AHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, J.--These two appeals are against the judgment of 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, dated 5-5-1985, whereby in Sessions Case No.262 of 1976, he convicted both the appellants under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced appellant, Gulab, to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000. He sentenced appellant, Chutto, to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to further undergo R.I. For six months. He further ordered the appellants to pay Rs.3,000 each as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Out of this compensation Rs.2,000 were to be paid to the heirs of each of deceased. In case of failure to pay compensation the appellants were ordered to undergo further R.I. For six months. Appellant, Gulab, was further convicted under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by same judgment in Sessions Case No.129 of 1981, and sentenced to undergo R.I. For two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or in case of default to further undergo R.I. For six months. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, has also referred the case for confirmation of death sentence passed against appellant, Gulab.
2. The prosecution case in brief is, that there is old enmity between the parties resulting in murders and counter-murders. About ten months prior to the incident, Ghulam Nabi and Gul Hassan were murdered, in which appellant, Gulab, had lodged F.I.R. Against Lal Khan, deceased, ShahNawaz, deceased, Ali Murad P.W., Shah Baig and others. On 26-4-1981, deceased Ali Murad, Lal Khan, Shah Nawaz, complainant, Ramzan, P.Ws., Shah Baig and Sawan, after attending the Sessions Court at Dadu in the said murder case, were returning back to their village when they got down at Mehar from the bus to make purchases at about 12-45 p.m. Complainant, Ramzan, P.Ws. Shah Baig and Sawan were going ahead followed by deceased Lal Khan, Ali Murad and Shah Nawaz. When they reached in front of Habib Bank, the complainant and the witnesses heard challenges and whenst they looked behind, the saw present appellants Gulab and Chutto alongwith their brothers, absconding accused Peeral and Hassan. Appellant, Guiab, was armed with revolver and rest were armed with hatchets. Appellant, Gulab, fired at deceased Ali Murad which hit him. Deceased, Ali Murad, gave hatchet blow to appellant. Gulab, on his ear, whereupon appellant, Gulab, again fired at deceased, Ali Murad, who fell down and absconding accused Ali Hassan gave him hatchet blow on his neck. Appellant, Gulab, also fired at deceased Lal Khan, who fell down and appellant, Chutto, gave him hatchet blows on his neck and other parts of the body. Appellant, Gulab, again fired at deceased, Lal Khan. Absconding accused. Ali Hassan and Peeral, gave hatchet blows to deceased, Shah Nawaz. The appellants and the absconding accused then went away. Complainant and witnesses found all the three persons lying dead. Complainant, Ramzan, went and lodged complaint at Mehar Police Station on the same date at 1-00 p.m. Additional S.H.O., Mohammad Shah, registered the F.I.R. And proceeded to the scene of offence. The investigation was then taken over by Inspector, Noor All, who arrested the appellants and secured the revolver produced by appellant, Gulab, and the hatchet produced by appellant, Chutto, in presence of the Mashirs. The appellants were then challaned in the Court.
3. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 302 read with 34, P.P.C. Appellant, Gulab, pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance. In their statements they have denied the case of the prosecution in toto. They deny to have produced the revolver or hatchet before the police and alleged, that the witnesses are related inter se and are inimical to them. Appellant, Gulab, has explained the injury on his person by stating, that his nephew was cutting bubble tree when he accidentally hit him.
4. The case against the appellants mainly consists of ocular evidence of three witnesses namely, complainant Ramzan and P.Ws., Shah Baig and Sawan. The complainant has stated, the facts as related in the above prosecution story and .The two witnesses have fully supported him.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed evidence of these three eye-witnesses on the ground, that they are related inter se and are inimical to the appellants and that their evidence is in conflict with the medical evidence. To appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to examine medical evidence. The post-mortem examination of the three deceased was conducted by Dr. Rafique Ali. He has produced the post-mortem reports of all the three deceased as Exhs.10 to 12. He found the following external injuries on the person of each deceased.
DECEASED SHAH NAWAZ.
(1)An incised wound 25 c.m. x 6 c.m. x bone deep on the left side neck.
