' RIAZ KA YANI, J.---Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Sharif has tiled the instant revision petition for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Muhammad Riaz son of Jamal Din and Sajjad son of Muhammad Zaman, arrayed as respondents Nos.1 and 2 who were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian vide his judgment, dated 20-2-1992 and each one of them was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of rupees ten thousand each for the murder of Muhammad Akram deceased.
2. On 4-10-1995 this Court admitted the revision petition to regular hearing and issued notice to the respondents to show cause as to why their sentence should not be enhanced.
3. The occurrence which resulted in the death of Muhammad Akram took place on 29th of May, 1990 at 9-00 p.m. Outside the agricultural lands belonging to Jamal Din Baloch father of Riaz appellant lying at a distance of 3-1/2 miles from the Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur. The complaint was made by Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Sharif cousin of the deceased at the Police Station on the same day at 10-15 p.m. Which was recorded by Mushtaq Ahmad, S.-I./S. H .0. Muhammad Riaz and Sajjad filed a separate appeal bearing No,313 of 1992 against their conviction but when the said appeal and the instant revision petition were taken up for hearing it was divulged by the Jail Superintendent, where both Riaz and Sajjad were incarcerated that they were released rom jail on 19-8-2000 and 23-8-2000 respectively after completing the term of their imprisonment.
4. Prosecution version succinctly described in the first information report authored by Muhammad Asghar is that he is resident of Jamsher Kalan and has taken 30 acres of agricultural land from its owner Jamal Din Baloch, resident of Shehrianwala Khoo on 5 years Hissa Batai lease out of which sugarcane crop was sown in 12-1/2 acres. Riaz son of Jamal Din sold the crop from 2 acres for a consideration of Rs,16,000 whereas, Muhammad Zaman sold the same crop from one acre amounting to Rs,7,750 which he pocketed. The first informant sold the crop from 9-1/2 acres for Rs,46,000 and when the account for the sugarcane crop was to be apportioned it was found that Riaz son of Jamal Din and others had to pay him 12-1/2 thousands of rupees. Now when the wheat crop was harvested, he asked Riaz and others for payment of the amount to him upon which Zaman and others were outraged and stopped them from cultivating the land, however, he restrained them to remove the wheat crop until the amount due to him was paid upon which Muhammad Zaman and others untethered his cattle from the Haveli and made the animals to run astray. He reported the matter to the notables of the Mauza who convened a Punchayat and patched the matter up. On the fateful day at 9-00 p.m. He alongwith Akram son of Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Afzal his brother, Liquat Ali son of M. Sharif carpenter resident of the Deh alongwith Manzoor Ahmad son of Muhammad Sharif, resident of Chak No,27 Police Station, Pattoki presently stationed at Jamsher Kalan for implementation of the order of the Punchayat, brought their cattle to the Haveli to tether them and in the light of a bulb they saw Muhammad Khaliq son of Jamal Din armed with .12 bore single barrel gun, Riaz Ahmad son of Jamal Din armed with .12 bore double barrel gun. Sajjad Ahmad son of Muhammad Zaman armed with .12 bore double barrel gun and Muhammad son of Yar Muhammad armed with a Dang, all residents of Chair Shehrian in furtherance of their common intention while raising Lalkaras reached the spot but the tense situation was partially defused on the intervention of the people present, however, Riaz and others after a little while when he alongwith his maternal cousin M. Akram riding on a tractor were about to leave to the Police Station to give information that affray was in the offing, Muhammad Ratique raised a Lalkara that they would not be permitted to go to the Police Station to lodge a report and simultaneously Riaz Ahmad tired with his gull which hit M. Akram while sitting on the tractor on his back towards right side followed by tire from Sajjad Ahmad which hit his right arm and also hit Muhammad Akram on his neck towards left side. Lastly Muhammad Khaliq tired with his gun which hit Akram on the right armpit and Akram at the spot succumbed to his injuries while sitting on the tractor and falling upon the steering. He jumped from the tractor and started running, and the hue and cry raised by him and his companions caused fear to the accused who took to their heels after committing the murder of M. Akram and launching a murderous assault upon him and others.
