' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall decide Criminal Appeal No,50-J/09 (Rashid Masih v. The State) and Murder Reference No,112/09 sent by the learned trial Court, for confirmation or otherwise, of the sentence of death awarded to Rashid Masih (appellant), as both these matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 31-1-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby, Rashid Masih (appellant) was convicted under section 302(b) P.P.C., for the murder of Nazakat Ali (deceased), and sentenced to death with a direction to pay a compensation of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the legal heirs of Nazakat Ali (deceased) as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default whereof, the appellant was directed to suffer six months' SI. However, benefit of doubt was extended to four co-accused of the appellant, namely, Khalid, Tariq Mehmood, Ibrar. Hussain and Afzaal and they were acquitted from the charge.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) in the FIR (Exh.PA/1) are that he is resident of Chak No,137-RB and is a farmer by profession. According to the complainant, on the day of occurrc ce, he along with his son Nazakat Ali (deceased), brought cattle from their dera to Rajbah to administer water. At 10.30 a.m., the complainant and his said son Nazakat Ali (deceased) reached at Chhappar near the village, whereas, Muhammad Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal residents of the same village were also coming from the said Rajbah after administering water to their cattle, when, suddenly, Rashid Masih (appellant) while armed with a pump action, Ehsan Masih armed with .12 bore gun, Khalid Hussain armed, with .12 bore gun, Ibrar Hussain armed with .222 bore rifle and Afzaal armed with .7 mm rifle, emerged from the nearby sugarcane field.
' Ibrar Hussain raised a Lalkara that Nazakat Ali (deceased) be taught a lesson for helping Muhammad Khalid, upon which, Rashid Masih (appellant), Khalid and Ehsan Masih made straight firing with their respective weapons upon the complainant and Nazakat Ali (deceased), as a result whereof, complainant's son Nazakat Ali (deceased) fell on the ground and died at the spot, whereas, the complainant luckily survived. The complainant has further stated that Afzaal and Ibrar Hussain also continued making aerial firing with their respective weapons and kept on raising Lalkaras, whereas, the occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and Zafar Ali. As per FIR, the motive behind the occurrence was that a Bhatiji of the complainant was married with Muhammad Khalid who had enmity over murders with Bhatti tribe. The accused party had a suspicion that Nazakat Ali {deceased) used to help Muhammad Khalid and due to the said grudge, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object and at the abetment of Tariq Mehmood, murdered Nazakat Ali (deceased).
3. The appellant was arrested on 17-8-2007 by Muhammad Ashraf SI (P.W.13). During the course of investigation, on 21-8-2007, Rashid Masih (appellant) allegedly led to the recovery of a .12 bore pump action gun (P3) along with its licence (P4), from the dera of Muhammad Anwar which was lying under the Bargad tree underneath the woods, which was taken into possession through memo Exh.PC. After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted. The learned trial Court, after observing the required legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, framed a charge on 16-12-2008, under sections 302/148/149/109, P. P . C .
Against the appellant and his four co-accused, namely, Khalid, Tariq Mehmood, Ibrar Hussain and Afzaal, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has produced 13 witnesses, during the trial. The appellant and his four co-accused, namely, Khalid, Tariq Mehmood, Ibrar Hussain and Afzaal, were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant neither produced any evidence in defence nor opted to depose on Oath as provided under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In an answer to the question "why this case against you and why the P. Ws. Have deposed against you", Rashid Masih (appellant) in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated as under:-- "It is a false case. All the P.Ws. Are closely related inter se and with the deceased and they have made false statements against me because I was servant of Ibrar accused, whose family had long standing enmity with the complainant party".
' However, in answer to question "Have you anything else to say", the appellant has stated as under:-- "I am innocent. I was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Actually, it was a dark night and unwitnessed occurrence and Nazakat Ali deceased was shot fired at the place of occurrence by some unknown culprits from the sugarcane crop, who managed to flee away through the shelter of said crop and could not be identified. The police remained busy in making preliminary investigation at the spot. The case was got registered against Ibrar etc. Accused persons of Bhatti family on the basis of suspicion, who had enmity with the complainant party. The complainant party while recording the case against Bhattis also nominated Afzaal accused, who was a tenant of Bhatti family and myself being servant of Ibrar accused in order to economy effect behind Bhatti family. After registration of case, my co-accused connived with the police and I was made a scape goat for their acquittal from this case, as I was a poor man, KAMMI by profession and was unable to defend my self from this case. I had no enmity or animosity with complainant party. As such, the question of murder of Nazakat Ali by me does not arise at all".