(2)An incised wound 18 c. m. x 10 c. m. x bone deep on the left shoulder on the back.
(3)An incised wound 18 c.m. x 8 c.m. x bone deep on the right shoulder on the back.
DECEASED LAL KHAN (1)An incised wound 20 c.m. x 3 c.m. x bone deep on the left side neck.
(2)Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the right side neck.
(3)One lacerated punctured wound 3/4 c.m. In diameter x bone deep on the right scapular region.
(4)One lacerated punctured wound 3/4 c.m. In diameter x bone deep on the left side neck on lower ribs and anteriorly.
DECEASED ALI MURAD.
(1)An incised wound 12 c.m. x 5 c.m. x bone deep on the anterior neck.
(2)One lacerated punctured wound 1 c.m. In diameter on the left temporal region.
6. He also examined appellant, Gulab, on 24-8-1981, and found the following injuries on his person.
(1)An incised wound 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. x cartilage deep cutting away the outer half left ear. Cut was black in colour.
(2)Incised wound 4 c.m. x -- c.m. x skin deep on left cheek
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that according to the prosecution case, appellant Gulab shot twice at deceased Ali Murad, whereas, according to the medical evidence, there is only one fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased. According to the medical officer, this injury was sufficient to cause death, and the deceased must have fallen down after receiving this injury. It is contended, that this medical evidence belies the prosecution evidence, that after being hit by the revolver fired by the appellant, Gulab, deceased Ali Murad gave hatchet blow to appellant, Gulab, whereupon appellant, Gulab, fired second time at him and he fell down.
8. The second discrepancy in the ocular evidence and in the medical evidence pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that according to the eye-witnesses, deceased, Ali Murad, caused only one hatchet injury to appellant Gulab, whereas, the medical evidence disclosed two injuries on the person. Of Gulab. The third discrepancy stressed is, that according to the prosecution evidence, appellant, Gulab, fired at the deceased with revolver, whereas the medical officer states, that he secured one pellet and one piece of pellet from the dead bodies of the two deceased persons, namely, Ali Murad and Lal Khan.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Imdad Ali Agha, argued, that the three eye- witnesses were going ahead of the deceased persons and, therefore, their back would be towards deceased persons and the appellants, as such they may or may not, have seen the first shot hit the deceased but presumed, that the first shot had hit deceased, Ali Murad, though in fact it appears to have missed deceased, Ali Murad. He argued, that such incidents take place so suddenly and so quickly that in fact, it is impossible for the witnesses to see and remember everything minutely. He further argued, that looking to the past history of the enmity leading to number of murders between the parties, even eye-witnesses would be afraid of their own lives. When they found the appellants and their accomplices armed with deadly weapons attacking the deceased persons, who were also very closely related to the witnesses.
10. It is an admitted fact, that about ten months prior to the incident. Gulam Nabi, brother of the present appellant, and their relative, Ghulam Hussain, were murdered and the deceased and the witnesses were facing trial for those murders. It is also admitted fact that about 5/7 years back, Ibrahim, brother of the complainant, was murdered and the present appellants, their father and absconding accused Peeral, were tried for the said murder. It is also admitted fact, that all the three eye-witnesses are very closely inter-related. Complainant. Ramzan, is son of deceased, Lal Khan, and nephew of deceased, Ali Murad. Deceased, Shah Nawaz, was also brother of complainant, Ramzan. P.W. Sawan is brother of complainant and P.W. Shah Baig is cousin of the complainant, and is also accused in the murder case of Ghulam Nabi, brother of the appellants.
The evidence of such witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of enmity and close relationship inter se, but will have to be scrutinized and considered with great caution and care and will require some corroboration.
11. The fact, that the deceased and the witnesses had attended the Sessions Court of Dadu and were returning from there, when they got down at Mehar, is not disputed. The F.I.R. Was lodged without any, delay within 15/20 minutes of the incident. There is no discrepancy in the case made out in F.I.R. And the depositions of the eye-witnesses in the Court. The presence of the two eye- witnesses, namely, Sawan and Shah Baig, at the spot, is also proved from the evidence of B A.S.I.P., Muhammad Shah, who recorded F.1.R. And proceeded to the scene of offence, where he examined P.Ws. Sawan and Shah Baig. He had denied the suggestion in the cross-examination, that P.Ws.
