ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Ansar Ali, Muhammad Islam, Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Ilyas appellants were tried by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad in case FIR No.285/2010 dated 09.03.2010, under Sections 365-A, 392, 411, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad, who vide judgment dated 23.08.2010, convicted and sentenced them as under:-- (i)Under Section 365-A/34, P. P.C. read with Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to death each with forfeiture of their property.
(ii)Under Section 392, P. P.C. read with Section 34, P.P.C. to undergo 10-years R.I. each with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo 06-months S.I. each.
(iii)Under Section 411, P.P. C. read with Section 34, P.P. C. to undergo 03-years R.I. each.
2.Ansar Ali, Muhammad Islam, Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Ilyas appellants have challenged their conviction and sentences through the instant Criminal Appeal No.11-J of 2013, whereas the learned trial Court has sent a Reference under Section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentences awarded to the appellants, which has been numbered as Capital Sentence Reference No.59-T of 2010. Since, the above matters have arisen out of judgment dated 23.08.2010, therefore, we propose to decide the same together through this single judgment.
3.The occurrence in this case was reported to the police by Muhammad Iqbal complainant through written application (Ex.PA) wherein he narrated that he was running an embroidery factory at Jhumra Road, Faisalabad and was residing in house No.10, Street-A, Block Y, Madina Town, Faisalabad along with his family members and the family of his brother Muhammad Ishaq i.e. Sheraz Ahmad, Dawood Ahmad sons of Muhammad Ishaq. On the night falling in between 8th and 9th of March, 2010, the complainant reached his house at 01:15 a.m. (night) from his factory. He had just taken his dinner when all of a sudden an accused having height of 5 feet and 6/7 inches wearing Shalwar Qameez, armed with pistol entered his room and asked that if he made a noise, he would be done to death. Meanwhile, two other accused persons of tall \ height, wearing Shalwar Qameez, armed with pistols while taking his wife from kitchen on pistol point also entered the room. The two tall accused persons went to the room of the family of complainant's brother and also brought his brother, nephews and female members in his room. The accused tied all the above said persons with strings (azar band), which they took out from their bags. Then they looted ornaments consisting three sets of gold ear rings, a gold necklace, two gold bangles from female members of the complainant's family. They also took away gold ornaments of 20 tola from safe almirah consisting two sets of gold necklace, 6 gold bangles, four gold rings and an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- and snatched nine mobile phones consisting one mobile phone of Samsung and eight mobile phones of Nokia (different models) having SIMs No.0300-5158014, 0321-7336860, 0300-7227249, 03007602714, 0300-7995825, 0322-6267607 and 0321-7669989. After confining the family members of the complainant in one room, the accused forcibly took away his son Bilal Ahmad and nephew Sheraz Ahmad along with the looted property by boarding the abductees in his car bearing registration No.ADP/146 Sindh, Toyota Corolla with them. They while going stated that they would call after five days and further asked to arrange money for getting the abductees released. The accused could be identified if confronted.
4. After registration of FIR, the investigation of the case was conducted by Obaid-ur-Rehman S.I.
During investigation, the appellants were arrested and were put to the test of identification parade.
After completion of identification parade, the investigation was carried on, recoveries were affected and 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 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants on 22.06.2010, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses during trial before the learned trial Court.
Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) reiterated the facts mentioned in his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. and deposed regarding payment of ransom, identification of the appellants during identification parade as well as the recoveries effected from them. Sheraz Ahmad (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) are the abductees of this case. Muhammad Ashfaq head constable (PW-1) is the scribe of FIR (Ex.PA/1), Mehr Ihsan-ul-Haq (PW-2) conducted identification parade of the appellants, Ghulam Muhammad S.I. is also the witness of recoveries, while Obaid-ur- Rehman (PW-8) is the Investigating Officer. He stated about various steps taken by him during the course of investigation of this case.
5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants under Section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned trial Court. They professed their innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. They did not opt to get record their statements under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and did not produce any witness in their defence.
6.At the end of trial, after thrashing entire evidence and evaluating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective versions, the learned trial court found the prosecution's case against the appellants to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, this appeal and connected Capital Sentence Reference before us.