Muhammad Afzal his brother and Manzoor Ahmad were left to guard the dead body of Akram whereas, he left to the Police Station to inform the Police.
5. Mushtaq Ahmad, Station House Officer of Police Station Kangan Pur after recording the statement of Muhammad Asghar complainant left for the spot and inspected the dead body of Muhammad Akram and immediately prepared the injury statement Exh.P.K and Inquest Report Exh.P.L Blood, stained earth was taken in possession from the place of occurrence vide memo.
Exh.P.B alongwith one empty P.1 also from the place of occurrence vide memo. Exh. PC. Tractor Russan Make was taken in possession vide memo. Exh.P.D, rough site plan was prepared as Exh.P.M, while the dead body was despatched to the mortuary at Civil Hospital, Chunian for post-mortem examination. On 9-6-1990 Sajjad was arrested whereas on 14-6-1990 Riaz was arrested. On 20-6- 1990 Riaz while in Police custody led to the recovery of .12 bore gun from his residential house which was taken in possession vide memo. Exh.P.J.
6. Dr. Muhammad Arif Mahmood, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Chunian conducted the post- mortem examination on 30-5-1990 on the dead body of Muhammad Akram son of Abdul Aziz aged 22 years and found the following injuries on his person:---
(1) One circular wound 3/4 c.m. Diameter. Margins were inverted muscle deep on the left side of neck 4 c.m. Above left clavicle and 4 c.m. Lateral mid-line, wound was directed to the backward and downward, perforating the juglar vessels on the left side.
(2) 2 circular wounds 3/4 c.m. Diameter on the back and outer side of the right chest upper part chest cavity deep, margins were inverted chest cavity was full of blood, perforating the right lung and thorasic aorata. One metellic piece recovered from the chest cavity left lung was also perforated. Stomach contained semi digested food, bladder was empty.
' In the opinion of the doctor the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries Nos.1 and 2. Both the injuries were ante-mortem caused by tire-arm and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time between the injuries and death was within few minutes and between the double and the post-mortem was 12 to 18 hours.
7. Dr. Liaquat Ali of Rural Health Centre, Kangan Pur appeared as P.W.1 and stated that on 30-5-1990 at 8-30 a.m. He conducted the medical examination of Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Sharif. Complainant and found an abrasion 1-1/2 c.m. x c.m. On the outer aspect of right arm. It was 9-1/2 c.m. Above the right elbow-joint. The injury was simple in nature caused by a blunt weapon and the injured was brought to the Health Centre by the Police.
8. At the trial, the appellants alongwith Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Ratique were indicted, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Ocular testimony account was furnished by Muhammad Asghar, complainant as P.W.3 and Muhammad Afzal as P.W.4. Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Ratique were acquitted.
9. Appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied their participation in the occurrence and recovery of the crime weapons. Muhammad Riaz in reply to the question as to why the prosecution brought the case against him stated as under:--- "It is unwitnessed occurrence on a dark night by unknown culprits. The complainant and his witnesses bear serious grudge and enmity on account of motive alleged in the F.I.R. Which however, is false. The complainant party in collusion with S.H.O. After deliberation, and concoction have falsely implicated him and the co-accused on account of previous enmity and on the basis of suspicion have made them scape goats. As a matter of fact, the complainant owed Rupees 24,000 each to him and his brother Zaman on account of sugarcane crop purchased by the complainant prior to the occurrence. He did not make payment and ultimately he and his brother Zaman filed separate civil suits for recovery of the said amount against the complainant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Chunian. The complainant/defendant avoided appearance in the civil suit and both of them were decreed ex parte against the complainant/defendant. The alleged eye-witness namely Muhammad Afzal is real brother of the complainant and he also is inimical to him and other co-accused."
10. Dr. Muhammad Shafique, A.S.P., Kasur appeared as C.W.1 and deposed that on 19-6-1990 he was entrusted with the investigation. He visited the spot on 21-6-1990 and both the parties joined the investigation. After interrogation he came tO the conclusion that Riaz accused had not participated in the occurrence, however Ratique, Abdul Khaliq and Sajjad were the real culprits.
