch below left nipple, horizontal in direction.
(2) An incised wound 1 -- ' x 1/2' x muscle deep on the back middle of right upper arm."
Internal examination of the dead body showed that sternum, pericardium, heart, ribs Nos. 6, 7, and 8 (at the level of sternum costal junction), left pleurae and left lung were cut. Death was caused on account of haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury No. 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The injuries were ante--mortem and were caused by a sharp- edged weapon. The time between injury and death was sudden, while between death and post- mortem was within 24 hours. Injury No. 2 was simple.
6. Abdul Shakoor P. W. 6 narrated the earlier incident when Aleem-ud---Din had forcibly kissed Muhammad Yaseen and the latter had grappled with him. Abdul Majid P. W. 7 was present when hatchet P.4 was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from under the tree in the graveyard. Manoo Khan P. W. 8 proved the recovery memo. Exh. P. D. Which was prepared after the blood-stained shirt P. 5 was got removed from the person of the appellant by the Investigating Officer at the time of his arrest. Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 and Liloo P. W. 10, gave ocular account of the occurrence and Khan Muhammad P. W. 11 deposed with regard to the investigation of the case.
7. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C., after the close of the prosecution case, controverted the prosecution story and pleaded that he bad been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity with the eye-witnesses. The appellant examined as many as 7 witnesses in his defence. Fazal Haq Ghauri, Electrical Engineer, D. W.
1. Muhammad Shabbir Sub-Station Attendant, D. W. 2 and Ghulam Ali Tariq, Assistant Engineer, D. W. 4 were examined by the appellant to show that there was electricity breakdown on the day of occurrence in the area where Muhammad Yaseen was murdered. D. W. 5, Qasim Wary Staff Reporter Nawai- Waqt Multan, and D. W. 6, Saeed Siddiqui Incharge Reporters Section daily Imroze Multan were examined to prove the news items which were published in their respective newspapers on 22nd and 23rd September, 1978, giving details of the murder of Muhammad Yaseen. Similarly D. W. 7 Kausar Niazi, Chief Reporter daily "Aftab" Multan was produced to prove the news items appearing in the daily "Aftab" of 22-9-1978 in connection with the murder of Muhammad Yaseen. Dr. Allah Nawaz, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Multan, who had appeared as P. W. 4 was resummoned and examined as D. W. 3 at the instance of the appellant. He had medically examined the appellant and had found an incised wound 1 -- ' x 1 /2 x skin deep on his left index finger. The injury was simple and had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon within the duration of 24 hours.
8. The object of the production of aforementioned evidence by the appellant in his. Defence was to support his contention that Muhammad Yaseen had been murdered by some unknown persons in the darkness and that shirt P. 5 allegedly got removed from his person by the Investigating Officer was stained with blood as a result of injury sustained by him when he was beaten up by the Police after his arrest. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the ocular evidence as supported by the evidence of recovery, medical evidence and evidence of motive, and reached the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He rejected the evidence produced by the appellant in defence on the ground that the news items published in the newspapers, relied upon by the appellant, were based on hearsay and that the appellant had failed to prove that Muhammad Yaseen was murdered after sunset and that there was electricity break down at the time of occurrence in the area where the murder was committed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also did not accept the contention of the appellant that shirt P. 5 was besmeared with blood as a result of injury sustained by him after his arrest when he was beaten up by the Police.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of conviction and has argued that neither the complainant Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 nor Liloo P. W. ;10 had witnessed the occurrence.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant Muhammad Yaseen was murdered by some unknown persons in the darkness of the night as was evident from the news item Exh. D. W. 6/A which was published in the daily "Imroze" Multan on 22-9-1978 and news item Exh. D. W. 7/A published in daily "Aftab" Multan on 22-9-1979. Learned counsel for the appellant has also questioned the genuiness of the recovery of blood-stained shirt P. 5 from the appellant and the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P. 4 from the graveyard at the instance of the appellant. He has contended that the motive for committing the murder of Muhammad Yaseen as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved.