' However, after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as detailed above.
5. Canvassing acquittal, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; that in the FIR it was case of the complainant that the appellant along with Ehsan Masih and Khalid made firing at the deceased but the complainant did not specify any part of the body of Nazakat Ali (deceased) where these fires hit, however, while appearing before the learned trial Court, Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) have stated that the fires made by Rashid Masih (appellant) Ehsan Masih (absconder) and Khalid (acquitted co-accused) hit on the forehead and on back of the deceased; that the said Khalid (acquitted co-accused) was tried along with the appellant but was acquitted by the learned trial Court and no appeal against his acquittal was filed either by the State or on behalf of the complainant, therefore, the evidence which has been disbelieved to the extent of the said Khalid (acquitted co-accused) can only be believed against the appellant if it is corroborated by any independent piece of evidence which corroboration is very much lacking in the instant case; that the appellant is not attributed any specific firearm injury on the person of the deceased, therefore, the medical evidence is not helpful to the prosecution; that the motive stated by the complainant in the-FIR was that a Bhatiji of the complainant was married with Muhammad Khalid who had enmity over murders with Bhatti tribe, the accused party had a suspicion that Nazakat Ali (deceased) used to help Muhammad Khalid and due to the said grudge, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object and at the abetment of Tariq Mehmood, murdered Nazakat Ali (deceased), but, while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant has stated that Khalid Mehmood son of Ibraheem was married with his Bhateeji and the said Khalid had enmity with Bhatti tribe, whereas, Tariq, Khalid and Ibrar had a suspicion that Nazakat Ali (deceased) made a phone, about police raid, to the said Khalid Mehmood son of Ibraheem and as the complainant party were the relatives of above stated Khalid, therefore, the accused persons committed the murder of Nazakat Ali (deceased), which shows that the motive, if any, was against Khalid, Ibrar and Tariq and not against the appellant but the said Khalid, Ibrar and Tariq were acquitted by the learned trial Court; that so far as alleged recovery of .12 bore pump action gun (P3) at the instance of the appellant and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ) are concerned, learned counsel contends that there is no evidence to the effect that it remained in safe custody with the Moharrir of the Police Station; that while appearing before the learned trial Court, Naveed Amjid Moharrar/HC (P.W.7) has stated that he entered the receipt of crime empties in Register No, 19 but in his cross-examination, after perusal of Register No,19, he has stated that there was no mention in the said Register about delivery of blood stained earth and empty cartridges; that similarly these crime empties were allegedly recovered on 9-8-2007 and the appellant was arrested on 17-8-2007 who allegedly got recovered .12 bore pump action gun (P3) on 21-8-2007, whereas, crime empties were received in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory on 30-8-2007 as is evident from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ) i,e, after about 12 days from the date of arrest of appellant, therefore, possibility of firing of these crime empties from the .12 bore pump action gun (P3) cannot be ruled out; that even otherwise .12 bore pump action gun (P3) was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant from the dera of one Muhammad Anwar which was lying under the Bargad tree underneath the woods and there is nothing on the record that the appellant had any concern with the said Muhammad Anwar, rather, the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that Rashid Masih (appellant) was a servant of Ibrar Hussain and was residing at his dera; that it is on the record through the statement of Muhammad Ashraf SI (P.W.13) that the place of recovery was an open place, accessible to every body, therefore, recovery of gun and consequent report of the FSL have not advanced the prosecution case; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and he is entitled to acquittal.
