MUNIR AHMAD Versus STATE
SH. KHIZAR HAYAT, J. --- Abdul Majeed (30 years), Munir Ahmad (23 years), Abdul Hamid (25 years) and Abdul Ghafoor (20 years), brothers inter se, and their friends Muhammad Arshad son of Abdul Hamid (23 years) and Allah Ditta (35 years), appellants herein, were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on the charges under sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149, P.P.C. (on two counts). Learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 24-1-1991, convicted and sentenced them all as under:--
(i) Under section 148, P.P.C. all the appellants were sentenced to 2 years R.I. each.
(ii) Under section 307/149, P.P.C. all of them were sentenced to 10 years' R.I. each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one year each.
(iii) Under section 302/149, P.P.C. all were convicted for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz (deceased). Muhammad Arshad (appellant) was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.50,000 and in default thereof to suffer R.I. for 5 years and the remaining appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000 each and in default thereof to undergo 5 years' R.I. each.
(iv) Under section 302/149, P.P.C. for the murder of Ghulam Sarwar (deceased), all were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000 each and in default thereof to undergo R.I. for 5 years each.
Sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, and also benefit of provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was allowed to the appellants. The fine imposed, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of both the deceased.
2. Against their convictions and sentences Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul Hamid and Munir Ahmad have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No.117 of 1991, Abdul Majeed and Allah Ditta jointly filed Criminal Appeal No.103 of 1991, and Muhammad Arshad separately filed Criminal Appeal No.820 of 1992. On the other hand, Khurshid Ahmad (complainant) has filed Criminal Revision No.64 of 1991 for enhancement of sentence of Muhammad Arshad qua murder of Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) to death and likewise sentences of remaining appellants qua murders of Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) are sought to be enhanced to death. Besides aforesaid appeals and revision we have before us Murder Reference (No.86 of 1991) under section 374, Cr.P.C., for confirming death sentence awarded to Muhammad Arshad (appellant) by the trial Court. We propose to dispose of the aforesaid appeals, murder 'reference and the revision petition by this single judgment.
3. The occurrence had taken place at 8-30 a.m., on 18-5-1988 in the Abadi of Chak No.140/G.B., Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad. Khurshid Ahmad, complainant (P.W.3), uncle of both the deceased, lodged report of the incident at Police Station Samundri through F.I.R. (Exh.P.R.) recorded by H.C. Shaukat Ali (P.W.7), the same day, at 11-30 a.m.
4. ' The motive for the offence was stated to be that Munir Ahmad (appellant) and his brothers owned Chhapper/Dera in front of the house of Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) where they used to sit and play obscene songs on tape-recorder and also teased his women-folk. 10/12 years prior to the occurrence Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) restrained them from sitting at the said Dera whereupon fight took place wherein both the parties were injured and Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) had abused Mst. Zohra, mother of Munir Ahmad (appellant) etc. Hence this occurrence.
5. The fateful day was Eid-ul-Fitr day. At about 8-30 a.m., Khurshid Ahmad, complainant (P.W.13) alongwith Muhammad Nawaz (deceased), Ghulam Sarwar (deceased), Muhammad Aslam (P.W.14), Ghulam Ali (P.W.15), Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16). and Muhammad Saleem (P.W.17) were returning home (via changed route) after offering Eid prayer. When they reached in the street of Muhammad Ahmad, there came all the appellants, duly armed, from behind shouting Lalkaras. Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Abdul Hamid were armed with guns while Allah Ditta, Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Majid were armed with carbines. Muhammad Arshad (appellant) declaring that they had come to teach them a lesson for insulting and abusing Mst. Zohra mother of Munir Ahmad (appellant), fired a shot hitting Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) in the chest as a result of which he fell down. Munir Ahmad and Abdul Hamid (appellants) fired a shot each at Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) hitting him in front of left shoulder and head respectively. Allah Ditta's fire hit Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) on his left leg. Abdul Ghafoor's shot hit right leg of Muhammad Aslam (P.W.14) and the shot fired by Abdul Majeed hit his left leg. The assailants thereafter went home and then standing on their roofs continued firing. Muhammad Nawaz died on the spot. Khurshid Ahmad, complainant, rushed to his house and taking out his licensed gun fired shots in the air in self-defence. Ghulam Sarwar who was still alive with Muhammad Aslam and Muzaffar Hussain, injured P.Ws., were removed to Civil Hospital, Samundri where they were examined medically and admitted for treatment. Khurshid Ahmad, complainant, after obtaining their medico-legal reports rushed to Police Station Samundri and lodged F.I.R. (Exh.P.R.) as indicated above.
