1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Leave to appeal was granted to Aftab Iqbal, the complainant, to examine his contention that in this case of double murder of his parents there being no proper extenuating or mitigating circumstance, the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of death passed on respondent No.1 by the trial Court to one of imprisonment for life.
2. The deceased Chaudhry Bashir Ahmad aged 55 years and his wife Mst. Hameeda aged 45 years were residents originally of the same village in Tehsil Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur where the respondent resided. About three years before the occurrence which took place on 10-12-1977, the deceased had brought the respondent from the village to Karachi when he was aged about 14 years for serving with them as their domestic servant. He had served them well for three years. No complaints were reported from either side, by the neighbours or even by the complainant. The deceased resided in Quarter No.58-F, Jehangir Road, Karachi. He was employed in the Supply and Food Department of the Central Government at Karachi. His son Aftab Iqbal, the complainant, was employed as Protocol Officer in the United Bank in one of the Branches at Karachi. Another son of Chaudhry Bashir Ahmad was employed as Preventive Officer in the Customs Department and was posted in Hub Chowki. There was another son Anwar who was also employed.
3. On the 10th of December, 1977, Aftab Iqbal, was the last to leave the house for his duty at 9-30 a.m.
4. Leaving his mother Mst. Hameeda alone in the house with the respondent. His other brothers and father had left the house earlier. At about 5-15 p.m. The appellant returned to the house from his duty in the company of Fazal Hussain (P.W.2) whom he detained for tea. He knocked at the door.
5. The respondent opened it. AS soon as Aftab Iqbal entered the house, a blow with an iron pipe (Exh.
6. 'O') was given to him by the respondent which fortunately, for him, fell on his neck causing an abrasion 4" x 4" on the left side. The cry made by Aftab Iqbal alerted Fazal Hussain (P.W.2) whereupon the respondent tried to run away with the iron pipe and a basket containing ornaments, cash and bullets. On entering the house further Aftab Iqbal found the dead bodies of his father and mother lying there. He raised an alarm. He ran after the respondent. Others from the neighbourhood were attracted and pursued the respondent and apprehended him with the iron pipe at a short distance from the house. Those in the forefront in arresting the respondent included Fidai Abbas (P.W.4) and Muhammad Akhtar Ali (P.W.5). The respondent admitted before them having similarly hit Mst. Hameeda at 11 a.m. And caused incised injuries on her body and to have attacked and murdered in the same manner Ch. Bashir Ahmed when he returned to the house at 3 p.m. He was tied with a rope and kept in the house, Mairaj (P.W.7) a motor mechanic was returning to his house when he saw a crowd in front of the quarter and on learning what had happened went to the Police Station Jamshed Quarters and made a report which was recorded in the daily diary by Syed Abid Hussain, S.I. (P.W.14) who immediately reached the spot and recorded a formal F.I.R.
7. On the statement made by Aftab Iqbal on which a case was registered by Muhammad Banaras, A.S.I. (P.W.12).
8. Syed Abid Hussain (P.W.14) sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination after preparing the injury statements and the inquest reports. From the basket which the respondent was carrying with him when he was running away from the spot, four gold bangles, one gold necklace, three packets of one rupee notes (in all Rs.300) and 420 bullets of 22 bore rifle were recovered. These were taken into possession alongwith the iron pipe recovered from the respondent vide Exh.8. The respondent was available at the spot tied with ropes. He was arrested formally and at his instance a blood- stained Chhuri (Exh. l), a blood-stained Chhura (Exh. J), a blood-stained Khurpa (Exh. K) and a rifle 22 were recovered from the flower bed. The respondent also led to the recovery of his blood- stained Shalwar (Exh. M) and Kurta (Exh. N) which were taken into possession. A blood-stained stone was also taken into possession from within the house.
9. The autopsy showed that Ch. Bashir Ahmad had a lacerated wound on the right parital region and six other incised wounds in the region of neck which had resulted his death. Mst. Hameeda had to lacerated wounds and seven incised wounds on her body. It appeared that the to deceased had in fact been butchered. Aftab Iqbal was also examined and an abrasion on left side of his neck 4" x 4" was found which, according to the doctor, could be caused by a Danda or an iron pipe or a stone.