7.Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the appellants are not named in the FIR, they are absolutely innocent and have been implicated by the complainant and the abductees in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives; the appellants had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence and they have been made scapegoats by the police in connivance with the complainant and other witnesses only to show unwarranted efficiency; the prosecution evidence is highly discrepant and material improvements have been made by the complainant and the abductees in order to bring their statements in line with each other; the PWs are related inter-se and their depositions are absolutely tainted with malafides, so the conviction and sentences of the appellants cannot be maintained on the basis of their statements; the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of identification test to connect the appellants with the alleged offence, but that evidence is not worthy of credence and suffering from material defects; the identification parade was not only conducted in violation of prescribed law as well as the High Court Rules and Orders, but is also of no importance, because, the appellants were already shown to the witnesses; recoveries of ransom, gold ornaments, car and weapons were planted on the appellants only to strengthen the prosecution case and even otherwise, the recoveries were effected in clear violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. which made the factum of recoveries inconsequential; the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt; thus, the appeal be accepted and the appellants be acquitted of the charge.
8.On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the matter was reported to the police without any element of deliberation and consultation; it was a promptly lodged FIR, and the complainant has not named any person including the appellants as the culprits of the offence therein, which shows his bonafide of not involving any innocent person in this case; Sheraz Ahmad (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad (PW-5) were released by the appellants after receipt of huge ransom amount, which was later on recovered during investigation; apart from the recovery of ransom amount, the case of the prosecution gets corroboration from the identification of the appellants by the complainant Muhammad Iqbal (PW-3) as well as the abductees Sheraz Ahmad (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad (PW-5) during the course of their identification parade; the PWs had no grudge,enmity or malice against the appellants to falsely implicate them in this fearsome occurrence of robbery in the house of the complainant and then kidnapping his son and nephew for ransom; at the time of their arrest as well as during investigation, the gold ornaments, cash and the vehicle robbed by the appellants from the house of complainant along with the weapons of offence were also recovered by the Investigating Officer and the appellants were found fully involved in this case; the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants; there is no mitigating circumstance in this case, so the sentences of death awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court be maintained, appeal be dismissed and the Capital Sentence Reference be answered in affirmative.
9.We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have gone through the entire record with their able assistance.
10.The FIR (Ex.P.A/1) shows that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 8th and 9th of March, 2010 just after about 01:15 a.m. On gaining the knowledge of occurrence, Malik Muhammad Tariq Inspector/the then Station House Officer, Police Station Madina Town, Faisalabad (PW-6) reached at the spot.. along with other police officers/officials, where Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) submitted application (Ex.PA) before him, which he forwarded to the police station through Iftikhar Ahmad constable and on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PA/1) was chalked out by Muhammad Ashfaq head constable (PW1) on 09.03.2010 at 06:45 a.m. There is a delay of about five and half hours in lodging the FIR (Ex.PA/1), however, keeping in view the fact that nobody is named in FIR (Ex.PA/1) as the culprit of the offence, we are of the view that such delay is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as it has not been consumed by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW- 3) to firstly think over and consult about the matter and then involve anyone in this case.
11. Ocular evidence of the incident has been furnished by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5). We have examined the statements of above said prosecution witnesses with care and caution and observed that Muhammad Iqbal complainant while recording his statement before the learned trial Court as PW- 3 repeated the story mentioned in the FIR. In addition thereof, he stated that the appellants demand ransom of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the release of Sheraz Ahmad and Bilal Ahmad abductees, but due to his inability to afford this amount, the ransom was reduced to Rs.25,00,000/-, which he paid to Ansar Ali and Muhammad Iftikhar appellants at Dhudhiwala Rajbah on 14.03.2010 at 11:00 p.m. and on the same night at about 04:00 a.m. the abductees reached home. In order to support the version of Muhammad Iqbal complainant contained in FIR (Ex.PA/1) as well as in his statement before the learned trial Court as PW-3, Sheraz Ahmad and Bilal Ahmad abductees appeared before the learned trial Court and got recorded their statements as PW-4 and PW-5. They remained unison on each and every minor as well as material aspect of the case and did not allow the boat of prosecution to capsize. All these three witnesses i.e. Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) have emphatically explained the mode and manner in which Ansar Ali, Muhammad Islam and Muhammad Iftikhar entered in their house, looted gold ornaments, cash, mobile phones and then put Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) by force in the car of the complainant while leaving the house in order to extract ransom for their release. It also emerged on record during the statements of abductees Sheraz Ahmad (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad (PW-5) that Muhammad Ilyas appellant while armed with pistol was standing near the corner of street and he joined the remaining appellants from there. The abductees not only have successfully explained the mode and manner of their abduction, their detention as well as their release after the payment of ransom amount by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), but they also stood firm that appellants are the persons who committed this occurrence. The statements of Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW- 3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) are consistent with each other and all these PWs have fully supported the prosecution version. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but there is not even a single iota of conflict or contradiction between their statements recorded by the learned trial Court.
