G. M. KOUREJO, J.---Muhammad Arif son of Wali-ur-Rehman aged about 22 years and Afsar Ali son of Sher Zaman aged about 20 years stood their trial in the Court of Additional ,Sessions Judge, Karachi, for offences under sections 302 and 307 read with 34, P. P. C., for having committed murder of deceased Muhammad son of Umar and for having made an attempt on the life of the complainant Ghulam Hussain in furtherance of their common intention. They both were convicted for the offences and for an offence under sections 302 read with 34, P. P. C. They were sentenced to death subject to confirmation of this Court. In addition each of them was to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 car in default to undergo R.I. For 3 years. The fine if recovered shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. For an offence under sections 307 read with 34, P. P. C. Each of them was sentenced to R.I. For a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs 2.000. In default of payment of fine each of them to undergo R.I. For a period of 2 years. Half of the fine if recovered shall be paid to the complainant Ghulam Hussain. Appellant Arif is further convicted for an offence under section 13-I5 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to suffer R I. For 3 years. It shall take effect if the death sentence is not confirmed. In case the death sentences are not confirmed sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrent with the sentences of imprisonment which may be awarded by this Court.
2. The convicts have challenged their convictions and sentences through the present appeals and we have also before us a reference from the Additional Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentences. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals preferred by the appellants and the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for confirmation.
3. The facts of the prosecution case Briefly stated are, that the complainant Ghulam Hussain and deceased Mohammad son of Umar both Kachi by caste were residents ct' Muhajar Colony, at Karachi. Deceased Muhammad was paternal cousin of the complainant Ghulam Hussain, Ghulam Hussain works in timber market. Whereas deceased Muhammad worked in Sonata market. On the day of incident, 15th April 1976, they, started from their houses to go to attend to their respective jobs. At about 7-30 a.m. They reached Bus Stop No. 4 but on account of heavy rush they went on Bus Stop No. 5 and waited for the bus. At about 7-45 a.m, the appellants Arif and Afsar All came there. Afsar Ali asked deceased Muhammad as to what was his intention, on which Mohammad said he had no intention and he was going to his work-. Afsar Ali took out a Chhuri from the right fold of his shalwar and the appellant Arif took out revolver from the right fold of his shalwar. Afsar All instigated Arif to fire on both the complainant Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad on which the appellant Arif started firing on both of them. Both Mohammad and Ghulam Hussain ran in order to save their lives. Muhammad on receiving fire-arm injuries ran for a short distance and then fell down. Ghulam Hussain received bullet shot on his right cheek and one bullet passed by his left ear.
Appellant Afsar Ali then caused Churri injuries to deceased Muhammad resulting in his death. The incident amongst others was witnessed by Sulfeman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh.
Ghulam Hussain ran direct to the Bal.Dia Police Station and lodged First Information Report after 20 minutes at 8-05 a m.
It is said that on 13th April 1975 at about 11-00 p.m. The appellants and deceased Muhammad who are residents of the same locality had fought as the appellants were roaming about which annoyed the deceased. P. W. Suleman son of Allah Dino alongwith others had intervened and separated them. On the following day he had brought about a settlement between them but it appears that the appellants still bore a grudge with the result that they attacked the appellants with revolver avid churn on the day of incident as stated above.
Saleh Mohammad S. H. O., Baldia Police Station recorded the First Information Report lodged by complainant Ghulam Hussain at 8-05 a.m. On 15th April 1976. He visited the wardat accompanied by com--plainat Ghulam Hussain and recorded the statements of P. Ws. Siddique son of Saleh and Sulleman son of Ibrahim who were present at the wardat. The dead body of the deceased Muhammad was lying on the spot. He secured 6 empties of -32 bore revolver and blood-stained earth from the place of the incident. He prepared mashirnama of the wardat vide Exh.