11. Appellants produced in evidence judgment, dated 12-1-1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Kasur and decree-sheet Exh.D.C. Of the same judgment alongwith order of the Civil Judge had Class, Chunian, dated 11-2-1991 regarding suit brought by Muhammad Riaz against Muhammad Asghar as Exh.D.D.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the learned trial Judge fell in grave error, who after believing the ocular testimony and the other evidence produced by the prosecution, without assigning any good reason failed to abide by the law, after convicting the appellants by awarding them lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of normal penalty of death which has occasioned serious miscarriage of justice. It was urged by him that the ocular testimony despite lengthy cross-examination did not shake the credibility of the witnesses who adhered to their versions narrated in the first information report and the defence failed to create any dent in their statements which were in absolute accord with the medical evidence, however, in absence of any enmity brought on the record between the appellants and the witnesses it was astonishing why the normal penalty of death was not imposed. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 urged that the first informant from the very beginning till the end stated that he was hit with the shot fired by Sajjad on his hand but the medical evidence totally falsified his stance, meaning thereby that he had not seen the occurrence and after getting himself injured through a friendly hand to show his presence at the spot, a concocted version was adopted by the prosecution. It was further impressed that the ocular testimony was untrustworthy, replete with contradictions, discrepancies and not inspiring confidence. It was also urged with vehemence that in the pitch darkness of night identification of the culprits was not proved as the prosecution failed to indicate presence of an electric bulb in which the witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence. By way of mitigating circumstances, it was stated that the motive set up was not proved except bald statement of the complainant. Statement of Dr. M. Shafique, A.S.P., Kasur who appeared as C.W.1 was rejected on flimsy grounds and lastly it was urged that Abdul Khaliq and Rafique were acquitted and it was against the canons of justice to convict the appellants on the basis of the same evidence and now to ask for enhancement of sentence.
13. We have intently heard the arguments of the respective counsel at length and have also minutely scrutinized the record.
14. The close exegesis of the whole evidence has led us to the firm assertion that the trial Judge after believing the evidence of the prosecution and the material particulars went astray in not recording the sentence of death. Both the eye-witnesses Asghar P.W.3 and M. Afzal P.W.4 have been believed and rightly so. Their testimony is in absolute consistency with the medical evidence.
The defence set up in terribly thin and tentative in nature failing to create any dents in the prosecution case rather their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Itself bolstered the motive set up by the prosecution, therefore, we are bewildered why the normal penalty of death was not imposed.
14-A. Akram deceased was the son of the sister of the mother of the complainant whereas Afzal P.W.4 is his real brother. On the other hand, Khaliq and Riaz accused are the real brothers. Sajjad appellant is the son of Zaman and his father Zaman is the real brother of Riaz, Rafique another acquitted accused is son of Yar Muhammad, cousin of Riaz and also his father-in-law, Riaz is the son of Jamal Din Bloch.
15. It was stated by the first informant in the F.I.R. That he obtained Hissa Batai lease of 30 acres from Jamal Din for 5 years and cultivated the same which was situated in Shehrianwala Khoo near Mauza Jamsher Kalan. This fact he proved in his examination-in-chief while appearing as P.W.3.
Riaz in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stated there was a serious grudge and enmity on account of motive alleged in the F.1.R. Which however, was false. However, he produced in evidence Exh.DC an ex pane judgment of the Civil Judge dated 12-1-1991 whereby, a sum of Rs,24,000 was decreed in his favour and against M. Asghar son of Sharif, the complainant. Another decree dated 11-2-1991 was passed by the Civil Judge find Class, Chunian amounting to Rs,24,000 in his favour and against Muhammad Asghar complainant. Reverting to his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.
