' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.---These three Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 54, 55 and 56 of 1988 arise from the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 1.6-5-1987. The first two appeals have been filed by complainant Muhammad Arshad and the State against the acquittal of Qasim All respondent and lesser sentence awarded to respondents 2 to 5. The third appeal is by Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Aslam against their conviction and sentence.
2. Qasim Ali, his son Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam residents of Chak No,34, Mundakey, P.S. Pattoki, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, were charged under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. For causing the death of Muhammad Sharif Tahir and injuries to Muhammad Hanif Tahir. Two occurrences are alleged to have taken place on 28-6-1981 at 8-45 a.m. And 10-00 a.m, The first incident took place in the Abadi of Chak No,34 Mundakey and the second within the. Area of Chak No,58, Naroki Mahja, Police Station Pattoki, District Kasur. The report of the occurrence was made by Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) nephew of Muhammad Sharif Tahir at 10-45 a.m. At P.S. Pattoki which was recorded by Muhammad Zafar, S.I. (P.W.16).
3. According to the prosecution on 28-6-1981 at 8.45 a.m. Murad All (P.W.4), All Muhammad and.
Yaseen P.Ws. (not produced) were smoking Huqqa sitting in the street in front of the house of Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5). Muhammad Tufail armed with .12 bore shot-gun alongwith Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Aslam and Qasim All standing on the roof of the house of one Inayat situated on the back side of the house .Of Muhammad Hanif Tahir, shouted Lalkara to finish Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5). Hearing the Lalkara all the P.Ws. Got up, looked up towards the persons raising Lalkara, whereupon Muhammad Tufail 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 was in the process of running when he was hit on his head by a Pacca Rora thrown at him by Muhammad Amin. Muhammad Hanif Tahir, however, succeeded in entering the house of Siddiq to take refuge. The witnesses also followed him into the said house and bolted its door from inside.
The accused party then allegedly went towards the land of Muhammad Sharif Tahir and finding him lying on the cot under a mulberry tree, situate at a distance of about 5 squares away from the village Abadi, reaching near him shouted a Lalkara. Muhammad Sharif Tahir stood up, tried to run away towards the Haveli but was fired at effectively on his left nipple by Muhammad Tufail, as a result of which he fell down on the ground with his face downward. Muhammad Aslam then gave a dagger blow to Muhammad Sharif Tahir on his right rib. Qasim All inflicted two dagger blows on his left hip, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Anwar gave a dagger blow each on the back of his right shoulder. Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) who was present nearby raised hue and. Cry which attracted Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) and Abdul Hamid (P.W.14). The witnesses tried to intervene but were threatened with life to stay away. Having killed Muhammad Sharif tahir the assailants fled' away with their respective weapons.
4. Leaving the dead body at the spot in the care of Muhammad Ashiq and Abdul Hamid P.Ws., Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) went to the village to inform about this occurrence where he found Muhammad Hanif Tahir already lying injured who narrated him his own episode. Muhammad Arshad then left for the police station to lodge the report. The motive given was that about 3-1/2 years back Abdul Rashid son of Qasim All and brother of Muhammad Tufail convict/respondent was murdered. The convicts suspected that Abdul Rashid was murdered by Muhammad Sharif Tahir and his brother Muhammad Hanif Tahir. A case of the above murder against Muhammad Sharif Tahir, Muhammad Hanif Tahir, their father Rehmatullah and one Shaukat was pending trial.
The present occurrence was to take the revenge of Abdul Rashid's murder.
5. Muhammad Zafar, S.I. (P.W.16) after recording the report, reached the place of latter occurrence at 11-30 a.m., inspected the spot, collected bloodstained earth, prepared injury sheet and inquest report of deceased Muhammad Sharif Tahir. He placed the dead body under the guard of Niaz Muhammad Constable (C.W.3) and left for village Mundakey where Muhammad Hanif Tahir was lying injured. After noting down his injuries he was brought to the place where murder had taken place on a tractor trolley. Thereafter, the injured, P.W. And the dead body of Muhammad Sharif Tahir' were sent to the hospital for treatment and post-mortem examination. The investigation was entrusted to Zafarullah Khan, S.H.O. (P.W.23) who on his turn on 15-7-1981 arrested Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam. On 21-7-1981 Muhammad Anwar led to the recovery of blood-stained dagger P.7, Muhammad Amin to the recovery of blood-stained dagger P.8 and blood-stained dagger P.9 was recovered at the instance of Muhammad. Aslam. Non- bailable warrants of arrest were secured against Qasim All and Muhammad Tufail which were returned unserved on 20-7-1981. On 23-7-1981 proclamations were got issued against the absconders. On 21-10-1981, however, Ashfaq Hussain, A.S.I. (P.W.20) on receiving secret information raided the house of Qasim All and arrested him. Qasim All also led to the recovery of a dagger Exh.P.6 from bushes inside an uninhabited Haveli near the place of occurrence. Similarly on 23-1- 1982 Muhammad Tufail was arrested by Muhammad Khan, S.I. (P.W.21) and at his instance a .12 bore gun P.10 with two live cartridges were secured through memo Exh.PK/1.
