MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus THE STATE
DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑-- Muhammad Yaqub appellant 27, was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter called the said Ordinance, for having committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with Mst. Suryya Nasreen, and under section 397, P.P.C. for committing robbery, while armed with Chhuri and causing grievous injuries to her after making lurking house trespass and taking away Rs.2,000 and under section 302, P.P.C., for causing injuries to Mst. Suryya Nasreen with dagger resulting in her death. The complaint (Exh.P.A.) was recorded by Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. (P.W.12) on the statement made by Abdul Jabbar P.W.1 (husband of Mst. Suryya Nasreen deceased) on 23‑11‑1993 at 10‑00 p.m. at Bole‑the‑Jhuggi while he alongwith other police officials was present in connection with Gasht. The complaint Exh.P.A was got by him incorporated into formal F.I.R. at Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad on the same night at 10‑30 p.m. The said S.‑I. went to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad and prepared injury statement Exh.P.J., inquest report Exh.P.K. He entrusted the dead body to Constable Arshad Ali P.W.6 who took the same to mortuary for post‑mortem. He arrested the appellant/accused on 28‑11‑1993 and after completion of necessary investigation got him challaned to face the trial where he was acquitted under section 397, P.P.C. but convicted under section 10(2) of the said Ordinance and section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned hereinunder:‑‑
Under section 10(2) of the said Ordinance
Ten years' R.I., whipping numbering 30 stripes and a fine of Rs.10,000 or in default of payment of fine further six months' R.I.
Under section 302 (Part I), P.P.C.
Death
Compensation:
Rs.40,000 to the legal heirs of Mst. Suryya Nasreen or in default thereof further two years' R.I.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment Muhammad Yaqub filed Criminal Appeal No.348/L of 1994. Murder Reference filed by the learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence sent earlier to honourable High Court and subsequently forwarded to this Court on 16‑4‑1995 by the said honourable Court is also before us. As both the matters have arisen from the same judgment we are disposing them of by this single judgment.
3. Before proceeding further we would like to mention here that the appellant/accused has been convicted under section 10(2) of the said Ordinance whereas the contents of complaint, charge as well as circumstances of the case prima facie reveal that instead of conviction tinder section 10(2) the appellant should have been convicted under section 10(3) of the said Ordinance. Therefore, at the outset the learned counsel was issued a notice as to why the sentence of appellant may not be altered from section 10(2) to section .10(3) of the said Ordinance. The learned counsel duly accepted the notice.
4. Briefly stated the case of prosecution its disclosed by complainant Abdul Jabbar in his statement Exh.P.A. on 23‑11‑1993 is to the Affect that he hail constructed a double storey house in Street No.5, Mohallah Baghbanpura. He had rented out the ground floor to one Nazir while he was living on the first floor. At about Ishawela while he alongwith his brother Abdul Ghaffar and Muhammad Rafique was present near the house at about 8‑30 p.m. he heard cries from his house. He alongwith the said two persons rushed to his house and went upstairs. They saw in the light of bulb that Muhammad Yaqub who was related to his tenant Nazir was causing Chhuri blows to his wife Mst. Suryya Nasreen whose Shalwar was off at that time and was lying on the floor of the house. In their view he inflicted four Chhuri blows to his wife in her abdominal region while she was raising hue and cry. On seeing them Muhammad Yaqub while brandishing Chhuri threatened to kill them if they tried to get near him. They got scared and Muhammad Yaqub succeeded in making good his escape. On their inquiry Mst. Suryya Nasreen disclosed that Muhammad Yaqub related to Nazir tenant subjected her to Zina‑bil‑Jabr at dagger point and on her resistance lie caused Chhuri blows to her". They immediately took Mst. Suryya Nasreen to Allied Hospital. Faisalabad for treatment where she succumbed to her injuries and passed away. The complainant stated that lie had left the dead body in custody of Abdul Ghaffar and Rafique and was going to Police Station to report he matter. However, finding Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. on Bole‑the Jhuggi he made a statement before him. As stated above Haq Nawaz. S.‑I. reduced his statement into writing and after reading it over to the complainant who thumb marked it in token of its correctness in his presence, sent the same to Police Station Sargodlia Road, Faisalabad and got it incorporated into formal F.I.R. 'and thereafter he arrested the appellant/accused and after completion of necessary investigation challaned him to face the trial.