These decrees which he obtained were on account of sugar purchased by the complainant prior to the occurrence. The complainant in F.I.R. As well as in his statement in Court has referred to the same grouse for which the appellant Riaz has obtained an ex parte decree therefore, motive set up by the prosecution has been proved by it beyond any shadow of doubt. No question was asked from the Investigating Officer regarding the truth or falicity of the motive, therefore, it stands proved that the origin of the dispute was the failure of the appellant to pay the amount of the shared crops to the complainant party.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents laid much stress on the point that it was a dark night and the perpetrators of the crime were unidentified. Taking his argument to its logical conclusion it was averred by him that there was no electricity connection at the place of occurrence so it was not known as to who killed the deceased. However, question asked in the cross-examination as well as in the statement of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Suggested that it was a blind murder by the enemies of the deceased. At the very inception we may observe that argument is totally devoid of force. The occurrence took place at 9-30 p.m. And immediately thereafter the complainant had borrowed a bicycle, traversed 1/2 the way on Katcha path and the remaining half on the metalled road and reached the Police Station and immediately got recorded the F.I.R.; in the very same document there is mention of the presence of an electric bulb at the spot in whose light he alongwith other witnesses saw the appellants committing the murder of Akram deceased. F.I.R.
Is promptly lodged, without any loss of time obviating any chances of deliberation and consultation with friends or relatives so as to distort the version and create evidence against the appellants. Presence of the bulb was therefore, mentioned in the first document. It is but natural, that enormity of the crime have unruffled him and it took some time to compose himself after his cousin was murdered in cold blood, then to borrow a bicycle and cover a distance of 3-1/2 miles to lodge the F.I.R. At 10-15 p.m., it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the same was delayed rather it was a promptly lodged F.I.R. Narrating nothing but the truth, without there being any chance of tutoring the first informant from any quarter. The first informant alongwith P.W.4 again repeated in answer to the question put to them in cross-examination that owners of house had brought a wire from a transformer fixed at a certain distance. Conspicuous is the answer of the complainant in the cross-examination that the appellant had installed a bulb on a Sota fixed on the wall. The said statement was corroborated word by word by the I.O. Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.8 when he stated that there was a bulb on a wooden rod fitted near the place of occurrence. The attempt on the part of the cross-examiner to show that the accused had taken an illegal action and no report was made to the WAPDA Authorities by the complainant is thoroughly irrelevant and we do not feel to advert to it any further. The occurrence by cursory glance to the site plan Exh.P.G shows to have taken place in a lane leading to the agricultural fields and the Dera of Riaz, who alongwith others were known to the complainant and the witnesses, therefore, even in the faintest of light, may be during the middle of the night, the identity of the persons known earlier becomes easier. We, therefore, hold that there was sufficient light for the witnesses to identify the culprits who live nearby and were known to them. The occurrence took place while the deceased accompanied by the complainant were about to leave on the tractor, when firing was made as a result of which the deceased died on the driver seat and blood-stained earth was removed from underneath the tractor directly below the seat. Once again reverting to the site plan, presence of the tractor is outside the house of Riaz appellant which clinches the issue as to who were the perpetrators of the crime. Learned counsel for the respondents laid stress on the statement of the Patwari who appeared as P.W.5 that the said witness did not note the presence of any bulb when he went to inspect the spot. It is true that the Patwari made the referred to statement but the fact that he visited the spot on 22-6-1990 should not be lost sight of. At that time, the bulb could have been removed by all those interested to manifest that the occurrence took place in absolute dark.
17. Not a single question was asked from the two eye-witnesses to elicit an answer that they had any rancour or animosity with the appellants and that the statements which they made were with ulterior consideration. Why should real culprits be spared and innocent people be substituted is a phenomenon which is totally absent in the present case. Suggestion by the defence that the present motive created ill-will and it is for this reason that the appellants have been made scapegoats is wholly unacceptable to logic and reason. Immediate motive may create malice aforethought in the minds of the perpetrators of the crime to commit the offence but can never be taken as past enmity. The suggestion that the deceased was done to death in the dark of the night by his enemies is also not acceptable to a prudent mind in absence of bringing on the record any enmity of deceased with others. This plea can always be taken when defence is equipped with the particulars of the cases registered by or against the deceased with respect to the persons unconnected with the crime under discussion but no such evidence has been brought on the record, therefore, to suggest that the deceased Akram was killed by his enemies is a figment of imagination and no credence can be given to such a plea.