6. S.I. Khaliq Dad Khan (P.W.18) investigated the case. He visited the spot and removed blood-stained earth from four different places where Muhammad Nawaz (deceased), Ghulam Sarwar (deceased), Muhammad Aslam (P,W.14) and Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) had fallen injured. He picked up 8 crime empties (P.1 to P.8) from the spot and made their sealed parcel vide memo. (Exh.P.H.). He prepared injury statement (Exh.P.CC) and the inquest report (Exh.P.DD) of Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) and himself took the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) 'was got admitted in the hospital on 18-5-1988 where he died on 28-5-1988. The S.I. (P.W.18) arrested Munir Ahmad, Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul Hamid and Muhammad Arshad (appellants) on 25-5-1988. Muhammad Arshad got recovered .12 bore gun (P.9) and 4 live cartridges (P.10/1-4) while Munir Ahmad got recovered his licensed gun (P.11) alongwith licence (P.12) from their respective houses separately on 5-6-1988 which were seized under memos. (Exhs.P.Q. and P.U.) respectively. On 7-6-1988 Abdul Ghafoor got recovered carbine (P.24) with 2 live cartridges (P.25/1-2) from his house which were seized under memo. (Exh.P.Z.). On 8-6-1988 Abdul Hamid got recovered gun (P.26) from his house which was seized under memo. (Exh.P.AA). On 5-7-1988 he arrested Allah Ditta and Abdul Majid (appellant) but no weapon of offence was recovered from them. On 30-8-1988 Khurshid Ahmad complainant (P.W.13) produced his licensed gun (P.27) alongwith its licence (P.28) which were secured under memo. (Exh.P.BB). It may be mentioned that crime empties (P.1 to P.8) in sealed parcel were handed over to Constable Shaukat Ali Moharrir (P.W.7) on 19-5-1988 for safe custody in Malkhana. On 5-6-1988 the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) handed over 12 bore guns (P.9 and P.11) in separate sealed parcels for safe custody in Malkhana. On 7-6-1988 sealed parcel containing carbine (P.24) and on 8-6-1988 sealed parcel containing .12 bore gun (P.26) were handed over to Shaukat Ali, Moharrir (P.W.7) for safe custody in Malkhana. On 4-6-1988 Abdul Raoof, Constable (P.W.8) received sealed parcel containing crime empties (P.1 to P.8) and delivered it in the Office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, intact on 5-6-1988 and on 26-6-1988 he received three sealed parcels containing guns (P.9, P.11 and P.26) and one sealed parcel containing carbine (P.24) from Shaukat Ali, Moharrir (P.W.7) for onward transmission to the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore, which was received there on 27-6-1988 intact. Blood-stained earth secured from the spot was found as stained with human blood vide Chemical Examiner's reports (Exhs.P.HH and P.JJ) and of Serologist (Exhs.P.KK and P.LL). Vide Fire-arm Expert's report (Exh.P.MM) five out of eight crime empties (recovered from the spot) matched with gun (P.11) and one with gun (P.9), recovered from Muhammad Munir and Muhammad Arshad (appellants) respectively. The remaining two empties were found as not fired from any of the said weapons or those recovered from other appellants.
