' MIAN GHULAM AHMAD, J.---By the present judgment we propose to dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos.1012, 1018 and 1019 of 1988, having been filed by the three convicts, Muhammad Farooq, Rehmat All and Muhammad Tariq. By a judgment announced on 17-9-1988, the learned Judge, Punjab Special Court No,IX, for Speedy Trial at Gujranwala, had convicted the three accused persons abovenamed under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced them each to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,50,000. In case of non-payment of fine, the defaulting convict was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five years, and in the event of realization of fine, the entire amount was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of Muhammad Nasir Iqbal deceased, as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Three accused were also convicted under section 307/34, P.P.C. and each sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. On conviction under section 394/397, P.P.C. the accused persons all were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The case property, namely, the wagon, the wrist-watch and the golden chain/locket were ordered to be restored to their lawful owners, and the weapons of offence, the pistol, alongwith cartridges, and the dagger were directed to be confiscated in favour of the State.
2. A Toyota Hiace Wagon No,3260/LHP, which used to be operated along the route between the Railway Station, Lahore and Harbanspura by Muhammad Nasir Iqbal, with the assistance of Muhammad Arshad, was hired by the accused persons, on the pretext of bringing from Jhelum some luggage. Fare was fixed as Rs,800 and the vehicle took start from Mughalpura Chowk (Lahore) at about 7-30 p.m. on 24-5-1988, the occupants being the three accused persons, Muhammad Nasir Iqbal Driver, and Muhammad Arshad, his helper. When the vehicle reached the bridge of Upper Jhelum Canal, on the G.T. Road, the accused asked the driver to divert the vehicle towards village Jaggu. When the vehicle crossed the aforesaid village and another village Torey, one of the accused asked the driver to stop, telling him that correct route was not being followed. It was about 12-30 a.m. (mid-night). The dirver reversed the wagon, and the accused, wearing shirt and 'Dhoti', took out his revolver and fired at Nasir Iqbal Driver, who was hit on his left eye and had a fall on the steering. The other two accused persons asked Muhammad Arshad, who was sitting on the rear seat, to hand over to them his valuables. He had with him Rs,500 only which he passed on to the accused. The person wearing shirt and Shalwar called upon the third one to kill the co-driver as well, by making over to him a dagger. Muhammad Arshad jumped out of the vehicle and ran away to save himself. Two shots were however ineffectively fired at him. Dead body of Muhammad Nasir was thrown at the spot and the three accused persons took away the wagon. On becoming sure that the accused had left the site, Muhammad Arshad returned to the spot and sat there, with the dead body, waiting for the day to dawn. In order to report the incident to the police, Arshad left the spot in the morning and covered a distance of about four kilometres on foot. Then he was given lift by a motor cyclist; and while he was heading towards the police station, he came across a police party, at the canal bridge. He made his statement Exh.PC, which was recorded by S.I.
Mahmood Khan P.W.17, on the basis whereof, later, at the P.S., M.H.C. Irshad Ahmad P.W.5 drafted the formal F.I.R. Exh.PC/1. With the complainant the police party arrived at the place of occurrence and the S.I. collected from there blood-stained earth and prepared its sealed parcel. Dead body was despatched to Civil Hospital, Kharian, where it reached at about 11-30 a.m. (on 25-5-1988). Post- mortem examination was performed at 1 p.m. by Dr. Ijaz Ahmad P.W. 8, who recorded the report Exh.PH and delivered to the police the last-worn blood-stained clothes of the deceased, alongwith the post-mortem report. The investigation was taken over by Muhammad Ashraf Inspector/S.H.O., P.S. Sarai Alamgir (District Gujrat), who took different steps for achieving further progress in the process, the details of which we need not narrate here, as the same form part of the record of evidence. He also paid a visit to Lahore and made a search for the accused persons, who were arrested on 2-6-1988, at railway crossing Baja-Line, Lahore, when they were going in a wagon without plate and were intercepted by the police, by closing the level crossing gate, as is deposed by Mr. Shafqat Ali Chatha, D.S.P. P.W.16. The accused persons were searched by the D.S.P., in presence of P.W.13 Naeem Akhtar son of Muhammad Afzal and his companion Riaz Ahmad. P.W.13 was getting his own wagon repaired from a mechanic closeby. From Tariq accused were recovered a pistol P.8 and live cartridges P.9/1-4, seized vide memo. Exh.PL. Farooq Ahmad accused surrendered a wrist-watch P.6, belonging to Nasir Iqbal deceased, and on personal search of Rehmat accused was recovered a golden chain P.5, secured respectively through memos. Exhs. PM and PN. Deceased's wagon P.7 was also taken into possession per memo. Exh.PK. A separate case under section 13, Arms. Ordinance XX of 1965 was registered against Tariq accused, who had no licence for keeping the fire-arm and ammunition.