6. The incriminating articles were then sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. Their reports are Exhs. PBB and PCC which are positive.
7. After completion of challan Qasim Ali, his son Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam were put to trial where the prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 25 witnesses including Dr. Muhammad Ashraf who appeared as P.W.1.
He had performed autopsy on.The dead body of Muhammad Sharif Tahir aged 35 years and found a lacerated gaping wound 4 x 3 c.m. Just outside the left nipple. 5th and 6th ribs were fractured.
Heart was torn into pieces. Liver and middle border of left lung were lacerated. One rounded plastic piece was present in the pericardium. 15 pellets were removed from right lung, diaphragm and liver. 5 stab wounds of various dimensions were found on the right side of chest (one wound), on the back of right shoulder (two wounds) and on left lumber region (two wounds). The margins of gunshot injuries were blackened and scorched., According to the doctor, the deceased had died instantaneously. Injury No,1 was opined to have been caused with firearm and the rest with sharp- edged weapon. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were found as sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The stomach contained semi-digested food and the bladder was empty.
8. On the same day, the same doctor examined Muhammad Hanif Tahir, P.W. At 4-00 p.m. And found a lacerated gaping wound 3 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. On the back of his right shoulder with pellet wounds around an area of 14 c.m. x 8 c.m. The margins of the wound were inverted and corresponding perforation was present on his shirt. The X-Ray showed fracture of acromi on process of scapula. There was also an abrasion 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. On the top of head. Injury No,1 was grievous and injury No,2 was simple. The former was caused with fire-arm and the latter with blunt weapon within 12 hours duration. All the alleged assailants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied all the charges, the recovery of weapons of offence, pleaded innocence and alleged that they have been falsely implicated in this case,
9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur at the conclusion of trial vide his judgment, dated 14-1-1985 convicted Muhammad Tufail under section 302/149, P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to one year R.I. Qasim Ali, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam were convicted under section 302/149, P.P.C. And, sentenced to imprisonment for life each with a fine of Rs,2,000 each or in default to one year R.I. Each. Sentences for life imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. On realization of fine half of the amount was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. All the accused were further convicted under section 307/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to 4 years' R.I. Each and a fine of Rs,500 each or in default to 6 months' R.I. All the accused were also convicted under section 148/149, P.P.C. And sentenced to 2 years' R.I. Each.
10. The convicts filed appeals against their conviction and sentences and the complainant filed a criminal revision for the enhancement of sentence. Both these matters alongwith murder reference were heard by a learned Division Bench and as per judgment dated 16-5-1987, Qasim All accused was acquitted of the charge. The conviction of the other accused under' section 302/34, P.P.C. Was maintained but the sentence of Muhammad Tufail was altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the other accused was maintained. Fine of Rs,2,000 imposed on each of the accused by the trial Court was enhanced to Rs,20,000 or in default to 2 years' R.I. The whole of the fine on realization was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to the convicts. The conviction and sentence of Muhammad Tufail was also maintained under section 307, P.P.C. And the rest were acquitted. As a result the appeals by the convicts were partly allowed and the Criminal revision filed by the complainant dismissed.
11. Leave in these three appeals was granted to reappraise the entire evidence in this case.
12. Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court and Khawaja Shoukat Ali, Advocate appeared in Criminal Appeals Nos.54 of 1988 and 55 of 1988 respectively, against the acquittal of Qasim All and lesser sentence awarded to Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam for the offence of murder and also the acquittal of Qasim Ali, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Aslam of an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. The quantum of fine imposed for an offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. Was also questioned and a grievance made was that no compensation was awarded to Muhammad Hanif Tahir for the grievous injury received by him. Mr. Yusuf All Khan, Advocate in Criminal Appeal No,56 of 1988 appeared for the convicts. At the instance of Mr. Yusuf All Khan the arguments of Mr. Batalvi and Khawaja Shoukat All were heard first. In support of their Appeals Nos. 54 of 1988 and 55 of 1988 the learned counsel vehemently submitted that there being overwhelming evidence establishing the guilt of Qasim All the learned Judges have committed gross illegality in acquitting him by holding that he was old and they (the learned Judges) were sceptical if he (Qasim Ali) really inflicted any injury to the deceased. Qasim All acquitted accused, the learned counsel submitted, is not that old that he was not capable of causing injuries inasmuch as according to his own statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He claimed to be 60 years old and according to Dr. Naseeb R. Awan, Qasim Ali was in the age group of 55 years with a margin of error of 10 years. Old age per se, the learned counsel submitted, was not relevant for awarding lesser sentence what to talk of acquittal.