5. At the trial the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all. P.W.1 is Abdul Jabbar. He is the husband of Mst. Suryya Nasreen deceased. He is the complainant who reiterated his statement as mentioned hereinabove. He also added that the appellant/accused had demanded money from his wife and she had given him Rs.2,000 and that he had made a supplementary statement to this effect before I'.W.12. In cross‑examination giving the reason for not getting this fact recorded in Exh.P.A. he stated that he did not inform the police about this tact being perplexed. P.W.2 is Dr. Mazhar lqbal who on 29‑I 1‑1993 medically examined the appellant/accused and found him tit to perform sexual intercourse. P.W.3 is Muhammad Rafique. He is one of the eye‑witnesses who while standing at some distance from the house of complainant heard cries from the house of complainant, ran upstairs alongwith him and saw Muhammad Yaqub accused at the upper storey giving Chhuri blows to the wife of the complainant who was lying on the floor, was without Shalwar at that time and was raising hue and cry. He fully supported the prosecution version `as made by the complainant. P. W.4 is Aurangzeb Draftsman. On 25‑11‑1993 he inspected the place of occurrence and subsequently on its basis prepared site plan. He took rough notes on the pointation of P. Ws. and under the direction of police and prepared site plans Exh.P.D. and Exh.P.D./1, which bears, his signatures, on 28‑11‑1993. P.W.5 is Muhammad Ansar, H.C. On 24‑11‑1993 Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. handed over to him six parcels containing blood‑stained cotton, last worn clothes of deceased, an envelope and a parcel containing Shalwar of the deceased for keeping the same in safe custody in Malkhan a. On 29‑11‑1993 he handed over four parcels containing envelope, swabs, last worn clothes and blood‑stained cotton to Muhammad Arshad Constable P. W.6 for onward transmission to the Office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore, intact. On 2‑12‑1993 Haq Nawaz S.‑I. handed over to him two parcels containing Chhuri and clothes of the accused for keeping the same in safe custody in Malkhana. On 6 12193 he handed over both the said parcels to Muhammad Arshad, Constable P. W.6 for onward transmission to the Office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. He deposed that so long as the parcels remained in his custody no one tampered with the same. P.W.6 is Arshad Ali, Constable. On 23‑I1‑1993 Haq Nawaz, S.‑I., entrusted to him dead body of Mst. Suryya Nasreen to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad to be taken to mortuary at D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad. On 24‑11‑1993 post‑mortem was conducted. The doctor handed over to him last worn clothes of Mst. Suryya Nasreen consisting shirt P.1, Shalwar P.2, Brazier P.3. According to him shirt P.1 was having ten cuts on front of it and was blood‑stained and Brazier was also having signs of cut on it and it was also blood‑stained The doctor also handed over to him a sealed phial containing swabs and envelope alongwith post‑mortem report and other police papers. He produced all the articles before Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. which were taken into possession through recovery memo. Exh.P.E. He attested the recovery memo. subsequently on 29‑11‑1993 and on 6‑12‑1993 he deposited the parcels handed over to him by Muhammad Ansar P. W.5 in the Office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore intact. P.W.7 is Muhammad Shafique. On 24‑11‑1993 he identified the dead body of Mst. Suryya Nasreen at the time of post‑mortem. He is also marginal witness to Exh.P.E. Whereby last worn clothes of the deceased i.e. shirt P.1, Shalwar P.2, Brazier P.3, were taken into possession. In cross-examination he stated that there were ten signs of cut on her shirt P.1. P.W.8 is Muhammad Akram. He is the marginal witness to the recovery