' Abdul Sami Khan, J.--Through this criminal appeal under Section 410, Cr.P.C. Read with Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Zafar Hayat appellant has challenged the conviction and sentences awarded to him by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad in case FIR No, 325/2009 dated 2.7.2009 for the offences. Under Sections 302, 324, 34, PPC and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Cantt. Sargodha, vide judgment dated 16.10.2010, the same are reproduced as under:-- Under Section 311, PPC to undergo imprisonment for life as Ta'zir for committing murder of Mst.
Gulnaz. Under Section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs, 200,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 06-months S.I.
Under Section 324, PPC to undergo 10-years R.I. With fine of Rs, 100,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 06-months S.I.
Under Section 7(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to suffer 10 years R.I. For attempt to commit murder of Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate. He was also ordered to pay fine of Rs, 100000/-, in default whereof to suffer 6 months S.I.
Under Section 337-F(i), PPC to undergo 01-year R.I. With direction to pay Rs, 50,000/- as "Daman" to Malik Muhammad Iqbal injured. Till payment of amount of Daman, the convict would remain in jail as if he is sentenced to simple imprisonment.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case according to the statement (Ex.PA of Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant, recorded by Muhammad Afzaal S.I. Which was later on converted into FIR (Ex.PA/1) are that about four months prior to the occurrence, the complainant had contracted love marriage with Mst. Gulnaz and her parents got instituted by her a suit for dissolution of marriage against him in Sargodha. On 02.07.2009 at 10:45 a.m. Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant alongwith Malik Israr Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Shakeel and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate appeared in the Court of Sheikh Sajid Mehmood, Judge Family Court, Sargodha, whereas his brothers in law Zafar Hayat and Ghulam Shabbir alongwith Mst. Gulnaz, wife of the complainant, were also present in the Court. Mst. Gulnaz made statement before the Court that instead of her parents she wants to go with the complainant. Due to this statement of Mst. Gulnaz, the Zafar Hayat and Ghulam Shabbir brought out their pistols, hidden in their pants "shalwar" and started firing inside the Court. Zafar Hayat made, straight fire, hitting Gulnaz on back side of her head, whereas, Malik Muhammad Iqbal sustained injuries on his right armpit and right shoulder and they both fell on earth. Both the injured were shifted to District Headquarter Hospital in police van, but Mst. Gulnaz succumbed to the injuries and Malik Muhammad Iqbal was admitted in the hospital.
3. After registration of FIR, the investigation of the case was conducted by Muhammad Afzaal S.I.
(PW-11). After completion of the investigation, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the learned trial Court. At the commencement of trial, after observing legal formalities, learned trial Court framed charge against the accused on 25.08.2009, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as fourteen witnesses during trial before the learned trial Court. Ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9), Israr Ahmad eye-witness (PW-10) and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12). They supported the prosecution version. Muhammad Afzaal Inspector (PW-11) testified about the investigation conducted by him. Medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Khalil Ahmad (PW,.2) and Lady Dr. Sumaira Mehdi (PW-4). Dr. Khalil Ahmad (PW-2) medically examined Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/ injured (PW-12) and lady Dr. Sumaira Mehdi (PW-4) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Gulnaz deceased. Ghulam Abbas constable (PW-7) is the witness of recovery of weapon of offence. Rest of the prosecution witnesses, more or less are formal in nature. After placing on record the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PM), report of Serologist (Ex.PN) and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P0), the prosecution closed its evidence.
4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Of the appellant was recorded by the learned trial Court. He professed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. He did not opt to get record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not produce any witness in his defence.
5. On completion of the trials after hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and evaluating the evidence brought on the surface of record by the prosecution as well as the defence in support of their respective versions, the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above, however, through the same judgment, Ghulam Shabbir co-accused was acquitted of the charge by the learned trial Court.