3. An identification parade was held in the District Jail, Gujrat, by Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Hundal, Magistrate Ist Class, Gujrat, P.W.9, on 4-6-1988, the record of proceedings thereof being Exh.PJ.
Muhammad Bashir Sub-Engineer P.W.1 prepared the site-plans, on a visit to the site of occurrence on 7-6-1988, the same being Exhs. PA and PA/1. Muhammad Farooq accused, in police custody, on 9-6-1988, led to recovery of dagger P.4 from a spot situate near the place of occurrence. The same was seized vide memo. Exh.PG, attested by Javed Akhtar P.W.7 and one Muhammad Khan, the recovery having been effected by Muhammad Ashraf Inspector P.W.18. The dagger however was not stained with blood. Blood-stained clothes of the deceased were submitted to the scrutiny of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, whose reports Exhs.PP and PQ were tendered in evidence by the learned Special Public Prosecutor in trial. Since no empty was picked up from the spot, the fire-arm recovered from one of the accused persons was not sent to the ballistic expert.
4. The prosecution produced as many as 18 witnesses in order to connect the accused with the commission of crime. Learned defence counsel representing different accused persons have however questioned the credibility of the ocular evidence, as also of the recoveries. They have not only disputed the authenticity of the F.I.R., but have also hinuted at absolute improbability of the incident. Inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence led by the prosecution have also been pointed out, in abundance. Impartiality/reliability of the exercise of investigation undertaken by different police officers has also been taken serious exception to. The accused persons had pleaded absolute innocence and had given reasons for their false implication in the case. One of them, Muhammad Farooq had even examined a witness in defence, while maintaining that the accused had been arrested in a fake police encounter, and although the arrest was shown to have been made on 2-6-1988, he (Farooq accused) had, in actual practice, been subjected to interrogation, by being taken in custody, on 26-5-1988, by Muhammad Anwar, S.I. of P.S. Mughalpura (or Harbanspura).
5. One Abdul Qayyum son of Amir Din, appearing as P.W.11, had claimed having been present at Mughalpura Chowk, when in the evening Tariq accused had met Muhammad Rasheed complainant and expressed an intention to have a vehicle on hire and had paid Rs,200 in advance for the purpose. He had told Rasheed to bring the wagon, next evening, to Adda Shabeel for picking up other companions of Tariq. Rasheed had however made it clear to Tariq that they should come to Mughalpura Chowk wagon stand, on the following day, in the evening, telling him that it would not be possible to take the wagon to the other `Adda'. While making his statement, as P.W.10, Muhammad Rasheed complainant has not made mention of this arrangement having been arrived at, on the preceding evening. In cross-examination, learned counsel for the accused have themselves put to the P.W. the happening date 23-5-1988 and the P.W. has admitted that he had been approached by Tariq accused a day before their departure from Lahore for Jhelum. If this incident, of no major significance, does not find mention in the F.I.R. or if in his examination-in-chief the complainant had not made a statement to that effect, it would not serve to show that the actual incident had not occurred in the stated manner and the F.I.R. narrative did not represent the true facts. In F.I.R. broad and principal links in the chain of events, culminating in an occurrence, constituting commission of crime, are generally stated, and the F.I.R. is certainly not meant to be an exhaustive and all-embracing statement of all aspects of a happening. It is to be noted that the F.I.R. had been lodged not with an inexcusable delay, and the incident must be taken to have been reported to the police with promptitude.. The occurrence took place at mid night (on the night between 24/25-5-1988), and the complainant was a stranger to the place. It was a jungle, where the robbery and murder were committed, and the complainant had to remain there, in complete dark, and he set off for the police station, when there was daylight. Distance of the site of occurrence from the police station was about six miles. Major part of it, the complainant had to traverse on foot. He however, made his statement Exh.PC before Mahmood Khan S.I. of P.S. Sarai Alamgir at 8-30 a.m. The complainant could not possibly have any consultation or contemplation before relating the incident to the police. We would rule out deliberations, alien influences and preliminary investigation having played their part leading to registration of the case.