8. He also prepared inquest report on the dead body vide Exh.
9. He sent the dead body of' the deceased Muhammad through Police Constable Gulab Khan to the Medical Officer. Civil Hospital, Karachi for post-mortem examination. The blood-stained clothes and two bullets recovered front the dead body of the deceased were received by him from the Medical Officer Iqbal Ahmad he placed the same in safe custody. On the same day, 15th April 1976 at 3 p.m., he arrested appellant Arif at Bus Stop No. 4, Baldia Colony. He was carrying with him revolver of -32 bore and 10 live cartridges 6 of which were loaded in the revolver. He secured the same on his personal search and mashirnama was prepared to presence of mashir Abdul Karim and Abdullah vine Exh.
11. On the same day he secured the blood-stained clothes from the person of Ghulam Hussain vide Exh.
19. On 16th April 1976 at 6-00 p. m. He arrested appellant Afsar Ali from Madina Colony vide Mashirnama Exh.
13. The appellant Afsar Ali voluntarily led the police party to Hub River Road and from the bushes near barbed wiring of P. A. F. Boundary line near Ali Shop in Anjam Colony pointed out blood-stained churri which was secured by the investigating officer vide mashirnama Exh. 1:1, prepared in presence of mashirs Ayoob and Khamiso, on "20 April 1976 he sent the revolver and 6 empties to the Ballistic Expert for examination and report. Ho received the Ballistic Expert vide Exh.
31. He sent the clothes of the complainant Ghulam Hussain and deceased Muhammad and blood-stained earth to the Chemical Analyser for report. He received the report vide Exh.
32. On completion the investigation he submitted challan of the appellants in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate oft 6th May, 1976.th
6. Post-mortem examination on the dead (body of deceased Mohammad was conducted by Dr. Iqbal Ahmad' on.,15th April 1970 at 3-45 p.m. And the following injuries were found lay him on external examination:
(1) Punctured wound left upper eye lid --" in diameter oval in shape with blackening and tatooing of the surrounding skin.
(2) Punctured wound right side abdomen --" in diameter oval in shape with inverted margin.
(3) Punctured wound right hip --" in diameter.
(4) Incised wound left side chest 2" from midline and 2" below the left nipple measuring 1" x --" into cavity deep oblique in direction.
According to him, all the above injuries were antemortem, injuries 1 to 3 were caused by a projectile fire-arm fired from a near distance, while injury No. 4 was caused by a sharp and pointed weapon like a knife or a dagger.
On the internal examination he found the following injuries :-- Under injury No. t left eye ball was damaged. There was a fracture in the anterior wall of arbiter fossa.
Under external Injury No. 4 there was an incised wound in the anterior side of left side heart measuring 1' x --" into chamber deep. Both sides of the heart were empty. As a result of external injury No. 2 the anterior abdominal muscles were damaged and the matellic head of the bullet was present in between the muscle of the anterior abdominal walls.
As a result of external Injury No. 3 the bullet was found in the right muscle of hip.
External injury No. 4 with its internal finding was individually suffi--cient to cause the death of the deceased. Injuries Nos. 1 to 4 collectively were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course.
The death was due to haemorrhage and shock as result of Injuries Nos. 1 and 4. The time of death was 7 to 9 hours prior to the post-mortem examination and the time of injuries prior to the post- mortem was near about the same.
7. Dr. Hamida Qureshi on 1 5th April 1976 examined the injured complainant Ghularo Hussain and found the following injuries on the person :-
(1) Incised wound below right ear (wound of entry) diameter J", inverted.
(2) Lacerated wound 1" x 1" (wound of exit) 2" in front of Injury No. 1 with suspected fracture of mandible.
On X-Ray examination no fracture was found and both the injuries were simple. Both the injuries were caused by fire-arm.
8. The convicts pleaded not guilty at the trial and denied all the allegations made against them, except that they have alleged that the prosecution witnesses have deposed against them on account of their relationship or friendship with the deceased and their enmity with them over past neighbourly disputes.