10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not properly considered the evidence produced by the appellant in defence and he has not followed the proper procedure of discussing the prosecution evidence first, which is normally followed by the Courts in the trial of criminal cases. He has drawn our attention to the observations made in Zafarul Haq v. The State (1), wherein under similar circumstances the procedure followed by the learned trial Judge in discussing the defence evidence first was disapproved and it was remarked that the learned trial Judge should have first discussed the prosecu--tion evidence for arriving at an independent finding on the truth or falsity of the prosecution story and thereafter should have examined the plea of the accused and the defence evidence.
11. Before examining the case on merits we consider it necessary to deal with the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the procedure followed by the learned trial Judge while deciding the case in view of the observations made in the case of Zafarul Haq referred to above. There is no doubt that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dis--cussed the defence evidence first and then considered the prosecution evidence in the present case and has thus deviated from the procedure normal followed by the Courts while deciding the criminal cases, but this deviation has not adversely effected the appellant and he has not been prejudiced any manner. In Islam-ul-Haq v. The State (2), it was observed that where defence case was dealt with first in the judgment it would at the most amount to an irregularity which would curable under section 537, Cr. P. C. Particularly when no prejudice was caused to the accused. In the present case the appellant had relied on certain news items which had appeared in the newspapers after the occurrence to show that Muhammad Yaseen's murder was not witnessed by any person. The ocular evidence therefore had to be considered in the light of the aforementioned new items published in the newspapers and it was for that reason that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had considered it expedient to discus the defence evidence first. The appellant has not been prejudiced by the course adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in discussing the defence evidence first because the ocular evidence ha3 not been accepted by him on account of rejection of the defence evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has evaluated the prosecution evidence independently of the conclusion arrived at by him with regard to the defence evidence.
(1) PLD 1968 Lah. 437(2) 1974 P Cr. L J 6
12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the present case is that the two eye-witnesses namely, Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 and Liloo P. W. 10 had not seen the occurrence and that their testimony should have been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In support of his above contention he has relied on the news items published in the daily "Imroze" and daily "Aftab" Multan on 22-9-1978. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the aforementioned news items published in the newspapers should not have been rejected on the ground that these were based on hearsay because the rule of hearsay is not absolute as it is subject to certain exceptions. He has relied on certain observations made by the Supreme Court in Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Abdul Wall Khan PLD1976SC57,to show that the newspapers reports are admissible and have been accepted by the Courts. We have considered the observation to which reference had been made by the learned counsel for the appellant in the aforementioned case. At page 112 of the report it was observed ;- "Nevertheless it cannot be denied that so far as newspaper reports of contemporaneous events are concerned, they may be admissible particularly where they happen to be events of local interests or of such a public nature as would be generally known throughout the community and testimony of an eye-witness is not readily available."
It may be noticed that it has been made clear that the newspaper reports may be admissible when testimony of an eye-witness is not readily available. In the case before us eye-witnesses are available and they have deposed as to how the occurrence had taken place. No reliance can be placed on the news items published in the newspaper particularly when the source of information on which these news items are based is not known and has also not been disclosed by the persons who were responsible for publishing items. We are, therefore, unable to subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the two eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence should be doubted merely because of the news items Exh. D. W. 5/A (published in the daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" Multan, or 22-9-1978), Exh. D. W.7/A. (published in the daily Aftab, Multan on 22-9-1978) and Exh. D. W. 6/ (published in the daily "Imroze" Multan on 22-9-1978).
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the ocular evidence in the present case.. Is wholly unreliable because it is inconsistent with the medical evidence not only with regard to the number of injuries sustained by Muhammad Yaseen deceased but also with regard to the location and the manner in which these injuries were inflicted. He has stated that Muhammad Yameen P. W. 9 has referred to only one injury caused to the deceased by the appellant in the F. I. R.
