ADIL SHAH Versus THE STATE
Add Shah son of Rahat Shah, aged about 24/25 years, resident of Kandi Miangan, village Utmanzai, Tahsil Charsadda, District Peshawar, was tried in the Court of Mr. Abdul Wahid Seth, Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on a charge under section 302, P. P. C., for committing the murder of his co-villager Tila Muhammad on the night between 24th and 25th July 1972, in village Utmanzai. He was held guilty of the charge of murder and was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, by his order dated 11-1-1974.
2. An appeal was filed by the accused against his conviction and reference was also received front the Court of Sessions under section 374, Cr. P. C., for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on Ali Shah accused. The appeal alongwith murder reference was heard by a Division Bench of this Court, but the learned Judges composing Belch came to different conclusions as to the guilt of the accused, hence difference of opinion.
3. My learned brother, Qaisar Khan, 1., on appraising the evidence on record, expressed his disagreement with the findin4 of the learned trial Judge and held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence of Add Shah accused-appellant were consequently set aside and he was acquitted of the charge and his death sentence was, in the result, not confirmed.
4. My learned brother Abdul Hakim Khan, J. after discussing the evidence on record, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused was fully brought home to him; as such he was rightly convicted by the learned trial Judge and proper sentence was awarded to him. Consequently the conviction of Adil Shah accused wag upheld and his appeal was dismissed and the death sentence, passed on him, was confirmed.
5. In view of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges composing the Division Bench, the case has been laid before me for opinion and judgment within the moaning of section 42), Cr. P. C. It is obvious that upon a difference of opinion between two Judges under section 429, Cr P. C. the whole case is referred and not the point or points upon which the Judges differ. In that view of the matter, I am not debarred from considering all the points involved in this case, hence appeal.
6. I have heard the arguments addressed before me by Mr. Zahoorul Haq, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Mir Rehman Khan. Advocate assisted by S. Masoom Shah, Advocate on behalf of State.
7. Facts of the case leading to this appeal have been fully discussed in the conflicting judgments of the two learned Judges composing the Division Bench and it might rather be an unfruitful exercise to recapitulate the same. However, it may be useful to briefly state the events which ultimately culminated in the tragic end of Tila Muhammad (deceased) and thereafter how the accused-appellant was indicted and sentenced. Deceased Tila Muhammad and accused Adil Shah belonged to the same village i. e. Utmanzai and according to the evidence on record they were inter se related. On the night of occurrence, according to the two eye-witnesses, namely Nisar Muhammad (P. W. 7) and Noor Said (P. W. 8), the deceased and the aforementioned two eye-witnesses and some other persons (not produced as witnesses) went to the house of the widow of Awal Shah of their Kandi in response to her request to render helping hand in plastering tire roof of her Kotha. After the needful was done, the two eye-witnesses and Tila Muhammad deceased returned to the Hujra of Nisar Muhammad (P. W. 7) alongwith those other persons. The other persons went away while the two eye-witnesses and Trla Muhammad deceased stayed in the courtyard of the Hujra. They were still busy having chat with each other on that fateful night of the Summer when after midnight, Adil Shah accused armed with a shot-gun appeared on the scene. It was a moonlit night and according to the said eye-witnesses, the visibility was further strengthened by the light coming from the nearby lit electric bulb. When Adil Shah accused came very close to the deceased and the eye-witnesses, he asked the deceased as to why he (deceased) was talking against him (accused) in his absence. The deceased denied having talked against the accused, but while he was still uttering those words, Adil Shah accused aimed his gun at him and fires a shot at the deceased from a close distance of about four feet. The deceased was hit and he fell down on the ground. Thereafter the accused started running away from the scene of occurrence. The said eye-witnesses chased the accused up to some distance while the latter was decamping.
8. The report of gun-fire followed by the alarm alerted the villager who were sleeping on the roofs of the Kothas of their houses, and the started firing (obviously at the running culprit) as a result of which Adil Shah accused was injured on his legs at a distance of about 480 paces from the place where the deceased was fired upon and hit. Injures thus caused to the accused incapicitated him from proceeding further and he fell down Many people including Inayatullah Khan (P. W. 5) and Muhammad Yaqu Ktnan (P. W. 6), two notables of Utmanzai, were attracted to the spot, i e the place where the accused was lying injured. Inayatullah Khan recovered and took into possession a shot-gun lying near the accused. It was loaded with a 12 bore cartridge. Accused Adil Shah then in the company of his relatives left for the police station in a truck where he lodged the F.