Ramzan, Shah Baig and Sawan, were not there viz. At the scene of offence, and that he called them from the village.
12. It may be noted, that three persons were given fatal injuries and the weapons used were hatchets and fire-arms, therefore, it cannot be disputed, that this act was committed by more than one person. The number of the deceased persons and number, of injuries on their persons does not make the number of accused persons look exaggerated. It is very rare, that actual culprits are substituted by innocent persons. Sometime, innocent persons are added alongwith the names of the actual culprits. However, this also does not appear probable in the instant case as it is not possible that the complainant, who must be too much upset and shocked after seeing his father, brother and uncle murdered in cold blood before his eyes, could cook up a case and implicate innocent person, within such short time as 15/20 minutes. It was a day time and the parties were too well known to one another to leave any room for mistaken identity. Admittedly, there is strong motive for commission of the murders by the appellants. As already pointed the brother of the complainant was murdered, and allegedly, the complainant party avenged this murder. The appellants party had yet to avenge the murder of their relatives. Both the parties are Khoso Balochis. In the Baloch Tribes it is question of- their pride and prestige to avenge such murders.
Howsoever we may condemn such false notion of pride and honour but it is a hard fact, which is manifested time and again.
13. As far the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence with regard to number of fire-arm injuries on the person of deceased, Ali Murad, the argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the State, does not appear to be without weight. Complainant, Ramzan, in his deposition has stated, that he heard challenges and revolver shot. Similarly, P.W. Shah Baig also states, that challenge was followed by revolver shot. This makes it clear, that the witnesses did not actually see the first revolver shot hit Ali Murad, but presumed, that it lied hit him. Under the circumstances of the case, this is not such a serious discrepancy, that would make their evidence uncredit --worthy. Dealing with such situation their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case reported in 1983 SCMR 1211 observed, that "in the trauma of the dramatic events occurring suddenly, it is natural for the Witnesses, who themselves may be apprehending harm in face of successive shots not to clearly observe the sequence with which the shots landed on the body of the deceased. However, they could certainly be in a position to say, who was shooting at the deceased." There appears to be no inconsistency in evidence of these witnesses as to who caused injuries to each of the deceased.
14. There is no inconsistency in their evidence, that shots were fired from the revolver by appellant, Gulab and in this respect they are also supported by the act that from the scene of offence, four empties of revolver bullets were recovered.
15. The witnesses state, that after first shot was fired by appellant Gulab, deceased, Ali Murad gave hatchet blow on the ear of appellant This is also corroborated from the fact that such injury was found the person of appellant Gulab, by medical officer. If these witness had not seen the incident, the complainant would not have mentions c3 this injury on the person of appellant Gulab in the F.I.R. The parties do not live within the same village and complainant could not hay F, collected information of this injury on the person of appellant Gulab, within such short period unless, he had seen the incident.
16. No doubt, the witnesses have stated, that deceased Ali Murad gave only one hatchet blow to the appellant, Gulab, whereas, medical evidence shows two injuries on his person. Both the injuries are in the same side of the body of appellant, Gulab, one on the ear and other on the cheek. May be that both the injuries have been caused by one blow as both injuries are so near to each other, or may be, as stated by P.W. Sawan, deceased Ali Murad threw hatchet at appellant, Gulab which hit him and consequently these two injuries were caused. It is also possible that, appellant Gulab who, was arrester after two days of incident, may have self-suffered the second injure which is of simple nature, to raise doubt against the prosecution case The fact that deceased Ali Murad was armed with hatchet and has beg in borne out from the fact that from scene of offence one blood-stains hatchet was secured near the body of the deceased All the three eye-witnesses state that deceased Ali Murad hit appellant Gulab with hatchet, which fact is also stated in the F.I.R. Which was lodged immediately after the incident. Even the appellant himself appears be conscious that injuries were caused to him by one blow as states in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That he received the injuries when while cutting the Bubbur tree; his nephew accidental hit him. It is not possible that the nephew could have accidentally hit appellant twice. It may also be pertinent to note that even his nephew has not been examined in defence.