6. Although Tariq accused had met Muhammad Rasheed complainant, on the previous day, names of the accused persons, including that of Tariq, do not find mention in the F.I.R., and the complainant had given their general description, as age, complexion, height, bulk, dress, etc. of the accused. It is to be noted that Tariq accused is resident of Harchanranpura and Muhammad Rasheed complainant belongs to Nai Abadi, Harbanspura, Lahore. They do not hail from the same locality. Although according to Abdul Qayyum P.W.11, the person approaching Muhammad Rasheed, on the preceding evening, had disclosed his identity as Tariq, the complainant was not supposed to have remembered his name by heart; and as it was Tariq's first meeting with Rasheed, the latter might not have retained in his memory the name of the former; and all the accused, as such, were described in the F.I.R. with reference to their features, dress, etc. and omission of names would not detract from, rather the same would add to, the authenticity of the statement incorporated in the F.I.R. We would take it as a spontaneous and truthful account of the incident, with no fabrication.
7. Muhammad Rasheed P.W.10, who is the complainant in the case, is the only eye-witness of the occurrence. He had no relationship with the deceased; and there was indeed in existence a cause of grouse between the two, as Salma Bilquees, sister of Rasheed had been engaged with Nasir Iqbal deceased; and 4/5 months prior to the occurrence, the engagement had been undone by the mother of the deceased. Against this background, the complainant was expected to have avoided appearing for the prosecution, but he opted to report the incident to the police and then appeared for the cause of the prosecution as a witness.
' Abdul Qayyum P.W.11 owns wagons and himself operates as a driver and is thus a petty transporter. The aforesaid P.Ws. can safely be termed as respectable and reliable persons. It has been suggested to the complainant by the accused that he himself might have been responsible for the murder of Muhammad Nasir Iqbal, against whom he had a grudge, on account of break up of the engagement between his sister and the deceased. It is to be pointed out that Muhammad Yousaf, real brother of Rasheed, had also arrived in the Civil Hospital, Kharian, immediately on learning about the occurrence, alongwith deceased's father Muhammad Younas Altaf P.W.12 and brother Zahid Iqbal P.W.15. The family of the complainant had, it appears, intensely been worried and immensely been shocked on becoming aware of death of Nasir Iqbal. Had the family members of the deceased any suspicion about involvement of Muhammad Rasheed complainant in the affair, they would not have hesitated to make the police aware of the same; but, alongwith Muhammad Rasheed complainant, they have appeared as P.Ws., and have supported one another, in a bid to indict the accused persons, actually involved.
8. The accused have alleged that they have falsely been implicated in the case by the complainant against a background of previous enmity. According to Tariq accused, his family had supported one Amir Alam, in the local bodies election, whereas Rasheed complainant and his family members were the supporters of Haji Muhammad Afzal. It is not the allegation that Haji Muhammad Afzal had played any part in involving Muhammad Tariq accused in the case. Every voter has his own choice, and it has seldom happened that the entire population has voted for a single candidate. Mere difference in choice of a candidate by two persons or by two families would not make them enemies, nor would such eventuality entangle them or tag them in murder feuds.
Acrimony between the opposing candidates, pitted against each other, may mount, but that too on political plane and not essentially in field of crime.
9. According to Rehmat Ali accused, Muhammad Yousaf, brother of the complainant, was a broker in the sale of a plot, measuring 50 Marlas, belonging to former's family. It was situate in Fateh Garh, Mughalpura, Lahore. Abdul Majeed, who was the vendee, paid Rs,55,000 and kept on postponing payment of the remaining amount, and Muhammad Yousaf, as the middle man, dodged the onwers-alienors and did not persuade the purchaser to make the payment. The vendors refused to part with any amount in favour of Muhammad Yousaf, as commission fee, for the deal. Even if however this assertion was correct, Muhammad Yousaf was not supposed to have waited for, or looked for, a murder to take place, so as to put up his brother as a complainant in the case against a member of the family (one out of six), owning the aforesaid plot. According to Muhammad Farooq accused, Muhammad Rasheed complainant had been embittered against him by reason of the former's younger brother leaving the cricket ground, a few `overs' or balls short of end of the match. No man of normal prudence would lend ears to these insinuations of the accused, absolutely fickle, flimsy and far-fetched, for their being roped in maliciously and falsely in the case by the complainant. We would therefore spurn and disbelieve the defence pleas, with the disapproval the same deserve.