1. R. Exh. P. A. The accused was then sent to the hospital at Charsadda for medical' examination and treatment, while Mir Dad Khan A. S. 1. (P. W. 9) after recording the F. I. R. Exh. P. A., and registering the case, left for the scene of occurrence for investigation.
9. In the F. I. R. Exh. P. A. which was made by Adil Shah accused himself in Police Station Charsadda and which was recorded at Mat No. 186 dated 25-7-1972 at 2-30 a.m. the English version of which has been attempted in the judgment of Qaisar Khan, J the accused admits his presence at the place where he was fired upon and injured and also the time when it occurred. It the F. I. R., the correctness of which has not been disputed by the maker i.e, the accused, he has not charged any one by name or even on suspicion for firing at him. He is also silent as to how and wherefrom that firing had started as a result of which not only he was injured at two places on his left leg and at one place on his right leg in the result of which he fell down, but that within his knowledge his relative Tila Muhammad (deceased) had also been hit and fatally injured to consequence thereof.
10. Noor Said (P. W. 8) has stated that after he and Nisar Muhammad (P. W. 7) chased the accused up to some distance, they abandoned further chase as in the meantime their co-villagers had started firing from the roof tops of their houses. He and P. W. Nisar Muhammad then brought a ,cot from the house and put the dead body of the deceased on the same ,and took the dead body to his house, where the father of the deceased directed him to go to the police station for report. According to this witness, he went to the police station on-foot, but when he reached there, the Moharrir on duty informed him that a report about the occurrence had already been lodged by Adil Shah accused and that the police had left for the spot for investigation. P. W. Noor Said was then sent back to village Utmanzai in the company of a head constable and a constable. The Investigating Officer had in the meantime started investigation.
11. As indicated above, Inayatulluah Khan (P. W. 5) and Muhammad Yaqub Khan (P. W. 6) were attracted to the spot on hearing the report of Ire-arm shots. Inayatullah Khan P. W. preceded P. W. Muhammad Yaqub Khan in reaching the spot. P. W. Inayatullah Khan has stated that when he reached the place, he saw accused Adil Shah lying injured. That many people had already collected at that site. That he found the shot-gun (Exh. P. 1) lying near the accused and that the people present over there told him that Adil Shah had fired and that Adil Shah accused then re quested him to save him as he had been shot during the firing. The witness then took the accused on cot and the gun (Exh. P. 1) to his Hujra. The gun was loaded with a 12 bore cartridge. P. W. Inayatullah Khan has a further stated that he then informed the police station on phone where upon the police instructed him to send Adil Shah to the police station and that Adil Shah accused was then sent to Police Station, Charsadda in a truck. Muhammad Yaqub Khan (P. W. 6), was also attracted to the spot on alarm and report of gun-fire when on reaching, he found Adil Shah accused lying injured on the spot. He has stated that people present over there charged Adil Shah accused before him for firing at Tila Muhammad, while Adil Shah accused told him that deceased Tila Muhammad had fired at him first and he (accused) fired at the deceased in return. Both Inayatullah Khan and Muhammad Yaqub Khan are undisputedly disinterested witnesses.