Exh. P. E. It was at the trial that he made an improvement and stated that the appellant had also caused injury on the shoulder of the deceased. According to the post-mortem report, no injury was found on the shoulder of Muhammad Yaseen deceased. There was an incised wound on the back middle of right upper arm. Similarly Liloo P. W. 10 has failed to give the correct location of the second injury caused by the appellant. He too has stated that the second hatchet blow was given by the appellant on the shoulder of the deceased. Liloo P. W. 10 has not mentioned the afore-- mentioned injury in his statement Exh. D. A. Recorded by the Police under section 161, Cr. P. C.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that injury No. 1 which was found fatal was horizontal in direction and according to Dr. Allah Nawaz P. W. 4, if the assailant had inflicted it while standing, on the chest in front of the deceased and the latter had also been in standing position (as stated by the eye-witnesses) the injury would have been vertical in direction.
14. We have carefully considered the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
We do not find any conflict in the medical evidence and the ocular testimony as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. The omission with regard to the second injury caused by the appellant to Muhammad Yaseen deceased in the F. I. R. Exh. P. E. Has been explained by Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 inas--much as he has stated that he had informed the S. H. O. About it immediately after the recording of the F. I. R. As he could not mention it in the F.
1. R. Inadvertently on account of his becoming nervous. Liloo P. W. 10 had also mentioned about the second injury in his statement recorded by the Police under section 161, Cr. P. C. Copy whereof is Exh. D. B. Khan Muhammad P. W. 11 has stated that Exh. D. B. Is the correct carbon copy of the statement of Liloo P.
W. 10 recorded by him. According to him Exh. D. B. Is not the correct copy of the statement of Liloo P.
W. 10 as it was prepared on the dictation of a Foot Constable from the original statement. The above copy was prepared for supplying it to the appellant at the trial. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer appears to be plausible because the omission regarding the second injury of Muhammad Yaseen deceased in the statement of Liloo P. W. Recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C.
Could not be rectified by preparing another statement of the witness under section 161, Cr. P. C. As the copy of the earlier statement had been supplied to the accused and as such it would not have been possible t o deliver another copy of the statement of the same witness purporting to have been recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. Khan Muhammad P. W. l l was cross-examined at length on behalf of the appellant and in case he had fabricated the statement of Liloo P. W. Recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C., the learned counsel for the appellant could have requested the Court to examine the Police diaries in order to detect the alleged forgery committed by the Investigating Officer.
15. We also do not consider the difference between the seat of the second injury as stated by Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9, and Liloo P. W. 10 and the one given by the Medical Officer in the post- mortem report so material as to justify the rejection of ocular testimony, firstly, because the distance between the shoulder and actual seat of the injury is not much and secondly, the injury was not material from the prosecution point of view as it was simple and had not caused the death of Muhammad Yaseen. As regards the direction of injury No. 1 which was fatal, P. W. 4 Dr. -Allah Nawaz has explained while replying to a question put to him by the defence counsel that it could be caused in a horizontal direction if the assailants had given the blow from the side of the victim in standing position. There is no doubt that the appellant was coming from the opposite direction when he saw the deceased in the bazar but it does not mean that be had attacked the deceased while standing in front of him. A little variation in the positions of either of the two was sufficient to give the direction of the injury horizontal..
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 and Liloo P. W.
10 are closely related to the deceased and for that reason explicit reliance should not be placed on them. Accordingto the prosecution story Muhammad Yaseen deceased was attacked by the appellant in the bazar at about sunset time but the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness who could depose about the occurrence, which, under the circumstances, must have been seen by a number of persons. It may be noticed that according to Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 shops near the place of occurrence were closed at the time of occurrence. Liloo P. W.
10 has stated that a number of persons had collected at the place of occurrence when they had raised hue and cry but according to him they had reached the place of occurrence after the appellant had inflicted the injuries on the person of Muhammad Yaseen and had run away from the place of occurrence. In view of the factual position stated by the two eye-witnesses it was not possible for the prosecution to examine anyother person as an eye-witness in this case.