7. Dr. Muhammad Ishfaq (P.W.5) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Nawaz and found two small abrasions on the back of chest and one fire-arm entry wound on left side of chest 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x chest cavity deep. On dissection the right 6th rib was found fractured. Left pleura, left lung, paricardium and heart were injured under the injury which was ante-mortem and fatal and the rest were simple. Probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-?mortem examination within 8 to 10 hours.
8. Dr. Ghulam Rasool (P.W.1) examined the injured witnesses, namely, Muhammad Aslam (P.W.14), Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) and the deceased Ghulam Sarwar (while alive). He found two gunshot injuries on the person of Muhammad Aslam P.W. i.e. one tire-arm through and through wound on front of left thigh 3/4 c.m. x 3/4 c.m. and its exit wound was on back of left thigh 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. Another fire-arm wound was found on front of right thigh 3/4 c.m. x 3/4 p.m. with exit wound at the back of thigh 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. These injuries were caused within 3 hours and were simple in nature.
On the person of Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16), the doctor noted two gunshot injuries, i.e. a fire-arm wound 7 c.m. x 1 c.m. x scalp deep like a tunnel upon vault of scalp and another through and through fire-arm wound on front of left side of chest 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. with exit wound on back of left side of chest 1-1/4 c.m. x 1-1/4 c.m. Both the injuries were caused within 3 hours and were simple in nature.
On the person of Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) the doctor noted one fire-arm injury upon back of left thigh 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. with exit wound on front of left thigh 7 c.m. x 6 c.m. and the femur bone under the injury was fractured. It was caused within 3 hours and declared as grievous. Ghulam Sarwar, however, died in the hospital on 28-5-1988.
9. Dr. Arshad Jahangir (P.W.6) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Sarwar and observed that the femur bone was fractured which was communited and oblique in the lower one-third of the left femur. There was track present between the two injuries and pussy material was present at the base of track. Death in his opinion was due to toxaemia as a result of tetanus due to the said injury. Probable duration between injuries and death was within 9 to 10 days and between death and post-mortem examination within 8 to 9 hours.
10. At the trial, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case Khurshid Ahmad, first informant (P.W.13), Muhammad Adam (P.W.14), Ghulam Ali (P.W.15), Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) and Muhammad Saleem (P.W.17) furnished eye-witness account. P.Ws.13, 15 and 16 also stated about the motive. Mushtaq Ali (P.W.4) deposed to about the recovery of 8 empties from the spot. Anwar Ali (P.W.11), nephew of the complainant, had testified to the recovery of fire-arms effected from Muhammad Arshad and Munir Ahmad (appellants) while Ghulam Qadir (P.W.12) stated about the recovery of arms from Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Hamid (appellants). Dr. Ghulam Rasool (P.W.1) proved the injuries of the witnesses (P.Ws.14 and 16) while Dr. Muhammad Ishfaq (P.W.5) and Dr. Arshad Jahangir (P.W.6) opined that Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) and Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) died of gunshot injuries suffered by them.
11. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., Munir Ahmad (appellant) denied the motive part of prosecution case, but admitting the occurrence pleaded self-defence. The remaining accused/appellants denied their participation in the occurrence and stated that they were falsely implicated. Munir Ahmad (appellant) raised plea of self-defence in the following words:--
"It is a fact that on the day of occurrence before the offering of Eid prayer, the adult boys of the complainant party and the young ones of my relative had altercation with each other at the shop of Muhammad Saleem P.W. over the drinking of soft drinks (cold) and our boys gave beating to the boys of the other party. Muhammad Salim P.W. who was serving the drinks, rushed to the Eid Gah where the complainant party was present in order to offer Eid prayer and informed them that our relatives have beaten their boys recklessly and from there the deceased, injured P.Ws. rushed to their houses, they collected fire-arms from their houses and came in front of the house where I was present. Deceased and injured P.Ws. started firing indiscriminately at my house where I was present in the Baithak and small children and women-folk of our family were also present in the house. They raised hue and cry on hearing the guns reports hitting our house. I under the genuine apprehension of death and our children and women-folk picked up my licensed gun and after taking shelter in the Baithak started firing at the deceased party in the exercise of right of self-defence of person and property. I did not receive any injury because 1 was taking precautions and was in the shelter of my house. The two deceased and two injured P.Ws. received injuries in this manner because I had fired six/seven times in the retaliation to the indiscriminate firing of the deceased party at me and my house. After the occurrence, I produced my gun and its licence to the police and narrated the entire occurrence as stated above. Police did not show m; arrest on that day but instead my arrest on 25-5-1988. No other accused was present at the scene of this incident nor any of them had fired any shot nor participated in the occurrence in any other manner.
