Khushi Muhammad, son of Imam Din and Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Iqbal, sons of Ghalam Qadir, were tried under section 302/149 and 148, P. P. C. For the murder of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, and for rioting by an Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, who, by his judgment dated 10-2-1981, convicted and sentenced them under section 302/149, P. P. C. To life imprisonment each with a fine of Rs. 3,000 each or in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two years each and under section 148, P. P. C. To two years' rigorous imprison--ment each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and half of the fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased. The appeal of the five convicts is now before me for disposal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Inayat Ali, P. W. 12 and Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 14 are real brothers and Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, is the son of the latter. Two of the daughters of Inayat Ali, P. W. 12's real uncle are married to Ghulam Qadir and Khushi Muhammad, accused, respectively.
The said Ghulam Qadir expressed his desire to marry his daughter Suraya alias Baby with Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, the nephew of Inayat Ali, P. W. 12, complainant. Khushi Muhammad accused. The brother-in-law of Ghulam Qadir, intervened and the proposal could not materialise and Ghulam Qadir married his daughter to some other person in village Chandra in the area of Police Station, Kahna. In the latter part of March, 1980, Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, had gone to village Kohrian in the area of Police Station, Barki, where Ghulam Qadir and his sons, Riasat, Iqbal, Sheeda, Riaz, Jamil and Arif, caught hold of him in the village mosque and beat him. Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, moved an application before the Police about this incident, which was marked for investigation to the Police Post, Hadyara. On the day of occurrence i.e. 27-4-1980, the Hadyara Police had summoned Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, to the Police Post in connection with that application. At about 2-45 p.m. Inayat Ali complainant P. W. 12 along with his nephew Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, and his brother Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 14 boarded a bus from Katchi Abadi for going to the said Police Post. Khushi Muhammad accused, armed with a sota, boarded the same bus from Jora Pul, while Muhammad Riaz, accused, armed with a sota, and Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Iqbal accused, all armed with hockey-sticks, boarded the said bus from Chungi Dogach. The bus reached near Murghi Khana near Bowli Camp, at about 3-10 p.m.
The accused persons got the bus stopped and pulled down Muhammad Nawaz, deceased. Khushi Muhammad, accused, caused a sota injury on the left side of the head of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, Muhammad Jamil, accused, inflicted a hockey-stick injury on the middle of his head and Muhammad 11yas, accused, gave a hockey-stick injury on his right leg. Muhammad Iqbal, accused, then infilicted a hockey-stick injury on the head of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, while Muhammad Riaz, accused. Caused a sota injury on his left leg. Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, fell down and all the accused persons injured him with their respective weapons. The alarm raised by Inayat Ali complainant P. W. 12 and his brother Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 14 attracted Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13 and Muhammad Aslam F. C. (won over P. W.), who were travelling in the same bus. They alighted from the bus, but the accused ran away on seeing them. Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, received injuries on various-parts of his body. Inayat Ali. P. W. 12 and his brother Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 14 removed Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, to Mayo Hospital in. An injured condition, where he was admitted.
3. Dr. Syed Talat Iqbal, P. W. 11 who was then in the Emergency Ward, examined Muhammad Nawaz, deceased at 4-20 p.m. And found eight lacerated wounds, three areas of multiple contusions and a contusion on various parts of his body, including the head, both the arms and legs and the back.
Six injuries were kept under observation, whereas the rest were declared as simple. All the injuries were the result of blunt weapons. Probable duration of infliction of injuries was found to be within six hours.
4. Sana Ullah A. S. I. P. W. 16, whilst on duty at Chowk Lahore, Lahore Cantonment, on receiving information at about 4-00 p.m. About the occurrence and removal of Muhammad Nawaz injured to the Mayo Hospital, went to Mayo Hospital and recorded the statement Exh. P. B. Of Inayat Ali, P. W.
12 at 5-30 p.m. The statement of Muhammad Nawaz injured could not be recorded as he was not fit to make a statement. On the basis of Inayat Ali's statement, formal F. I. R. Exh. P. B/1 was recorded at Police Station, North Cantt. At 6.05 p.m. By Manzoor Hussain M. H. C. P. W. 6.
5. After recording the statement of Inayat Ali, P. W. 12 and Muhammad Sharif, P. W. 14 and preparing the injury statement of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, in the hospital, the Investigating Officer pro- -ceeded to the spot where he recovered blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence, which he took into possession, vide memo. Exh. P. D. Muhammad Nawaz injured having died in the hospital at 9-00 p.m., the Investigating Officer again rushed to the hospital, where, after preparing the necessary papers, he forwarded the dead body of the deceased for .Post-mortem examination.
