' KHIZAR HAYAT, J.--Qasim All son of Ghulam Muhammad (60/70), his son Muhammad Tufail (40), his nephews Muhammad Anwer (25), Muhammad Amin (36) and his grandson Muhammad Aslam (24), appellants herein, have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, for having committed the offences of rioting, murderous assault and raurder, vide his judgment dated 14-1- 1985, and sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment each under section 148, P.P.C. And to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 each or in default to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment each under section 307/149, P.P.C. On the murder charge, Muhammad Tufail has been sentenced to death and the rest to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs. 2,000 each or in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Out of the fine imposed under section 307/149, P.P.C., if realised, half was ordered to be paid to Muhammad Hanif Tahir (injured witness) and likewise half of the fine imposed under section 302/149, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased). The convicts have filed a joint appeal (Cr.A. No. 20/1985) against their convictions and sentences and the trial Court has sent a reference (M.R. No.57/1985) to this Court under section 374, Cr.P.C., for confirming death sentence awarded to Muhammad Tufail,. Appellant, while Muhammad Arshad, complainant, has filed a revision petition (Cr.R.No.49/1985) for enhancing the sentence of Qasim Ali, Muhammad Anwer, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam, appellants, from imprisonment for life to death under section 302/149, P.P.C. This judgment shall dispose of the appeal, the murder reference and the revision petition as they have arisen from the same judgment.
2. The occurrence took place on 28-6-1981 in two parts. The first part relates to the murderous assault made by the appellants on Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) at 8-45 a.m., in the abadi of Chak No. 34/Mondeyki, tehsil Pattoki, Distict Kasur, while second part relates to the murder of Muhammad Sharif Tahir committed by the appellants at about 9-00/9-30 a.m., about 5 squares away from the village abadi in a field situate within revenue limits of Chak No. 68/Naroki Majha, about 2(1/2) miles away from police station Pattoki. F.I.R. Exh. P.J. Was lodged at the police station by Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12), nephew of the deceased, the same day at 10-45 a.m., which was recorded by S.J. Muhammad Zafar (P.W.16).
3. Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that 31 years before the, instant occurrence Abdul Rashid a son of Qasim Ali, appellant, and brother of Muhammad Tufail, appellant, had been murdered and for that murder Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased), his brother Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5), their father Rahmat Ullah 'nd one Shaukat, son-in-law of Murad All (P.W.4), were challaned. This case was pending decision during the days of occurrence and that in order to avenge the murder of Abdul Rashid aforementioned, the appellants had allegedly murdered Muhammad Sharif Tahir and attempted to murder Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5).
4. According to prosecution, on the fateful day (28-6-1981) at 8-45 a.m., Murad Ali (P.W.4), Ali Muhammad and Yasin P.Ws. (not produced) were smoking huqqa sitting in the street in front of the house of Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) and on the backside of the house of Inayat (relative of the appellants). Muhammad Tufail, appellant, armed with .12 bore gun alongwith Muhammad Anwer, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Aslam and Qasim Ali, appellants, standing on the roof of said Inayat's house shouted lalkara to finish Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5). Hearing the lalkara all the P.Ws got up and looked towards them, whereupon Muhammad Tufail, appellant, fired at Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. Hitting him on the back of his right shoulder. Muhammad Hanif Tahir in order to save his life staled running when Muhammad Amin, appellant, threw at him a "pa'ca rora" which struck his head. Muhammad Hanif Tahir, however, entered the nearby house of Siddique to take refuge and the witnesses also followed him into that house and bolted its door from inside. Tht appellants then went towards the lands of Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) and finding him lying on a cot under a "toot" tree, about 5 squares away from the village abadi, reached near him and shouted lalkara. The deceased alarmed by the lalkara stood up and tried to run towards his haveli when Muhammad Tufail, appellant, fired at him, hitting on his left nipple, as a result of which he fell on the ground with his face downward. Muhammad Aslam, appellant, then gave him a dagger blow on his right rib, Qasim Ali, appellant, inflicted two dagger blows on his left hip, and Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Anwer, appellants, gave one dagger blow each on the back of his right shoulder. Muhammad Arshad, complainant, (P.W.12) who was present nearby raised alarm which attracted Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) and Abdul Hameed (P.W.14). They witnessed the occurrence and tried to intervene but were threatened with life to stay away. Having killed Muhammad Sharif Tahir, the appellants fled away with their respective weapons. Leaving the dead body of the deceased in the care of Muhammad .Ashiq and Abdul Hameed P.Ws. , the complainant Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) went to the village (to inform about this occurrence) where he found Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. Already lying injured, who told him that he had been attacked and injured by the appellants and that he should inform the police. At this, Muhammad Arshad P.W.