12. Nisar Mohammad (P. W. 7) who, as indicated above, professes his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence had earlier also remained with the deceased Tila Mohammad and P. W. Noor Said when they and soma others helped the widow of Awal Shah in plastering the roof of her Kotha. This witness is related to the deceased. He is also related to Adil Shah accused. Besides rendering eye-witness account of the occurrence, this witness had also stated the motive for the occurrence. According, to him, the accused used to gamble in the Hujra of the deceased to which the deceased had taken exception. That about three-four months before the occurrence, the deceased had found the accused and some others gambling in his (deceased's) Hujra on which the deceased had reprimanded the accused as a result of which the deceased and the accused had grappled with each other. The witness was present at that time and he effected separation between the accused and the deceased on that occasion. This crated strained relations between the accused and the deceased. This witness has stated that he had fully identified accused Adil Shah when the latter fired at the deceased, not only by voice as before firing he had exchanged words with the deceased, but also by face in the light of full moon and with the help of the light coming from the nearby lit electric bulb, moreso when the accused was hardly at a distance of four-five paces from him at the time of occurrence. Noor Said (P. W. 8) has fully supported P. W. Nisar Mohammad with respect of the events which occurred preceding the occurrence as also the details of the occurrence and what happened soon thereafter. This witness is also related to the deceased as well as the accused. He, like P. W. Nisar Mohammad, has directly and unreservedly charged Adil Shah accused for killing Tila Mohammad deceased by firing at him with his shot-gun, without any provocation, on the night, time and place of occurrence.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has in his arguments doubted the reliability of the aforementioned two eye-witnesses on the ground that they are related to the deceased in a nearer degree. Such relationship has been admittedly by the said two witnesses, but it is equally proved on record-rather undisputed, that they are also related to the accused. It is therefore obvious that but for strong conviction and cogent reason they, would have not charged the accused for such heinous crime. There is nothing on record, not even a suggestion from the side of the accused that any one of the two eye-witneses could be actuated by any ulterior motive to falsely depose against the accused. There is no enmity between these two p eye-witnesses and the accused and therefore it does not appeal to reason that they would have spared the actual known assailant or would have instead falsely implicated an innocent person who is not only related to them but with whom they have no enmity either, if they had even the slightest doubt about the identity of the assailant.
14. There is no doubt that the Hujra where the occurrence took place did not belong to the deceased. Although point No. 8, where the electric bulb is shown to be giving light at the time of occurrence, is mentioned in the site plan Exh. P. F. to be m the Hujra of Sardar Bacha, yet it has not been made clear therein as to who that Sardar Bacha is and what is his connection with P. W. Nisar Mohammad. However, the place at which the deceased was put to death is indicated at point No. 1, in the site plan Exh. P. F. which is situated in the courtyard of the Hujra belonging to P. W. Nisar Mohd. Besides P. W. Nisar Mohd. who has stated that the deceased was murdered in their Hujra, P.W. Noor Said has also stated that the Hujra where the deceased was murdered belongs to P. W. Nisar Mohammad. Mir Dad Khan A. S. I. (P. W. 9) who investigated the case has in his statement mentioned this Hujra to be that of Nisar Mohammad P. W. As indicated above, in the site plan Exh. P. F. which has been prepared by the Investigating Officer the Hujra where the electric bulb was hanging at point No. 8 is mentioned to be, that of Sardar Bacha. But there appears to be no contradiction, in that, there is no dispute about the place where the occurrence took place which is an open space and which has been claimed by P. W. Nisar Mohammad to be belonging to him and which claim has been duly corroborated by Noor Said and Mir Dad Khan A. S. I. and there is no contradiction from the other side. The Kotha of the Hujra which contains point No. 8 as shown in the site plan Exh. P. F. may belong to Sardar Bacha which opens towards the site where the occurrence took place as also the gate of the house of Shah Mahmood as shown in Exh. P. F., but the evidence on record considered as a whole would justify a conclusion that the place where Tila Mohammad deceased was fired upon and killed, belongs to P. W. Nisar Mohammad. As indicated above, no effort, much less a serious one, has been made by the defence side to disprove such claim of P. W. Nisar Mohammad. In that view of the matter the presence of P W. Nisar Mohammad in his own Hujra with the deceased at the time of occurrence was not unnatural. On the other hand, it would have been rather unusual for the deceased to sit all alone at such odd hour at some other's place, unless, of course, he had some ulterior motive to do so, which, on the face of the record, there seems to be none. In that view of the matter, the presence of Noor Said P.W. a common relative whose house is situated nearby over there was also neither impossible nor abnormal, particularly when, as stated by these two witnesses, they and the deceased had earlier responded to a common cause of plastering arid putting earth on the roof of the Kotha of the said widow, which fact was later verified by the investigating officer on his visit to the scene of occurrence. It is not an uncommon phenomena for people particularly in villages in this part of the country to utilize Summer nights for routine work and for chatting by those who have nothing to do to while away time. It follows that it should not appear unusual if P. Ws. Nisar Mohammad and Noor Said had been sitting in that Hujra so late in the night, moreso when the deceased being a casual visitor to the village was sharing their company and obviously he was not there to invite trouble much less to be mindful that his end was near.