6. On 28-4-1980 at I1-30 a.m. Dr. Sabir Ali , P. W. 9 performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, and found seven lacerated wounds, two multiple lacerated wounds, one abraded contusion, two contusions, four contused swellings, one abraded swelling and one plain swelling on various parts of the dead body, particularly the head, both the arms and legs and the back. The lacerated wound on the left parietal bone of the head w. 4s found fractured. The left tibbia and fibia were also found fractured. The wound on the left parietal of the head which had caused the fracture was found, coupled with the collective effect of the other injuries, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were caused by blunt weapons. Probable time between injuries and death was a few hours and between death and post--mortem examination about fourteen hours.
7. The same day i.e. 28-4-1980, Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Jamil, accused, were produced before Sana Ullah A. S. I. P. W. 16 who formally arrested them.
8. On 29-4-1980 Muhammad Iqbal accused was produced before the Investigating Officer, who formally took him into custody.
9. On 4-5-1980 Khushi Muhammad, accused, led to the recovery of a blood-stained sota P. 3 from his house, which -was taken into possession by the Police, vide Memo. Exh. P. F. The same day, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad 1qbal and Muhammad Riaz accused, led to the recovery of blood-stained hockey sticks P. 4, P. 5 and P. 6 and blood--stained sota P: 7 respectively from underneath the shrubs near an ammunition depot, which weapons were taken into custody by the Police, vide memos. Exhs. P. G., P. H., P.
1. And P. J. Respectively. All these recoveries were witnessed by Muhammad Yaqoob, P. W. 10, Sana Ullah A. S.1. P. W.
16. And Liaquat Ali (given up P. W.).
10. The blood-stained earth recovered from the spot and the blood--stained sotas P. 3 and P. 7 and the blood-stained hockey sticks P. 4 to P. 6 recovered at the instance of the accused were found to be stained with human --blood by the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. After completing the necessary investigation, the challan against all the accused was sent up.
11. At the trial, the prosecution produced Inayat Ali, P. W. 12 and Abdul Ghafoor, P. W. 15 to prove the motive, Inayat Ali, P. W.
12. Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13 and Muhammad - Sharif, P. W. 14 in proof of the ocular account, Muhammad Yaqoob, P. W. 10 and Sana Ullah A. S. I. P. W. 16 in support of the recoveries and Dr. Syed Talat Iqbal P. W. 11 and Dr. Sabir Ali P. W. 9 to corroborate the medical testimony. All the accused denied the accusations that were levelled against them, including the recoveries effected at their instance. They imputed their false involvement to previous enmity with the prosecution witnesses.
12. The learned trial Judge, relying upon the motive, the ocular testimony, the recoveries and the medical evidence, convicted and sentenced all the accused, as stated in para. 1 above.
13. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State and have, also perused the evidence. The evidence as regards motive is furnished by Inayat Ali, P. W. 12 and Abdul Ghafoor, A. S. 1. P. W.
15. According to Inayat Ali, P. W. 12, his sister's husband (actually his tayazad sister's husband) Ghulam Qadir had promised to give the hand of his daughter, Mst.
Suraya alias Baby, to Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, but Khushi Muhammad, appellant, who was the hamzulf of Ghulam Qadir, intervened and -asked Ghulam Qadir to revoke the betrothal. Mst.
Suraya alias Baby was Or n married to some other person residing in village Chandra by the said Ghulam Qadir. The appellants used to harass Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, in the said connection. In the last week of March, 1980, the appellants had physically lifted Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, from the mosque in village Kohrian (Police Station Barki) and had given him a beating after confining him in the house of one Nur Ahmad. Being irritated and apprehending danger to his life, Muhammad Nawaz moved an application to the Police for seeking protection of his life. The investigation of the said application was in progress when the appellants murdered Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, because of this enmity. Abdul Ghafoor. A. S. I., P. W. 15 deposed that on 25-4-1980 Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, had personally delivered to him the application Exh. P. L. At Police Post, Hadyara. He went to village Kohrian for the verification of this application, but the accused named therein were not available. He left Inayat Ali F. C. With a notice to the appellants to appear at Police Post, Hadyara on 27-4-1980. He also told Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, to go to the Police Past on the said date. He also stated that none of the parties reached the Police Post on 27- 4-1980. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the story about Mst. Sukiya alias Baby being married off to some third person in village Chandra stood belied by the deceased's application Exh. P. L. And that the report Exh. P. L/1 on the application Exh. P: L. Showed, that the matter was compromised or hushed up and that neither the appellants nor the deceased had to appear at Police Post, Hadyara, on 27-4-1980. The story of Inayat Ali, P--W. 12 as regards Mst.