The motive story given by the prosecution is totally false and a concoction on their part to create a motive for this occurrence. The allegation against us that we used to play cassettes of obscene sons and cutting of jokes on their women is absolutely false. The: complainant party had made up a false story with the connivance of the police against all of us."
12. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., Allah Ditta (appellant) denying his participation in the occurrence stated that he had been involved in this case due to enmity with Adam Ali and Muhammad Salim P.Ws. because former had entered into an agreement for selling his landed property in Chak No.140/G.B., to him on 11-7-1987 but later on he got mutated the said land in the name of Salim P.W. and his brothers Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Siddiq. He, therefore, filed a civil suit against Aslam, etc., and the litigation went up to District Judge, Faisalabad. He produced photostat copies of the proceedings of civil litigation, marked as Exh.D.D. and Exh.D.D./1 for being read in evidence. These documents show that Allah Ditta sued Aslam fox specific performance of agreement to sell the land while Aslam filed suit against Allah Ditta for cancellation of agreement to sell land. Aslam's suit was decreed, therefore, Allah Ditta filed appeals to District Judge against Aslam and Salim, P.Ws.
13. Learned trial Court discarding the defence version accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier.
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that the motive set up by the prosecution was false inasmuch as that the Chhapper near house of the complainant was built 2 years before the occurrence but no ugly incident took place between the parties excepting the one which allegedly took place 10/12 days earlier to the instant occurrence, but that too had been introduced to provide motive for the occurrence. Next argued that the eye-witnesses were partisan and interested, therefore their testimony hardly furnishes safe basis for convicting the appellants particularly corroborating evidence is available. Further argued that defence version put forth by Munir Ahmad (appellant) was reasonably probable for the reason that the two deceased and the two injured witnesses (P.Ws.14 and 16) suffered 6 injuries in all and out of 8 empties recovered from the spot, 5 matched with licensed gun (P.11) of Munir Ahmad which shows that 5 injuries had been caused by Munir Ahmad. The 6th injury, he argued, appeared to be the result of a stray pellet of the 5 shots fired by Munir Ahmad in self-defence. But the prosecution, throwing the net wider, implicated five appellants (other than Munir Ahmad) falsely. In the circumstances, he urged, the defence version must have been preferred over the prosecution version and that the learned trial Court having not done so, apparently erred in law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State defended the impugned convictions and sentences. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, prayed for enhancing sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the appellants to one of death.
15. Both parties have put up cross-version with regard to the same occurrence wherein each blamed the other to be aggressor. While admitting the occurrence its place and time is also not disputed by the defence. It is also admitted that Muhammad Aslam and Muzaffar Hussain P.Ws. and two deceased persons had suffered gunshot injuries in the transaction. The difference according to defence is that only Munir Ahmad had shot at victims and that too in exercise of the right of private defence.
16. We have carefully considered both versions placing them in juxtaposition and we are of the view that the defence version is far from being reasonably probable and, therefore, it was rightly rejected, for reasons enumerated below besides those given by the trial Court in its impugned judgment.