6. Today, the learned counsel for the appellant has sent a written request for adjournment, but considering the fact that the matter in hand relates to year 2010 and considerable time of almost five years has already elapsed, therefore, further adjournment is unjustified and the request for adjournment on behalf of the appellant is accordingly declined. Mr. Usman Naseem, Advocate is appointed as defence counsel at State expense and after affording sufficient time to prepare this case, he has been directed to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant. Learned defence counsel, in support of this appeal, submits that a totally false case has been registered against the appellant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. The judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is the result of misreading of evidence as well as surmises and conjectures and that is also against the law and facts of the case. Learned counsel further contends that co-accused of the appellant namely Ghulam Shabbir was acquitted by the learned trial Court and the judgment of acquittal to their extent has attained finality, thus, the evidence which has been disbelieved to the extent of acquitted co-accused cannot be believed to the extent of the appellant unless and until there is strong corroboration which is very much lacking in this case. The PWs are interested and they are also inimical towards the appellant, which makes their depositions unreliable. As a matter of fact, Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant himself murdered Mst. Gulnaz deceased and then in order to save his skin, he has implicated the appellant. There are material contradictions in the statements of PWs and they made dishonest improvements in their statements in order to make the prosecution case in line with medical evidence. Mst. Gulnaz deceased was not a legally wedded wife of the complainant as he failed to prove the factum of his marriage with her during the trial, therefore, no question of making statement by the deceased in favour of the complainant arises in this situation. The story of prosecution was tainted with mala fide and the evidence produced by the prosecution suffers from material irregularities. The recovery pistol .30 bore has been planted upon the appellant in order to strengthen the prosecution case, even otherwise, there is glaring violation of Section 103, Cr.P.C. And such recovery has got no value in the eyes of law.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and the evidence so produced is not confidence- inspiring and is not worthy of credence, therefore, the appellant deserve clean acquittal.
7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned District Public Prosecutor for the State maintain in unison that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt to the hilt. The witnesses were independent and natural, who had no previous enmity, ill will or grudge to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case by letting off the real culprit. The FIR was got lodged with sufficient promptitude. It was daylight occurrence, parties were known to each other and there was no chance of mistaken identity of the appellant. The appellant is named in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of firing at the deceased Mst. Gulnaz as well as Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured is attributed to him therein. The role attributed to the appellant is borne out from the post-mortem report of the deceased and Medico legal Certificate of the injured PW. The presence of the complainant, eye-witnesses and the appellant at the spot at the time of occurrence is admitted. All the prosecution witnesses are consistent on each and every material point. The minor contradictions in the statements of the PWs are not fatal to the prosecution's case. The medical evidence is in line with the ocular account, which is also strongly corroborated by evidence of recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P0). The defence plea raised by the appellant being an after thought story was rightly discarded by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of qatl-i-amd, but has wrongly convicted u/S. 311, PPC and withheld the normal penalty of death on the ground that some heirs of the deceased had compromised with the appellant whereas according to the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of Ta'zir, partial compromise cannot be a ground for lesser substence. It has, thus, been argued that the appellant be convicted and sentenced according to law.
8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examining the record with their able assistance, it has been observed by us that the occurrence took place on 02.07.2009 at 10:45 a.m. When Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) alongwith Muhammad Shakeel (given up), Israr Ahmad (PW-10) and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) appeared before the Court of Sheikh Sajid Mehmood, the then learned Judge Family Court, Sargodha in a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by Mst. Gulnaz deceased against him. According to FIR (Ex.PA/1), Mst.
Gulnaz deceased made statement before the Court that she wanted to reconcile the matter with the complainant (PW-9), which infuriated Zafar Hayat appellant to fire-at her and the injuries were also caused to Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12). After the occurrence, Mst. Gulnaz and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) were taken to District Headquarter Hospital, Sargodha, where Mst. Gulnaz succumbed to the injuries, while Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) was admitted in the hospital for, his medical treatment. Gaining the knowledge of occurrence, Muhammad Afzaal S.I. (PW-11) reached at the District Headquarter Hospital, Sargodha where he recorded the statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. (Ex.PA) of Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) and sent the same to the police station for registration of FIR. Consequently, FIR (Ex.PA/1) was chalked out on the same day at 01:00 p.m. At Police Station Cantt. Sargodha, which is situated at a distance of half kilometer from the place of occurrence. Although the FIR (Ex.PA/1) was lodged after the elapse of two hours and fifteen minutes, yet keeping in mind the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the view that this is a case of promptly lodged FIR, which rules out any chance of consultation or deliberation to falsely implicate the appellant in this case.