memo. Exh.P.F. whereby Chhuri P.4, blood‑stained clothes of the appellant/accused consisting of Dhotti P.5, shirt P.6, Perna P.7 and Rs.2,000 were recovered on 2‑12‑1993 at the pointation of the appellant/accused from his residential house which were taken into possession. In cross‑examination he stated that the recovery Was effected from the house of one Karam Din. He also stated that Karam Din alongwith his brother was living in the same house and he was not present in his house at the time of recovery. P.W.9 is Abdul Haq. He is the marginal witness to recovery memo. Exh.P.G. vide which on 24‑11‑1993 blood‑stained cotton procured from the place of occurrence, was taken into possession. He is also witness to recovery memo. Exh.P.H. vide which blood‑stained Shalwar P.8 and blood‑stained piece of cloth P.9 having semen stains also was taken into possession. P.W.10 is Muhammad Fayyaz, A.S.‑I. On 23-1‑1993 he was posted at Police Station Sargodha Road at Faisalabad. On the same day he registered formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.A. without any omission or addition on his putt. P.W.11 is Dr. Muhammad Nawaz, C.M.O., Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, who on 24‑11‑1993 conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of Mst. Suryya Nasreen wife of Abdul Jabbar complainant who was brought by Arshad Ali, Constable P.W.6 and was identified by Muhammad Shafique P.W.7 and Muhammad Idrees. He made the following observation:‑‑
"It was a dead body of a young lady of about 30/32 years wearing violet coloured shirt, green Shalwar, black brazier with eyes closed and mouth semi‑open. No post‑mortem staining no rigor morits were present.
Details of Injuries:
(1) A stab wound 3 x 1‑1/2 c.m. on front of chest in sternal area in the midline. It pearced the chest in‑between 3rd and 4th right ribs. It tore the liver, stomach and then abdominal aorta with direction from upward to downward.
(2) A stab wound 3 x 1‑1/2 c.m. on right breast muscle deep 2 c.m. above right nipple, 12 c.m. right to anterior midline.
(3) A stab wound 2‑1/2 x 2 c.m. on left breast, 6 c.m. left to anterior midline 9 cm medial to left nipple. It was through and through with injury No.4 mentioned below. It was muscle deep.
(4) A stab wound 4 x 1‑1/2 c.m. muscle deep on left breast 2 c.m. supero- medial to left nipple, 5 c.m. left to injury No.3 and continuous with injury No.3.
(5) A stab wound 4 x 1‑1/2 c.m. on lower part of right breast, 7 c.m. infero‑medial to right nipple, 5 c.m. right to anterior midline. It continued with injury No. 2 and was muscle deep.
(6) A stab wound 5 x 2‑1/2 c.m. muscle deep on front of lower anterior chest in the midline.
(7) A stab wound 2 x 1‑1/2 c.m. on front of right lower chest. It caused fracture of right 7th rib. It was 5 c.m. right to anterior midline, 2 c.m. below injury No.6.
(8) A stab wound 14 x 10 c.m. in the midline of upper abdomen from zyphi sternum to the umbilicus. It reached the peritoneum cavity. Small and large intestines were cut and were out of abdomen. Mesentry was coming out.
(9) A stab wound 9 x 3‑1/2 c.m. continuous with injury No. 8 below the umbilicus in the midline deep up to peritoneum cavity. It caused tear to large gut and abdominal aorta.
(10) A stab wound 2 x 1/2 c.m. in the lower abdomen 4 c.m. right to anterior midline. It was deep up to peritoneum cavity.
(11) A stab wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m., 2 c.m. left to anterior midline above left inguinal ligament. It was muscle deep.
Skull, vertebra and scalp were not opened. Thorax, walls, ribs and cartriladges were injured as described. Pluera was injured as mentioned above. Larynax and trachea were normal and healthy. Both lungs were healthy. Heart was normal. Right ventricle contained blood Left was empty. Blood vessels abdominal aorta were cut at two places as mentioned before. Abdominal was injured as described above. Bladder was full of urine. Uterus was of normal size.