6. While opposing this appeal, the learned DPG, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, contends that in this case occurrence took place on 9-8-2007 at 10.30 a.m., the same was reported to the police through a written application (Exh.PA) at 11.00 a.m. And the FIR was registered at 11.45 a.m., therefore, there is no delay in reporting the matter to the police; that both the eyewitnesses of the occurrence i,e, Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) are residents of the same Chak No,137-RB and the ocular account furnished by them gets full support from the medical evidence furnished by Dr.Saeed Akbar Tariq (P.W.6) who, on 10-8-2007 at 1.15 p.m., conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Nazakat Ali (deceased) and prepared Postmortem Report (Exh.PE) wherein he has noted eight firearm injuries on the person of the deceased; that the prosecution has also proved motive; that so far as acquittal of four co- accused of the appellant, namely, Khalid, Tariq Mehmood, Ibrar Hussain and Afzaal is concerned, the appellant cannot get benefit from their acquittal because there was no recovery from the said Khalid who was also found innocent during investigation whereas the appellant got recovered .12 bore pump action gun (P3), recovery of .12 bore pump action gun (P3) matched with the two crime empties which were taken into possession from the spot through memo Exh.PJ which is evident from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ); that so far as discrepancies in the statement of Naveed Amjid Moharrar/HC (P.W.7) are concerned, these are immaterial so far as recovery of two crime empties which were taken into possession from the spot through memo Exh.PJ and .12 bore pump action gun (P3) from the appellant are concerned; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to their respective arguments and have also scanned the record with their able assistance.
8. This unfortunate incident, wherein, Nazakat Ali (deceased) lost his life, as per FIR (Exh.PA/1), took place on 9-8-2007 at about 10.30 a.m., the matter was reported to the police by Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) at 11.00 a.m., the formal FIR was registered at 11.45 a.m. While the, distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was about 15 miles.
9. It is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of judgments that if evidence of the 'same witnesses has been disbelieved to the extent of one set of accused persons then the same can only be believed against the other set of accused persons if it is corroborated by any independent piece of evidence. In this regard, we have fortified our view by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
' In the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11), at page 23, the learned Apex Court of the country has been pleased to hold as under:-- "It is often said that the principle falsus in, uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan. The same principle has been described in some cases, slightly differently; namely, that the testimony of an eye-witness should not be treated as indivisible although there is no consensus with regard to the later view. A contrary view has also been held. Expressed in a more direct manner a similar rule in the administration of criminal justice which is hall-mark of Islamic Jurisprudence, that when a witness has been found false with regard to the implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath the credibility of such witness regarding involvement of the other accused in the same occurrence would be irretrievably shaken. However, as a matter of convenience a rule has been developed in Pakistan since the famous case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown PLD 1951 Lah. 66 propounded by late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir that where it is found that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to the other accused in the same occurrence. But if the testimony of such a witness is corroborated by very strong and independent circumstances regarding other the reliance might then be placed on the witness for convicting the other accused...."
' In Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185), at page 1196, the Ron'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold as under:-- " It is true that principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is no more applicable as on following this principle, the evidence of a witness is to be accepted or discarded as a whole for the purpose of convicting or acquitting an accused person, therefore, keeping in view prevailing circumstances, the Courts for safe administration of justice follow the principle of appraisal of evidence i,e, sifting of grain out of chaff i,e, if an ocular testimony of a witness is to be disbelieved against a particular set of accused and is to be believed against another set of the accused facing the same trial, then the Court must search for independent corroboration on material particulars as has been held in number of cases decided by the Superior Courts. Reference may be made readily to the case of Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758, relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow thus:- "The proposition of law in criminal administration of justice namely whether a common set of ocular account can be used for recording acquittal and conviction against the accused persons who were charged for the same commission,of offence is an over-worked proposition. Originally the opinion of the Court was that if a witness is not coming out with a whole truth his evidence is liable to be discarded as a whole meaning thereby that his evidence cannot be used either for convicting accused or acquitting some of them facing trial in the same case. This proposition is enshrined in the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus but subsequently this view was changed and it was held that principle enshrined in this maxim would not be applicable and testimony of a witness will be acceptable against one set of accused though same has been rejected against another set of accused facing same trial. However, for safe administration of justice a condition has been imposed namely that the evidence which is going to be believed to be true must get independent corroboration on material particulars meaning thereby that to find out credible evidence principle of appreciation of evidence i,e, sifting chaff out of grain was introduced as it has been held in the cases of Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others PLD 1962 SC 502, Tawaib Khan and another v. The State PLD 1970 SC 13, Bakka v. The State 1977 SCMR 150, Khairu and another v. The State 1981 SCMR 1136, Ziaullah v. The State 1993 SCMR 155, Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11, Shahid Raza and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 1647, Irshad Ahmed and others v.