17. Next we proceed to examine if there is any discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence with regard to the weapon used in the commission of the offence. The witnesses state that appellant Gulab had fired with revolver upon deceased Ali Murad and Lal Khas. The medical evidence shows that one pellet was recovered from the dead body of deceased Lal Khan and pieces of pellet were recovered from the body of deceased Ali Murad. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, that recovery of pellet and pieces of pellet shows that weapon used was not the revolver but either a shot gun a country-made pistol from which a cartridge containing pellets was fired. It is further contended, that if the revolver had been fired a bullet or pieces of bullet would have been recovered from the dead bodies.
18. Word pellet is defined in Oxford Universal Dictionary to mean "(1) any (small) globule, ball, or spherical body; a bolus, a pill, etc' (2) A ball usu. Of stone, used as missile during the 14th and 15th Centuries etc. Later a bullet; now applied to small shot''. Word "bullet" has been described in the same dictionary to mean "a small round ball, a cannon ball, a ball of lead etc. Used in fire-arms of small calibre, now often conical".
19. It may be pointed, that medical officer is not arms expert, who could differentiate the nice difference between the pellet and its pieces and a bullet and its pieces, From the evidence of medical officer alone. It cannot be definitely said that the injuries caused upon the deceased persons were result of firing of a cartridge and not from the bullet fired from the revolver. Apart from the medical evidence, there are other circumstances on record which also we have to consider. Injuries caused from a cartridge fired from gun are multiple wounds of entrance as a cartridge contains number of pellets but there is only one injury from one shot on deceased persons. Furthermore Mashirnama of the scene of offence Exh. P. 3 shows that 4 empties of revolver bullet were secured from the scene of offence. These empties were matches' with the revolver secured from the possession of appellant Gulab. The ballistic expert's report Exh. 13 shows that these empties matched with the empties prepared after firing from the revolver in question. For these reasons we cannot disbelieve the evidence of 3 prosecution witnesses, that the injuries were caused to the deceased persons by firing of revolver at them, only because according to medical officer the pieces of lead secured from the dead body were pellet and piece of pellet. We have already seen that there is little difference in the dictionary meaning of pellet and bullet.
20. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that incident took place in day time it the Bazar of a fairly big town like Meher opposite a bank, where armed guar, is always present and as such the incident would have been witnessed by persons like shopkeepers, hotelkeepers and armed guard etc. Whose presence there would be natural. He contends that none of these persons has been examined, therefore, inference should be drawn against the prosecution that had these natural witnesses been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution case.
The Courts especially Superior Courts have been taking note of this usual absence of such independent witnesses. Even in cases, where murder has taken place in broad daylight in small towns, big towns and cities like Karachi but no witness, who could be considered as natural witness, comes forward to give evidence. It may be appropriate to. Reproduce the observation made by the Supreme Court in case of Yaqoob Shah v . The State PLD 1976 SC 53. Their Lordships observed:- "About the main argument of learned counsel, that the petitioner's conviction rests entirely on the evidence of police officials and no "independent" witness has been produced in the case, although the incident has taken place during busy hours in the main Bazar, all that we need say is that this brings to a focus the tragedy of general apathy in our society and absence of sense of civic duty to the fellow beings. It is frequent experience of Criminal Courts, that many a gruesome tragedy is enacted, with scores of onlookers around, yet the assassin is allowed to operate without any let or hindrance and is allowed to escape from the scene, with impunity. Not only that. These "independent" onlookers are not even prepared to say in Court what they have seen and thereby risk animosity of the assassin or his partisans. It is a pity that it is not realized that this callousness is not only cowardly but is also in violation of the Islamic injunctions. Islam imposes a solemn duty upon its followers in unqualified terms to speak the truth even if there were conflict with their personal interest or the interest of their kith and kin. This indeed is one of the principal causes of delay in, decision of criminal cases. In this case, the conduct of Pordil Khan is in keeping with the general pattern of behaviour in the society. But that should scarcely be reason to doubt the veracity of the three police officials who appeared as the main witnesses to the incident."