10. The respondent admitted that he was a domestic servant in the house but denied to have committed the murders of Chaudhry Bashir Ahmad and his wife or to have attempted on the life of the appellant or to have made up his mind to murder every member of that family. He also denied to have committed robbery or to have removed the valuables of the deceased. He further denied the recoveries attributed to him. He alleged that the police had foisted the articles and their recovery on him and that he had been falsely implicated. However, he concluded by stating as follows-- "The only thing I have to say is that I was a by of 14 years of age when I came in service of the deceased. After stay of three years, the above incident took place and at that the I was a by of 17 years, I want justice."
11. The trial Court believed the entire prosecution evidence. The motive was held to be as stated by P.W.8 Feroze Din to finish the entire family because Chaudhry Bashir Ahmad had beaten him. The recovery of the basket with ornaments and cash proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court the robbery after finishing the family. The extra --judicial confession made before Aftab Iqbal, Fazal Hussain (P.W.2), Fidai Abbas (P.W.4) and Akhtar Ali (P.W.5) was also believed as also the attempt on the life of Aftab Iqbal (P.W.1). The recoveries at his instance were also accepted as corroborative evidence. The conviction was, therefore, recorded under section 302, P.P.C. (on to counts) and under section 307, P.P.C. No mitigating circumstance was found by the trial Court and hence he was sentenced to death under section 302, P.P.C. For committing double murder of Chaudhry Bashir Ahmad and Mst. Hameeda and it was directed that he be hanged till death. He was further sentenced under section 302, P.P.C. To pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to suffer R.I. For six months.
12. In case of payment of fine, a sum of Rs.3,000 was to be paid to the legal represent--tatives of the deceased as compensation. On conviction under section 307, P.P.C. The sentence of life imprisonment was awarded with no, order as to fine or compensation. In case the death sentence was not confirmed by the High Court, the trial Court ordered-that both the sentences were to run consecutively.
13. While seized of the criminal appeal filed by the respondent and a reference for confirmation of the death sentence, the High Court re-examined the entire evidence. Feroze Din (P.W.8) was disbelieved on account of material contradictions and improvements in his statement. The statements of Fidai Abbas (P.W.4) and Muhammad Akhtar Ali (P.W.5) with regard to apprehension of the respondent and the extra-judicial confession were accepted. The motive was not held fully established. The conviction of the respondent under section 302, P.P.C. (to counts) was upheld.
14. However, the sentence of death was not confirmed and it was substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment. The following is the operative part of the order:- "There was no enmity between the parties. The motive asserted has not been proved; no eye- witness is available, conviction is based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence corroborated by arrest, recovery and medical report and the accused is of a young age of about 18 years. Therefore, applying the principles of the afore cited judgments on the facts of the present case and taking into consideration the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. We reduce the sentence under section 302, P.P.C. To life imprisonment. We set aside sentence under section 307 , P . P . C .
15. And instead sentence the appellant for 6 months' R.I. Under section 323, P.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. With these modifications the appeal is dismissed. We refuse to confirm the death sentence."
16. Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo, the learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that it was a case of brutal and gruesome murder committed by a domestic servant who had been brought up and kept as a member of the family. It was committed for a base motive, namely, of committing theft of valuables finding the lady of the house alone. There was no mitigating circumstances appearing in evidence which could justify the awarding of a sentence other than that of death. In any case, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, an appropriate fine should have been imposed and compensation should have been awarded to the members of the family.
17. The trial Court did not charge the respondent for robbery, did not in framing the points for determination record any on the question of theft or robbery, came to the conclusion that "it has been proved un-rebutted that after committing the crime, the accused was taking away the basket containing cash and jewellery which he had stolen and made pre-arrangement to take, away the same after finishing the complainant's family" yet did not record his conviction for any such offence.