9. Some other imperative features of the case in hand are that the appellant is named in the FIR, which was lodged without consuming any considerable time and a specific role of causing firearm injuries at the person of Mst. Gulnaz has been attributed to him therein. As far as the date, time and place of occurrence as well as the presence of complainant, eye-witnesses and the appellant at the spot is concerned, the parties do not have any dispute over these aspects of the case, the same are admitted by both sides and the difference arises only on the mode and manner of happening of the occurrence as according to the version of Zafar Hayat appellant, Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) himself murdered Mst. Gulnaz and injured Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) and then made the appellant and his brother Ghulam Shabbir (since acquitted) scapegoats in order to save his neck. Since, it is the golden principle of law that the prosecution is obliged to prove its case beyond the shadow of any doubt and the accused may take thousand versions in his defence, hence, taking guidance from the above principle, firstly, we would like to evaluate the prosecution version in the light of material available on record.
10. The prosecution has tried to prove its case against Zafar Hayat appellant through the statements of witnesses namely Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9), Israr Ahmad eyewitness (PW-10) and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW12), medical evidence furnished by Dr. Khalil Ahmad (PW-2) and lady Dr. Sumaira Mehdi (PW-4), recovery of weapon of offence i.e, pistol .30 bore (P1) from the appellant, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PO) and lastly the evidence of motive. It has been observed by us that while appearing before the learned trial Court as PW-9, Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant leveled the allegations that Zafar Hayat appellant is the person, who fired at Mst. Gulnaz, which proved fatal to her life. In order to entangle Ghulam Shabbir (since acquitted), Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) exaggerated from his previous stance mentioned in FIR (Ex.PA/1) and attributed the injuries sustained by Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) to Ghulam Shabbir co-accused. The version of Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) could not get support from the statements of Israr Ahmad eye-witness (PW-10) and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12) to the extent of role attributed to Ghulam Shabbir co-accused, however, they have consistently supported his version to the extent of Zafar Hayat appellant. They deposed that Mst.
Gulnaz deceased and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12) sustained injuries at the hands of Zafar Hayat appellant. Apart from the above discrepancy, the benefit of which has already been extended to Ghulam Shabbir co-accused (since acquitted), all the above eye- witnesses remained obstinate regarding role of Zafar Hayat appellant in the present case. In spite of the fact that these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, the defence failed to shatter their credibility. Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) sustained injuries during the occurrence, he was absolutely an independent witness, having no relation with Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) and the defence does not claim that PW-12 had any malice, enmity or ulterior motive to depose falsely against the appellant. Being an injured person, Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12) was in a position to attribute his injuries to Ghulam Shabbir, real brother of the appellant, however, he did not implicate any innocent person and as such he has proved his bona fide. The testimony adduced by Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12) being aboveboard holds credence. We are conscious of the fact that Ahmad Shafi (PW-6) who was serving as Reader of the Court at the time of this occurrence while acknowledging the occurrence did not identify the appellant as the culprit of the offence. He was declared hostile by the learned trial Court on the request of learned Public Prosecutor, because, he made statement adverse to his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Recorded by the Investigating Officer. Since the appellant was arrested at the spot and at the time of his arrest, the weapon of offence was also recovered from him, therefore, failure of Ahmad Shafi (PW-6) to identify the appellant as the culprit of the offence does not cause any damage to prosecution's case to the extent of Zafar Hayat appellant. Even otherwise, the statement of Ahmad Shafi (PW-6) alone without supported by the surrounding circumstances cannot be permitted to smash the evidence of Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9), Israr Ahmad eye-witness (PW-10) and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12), who made consistent statements regarding involvement of Zafar Hayat appellant and the role played by him, hence, we do not find any reason to discard their testimony.
They have corroborated each other on all material aspects of the case and their evidence is not only straightforward, but the same also inspired our confidence.
11. Another crucial question arising out of the case in hand is that whether relationship of husband and wife existed between Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) and Mst. Gulnaz deceased, because, the parents of the deceased had already forgiven the appellant. In this regard, the version of Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) was strongly supported by all the witnesses of ocular account. Conversely, the defence vehemently denied any such relation between the complainant and the deceased, yet admitted that Mst. Gulnaz deceased had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9), which was fixed for pretrial reconciliation on the day of occurrence and this fact alone is sufficient to believe the version put forward by the complainant in FIR (Ex.PA/1) as well as in his statement made before the learned trial Court as PW-9.