The State and others PLD 1996 SC 138 and Ahmad Khan v. .The State 1990 SCMR 803."
' In Ghulam Mustafa and others v. The State (2009 SCMR 916), at page 924, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:-- "In our jurisprudence it is by now well established that the legal maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a universal principle to be applied in all criminal cases. However, according to settled case-law there are exceptions and if evidence on the record warrants a doubt in the credibility of such witnesses then indeed their testimony regarding another set of co-accused is to be considered with caution and cannot be accepted without strict corroboration from other independent and credible sources. In this connection reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. State 1969 SCMR 132, Shafoo v. State 1968 SCMR 719 and Allah Ditta v. State PLD 2002 SC 52".
' In Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State (2012 SCMR 327), at page 332, the learned Apex Colin of the country has been pleased to reiterate the above view in the following words:-- "We, therefore, find that the ocular account is not of such a character which could be relied upon in order to convict a person on a capital charge when the same is not corroborated by any other independent evidence as the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the place and time of occurrence is not established as their statements have been disbelieved by the learned appellate court regarding Sultan Mehmood acquitted accused. Reference is made to the cases reported as Ansar Ali and another v. The State (2010 SCMR 1821), Gltulam Mustafa and others v The State (2009 SCMR 916) and Iftikhar Hussain and others v The State (2004 SCMR 1185)".
10. We have perused the FIR and statements of Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) made before the learned trial Court. In the FIR, it was case of Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) that Rashid Masih (appellant) alongwith Khalid (acquitted co-accused) and Ehsan Masih (absconder) made joint firing on the complainant and his son Nazakat Ali (deceased), the complainant luckily saved but the fires hit on different parts of the body of his son Nazakat Ali (deceased). Almost similar was the stance of complainant and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) before the learned trial Court except that both stated before the learned trial Court that the fires made by Rashid Masih (appellant), Ehsan Masih (absconder) and Khalid (acquitted co-accused) hit on the forehead and on back of the deceased. So far as role allegedly played by the appellant is concerned, he is not attributed any specific firearm injury on the person of the deceased and the role of the appellant is exactly same as was of Khalid (acquitted co-accused). As far as role of the remaining acquitted co-accused of the appellant, namely, Tariq Mehmood, Ibrar Hussain and Afzaal is concerned, the same is different than the appellant and Khalid (acquitted co-accused) because both, in the FIR and before the learned trial Court, Ibrar Hussain and Afzaal are attributed the role of aerial firing, whereas, Tariq Mehmood was made accused of abetment.
11. The medical evidence in this case has been furnished by Dr. Saeed Akbar Tariq (P.W.6).
According to him, on 10-8-2007 at 1.15 p.m., he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Nazakat Ali (deceased), prepared Postmortem Report (Exh.PE) and noted eight firearm injuries on his person but the fact remains that in the FIR the complainant has not attributed any specific firearm injury to the appellant on the person of the deceased and has merely stated that Ehsan Masih (absconder), Rashid Masih (appellant) and Khalid (acquitted co- accused) made joint firing on the person of Nazakat Ali (deceased) and the fires hit on different parts of his body but while appearing before the learned trial Court, Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) have stated that the shots fired by Ehsan Masih (absconder), Rashid Masih (appellant) and Khalid (acquitted co-accused) hit on the forehead and on back of the deceased but even before the learned trial Court no specific injury is attributed to the appellant, therefore, no corroboration to the extent of role allegedly played by the D appellant is available to the prosecution from the medical evidence.
12. So far motive is concerned, the complainant has stated in the FIR that his. Bhatiji was married with Muhammad Khalid who had enmity over murders with Bhatti tribe, whereas, the accused party had a suspicion that Nazakat Ali (deceased) used to help Muhammad Khalid and due to the said grudge, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object and at the abetment of Tariq Mehmood, murdered Nazakat Ali (deceased), but, while appearing before the learned trial Court, the complainant has stated that the motive behind the occurrence was that Khalid Mehmood son of Ibraheem was married with his Bhateeji and the said Khalid had enmity with Bhatti tribe, Tariq, Khalid and Ibrar had a suspicion that Nazakat Ali (deceased) made a phone call about police raid to Khalid son of Ibraheem and they were the relatives of above stated Khalid, so, the accused persons committed his murder. It shows that even as per improved statement, the motive, if any, was against three persons, namely, Khalid, Ibrar and Tariq and not against the appellant and all the said three accused persons having link with the motive have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, therefore, the ocular account finds no corroboration by the motive to the extent of the appellant.