18. Learned counsel repeatedly stressed that M. Asghar P W.3 is a liar as he stated to have suffered an injury on his arm by a pellet fired with the gun of Sajjad which stands belied by the evidence of Dr. Liaquat Ali who examined the complainant on 30-5-1990 at 8-30 a.m. And found an abrasion on outer aspect of the right arm. Asghar P.W.3 asserted that on receipt of the fire shot blood oozed out from the injury soaking his shirt and when he went to the Police Station on his bicycle he showed this injury to the I.O. Who examined the same and stated that Mushtaq Ahmad P.W.8 found the blood on the injured portion alongwith the blood on the shirt with corresponding holes, but did not take into possession the said shirt. The misfeasance or deriliction of duty by the I.O. Will not, now go the advantage of the accused against the prosecution as the approach of the Courts to a case carrying capital charge has to be dynamic and these technical infirmities cannot stand in its way to do justice if its conscience is satisfied that the event as narrated by the witnesses did take place and there is no earthly reason for him to lie. Reference in this regard is made to the case of Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 1445) and Jaffar Ali v. The State (1998 SCM R 2669). It is true that the doctor declared the injury to be an abrasion, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the stray pellet may graze the hand of the first informant without penetrating it so as to give it a shape of a gun-shot wound or without lacerating the tlesh. The question from the doctor whether such injury can be caused by grazing of the pellets is conspicuous by its absence as we have already commented upon the inflicting of the the in the preceding paragraph. There was no occasion or time at the disposal of the complainant to get the injury inflicted through a friendly hand. It is for this reason that the promptly lodged F.I.R. Excludes all chances of infiltration through embellishment. To the contrary a presumption of truth is attached to it.. Reference is invited to the case of Piyaro v. The State reported in 1998 SCM R 1749.
19. It has been held time and again by the apex Court that an interested witness is that witness who has a motive to depose against the accused and that the motive stems either due to enmity, rancour or some other ulterior consideration. Simple relationship of a witness with the deceased is not sufficient to dub his testimony as unworthy of credit. The precedent cases of Sardar Khan and 3 others v. The State (1998 SCM R 1823) and Mir Hassan and others v. The State and others (1999 SCM R 1418) fortify our observation that an interested witness is only a person who has a motive to falsely implicate the accused.
20. The spot where the occurrence took place was an agricultural land where the complainant and others worked as lessees and while implementing the directions of the Punchayat they had brought their cattle numbering 9-10 back to the cattle shed which obviously cannot be undertaken by one person, who had to be helped by his kith and kin. The presence of the brother of the complainant namely Afzal, P.W.4, therefore, is quite natural and no question was asked from him in his cross-examination showing his presence at the spot to be doubtful.
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that Abdul Khaliq and Rafique having been acquitted same evidence cannot be taken against the appellants to impose upon them the death penalty as the Maxim Falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus according to him, is fully applicable. We regret that the referred to Maxim is loosing its foothold and is no more considered to have its universal applicability. The grain has always to be sifted from the chaff. Rafique was acquitted because he did not cause any injury to anyone and Abdul Khaliq was let off as the medical evidence did not show any injury under the arm-pit of the deceased whereas, case of the appellants is on a different footing. In the noted cases the legal idiom has been discarded e.g. Riaz Hussain v. The State (2001 SCM R 177), Muhammad Ahmad and another v. The State (1997 SCM R 89) and Irshad Ahmad and others v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 138).
22. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that Dr. M. Shafique, A.S.P.