He took three vaginal swabs and sealed the same into a bottle and handed over the same alongwith other papers and articles to constable. In his opinion the cause of death in this case was tear of liver, stomach and abdominal aorta by injury No. l and tear of abdominal aorta by injury No. 8 and injury No.9 at two places which caused excessive haemorrhage and shock leading to death. He opined that these injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He also added that injuries Nos.2. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11 were simple in nature whereas injuries Nos. 1, 7; 8, 9 and 10 were grievous, that all the injuries were caused with sharp‑edged weapon, that duration in injuries and death was about half an hour and that between death and post‑mortem was about 3‑1/2 hours. In cross‑examination, responding to a Court question, he clarified that Mst. Suryya Nasreen deceased could be in a position to speak soon after receiving the injuries. P.W.12 is Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. On 23‑11‑1993 he recorded the statement Exh.P.A made by Abdul Jabbar complainant at 10‑00 p.m. He sent the same to Police Station Sargodha Road and got it incorporated into formal F. I. R. Exh.P.A./1.. He went to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad and prepared injury statement Exh.P.J., inquest report Exh.P.K. He entrusted the dead body to Constable Arshad Ali to be taken to mortuary for post-mortem. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. Abdul Ghaffar and Muhammad Rafique under section 161, Cr.P.C. He also recorded the supplementary statement of Abdul Jabbar complainant. On 24‑11‑1993 he inspected the place of occurrence. He removed blood with the help of cotton and took the same into possession through recovery memo. Exh.P.G. He took into possession blood‑stained Shalwar P.8 and the blood‑stained piece of cloth P.9 into possession from the place of occurrence vide recovery memo. Exh.P.H. He prepared rough site plan Exh.P.L. on the pointation of the P.Ws. On the same day Arshad Ali P.W.6 produced before him one envelope, one sealed phial containing swabs alongwith last worn clothes i.e. shirt P.1, Shalwar P.2, Brazier P.3. He took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.E. and handed over the same to M.H.C. Police Station Sargodha Road on the same day. On 25‑11‑1993 he prepared site plans Exh.P.D. and Exh.P.D./I through Aurangzeb Draftsman P.W.4. He arrested Muhammad Yaqub accused on 28‑11‑1993 and got him medically examined for sexual potency. Subsequent to a disclosure made by him on 2‑12‑1993 on his pointation he got recovered Chhuri P.4 weapon of offence, clothes i.e. Chaddar P.5, shirt P.6 and Perna P.7, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, and Rs.2,000. The clothes were sealed by him into a parcel. All these articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.P.F. The site plan Exh.P.F/1 showing the place of recovery was also prepared by him. He handed over the parcel to M.H.C. Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad. He completed all the formalities and got the accused challaned to the Court There are four Chemical Examiner's reports. Exh.P.M. pertains to Chhuri and clothes of the appellant/accused. This report reveals that these articles are stained with blood. Exh.P.N. is about the three vaginal swabs. It discloses that the swabs are stained with semen. Exh.P.O. is in respect of cotton recovered from the place of occurrence. It shows that it was stained with blood. Exh.P.P. relates to Perna. It indicates that it is stained with semen and blood. The Serologist Report Exh.P.Q. regarding cotton shows that it is stained with human blood.
6. The appellant accused made a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegation and pleaded innocent. Replying to question NoA0 "why this case against you and why the P.Ws. have deposed against you'?" he made a statement in the following words:‑‑
"I have been involved in this case due to suspicion. P.Ws. have deposed against me being close relative of deceased."