13. As far as recovery of .12 bore pump action gun (P3) and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ) are concerned, we are not inclined to place reliance on these pieces of evidence for the reasons, firstly, it is case of the prosecution that both the crime empties were allegedly taken into possession from the spot through memo Exh.PJ on the day of occurrence i,e, 9- 8-2007 by Muhammad Ashraf SI (P.W.13). While appearing before the learned trial Court, Naveed Amjid Moharrar/HC (P.W.7) has stated that on 9-8-2007, Investigating Officer handed him over two sealed parcels of blood stained earth and empty cartridges for keeping them in safe custody. In his cross-examination, this police official stated that as soon as the case property was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer, he entered the same in Register No,19 which was before him.
However, he admitted that "It is correct that there is no mention in the register about delivery of parcel of bloodstained earth to me by the 1.0. Similar is the position in respect of handing over the parcel of empty cartridge", secondly, it is on the record through the statement of Muhammad Ashraf SI (P.W.13) that the appellant was arrested on 17-8-2007 who allegedly got recovered .12 bore pump action gun (P3) on 21-8-2007 and as per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ), crime empties were deposited in the said office on 30-8-2007 i,e, after about 12 days from the date of arrest of appellant, whereas, it has come on record through the statement of Zulfiqar Ali 375-C (P.W.3) that he deposited .12 bore pump action gun (P3) in the office of the Forensic Science Laboratory on 14-9-2007 which is also evident from the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ), therefore, possibility of firing of these crime empties from the .12 bore pump action gun (P3) cannot be ruled out, thirdly, it is the prosecution case that a .12 bore pump action gun (P3) was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant from the dera of Muhammad Anwar which was lying under the Bargad tree underneath the woods but there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had any concern with the said Muhammad Anwar, rather, the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that Rashid Masih (appellant) was a servant of Ibrar Hussain and was residing at his dera and, fourthly, it is on the record through the statement of Muhammad Ashraf SI (P.W.13) that the place of recovery was an open place and accessible to every body. In such circumstances, the ocular account furnished by Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) cannot get any corroboration from the alleged recovery of gun at the instance of the appellant and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh.PQ).
14. In this backdrop of the situation, it is crystal clear that if the evidence of medical, motive and recovery is excluded from consideration then there is no other evidence which can provide any support/corroboration to the ocular account furnished by Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P.W.8) and Zafar Ali (P.W.9) to maintain conviction and sentence of the appellant on G a capital charge.
15. It is a settled and universally recognized principle of law that conviction can only be based upon unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused. In Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 1048), at page 1056, while quoting a saying of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that 'mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent", and making reference to the maxim, that 'it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted' , the learned Apex Court of our country has been pleased to observe as under:-- "... It is hardly necessary to reiterate that the prosecution is obliged to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right. It is also firmly settled that if there is an element of doubt as to the guilt of the accused the benefit of that doubt must be extended to him. The doubt of course must be reasonable and not imaginary or artificial. The rule of benefit of doubt, which is described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence which cannot be ignored while dispensing justice in accordance with law. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted". In simple words it means that utmost care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused. It was held in The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1973 SC 418) that this rule is antithesis of haphazard approach or reaching a fitful decision in a case. It will not be out of place to mention here that this rule occupies a pivotal place in the Islamic Law and is enforced rigorously iv view of the saying of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.) that the "mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent" .
(emphasis supplied)
16. After considering all the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant through the impugned judgment is set-aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge of murder of Nazakat Ali (deceased) by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is behind the bars and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any, other case.
17. However, it is clarified that the observations made in this judgment are relevant only to the extent of the appellant and the case of absconding co-accused shall be decided on the basis of evidence produced before the learned trial Court by the respective parties, in case he is arrested and tried.
' Murder Reference is answered in the NEGATIVE and sentence of death is NOT CONFIRMED.