SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.---The above titled appeals have been directed against the Implement of District Court of Criminal is diction Mirpur dated 31.01.2006, whereby accused- respondent Aziz was acquitted of the charge and Husnain Abbas accused/ appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Brief facts forming background of the instant appeals are that the complainant Muhammad.
Sharif lodged a report at Police Station Thothal on 05.04.2005 at 2:00 a.m., alleging therein that at 11:00 p.m. In the midnight he and his other companion were performing their duties as Guards under the employment of WAPDA Mangla Jari Kas Dam, three unknown persons aged 24, 25 years came there. One of them, wearing white colour clothes and the other one brown clothes while the third one was wearing blue colour clothes sat on bench outside the adjacent to the guard room. It was further averred that when he asked their whereabouts, they replied that they are the Army personnel and serving in the signal Company and they are proceedings to their homes. After fifteen minutes, they requested for the water. He went and fetched a glass of water and one by one they drank the water. In the meantime, they came inside the boundary wall and entered into the Guard room and attacked on the complainant. One of them pulled out his 30:bore pistol and hit on the forehead of the complainant who fell down in the room and the two other persons caught hold Allah Ditta (deceased) and the other persons having 30-bore pistol fired at the deceased, while the other two persons caught hold of the complainant and threw him to other side of post and after fifteen minutes,the complainant hardly came up and saw that Allah Ditta, deceased, was died due to firing and SMG, bullets and the pouch was taken away by those unknown persons. It was further averred that the complainant then went to the Army Camp and narrated the whole story to Sargeant Ishaq.
3. On this report a case under sections 302, 337/A, APC and 17(4)EHA was registered against the accused/ convicted/respondents at Police Station Thoth. The , police started investigation. The dead body was sent to DHQ Hospital Mirpur for post-mortem and other necessary proceedings were completed and the injured person/ complainant was also evacuated to the hospital. After necessary investigation, the challan under the aforesaid offences was submitted before the trial Court against the accused/respondents. After submission of challan, the accused were examined under sections 265-D/242, Cr.P.C, in which they negated the allegation, whereupon, the prosecution was ordered to lead evidence. The prosecution produced their witnesses name:, Raja Muhammad Sadiq Inspector CiA Mirpur, Muhammad Sharif, Muhammad Riaz, Tariq Hussain, Muhammad Ishaq, Basharat Hussain, Liaqat Ali, Amanat constable, Munawar Hussain, Muhammad Tofeeque Investigator/ head constable, Shabir Hussain Shah constable, Ahmed Din, Qamar Iqbal constable, Irfan Saleem DSP, Mohammad Yaqoob constable, Muhammad Afzal constable, Javed Akhtar ASI, Dr. Nasir Siddique CMO, Muhammad Azram Patwari, Muhammad Shahzad S.I, SHO, Mazhar Iqbal Inspector and Basharat Masood and got recorded their statements. Thereafter, on 05.01.2005, the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., in which they also negated the charge as well as the evidence of the prosecution.
4. On completion of trial, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Aziz from the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt, while Husnain Abbas accused was awarded the sentence of life imprisonment under section 396, APC along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and it was ordered that in case of default the convict will undergo six months simple imprisonment and under section 337A/.1 the punishment of daman Rs.10,000/- was also awarded to him. He was further awarded three years simple imprisonment under section 13/20/65 of Arms Act and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.0 . With concurrent running of all imprisonments was also given to him, vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2006.. Hence, these appeals.