Repaired to the police station and lodged F.I.R. Exh. P.J. There which was recorded by S.I.
Muhammad Zafar (P.W.16).
5. The S.I. After recording the F.I.R. Exh. P.J. Left for the spot and reached there at 11-30 a.m. He inspected the scene, collected blood-stained earth, prepared injury statement Exh. P.K. And inquest report Exh. P.L. Of the deceased and instructing Niaz Ahmad Constable (C.W.3) to guard the dead body, himself went to village Mondeyki where Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. Was lying injured. He examined him, noted down his injuries on Exh. P.N. And brought him in a tractor trolley to the place of murder and from there he sent him with the dead body of Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) under police escort for examination by the doctor. He partly investigated the case and then made it over to the S.H.O. Zafar Ullah (P.W.23).
6. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.1) performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at 5 p.m., on 28-6-1981, and noted following injuries on it:-
(1) A lacerated gaping wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. Just outside the left nipple. 5th and 6th ribs were fractured. Heart was torn into pieces. Liver and middle boundry of left lung were lacerated. One rounded plastic piece was present in the pericardium. 15 pellets were removed from right lung, diaphragm and Jiver.
(2) A stab wound 1(1/2) c.m. x 11 c.m. On right side of chest. The wounds had entered the chest cavity and right lung was perforated.
(3) Two stab wounds 11 c.m. x 1 c.m. Each on back of right shoulder. The wounds were directed anteriorly and upward {{PAGE CUT}} with an exit found 1/2 c.m. x 1/3 c.m. On right side and front of neck.
(4) Two stab wound 11 c.m. x (1/2) c.m. Each on left lumber region just above the iliac crest. The wounds were muscle deep.
' The margins of injuv No.1 were blackened and scortched. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage instantaneously, receipt of injuries. Injury No.1 was caused with fire-arm and the .St with sharp-edged weapon. Injuries No.1 and 2 were found as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The post-mrm examination was performed within 12 hours of death. The chest savity was full of blood. Stomach contained semi- digested food and she bladder was empty. No other abnormality was detected in the orgns of thorax and abdomen.
7. On the same day, the same docr, at 4 p.m., medically examined. Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W.
And fowl a lacerated gaping wound 3 c.m. x 21 c.m. On the back of his righ shoulder with pellet- wounds around an area of 14 c.m. x 8 c. m. Th, margins of the wound were inverted and corresponding perforation as present on his shirt. The wound was directed anteriorly and Xaay showed fracture of acromi on process of scapula. There was alscan abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the top of head. Injury No.1 was gl-wous and injury No.2 was simple. The former was caused with fire-at, and the latter with blunt weapon within the duration of 12 hours.
8. On 15-7-1981, Muhammad Zafar Ullah (P.W'3), the S.W.O., arrested Muhammad Anwer, Muhammad Amin and hhammad Aslam, appellants. On 21-7-1981, Muhammad Anwer while in ,ustody to the recovery of blood-stained dagger P.7 from behii th led the wheat bags tying in his house. Blood-stained dagger P.8 wa recovered from the beam of ceiling of Muhammad Amin's house at his . Ere Likewise, blood-stained dagger P.9 was recovered at the in ance of Muhammad Aslam, appellant, from underneath wheat bags lyin6in his house. These weapons were sealed and secured separately vide ,,os Exhs. P.G., F.H. And P.I., respectively, attested by Muhanm.Ad Ashfaq (P.W.8) and the investigating officer (P.W.23).