Firstly according to the defence plea, it was the complainant party which committed aggression because their "adult boys" had been beaten up by "young ones" of the accused party, so in order to take revenge of the beating the injured witnesses and the two deceased, duly armed had mounted attack at the house of Munir Ahmad (appellant). But it is hard to believe that young children of the accused party were able to beat up "adults" of the complainant party. Again, nobody has come forward including so-called youngsters who had beaten the boys of complainant party to say so. None from the locality has appeared either to prove that the aggression was committed by the two deceased and the injured P.Ws. or that it was Munir Ahmad alone who fired in self-defence. Contrarily had five persons carrying fire-arms gone to the house of Munir Ahmad (appellant) with determination to take revenge of beating given to their children as suggested to the complainant by accused then nothing could stop them from entering the house and achieving their purpose but strangely enough neither Munir Ahmad nor any one else from his family received a scratch even. The Investigating Officer (P.W.18) no doubt stated that he observed certain pellet marks on the walls of houses of Munir Ahmad (appellant) and Sardar, Mashki but it would not mean that they were result of shots, muchless, fired by the complainant party particularly when no pellet was recovered from there. No empty was recovered from the Baithak of Munir Ahmad (appellant) from where he allegedly fired at the victims in self-defence. He did not even suggest it to the Investigating Officer that he showed to him the empties lying in his Baithak. He did not say so in his statement made under section 342, Cr.P.C., either. Contrarily, the Investigating Officer picked up 8 empties from the street, of which 5 matched with Munir Ahmad appellant's gun and one with Arshad appellant's gun vide Arms Expert's Report Exh.P.MM. Sole question for determination, therefore, is whether learned trial Court was justified to hold all the accused/appellants guilty of the charges under sections 148, 307/149 and 302/149 (two counts), P.P.C. on basis of evidence on record?
17. The complainant party, Rawal by caste, had a dispute over playing of obscene songs on tape-recorder at a Chhapper near their house, with Munir Ahmad, Abdul Hamid, Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Majeed, who are brothers inter se and Jat by caste. Arshad (appellant) is also Jat and belongs to the brotherhood of said accused. Allah Ditta, however, is Rawal by caste but is said' to be their friend. The prosecution mainly relies on ocular testimony comprising statements of Khurshid Ahmad, complainant (P.W.13), Muhammad Aslam (P.W.14), Ghulam Ali (P.W.15), Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) and Muhammad Salim (P.W.17). Of them, Khurshid Ahmad and Muzaffar Hussain P.Ws. are brothers inter se. They are uncles of the two deceased persons, namely, Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar. Muhammad Aslam P.W. is Jat by caste and Ghulam Ali P.W. is Gujjar by caste who claim to be neighbours of complainant party and reside near the place of occurrence. Muhammad Salim P.W. is Malik by caste who admittedly lives in a different locality and that if he returns home from Eidgah the place of occurrence does not fall in the way. From amongst these witnesses, Muhammad Aslam (P.W.14) and Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) had been injured during the occurrence, therefore, their presence was established rather it was admitted by Munir Ahmad (appellant) as well. Needless to say that although Khurshid Ahmad and Muzaffar Hussain P.Ws. are related to the deceased yet it would not render their statements unworthy of credit until and unless they were shown to be interested or false witnesses. It is in evidence that some 2 years before the occurrence, Munir Ahmad and his brothers (appellants herein) built a Chhapper in front of the house of complainant and their sitting there was not liked by complainant due to their objectionable activities. Muzaffar Hussain (P.W.16) stated that he objected against their conduct 2/3 times earlier and that 10/12 days before instant occurrence a fight had taken place wherein people on both sides were injured. Obviously, therefore, bad blood existed between the two families, namely, Jats and Rawals, long before this occurrence, as such the testimony of Khurshid Ahmad and Muzaffar Hussain P.Ws. cannot be implicitly relied upon against 5 accused/appellants of Jat tribe without corroboration of independent nature available on record. State counsel points out that Muhammad Aslam (P.W.14), Ghulam Ali (P.W.15) and Muhammad Salim (P.W.17) do not belong to complainant's tribe, therefore, their evidence provides the necessary corroboration. But P.Ws.14 and 17 have been dubbed as partisan by Allah Ditta, appellant. Documents Exhs.D.D. and D.D./1 etc. produced by Allah Ditta, appellant, in his defence relate to the civil litigation between them, i.e. Allah Ditta filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell land against Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Salim P.Ws. while Muhammad Aslam filed a declaratory suit against Allah Ditta for cancellation of said agreement to sell land. These documents of course are not certified copies and no question about this litigation was asked on behalf of Allah Ditta, appellant, from Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Salim P.Ws. Learned counsel for both parties however, have admitted before us that the said documents relate to the litigation, between Allah Ditta appellant on one side and Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Salim P.Ws. on the other, which was pending in the days of occurrence. So taking judicial notice of the litigation we hold that Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Salim P.Ws. belong to opposite camp of Allah Ditta appellant, so their testimony cannot be treated as corroboration of the evidence of Khurshid Ahmad and Muzaffar Hussain P.Ws. because one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate the other tainted piece of evidence.