5. Raja Muhammad Shafique, Advocate, the learned counsel for convicted/ respondents appellants contended that the learned trial Court fell in grave error while passing the sentence to the extent of Husnain Abbas and he has wrongly been involved in this case. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant was not nominated in the FIR and the evidence produced by the prosecution was not enough to convict the accused with the alleged offences. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the accused Husnain Abbas was apprehended on the confessional statement of Accused Aziz but no such statement was found on record or was recorded. The learned counsel further , contended that the arrest of accused Husnain was shown from Police Station Bhagtan-wala Sargodha in the offence under section 13/20/65 ,AA and the recovered rifle/SMG of WAPDA was shown to be recovered from the Reader of Police Station Bhagtan-wala but in this regard, no evidence was recorded or brought on record. The learned counsel further contended that the pistol 30-bore was shown to be recovered on the pointation of Husnain persused but no local and private witness brought on record by the prosecution thus, violated the mandatory provision of law on the subject. The learned cbunsel further contended that neither any direct evidence was present at the spot nor any circumstantial evidence was present on record which could identify the accused. The learned counsel further contended that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and reached at erroneous conclusion. The learned counsel maintained that the postmortem report and recovery memo of case No.87 of 2005 of Police Station Bhagtanwala are the photo copies thus, are not admissible in the evidence. The learned counsel in the light of the arguments on facts vehemently contended that the trial Court rightly reached the conclusion that there is no evidence which could prove the offence of Haraabah as stipulated under section 17(4) EHA, however, the learned trial Court erred in convicting the convict/appellant under section 396, APC which is illegal, ab-initio and on this sole ground the acquittal of convict-appellant is warranted on all counts. Which summing up the lengthy arguments, the learned counsel contended that this is a case of (1) no evidence (2) dark night unseen occurrence (3) no identification parade (4) no confessional statement (5) no corroboratory evidence (6) recovery from open places and against the spirit of section 103, Cr.P.C. (7) closely related witnesses (8) C.Es not sent to Forensic Expert (9) place of incident is doubtful (10) manner of occurrence is not believable because no tattooing or blackening is present on entry wound (11) in Post Mortem report no time of death is mentioned (12) report of Serologist not produced regarding bullet recovered from the dead body. The learned counsel while commenting on the oral evidence referred the statements of almost all P.Ws including the statement of Raja Muhammad Sadiq C . I . A Inspector, Basharat P. W , Dr. Nasir Sidique C MO , injured P. W. /complainant Muhammad Sharif, Inspector Mazhar Iqbal and others and concluded that the case is of negation in toto by defence and prosecution evidence containing of ocular evidence, recovery, medical and other corroboratory evidence is of no value and prosecution miserably failed to bring the guilt home to the accused hence, it is a clear case of acquittal. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the instant appeal the impugned judgment may be set-aside and convicted respondent may be acquitted of the charges and referred the following case law:--
2. 2005 SCR 533(sic).
6. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hameed, Advocate, the learned counsel for complainant while controverting the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Criminal Court Mirpur dated 31.01.2006 is not tenable to the extent of Muhammad Aziz whereby he was acquitted from the charges of murder and sentence awarded to the respondent Husnain Abbas is lesser as required by law, hence, the judgment under appeal needs modification by this Hon'ble Court while setting aside the same to the extent of respondent No.1 and enhancing the sentence of respondent No.2 Husnain Abbas from life imprisonment to death penalty. The learned counsel further contended that the judgment passed by the trial Court is not tenable in the eye of law. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence to the extent of respondent No.1 and also failed to consider another aspect of the case that when it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that both the respondents and another person have brutally killed the deceased Allah Ditta and injured the complainant. The learned counsel further contended that the evidence of the injured witness and other witnesses adduced by the prosecution and recoveries like blood etc. From the site of occurrence and the gun recovered from the culprits are sufficient material to prove the guilt of the accused, but the trial Court has failed to pronouncement the judgment under law. The learned counsel further contended that the claim of the prosecution is fully corroborated from site plan, death report, postmortem report, recovery memos and report of chemical examiner. The learned counsel further contended that about eight criminal cases are registered against accused Husnain Abbas and he was arrested in Sargodha in some other cases and later on he was shifted in this case. The learned counsel further contended that the weapon of offence was recovered form him. The learned counsel further contended that the claim of the prosecution is fully supported by the evidence produced, which makes strengthen the case of the complainant. The learned counsel zealously contended that one of the eye-witness Muhammad Sharif, appellant herein, was injured during occurrence so, his presence at the spot was natural and is proved. It was further contended by learned counsel that the trial Court has misread or non-read the evidence produced by the prosecution in its true perspective as required by law for the criminal cases, hence, the respondents/ accused are liable to be awarded death penalty for committing the murder of Allah Ditta deceased. The learned counsel further contended that though Mst. Inayat Bibi, the widow of the deceased Allah Ditta has compromised with the accused Muhammad Aziz to the extent of injuries but the injured P.W Muhammad Sharif is entitled and claims the conviction of accused Aziz for inflicting injuries to the complainant. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court erred in not convicting the convict/respondent under section 302 along with 392/396, APC etc. As provided under section 20, EHA. Finally, the learned counsel referred sections 53 and 510 of Cr.P.C. Regarding recoveries and expert opinion and prayed that by accepting the appeal, the impugned judgment may be set-aside and the sentence to the extent of Husnain Abbas convict may be enhanced from life to death whereas the accused Aziz may also be punished in accordance with law.