Reliance in support of their contentions was placed by them on the case of Amir Gul v. The State 1.981 SCMR 182 and Pir Badshah alias Pir Khan v. The State 1985 SCM R 2070.
13. As for the lesser sentence to Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Aslam the learned counsel submitted that neither the ground of private revenge in order to vindicate family honour was available for awarding lesser sentence to Muhammad Tufail nor Muhammad Aslam could be given lesser sentence because of his young age. Reliance in support of both the contentions was placed by the learned counsel for the parties on the case of All Khan v. The State PLD 1980 SC 109; Mureed Ahmed v. The State 1987 SCM R 429; Nazimuddin v. The State 1972 SCM R 163; Said Kamal. v. The State 1972 SCM R 610 and Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State 1973 SCM R 219.
14. As against the above, Mr. Yusuf All Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No,56 of 1988 has with equal vehemence decried' the findings of trial as well as the appellate Courts as to the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Aslam convicts. He submitted that not only the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution was highly interested and partisan but it was a case of no evidence at all. The medical evidence too, he submitted, has completely destroyed the case set up by the prosecution and that the recovery of incriminating articles in connecting the appellants with the commission of crime has been disbelived by the learned Judges of the High Court. He lastly submitted that evidence as to the abscondence of Muhammad Tufail and Qasim All was not of the type which should have been relied upon either by the trial Court or the High Court. The prosecution has also, he urged, failed to establish the motive in this case. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the accused/appellants has placed reliance on the case of Thoba and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 40; Feroz Khan v. The State PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 344 and on the case of Palani Goundan v. The State AIR 1920 Mad.
862.
15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we propose to take up first the appeal of the convicts/appellants against their conviction and sentence.
16. According to the F.I.R. Two occurrences were alleged to have taken place one after the other on 28-6-1981. In the first occurrence which took place' inside the village at about 8-30 a.m.
Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) was alleged to have received injuries at the hands of convicts/appellants and Qasim Ali the acquitted accused. The other incident took place in the fields situate in Chak No,34 Mundakey at 10-00 a.m. In this incident Muhammad Sharif Tahir was allegedly done to death by firing by Muhammad Tufail and stabbing by the other convicts/appellants and Qasim All the acquitted accused. The report of both the incidents was made by Muhammad Arshad at P.S. Pattoki which was taken down by way of Murasala by Ahmed Zafar ASI (P.W.16). The motive of the offence given in the F.I.R. Was that about 3-1/2 years back Abdul Rashid son of Qasim All the acquitted accused was killed and the convicts/appellants and Qasim All suspected that Abdul Rashid was murdered by Muhammad. Sharif Tahir and Muhammad Hanif Tahir. The case of this murder was pending trial in the Court.
17. Here it will be pertinent to give the relationship of convicts/appellants and Qasim Ali the acquitted accused. Abdul Rashid was the son of Qasim All acquitted accused, the real brother of Muhammad Tufail accused, the real uncle of Muhammad Aslam accused and the first cousin of Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Anwar accused.
18. In support of the first incident the prosecution had relied on the ocular testimony of Muhammad Hanif Tahir the injured P.W. And Murad All (P.W.4). While in the second incident Muhammad Arshad complainant appeared as P.W.12, Abdul Hamid as P.W.14 and Muhammad Ashiq as P.W.13. The careful perusal of the record has shown that the witnesses who had appeared and given eye version account of both the incidents were highly interested. Abdul Rashid son of Qasim All was killed 3-1/2 years prior to the present occurrence. In the case of murder of Abdul Rashid, Muhammad Sharif Tahir deceased, his brother Muhammad Hanif Tahir the injured P.W. (P.W.5), his father Rehmatullah and Shoukat All son-in-law of Murad All (P.W.4) were charged. In the present case besides Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) and Murad Ali (P.W.4), the prosecution has produced Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) and Abdul Hamid (P.W.14). Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) has admitted at the trial that he was arrayed as witness in the case of the injury to the daughter of, Muhammad Shafi in which Abdul Rashid was killed. Abdul Hamid (P.W.14) is the brother of Murad All (P.W.4) whose son-in-law is invovled in the murder of Abdul Rashid. We would thus hestiate to place explicit reliance on the testimony of these witnesses unless the same is corroborated by other unimpeachable sources.