9. The death of the deceased Muhammad as a result of the injuries as disclosed by the medical evidence above-mentioned is not at all disputed. The only dispute is as to whether the present appellants caused the above-mentioned injuries to the deceased Muhammad and the complainant Ghulam Hussain in the manner and circumstances alleged by the prosecution which resulted in the death of the former and injuries to the latter making; the appellants liable for the offences for which they have been charged and convicted by the trial Court The prosecution in that respect has placed reliance on the ocular testimony of the complainant Ghulam Hussain and P. Ws. Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Sala.' The prosecution .Has further relied on the corroborative evidence of recoveries of the revolver from the appellant Arif and churri from the appellant Afsar Ali coupled with the report of Ballistic Expert the crime empties found from the varrdat having been fired from the revolver recovered from the appellant Arif, and also the report of the Chemical Analyser to the effect that the blood-stained churri, recovered from appellant Afsar Ali was stained with human blood. The prosecution has also relied on a further corroborative piece of evidence on the motive for the alleged crime the appellants and the deceased Mohammad having quarrelled only two days prior to the incident, the appellants roaming about in the locality at about 11-00 p.m. Which had annoyed the deceased resulting, in the quarrel and the dispute between them.
10. After examining the entire evidence brought on the record with the help of the learned counsel on both sides, and considering the several contentions raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel, Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that no justification is made out for our interference with the judgments of convictions and sentences passed against the appellants by the trial Court.
11. As already stated, the complainant Ghulam Hussain and the deceased Mohammad on the day of incident, -15th April 1976 at 7-45 a.m., reached at Bus Stop No. 5 as their was rush on the stop No. 4, as they had to go to attend to their respective jobs. While they were at Bus Stop No. 5 the appellants Arif and Afsar Ali appeared there. They asked deceased Muhammad as to what was his intention. He replied that he had no intention and he was going to attend to his work. Thereafter appellant Arif took out a revolver from. The fold of his shalwar and appellant Afsar Ali took out churri from the fold of his shalwar. Appellant Afsar Ali instigated Arif to fire at both the complainant Ghulam Hussain and deceased Mohammad. Appellant Arif fired revolver shots and both Mohammad and complainant Ghulam Hussain were injured. Deceased Muhammad and complainant Ghulam Hussain started running and Muhammad fell down after some distance on receiving bullet injuries whereas the complainant Ghulam Hussain ran direct to the Baldia Police Station which was situated at a distance of about 6 furlongs from the wardat. Appellant Afsar Ali then caused churri blows to deceased Mohammad on his chest, while he was fallen down resulting in his instantaneous death. Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh witnessed the incident. First Information Report was lodged at 8-05 a.m. By the complainant Ghulam Hussain with the result that Saleh Mohammad S. H. O., Baldia Police Station accompanied him to the wardat where dead body of deceased Muhammad was lying. P. Ws. Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh were also present at the wardat whose statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. Were recorded by Saleh Mohammad S. H. O. Thereafter inspecting the wardat. He then sent the dead body of Muhammad for post-mortem examination and injured Ghulam Hussain for his medical examination and carried out further investigation.
12. At the very outset, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel that the complainant Ghulam Hussain the injured and the first informant, and the eye-witness to the incident, and two other eye-witnesses to the incident Sulleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh are interested witnesses and their ocular testimony with regard to the incident is not dependable on which implicit reliance should be placed. What we find that the presence of the three eye--witnesses to the incident above-mentioned at the wardat at the time of the incident cannot be doubted, for the simple reason that the complainant Ghulam Hussain is himself injured having bullet injuries on his person and he has directly run to the Police Station which was at a distance of only six furlongs from the wardat and has lodged the First Information Report only after about 20 minutes after the incident, and, that the two other eye-witnesses to the incident Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh who were also waiting for the bus and saw the incident, were still available at the wardat when S. H. O. Saleh Muhammad reached there and he recorded their statements thereon the wardat at the time of the incident as is clear in the evidence of the three eye-witnesses to the incident and the S. H. O. Saleh Muhammad the Investigating Officer himself. What we further find that though the complainant Ghulam Hussain is admittedly paternal cousin of the deceased Muhammad, the two other, eye-witnesses to the incident Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh are not related either to the complainant Ghulam Hussain or to the deceased Muhammad, though all of them belong to the same locality. In that respect the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a sole admission from P. W. Muhammad Siddique son of Fakir Muhammad who acted only a rnashir of the recovery of the