1. ' AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, C.J.--- The appellant along with co-accused persons, including absconders was tried under section 302/324/109/34, P.P.C. By learned Special Judge Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Learned trial Court found the appellant guilty, thus, convicted and sentenced him to death sentence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And awarded R.I. For 7 years under section 324, P.P.C. He was also fined Rs,50,000 in default whereof to further undergo R.I.
2. For two years by means of judgment, dated 30-12-1997. Besides the appellant, the other accused persons were awarded different sentences but we are only concerned with the appeal filed by the appellant.
3. ' Relevant facts for filing of the appeal are that one Haji Sheikh Muhammad lodged a complaint on 16-5-1994 with the Assistant Commissioner, Chaman. It was alleged that few days prior to the main incident an altercation took place between his son Abdul Zahir and one accused Abdul Razzaq on money matter which, however, was subsided by interference of Notables. He further alleged that on 9-5-1994 while his son along with some other persons was coming towards Chapman at Pak- Afghan Border at about 11-30 a.m. The present appellant along with co-accused persons had waylaid the road. They started firing at the deceased through Kalashnikovs as a result of which Abdul Zahir and Muhammad Ewaz received bullet injuries along with two other persons. The injured persons were given first treatment at Chamn and then shifted to Quetta Civil Hospital. Abdul Zahir and Muhammad Ewaz succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
4. ' Learned Assistant Commissioner, Chaman took cognizance on the information received from complainant and directed Tehsildar for investigation who arrested the appellant and two others and declared the remaining accused as proclaimed offenders. After formal investigation challah was submitted to the learned Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Pishin.
5. ' The trial Court framed charge and the accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to supplement the accusations examined the following witnesses:-- ' P.W.1 Naimatullah - injured eye-witness.
6. ' P.W.2 Jan Muhammad - injured eye-witness.
7. ' P. W.3 Barat .
8. ' P.W.4 Dr. Akhtar Muhammad.
9. ' P.W.5 Haji Sheikh Muhammad - complainant.
10. ' P. W.6 Ghousuddin - recovery witness.
11. ' P. W .7 M at iullah - Tehsildar/Investigating Officer.
12. ' Thereafter the accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. However, he did not lead any evidence in defiance.
13. ' After hearing arguments, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty and passed the sentence as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
14. ' Heard Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate for appellant learned Advocate-General for State and Mr. Ehsanul Haque Khan for complainant.
15. ' Before proceeding further we would like to give brief background of the incident as stated by the prosecution and to assess the evidence produced by prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that on 9-5-1994 at about 11-30 a.m. Accused Abdul Qadoos (convict) along with absconding accused Khano, Moman, Abdul Razzaq and Qadir waylaid the road and on seeing deceased party started firing upon them with Kalashnikov when they were near Pak Afghan Border proceeding towards Chapman in a Land Cruiser. As a result of firing 4 persons received injuries namely Abdul Zahir, Ewaz, Naimatullah and Jan Muhammad. Zahir and Ewas were killed and Jan Muhammad and Naimatullah received grievous injuries. In support of this prosecution version, P.W.1 Naimatullah (injured) who deposed that on 9-5-1994 at about 8-30 a.m. He along with Zahir, Ewaz, Jan Muhammad were going towards Pak Afghan Border in a Land Cruiser. They saw Abdul Qadoos: Khano, Razak, Moman and Qadir. There was altercation between them but they were separated peacefully. At about 11-00 or 11-30 a.m. While he along with Zahir, Ewaz, Jan Muhammad were coming back to Chaman in the same Land Cruiser, and when they reached in Nala on the backside of Militia Killa, they saw three motorcycles and Qadoos, Razak, Khano, Ghulam Qadir and Manan were standing, who signaled them to stop. The witness saw Qadoos, Khano and Razak armed with Kalashnikovs. Zahir and Ewaz got down from the vehicle first and the accused started firing upon them. They were hit and then this P.W. Naimatullah and Jan Muhammad got down and received injuries. The witness remained in the hospital for 12/13 days.
16. 'P.W.2 Jan Muhammad deposed in the trial Court that on 9-5-1994 he along with Niamat, Zahir and Ewaz went towards border in a Land Cruiser at 8-30 a.m. At border Zahir had some money dispute with Razzak. There was some altercation between Zahir and Razzak but the people separated them.
17. At about 11 or 11-15 he along with Ewaz, Zahir and Niamat proceeded towards Chaman. When they reached in the Nala near Militia Kill there were five persons standing with three motor cycles. They were Razzak, Manan, Qadoos, Khano and Ghulam Qadir. Razzak, Qadoos and Khano were armed with Kalashnikovs. Razzed signaled to stop and when they stopped the accused persons started firing. First Zahir and Awaz were hit and then the witness was also injured and became unconscious. Zahir and Ewaz died and this witness and P.W. Niamat got injuries. He came to senses after 3 days of incident in the Civil Hospital at Quetta. He remained in the hospital for 14/15 days. He identified Qadoos present in the Court.
18. ' P.W.3 is Barat Khan. According to him on 9-5-1994 at about 11-30 a.m. He was coming from Pak Afghan Border towards Chaman on a motorcycle. A land Cruiser crossed him in the way in which about 5 persons were sitting. This vehicle was stopped by 5 persons standing at the road. Three of them had Kalashnikovs. No sooner the said four persons came out of the vehicle, they were fired at by the three persons having Kalashnikovs. The burst of Kalashnikovs continued for a while when he reached close to the place of occurrence. All the five persons ran away from the place of occurrence on three motor-bikes towards Kelli Muhammad Umar Khan. When the witness reached the place of occurrence two persons namely Zahir and Ewaz had already died due to firing whereas Jan Muhammad and Niamatullah were lying injured. The persons who were killed and injured were previously known to him. He also identified the accused persons as Abdul Razzak, Abdul Qadoos, Manan, Khan and Abdul Qadir. According to him Abdul Qadoos had a Kalashnikov.
19. Similarly Abdul Ra77ak and Khano had Kalashnikovs in their hands.
20. ' P.W.4 is Doctor Akhtar Muhammad who examined the dead bodies of Awaz and Zahir and issued the certificates snowing the injuries as under:-- ' Muhammad Evaz ' Entrance wound of gun shot on left chest exit wound on right chest (posteriorly). Cause of death due to excessive hemorrhage. Weapon was used gun shot.
21. ' Zahir Jan
(1) Entrance wound of gun shot on anterior abdomen.
(2) Exit wound on backside.
(3) Entrance wound of gun shot on backside of right thigh.
(4) Exit wound of gun shot on anterior side of right thigh.
(5) Cause of death excessive hemorrhage. The weapon used gun shot."
22. ' He also examined the injured persons namely Niamat and Jan Muhammad and issued medical certificates showing following injuries:-- Naimatullah
(1) Entrance wound of gun shot on anterior side of left thigh.
(2) Exit wound of gun shot on posterior side of left thigh.
(3) Entrance wound of gun shot on pelvic region.
(4) Exit wound on posterior side of pelvic region. Jan Muhammad
(1) Entrance wound of gun shot on left lumber region.
(2) Exit wound on right lumber region. The weapon used was gun shot.
23. ' P.W.5 Haji Sheikh Muhammad is the complainant who deposed that there was monetary transaction between Razzaq, Manan, Khano, Qadoos and Qadir along with his sons namely Zahir, Muhammad Ewaz, Jan and Niamatullah. Muhammad Ewaz was his nephew. When he received information about the incident at his home he rushed to hospital. However, before going to hospital he informed Assistant Commissioner, Chapman. The injured Jan Muhammad was removed to Quetta while Naimatullah remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Chaman. He submitted complaint to Assistant Commissioner after 4/5 days of the occurrence which is Exh.P.5/A which was identified by the witness in the Court.
24. ' P.W.6 is Ghousuddin who is Hawaldar Levies, Headquarters, Chapman. He stated that he was posted at Levies Headquarters, Chaman on 9-5-1994. He along with officials and Tehsildar reached the place of occurrence. In his presence two small rocks of blood-stained earth were taken into possession. Seizure mem was prepared at office which is Exh.P.6/A. He stated that except this nothing was recovered and taken into possession. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Assistant District Attorney.
25. ' P.W.7 Matiullah was Tehsildar, Chaman at the relevant time. He was directed by Assistant Commissioner to proceed on the spot where two persons had been murdered. He alongwith levies men reached the spot and after site inspection prepared a site plan Exh.P.7/A. He found three empties of Kalashnikov which were taken into possession through seizure memo. He also identified the same as Article 2. He obtained blood-stained earth and conducted investigation. He arrested Khuda-i-Rahim and Abdul Qadoos from their houses. About absconding accused persons he took action under section 87, Cr.P.C. He went to Civil Hospital, Chaman and conducted remaining inquiries.
26. ' In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The charges were denied by the accused person.
27. ' Learned trial Court passed death sentence against present appellant Abdul Qadoos as well as absconders namely Abdul Razzaq and Khanoo. However, he convicted and sentenced Manan and Qadir to suffer life imprisonment and acquitted the remaining accused.
28. ' Mr. Basharatullah firstly contended that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of complaint submitted to Assistant Commissioner, Chaman who marked it to Tehsildar for inquiry. The first legal objection was that it was not lawful enquiry and on the basis of such enquiry, cognizance could not have been taken by Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Pishin under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The second limb of the argument was that Tehsildar being a Magistrate-II, Class can conduct inquiry and not an investigation, therefore, cognizance was illegally taken on such enquiry, and trial Court could not proceed with the matter. In this regard our attention was invited to section 5 of the Act which reads as under:-- "(5) Taking of Cognizance.--- (1) The officer-in-charge of a police station shall complete the investigation and forward directly to the Special Court a report under section 173 of the Code within fourteen days in respect of a case tribal by such Court.
29. ' Provided that the Special Court may extend the time within which such reports is to be forwarded in a case where good reasons are shown for not doing so within the time specified in this subsection.
(2) Any default on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station an Investigation Officer or any other person required by law to perform any functions in connection with the investigation, which results in, or has the effect of, delaying the investigation or the submission of the report under subsection (1), shall be deemed to be a willful disobedience of the order of the Special Court and dealt with under the law accordingly.
(3) The Special Court may directly take cognizance of a case tribal by such Court without the case being sent to it under section 190 of the Code."
(4) We do not find any force in the contention so raised by the appellant's counsel.
30. ' The reason being that subsection (2) of section 5 clearly lays down that any default on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station, an Investigating Officer or any other person required by law to perform any functions in connection with the investigation (underlining is ours) which results in or has the effect of delaying the investigation or the submission of report under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a willful disobedience of the order of the Special Court and dealt with under the law accordingly. The Legislature, therefore, was conscious of the fact that it is not only the charge of a police station but any other person required by law to perform any functions in connection with the investigation who is held responsible for submitting report/challah. In the instant case it is worth to mention here that in the Province of Baluchistan there are two fields known as "A" area and "B" area for the purposes of investigation of a case. In "A" areas the police conducts investigation, whereas in "B" Area the Tehsildar, Naib-Tehsildar and Levies conduct investigation, therefore, Tehsildar is the person required under law to perform functions in connection with the investigation. In this regard necessary amendment has already been made in the relevant provision of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Government of Baluchistan vide Notification No,S0(Judl) 4(5)/94/456-93, dated 9th January, 1997 and the relevant amendment for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder:-- "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (s) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), the Government. Of Baluchistan is pleased to declare all Levies Thanas Headquarters at Tehsil/Sub-Tehsil to be police stations for their respective areas of jurisdiction and for the purposes of registration and investigation of cases.
31. ' The Officer-in-charge of the said Police Station will exercise all powers vested in the Officer-in- charge of a police station as provided in the Cr.P.C. And under any other law for the time being in force.
32. ' The Tehsildar/Naib-Tehsildar or any other person so appointed will act as the officer-in-charge of such police stations within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions. They will continue to perform such other duties as may be assigned to them under any other law; provided that such officers will not have authority/jurisdiction to sit in trial of cases which they have inquired into or investigated."
33. Therefore, Tehsildar is very much in charge of Police Station/Levies Station for the purposes of section 5 of the Act, hence, the argument that Tehsildar can conduct only inquiry and not investigation is devoid of any force.
34. ' Besides subsection (3) of section 5 of the Act clearly lays down that the Special Court may directly take cognizance of a case tribal by such Court without the case being sent to it under section 190 of the Code. This means that under the Act the cognizance of an offence can be taken directly by the Special Court on any material which comes to its knowledge. It is not necessary that such case should be sent under section 190 of the Code. This appears to he a deviation from normal course as the Legislature empowered Special Court under the Act to take directly cognizance provided material exists that a scheduled offence has been committed.
35. ' Mr. Basharatullah then challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court by saying that in fact no schedule offence has been committed, therefore, trial is without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Basharatullah neither any Kalashnikov has been recovered nor empties, therefore, the offence is not a scheduled offence, as such the entire trial is without jurisdiction. It is an admitted position that in the schedule section 302 is committed with Kalashnikov is a scheduled offence. All the eye- witnesses have stated that the accused persons fired at the deceased with Kalashnikovs. The Tehsildar who was Investigating Officer categorically stated that he found 3 empties of Kalashnikov which were taken into possession through seizure memo. Exh.P/7-B. The defiance has not challenged that deceased persons had not been killed by Kalashnikovs. No question was asked from the Investigating Officer or from any of the three eye-witnesses during the trial. However, a vague question was asked from Investigating Officer that empties are available in Chman. Thus, it is not at all the case of the defiance that the deceased persons had not been killed with firing of Kalashnikovs. On the other hand, ample evidence has been brought on record that two deceased persons were killed with firing of burst of Kalashnikov. There is ocular version of the same including two persons who got several injuries as well as statement of Investigating Officer that three empties of Kalashnikov were recovered from the place of occurrence. The Honorable Supreme Court has already held that it is not necessary that the Kalashnikov should be recovered. Reliance, if any, may be placed on 1994 SCM R 717.
36. ' Another point raised by Mr. Basharatullah was that complaint was lodged after 2/3 days of the incident. The complaint is Exh.P.5/A. In fact in his statement Haji Sheikh Muhammad the complainant clearly mentioned that when he was informed in his house that his sons had been killed he immediately rushed to the hospital but before going to hospital he informed the Assistant Commissioner, Chaman. However, formal complaint has been filed after Fatehia ceremonies as is prevalent in the areas. After receiving such verbal information Assistant Commissioner directed Tehsildar to proceed on the spot and start investigation. We do not find any illegality nor any mala fide.
37. ' As for as merits of the case are concerned according to Mr. Basharatullah statement' of P.W. Barat was recorded on 26-5-1994 and statements of remaining injured persons on 30-5-1994, thus, such statements are unreliable.
38. ' As for as injured are concerned since they were seriously wounded, hence they were shifted to Quetta and their statements were recorded after when they recovered from the injuries. No question has been asked by the defiance from the Investigating Officer about the reasons why statement of P.W. Barat was recorded after such a delay. However, in cross-examination he stated that statement of Barat was recorded on 26-5-1994. It may be mentioned here that investigation in "B" area is conducted slightly in a different manner as initially security arrangements and preventive measures are taken so that further murders are avoided. Even the statement of injured persons had been recorded on 30-5-1994 after they were recovered. It does not mean that they were not injured nor such fact was ever challenged. Yet another objection to the statements of eye-witnesses was that they were near relatives. But this arguments is also equally devoid of force for the reason that complainant party and accused party are inter se related. P.W.3 stated that it is correct to suggest that complainant party is his relative, voluntarily stated, that accused Abdul Qadoos is also his cousin. So, P.W.3 Barat deposed against his own cousin Abdul Qadoos. There was no reason for him to have implicated his own cousin if he had not witnessed the occurrence.
39. ' As for as the admissibility of statements of P.W.3 Barat as well as injured is concerned we have come to the conclusion that the same is confidence inspiring and rightly relied upon by the trial Court.
40. ' Another objection raised was that name of Barat was not mentioned in the complaint, therefore, his statement be discarded. In fact complainant is the father of deceased Zahir. Admittedly he was not present on the scene of occurrence, hence he did not know about the witnesses. How could he mention the name of Barat when he was unaware about the same. All the three eyewitnesses stood the test of cross-examination.