He did not make a statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Also he produced no evidence in defence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is an un-witnessed occurrence which took place in the night and the presence of eye‑witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. He submitted that the complainant as weft as P.W. 3 Muhammad Rafique, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, have deposed that the accused inflicted four injuries on the abdomen of the deceased whereas according to the post‑mortem report there are I l injuries on the body of the deceased and thus it is apparent that there is contradiction which shows that the eye‑witnesses who are also closely related to the deceased and are interested witnesses have not seen the occurrence. He also submitted that no independent person from the locality has been produced as a witness though the house wherein the occurrence took place is situated in a thickly populated area. The learned counsel also referred to the discrepancies in the statements of P.W.2 Dr. Mazhar Iqbal P.W.6, Arshad Ali, P.W.l2, Haq Nawaz S.‑1. and P.W.I and P.W.3 eye‑witnesses regarding the number of injuries on the body of the deceased as well as on her Qameez and Brazier. The learned counsel further made submissions regarding the recovery of Chhuri and clothes by the appellant and submitted that the recoveries were effected, according to the prosecution version, from the house of one Karam Din and, as such, the appellant has no concern with the same. The learned counsel also made submissions in respect of commission of the offence of Zina by the appellant with the deceased and contended that there is no evidence in this respect and mere positive report of the Chemical Examiner on the swabs cannot be solely made basis for conviction of the appellant. The learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.
8. We have thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record in the light of submissions made by both the learned counsel. It transpires from the record that the occurrence took place at about 8‑30 p.m. on 23‑11‑1993. The complainant with the help of other P.Ws. immediately took his wife to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad for necessary treatment but she could not survive and succumbed to the injuries. He left her dead body there in the custody of P. Ws. and reported the matter tip Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. who recorded his statement Exh. PA and sent the same to be incorporated into formal F.I.R. at Police Station which is situated at a distance of three Kms. from the house of complainant. The said report was registered at 10‑30 p.m. on the same night. It is evident that the whole proceedings consumed two hours. Thus in circumstances this is a promptly lodged F.I.R. and the complainant had no occasion to make deliberations and falsely nominate the appellant/accused, with whom he had no enmity whatsoever, in F.I.R. The complainant has appeared as P.W.I and made a statement on oath wherein he has reiterated the contents of his statement Exh.P.A. Muhammad Rafique, according to Exh.P.A. had seen the occurrence alongwith the complainant and his brother Abdul Ghaffar. He has appeared' as P.W.3 and made a deposition wherein he has fully corroborated in material particulars the statement made by the complainant. Another eye‑witness Abdul Ghaffar, brother of the complainant, has not appeared, but no adverse inference can be taken against the case of prosecution for the reason, as he was given up being unnecessary. P.W.3 resides in the same street, and thus; his presence near the house of the complainant was but natural. Both P. W .1 and P. W. 3 are employees in two different mills at some distance from their houses but they were working there during the day time and their witnessing the occurrence which took place at about 8‑30 p.m. is also natural. No cogent, piece of evidence has been produced by the defence to establish that they were not present at the time and place of occurrence. The suggestions put to them in this respect have been denied by them. It is true that P.W.1 Abdul Jabbar is husband Lind P.W.3 is uncle of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses but there is nothing on record to show that they bore any animosity with the accused. It is to be appreciated that the statement of an interested witness is to he considered with abundant caution. Nevertheless the statement of a witness cannot be disbelieved merely because he is an interested witness unless it is further shown that he has been actuated by enmity and malice to falsely implicate the accused. Both these P.Ws. have been subjected to lengthy cross‑examination but nothing fruitful to the defence has been adduced from their evidence. Their testimony inspires confidence and there is nothing to disbelieve their ocular account of the incident seen by them in the light of bulb which was on at that time. Their statements are fully corroborated by the medical evidence conducted at the time of post‑mortem on the dead body of deceased Mst. Suryya Nasreen by P.W.I l Dr. Muhammad Nawaz, C.M.O. who is admittedly an independent witness and had got nothing to do with the case of prosecution. Though apparently there is some discrepancy regarding the number of injuries found by the Medical Officer on the dead body of Mst. Suryya Nasreen and those stated by P.W.I complainant Abdul Jabbar and P. W.3 Muhammad Rafique, it is noteworthy that P. W.1 and P. W.3 stated the number of only those injuries which were inflicted by the accused in their presence. This fact is not only quite evident from the deposition of P.W.3 who stated that "the accused gave four/three hitting to Mst. Suryya Nasreen at her abdomen within our sight", but has also been clearly stated by the complainant in Exh.P.A. in the following words:‑‑