11.Having gone through the statements of Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5), we are quite confident to observe here that they had no enmity,malice or grudge against the appellants to entangle them falsely in this case.
Moreso, the defence has also not brought anything on record on the basis of which it can be construed that the appellants were implicated by the complainant and the abductees with some ulterior motive. Mere saying in air that the witnesses deposed against the appellants on the asking of the police does not have any impact on the credibility of the complainant and the abductees, who are the natural witnesses of the occurrence and had no reason to involve the appellants in such a heinous offence. Like-wise, relation of the witnesses with each other is also not a valid ground to discard their testimonies, which otherwise, inspire confidence. Hence, the evidence adduced by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) being trustworthy and reliable is believed by us.
12. Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) were released by the appellants during the night in between 14th and 15th of March, 2010 after receiving Rs.25,00,000/- as ransom from Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3). According to Obaid-ur-Rehman S.I./Investigating Officer (PW-8), the appellants were arrested on 02.04.2010 and were sent to judicial lock-up for the purpose of their identification parade on the very next day i.e. 03.04.2010.
The proceedings of the identification parade were conducted under the supervision of Mehr Ihsan- ul-Haq, the then Special Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad (PW-2). During the identification parade conducted on 15.04.2010, PW-2 arranged four lines consisting of 9 dummies of the same structure, size and physique in each line and the appellants were asked to sit in the lines at the places of their own choice. Thereafter, Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4), Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) and Daud Ahmad (given up) were asked turn by turn to identify the appellants. Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) and Daud Ahmad (given up) correctly identified Ansar Ali, Muhammad Islam and Muhammad Iftikhar, while Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) successfully identified all the appellants as the accused' who had committed the occurrence. So far as non-identification of Muhammad Ilyas appellant by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) and Daud Ahmad (given up) is concerned, we have observed that only Ansar Ali, Muhammad Islam and Muhammad Iftikhar appellant entered in the house, while Muhammad Ilyas appellant was guarding in the street and therefrom he boarded the car, in which the remaining appellants fled away along with both the abductees. The identification of the appellants during identification parade has provided sufficient corroboration to the ocular account furnished by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5).
13. Adverting to the recoveries, we have observed that at the time of their arrest on 02.04.2010, a pistol .30 bore (P15) along with four live bullets (P16/1-4) and cash Rs.16,000/- (P17/1-3 & 18) were recovered from Ansar Ali appellant vide memo. Ex.PR, pistol .30 bore (P19) along with five live bullets (P20/1-5) and cash Rs.10,000/- (P21/1-2) were recovered from Muhammad Iftikhar appellant vide memo. Ex.PS, pistol .30 bore (P22) along with five live bullets (P23/1-5) and cash Rs.17,000/- (P24/1-3 & 25/1-2) were recovered from Muhammad Ilyas appellant vide memo. Ex.PT. Similarly, pistol .30 bore (P26) along with six live bullets (P27/14) and cash Rs.10,000 (P28/1-2) were recovered from Muhammad Islam appellant vide memo. Ex.PU. Apart from the above recoveries, the car which the appellants took away from the house of complainant after putting Sheraz Ahmad and Bilal Ahmad abductees therein was also recovered from the appellants at the time of their arrest.