9. Non-bailable warrants of arrest of Qasim Ali and Muhammao Tufail, appellants, were entrusted for compliance to Constable Muhammad Aslam (P.W.10) who returned the same on 20-7-1981 with his report as unexecuted. S.I.M. Zafar Ullah, S.H.O., (P.W.23) then got issued proclamation from the Ilaqa Magistrate against both absconders on 23-7-1981 and a copy of it was affixed by Constable Muhammad Aslam (P.W.10) at the door of their houses and sent compliance report on 20-8-1981. On 21-10-1981, A.S.I. Ashfaq Hussain (P.W.20) receiving a secret information formed a raiding party and arrested Qasim Ali, appellant, from his house in village Mondeyki who got recovered blood-stained dagger P.6 from bushes inside an uninhabited haveli near the place of occurrence, in the presence of Muhammad Hanif (P.W.7) and A.S.I. Ashfaq Hussain (P.W.20) vide memo. Exh. P.F. On 23-1-1982, at 9 a.m., S.I. Muhammad Khan (P.W.21) receiving a secret information formed a raiding party and arrested Muhammad Tufail, appellant, who after alighting from a bus near sugar mills Pattoki, was going towards the Chak. From his possession a .12 bore gun P.10 with two live cartridges P.10/1-2 were recovered and secured under memo Exh. P.K./1 attested by Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.19) and Muhammad Sadiq P.W. (not produced).
10. Chemical Examiner's reports Exhs. P.X. And PZ and Serologist's reports Exhs. PBB and PCC show that daggers P.6 to P.9 were stained with human blood.
11. At the trial, prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case. Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) stated about first part of the occurrence relating to murderous assault made on him by the appellants in village abadi and Mura.d Ali (P.W.4) corroborated him. Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12), Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) and Abdul Hameed (P.W.14) narrated the second part of occurrence wherein Muhammad Sherif Tahir (deceased) was murdered by the appellants within their view.
Muhammad Hanif (P.W.7), Muhammad Ashfaq (P.W.8) and A.S.I. Ashfaq Hussain (P.W.20) deposed about the recovery of weapons of offence effected from the appellants, while Dr. Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.1) proved the injuries noticed by him on the person of Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) and those on the dead body of Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) resulting in his death.
Constable Muhammad Aslam (P.W.10) and S.I. M. Zafar Ullah (P.W.23) deposed about absconsion of Qasim Ali and Muhammad Tufail, appellants.
12. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and produced six witnesses in defence. Muhammad Shafi Dana (D.W.1), Muhammad Khan (D.W.2), Nazar Hussain (D.W.3) and Hakim Ali (D. W.4) stated that Muhammad Tufail, appellant, was arrested from Haroonabad and not from Pattoki, as stated by the prosecution. Muhammad Salim (D.W.5) stated that he was arrested on 19-1-1982 and confined at Kasur by the police and was pressurised to produce Muhammad Tufail, appellant (who was then absconding).
13. Learned trial Court on consideration of the material oh record accepted the prosecution case and held all the appellants guilty under sections 148, 307 and 302 read with 149, P.P.C. And sentenced them as indicated in para. 1 of the judgment.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not denied the motive but argued that "motive" is another name of enmity. On the one hand it appears to be a cause for the accused party to attack the deceased and his party-men and on the other it suggests that due to this grouse the complainant party (being opposite group) might have falsely implicated them. Further argued that eye-witnesses are partisan and their testimony cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration and that the recovery of 'weapons of offence and the evidence about abscondence of Qasim All and Muhammad Tufail, appellants, do not furnish the desired corroboration. The recovery of weapons allegedly effected from the appellants is not only belated but appears to be fake as well, and the absconsion of Qasim All and Muhammad Tufail, appellants, has not been legally proved. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as for the complainant have argued that prosecution witnesses do riot have long-standing previous enmity with the appellants nor do they have any relationship with the complainant, therefore, they cannot be said to be "interested witnesses" in strict sense of the term and that: their testimony can, therefore, be safely relied upon without corroboration. According to them, the incriminating recoveries are genuine and abscondence of Qasim All and Muhammad Tufail, appellants, is fully established on record. They also prayed for enhancing the amount of compensation.