7. The learned A.A.G adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and also prayed that the sentence of the accused may be enhanced.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned A.A.G and gone through the record of the case with due care.
9. From perusal of record and impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it reveals that the accused Aziz son of Muhammad Anwar was acquitted of the charge while Husnain Abbas, convict, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 396,APC along with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in case of default he will suffer six months simple imprisonment and under section 337A-1 the punishment of daman Rs.10,000/- was also awarded to him. He was further awarded three years simple imprisonment under section 13/20/65 of Arms Act and the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him with concurrent running of all imprisonments.
10. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the convict-appellant we would like to take up and resolve the legal proposition regarding conviction of the appellant under section 396, APC. It may be stated that as per version of the prosecution the offencewas committed by three persons, who killed the deceased and also snatched his SMG, whereas, Section 396,APC attracts in case of the offence committed by five or more than five persons, therefore, we are of the considered view that Section 396,APC is not applicable in the instant case. For proper appreciation of the controversy, relevant provision is section 392,APC which reads as under:-- ' SECTION 392 OF P.P.C.
"392. Punishment for robbery. Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which [ shall not be less than three years nor more than] ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years."
11. The like controversy came under the consideration of the Karachi High Court, which was resolved as under in case reported as PLD 2003 Karachi 195 titled "Jamal Khan and another v. The State", referred and relied upon by the learned counsel for the convict-appellant. The relevant captions of the report are reproduced as under:--
31. However, from the statement of the appellant it is clear that he admitted his presence at the time and the place of incident, therefore, he was required to explain his presence through some credible evidence but neither the appellant Fazal Muhammad examined himself on oath nor led any evidence to prove his stand taken by him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Whereas the prosecution has led ample evidence to connect him with the commission of this crime. As such the defence taken by the appellant has not been proved.
32. After giving due consideration to the facts of the case it is clear that this is a case of robbery and not dacoity, therefore, section 396, P.P.C. Is not applicable in the present circumstances of the case. Section 396, P.P.C. Reads as under:- "396. Dacoity with murder.---If anyone of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of these persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which [shall not be less than four years nor more than] ten years and shall also be liable to fine."
33. From the perusal of the above section it is clear that it is applicable in the case of dacoity involving five or more persons but in the present case the prosecution alleged that only four persons were involved in the case therefore, the conviction awarded by the trial Court under section 396, P.P.C. Are not warranted by law which are hereby set-aside.
34. After considering the material available on the record we are of the considered view that the appellant Jamal Khan has committed the offences punishable under sections 392, 353, 302(b), P.P.C. And under section 13-D of the Ordinance, 1965. As regards the involvement of the appellant Fazal Muhammad, his conduct shows that he was also involved in the murder of P.C. Shamim Ahmed but to a lesser degree. As such he may be considered for lesser punishment on the ground of his mental state, i.e. Nervousness, loosing, self-control and act and role played and so forth.