Muhammad Siddique P. W. Who accompanied the P. Ws. And Muhammad Yaseen deceased has notbeen produced by the prosecution as it was not considered necessary to examine him after the statements of the two eye-witnesses had been recorded. Liloo P. W. 10 has stated that one Muhammad Jamil had also seen the occurrence but since his name was not mentioned in the F. 1.
R. By Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9, nor any question was put to him as to whether the said Muhammad Jamil was present at the time of occurrence, it is difficult to say whether the occurrence had also been seen by Muhammad Jamil. In any case, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining Muhammad Jamil as his presence at the place of occurrence is not free from doubt. We do see much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witnesses in this case should not be believed because they are related to the deceased. The case of Manglo v. The State 1976 P Cr. L J 243, to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the testimony of the eye-witnesses closely related to the deceased should not be explicitly relied upon without independent corroboration is distinguishable on account of the fact that the eye-witnesses in the aforementioned case were inimical towards the accused and bore grudge against him. In the present case the appellant has not been able to bring anything on record to show that Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 and Liloo P.. W. 10 or even Muhammad Yaseen deceased had any enmity with him. In the case of Waslhullah v. MirzaAli PLD 1963 SC 25, which has also been referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant, the eye-witnesses were considered interested persons on account of their enmity with the accused and it was for that reason that it was observed that exceptionally strong corroboration was necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. The case of Laskari v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 1, referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant also does not support the contention of the learned counsel before us because in that case too the prosecution witnesses were found inimical towards the accused and as such were considered to be interested witnesses. It may be noticed that an interested witnesses is one who has motive to falsely implicate an accused. The mere fact that the witness is related to the deceased would not make him an.. Interested witness and it has been held by the Supreme Court in Shamsher etc. v.
The State (t), that the mere relationship of the witness with the deceased is no ground for discarding his evidence. Same view was expressed in Mushtaq Ahmad v. Siddique Ullah (2).
Learned counsel for the appellant has also challenged the recovery of blood-stained shirt P. 5 from the appellant which according to the prosecution case, was got removed from his person at the time of his arrest. Learned counsel was pointed out a minor discrepancy appearing in the statement of Manoo Khan P. W. 8 who was present at the time of the recovery and had attested the recovery memo. Exh. P. D. And the statement made by Khan Muhammad P. W. 11 with regard to the place from where the appellant was taken into custody. According to Manoo Khan P. W. 8, the appellant was brought out from a shop situated in Sahzi Mandi whereas according to Khan Muhammad P. W. 11, the appellant was present in the verandah in front of a godown when he was arrested by him. As noticed above, this discrepancy is too' insignificant and as such can be safely ignored. It is inconceivable that shirt P. 5 was besmeared with blood as a result of injury sustained by the appellant after his arrest when according to him he was beaten up by the Police. Khan Muhammad P. W. 11 has vehemently denied the above allegation. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Manoo Khan P. W. 8 is not a reliable witness as it is highly improbable that the appellant was wearing the blood-stained shirt even after more than 15 hours of the occurrence and had not changed it especially when he had thrown away the hatchet with which he had committed the murder of Muhammad Yaseen. He has referred to Falak Sher v. The State (3), when the, prosecution version regarding wearing of blood-stained chaddar by the accused after 24 hours of the occurrence was rejected on the ground that it did not appeal to reason. It may be noticed that the recovery of blood-stained chaddar from the accused in the aforementioned case was disbelieved as the prosecution story as a whole was disbelieved. It is difficult to explain the state of mind of the appellant as to why he did not consider it necessary to do away with the blood-stained shirt after the occurrence. The fact that the appellant was wearing the aforementioned shirt at the time of his arrest has been proved beyond E reasonable doubt by the testimony Manoo Khan P. W. 8 and Khan Muhammad P. W.
11. There is no reason to discard the testimony of Manoo Khan P. W. 8 who has no animus or cause to depose falsely against the appellant.