blood-stained clothes from the person of complainant Ghulam Hussain to the effect that Siddique son of Saleh and Suleman son of Ibrahim and he himself are relative of complainant Ghulam Hussain. What we find that in absence of any other indication in that respect in the evidence on the record, this was obviously a gratuitous admission which this witness had obviously made to favour the appellants as would otherwise also be clear from his statement he made at the trial. It would be further clear that throughout the evidence on the record there is nothing to the effect that the complainant Ghulam Hussain and the two other eye-witnesses to the incident, Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh, were in any manner inimical to the appellants. The solitary incident which occurred only two days before the incident of murder, deceased Muhammad and appellants having quarrelled over the appellant's roaming about in the locality obviously would not prompt the prosecution to falsely implicate the appellants in a serious offence as this. There is no other dispute or enmity alleged or suggested by the appellants either with the deceased or the complainant inured Ghulam Hussain, There is no dispute or enmity alleged against the eye- witnesses Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh. Accordingly neither the presence of the above-named eye-witnesses to the incident at the wardat is doubted, nor it is shown that they could be regarded as interested witnesses in the sense that they are related to the deceased and had a motive to falsely implicate the appellants. Their evidence should, therefore, be accepted unless it be shown that it suffers from inherent weaknesses or is improbable or false.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has assailed the ocular evidence on grounds ; firstly, that the names of the two eye-witnesses to the incident Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh do not appear in the deposition of complainant Ghulam Hussain recorded in the trial Court ; secondly, that the mention of inflicting of knife injury was not made by the complainant Ghulam Hussain in the First Information Report as well as his statement recorded by the trial Court; and thirdly that P. W. Suleman son of Ibrahim does not say that Siddique son of Saleh was present at the time of the incident at the wardat and that Siddique son of Saleh does not say that Suleman son of Ibrahim was also present there. As regards the first contention, there is consistent version that as soon as deceased Muhammad complainant Ghulam Hussain were fired at and they received fire-arm injuries they ran for their lives and that Muhammad fell down after short distances, whereas Ghulam Hussain ran direct to the Police Station. There is also evidence on the record that police station is only six furlongs from the wardat and the first information report was recorded only after 20 minutes after the incident. The first information report discloses the names of the two eye-witnesses Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh present at the wardat and that they witnessed the incident. We do not think, in case the two witnesses were not available on the wardat and had not seen the incident, it was possible in the situation stated above that their names were included in the first information report by the complainant Ghulam Hussain.
What is further clear that the Investigating Officer recorded their statements at the wardat as soon as he reached the wardat found two witnesses present there. It would, therefore appear that it was obviously an inadvertent omission on the part of the complainant Ghulam Hussain not to have mentioned the names of the two eye-witnesses to the incident in his statement recorded by the trial Court. As regards the second contention. It appears that it is equally without any substance, as stated above as soon as shots were fired at the deceased Muhammad and complainant Ghulam Hussain and they received injuries both ran for lives. Muhammad having received serious injuries fell down at some distance, whereas the injuries on the person of Ghulam Hussain being, simple, he ran direct to the poli:e station and that the churri injuries caused by the appellant Afsar Ali on chest of :the deceased Muhammad as he had fallen down, appear to have been caused when Ghulam Hussain had already ran to the Police Station confusion and he appears not to have seen the inflicting of churri injury by appellant Afsar Ali to the deceased Muhammad. It is, therefore, that he appears not to have mentioned the inflicting of churri injury to the deceased Muhammad in the First Informa--tion Report. His version before the trial Court is consistent to it in that respect, and there appears no material discrepancy or inconsistency in the evidence in that respect. As regards the third contention, P. W. Suleman son of Ibrahim has categorically stated that he doe; not know P.
W. Siddique son of Saleh and that he is not on visiting terms with him. Since he does not know Siddique son of Saleh. Siddique son of Saleh may also not be knowing him though they may be belonging to the same locality, The version in that respect, therefore, does not materially affect the version of the eye-witnesses to the incident we, therefore find no substance in these contentions and they do not adversely affect the ocular evidence implicating the appellants in the crime.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants ha; further contended that the ocular evidenceis contradicted by the medical evidence on the record inasmuch as the injuries received by the deceased as a result of revolver shots fired at him could cause his instataneous death and it must not have, been possible for him to run for a distance of about 35 yards as deposed by P. W.