Therefore, some benefit may be extended to the appellant. While discussing as to which cases are falling under clause (c) of section 302, P.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad (PLD 1996 SC 274) at page 290 has observed as under:- "As to what are the cases falling under clause (c) of section 302, the lawmaker has left it to the Courts to decide on a case to case basis."
35. On the same subject the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case of Abdul Zahir v. The State reported in 2000 SCMR 406 and at page 412 observed as under:-- "17. Clause (c) of section 302, P.P.C. Ante applies in case of Qatli-Amd where, according to Injunction of Islam, the punishment of Qisas is not applicable. A bare reading of the clause would reveal that section 306, P.P.C. Is applicable to cases of Qatl-i-Amd not liable to Qisas is indeed punishable under section 308. There is distinction, albeit very slight, between Qatl-i-Amd to which punishment of Qisas is not applicable and that of the Qatl-i-Amd which is not liable to Qisas. A bare reading of section 308, P.P.C. Would show that where offender is guilty of Qatl-i-Amd not liable to Qisas under section 306 or the Qisas is not enforceable under clause (c) of section 307, P.P.C.
Shall be liable to Diyat. We, therefore, endorse the view held by this Court in the case of Ali Muhammad (supra) (PLD 1996 SC 274) that class of cases to which clause (c) of section 302, P.P.C.
Applies is different from class of cases enumertaed in section 306 and punishable under section 308, P.P.C. Prima facie the cases covered by clause (c) of section 302, P.P.C. Are of Qatl-iAmd: (1) where according to the Injunctions of Islam the punishment of Qisas is not applicable but not falling within the ambit of section 306, P.P.C. Punishable under section 308, P.P.C., (2) Qatl-e- ' And to which clause (b) of section 302, P.P.C. Is attracted, namely, Qatl-i-Amd wherein proof in either of forms specified in section 304, P.P.C. Is not available is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, by way of Tazir. The use of the word 'or' at the end of clause (b) of section 302, P.P.C. Reinforce this interpretation. In other words, it is a class of Qatl-i-Amd which is not punishable with death as Qisas or death or imprisonment for life by way of Tazir but is liable in the matter of punishment to imprisonment of either description for a term with may extend to twenty-five years.
Some of those cases have been noticed in the precedent of Muhammad Hanif (1992 SCMR 2047), Ali Muhammad (PLD 1996 SC 274) and that Muhammad Mumtaz Khan's case (supra) to a larger extent of minority and lesser extent of 'provocation'.
36. After considering the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the case of the appellant Fazal Muhammad falls under section 302(c), P.P.C. Thus the appellant Fazal Muhammad has also committed offences punishable under sections 302(c), 353, P.P.C. And 13-D of Ordinance, 1965.
37. In view of above position the convictions and sentences of the appellants arc modified as under:-
(a) The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Jamal Khan under section 396 Pt is set- aside. He is convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. But sentence of death awarded under the impugned judgment is maintained. He is directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C, or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For six months.
(b) The conviction and sentence of the appellant Fazal Muhammad, under section 396, P.P.C. Is set-aside. He is convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer R.I. For seven years.
He is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For six months.
(c) The conviction and sentence of appellant Jamal Khan under section 392, P.P.C. Is maintained."
12. It will also be relevant to reproduce the case titled "Muhammad Shafi and another v. The State"
(PLD 1959 (W.P) Karachi 468, the relevant paras are as under:-- ' The question which remains to be considered is whether the appellants are guilty of the offence of robbery as held by the lower Court. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Theft becomes robbery if the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. Extortion becomes robbery if the offender at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint to that person This is how robbery is defined by section 390 of the P.P.C. It will be seen that the chief distinguishing element in robbery is the presence of the fear of imminent violence. The words used are "fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint."
' In fact the margin between the two offences in a case of this character is always very thin. They often overlap and it sometimes becomes difficult to say where the theft ends and the extortion begins. Having regard however to the view that I am taking in this case any further investigation of this question would be more or less academic.