18. The motive advanced at the trial Court was one of committing robbery and robbery alone.
19. However, the circumstances in which the basket containing the valuables was recovered and the place from which it was recovered made it doubtful. What completely disproves this motive is the extra-judicial confession accepted by the trial Court as well as by the High Court as a correct disclosure of facts by the respondent immediately after apprehension. It made no mention of commission of theft or robbery or of removing the valuables as an object or even as an after though of the crime. On the contrary, it appeared from the extra-judicial confession that the respondent wanted to finish the entire family and that would also be consistent with the pattern of the crime in which after committing one murder the respondent waited for another inhabitant of the house to turn up and then attempted at the third as soon as he entered. Aftab Iqbal in his statement gave the impression that there was no cause of complaint on either side and nothing to arouse the respondent to such a vindictive step. However, both Fidai Abbas (P.W.4) and Akhtar Ali (P.W.5) have stated that the respondent had made a statement that he was fed up with the whole family and wanted to kill every one of them. .Both these witnesses at the same the stated that they did not hear of any complaint or grievance on either side. It is only Feroze Din (P.W.8) who stated that the respondent felt sore over the beating given to him by Chaudhry Bashir Ahmad and he wanted to avenge it. This is one of those cases where the motive set out by the prosecution was found to be not correct and what is more there was an effort on the part of the prosecution to suppress the real cause for the occurrence. A proper insight into the treatment and behaviour of Ch. Bashir Ahmad and other members of the family towards this by was not provided to make an objective assessm ent possible with regard to the degree of his implication and responsibility in the crime which undoubtedly he had, as held by both the Courts, committed.
20. On the question of sentence as imposed by the High Court, the attitude of this Court is usually one of restraint and caution, once it is found that the sentence awarded is a legal one. This is so because sentence seldom involves a question of law of general public importance and is essentially a discretionary process.
21. In the case of Shaheb Ali v. The State PLD 1970 SC 447 it was held that:- this Court is not a clearing house or a corrective forum to revise the sentences passed by the competent Courts in criminal cases. It is certainly not the function of this Court to interfere and tinker with legal sentences so awarded. However, if the sentence is found to have been measured fancifully in breach of recognised principles of natural justice, this Court, in the interest of justice and fair play, must intervene."
22. In a recent decision in Manzoor Ahmad v. The State PLD 1983 SC 197 after referring to a number of cases decided by this Court it was observed-- .
23. "Apart from these cases there are many reported and unreported judgments wherein on the failure of the motive asserted by the prosecution, benefit was given to the accused on a capital charge, in the matter of death sentence."
24. It was further observed that-- "In the matter of sentence also although there seems to be fairly established practice; that failure of motive asserted by the prosecution reacts on the question of sentence, so as to reduce the same (on the assumption that crime might have been committed on account of such a motive which was relevant qua the accused to earn reduction of sentence) yet, in some exceptional cases, the failure of motive simpliciter was not considered as mitigating circumstance; because of other circumstances indicating that, notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive asserted by it, the crime was not committed on account of a laudable or any such motive due to which sentence could be reduced."
25. In another case of Khan Ahmed v. The State PLD 1982 SC 152 where the prosecution was found to have suppressed the real origin of the incident, the High Court was held justified in awarding the lesser sentence. In Khan Ahmad v. The State PLD 1982 SC 152 the same principle was recognised.
26. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court, in awarding the sentence of life imprisonment on a capital charge, had not committed violation of any principle of law which may attract intervention of this Court notwithstanding that some of the reasons given in its judgment e.g. The provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. May in the context be out of place.
27. In altering the conviction of the respondent to one under section 323, P.P.C. The High Court did not at on the evidence accepted by itself as trustworthy and adopted a yardstick viz. Of relating motive to the nature of injury and to it alone, irrespective of other considerations, which cannot be given legal recognition and approval. The extra-judicial confession which has been believed by the trial Court as well as by the High Court left no manner of doubt that the respondent wanted to deal squarely with Aftab Iqbal also but he could not get an opportunity of doing so on account of the first stroke becoming not so effective, the presence of Fazal Hussain and probably also on account of better matching of strength. In the extra-judicial confession he is attributed the remark that he failed to accomplish his object "due to mistake of his arm" (Fatal Hussain's statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.). Such evidence, including one of long wait for individual victims left no scope for altering the conviction of the respondent from one under section 307, P.P.C. To one under section 323, P.P.C. It could in any case be not done simply on the basis of injuries actually received by the appellant. In the circumstances and for the reasons given, we would accept this appeal to the extent that the conviction of the respondent awarded under section 307, P_P.C. By the trial Court shall stand restored. Sentence of 6 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default six months' R.I.