Suleman son of Ibrahim, and that according to the medical evidence the shots fired at the deceased were from a short distance as the injuries have charring and tatooing marks ; whereas injuries on the person of Ghulam Hussain, appear to have been fired from a long distance as the injuries on his person did not bear charring or tatooing marks. As we find these contentions have also no force, as in the first place in the opinion of the Medical Officer P. W. Iqbal Ahmad as deposed by him, it was not possible for the deceased to run or even walk after the above- mentioned 4 injuries as the death of the deceased would have been instantaneous do account of external Injuries 1 and 4. The medical evidence does not say that Injuries Nos. 1 to 3 could cause instantaneous death to disable they deceased to walk or run, but it clearly says that the death of the deceased would have been instantaneous on account of external Injuries 1 and 4, which makes it clear that injury No. .4 which was the result of a churri injury was finally a fatal injury which must 'have disabled the deceased from further running or walking. In the second place the authoritative view by N. J. Moodi on Medical Jurisprudence, 19th Edition at page 255 clearly says that exceptional cases have been recorded in which the victims were able to perform some act as that of walking or climbing requiring some exertion, and survived for some hours or days after receiving very grave injuries, which would ordinarily have proved rapidly fatal. So far the second contention is concerned, as is already stated above Ghulam Hussain ran faster as it is clear that deceased Muhammad was fired in the first instance and that Ghulam Hussain obviously must have run for a longer distance before he must have been fired at resulting in the injuries to him and naturally he must have received the injuries from a longer distance and. Therefore, the injuries on his person has no blackening and charring marks, whereas on the person of deceased Muhammad clearly from a short distance as is disclosed by ocular as well as medical evidence had charring and tattooing marks. We, therefore, find no substance in the contentions raised in that respect and that very clearly the ocular testimony is not contradicted by the medical evidence on the record.
15. As disclosed above the ocular testimony of the complainant Ghulam Hussain and P. Ws.
Suleman son of Ibrahim and Siddique son of Saleh is highly reliable and worthy of credit and it is sufficient and satisfactory to connect the appellants with the alleged offences and the conviction recorded against them would be tell-founded on the basis of this ocular evidence alone.
16. However, corroboration is forthcoming from the evidence of recovery of 32 bore revolver and ten live cartridges, six of which were contained in the revolver from the appellant Arif and blood- stained churri from the appellant Afsar Ali. Abdul Karim mashir in those presence the appellant Arif was arrested by the Investigating Officer Saleh Mohammad and a .32 bore revolver containing live bullets recovered from his possession the same day of incident of murder has fully supported the prosecution version in that respect. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed his evidence on the grounds that he is a witness from the locality to which the deceased Muhammad and complainant Ghulam Hussain belong and that he is kachhi by caste and so the complainant Ghulam Hussain and the deceased Mohammad who were also Kachhis and that he picked up by the Investigating Officer to the manner as it he was waiting for the police party to arrive, near Buy Stop No. 4, Manina Colony, Muhajir Camp. Appellant Arif was admittedly arrested on the same day of the incident viz. 15th April 1976 at 3-00 p.m., and that the mashirnama of arrest discloses that the investigating Officer had received the spy information as to his whereabouts and, therefore, had to pick up mashirs from the place near the arrest of the appellant in order to search him at the time of his arrest. So far the contention that the mashirs Abdul Karim is the man of locality and is kachhi by caste, there, is nothing in the evidence that other persons except kachhis also reside there in the locality and that they were available to act as Mahias in the circumstances the arrest was effected and the recovery was made. Accordingly, there is nothing in the evidence to disbelieve the version of the recovery of the revolver and the live bullet recovered from the possession of the appellant Arif.