15. We have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Prosecution has relied on following pieces of evidence:
(i) Motive;
(ii) Recovery of weapons of offence; Abscondence;
(iv) Ocular evidence; and
(v) Medical evidence.
16. During the days of occurrence, Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) and Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5), the injured witness, were facing trial on the charge of murdering Abdul Rashid, a son of Qasim All and brother of Muhammad Tufail, appellants. It was, therefore, argued that there was 'a possibility of the appellants having been named as accused in this case due to bad blood existing between the parties on account of earlier murder case of Abdul Rashid. We are of the view that the appellants who are related inter se had a living grievance against Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) and his brother Muhammad Hanif Tahir (injured witness) whom they considered as murderers of their close relation Abdul Rashid, therefore, ordinarily, it was their turn to take revenge of Abdul Rashid's murder from them. To our mind, the appellants were thus expected to attack them in the days of occurrence, hence the motive stands proved.
17. Incriminating recoveries allegedly effected from the appellants comprise recovery of a .12 bore gun P.10 (from Muhammad Tufail, appellant) and blood-stained daggers P.6 to P.9 (from the remaining' appellants). Since no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, the recovery of gun P.10 is of no consequence. A Qasim Ali, appellant, was arrested 3 months after the occurrence and on the same day he got' recovered blood-stained dagger P.6 from a deserted haveli while the remaining appellants were arrested on 15-7-1981 i.e., 20 days after the occurrence and got recovered, blood-stained daggers P.7 to P.9 from their houses. It is not believable that the appellants had kept the blood-stained daggers without washing B off blood from them despite their belated arrest. We, therefore, agree with learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery of weapons allegedly made from them is not free from doubt and cannot be used as corroborative evidence.
18. On the point of abscondence, we have the evidence of Muhammad Aslam Constable (P.W.10) who stated that he was entrusted with non-bailable warrants of arrest of Qasim Ali and Muhammad Tufail, appellants, which were returned by him with his report that they could not be executed. S.I. M. Zafar Ullah (P.W.23) then got proclamation issued declaring both of them as proclaimed offenders by the Ilaqa Magistrate. A copy of proclamation was affixed by Muhammad Aslam Constable (P.W.10) on the door of each absconder. Qasim All was arrested 3 months after the occurrence on 21-10-1981 and Muhammad Tufail was arrested about 5 months after the occurrence on 23-1-1982 by A.S.I. Ashfaq Hussain (P.W.20) and S.I. Muhammad Khan (P.W.21), respectively. Muhammad Tufail did not deny his arrest on 23-1-1982 but asserted that he was arrested from Haroonabad and not from a place near sugar mills Pattoki. We are at a loss to understand as to what the prosecution had gained by changing place of his arrest. The investigating officers were in their cross-examination suggested that they had allegedly detained the relatives of Qasim Ali and Muhammad Tufail (absconding accused) in order to pressurise them to produce both these appellants. Muhammad Salim (D.W.5) made a similar statement. This shows that the said appellants were absconding and that is why the police pressurised their relatives to produce them. Again, Ghulam Harder (P.W.24) stated that according to the record of Karachi Airport F .I. A. (Emigration), Muhammad Tufail, appellant, had left Karachi for Singapore on 12-8-1981 under Passport No. AJ-642033/Lahore, dated 8-8-1981, by P.I.A. Flight No. PK-772, vide report Exh.