10. According to the accused, they had been shown to the P.Ws. and their photographs had also appeared in a number of dailies dated 2-6-1988, `Nawa-i Wage, `Mashriq' and 'Imroze', as per Exhs.
DF, DG and DH, and the identification parade held on 4-6-1988, in the circumstances, would be rendered meaningless. It is however to be pointed out that even very well-educated people do not read the whole media material, and every bit of it, and one may suffice to have a passing look at only one paper; and even that exercise may be interrupted by intervals of days together.
Complainant's father Muhammad Younas Altaf P.W.12 says that he does not get time to read newspapers, despite being as Assistant Librarian in the Lahore High Court. P.W.10 Muhammad Rasheed complainant is middle-pass and P.W.11 Abdul Qayyum son of Amir Din has studied up to 7th Class. They work as conductor/driver, which category of people, it will not be disputed, hardly has any spare time to read newspapers, as they remain engaged in their activity day and night.
These two persons had identified all the three accused persons correctly in the identification parade, held under supervision of a Magistrate (Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Hundal, P.W.9), on 4-6-1988.
There was nothing wrong G with the exercise, undertaken in a regular manner by the Magistrate, and in the circumstances of the case, especially as the accused had not been named in the F.I.R., such an exercise was supposed to be of immense help.
11. Abdul Qayyum P.W.11 was present at the Mughalpura Chowk, in the evening on 23-5-1988, when Tariq accused had struck the bargain with Muhammad Rasheed and paid to him Rs,200 in advance. P.W.14 Muhammad Naeem Akhtar son of Muhammad Din happened to be present around, when at about 7-30 p.m., on 24-5-1988, Nasir Iqbal was sitting in his wagon at the canal bridge Mughalpura and had told the P.W. that he planned to go to Jhelum. In the meantime, all the three accused, Rehmat, Tariq and Farooq came there and boarded the wagon, as is deposed, and, on the following day, the P.W. came to know that Nasir Iqbal had been murdered. He participated in the funeral prayers of the deceased on 25-5-1988. From the testimony of P.W.14 it transpires that even the accused were known to him, and he also claims to have had friendship with the deceased, lasting over 4/5 years, during which period Nasir Iqbal had been putting up at Karachi, for most of the time. He had come to Lahore on Eid-ul-Azha day. P.W.14 says that he became aware of Nasir lqbal's death at 2-30 p.m. and he paid a visit to his house twice, at 5 p.m. and 10 p.m., and he also met the younger brothers of the deceased at 5 p.m. He did not make anyone of them aware of the fact that he had seen certain persons boarding the wagon of the deceased, on the previous evening. Apparently this conduct of the P.W. does not sound plausible; but on a deeper probe one realizes that there was nothing unnatural about it. Younger brothers of the deceased were not at all known to him; and again they must all be in grip of extreme agony and shock, especially when the dead body had not yet arrived and nothing could be said with certainty as to what had happened to the deceased. Nasir Iqbal's elder brother, Zahid Iqbal P.W.15, and his father, Muhammad Younas Altaf P.W.12 had rushed to Sarai Alamgir, on learning about the sudden and tragic demise of Nasir Iqbal, on receiving a telephonic call from there, booked by Rasheed at about 10 a.m. They reached the Civil Hospital, Kharian at about 1 p.m. and they returned home with the dead body at about 9 p.m. Thereafter the Janaza prayers were offered, and at about the same time (at 11 p.m.), Muhammad Ashraf Inspector/S.H.O., P.S. Sarai Alamgir also arrived there. Before him, P.W.14 then made his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. These developments thus took place in an orderly and no haphazard manner, and there is no room for any confusion on that count.