12. Adverting to the medical evidence, the same has fully supported the ocular account furnished by the prosecution in the shape of statements of PW-9 Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant, PW-10 Israr Ahmad eye-witness and PW-12 Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured. The injuries mentioned in FIR (Ex.PA/1) on the person of Mst. Gulnaz deceased were duly observed by lady Dr. Sumaira Mehdi (PW-4) during her post-mortem examination. Similarly, Dr. Khalil Ahmad (PW-2) observed two injuries on the upper middle part of right shoulder and back lower part of right upper arm of Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12) during his medical examination.
Furthermore, the ocular evidence of the prosecution about the kind of weapon used during the occurrence and the time of incident as narrated by the eye-witnesses of the occurrence also fully tallied with the medical evidence.
13. As far as the recovery of pistol .30 bore (P1) alongwith two live bullets (P2/1-2) from the appellant is concerned, we have observed that the appellant was caught red handed at the spot and at the time of his arrest, Muhammad Afzaal S.I. (PW-11) recovered the above articles (P1 and P2/1-2) from him. On the same day, the Investigating Officer also collected a crime empty (P3) from the place of occurrence vide memo. Ex.PJ, which was later on found fired from pistol .30 bore (P1) recovered from the appellant vide memo. Ex.PG. In this regard, the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P0) has further strengthened the case of the prosecution and the same clearly connects the appellant with the commission of instant occurrence.
14. As already discussed above, it has established on record that Mst. Gulnaz deceased had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) which was fixed for pretrial reconciliation. Like-wise, Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9), Israr Ahmad eye-witness (PW-10) and Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate/injured (PW-12) have consistently spoken about the fact that as soon as Mst. Gulriaz made statement before the Judge Family Court to reconcile her matrimonial dispute with the complainant, Zafar Hayat appellant brought out his pistol .30 bore and fired at her. Thus, the reason behind the murder of Mst. Gulnaz deceased, advanced by Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) in the FIR (Ex.PA/1), has successfully been proved by the prosecution during the trial before the learned trial Court.
15. Now coming to the defence plea taken by the appellant, the same could not get support from any surrounding circumstance. The claim of the appellant is badly shattered from the fact that the deceased as well as injured were shifted to the hospital by Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) after the occurrence. It does not appeal to our minds that the complainant after injuring his wife and his counsel would himself take them to the hospital so as to save their lives instead of fleeing from the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the plea taken by the defence does not hold any force or substance so as to throw away the trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence of the eye-witness account. Even otherwise, the version of the prosecution when put in juxtaposition to the plea raised by the appellant appears more feasible and convincing.
16. After having considered this case from all angles, we are of the definiteview that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant beyong the shadow of doubt for the murder of Mst.
Gulnaz and for causing injuiries to Malik Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate (PW-12). However, the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment has vonvicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 311, PPC on the grounds that parents of Mst. Gulnaz deceased, namely, Muhammad Akram (father) and Hadayat Bibi (mother) had forgiven the appellant in the name of Almighty Allah and waived their right of Qisas and that the prosecution had failed to prove the factum of marriage between Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) and Mst. Gulnaz deceased. We have already held above that the factum of marriage between the complainant and the deceased is established on the record and so far as the second ground i.e, partial compromise is concerned, admittedly, it was not a case of Qisas falling under Section 302(a), PPC as the eye-witnesses had not undergone the test of "Tazkiya tul Shahood" before recording of their evidence, but it was acase falling under the Ta `zir. It has been repeatedly held by the Superior Courts of this country that in cases of Ta'zir, partial compromise effected with only some of the legal heirs cannot be used and is not sufficient to hold that the offence has been compromised, but compromise can be effected by all the legal heirs of the deceased u/S. 345(2), Cr.P.C. With the permission of the Court. The case reported as "Bashir Ahmad vs. The State and another" (2004 SCM R 236) is referred. For ready reference, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced here:- "Learned counsel has contended that if there are more than one Wali and anyone of them waives his right of Qisas as provided under Section 309, PPC or compounds the same under Section 310, PPC, the sentence of death cannot be executed. We have considered the contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the provisions referred to above are applicable only in cases of Qisas and not in the cases in which conviction and sentence is awarded as Tazir. It was hold in Muhammad Aslam v. Shaukat Ali 1997 SCM R 1307 that "where an accused person has been awarded sentence for murder as Ta'zir and not Qisas, the legal heirs cannot waive or accept Badal-i-Sulh." However, in view of the amendment made in Section 345(2), Cr.P.C., the sentence awarded for murder as Ta'zir can be compounded by all the legal heirs of the deceased with the permission of the Court. The forgiveness of one of the Wali of the deceased cannot help the appellant as he was tried, convicted and sentenced as ,. Ta'zir and not Qisas, therefore, the favour extended to the appellant who happened his daughter, would not save him from death penalty. "