17. The appellant Afsar Ali has led the Police party to the recovery of blood-stained churri after his arrest in-between the Bus Stop Nos. 3 and 4 from the bushes at his pointation presence of mashirs Khamiso and Ayoob. P. W. Khamiso has been examined and he was fully supported the prosecution version. His version is consistent with that of Investigating Officer Saleh Mohammad who has affected the recovery. There is no indication in the evidence that P. W. Khamiso is an interested witness. We, therefore, find a reliable evidence on the record that .32 bore revolver and a blood- stained churri were recovered from the possession of the appellant Arif and Afsar Ali, respectively.
There is evidence on the record that 6 crime empties were found from the wardat, and they were secured by the Investigating Officer Saleh Muhammad only after about 20 minutes after the incident. The crime empties, the two bullets recovered from the dead body the revolver and the blood-stained churri were sent to the Ballistic Expert and the Chemical Analyser, respectively, in sealed parcels and the Ballistic Expert report and that of the Chemical Analyser reveal that the crime empties secured from the wardat and the two bullets recovered from the dead body were fired from the .32 bore revolver recovered from the appellant Arif and that the churri which was recovered, on the pointation of appellant Afsar Ali had human blood on it. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Investigating Officer Saleh Muhammad and the mashirs of recovery Abdul Karim and Khamiso have not stated that the above-mentioned articles were prepared into sealed parcels before they were despatched to the Ballistic Expert and the Chemical Analyser respectively, for examination and report. It is clear that the revolver and the crime empties were received by the Ballistic Expert on 20th April 1976 only after 5 days after the incident in sealed parcels as disclosed by the report of the Ballistic Expert vide o; Exh.
31. It would further clear from the Chemical Analyser's report vide Exh. 32 that the blood-stained churri and the other blood-stained articles were received by the Chemical Analyser on 23rd April 1976 in sealed parcels only after about 8 days of the incident. There is nothing in the evidence except the omission on part of the mashir and the Investigat--ing Officer to show that the Ballistic Expert and the Chemical Analyser had not received the above-mentioned articles duly prepared into sealed parcels. It is therefore obvious that the Investigating Officer and the mashir Inadvertently failed to say that the articles above-mentioned were 4prepared into sealed parcels as soon as they were recovered and, were sent to the Ballistic Expert and the Chemical Analyser in sealed parcels. In view of the circumstances, therefore, the omission does not adversely affect the prosecution case, in view of the satisfactory evidence on the record of the recovery and the use of the .32 bore revolver and the churri by the appellants Arif and Afsar Ali respectively, at the time of the incident resulting in injuries to the deceased Muhammad and the complainant Ghulam Hussain.
18. Another piece of valuable corroboration is of course provided by the appellants to have committed the crime. The prosecution has alleged that on 13th April, 1976 at 11-00 p.m. The two appellants were roaming about in the locality which was objected by the deceased Muhammad resulting in dispute between them which was witnessed by Suleman son of Allah Dino who had intervened alongwith Hashim and had also made an effort to settle their dispute on the following day, but it appears that the appellants still bore grudge against the deceased avenged it in his murder. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the motive was abandoned at the trial. But as is evident on the record, the complainant failed to mention it in his evidence as it appears inadvertently but the prosecution has not abandoned it. P. W. Suleman, son of Allah Dino who was the main witness to this incident has fully supported the version in that respect. This incident occurred only two days before the incident of murder and it appears to be the motive for which the offence was committed. The appellants have also admitted past neighbourly disputes between them and the deceased. Accordingly the contention raised on behalf of the appellants has no force. It would be clear, considering the entire facts and the circumstances of the case, that this motive mainly contributed to the incident of murder of the deceased Muhammad and attempt on the life of complainant injured Ghulam Hussain by the present appellants in the manner and the circum--stances stated above, in furtherance of their common intention.
19. In view of the above discussion, the ocular testimony alone is sufficient and satisfactory to connect the present appellants with the com-, mission of the offences. However, the corroboration is also available from the recovery of crime weapons from them and their use at the time of the incident as well as the motive to commit the offences. The prosecution has, therefore proved it, case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There appears no extenuating circumstances in their favour. The murder was, thus a cruel and wanton act, calling for the maximum penalty provided by law.
20. As a result we maintain the convictions and sentences passeol against the appellants and dismiss the appeals. We allow the reference) and confirm the death sentence passed against them.