15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant strenouosly argued that had there been any truth in the version of P. Ws. Nisar Mohammad and Noor Said that they alongwith some others had earlier gone to the house of the widow of Awal Shah for the purpose of plastering the roof of her Kotha, prosecution should have produced either any one of those persons or the said widow to prove that fact. I regret, I don't find any force in this argument, for, what actually matters, is that at the time of occurrence, the two eye-witnesses were with the deceased and the earlier incident of plastering only provides a link between the deceased and the eye-witnesses hence ground for their being together on the fateful night, shortly before and at the time of occurrence. The house of Awal Shah is shown at point No. 9 in the site plan Exh. P. F., although through the obvious carelessness of the I. O. the name of that person is instead mentioned therein as Lal Shah. In any case that house is not near the scene of occurrence and the evidence is that after doing the needful in the house of Awal Shah, the witnesses and the deceased and other helpers came from that house to the Hujra of P. W. Nisar Mohammad wherefrom the rest dispersed while the two eye-witnesses and the deceased kept on sitting there.
16. As to the question of identification, it is obvious that while firing at the deceased from such a close range, the assailant did not make any mistake in fixing up his actual object. Therefore, those sitting close to the deceased and facing the assailant should have also had no difficulty to identify the assailant, not only in the light of full moon or for that matter with the help of the light spreading from the nearby lit electric bulb, more so when be was not a stranger, being their relative, but also when he, i.e. the assailant, according to the version of the eye-witnesses, bad a talk with the deceased before the latter was fired upon by the former. Under the circum stances, the identification of the assailant was possible even by voice. It is obvious that not only the report of the fatal gunshot but also the alarm raised thereafter must have attracted the attention of the co-villagers sleeping on the roofs of the Kothas of their houses nearby, who then opened: fire with the respective arms in the direction in which they saw the culprit running with the object of frustrating his escape by disabling him to do so, as otherwise the villagers would have naturally turned the faces of their weapons towards the place, wherefrom the report of the gun shot was heard. It means that the villagers had in view the running suspect when they resorted to firing. This fact lends support to the version of the said eye-witnesses that the culprit was chased and shouted upon, from behind, by them, after the commission of the crime as a result of which the villagers became altered. It also supports the contention of P. Ws. Nisar Mohammad and Noor Said that there was sufficient light which enabled the villagers to observe the direction, in which, the assailant was running after the commission of the crime and thus they made no mistake in subjecting the culprit to their volley of shots which disabled him from running away and which ultimately led to his apprehension It may with reason be repeated that accused was hit and injured at point No. 10 shown in the site plan Exh. P. F. which point is situated at a distance of 430 paces from the place where Tila Mohammad deceased was murdered. While explaining his presence at the place where he was found injured at such hour of the night, the accused made no attempt in his Court statement recorded at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, to improve upon what he had earlier indicated in the F. I. R. Exh. P. A. wherein he had stated that he had gone to take food (evening meal) to his maternal uncle on the night of occurrence and while coming back from there at that time, he fell victim to firing, for which he would not charge any one. It is not understandable nor it has been explained as to why it took the accused so long a time in returning from the place known as "Wand Dhakki" where his maternal uncle Gul Said was, which place is almost adjacent to his village. P. W. Nisar Mohammad has stated that "Wand Dhakki" which is at a distance of one furlong from their village (Utmanzai) is situated to the East of the house of Adil Shah accused. He has further stated that a man coming from "Wand Dhakki" to the house of the accused has not to pass through the Daga of Nawab Sahib I.e. the place where Adil Shah accused was fired upon and injured and that "Wand Dhakki" and the house of the accused are directly connected with each other through a path going East-West-Wards. There is nothing on record, not even a suggestion, in rebuttal of this part of the statement of P. W. Nisar Mohammad. It, therefore, follows that the version of the accused as to his presence at the time and the place where and when be was fired upon and injured, is not even in the least convincing hence not worthy of consideration, moreso when no effort has been made in proof of the same from the defence side.