12. It is well-known that unconcerned people and so-called respectables often avoid association with investigation of serious criminal cases, for fear of incurring life-long enmity and inciting feelings of vengeance of the accused. But, in the present case, those who had witnessed the arrest of the accused, and recovery of different articles from them by the police, were no near relatives of the deceased, although they might be belonging to the same locality, which the complainant came from. The police officers, who conducted the arrest and recovery proceedings, Shafqat Ali Chatha, P.W.16, then S.H.O. P.S. Mughalpura, was also supposed to have no soft corner for the complainant, and did not stand to gain anything by unnecessarily involving innocent persons in this case of murder of Muhammad Nasir Iqbal and by resorting to what is known as police padding.
Initial investigation was carried out by Mahmood Khan S.I. and Muhammad Ashraf Inspector, P.Ws.
17 and 18, belonging to that far-off place, Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat. They were expected to be absolutely neutral, non-partisan; and we trust that they had performed their duty in an impartial and upright manner.
13. The wagon bearing No,3260/LHP actually belonged to the deceased's brother, Zahid Iqbal P.W.15, who claimed to have purchased it from one Shahadat Khan, shortly before the occurrence, in February, 1988. By then no documentation had been done; but subsequent to the occurrence Zahid 'Oat produced before the S.H.O., Sarai Alamgir, a stamp paper, Exh.PD, carrying affidavit of Shahadat Khan, alongwith copies of the identity cards of the purchaser and the seller, the same being Mark 'A' and Mark 'B'. We do not think that the ownership of the wagon or plying of the same by the deceased and his taking it to the place of occurrence in the manner stated in the F.I.R. could in any way be a matter of confusion or dispute. Deceased was called `hero'. He used to wear a wrist-watch and a golden locket. That watch he had purchased from Saudi Arabia, according to his father P.W.12. The said articles had been identified to be belonging to the deceased by his father Muhammad Younas Altaf P.W.12, Naeem Akhtar son of Muhammad Afzal P.W.13, and one Riaz Ahmad, besides Muhammad Rasheed complainant. These valuables had been recovered from the accused persons, leaving little doubt about their I complicity. Especially the event that all the three accused, just before their arrest, were found going in the same wagon, Exh.P.7, which used to be driven by the deceased, for keeping which with them the accused had no explanation, would unmistakably connect them with the commission of the crime.
14. The doctor performing the post-mortem examination had given the opinion that the only fire- arm injury on the left eye of the deceased could be received by him, if the assailant were on his left side. According to the complainant, the injury had been caused while Rehmat Ali accused, with the other two accused persons, was sitting on the seat behind the driver's seat. It is urged by the learned defence counsel, while referring to the observation of the doctor (Dr. Ijaz Ahmad P.W.8), that if the victim and the assailant were in standing position at the time of assault, the ocular account would come in direct conflict with the medical testimony. In this regard it is to be noted that according to the complainant the accused had called upon the driver to stop and bring back the vehicle and that the deceased had thereupon reversed it. It will not be disputed that when a driver applies the reverse gear, he would invariably turn his face, so as to have a look backward.
Being an isolated dark place the mirror on the right side of driver would not have rendered him any help, and while reversing, the left side of the deceased's face and head was supposed to have been exposed to the person sitting on the rear. In that position the shot fired by the assailant would have hit the driver (the deceased) on the left temple or eye. The injury was so severe that the whole eye region was completely smashed, roof of left orbit with base of skull was ruptured and the cranium cavity was flooded with blood. There was blackening around the injury, which would show that the shot had been fired from a very close distance. When reviewed in that context, it would be revealed that the ocular evidence was in accord with the medical account. It may also be remarked here that the medical officer, who was not an arms expert, was giving an opinion, based on guesswo rk, or an assessm ent just as any one else could make, and there was room for difference of opinion.