13. The identical controversy has been resolved by the Madras High Court in case titled "Raman Menon v. Madhavan" AIR 1927 Madras 243, wherein, it was observed as under:- "On the charge of robbery, the jurors found that an offence under section 404, Indian Penal Code, had been committed. The evidence was that shortly after the murder, the murdered girl's jewelry was discovered in the possession of the appellant. The Judge told the jury that, if it had been removed from her person after her death, the offence committed was one under section 404, Indian Penal Code. That was not a proper direction. The question for consideration was whether the murder had been committed for the purpose of stealing the jewels. If it had been committed for that purpose, the offence was one under section 392, Indian Penal Code. It is clear that the jury was misdirected. We must set-aside the conviction. As, however, we are confirming the conviction under section 392,Indian Penal Code, it is unnecessary to order a re-trial on the charge of robbery."
14. In order to distinguish the offences of Haraabah and dacoity Section 20 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood), Act 1985 is reproduced hereunder:-- "Punishment for haraabah liable to tazir,---Whoever commits haraabah which is not liable to the punishment provided for in section 17 or which proof in either of the forms mentioned in section 7 is not available, or for which punishment of amputation or death may not be imposed or endorsed under this Act shall be awarded the punishment provided in the Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), for the offence of dacoity, robbery or extortion, as the case may be.
15. Now coming to the conclusion of the controversy it may be stated that the FIR in the case in hand was lodged by Muhammad Sharif complainant, who in his statement available on the file as Exh.PG stated that on 04.04.2005 he and Allah Ditta, deceased (Security Guards), at 9:00 pm reached at their assignment at Jan-Dam Check Post. They released the already serving employees namely Zafar and Abdul Ghafoor and after assuming the charge started to perform their duties. He also stated that Allah Ditta, deceased, was equipped with Gun SMG with 10 alive rounds. He narrated that at about 10:45 p.m., three unknown persons aged 23/24 years, with coloured dresses came on the spot and sat on the bench. On the query made by Allah Ditta deceased, they told that they are employees of 20 Signal Company and are proceeding to their homes on leave. After about 15 minutes, they asked for water and he served the same to all the persons one after one.
After taking water, the unknown persons entered in the boundary wall and while he was standing on the post they attacked upon him. One of them took out his 30-bore pistol and attacked upon him and hatchet him with its butt whereupon, he got injured and fell in the room then, the person with bear caught hold of Allah Ditta deceased whereas the other offender armed with 30-bore pistol fired at him and dragged him and thrown at the back of the Dam, near the Check Post. It was also stated that the culprits also dragged the injured Allah Ditta and put him on the same place.
After about 15 to 30 minutes he came to the spot with great difficulties and saw that Allah Ditta has succumbed to the injuries. His SMG, rounds and the pouch were also missing and the helmet was also opened. Then he moved to his residence near Jari Army Camp and told the whole story to Muhammad Ishaq. It may be stated that three culprits were narrated in the FIR who were unknown to the complainant, however, when he asked about their whereabouts they told that they are army personnel and are proceeding onleave, which means that the complainant became well aware of their faces, features and complexion and voices etc. And mere non- acquaintance of the names does not affect the case of the prosecution. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the accused that the names of the culprits were told to the complainant by the police and the identification parade was also not conducted, in my opinion is not fatal to the case of the prosecution because the complainant had identified the culprits during the course of meeting before the occurrence. This view of the Court is also supported from a case reported as PLD 1985 Shariat Court AJK 01. Relevant observation lies at page 2 of the report, which reads as under:-- "S.5-Murder-sentence of Identification-person known to witness by face, features, voice and complexion-mere not knowing of name, of accused, held, not Sufficient to warrant test identification of such persons-in presence of knowledge of all material factors of identification, ignorance of one of factors like name, not important to discard testimony on such count."
16. Moreover, the complainant in his statement has also narrated the ages of the culprit and the colours of their dresses as well, hence, to the extent of identification of the culprits there is no doubt in the case of the prosecution.