17. It was conceded at the bar and in my opinion rightly too that the accused was not fired upon from the place where the deceased was fired upon and killed, much less by the deceased himself and this fact is obvious because on the one hand no trail of blood was found which would have followed the injured accused from the place where the deceased was fired upon, if he i.e. the accused had been fired upon and injured at that place and secondly according to the medical evidence the accused had become incapable to move, after he received grievous fire-arm injuries on his legs, resulting in fracture of bones.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant further assailing the testimony of the said two eye-witnesses laid great stress on that part of the statement of P. W. Mohammad Yaqub Khan which he made in his cross-examination and which reads as under:--
"When I approached, the accused was lying injured. I did not see P. W, Nisar Mohammad and P. W. Noor Said."
This witness, as indicated above, was attracted to the spot on noise and the report of fire-arm shots and that spot for the relevant purpose was the place where the accused was lying injured. It was at that place where on his enquiry, Adil Shah accused told him that the deceased had fired at him first and he fired at the deceased in return. It was also at that place, where the people present near the accused, told him that the accused had fired at Tila Mohammad de ceased and while he (accused) was running (thereafter) he was fired at by the villagers. This witness has further stated that he then went to the place where the deceased was lying dead on a cot and where people had also collected. Statement of P. W. Mohammad Yaqub Khan carefully read as a whole particularly his replies to the questions put to him in cross-examination before as well as after the one to which be made the said answer would leave no doubt in mind, hence furnishing ground for conclusion, that what this witness meant was that he did not see P. W. Nisar Mohammad and P. W. Noor Said at the place where the accused was lying injured, when he approa ched there.
19. As indicated above, P. W. Inayatullah Khan and Mohammad Yaqub Khan are both distinterested witnesses. Statement of Mohammad Yaqub Khan (P. W.) shows that immediately after the occurrence, the accused had admitted before him (although with qualification) that he had fired at the deceased. P. W. Inayatullah Khan has stated that:-
"On my enquiry the accused requested me to save him."
This means that while admitting that he had fired at the deceased, the accused was conscious of the consequences and he thus felt the necessity of entreating P. W. Inayatullah Khan to save him (obviously from further harm). In his F. I. R. the accused specifically mentioned that Tila Mohammad deceased had succumbed to the injuries which he received during the firing and that his dead body was lying on the spot. He neither charged his relative Tila Mohammad nor anyone else in particular for firing and injuring him and the deceased although he positively knew at the time of report that his relative Tila Mohammad who was injured as a result of ad succumbed to the injuries and was lying dead on the spot which was other than the one at which he himself was injured-both separated from each other by 430 paces.
20. It may be relevant at this stage to refer to the medical evidence recorded in this case with particular mention of the injuries found on the body of Tila Mohammad deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. Statement of Doctor Haidar Zaman (P. W. 10) in that regard, reads as under:-
"On 25-7-72 at 6-30 a.m. I conducted the post-mortem examination of Tila Mohammad son of Haji Noor Mohammad aged 22/23 years resident of Utmanzai and found the following injuries:-
(1) 4 fire-arm entrance wounds, one 3/4' x 3/4' and the 3 wounds measuring 1/4" x 1/4' near the medial end of the left clavical. One wound (smaller) was on the medial left clavical and other three just below it.
(2) Two outlet on the right shoulder (penetrating the scapula).
It means that the deceased was fired at from the front side and from a close range as the pellets entered his body in bunch. This fact lends support to the statements of P. Ws. Nisar Mohammad and Noor Said that the accused bad fired at the deceased from a close range and that he was fully identified as he was facing them. When questioned in cross-examination, P. W. Nisar Mohammad stated that at the time of firing, the deceased was facing West when the accused was facing East, so both were facing each other. It finds support from the medical evidence as also from the site plan where at point No. 6 five wads were recovered by the I. O. and one pellet was recover ed by the I. O from point No. 7. 5o far as this aspect of the case is con cerned neither Nisar Mohammad P. W. nor Noor Said P. W. had been cross-examined, much less confronted with any of their statements recorded icy the police under section 161. Cr. P. C or thereafter recorded by a Magis trate under section 164, Cr P. C. or by the Committing Court.