PU/1. Absconsion of an accused after the incident c can be considered as corroboratory evidence (see Gul Hassan's case, PLD 1969 SC 89). We are, therefore, satisfied that in this case the absconsion of Qasim Ali and Muhammad Tufail, appellants, provided, corroboration qua them.
19. In first part of the occurrence, Muhammad Hanif 'Tahir (P.W.5) at the relevant time was present in the street in front of his house in the company of Murad Ali (P.W.4), Ali Muhammad and Yasin P.Ws. (not produced) when Muhammad Tufail, appellant, from the roof of Inayat's house fired at him and Muhammad Amin, appellant, threw a brickbat on his head and he saved his life by running into Siddique's house, Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. Suffered a grievous gunshot injury on the back of his right shoulder. He survived by his sheer luck. Murad Ali (P.W.4) lived within the compound of Siddique's house wherein Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. After sustaining the injry had taken refuge, so his presence on the spot was quite natural. It was a day time occurrence. The identity of the appellants is not susceptible to any doubt. We are impressed by straightforward account of occurrence given by the said witnesses. They readily conceded to have not seen the appellants (standing on Inayat's roof) carrying any arm except Muhammad Tufail who actually had fired at Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. Learned counsel for the appellants also found it difficult to deny this part of the occurrence and submitted that his reading of the case was that murder of Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) was committed first as unwitnessed and that Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W. Learning about it subsequently got enraged and suspecting Muhammad Tufail, appellant, to be the murderer of the deceased attacked him whereupon he (Muhammad Tufail) or his partymen fired at him (Muhammad Hanif Tahir P.W.) in self-defence. This theory was neither suggested to any witness at the trial nor the appellants pleaded so when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Nobody on the side of the appellants had been injured either. There is thus absolutely nothing on record to support this argument which seems to have been advanced for the first time before us. We are convinced that Muhammad Tufail, appellant, had attempted on Muhammad Hanif Tahir's life by firing at him and caused him grievous injury thereby but we are not satisfied that abrasion 1 c.m.. x 1 c.m: found on his head was caused with a "pacca rora" allegedly thrown on him by Muhammad Amin, appellant, because the injury is too small and also does not appear to be the result of the brickbat thrown from a house-top. Allegation of raising lalkara now remains against Qasim Ali, Muhammad Anwer, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Amin, appellants. In the circumstances, we extend benefit of doubt to them. Consequently, conviction and sentence of Muhammad Tufail, appellant, under section 307, P.P.C. Is maintained while that of the remaining appellants is set aside and they are acquitted from the charge under section 307/149, P.P.C.
20. While dealing with second part of occurrence, learned counsel has raised two-fold objection against ocular evidence furnished by Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12), Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) and Abdul Hameed (P.W.14). First is that their evidence is in conflict with medical evidence, therefore, their presence on the spot is doubtful, and second is, that assuming that they were present at the relevant time, their testimony cannot be acted upon without independent corroboration because they are inimical and partisan. As indicated earlier, in the days of occurrence Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased in this case) and his brother Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) were facing trial for murdering Abdul Rashid, a close relation of the appellants. It is also an admitted position that one Muhammad Shafi had filed a cross-case to the said murder case dubbing the deceased Abdul Rashid's party as aggressor, wherein Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) and Abdul Hameed (P.W.14) had appeared as prosecution witnesses. But we are of the view that merely on this account their evidence cannot be thrown out. We find that they are not proved to be in any manner related to Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased); there is no material on record showing them as his camp followers either or that they had enmity with the appellants prompting them to implicate them falsely. We, therefore, hold that they are absolutely independent witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon without corroboration provided it is found otherwise as trustworthy.