Suraya alias Baby being married off to some- third person by her father Ghulam Qadir in village Chandra stands belied by the application Exh. P. L. Made by Muhammad Nawaz to the Police. In the said application the deceased- himself referred to the fact that the appellants had threatened him, that they would take his life, if he persisted in his claim for the marriage of their sister. This applica--tion is dated 18-4-1980. If Mst. Suraya alias Baby had already been married off to some third person in village Chandra by or before 18-4-1980, neither the deceased would have made any claim to the said girl nor the appellants would have threatened the deceased to take .His life, if he persisted in such a claim. In short, what appears is that in the last week of March, 1980, Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, happened to go to village Kohrian where his presence was not welcomed by Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Iqbal, appellants, and some others who very likely gave beating to him in order to deter him from persisting in his claim for the hand of their sister and very likely threatened him that if he so persisted, they would take his life. However, what also appears, is that between the period 18-4-1980 to 27-4-1980 the said girl was got married to somebody in village Chandra. This is apparent when one reads the state-- ments of the appellants recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C., where they do not clearly deny the fact that the said girl was got married to somebody in village Chandra, but give a vague reply that they do not know anything about the matter. This reply confirms the inference that Mst. Surraya was got married to somebody in Chandra and the period 18-4-1980 to 27-4-1980 appears to be the probable period when she was so married. The report Exh. P. L/1 on the reverse of Exh. P. L. Does not give any indication that the parties bad compromised the matter or that the investigation was all over on 26-4-1980, as the learned counsel for the appellants wants me to believe. If this was the position, the appellants could have summoned the said report, but they did not do so, though they compelled Abdul Ghafoor A. S. I. P. W. 15 produce the roznamcha report, which he did on a subsequent date, though without any advantage to the appellants. In these circumstances, enmity does stand established between the appellants and the deceased, but it cannot be said that the enmity was such that it gave motivation to the appellants to cause the death of the deceased. At best, it gave motivation to the appellants to give a good beating to the deceased, as they feared that the deceased would insult Mst. Surraya or circulate ill rumours about her during Police investigation, which would not only affect her reputation generally but embarass her before her husband or her in-laws.
14. The ocular account in the case is furnished by Inayat Ali P. W. 12, Muhammad Naeem S. 1. P. W. 13 and Muhammad Sharif P. W.
14. Inayat Ali P. W. 12 and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 14 are real uncle and father respectively of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased. Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13, however, is a totally disinterested witness. According to the consistent testimony of Inayat Alt P. W. 12 and Muhammad Naeem P. W. 14, on 27-4-1980 at about 2-00 pm. They, with Muhammad Nawaz, deceased had boarded a bus from Katchi Abadi for Police Post Hadyara. They were going there in connection with the deceased's application Exh. P. L. Which had been marked to Police Post Hadyara for investigation. When the bus reached Jora Pul, Khushi Muhammad appellant, armed with a sota, boarded the bus and when the bus reached Chungi Dogach Muhammad Riaz, appellant, armed with a sofa, and Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Ilyas, appellants, all armed with hockey sticks, boarded the bus. When the bus stopped near Purana Murghi Khana near Bowli Camp, Khushi Muhammad, appellant, pulled Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, out of the bus by his collar. After the deceased was pulled down, Khushi Muhammad, appellant, inflicted a sota injury on the left side of his head, Muhammad Jamil, appellant, inflicted hockey stick injury on the middle of his head, Muhammad Ilyas, appellant, inflicted a hockey stick injury on his right leg, Muhammad Iqbal, appellant, inflicted a hockey stick injury on the back of his head and Muhammad Riaz, appellant, gave a sota injury on his left leg. The deceased then fell down and all appellants started inflicting injuries with their respective weapons. They raised alarm and alighted from the bus. One thanedar and a foot constable, who were with an accused in handcuffs, alighted from the bus. They advanced towards the appellants, but in the meantime, the appellants ran away, carrying their weapons with them. Muhammad Naeem, Thanedar P, W. 13 stopped a Suzuki van passing by the road and they brought Muhammad Nawaz, deceased to the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, for treatment. In cross-examination Inayat Ali P. W. 12 stated that the bus was full of passengers, that he and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 14 were sitting on the third seat from the roar door of the bus and the deceased was standing behind them. Muhammad Sharif P. W. 1.4 in cross-examination stated that they did not intervene to rescue Muhammad Nawaz, deceased after getting down from the bus, but only raised alarm. He also stated that the appellants wished them when they boarded the bus, but later retracted and stated that they did not wish them. He also stated that he was sitting on the third seat from the back door, that Khushi Muhammad, appellant, remained standing near the rear door and the remaining appellants also remained near the rear door and that the deceased was standing behind him and Inayat Ali P. W.
12. Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13 stated that on the relevant date be, with Muhammad Aslam F. C. And Muhammad Shafi, under-trial, were proceeding to Police Station, Barki in a bus. When the bus stopped near Purana Murghi Khana at about 2-30/;.00 p.m., he heard alarm that some persons were beating some one near the bus. He with Muhammad Aslam F. C. And Muhammad Shafi, under-trial, alighted from the bus, when he saw at a distance of about fifteen karams a person lying on the road and six persons armed with sotas and sticks inflicting injuries to him. He advanced towards them and the assailants ran away. Muhammad Shafi, under-trial, told him that the assailants were Khushi Muhammad and his party-men. He then stopped a Suzuki van and the injured was placed therein, so that the person accompanying him could take him to the Police Station, North Cantt. He was declared hostile at the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, as he had attempted to suppress the true . Story, and was allowed to be cross-examined. In cross- examination, he stated that he could not identify the appellants, present in Court, as the assailants whom he had seen causing injuries to Muhammad Nawaz, deceased. He also confirmed that he had stated before the police that Muhammad Shafi under---trial had told him that the assailants were Khushi Muhammad, appellant, and his party-men, but when confronted with his previous statement Exh. D. C. This fact was not recorded therein. He stated that the name of Khushi Muhammad. Appellant, was learnt from Muhammad Shafi, under-trial, while the names of the remaining appellants from Sana Ullah A. S. 1. He denied the suggestion that he had learnt the names of all the five appellants at the time of recording of his statement, though he did admit that he had stated before the Police that the names of the appellants "were learnt now". He admitted as correct that none of the passengers had intervened at the time of occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that Inayat Ali P. W. 12 and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 14 were not present as Muhammad Naeem S. 1. P. W. 13 did not refer to their presence by name and that only Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13 was present, who saw the occurrence, but since he was informed of the names of the assailants later when his police statement was recorded and he could not identify all the appellants in Court or the same assailants who had caused injuries to the deceased at the time of occurrence, the ocular testimony was unconvincing and could not be relied upon as implicating the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. The submissions made by the learned counsel have no force. Inayat Ali P. W. 12 and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 14 were accom--panying Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, at the time of occurrence. This is also borne out from the statement of Muhammad Naeem S. 1. P. W. 13 who stated in Court that he told the person accompanying the injured to take the deceased to the Police Station, North Cantonment. No question was put to Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13 to elicit the fact that the person accompanying the injured was neither Inayat Ali P. W. 12 nor Muhammad Sharif P. W.
14. In the extraordinary circumstances in which Muhammad Naeem S. I. P. W. 13 was placed at the time of occurrence, he might not have noted that there were two persons accompanying the deceased. However, there is nothing on the record to suggest or lead to the reasonable inference that Inayat Ali P. W. 12 and Muhammad Sharif P. W. 14 were not present. The fact that they did not intervene, is obvious, as the assailants were five in number and had brutally dealt with the deceased, and rather than he dealt in the same manner they may have felt that discretion was the better part of valour. None of the eye-witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate any of the appellants. The circumstances of the earlier incident as disclosed in the application Exh. P. L. Clearly show that Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Iqbal, appellants, had to present themselves before the Police Officer at Police Post, Hadyara to explain the position. The fact that Khushi Muhammad, appellant, was the brother-in-law of Ghulam Qadir, father of the four appellants, may have prompted him to also accompany the remaining appellants. The ocular account is natural and convincing. The eye- witnesses are natural witnesses of the occurrence. In these circumstances; the ocular account clearly establishes the participation of all the appellants in the crime in instance.
15. The ocular account in this case is supported by the recoveries and the medical evidence. All the appellants led to the recoveries of blood-stained sota and hockey sticks, either from their houses or underneath the shrubs from near an ammunition depot. The said recoveries are proved by Muhammad Yaqoob P. W. 10 and Sana Ullah P. W.
16. The only thing which is contended against the witnesses is that Muhammad Yaqoob P. W. 10 had his workshop sixty-two miles away from Lahore and that he was not a respectable of the locality from where the recoveries were effected. The cross-examination of Muhammad Yaqoob, however, reveals that though he worked at Wazirabad, but he lived at Harike Road, Lahore, and that he had gone to Police Station, North Cantonment, Lahore, on 4-5-1980, when be was taken by the Police Officer to witness the recoveries. Though he is married to the sister of Muhammad Sharif P. W. 14, no particular reason has been shown by the learned counsel to suggest why his evidence should be discarded. Sana Ullah A. S. I. P. W. 16, who is the other recovery witness, did not have any motive to falsely plant the recovery on any of the appellants. Both the recovery witnesses can be implicitly relied upon in respect. Of the recoveries.