Who appeared as C.W.1 found Riaz appellant not to have participated in the occurrence. This finding goes contrary to the statement of Riaz which was found recorded in the case diary that he himself admitted to be present at the place of occurrence and that he led to the recovery of the weapon of offence. It was further admitted by this witness that he recorded in his last diary dated 24-3-1991 that as the place of occurrence was an isolated place, therefore, the true facts related to this case could be ascertained by the accused party or the complainant party. This witness did not record statement of any of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. Separately and his admission that no 'eye-witness appeared before him to state that Riaz was not present at the place of occurrence clinches the issue against Riaz, appellant once for all. Witness for defence was rightly disbelieved by the trial Judge and we follow suit.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to make premium that when the complainant reached the Police Station he had written a complaint Exh.D.A of his own but same was not made the basis of the first information report rather Exh.D.F. Is a complaint which was taken in narration form. What he wanted to express was that Exh.D.A. Was an earlier prepared and tutored document. We have seen Exh.D.A. And in material particular, its sum and substance is the same as that of Exh. D.F., the first information report. The reason why Exh.D.A. Was written was that the complainant was a matriculate and could write a complaint himself but having not been accepted by the Police, they took down his statement in narrative. The argument of the learned counsel, therefore, does not advance his Case to any length rather it has given an impression to us that he wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
24. The final question which has engaged us intently is whether the appellants be allowed to escape with the sentence of imprisonment which they have already undergone or the sentence of death be imposed. We are convinced in our mind that murder was committed by the two appellants as they have been found guilty by the trial Judge in a wanton, cruel and callous manner. The deceased and the complainant were the servants working in the fields of the accused. They were deprived of their due shares of crops and when they protested, their cattles were driven away upon which the Punchavat came to rescue them and asked the accused to let their cattles be tethered at the cattle-shed and at that time when the decision was to be implemented the appellants living nearby came out of their houses armed to their teeth and by firing at the deceased, who alongwith the complainant was going to lodge the report killed him at the spot. We are further astonished as we have observed in the preceding paragraph that the trial Judge once having firmly concluded that the appellants were guilty for causing the death of M.Akram deceased without giving any reason whatsoever imposed the alternate punishment of life imprisonment contrary to the time tested view of the apex Court that without any extenuating or mitigating circumstances normal penalty is death. Reliance is placed on the precedent cases of Fazal Hussain and another v. Suleman Khan and another (1991 SCM R 56), Zulfiqar alias Bhutto v. The State (1995 SCM R 1668), Parvaiz and 2 others v. The State (1998 SCM R 1976), Noor Muhammad v.
The State (1999 SCM R 2722) and Waris Ali alias Dulli and others v. The State (1999 SCM R 1469).
25. The further question which has engaged our intention intently is that the appellants having life expectancy restored after the judgment of the learned trial Judge and now having been released from the jail would it be proper to impose the penalty of death. Apart from the reasoning which we intend to elaborate principle of life expectancy has lost its hold on the dispensation of the criminal justice. Reference is invited to the dictums of the apex Court pronounced in the precedent cases i.e, Muhammad Hanif and others v. The State (2001 SCM R 84), Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State and others (2001 SCM R 223) and Raheem Bakhsh v. Abdul Subhan and another (1999 SCM R 1190). The principle as stated, and being reiterated at the cost of repetition, has been done away with now, probably for the reason, to arrest the rising spiral of crime in our society which has reached alarming proportions, the mental propensity towards the commission of the crime with impunity may be another consideration to be kept in mind alongwith the gravity of the offence and the cruel manner of its implementation. In the present case appellants were in a very dominating position, so much so that after the occurrence i.e, on 4th of September, 1990 two civil suits were tiled and the appellants managed to get ex parte decrees on 12-1-1991 to present it before the criminal Court by way of fait accompli. Sense of fear in the mind of the criminal before he embarks upon its commission, can only be inculcated when he is certain of its punishment provided by law and it is only then that the purpose and object of the punishments which are deterrent, punitive and retributive in nature can be assiduously achieved. If the Courts of law at any stage relaxes its grip, the hardened criminal will take the society on the rampage, allowing the incorrigible recidivist to run away scot free or with punishment not commensurate with the proportion of the crime, bringing the administration of criminal justice to ridicule and contempt. Courts cannot sacrifice this deterrence and retribution at the altar of mercy and expediency.
26. Having given ample thought we are of the view that sparing the appellants with death sentence has caused a grave miscarriage of justice and in order to restore its supremacy we accept the revision petition and impose the sentence of death upon Riaz son of Jamal Din and Sajjad son of Muhammad Zaman. They shall be hanged by the neck till they are dead. District Magistrate, Kasur shall forthwith take steps to get the custody of the respondents 1 and .2 namely Riaz and Sajjad and commit them to prison where they shall be placed in the condemned cell.
Sentence enhanced.