28. Would be appropriate in the circumstances and not life imprisonment as was ordered by the trial Court. The fine if recovered, shall be paid to the appellant as compensation. The sentence shall run concurrently with other sentences. Except for this modification, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
29. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Having gone through the main judgment, written by my learned brother Shafiur Rahman, J, to be delivered in this appeal, I, with respect, differ with him on the reasons for dismissing the appeal and maintaining the order of the Sind High Court, dated 28-6- 1983 whereby death sentence awarded to the accused/respondent was altered to imprisonment for life under section 302, P.P.C. On to counts.
2. Leave was granted by this Court per order, dated 12-9-1983 to consider the contention that in this case of double murder, there being no proper extenuating or mitigating circumstance, the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of death passed upon respondent No.1 by the trial Court, to one of imprisonment for life.
3. The to deceased i.e. Husband and wife namely Ch. Bashir Ahmad, an employee, of the Supply and Food Department, Central Government, and his wife Mst. Hameeda Begum were killed by the accused/ respondent No. l on 10-12-1977 who was working as their domestic servant. Report was lodged soon after the occurrence by the son of the deceased namely Aftab Iqbal appellant P.W.
30. Who was also attacked by the accused /respondent but he luckily escaped. Report Exh.No.54 reads as follows "I am living at the above address with my parents, sisters and brothers, and working in U.B.L. Head Office as Officer. Manzoor Ahmad son of Allah Ditta is the resident of Hasilpur, District Bahawalpur and is working in my house about 3 years, and also living with us. Today i.e. 10-12-1977 I went to my Office at about 9-30 hours (a.m.). My father also went before me. On my return to my house at about 5-00 p.m. Or 5-15 p.m. I found the door of my quarter locked. I blew the horn of my car but nobody opened the door. Then I rushed to the door and knocked. My servant Manzoor Ahmed opened the door and I entered into the room. I saw all the articles of the house lying on the bed. I also found that another door for entrance of the room was closed. As I entered the room, my servant Manzoor Ahmad ran out in the courtyard and came with an iron piece of pipe and attacked me with the same and hit me on the left side of my neck. Manzoor Ahmad ran away alongwith the pipe towards the courtyard. I followed him and when I reached courtyard I saw my mother and father lying in the courtyard in pool of blood in serious injured condition. I chased the accused who opened the door and ran away. Alarm was raised which attracted Baqar and other people of the Mohallah who caught the accused Manzoor Ahmad. I also observed that tetanus of my father and mother had been out and their dead bodies stained in blood. I am reporting that Manzoor Ahmad son of Allah Ditta has killed my parents."
4. Dr. Muhammad Abbas performed the post-mortem examination and following injuries were found by him on the body of Ch. Bashir Ahmad: (1)Incised wound on front and left side of neck 2" above the super asternal notch end 3" below the right angle of mandible and 2.1/2" below the left angle of mandible measuring 3" x 1" trachea deep and this injury was horizontal in direction.
31. (2)Incised wound just 1/4" above the external injury No.1 measuring 3" x 1/4" x skin deep horizontal in direction.
32. (3)Lacerated wound on right parital region 2" x 1/2" x bone deep. Injuries (4) to (7) were also incised wounds on different parts of the body in various dimensions.
33. In the opinion of the doctor injury No.1 was individually sufficient and all other injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. All injuries except injury No.3 appeared to have been caused with a sharp-edged weapon such as a knife, Chhuri or similar weapon of assault. Injury No.3 was caused with a hard blunt substance such as a Lathi, Danda or iron bar. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death of deceased Ch. Bashir was cardio respiratory failure due to haemorrhage and irreversible shock as a result of incised wound No. 1.
5. Dr. Muhammad Abbas also performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst.
34. Hameeda Begum and found the following injuries 'on her body: (1)Lacerated wound right parital region measuring 3" x 1" x bone deep.
35. (2)Lacerated wound forehead 1" x 1" x bone deep (3)Incised wound front and both sides of neck 6" x 2" trachea deep 3" above suprasternal notch end 2" from right ear lobule and 3" from left ear lobule. It was horizontal in direction.