21. We cannot only blame the public for this apathy. Apart from the traditional delay in the disposal of the cases where witnesses have to come to the Court time and again at their own expense and waste their 1 precious time, there is sense of insecurity amongst the public. They feel that the law enforcing agencies are not able to extend protection to them against such dare devil murderers who commit murder with impunity in towns and cities _ without any check. Even in the instant case in spite of the fact that fire-arm was used and 3 murders were committed in a big town like Meher, where police station is situate, the police did not come to the place of incident themselves, but they came only after the culprits had escaped and the complainants went to lodge report. It cannot be believed that the police would not have come to know about the incident immediately but it only indicates the apathy of police and lack of sense of duty on their part. There was no paucity of independent natural witnesses in the instant case. According to complainant Ramzan who admitted in the cross-examination, that there was Chowkidar of Habib Bank armed with gun stationed there and the I people had witnessed the incident but none came near and due to firing every body went to the shops. According to P.W. Shah Baig people were present in the Bazar and the hotels but as soon as incident took place the accused issued threats as the result of which shopkeepers, hotelkeepers started closing their hotels, shops and shifted away, so did the people present in the Bazar. P.W. S.H.O. Muhammad Shah frankly admitted in the cross-examination that he tried to record the statement of the shopkeepers adjoining the Wardat but none was prepared to give statement. Thus, in fact no appearance of independent witnesses in this case is nothing new or unusual for which any inference should be drawn against the prosecution under the prevailing circumstances.
22. However, as already pointed all the 3 eye-witnesses are related inter se, related to the deceased and there is admitted old enmity between there and the appellants. The rules of prudence and safe dispensation of justice require that their evidence should be corroborated by some other reliable evidence. The other evidence in this case is the alleged recovery of the revolver from the possession of appellant Gulab and recovery of hatchet from the possession of appellant Chatto. The r prosecution has examined Inspector of Police Noor Ali and Mashirs Sono and Sawan to prove the said recoveries. P.W. 8 Inspector Noor Ali states to have arrested appellant Chatto who surrendered at the instance of the Nekmards. He states that he led them to his village Dari and from Chapper of his house produced a blood-stained hatchet which was secured and sealed and such Mashirnama Exh. P.10 was prepared. Inspector Noor Ali 81SO stated that he arrested appellant Gulab on 24-4-1981 from his house, who voluntarily produced revolver of .32 bore from under a Chapper in his house. It contained one live bullet. The revolver was secured and sealed and such Mashirnama Exh. P.8 was prepared. P.W. Sono does not support the prosecution with respect to the recoveries from both the appellants. He admits his signatures on the Mashirnamas Exhs. P. 8 and P.
10 but states that their contents are not correct. He has admitted in cross-examination to the A.P.P.
That the appellants are his caste-fellows but denied that they are related to him or that he was not giving evidence against them on account of their approach. It may be noted that this witness has been examined or. 5-4-1983 viz. About two years of the incident. He is caste-fellow, of the appellants and the possibility that he was threatened or approached cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise as he admits his signatures on the Mashirnama, therefore, either he was party to the fabrication of false evidence against the appellants, or in the Court he has given false evidence. In either case, he is unworthy of any credit. The other Mashir P. W. Sono supports the prosecution case so far the recovery of the revolver from appellant Gulab is concerned but does not support the prosecution with respect to the recovery of hatchet from the possession of appellant Chatto. This witness is also caste-fellow of the appellants as well as of the complainant. We have already seen the reluctance of the people to give evidence against the murderers due to fear therefore, we have to see whether the evidence of Inspector of police Noor Ali is sufficient to prove the recoveries.