17. So far as the lodging of FIR is concerned, the occurrence took place on 05.04.2005 at about 11:00 pm and the police station is about 121km away from the site, hence, lodging of FIR at 2:00 am is well in time.
18. As far the objection regarding signature of the complainant on the FIR is concerned, the same is also devoid of any force because the complainant had signed on his statement Exh.PG on the basis of which the FIR was lodged. Moreover, during trial, the complainant owned his signatures on Exh.PG and PG/1 and also supported the contents of the FIR.
19. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant made improvement in his statement before the Court to the extent of the names of the accused-persons and also stated that these names have been told him by the police. The complainant, in his statement did not opt to tell lie, rather, uttered before the Court, whatever was the truth.
20. As stated above that at the time of occurrence the complainant was sufficiently acquainted with the faces, features etc. Of the culprits as they were on the site with open faces and later on the complainant also got the knowledge of their names hence, his statement that Husnain Abbas has fired at Allah Ditta deceased is sufficient to acknowledge the culprit as the principal offender.
21. The allegation against Husnain Abbas/convict-appellant also stood proved by the initial report, statement of the complainant as well as other corroborative and circumstantial evidence which also includes the recovery of SMG and other articles from the possession of convict-appellant. The crime weapon was also recovered from the said convict and the empties recovered from the site of occurrence, when sent to the Weapons Expert. He also verified that the bullets were fired by the same pistol i.e. 30-bore. Other articles belonging to the deceased including his shirt, paint, socks, belt and blood stained shoes are also supportive to the version of the prosecution. All the recovered articles; empties, pouch, torch, mike etc. Were identified by the witnesses of the recoveries before the Court which also strengthen the prosecution story. However, minor discrepancies in the statements of complainant and the P.Ws. Do not constitute any sufficient cause to discard the whole evidence.
22. It may be mentioned here that the appellant Mst. Inayat Bibi, widow of deceased Allah Ditta, filed an Appeal No.19/2006 against the impugned judgment on 15.03.2006. During pendency of the appeal, she filed an application for withdrawal of appeal to the extent of acquitted/respondent Aziz and stated that she does not want to press the aforesaid appeal. The statement of counsel for appellant, Mst. Inayat Bibi was also recorded for withdrawal of the appeal. It may also be mentioned here that the prosecution did not prove its case to the extent of the aforesaid accused and he. Was rightly acquitted by the trial Court thus, the judgment to his extent is maintained.
23. So far as the conviction of the convict appellant under Section 396 APC is concerned, as observed above, the offence falls within the ambit of section 392 APC as well as 302(c) APC, therefore, we are of the view that the sentence awarded to the convict/appellant merits modification.
24. In view of above, while accepting the Appeal No.22/06 filed on behalf of Husnain Abbas, convict-appellant, the impugned judgment merits modification in terms that the convict appellant is awarded 14 years, imprisonment in the offence under Section 302(c), whereas, the convict is also awarded 10 years R.I. In the offence under Section 392. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The convict appellant will also be entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As he has undergone about 10 years of the sentence, already.
25. The summary of the above conclusion is as follows:-
1. Appeal No.48 of 2006 titled "Husnain Abbas v. Muhammad Sharif etc." stands accepted partly and resultantly, the impugned judgment to the extent of conviction under section 396,APC is set-aside and the convict-appellant is awarded sentence as under:-
(a) 14 years R.I. In the offence under section 302(2), APC.
(b) 10 years imprisonment in the offence under section 392,APC.
(c) The other sentences awarded to the convict.- appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact.
2. Appeal No.22/2006 titled "Mohammad Sharif v. Muhammad Aziz and another", Appeal No.21/2006 titled "Muhammad Sharif v. Husnain Abbas and another" stand dismissed for having no substance.
3. Appeal No. 19/2006 titled "Mst. Inayat Bibi v. Muhammad Aziz and others" also stands dismissed for having been withdrawn and on merits as well. Order announced in the open Court. The file shall be consigned to record after due completion and sending back the record of the trial Court.