The recoveries of the blood-stained weapons of offence, all of which have been found to be stained with human blood, therefore, act as good corroborative evidence to the testimony of the eye--witnesses. The injuries on the person of the deceased, which have been proved by Dr. Syed Talat Iqbal P. W. 11 and Dr. Sabir Ali P. W. 9, clearly show that the number and nature of injuries on the deceased were such as could be caused by the number of assailants that were so named and by the weapons so ascribed to them. The medical testimony, therefore, also lends strong corroboration to the ocular account.
16. The upshot of the above discussion is that the motive, the ocular account, the recoveries and the medical testimony, confirm the guilt of the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
17. The only question that remains is the nature of the offence committed by the appellants. From what has already been stated above, it appears that towards the end of March, 1980, the deceased had visited the village of the appellants, perhaps with some motivation to press his claim for his marriage with Mst. Suraya alias Baby, which being resented by Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad llyas, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Iqbal, appellants, they gave him a beating and told him to keep away, failing which, as the deceased alleged, they would kill him. Instead of forgetting the matter, the deceased filed a complaint Exh. P. L. Before the Superintendent of Police, Saddar Circle, Lahore, detailing the occurrence, with a view to getting a case registered against Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Iqbal, appellants, and some others. The said application was marked by the Superintendent of Police to the S. H. O., Police Station, Barki, on 19-4- 1980. The S. H. O., Police Station, Burki, on telephone called upon Abdul Ghafoor A. S. I. P. W. 15, who was Incharge of Police Post, Hadyara, to investigate the matter. Both the parties were sum--moned for 27-4-1980 to appear at the said Police Post. As fate would have it, both the opposing parties got into the same bus on their onward journey to Police Post, Hadyara. Past events do not show that the appellants had on that date any motive to murder Muhammad Nawaz, deceased. They perhaps disliked his entry in their village or any claim on his part to the hand of the girl. The also perhaps apprehended that the deceased would speak ill of the girl and malign her reputation during the Police investigation. The fact that the deceased was standing towards the rear of the bus, where the appellants were also standing closeby, may have led to some verbal quarrel, which prompted the appellants, who were armed with blunt weapons, to pull down the deceased from the bus and give him a severe beating. It seems that at that stage the appellants were motivated to give the deceased a good severe beating, but not perhaps to murder him. There is only one serious grievous injury. On the head of the deceased, whereas the remaining two injuries on the head are simple, being only scalp deep. The other grievous injury on the deceased is the fracture of the left tibbia and fabula: Other remaining blunt weapon injuries, which are simple, are mainly on both the hands and the legs and on the back of the deceased. Keeping in view all the facts of the case, it appears that the appellants did not have any intention to kill Muhammad Nawaz, deceased. Their common object was to give him a severe beating to the extent of causing him, at best, grievous injuries. It seems that Khushi Muhammad, appellant, alone exceeded the common object by causing the only serious and most grievous injury o the head with his sota, causing a fracture of' the deceased's, skull. He aloe can be saddled with the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause death, though it is difficult to say that when committing the act he knew ~, that it was also so imminently dangerous that it would, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. His case therefore, falls under the third part of section 299 of the PakistanPenal Code, but not under the fourth clause Of sectional' 300 thereof. He only, therefore, is liable under section 304-1I, P. P. C. The other appellants are liable under section 325/34, P. P. C. For causing grievous injuries to Muhammad) Nawaz, deceased.
18. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of all the appellants under section 302/149, P.
P. C. Is set aside. Khushi Muhammad, appellant, is liable under section 304-II, P. P. C. And is sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees Three Thousand (Rs. 3000) or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Ryas, Muhammad Jamil and Muhammad Iqbal, appellants, are liable under section 325/34, P. P. C, for grievous injuries caused to Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, and are sentence to four years' rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rupees One Thousand (Rs. 1,000) each or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The conviction and sentence of all the appellants under section 148, P. P. C. Is maintained. Both the substan--tive sentences shall run concurrently. Hair of the fine, if realised, shall be paid to the heirs of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, as compensation under section 544-A Cr. P. C. In view of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Periods of detention undergone by the appellants as under-trial prisoners shall be treated as periods of detention undergone by them as convicts. This appeal, therefore, stands partly accepted, in terms of alteration of conviction and reduction of sentences, as stated above.