19. In the above background we would now analyse the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case. In support of the first incident Muhammad Hanif Tahir the injured P.W. Appeared as (P.W.5) and Murad All as (P.W.4). The former being injured his presence at the spot cannot be disputed. He has alleged at the trial that at the relevant time he saw Muhammad Tufail accused armed with a gun, Qasim Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Anwar accused standing on the roof of the house of Inayat and were raising Lalkara and in the meantime, Muhammad Tufail accused shot a gun fire which hit him (Muhammad Hanif Tahir) on the right shoulder. To the extent that Muhammad Hanif Tahir received gunshot injury at the hand of Muhammad Tufail may be true but we very much doubt about the manner in which this incident was alleged to have taken place. Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) was allegedly fired at from the roof of the Kotha of Inayat. According to Murad All (P.W.4) the height of the roof of the house of Inayat is 10/12 feet. If that being the situation then the pellets would have travelled from upward to downward. But this is not so because the medical report has indicated the injury at the back of the shoulder of Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) was as a result of fire from the same level. Thus the factum of alleged firing by Muhammad Tufail at Muhammad Hanif Tahir from the roof of the Kotha of Inayat has become highly doubtful and it can safely be said that both Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) and Murad Ali. (P.W.4) have lied in alleging that Muhammad Tufail had fired at Muhammad Hanif Tahir from the roof of the Kotha of Inayat. Another circumstance which militates against the fact of firing from the roof of the house of Inayat is that Murad All (P.W.4) did not deny but simply expressed his ignorance whether Inayat had named Muhammad Tufail appellant as an accused for the theft of bullocks. Inayat and Muhammad Hanif, therefore, must have strained relations, thus Muhammad Tufail would not have gone over the roof of Inayat for firing at Muhammad Hanif Tahir, moreso when his own, i.e,, Muhammad Tufail's roof is adjacent to the roof of Muhammad Inayat. In all probability, the venue of firing at Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5) has been shown to be the roof of the Kotha of Inayat so that Muhammad Hanif Tahir and his compansions could say that they had seen the accused. The possibility, therefore, that at the time of firing Muhammad Tufail was, by himself, cannot be ruled out. His conviction and sentence under section 307, P.P.C. Is maintained.
The rest of the accused/appellants are acquitted of offence under section 307/34, P.P.C. On the above ground and the one given by the High Court.
20. As for the second incident, we are of the view that the killing of Muhammad Sharif Tahir too, was as a result of firing by Muhammad Tufail. It seems that being unsucessful in taking the life of Muhammad Hanif Tahir (P.W.5), Muhammad Tufail rushed towards the fields owned by the complainant side and finding Muhammad Sharif Tahir there fired at him from a very close range resulting in his death. The witnesses of this occurrence are also inimical, chance and partisan in that Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) is the nephew of Muhammad Sharif Tahir deceased, Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.13) had appeared from the complainant side as a witness in the case of murder of the son of Qasim All appellant, and the son-in-law of the brother of Abdul Hameed (P.W.14) namely Shoukat All was one of the accused in the case of the murder of Abdul Rashid son of Qasim Ali. The manner in which this incident has been described seems highly doubtful. It is the consistent stand of the prosecution that soon after the receipt of fire shot injury at the hand of Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Sharif Tahir fell down facing his face towards the ground. Thereafter, Muhammad Aslam accused gave a Khanjer blow which hit the deceased on his right rib, Qasim accused delivered two Khanjer blows which hit the deceased on his left hip, Anwar and Amin accused gave Khanjer blows which hit the deceased on the right shoulder from behind.
21. There are as many as 5 accused in this case including Qasim All the acquitted accused.
Muhammad Tufail has been attributed firing at Muhammad Sharif Tahir while the rest of four are accused of 5 Khanjer blows. Of the 4 Khanjer blows injuries 3 and 4 consisting of two injuries each measuring 1-1/2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. Have landed exactly on the same location, What has to be now examined is whether the so-called eye-witensses had in fact seen the occurrence and if so, whether they were telling the truth? As for the case against Muhammad Tufail appellant, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants would hardly prevail in that he had been attributed firing a shot at Muhammad Sharif Tahir at his chest. The fact that he was fired at by fire-arm is fully supported by the medical evidence, and corroborated by his abscondence after the occurrence and the motive set up by the prosecution. His conviction, therefore, under section 302, P.P.C. For causing the death of Muhammad Sharif Tahir is proper and thus maintained.