The car (P14) was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PQ and during search in the car, two number plates containing registration No.146/ADP (P29/1-2) and ornaments i.e. six gold bangles (P30/1-6), five gold rings (P31/1-5), two pairs of gold earrings (P32/1-4), one pair of gold "balian" (P33/1-2), one pair of gold tops (P34/1-2), one pair of silver tops (P35/1-2), one gold locket (P36), one gold "kunda" (P37) and one artificial bracelet (P38) were also recovered therefrom and the Investigating Officer took the same into possession vide memo. Ex.PV. The recovery of above articles as well as the car and its number plates from the possession of the appellants is proved through the statements of Ghulam Muhammad S.I. (PW-7) and Obaid-ur-Rehman S.I./Investigating Officer (PW-8). The car (P 14) and the gold ornaments recovered from the appellants were duly identified by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) and the identification memos in this regard are available on record as Ex.PC and Ex.PD respectively, which has established the active participation of the appellants in the instant occurrence and has strengthened the case of the prosecution against them.
14. The above recoveries were effected from the appellants at the time of their arrest. Thereafter, they were sent to judicial lock-up for identification parade and as already discussed above, they were correctly identified by the complainant and the abductees/victims during identification proceedings. After completion of the identification parade, Obaid-ur-Rehman S.I./1.O. (PW-8) summoned the appellants from jail and obtained their physical remand for the purpose of further investigation. During investigation, Muhammad Islam appellant got recovered mobile phone (P10) on his pointing out from his house vide memo (Ex.PL), while Muhammad Ansar appellant made disclosure and got recovered motorcycle (P11) on which he along with Muhammad Iftikhar came to receive ransom from Muhammad Iqbal complainant, vide memo Ex.PM and the Investigating Officer also recovered mobile phone (P12) on his pointing out vide memo. Ex.PN. Like-wise, Muhammad Iftikhar appellant led the Investigating Officer and the PWs to the recovery of one pair of gold rings (P13) vide memo. (Ex.PP) from his house. Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) and Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) are the witnesses of the above recoveries. They not only observed the proceedings of the recovery of above articles, but also identified the gold rings (P13) and mobile phones (P10 & P12) as the same, which the appellants robbed during the occurrence.
Apart from the above recoveries, the appellants also made disclosure and led the Investigating Officer as well as Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3) and Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) to the recovery of their respective shares from the amount of ransom. Muhammad Iftikhar appellant got recovered an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (P5/1-30) vide memo. Ex.PG, Muhammad Ansar got recovered Rs.5,00,000/- vide memo. Ex.PH, Muhammad Iqbal appellant got recovered Rs.2,35,000/- (P7/1-47) vide memo. Ex.PJ while Rs.2,50,000/- (P9/1-50) were recovered from Muhammad Islam appellant vide memo Ex.PK. All these recoveries were effected on the pointing out of the appellants from their houses and during trial, the same stood proved against them through the statements of Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahrnad abductee (PW-4) and Obaid-ur-Rehman S.I. (PW-8). Moreover, PW-3 also identified the recovered denomination currency notes as the same, which he paid to the abductors for the release of his nephew Sheraz Ahmad (PW-4) and son Bilal Ahmad (PW-5). The recovery of ransom amount, therefore, has provided great corroboration to the ocular account and is undoubtedly an incontrovertible piece of evidence against the appellants.
15.Now the last piece of evidence to be discussed by us is the place, where Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) were detained by the abductors during the days of their abduction. Both PW-4 and PW-5 were abducted by the appellants on 09.03.2010 and were set at liberty on 14.03.2010, which reflects that they remained under illegal detention of the appellants for five days. Obaid-ur-Rehman S.I. (PW-8) stated before the learned trial Court that during interrogation, the appellants disclosed on 27.04.2010 that they could point out the place where the abductees were detained and accordingly the appellants led the Investigating Officer as well as the complainant and the abductees to the house, where they kept the abductees after the occurrence and in this regard, site plan of the place of their detention is available on record as Ex.PF/1, which shows that the appellants had taken that house on rent from one Liaqat Ali.
16. The nutshell of the above discussion is that Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) are consistent against the appellants on all material as well as minor points, their evidence inspired confidence and is worthy of reliance. They had no enmity, grudge,or malice against the appellants to falsely implicate them in this case. During investigation, they were found fully involved in this case by the Investigating Officer and during their identification parade, the PWs including Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) successfully identified them by specifying their roles during the occurrence. Furthermore, the appellants were also successfully identified by Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW-3), Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) during trial before the learned trial Court and the ocular account of the prosecution case is duly corroboration by the recovery of looted articles, car, weapons of offence and particularly the amount of ransom on the pointing out of the appellants.
17. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case from all angles, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants to maintain their conviction on the charges leveled against them. However, we have observed some discrepancies in the judgment of the learned trial Court regarding the conviction and sentences of the appellants. We find that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 302(b), P.P.C. by reading the same with the offence under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, although both are independent offences. Like-wise, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections 392, P.P.C. and 411, P.P.C. while reading the same with Section 34, P.P.C. We would like to observe here that every accused participating in the occurrence of robbery is liable to be charged and if proved, convicted and sentenced only under Section 392, P.P.C. Like-wise, only the person from whom stolen or robed property is recovered can be convicted and sentenced under Section 411, P.P.C. and common intention does not exist in such situation, therefore, the learned trial Court has unnecessarily convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 34, P.P.C. These discrepancies being minor in nature can be cured by this Court while sitting in Appellate jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the instant case was registered in year 2009, so we do not feel it justified to remand the case in hand only to rectify the above discrepancy. Hence, while rectifying the above discrepancy, all the appellants are convicted by us separately 4on the charges of offences under Sections 365-A, 392, 411, P.P.C. and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
So far as the of sentences of the appellants are concerned, we are of the view that the question of quantum of sentence always requires utmost care and caution on the part of the Courts, as such decisions relate to the life of accused. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied to maintain the sentence of death awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellants. In the present case, we have observed that after receipt of ransom amount, Sheraz Ahmad abductee (PW-4) and Bilal Ahmad abductee (PW-5) were set at liberty by the appellants without causing any harm to them. We are also conscious of the fact that four persons have been sentenced to death for the abduction of two, so the sentence of death, in our judicial view seems too harsh and unjustified and in alternate the sentence of life imprisonment would definitely meet the ends of justice. It is well settled by now that the prosecution is obliged to exclude every mitigating circumstance from its case and once it fails to do so, the convicts can be awarded lesser punishment provided under the law. Law is also settled on the point that while deciding question of sentence, the accused are entitled to the benefit of every mitigating circumstance. In this regard, guidance can be sought from the case of "Sharafat Ali Khan v. The State" reported as (2010 SCM R 1205), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "In Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State (2007 SCMR 1413), while considering the penalty for an act of commission of qatl-e-amd it was observed "No doubt, normal penalty for an act of commission of qatl-e-amd provided under law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case. Reference in the context may also be made to Iftikhar Ahmad Khan vs. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCMR 502)."
18. We have also fortified the above view from the case of "Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Liaquat Ali and others" reported as (2014 SCM R 1034), wherein at pages 1043 and 1044, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to hold as under:-- "A single mitigating circumstance, available in a particular case, would be sufficient to put on guard the Judge not to award the penalty of death but life imprisonment. No clear guideline, in this regard can be laid down because facts and circumstances of one case differ from the other, however, it becomes the essential obligation of the Judge in awarding one or the other sentence to apply his judicial mind with a deep thought to the facts of a particular case. If the Judge/Judges entertain some doubt, albeit not sufficient for acquittal, judicial caution must be exercised to award the alternative sentence of life imprisonment, lest an innocent person might not be sent to the gallows. So it is better to respect the human life, as far as possible, rather to put it at end, by assessing the evidence, facts and circumstances of a particular murder case, under which it was committed.
In any case, if a single doubt or ground is available, creating reasonable doubt in the mind of Court/Judge to award death penalty or life imprisonment, it would be sufficient circumstances to adopt alternative course by awarding life imprisonment instead of death sentence."
19. For what has been discussed above, the sentence of death awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court is altered with imprisonment for life, which is also a legal sentence and the appellants are sentenced as under:-- Under Section 365-A, P.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life each with forfeiture of their properties.
Under Section 392, P.P.C. to undergo 10-years R.I. each with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in default of thereof to further undergo 06-months S.I. each.
Under Section 411, P.P.C. to undergo 03-years R.I. each.
Under Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to undergo imprisonment for life each.
All the sentences awarded to the appellants shall run concurrently and the benefit of Section 382- B, Cr.P.C. is also extended to them.
20. With the above modification in the conviction and sentences of the appellants, Criminal Appeal No.11-J of 2013 stands dismissed. The Capital Sentence Reference is answered in negative and sentence of death is not confirmed.