21. In support of objection that there is conflict between ocular and medical evidence, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that according to the eye-witnesses, the deceased after receiving injuries had fallen on the ground with his face downward and the dead body remained lying in that position for hours but the doctor who performed autopsy noted post-mortem stainings on the backside of the dead body, which means that it lay with face upward. We have considered the objection carefully. Blood in a dead body coagulates after about four hours. It is in evidence that the police arrived at about 11 a.m., or 11-30 a.m. The investigating officer while inspecting the dead body moved it. It means that within two hours time after deceased's death the posture of dead body was changed and it would have been placed on a cot obviously with its face upward while the blood was still fluid and it, therefore, settled on the dependent part of the body, i.e. The back of the deceased. The objection is thus repelled.
22. Now we would examine if the eye-witnesses claiming to have seen Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) being murdered by the appellants were present on the spot and saw the occurrence, as claimed by them. Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) is nephew of the deceased. He stated that he was present in his lands near the place of occurrence at the relevant time. He heard lalkara raised by the appellants and saw them causing injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons. It is not challenged that he owned land there. Farmers usually work in the forenoon in their fields. So his presence near the spot was quite natural. Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) is also resident of the same locality. He stated to be going towards the sugar mills Pattoki at the fateful time and in the way hearing the lalkara he was attracted to the spot and found the appellants murdering the deceased. Abdul Hameed (P.W.14) is also resident of the same Chak. He had gone to the land of the deceased for cutting fodder he had earlier borrowed from him and when he was proceeding towards the fields after smoking Huqqa 'for a while with Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12), he heard the lalkara raised by the appellants and saw them inflicting injuries to the deceased. These witnesses were cross-examined at length but their veracity remained unshaken. Their testimony inspires confidence. As held earlier, they are not interested witnesses. The number of injuries found on the person of the deceased commensurates with the number of the appellants. We,therefore, hold that these witnesses were present at the relevant time and had seen the occurrence.
23. Learned counsel next contended that according to the medical evidence the heart of the deceased was torn into pieces under gun shot injury attributed to Muhammad Tufail, appellant, and the deceased had died instantaneously, therefore, the injuries inflicted thereafter on his (deceased's) person by the remaining appellants had injured a dead person constituting no offence. Reliance in this regard is placed on Feroz Khan's case PLD 1960 SC 344. The argument is wholly misconceived as the doctor who performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased clearly stated that all the injuries found on the person of the deceased were ante- mortem and, therefore, the appellants being members of the unlawful assembly having common object to kill Muhammad Sharif Tahir (deceased) actually inflicted injuries to the deceased, hence they were vicariously liable for having murdered the deceased. The precedent case relied upon by the appellants does not cover their case.
24. Qasim Ali, appellant, is pretty old man. Muhammad Tufail, appellant, is his son while others are his nephews and grandson. Although we have held that he was present at the time of occurrence, yet, due to his old age, we are sceptical if he really inflicted any injury to the deceased, therefore, by way of abundant caution, giving him benefit of doubt, we would acquit him. Number of accused so having been reduced to four, conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 148, P.P.C. Is set aside. Consequently, conviction of the appellants other than that of Qasim Ali is upheld under section 302/34, P.P.C.
25. This brings us to the question of sentence. It is common knowledge that agriculturist tribes of Punjab feel it as their moral duty to avenge murder of their kith and kin. No doubt that Muhammad Tufail, appellant, injured Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) and killed Muhammad Sherif Tahir (deceased) by firing at them with a gun but since he was motivated to commit the crime with sense of vindicating his family honour, therefore, it appears to us as a case of lesser penalty.
Consequently, we alter death sentence of Muhammad Tufail to imprisonment for life. The sentence of other appellants is, however, maintained. Further, we find that the fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed on each appellant and ordered to be paid to the- heirs of the deceased is inadequate, therefore, we would enhance the same to Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each or in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo 2(two) years' R.I., each. The fine if realised shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased in, full. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly accepted in the terms indicated above. The reference is rejected and the death sentence awarded to Muhammad Tufail, appellant, is NOT confirmed. Qasim Ali, appellant, shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The criminal revision for the same reasons stands dismissed. The appellants shall also get the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.