(1) 1973 SCMR 69 (2) PLD 1975 SC 61
(3) PLD 1979 B J 23
17. The recovery of blood-stained hatchet P. 4 from under a tree in the graveyard at the instance of the appellant has also been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has pointed out that the location of the place from where the recovery was allegedly effected as shown in the plan Exh. P W. 11/B is contradicted by the recovery witness Abdul Majid P. W. 7, as according to him the place of recovery falls of the right side of Hassan Parwana Road to graveyard whereas in the aforementioned plan the location of the place of recovery has been shown on the left side. We have examined the plan Exh. P. W. 11/B carefully and have found that the statement made by Abdul Majid P. W. 7 is not inconsistent with the location of the place of recovery as shown in the aforementioned plan because it has not been brought out on the record as from which direction one should proceed from Hassan Parwana Road, which, according to the plan, passes through the graveyard to find the place of recovery on the left side of the graveyard. The testimony of Abdul Majid P. W. 7 cannot be discarded because he happens to be a Police Razakar. He had no cause against the appellant to depose falsely against him. Similarly the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery memo. Exh. P. C. Does not specifically mention that hatchet P.4 recovered at instance of the appellant. As blood-stained has not force because the facts that the hatchet was made .Into sealed parcel at the time of recovery and that it was sent to the Chemical Examiner for examination and that a positive report was received from him about the presence of blood are sufficient to show that the omission in the recovery memo. Pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant was of no serious consequence.
18. As regards the motive which led the appellant to commit the murder of Muhammad Yaseen, the prosecution has examined Abdul Shakoor P. W. 6 who has stated that Muhammad Yaseen deceased had felt offended when the appellant had kissed him while he was standing near the Star Hotel. According to him it had led to a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased and that they had grappled with each other. The appellant had threatened the deceased that he would not spare him within the next two or three days. According to him he had informed Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 about the aforementioned incident. Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 has stated that .The appellant and .Muhammad Yaseen deceased had quarrelled with each other about three or four days before the occurrence as the appellant had kissed him and had thus offended him. In the cross-examina--tion he has disclosed that `he had learnt about the quarrel between the appellant and his deceased brother from his parents, and that Abdul Shakoor P. W. 6 who met him two or three days prior to the occurrence had not disclosed about the aforementioned quarrel. Evidently there is material contradiction between the statements of Abdul Shakoor P. W. 6 and Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 with regard to the motive, which according to the prosecution story, prompted the appellant to commit the murder of Muhammad Yaseen. It is not clear how the parents of Muhammad Yaseen deceased had come to know about the incident which had taken place two or three days prior to the occurrence near the Star Hotel. Abdul Shakoor P. W. 6 has deposed that it was he who had informed Muhammad Yamin P. W. 9 about the quarrel between Muhammad Yaseen deceased and the appellant. After carefully considering this aspect of the prosecution case, we have come to the conclusion that the motive as alleged by the prosecution has not been proved and that it is difficult to accept the prosecution version that Muhammad Yaseen was murdered by the appellant on account of the incident which had taken place about two or three day prior to the occurrence near the Star Hotel. In our view the motive which led the appellant to- commit the murder of Muhammad Yaseen is shrouded in mystery. The failure of the prosecution to prove motive in the present cases however, does not adversely effect the prosecution case as the ocular evidence supported by the evidence of recovery of incriminating articles from the appellant and the medical evidence is sufficient to establish the charge brought out against the appellant.
Under the circumstances absence of motive is immaterial as was held in Muhammad Shafqat v.
The State 1970 SCMR 71failure of the prosecution to prove the motive, however, can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of the sentence awarded to the appellant.
Reference in this connection may be made to Abdul Ghani V. The State 1977 P Cr. L J 377
19. The upshot of the above discussion is that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P. P. C., we alter the sentence of death awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is maintained. The appellant shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year in case of default of payment of the amount of fine, which, on realisation, shall be paid to the heirs of Muhammad Yaseen deceased. The result is that we partly allow the appeal filed by Aleem-ud-Din appellant as indicated above. The sentence of death awarded. To the appellant is not confirmed.