23. P.W. Noor Ali has stated about three recoveries. First recovery was the 4 empties of bullets from the scene of offence. On this recovery he is not supported by P.W. Sono but he is supported by Suhrab. However, his statement with regard to this recovery is not challenged in his cross- examination. With regard to recovery of revolver from appellant Gulab he is supported by Suhrab and not supported by Sono. As for the recovery of hatchet from the person of appellant is concerned he is not supported by both the Mashirs. In the cross-examination, he had denied the suggestion, that no recoveries were made from these appellants. It will be seen, that all the eye- witnesses as well as the Mashirs and the appellants are Khosas by caste, whereas only non-Khosa witnesses are the official witnesses including Inspector. Noor Ali: There is apparently no reason for Inspector Noor Ali to fabricate or depose false evidence against appellants. There is no suggestion in his cross---examination, that he used any coercive measures against the appellants or maltreated them or their womenfolk. The inability or difficulty of the police to get independent evidence has already been explained by the other Investigating Officer P.W'. Shah Muhammad.
Under the circumstances, if we disbelieve the Police Officer, only because some of the Mashirs are won over either by threats or persuasion, no culprit can be convicted. We see no reason to disbelieve P.W. Noor Ali and are of the opinion that the recoveries from the persons of appellants are properly proved by his evidence.
24. We have already seen that the ballistic expert's report shows that empties secured from the scene of offence matched with the empties prepared by firing from the revolver secured from appellant Gulab. Thus there is ample corroborative evidence apart from the ocular evidence against appellant, Gulab.
25. However, it is not clear from the evidence on record that the hatchet which was sent to the Chemical Analyser, was same that was secured from appellant Chatto. The prosecution evidence shows, that one bloodstained hatchet was also secured from the scene of offence and another was secured from Chatto but only one hatchet was sent to the Chemical Analyser and it was found to be blood-stained but there is no evidence to show that this hatchet was the one secured from the appellant chatto.
26. Thus, we are left with only ocular evidence against appellant Chatto. However we have to see whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to corroborate the ocular evidence for the purpose of conviction. It is often said that witnesses can speak lies by circumstances do not lie. In this case we have already seen that F.I.R. Was lodged within half an hour which contains the names of the appellants and attributes specific part and injuries to each culprit and also discloses the names of the eye-witnesses. It is observed by their Lordships in a case of Yaqoob Shah v. The State PLD 1976 SC 53 that "the report made within less than half an hour entirely eliminates possibility of falsification and false implication". We have also seen that number of injuries and that of the dead persons clearly indicates, that offence was committed by more than one person. We have also seen, that the injuries described in the F.I.R. On the person of appellant Gulab is proved by the medical evidence. We have also seen that offence was committed during day time and the parties were two well-known to one another to leave any room for mistaken identity. These circumstances in our opinion sufficiently corroborate ocular evidence of three eye-witnesses specially when there is no material contradiction in their testimonies and the case set up in the F.I.R.
27. Mr. Usman Ghani raided the alternate plea that appellant Gulab had acted in self-defence. He concedes that appellant Gulab had neither raised this plea in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Nor was any such suggestion made to any of the witnesses in the cross-examination. He however contends, that the evidence on record shows, that deceased Ali Murad had first attacked appellant Gulab with hatchet and caused him grievous injury on his ear, before the appellant fired at him. We are afraid that we cannot agree with this plea of the learned counsel. The evidence on record clearly shows, that it was appellant Gulab who had first fired at deceased Ali Murad, which shot appears to have missed its target and then Ali Murad obviously in self-defence hit the appellant with hatchet, though even then deceased failed to save himself or his two other deceased companions. The evidence also shows, that appellant Gulab alongwith 3 accomplices had come armed with revolver and hatchets. Though the complainant party were more in number viz. 6 against 4, still only one of them viz Ali Murad was armed with hatchet. It is not possible for us to believe, that they would have taken the lead by attacking the appellants and their accomplices.
Furthermore, the complainant party apparently had no motive to attack the accused party as they had already avenged their murder by allegedly killing two persons of accused party, for which they were facing the trial. The appellants had stronger motive to attack the complainant party as they had yet to avenge murders of their brother and cousin. The fact that 3 persons were murdered with multiple injuries caused by hatchet and fire-arms also does not support the plea of self-defence, which we, therefore, reject.
28. In our opinion the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. We accordingly dismiss the two appeals and confirm death sentence passed against appellant Gulab.