21. The above discussion will therefore justifiably lead to the conclusion that both Nisar Mohammad p. W. and Noor Said P. W. were present on the spot at the time of occurrence and that both of them had seen the occurrence with their own eyes. Their relationship with the deceased should not be the main ground for rejecting their testimony when otherwise they have successfully stood the test of their veracity. Moreso when they are also related to the accused and there is neither any allegation nor suggestion that they or any on of them was in any manner inimically disposed towards the accused-appellant Adil Shah.
22. As to the motive for the crime, besides what has been stated by P. W. Nisar Mohammad, Fazal Mohammad (P. W. 1) who is the elder brother of the deceased is more elaborate in his description of the same. He has stated that accused Adil Shah was in the habit of using their Hujra as a, gambling den, which was resented by his (witness's) father which ultimately led to altercation between the deceased and the accused and they came to grips. Further that the deceased then threw away the instruments of gambl ing and turned the accused out of the Hujra alongwith other gamblers and he (deceased) then closed the Hujra. At this stage, it may be relevant to clarify that the Hujra where the deceased was murdered is different from the one on the wrongful use of which, the deceased and the accused had quarrelled, as stated above. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has not cared to mention the Hujra of the deceased in the site plan Exh. P. F nor he has shown therein the houses of the accused and the deceased. Fazal Mohammad (P. W. 1) has further stated that about seven-eight days prior to the occurrence the deceased and the accused had again quarrelled over the same issue and accused Adil Shah thus felt insulted and he therefore wanted to take revenge from the deceased. This part of the statement of P. W. Fazal Mohammad stands unchallenged as no effort has been made by the defence side either through cross-examination or otherwise to refute such allegation. It therefore stands to reason to believe that the accused had a motive for the crime to avenge his insult and grievance and at the same time at will also be reasonable to hold that there was no motive for a false charge against the accused.
23. Exh. P. G. is the recovery memo, through which the Investigating Officer took into possession 12 bore S. B. shot-gun Exh. P. 1 which was loaded with a '12 bore live cartridge Exh. P. 2, when produced before him by Inayatullah Khan P. W., the correctness of which has not only been proved by the Investigating Officer i.e. P. W. Mir Dad Khan A. S. I. but by Inayatullah Khan P. W. as well, who has signed the same and also by Mohammad Yaqub Khan P. W. who is a marginal witness of the same. According to this memo, the gun Exh. P. 1 was emitting the smell o discharge of gun-powder. This circumstance coupled with the factum of the presence, at such late hour, of the accused at the place, where he suffered gunshot injuries at the hands of the villagers under the circumstances note satisfactorily explained by the accused and his need for spontaneously entreating P. W. Inayatullah Khan to save him and his admission before P. W. Mohammad Yaqub Khan that he had tired at the deceased and his subsequent conduct in twisting facts while lodging F. I. R in the police' station, lend. sufficient corroboration to the ocular evidence discussed above, in pin-pointing the guilt of murdering Tila Mohammad deceased, on the accused appellant.
24. Learned State Counsel maintains that the relevant part of the statement of the accused which he made before P. W. Mohammad Yaqub Khan, referred to above, amounts to extra-judicial confession. It is obvious that a confes3ion is an admission by an accused person wherein he states the commission of the offence. The test to determine whether the statement amounts to confession is whether the statement admits in terms the offence., Exculpatory statements denying guilt, do not amount to confession. Similarly where an accused admits the killing but asserts that it was done in self-defence is not a confession. In that view of the matter, admission of Adil Shah accused that he fired at the deceased after the deceased first fired at him, will not amount to confession of the commission of murder.
25. In the light of what has been discussed above, I unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused-appellant (Adil Shah) has been finally brought home to him and he has been rightly convicted under section 302, P. P. C. There is no mitigating circumstance which might entitle the accused-appellant to any leniency, as such, the punishment awarded to the accused-appellant is, under the circumstances, appropriate. It may however be added that section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it obligatory that in a case like this while sentencing the accused, the Court has to award compensation to the heirs of the deceased unless for reasons to be recorded, it otherwise directs. The trial Court has not recorded any such reason, in the absence of which, it was mandatory for the trial Court to award compensation. Since no reasonable ground exists, to extend the benefit of exemption to the accused in this case, I direct that the accused shall pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
26. In the result, I dismiss the appeal of Adil Shah appellant ands confirm the death sentence imposed on him.
S. A. H Appeal dismissed.