Thus there is absolutely no contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence. The difference of the number of hits on the clothes and body as appears from the statement of P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.12 is not material. In view of the aforementioned position that is not at all significant as the same has no material bearing on the facts of the instant case and could be easily ignored Most important is the fact that the appellant/accused has been named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. by eye‑witnesses who had no personal motive of their own to implicate him and though they have relationship with the deceased but that by itself, as stated above, cannot be made a ground to disbelieve or doubt their evidence. According to the evidence the deceased has been subjected to Zina‑bil‑Jabr and ordinarily close relatives of the nature in the instant case would never prefer to get the real offender substituted by an innocent person without any rhyme or reason and let the actual culprit to get scot free. Regarding the commission of Zina‑bil‑Jabr by the accused with the deceased, though no ocular evidence has been brought on record by the eye‑witnesses, it is sufficient to mention that the deceased made a dying declaration, as appears from the promptly lodged statement Exh.P.A., before her husband and the eye‑witnesses that the accused had subjected her to Zina‑bil‑Jabr. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that the dying declaration does not reveal the commission of the offence of Zina with her but only discloses an attempt to commit the same. The words attributed to Mst. Suryya Nasreen, the deceased, are very clear in this respect. She disclosed that:‑‑
These words recorded to the complaint Exh.P.A. and subsequently reiterated to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.3 clearly indicate that the accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the deceased and had inflicted Chhuri blows to her on her resistance. The Medical Officer who appeared as P.W.11 was put a question by the Court to the effect whether Mst. Suryya Nasreen the deceased would be in the position to speak soon after receiving the injuries and he answered in affirmative. The three vaginal swabs taken by him at the time of post‑mortem examination which were subsequently kept in safe custody in Malkhana and thereafter sent to the Chemical Examiner, as mentioned hereinabove, were found by him stained with semen. Thus, the necessary corroboration required for that allegation was also brought on record.
9. So far as contention regarding the recovery of Chhuri and clothes of the appellant, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, from the house of one Karam Din is concerned it may be pointed out that although P.W.8 Muhammad Akram who was a marginal witness to recovery memo. Exh.P.F. has not clarified. P.W.12 Haq Nawaz, S.‑I. has clearly mentioned in his examination‑in‑chief that the appellant/accused himself led to the recovery of said articles from the house owned by one Karam Din wherein Muhammad Yaqub was living as a tenant. No cross‑examination has been made on this P.W. in respect of above position and, therefore, it stands admitted that the appellant/accused was living in the house of Karam Din as a tenant and the said articles were recovered at his pointation from the house which was hired by him and where he had been living during the days of occurrence.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appellant/accused was seen by P.W.1 complainant and P.W.3 Muhammad Rafique while he was inflicting Chhuri blows to the wife of complainant who was making hue and cry and her Shalwar was off from her body. They took her to the hospital in injured condition where she succumbed to her injuries. The report in this respect was lodged immediately thereafter. Thus, the promptitude in lodging F.I.R. absence of any motive for false implication, confidence inspiring statements of the eye witnesses who gave consistent ocular account of the event seen by them, strong corroboration by medico‑legal report as confirmed by the Medical Officer as P. W.11, positive Chemical Examiner's Report, Serologist's Report, recovery of the incriminating articles at the pointation of the appellant/accused, duly attested by independent witnesses, establish that the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.
11. Consequently, for the reasons stated above we maintain the conviction and sentence of death of the appellant under section 302, Part 1, P.P.C. as recorded by the learned trial Court on 29‑9‑1994. We also maintain the conviction of the appellant under section 10 of the said Ordinance but alter the conviction from under section 10(2) to under section 10(3) of the said Ordinance and sentence him to undergo imprisonment of ten years' R.I. The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 or in default six months' R.I. is set aside as not legally required under section 10(3) of the said Ordinance. The sentence of whipping is also Set aside as no more required after the promulgation of Act No. VII of 1996. The sentence in respect of payment of Rs.40,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof two years' R.I. is, however maintained. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. The murder reference is answered in affirmative.
N.H.Q./1129/FSC Order accordingly.