17. Even in a recently pronounced judgment in Criminal Petition No, 568 of 2011 in case titled "Zahid Rehman vs. The State", the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to observe as under:-- "This Court has already declared that Section 309, PPC pertaining to waiver (Afw) and Section 310, PPC pertaining to compounding (Sulh) in cases of murder are relevant only to cases of Qisas and not to cases of Ta `zir and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Sh. Muhammad Aslam and another v. Shaukat Ali alias Shauka and others (1997 SCM R 1307), Niaz Ahmad v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 635) and Abdul Jabbar v. The State and others (2007 SCM R 1496). In the said cases, it had also been clarified by this Court that in case of Ta'zir the matter of compromise between the parties is governed and regulated by the provisions of Section 345(2), Cr.P.C. Read with Section 338-E, PPC. In the same cases it had further been explained and clarified by this Court that a partial compromise may be acceptable in cases of Qisas but a partial compromise is not acceptable in cases of Ta'zir. The cases of Manzoor Hussain and 4 others v. The State (1994 SCM R 1327), Muhammad Saleem v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 512), Muhammad Arshad alias Pappu v.
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 2003 SC 547), Niaz Ahmad v. The State (PLD 2003 SC 635), Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2003 SCM R 1067), Bashir Ahmad v. The State and another (2004 SCM R 236) and Khan Muhammad v. The State (2005 SCM R 599) also throw sufficient light on such aspects relating to the matter of compromise. It may be true that compounding of an offence falling in Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code is permissible under some conditions both in cases of Qisas as well as Ta `zir but at the same time it is equally true that such compounding is regulated by separate and distinct provisions and that such limited common ground between the two does not obliterate the clear distinction otherwise existing between the two separate legal regimes.
18. Under Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the decisions of the August Supreme Court are binding on all other Courts in Pakistan. The impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant having been passed in disregard of the dictums laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan is not sustainable in the eyes of law as in cases not falling under clause (a) of Section 302, PPC (Qisas) the conviction can be recorded as Ta'zir under Section 302(b), PPC. This patent discrepancy arisen out of the judgment of learned trial Court can be cured by this Court as it does not require reframing of charge against the appellant or recording of evidence. The instant case pertains to year 2009 and more than five years have already elapsed, so the remand of the case to the learned trial Court only for the purpose of rectifying the above discrepancy would not serve any beneficial purpose instead of causing more delay in disposal of appellant's case.
19. Now coming to the quantum of sentence of the appellant, the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life. Feeling satisfaction over the quantum of sentences, neither Muhammad Qadeer Akram complainant (PW-9) nor the State has preferred any petition seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the appellant. Even otherwise, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs and for the safe administration of justice, the sentence of imprisonment for life on the charges of committing murder of Mst. Gulnaz deceased and creating atmosphere of panic, terror, fear and insecurity appears justified.
20. As a result of what has been discussed above, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 311, PPC is set aside and in place of that, he is convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and taking into consideration the facts mentioned in Paragraph 19 of this judgment, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as Ta'zir with the direction to pay compensation amounting to Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand only) to the legal heirs of Mst. Gulnaz deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to further undergo 06- months S.I. The conviction and sentences of the appellant on the remaining charges i.e, under Section 324, PPC to undergo 10-years R.I, with fine of Rs, 100,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 06-months S.I. Under Section 337-F(i), PPC to undergo 01-year R.I. with direction to Pay Rs, 50,000/- as "Daman" to Malik Muhammad Iqbal injured (Till payment of amount of Daman, the convict would remain in jail as if he is sentenced to simple imprisonment) and under Section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs, 200,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo 06-months SI., conviction of the appellant under Section 7(c) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 alongwith sentence of imprisonment and fine are, however, maintained and upheld. All the sentences awarded to Zafar Hayat appellant shall run concurrently and the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also extended in his favour.
21. With the above modification in the conviction and sentences of the appellants, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed.