' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.--Muhammad Jahangir, Iftikhar Ahmad, Muhammad Latif, Muhammad Yousaf, Usman, Muhammad Sharif alias Shaffu and Hafiz Noor Ahmad were reported against vide F.I.R. No,40, dated 16-6-1993 Exh.PE for offence under section 302/449/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station Ghumandpur, District Bahawalnagar by Muhammad Akram P.W.4. According to complainant on the day of occurrence at about Fajar time he alongwith his brother Muhammad Aslam and Malkera, a tenant of Hakim Ali, slept outside the 'Ihata' of Hakim Ali. They woke up at the barking of dog and saw in the moon light Iftikhar, Sukhera, Jahangir, Yousaf, Usman, Latif and one unknown person armed with guns. Iftikhar and Yousaf accused fired at Muhammad Aslam while Latif accused fired at Malkera. Muhammad Aslam died at the spot while Malkera was injured. All the accused by scaling over the wall, went to the compound of ' Ihata' of Hakim Ali. Muhammad Usman and Jahangir fired at Muhammad Akhtar and Hakim Ali. The unknown person fired at Mst.
Noor Bakhat. According to complainant the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ishaq and Mumtaz. Due to firing of the accused, Muhammad Latif, a companion of the accused also injured.
The accused escaped from the spot while Latif accused, being injured fell on ground after covering a distance of 2/3 acres along with his gun. After removing the injured to Civil Hospital, Bahawalnagar, the complainant went to the Police Station.
2. The motive for the incident as stated by the complainant was that two years prior to the occurrence. Mst. Muniran after obtaining divorce from Jahangir married Hakim Ali. Iftikhar accused also wanted to marry Mst. Muniran. Due to that grudge the accused with their common intention committed the murders of Muhammad Aslam, Hakim Ali and Muhammad Akhtar and injured Mst.
Noor Bakhat and Malkera, P.W.
3. Feroze Ahmad, Inspector P.W .18, after recording the statement of Muhammad Akram P.W.4, went to the place of occurrence and secured blood-stained earth from the place of murder of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akhtar vide memos. Exh.P.G and Exh.P.R. He prepared inquest reports of Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Aslam deceased vide memos. Exh.PK and Exh.P.1/2 and sent the dead bodies to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also prepared injury statement of Muhammad Latif accused vide memo. Exh.P.H/1. He prepared rough site plan Exh.P.HH.
He recovered five crime empties from inside the 'Ihata' of Hakim Ali and five crime empties from outside the 'Ihata' of Hakim Ali and 32 crime empties from the roof of the Veranda of Hakim Ali vide memo. Exh.PT. The Investigation Officer secured a broken piece of gun Exh.P.19 vide memo. Exh.P.W.
According to witness Muhammad Akram complainant produced .12 bore gun Exh.P.20 and a live cartridge Exh.P.21 which had been recovered from Muhammad Latif accused vide memo. Exh.PX. He also took into possession a torch Exh.P.22 alongwith two Battery Cells Exh.P.23/1-2 from the personal search of Latif accused vide memo. Exh.P.Y. The investigating Officer recorded the statement of P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. He formally arrested Muhammad Latif accused in case F.I.R. No,41 of 1993 under the Arms Ordinance. According to witness Muhammad Latif was also sent to the Hospital for medical treatment. He recorded the statement of Muhammad Latif accused at Civil Hospital, Minchinabad. He went to District Headquarters Hospital, Bahawalnagar and prepared injury statements of Malkera and Hakim Ali vide memos. Exh.P.F/1 and Exh.P.G/2. On 21-6-1993, after receiving information about the death of Hakim Ali, the Investigation Officer went to the B.V.
Hospital, Bahawalpur and prepared inquest report of Hakim Ali deceased vide memo. Exh.P.O.
4. On 16-7-1993 he arrested Muhammad Jahangir, Iftikhar and Muhammad Yousaf accused and recovered two .12 bore guns Exh.P.3 and Exh.P.4 at the instance of Iftikhar accused vide memo.
Exh.P.B. He also recovered gun Exh.P.24 with 15 live cartridges Exh.P.25/1-15 at disclosure of Muhammad Jahangir accused vide memo. Exh.PAA. He recovered motor-cycle Exh.P. 29 at the instance of Muhammad Jahangir vide memo. Exh.P.CC. On 21-7-1993 he arrested Usman and Hafiz Noor Ahmad and crime weapons at their instance. Muhammad Sharif accused was arrested on 31- 7-1993 and was sent to Judicial Lockup for identification parade. The investigating officer, on 1-8- 1993, submitted an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad for identification parade of Muhammad Sharif accused. Muhammad Sharif accused led to the recovery of gun Exh.P.31 and 7 live cartridges Exh.P.32/1-7 vide memo. Exh.P.EE. He got prepared site plan Exh.P.B/1 and Exh.P.B/2. After completion of investigation all the accused were found guilty and were sent up to face trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, where charges under six heads was framed against them.
5. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to prove its case at the trial.
6. Dr. Shamshad Hussain P.W.5 on 16-6-1993 at 6-40 a.m. Had medically examined Malkera P.W.
And found multiple circular lacerated wounds 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. Each on the back of chest in the central portion and right and left shoulder with fresh bleeding.
7. On the same day the Medical Officer had also medically examined Hakim Ali and noted the following injuries:
(1) A lacerated wound 6 x 1 c.m. On the right side of head. Bone was exposed with fresh bleeding.
(2) A circular lacerated wound 1/2 x c.m. At the outer part of left upper arm with fresh bleeding swelling, tenderness and pain.
(3) A lacerated wound 8 x 6 c.m. At the outer part of pelvis on left side muscle deep with fresh bleeding.
(4) Multiple circular lacerated wounds three in number 1 x 1 c.m. Each on the back of left thigh at the upper portion beside the injury No,3 muscle deep.
8. Dr. Muhammad Nadeem Zia P.W.6 had medically examined Muhammad Latif accused on 16-6- 1993 and found the following injuries: ' A rounded fire-arms entrance wound 5 x 5 c.m. At right anterior surface of abdomen close to umbilicus from which part of the intestine with its mesentery and momentum was coming out and bleeding. Intestine was perforated at many places. Track was going transversely towards the right side and slightly posteriori with its exit wounds six in number 1-1/2 x 1 c.m., 1 x 1 c.m., 1 x 1 c.m., 1 x 3/4 c.m., 1 x 1 c.m. And I x 3/4 c.m. Each in an area of 8 x 8 c.m. On the right flank 2 c.m. Above iliac bone.
No burning or tattooing was observed either in entrance or exit wound.
9. On the same day the Medical Officer had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Aslam deceased and noticed the following injuries:
(1) A rounded fire-arm entrance wound 2 x 2 c.m. At middle of left eyebrow. Tattooing was present.
Track was going posteriori in the skull.
(2) There were 5 entrance wounds rounded in shape 1 x 1 c.m. Each at the right side of chest and abdomen. The track of the wounds was going transversely and slightly upward from right to left in abdominal cavity and chest cavity.
(3) There were three rounded entrance wounds 1 x 1 c.m. At the left lower abdomen, iliac area 1 x 1 c.m. At mid inguinal area and 1 x 1 c.m. At middle of upper part of left thigh. Tattooing was present around the wound. Tracks of the wounds were going left to right transversely and posteriori.
10. The injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by fire-arm. Two pellets were recovered from the dead body. The Medical Officer tendered in evidence post-mortem examination report as Exh.P.1.
11. On the same day at 2-30 p.m. The Medical Officer had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Akhtar and observed the following injuries.
(I) A rounded fire-arm entrance wound 2 x 2 c.m. On the right eye. The eye was dissolved. Track was going posteriori within the skull. Tattooing was present.
(2) A rounded fire-arm entrance wound 2 x 2 c.m. At the anterior part of skull just right to midline.
Tattooing was present. Track was going posteriori in the skull.
(3) There were 9 rounded fire-arms entrance wounds each 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. At the lower abdomen and inguinal area as shown in the diagram scattered in an area of 30 x 18 c.m. Tattooing was present around all the entrance wounds. In some wounds, pieces of clothes were also penetrated. Track of all the wounds were going from left to right obliquely and slightly posteriori in the abdomen.
12. According to Medical Officer the cause of death was due to head injuries Nos.1 and 2 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by firearm weapons. Four pellets were recovered from the dead body. The time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem was 2 to 24 hours. Exh. P.J. Was copy of post-mortem examination report tendered by the witness.
13. Dr. Afzal Ahmad Bashir P.W.8 had medically examined Mst. Noor Bakhat on 166-1993 and noted a rounded wound on front of right chest near the shoulder joint.
14. Dr. Muhammad Javed Akhtar P.W.12 had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Hakim Ali deceased on 21-6-1993 and found the following injuries.
(1) There was stitched wound in healing phase (surgical wound) 2 x 1.5 c.m. On the lateral upper- arm. On dissection, the under lying bone-humerus was fractured. Haematoma was present in the muscles involved.]
(2) There was stitched wound 12 x 2 c.m. In healing phase on the lateral aspect of left upper side up to the left iliac crest. (Surgical wound. Left bone was fractured).
(3) There was a stitched wound 8 c.m. On the left parietal frontal area of skull. On dissection, clotted blood was present under the scalp. There was a burn hole (surgically manipulated) with loss of bone in the right parietal bone. Frontal and parietal bones were fractured. Haemotama present on the right half of the brain with tear of the dura matter. There was infection of the brain in the involved area.
(4) There was multiple abrasions in healing phase on right joint, left knee joint and right elbow joint in various sizes.
15. According to Medical Officer injury No,3 leading to skull fracture, hemorrhage and brain damage led to coma and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. All the injuries were ante- mortem. The time between injuries and death was within 10 days while between death and post- mortem examination was within 24 hours.
16. Muhammad Akram P.W.1, Umaid Ali P.W.2, Muhammad Din P.W.3, Farooq Ahmad H.C. P.W.7, Ameer Ali Constable P.W.9, Zafar lqbal Constable P.W.10, and Muhammad Mazhar Constable P.W.11 were formal witnessed.
17. Muhammad Aslam Tahseen Sub-Engineer P.W.13 prepared site plan Exh.PP and Exh.PP/1.
18. Muhammad Akram P.W.4 is the complainant. He reaffirmed the narrative contained in the F.I.R.
Eye-witness account of the incident was furnished by Muhammad Ishaq P.W.14, Mst. Noor Bakhat injured P.W.15, and Malkera injured P.W.16.
19. Syed Abid Hussain Shah Gillani Tehsildar P.W.17 testified about the identification parade proceedings of Muhammad Sharif alias Sheefi accused.
20. Feroze Ahmad Inspector P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer. He testified about the various steps taken by him during investigation as stated above.
21. The accused in their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case against them and pleaded their false involvement in the case due to enmity.
22. Learned Trial Court believed the prosecution case to the extent of Iftikhar Ahmad, Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Jahangir, and Muhammad Latif and convicted and sentenced them as under:-
(i) Iftikhar Ahmad accused was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to death a fine of Rs,50,000. In default in payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprison for one year.
(ii) Muhammad Jahangir accused was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to death and a fine of Rs,50,000 on two counts and life-imprisonment and a fine of Rs,50,000. In the event of default he was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under section 449/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to ten years R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000. In default in payment of fine he was to suffer six months R . I.
(iii) Muhammad Latif accused was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C., and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on three counts and a fine of Rs,50,000. He was further convicted under section 449/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to 10 years R.I., and a fine of Rs,30,000. In default in payment of fine he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., and sentenced to five years R.I. And a fine of Rs,10,000. In default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(iv) Muhammad Yousaf was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to life- imprisonment and a fine of Rs,50,000 on three. In default in payment of fine to further undergo for one year R.I. He was also convicted under section 449/34, P.P.C., and sentenced to 10 years R.I. And a fine of Rs,30,000. In the event of default to undergo for six months R.I.
23. Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Sharif and Hafiz Noor Ahmad were acquitted from the case.
24. Criminal Appeals Nos.79 of 1995, 80 of 1995 and 81 of 1995 were filed by the convicts against their conviction and sentences awarded to them vide judgment, dated 29-10-1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar. Muhammad Akram complainant filed Criminal Appeal No,94 of 1995 against the acquittal of Muhammad Ismail, Muhammad Sharif and Hafiz Noor Ahmad, and was directed to be heard along with appeals filed by convicts. Learned Trial Court also referred the matter to this Court vide Murder Reference No,17 of 1995 for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death imposed on the convicts.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that record prepared by the police after the incident did not contain the number of first information report and mention of only one accused namely Muhammad Latif was made therein which showed that case was not registered at the time as claimed by the prosecution and till then name of Muhammad Latif only was known to the prosecution and, thereafter, the other appellants were involved in the case at the instance of complainant and others. It was submitted that complainant was not resident of the village where the occurrence had taken place but was resident of Chak No,27/EB of District Pakpattan and he was summoned therefrom and made a complainant in the case and since criminal case was registered after preliminary investigation, the first information report was not worthy of any credence. It was also submitted that Malkera injured P.W. And Mst. Noor Bakhat P.W.15 did not know the accused previously and merely because they were injured during the incident did not. Make credible witnesses. It was argued that evidence on record was deficient and conviction of the appellants was not sustainable. Learned counsel in the alternative submitted that sentence awarded to Muhammad Jahangir and Iftikhar Ahmad convicts was unwarranted for the reason that valid marriage of Hakim Ali with Mst. Muniran was not proved and he would be deemed to be "Ghayr Masum al Damm" and sentence of death could not be awarded to the convicts. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant on the other hand submitted that the occurrence did last for quite some time and the accused who were residents of the same locality were fully known to the complainant and witnesses and, therefore, there was every possibility for the witnesses to have identified the accused. It was submitted that Muhammad Latif accused was apprehended immediately after the occurrence and, thereafter, criminal case was registered without any loss of time which showed that the complainant and witnesses were present at the spot. It was submitted that neither the complainant nor Malkera P.W. Or Mst. Noor Bakhat or Ishaq P.W., had any enmity with the accused and there was no reason for them to have implicated the accused in the case. It was submitted that evidence on record coupled with other evidence such as medical evidence, the evidence of recoveries and other incriminating articles from the spot and the investigatory evidence had proved the prosecution case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and all the accused-convicts deserved maximum punishment of death to be awarded.
26. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Khurshid v. The State (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 305) observed as under: "Though the Courts are supposed to follow the well-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that an accused person is presumed to be innocent, that the prosecution is to prove a criminal case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and in case two views are possible the view which favours the accused person, should be preferred, and that all benefits of doubt should be extended to the accused, but at the same time, the Court should also take notice of the changing circumstances of the present days. Even in cases where eye-witnesses are available they refuse to appear as witnesses in support of the prosecution case; either because of fear or on account of won over by the accused party. The Court's approach, while appraising the evidence, should be dynamic and not static. It should keep in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and if it is satisfied that factually the person charged With the offence has committed the same, it should record the conviction though there might have been some technical lapses on the part of the Investigating Agency/prosecution, provided the same have not prejudiced the accused in the fair trial. The people are losing faith in the criminal judicial system for the reason that in most of the criminal cases the criminals get away without being punished on technicalities".
(P.316).
27. While examining or re-weighing the evidence on record we have kept the above dictum of Supreme Court in our view.
28. Mst. Muniran was married to Muhammad Jahangir convict-appellant. Marriage between the parties broke down whereafter she contracted marriage with Hakim Ali. The prosecution claimed that she obtained divorce through family Court and, thereafter, contracted marriage with Hakim Ali and had been living with him as his wife for the last two years. Defence has expressed certain reservations and it was argued on behalf of the accused that no valid divorce was shown to have been given by Muhammad Jahangir to his wife and Hakim Ali in all probability lived in sin with that lady. Prior to this incident a criminal case F.I.R. No,73 of 1992 was registered at Police Station Arifwala District Sahiwal (Exh.P.NN) when Iftikhar Ahmad convict went to abduct Mst. Muniran at gunpoint from the house of Hakim Ali while they lived in Arifwala District Sahiwal (now District Pakpattan).
Hakim Ali and Mst. Muniran were living as man and wife for the last many years as was claimed by the prosecution. That evidence coupled with stance of the parties would show that source of itch between the parties was marriage of Mst. Muniran with Hakim Ali deceased and the accused which included Muhammad Jahangir, the first husband of Mst. Muniran and Iftikhar Ahmad who also appears to be having an eye of the lady had desired to remove that several-years-itch. The motive as alleged by the prosecution has a ring of truth about it.
29. Muhammad Jahangir, Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Latif were involved in another criminal case F.I.R. No,162 of 1992 Police Station Saddar, Bahawalnagar and they were challaned to Court as was evidenced by Exh.P.00. The accused, therefore, are shown to be having friendship of a degree which could bring them together and the community of purpose of the accused, therefore, was manifest and the evidence on record abundantly showed that all the convicts-appellants could join hands in the commission of offence at the instance of Muhammad Jahangir or Iftikhar Ahmad.
Muhammad Jahangir according to prosecution was driver of Iftikhar Ahmad while Muhammad Latif was gunman of Iftikhar Ahmad who is landowner in the area. The comradeship of the accused is borne out from the evidence.
30. The case of the prosecution was to the effect that Hakim Ali after marriage with Mst. Muniran had gone to Arifwala and then had obtained land on lease form Muhammad Aslam, deceased, and Muhammad Akram complainant. He built residential quarter (Ihata) in the land, dug a tubewell there and started living at the land as well. Malkera, the injured P.W. Was his tenant. On the night of occurrence Muhammad Aslam, the complainant and Malkera slept at the tube-well Which was located by the side of residential quarter (Ihata) of Hakim Ali. The complainant claims that he and his brother had gone to Hakim Ali to get lease money from him and them had stayed at his residence Muhammad Aslam who died in the incident had no other business at the residence of Hakim Ali. He slept at the tube-well which showed that he was a guest of Hakim Ali and was made to sleep at the tube- well alongwith the tenant which is customary way of accommodating guest in rural society where tube-well is used as a dera as well. The presence of complainant and other witnesses is proved beyond any shadow of doubt and there are reasons for that. The assailants were several persons and were duly armed and had kept shooting at the spot for quite some time.
They fled from the spot and one of them namely Muhammad Latif was injured and had fallen on the ground and he was apprehended by the witnesses and not by the police. In case witnesses were not present at the spot. Muhammad Latif could not have been apprehended nor could have been left behind his half a dozen colleagues. The F.I.R., in the case was promptly lodged and injured were removed to hospital in injured condition after the occurrence where they were medically examined at 6-30 a.m. And obviously had arrived there much earlier. These factors are enough to indicate the presence of witnesses at the spot. Defence has banked essentially upon certain hypothetical aspects of the case. It was argued that inquest report or the injury statement did not contain the number of F.I.R., and that name of Muhammad Latif only was mentioned in the F.I.R. And inquest report, which showed that only Muhammad Latif accused was known to the complainant and all the other accused were subsequently implicated in the case. In the incident two persons had died at the spot and three were injured. Condition of Hakim Ali was precarious and the injured persons were removed to hospital. The Investigating Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case had enormous work load at his hands. He was not only required to attend to the investigation of the case but had to take care of the dead bodies and also of the injured. Hakim Ali or his family practically were strangers in the area and resided on the land which they had obtained on lease and they did not have any kith or kin around the place of occurrence and no body was there to attend to those persons. The record which appears to have been prepared hurriedly due to afore- noted factors and Investigating Officer could not make mention of number of F.I.R., in certain documents but that would not make the case suspect. If the Investigating Officer had any motivation he could have rectified the omission by incorporating the number subsequently as well but this was not done which showed that the documents which were prepared at the earliest were retained by the prosecution and same were placed before the Trial Court at a later stage without any change or manipulation. That aspect of the matter does not affect the prosecution case in any manner. Preliminary enquiry is recourse to by police generally in cases where the assailants are not known and time is consumed in order to trace the culprits. The police or the complainant were not handicapped in this regard in any manner. Muhammad Latif accused, was apprehended by the witnesses immediately after the occurrence. He was grievously injured and the agonizing condition he was in coupled with the fact that his companions had left him in the lurch by leaving him behind instead of lifting him away, would have made him speak out without much arm-twisting. The complainant and witnesses knew about all the accused before information was laid before the police and there was no need or occasion for the complainant party to have delayed lodging of first information report. The contentions raised on behalf of the convicts-appellants have been found to specious if not extremely hollow.
31. Muhammad Latif one of the accused-convict was apprehended in injured condition right after the incident. There is no doubt about his having participated in the incident. The. Other accused particularly Muhammad Jahangir and Iftikhar Ahmad were known to the complainant party as some sort of bickering had been going on between the parties for some time after the marriage of Mst. Muniran with Hakim Ali. In the incident Muhammad Aslam and Malkera were shot at while they were sleeping at the tube-well. The accused, thereafter, went into the house of Hakim Ali and had fired at him and Akhtar deceased. The accused, thereafter, in order display exultation had gone to roof top of the house and had kept firing in the air to express jubilation in accomplishment of their design and all the above said factors provided enough opportunity to the witnesses to have identified the assailants. There was every opportunity in the world for the witnesses to have not only seen the accused but also to have identified the accused. In rural society where people start work much before rise of the sun, people have tremendous capacity and capability to see or to distinguish or to identify different people even when the ambiance is not very favourable. The ocular account furnished by the witnesses, therefore, is believable and there is no reason to reject the same. Neither the complainant nor Malkera P.W. Or old lady-Mst. Noor Bakhat or Muhammad Ishaq had any reason to depose against the appellant-convicts. The defence did not show any motivation on the part of the complainant who otherwise was not related to Hakim Ali to have implicated the appellants in the commission of offence. No doubt brother of the complainant was murdered but he would not have involved innocent people in the case with whom he had no enmity of his own. The case against Muhammad Jahangir and Muhammad Latif was further supported by evidence of recoveries. Eleven spent cartridges of .12 bore recovered from the spot matched with the gun recovered from Muhammad Jahangir accused while seventeen spent cartridges of .12 bore matched with the gun recovered from Muhammad Latif.
32. After having gone through the record we are firmly of the view that the convicts were fully connected with the commission of offence and prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond any shadow of doubt on the basis of ocular account, evidence of motive, medical evidence and evidence of recoveries. The conviction of accused-convicts as recorded by the Trial Court is, therefore, maintained.
33. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that case of Iftikhar Ahmad was not distinguishable from that of Muhammad Latif and others and he had no immediate motive to have attaked Muhammad Aslam deceased and, therefore, sentence of death awarded to him was not well-warranted. After having considered facts and circumstances of the case we considered the prayer to be reasonable. Therefore, while maintaining conviction of Iftikhar Ahmad as recorded by the learned Trial Court we modify the sentence awarded to him and sentence him to imprisonment for life. Iftikhar Ahmad shall pay a sum of Rs,100,000 to legal heirs of each of the deceased. In case of non-payment of compensation, the same shall be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. Muhammad Jahangir had the motive to commit the offence and consequently we maintain the sentence as awarded to him by the Trial Court.
34. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to extend the benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C., to the convicts who have been awarded sentences of imprisonment.
35. Sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Jahangir convict-appellant is confirmed.
36. Appeals with the above modification in sentence awarded to the Iftikhar Ahmad convict- appellant, are dismissed.
37. Murder reference to the extent of Iftikhar Ahmad convict-appellant is answered in the negative.
38. Muhammad Akram had filed Criminal Appeal No,94 of 1995 against acquittal of Usman, Muhammad Sharif and Hafiz Noor Ahmad and also of other accused from charges under section 148/324/149, P.P.C. We consider that the convicts were awarded proper sentences and order of acquittal of acquitted accused passed by learned Trial Court was well-warranted and as such we are not inclined to interfere in that as has been prayed for by Muhammad Akram. Criminal Appeal No,94 of 1995, therefore, is dismissed.