15. One Syed Mujtaba Hussain (Lt.-Col. retired) has appeared as a witness in defence of Tariq accused and has deposed that he is incharge, Minar-i-Pakistan, Lahore, and in his presence Muhammad Anwar, S.I. had come there and through him contacted retired Subedar Muhammad Yaqub, father of Tariq accused, and that the Subedar had produced his son Tariq Mahmood before the S.I., when two other persons, Saeed Ahmad Awan and Ch. Ghulam Nabi, were also present. The S.I. took along Tariq on 26-5-1988, with a promise to restore him in the evening. He was required in connection with certain enquiry. We are not prepared to trust the testimony, because as an officer incharge he could well be expected to have gone out of the way to help his subordinate, a retired official of the army. There is however, another possibility. Till such time identification parade was held, identity of the accused was in doubt, as their names had not been given in the F.I.R. It was only investigation stage. The police officer might have met the Lt.-Colonel and the Subedar, as also the latter's son Tariq, in order to ascertain if Tariq was one of those three who had looted Nasir Iqbal and then killed him. The record of investigation reveals that immediately after the occurrence the accused had escaped towards Rawalpindi and then returned to Lahore, to be with their family members for a day or two, and then to embark on a similar 'expedition' to perform 'feats' of same character in different cities. Tariq was in Lahore on 26-5-1988; and when after a few days the three accused again joined hands and set out on a journey, in the same wagon, they fell prey to a police party, on the look out, having arranged a 'Nakabandi' at the railway level crossing, on 2-6-1988, and were arrested, and they also yielded all important recoveries. Deposition of the D.W. would not constitute any setback to the cause of the prosecution and be of any advantage to Tariq accused in his plea of innocence.
16. We are of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against the accused persons; and the learned trial Court had deduced conclusions rightly, in the light of evidence, having exhaustively been discussed in the course of the lengthy judgment covering 32 pages. We would also like to refer to the statements made by the accused persons immediately on their arrest. First statement of an accused after arrest is more often than not nearer truth. As Court we are entitled to have a look into the case diaries to strengthen our opinion, otherwise formed in a confident manner on the strength of the evidence on record. The accused had, on 2-6-1988, after they were arrested, made known their intentions and plans, future plans also not denying their full participation in the occurrence, in which the young man, for no fault on his part and with no background of enmity with the accused, was shot dead and was robbed of his wagon and other valuables, worth an enormous amount. If the accused had succeeded in earning acquittal, somehow, either by eliminating the complainant and obliterating the substantial evidence, also, or by reason of rigidly technical and routine approach on the part of the trial Court, or by being extended pitying or compassionate indulgence, they were bound to play havoc and be on a more monstruous rampage in future, on being encourged by their present `achievement' and in hopeful pursuit of their future 'enterprises', which would indeed have been very unfortunate, from the point of view of life and security of peaceful citizens, as also crime incidence in the country. They have rightly been convicted and suitably been sentenced.
17. Although we think that they deserve the extreme penalty of death, in keeping with the severity of their crime and their criminal aptitude and adeptness, we feel that at this age of adolescence they had probably been led astray by the general waive of crime and the 'spirit of enterprise', which the youngsters in recent times have been 'imbued' with, and we therefore would not disagree with the learned lower Court that the lesser penalty of life imprisonment would even meet the ends of justice. If the complainant is believed in his account of the incident, as we have done, the allied offence under section 337/34, P.P.C. also stands proved, as in furtherance of their common intention the accused had made a murderous assault on Muhammad Rasheed complainant as well, although he was lucky to escape. Similarly the offence under section 394/397, P.P.C. also stands proved, beyond any manner of doubt. So evidently the initial object of the accused persons was to snatch away the wagon and to make it a vehicle for perpetration of their sinister designs and to indulge in revelry, on amassing wealth. They could have achieved the object without murdering the driver even, but they were probably scared about disclosure of their indentity, by keeping alive the driver and his helper, and they decided to do away with both of them. They being first offenders must have been driven into a condition of extreme consternation and frightfulness, on finding the driver to have met instantaneous death, and in state of embarrassment and awe they could not succeed in killing the co-driver. They however committed the robbery 'alright', and in the process they murdered a man. They fully deserved the treatment meted out to them in trial, on every count.
18. In view of the above discussion, we find the appeals to be devoid of force; and we therefore maintain the conviction but would order that the sentences awarded for different charges shall run concur ently, and the benefit available under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall also accrue to the appellants.
19. Before parting with the judgment we may mention that State had also come up in appeal (No,1015 of 1988) and the complainant too had preferred a revision (No,570 of 1988), with a prayer for enhancement of sentence and conversion of life imprisonment into death penalty, but the same had been dismissed in limine on 22-4-1989 by a Division Bench of this Court.