36. Injuries (4) to (7) were also incised wounds of various dimensions while injury 8 was an incised wound left lumber region 1/2" x 1/2" cavity deep and injury 9 was similar wound just above left iliac fossal 1 x 1/2" x cavity deep. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 appeared to have been caused by a hard and blunt substance such as a Lathi or a Danda and injuries Nos.3 to 9 were caused by sharp edged weapon such as a knife, churry or a dagger or similar weapon. Injury No.8 alongwith its external findings individually was sufficient to cause the death of Mst. Hameeda in the ordinary course of nature whereas injuries Nos.3 and 7 were collectively sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death of Mst. Hameeda was cardio respiratory failure due to haemorrhage and irreversible shock as a result of stab wound on the abdomen.
6. At the trial Aftab Iqbal and Fazal Hussain were examined who gave the story as narrated in the foregoing paragraphs. The accused/respondent when arrested made extra-judicial confession in the presence of Aftab Iqbal, Fazal Hussain, Fidai Abbas and Akhtar Ali. The accused/ respondent was caught red-handed with iron rod, and stolen property was also recovered by lying near about.
37. Relying on this evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, who tried the accused/ respondent, convicted him of double murder and sentenced him to death as no mitigating circumstance had been shown by the accused/ respondent. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 out of which Rs.3,000 was ordered to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. The accused /respondent was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. For attempt on the life of Aftab Iqbal appellant and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide judgment dated 23- 10-1982. Against this judgment the accused/ respondent filed an appeal and Murder Reference was also placed before the learned High Court Judges for confirmation of death sentence.
38. Considering the nature of the case the learned Judges observed that it is based mainly on the circumstantial evidence there being no eye-witnesses and no previous enmity between the parties; motive asserted has not been proved and the accused is of a young age. The learned Judges considered that proper sentence in the case would be imprisonment for life. They referred to the judgment in State v. Dost Muhammad PLD 1962 Lah. 793 and an unreported judgment in Criminal Case No.298/1977 (Confirmation Case No.13 of 1978). Age of the accused was 19 years at the the of the incident and the learned Judges considered the confessional statement and recovery of some articles and altered the death sentence, awarded to the accused/ appellant, to life imprisonment. The learned Judge also referred to PLD 1983 SC 197 wherein it was observed that failure of motive asserted by the prosecution would have effect on the question of sentence. In the concluding paragraph of the impugned judgment the learned Judges observed: "There was no enmity between the parties. The motive asserted has not been proved; no eye- witness is available; conviction is based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence corroborated by arrest, recovery and medical report and the accused is of a young age of about 18 years. Therefore, applying the principles of the a forecited judgments on the facts of the present case and taking into consideration the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. We reduce the sentence under section 302, P.P.C. To life imprisonment. We set aside sentence under section 307, P.P.C. And instead sentence the appellant for 6 months R.I. Under section 323, P.P.C."
7. Injuries on the to deceased were caused at different hours of the day. Mst. Hameeda, lady of the house was, according to the doctor, killed with sharp-edged weapon giving her numerous stab wounds and serious injuries, cutting her throat right from the one end to the other. Ch. Bashir Ahmad deceased who was employed in the Supply and Food Department, must have returned home after his office hours and he to was mercilessly killed by the accused /respondent causing serious injuries like cutting his throat. According to the doctor there was incised wound on the front and left side of his neck 2" above the suprasternal notch and 3" below the right angle of mandible and 2.1/2" below the left angle of mandible measuring 3" x 1" trachea deep and this injury was horizontal in direction. On exploration of this injury thyroid cartilage was found cut into to pieces; posterior wall of trachea escaped; left external carotid artery was cut and left internal juglar vein was also found cut. Injury No.3 was stated to have been caused with a hard-blunt substance such as a Lathi, Danda or iron bar. Similarly Mrs. Hameeda had serious injuries including incised wound front and both sides of neck 6" x 2" trachea deep 3" above the suprasternal notch and 2" from right ear lobule and 3" from left ear lobule; horizontal in direction. In all as many as nine injuries including incised and lacerated wounds of various dimensions were found on her body. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were, according to the doctor, caused by hard and blunt substance like Lathi or Danda. It all goes to show that there was a wilful and calculated design to murder both the deceased who appeared to be unarmed and unaware of the attack. Nature of injuries would show that both the deceased were given blows on their heads with blunt weapons before they were caused injuries with knife or chhuri and their throats were cut deep as stated by the doctor. Thus, it would leave no scope for the opinion that the attack could have been sudden without premeditation or on the spur of the moment. Time of the assault on both the deceased also could be intervening by few hours and the accused/ respondent appears to have waited for some, the for his third would-be victim i.e. Aftab Iqbal. The same method was employed by the accused to in capaicitate him i.e. a blow with a heavy piece of pipe but the appellant luckily escaped.