18. There now remains evidence of Ghulam Ali (P.W.15) who claimed to be neighbour of complainant and resident near the place of occurrence, but in both the site plans Exhs.P.S. and D.A., his house has not been shown as situated there, thus we are not convinced that he is resident of locality or eye?witness of the occurrence.
19. The prosecution relies on recovery of the arms allegedly effected from the appellants as corroboratory evidence. It is noteworthy that carbine (P.24) recovered from Abdul Ghafoor, appellant, and gun (P.26) from Abdul Hamid, appellant, are of no consequence as none of the empties recovered from the spot matched with them, as per report of Fire-arms Expert Exh.P.MM, therefore, these recoveries are of no consequence. Vide same report 5 empties found from the spot matched with licensed gun (P.11) of Munir Ahmad, appellant, and one empty matched with gun (P.9) recovered from Muhammad Arshad, appellant. The empties recovered from the spot had been sent to the Fire-arms Expert through Abdul Raoof (P.W.8) on 4-6-1988 while the guns (P.9 and P.11) were recovered on 5-6-1988 and sent to Fire-arms Expert on 26-6-1988 through the same Constable (P.W.8), thus possibility of fabricating these empties from the recovered arms afterwards is ruled out. We are, therefore, satisfied that these weapons were used in the occurrence. Recovery of guns (P.9 and P.11) coupled with Fire-arm Expert's report. (Exh.P.MM) provide strong corroboration to the evidence of eye-witnesses qua participation of Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Arshad, appellants.
20. In view of the above we find that it is not safe to convict Abdul Ghafoor, Abdul Hamid, Abdul Majeed and Allah Ditta, appellants, on basis of uncorroborated testimony of the eye-witnesses, therefore, giving them benefit of doubt we allow their appeals, set aside their convictions and sentences and hereby acquit them. Since the number of convicts is reduced to two i.e. Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Arshad, their conviction and sentence under section 148, P.P.C. is set aside and their convictions under sections 302/ 1.49 and 307/149, P.P.C. are altered to sections 302/3.1 (two counts) and 307/34, P.P.C. Sentence of death and fine awarded to Muhammad Arshad qua murder of Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) by the trial Court is maintained and is hereby confirmed. Likewise sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine awarded to him for murder of Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) is maintained. Similarly sentences of imprisonment and fine awarded to Munir Ahmad, appellant, for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Sarwar (deceased) is maintained on both counts. Similarly sentence of 10 years' R.I. and fine awarded under section 307/34, P.P.C. by trial Court is hereby maintained being appropriate and adequate and do not call for any interference.
21. In the result, the appeals of Muhammad Arshad and Munir Ahmad, appellants, are dismissed and death sentence awarded to Muhammad Arshad, appellant is hereby confirmed. Revision petition for enhancement of sentence fails automatically. We announced the short order on 13-12-1993 and these are our reasons for the same.
N.H.Q./M-1454/L ??????
Order accordingly.