22. As for the rest of the accused/appellants, the learned counsel was crying hoarse that it was an unseen occurrence, the medical report has contradicted the so-called eye version account of the witnesses and lastly that the stab wounds on the person of the deceased were post-mortem and as such those convicts/appellants who have been attributed Khanjar blows did not commit the offence charged with. As per the case, we think that there is substance in what the learned counsel for the convicts/appellants has submitted. Though we would not subscribe to the contention that it was an unseen occurrence but we would certainly say that since the witnesses who have given eye version account of this incident were highly interested, their veracity and truthfulness has to be examined and analysed with great care and caution.
23. According to the F.I.R. And the statement of Abdul Hamid P.W.14, Qasim All the acquitted accused is alleged to have given a Khanjer blow to Muhammad Sharif Tahir. This has, however, been contradicted by the statement of Muhammad Arshad (P.W.12) and Ashiq (P.W.13) who at the trial had deposed that Qasim Ali had inflicted two Khanjer blows to the deceased. The latter witnesses have obviously done so because they wanted to bring their verison of the incident in conformity, with the post-mortem report wherein two stab wounds have been shown on the left lumber region of the deceased. There. Is consistent evidence that as soon as Muhammad Sharif Tahir received firearm injury he fell down on the ground with his face towards the ground and nobody touched the dead body for more than three hours, when ultimately he was placed on a cot. The prosecution has thus failed to explain how in such a position the deceased could have received a stab wound on the right side of the chest and how the back of the deceased could have post-mortem staining. Two stab wounds 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On the back of the right shoulder have been attributed to Anwar and Amin accused/appellants. Both these injuries are exactly of the same measurement and exactly at the same place. It is, therefore, beyond comprehension that these injuries could be described as more than one and alleged to have been inflicted by two persons at the same place. Again, according to the post-mortem report injury 4 is as a result of two stab blows. Both of these injuries are of 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. And are exactly at the same location. If that be so, how the prosecution could say that each of these injuries was of the same dimension and were as a result of two stab blows. Thus, it is highly improbable that one person (Qasim Ali) would have inflicted two stab blows on exactly the same place. Padding is thus discernible in that the deceased had five stab blows on the body, so obviously the prosecution had to enrope as many persons to account for the injuries. According to our analysis of the evidence, the prosecution has distorted and twisted the manner in which stabbing in this case had taken place. As per the location and dimension of the injuries, we are of the view that in all there were only three stab wounds on the dead body and they were as a result of stabbing either by one or at the most by two persons. In view of the ocular evidence which is discrepant, contradicted by the medical evidence and uncorroborated by any other circumstantial evidence, it is hardly possible to connect a particular accused/appellant with a particular stab injury. Though against Qasim All the acquitted accused the prosecution has sought corroboration. From his abscondence but since the other evidence against him is unworthy of credence, conviction on abscondence alone cannot be sustained.
24. The accused/appellants who have been attributed stabbing to the deceased can claim acquittal on the ground of stabbing the dead person as urged by the learend counsel for the convicts/appellants. Assuming without conceding, that the deceased had received five stab injuries at the hands of the accused/appellants, yet it seems that the same were not inflicted in the manner described by the prosecution. The medico-legal report has shown that injury No,1 was a massive injury as a result of gunshot from a close range leaving signs of charring and blackening on the skin and tearing the heart of the deceased into pieces. The liver and the middle border of the left lung were also lacerated and that the deceased had died immediately. Under the circumstances, the possibility that these injuries were inflicted when the deceased was already dead cannot be ruled out. Had the deceased been alive, he would have struggled for his life and in that situation injuries 3 and 4 each indicating two stab wounds at exactly the same place would have not been possible at all. Yet another circumstance which has strengthened the submission of the learned counsel for the accused/appellants is that the doctor neither in his post-mortem report nor at the trial has deposed that the stab injuries were ante-mortem.
25. Thus, taking all the circumstances into consideration, we are of the. View that the ease of the prosecution against Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Aslam and Qasim All is not free from doubt. Criminal. Appeal No,56 of 1988 is thus partly allowed, the conviction and sentence of the abovenamed accused/appellants is set aside. They should be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The acquittal of Qasim All is also maintained. As a result, Criminal Appeals Nos.54 and 55 of 1988 are dismissed. Bailable warrants issued against Qasim All are recalled. As for the conviction of Muhammad Tufail, the same has already been maintained by us in the earlier part of the judgment. As for the sentence imposed upon Muhammad Tufail by the High Court, the same is also maintained but on the ground given in our judgment in the case of Kausar Ali and 3 others v. Muhammad Sabir and 6 others (1990 SCM R 1132).