41. ' As for as motive is concerned, according to Mr. Basharatullah there are contradictions in the statements of two witnesses namely statements of two injured P.W. Niamatullah and P.W. Jan Muhammad with his father the complainant. The father stated that monetary transaction and dispute was three years old whereas witnesses stated that there was scuffle over the same on the day of incident. We do not find any contradiction in these two statements for the simple reason that it is possible that the money dispute was an old one but on the day of incident Zahir demanded money from the accused persons when he saw them standing. There was scuffle between Zahir and accused when people intervened. However, when the deceased party was coming back the accused persons waylaid them and started indiscriminate firing killing two persons and injuring Niamatullah and Jan Muhammad. Thus, there is no contradiction in so for as motive is concerned.
42. ' The ocular testimony in this case is strong and confidence inspiring. It is otherwise natural and the statements of two injured persons fully corroborate each other about the manner in which the incident had taken place as well as about the accused persons who were involved. Their testimony is further corroborated by P.W.3 Barat Khan. The medical evidence fully supports the ocular version.
43. Thus, it is a reliable piece of corroboration. Besides, three empties of Kalashnikov have been recovered according to Tehsildar from place of incident which further substantiates the prosecution version. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the accused/appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court. We did not find any plausible reason whatsoever to interfere in the said judgment.
44. ' After having held that appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial Court the next pertinent question is about quantum of sentence. According to Mr. Basharatullah it is not known as to whose bullet hit the deceased persons, therefore, lesser punishment for life imprisonment in the circumstances would meet the ends of justice. In order to support this contention Mr. Basharatullah relied on the case of Mukhtar Hussain and another v. The State reported in 1985 SCM R 479. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:-- "However, we find substance in the contention of the learned counsel that in the circumstances of this case, inasmuch as there is no direct evidence of the commission of the crime, it cannot with any amount of certainty be said as to who fired the fatal shot at the deceased. As we have taken the extra-judicial confession out of consideration, the situation relied upon by the learned counsel does appear to be tenable. And the sentence awarded to appellant Mukhtar Husain, in our opinion, requires to be re-examined. We find that the gun with which the deceased was shot was produced by acquitted accused Mushtaq Husain and the empty secured along with the deceased body was found matching with it. As already stated Mushtaq Husain is the father of appellant Mukhtar Hussain who was about twenty years of age at the time of occurrence. Although Mushtaq Husain has been acquitted as there was no sufficient evidence to convict him, possibility cannot be ruled out that appellant Mukhtar Husain was acting under the influence of his father. Having regard to these circumstances we think that the extreme penalty of death is not called for in this case and the said appellant is entitled to the benefit of the lesser penalty provided by law."
45. ' Before commenting upon whether such observations would be relevant in the instant case we are inclined to reproduce the observations made in 1977 SCM R 389 which has been relied upon by Mr. Ehsanul Haq learned counsel for the complainant for confirming the death sentence. The relevant paras. Of said judgment are reproduced as under:-- "(5) The Legislature has conferred very wide discretion on the Courts in the matter of sentences under the Penal Code, but as the discretion has to be exercised judicially, the Court would be entitled to take into account the law and order situation, if the objects of punishment or one of the objects of punishment be to deter the commission of further crimes. Now, I do not see how there can be any doubt about this question. Salmond observes in his book on Jurisprudence (Tenth Edition) at page 111; 'punishment is before all things deterrent, and the chief end of the law of crime is to make the evil doer an example and a warning to all that are likeminded with him'. I would agree with this passage, and the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that a severer sentence was necessary on account of the increase of crime provided of course culpable homicides of the type under consideration have increased as held by the learned Single Judge.
(6) Mr. Saleemi's next submission was that there was no material whatever to support the finding of the learned Single Judge that murders had been increasing, and he relied on the fact that the learned Assistant Advocate-General was not able to refer us to any statistics to show that murders were increasing at a faster rate than the increase in population. Further, the question is not only of the increase of crime or the increase of murders generally, but of the increase of the type of offence committed by the appellant. Is there any evidence to show that more and more people are taking the law into their hands and exceeding their right of self-defiance? I must confess I am very disturbed by this aspect of the case, which appears to have escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. However, we can take judicial notice of the fact that the strength of the High Courts have been increased since 1947, but despite this increase the arrears of criminal litigation have increased and it would not be unreasonable from these circumstances to infer that the tendency for people to take the law into their own hands had increased also. However, in the absence of statistics it would be hazardous to make a more precise generalization as for example, that crime has increased in the last decade. And, as no such statistics appears to be available, I have drawn a comparison between the period before and after 1974. Sentences for convictions under the First Part of section 304, P.P.C. Before 1947 were on the low side, therefore, the High Court was entitled to pass a severer sentence than, for example, that passed by Abdul Rashid, J. In Frida's case. But the prosecution cannot put its case higher than that I may also point out here that in Akhtar Hussain v.
46. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 251 this Court altered a conviction from section 302, P.P.C. To one under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And passed a sentence of ten years' R.I. Only."
47. ' Perusal of abovementioned two matters would show that discretion has to be exercise judicially by the Court regarding quantum of sentence. In the former case reproduced hereinabove sentence of death penalty was converted into imprisonment for life and in the latter case too, judicial notice of the fact was taken as regards increase in the crime rates as well as strength of the High Courts and after thorough discussion while concluding reliance was placed on PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 251 and Court altered conviction from section 302, P.P.C. To one under section 304, Part I, P.P.C.
48. ' In the first instance it appeared to us that the absconding accused and the appellant started firing upon the complainant party as there was dispute of money transaction between the absconding accused Abdul Razzaq and deceased Abdul Zahir.
49. ' It has never been argued by Mr. Ehsanul Haq nor Advocate-General that conviction of accused Abdul Qadoos should have been passed (recorded) under section 302(a), P.P.C. Instead of 302(b), P.P.C., therefore, we are not inclined to further dilate upon the same. Admitted position being that present appellant has been convicted under section 30(b), P.P.C. Which is reproduced as under:-- "302. Punishment of Qatal-e-Amad.--- Whoever commits Qatal-e-Amd shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter be- (a).
(b) punished with death or imprisonment for life as Tazir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in section 304 is not available; or (c)..
50. ' This clearly provides for death sentence or sentence for imprisonment for life as Ta'zir. We have already mentioned that the motive to kill was some money transaction between Abdul Razzaq absconding accused and Abdul Zahir deceased. This fact has been confirmed by all the P.Ws.
51. Including P.W.5 Haji Sheikh Muhammad (complainant) father of deceased in his statement as well as in the complaint. According to P.W.2 Jan Muhammad (injured) when they reached near the place of incident they were signaled to stop by accused Abdul Razzaq. He further deposed that as soon as they got down from the vehicle again absconding accused Abdul Razzaq who was armed with Kalashnikov had opened fire upon them. Thereafter, the appellant Abdul Qadoos also fired at them.
52. The case against appellant has been fully established. The conviction of appellant under section 302(11), P.P.C. Is maintained. We have also mentioned that it was Abdul Razzaq who firstly, started firing with Kalashnikov upon the complainants party. Thereafter, appellant Abdul Qadoos also fired at them. The present appellant, therefore, has committed the offence at the behest and with connivance of Abdul Razzaq, after when he started firing as a result of which Abdul Zahir and Muhammad Ewaz received bullet injuries. Both of them were then fired at by Abdul Qadoos, therefore, in the circumstances in our calculated view the capital punishment is not called for.
53. Thus, the appellant is awarded imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. We are, therefore, inclined to convert the sentence from death penalty into imprisonment for life under section 302(b), P.P.C. The appellant shall also suffer rigorous imprisonment under section 324, P.P.C. For 7 years and to pay fine of Rs,50,000. In default whereof to undergo two years' R.I. The sentence of 324, P.P.C. Shall be consecutive to sentence awarded under section 302(b), P.P.C. Because, Naimat Ullah and Jan Muhammad have received bullet injuries separately.
54. ' The appeal is dismissed with abovementioned modification in the sentence awarded under section 302(b), P.P.C.
55. Sentence reduced.