8. It may also be mentioned here that Aftab Iqbal has given no motive for the crime in the F.I.R. In this statement he, however, mentioned that the accused was soon carrying a basket containing gold ornaments and some cash which he was holding, when he was being chased by the people of the locality. This basket was recovered by the Investigating Officer the moment he arrived at the spot. The version given by Aftab Iqbal is also supported by another disinterested witness namely Fazal Hussain. He had accompanied the complainant Aftab Iqbal to his house in order to drop him there. On reaching the house he immediately heard an alarm raised by the complainant and saw the accused /respondent running away from the house. According to him he had gone to the place of occurrence in a car and was invited for a cup of tea by Aftab Iqbal P.W. As the door was opened by the accused/ respondent from inside, he ran away inside the quarter and came with an iron rod and hit Aftab Iqbal on his head. (This iron rod was also recovered as Exh.M); that the accused/ respondent Manzoor Ahmad, after hitting Aftab Iqbal, ran away. While running he had a basket in his hand which fell from his hand when he was opening the main door of the quarter; that the accused was chased and was caught in the street and iron rod was snatched from him. On inquiry from the accused he admitted having killed Mst. Hameeda and after hitting her with an iron rod he cut of her neck with a Chhuri and that at about 3 p.m. When Ch. Bashir, father of the complainant, came to the house he was also hit with the iron rod and thereafter he killed him to with a knife or Chhuri. This statement cannot be ignored in the context of the present case. Fazal Hussain is absolutely disinterested witness and the version given by him would show that the accused had planned the murder of all the inmates of the house of the complainant. This also established that the motive for the crime was the theft of the gold ornaments and some cash. The factum of recovery of basket containing ornaments is also supported by to more dis-interested witnesses namely Fidai Abbas P.W.4 and Akhtar P.W.5. The other motive has been furnished by one of the witnesses namely Feroz Din P.W.8. This motive had not been put forward by the complainant or any of the P.Ws. Nor there is any mention of this motive by the accused /respondent in his extra- judicial confession.
9. Proof of motive or previous ill-will is not necessary to sustain a, conviction for murder in a case where a person is coolly and barbarously put to death or when the offender is caught red-handed.
39. Where the fact of murder has been clearly established, it is by no means incumbent on the prosecution to show what particular motive actuated the criminal's mind and induced him to commit the particular crime. Where, however, the prosecution puts forward a substantive case as to the motive for the crime, the evidence regarding motive has to be considered in order to fudge the probabilities.
10. In my opinion, therefore, the authorities cited in the impugned judgment are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In such a situation, the age of the accused would also not constitute a mitigating circumstance. A domestic servant has a certain amount of trust and reliability. Should he resolve to kill those who had faith and confidence in him, it would hardly be a reason to treat him at par with an accused who, under different circumstances of stress or strain, committee a crime. Age by itself is never considered a mitigating circumstance in such-like cases. Accordingly, I would accept the appeal, restore the death sentence and other sentences awarded to the accused /respondent by the learned trial Court.
40. ORDER OF THE COURT In accordance with the view of the majority the appeal is accepted to the extent that the conviction of the respondent awarded by the trial Court under section 307, P.P.C. Shall stand restored and a sentence of six years and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default six months' imprisonment is imposed therefore. The fine, if recovered, shall be paid as compensation to the appellant. This sentence shall run concurrently with other sentence. In other respects the appeal stands dismissed,