MURAD Versus THE STATE

GHAUS Au SHAFI, J.‑ The appellants Murad son of Mubarak Mari aged 35 years and Khair Muhammad son of Karim Bux Mari aged 30 years, residents of Peer Chaoon, Taluka and District Khairpur, were charged under section 302/34, P. P. C. for the murder of Ghulam Hyder Mari, in furtherance of their common intention. The appellants were found guilty of the aforesaid charges and the appellant Murad was convicted and sentenced to death whereas the appellant Khair Muhammad was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of Pay ment of fine to suffer R. I. for six months more. In case fine was recovered it was to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Ghulam Hyder as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P. C. Both the appellants have filed common appeal against the judgment, dated the 30th of January 1978, and there is also a murder reference under section 374, Cr. P. C. before us 1n respect of the appellant Murad for confirmation of his sentence of death by this Court. This order will dispose of the appeal as well as the murder reference.

2. The facts of the case as per F.I. R. lodged by the deceased Ghulam Hyder on 8‑5‑1974, at Police Station Kotdiji of District Khairpur, are that he was a Chowkidar at the Government Store Railway Station, Tando Masti. It was at about 12 O'clock noon on the day of incident when he and Ali Nawaz were sleeping on separate cots in front of their quarter, where Murad and Khair Muhammad (appellants) who are his cousins, came there. Murad had a pistol in his hand who pointed it at him and fired which hit him at right side of ribs. He and Ali Nawaz (P. W. 2) raised cries, which attracted Allahdino (P. W. 2) and others who came and the accused ran away. They also saw the accused running away. On inquiry, Ghulam Hyder (deceased) narrated them the above facts who took him for lodging his F. L R. at the Police Station. The accused were his cousins. There was dispute on matri monial affairs between them, therefore the appellant Murad with intention to murder him had fired a pistol shot at him.

3. The F.I.R. was recorded by the A. S. I. Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 7) of Police Station, Kotdiji, who prepared mashirnama of injuries Exh. 10‑B, on person of Ghulam Hyder in presence of mashirs, Ghulam Kadir, Ghulam Qasim and Adam Faqir. He then referred Ghulam Hyder (deceased) to Medical Officer Kotdiji for examination, treatment and certificate. Since he was in serious condition, he therefore got his Dying Declaration recorded through Mukhtiarkar & F. C. M. Kotdiji. He thereafter proceeded to scene of offence and visited it in presence of mashirs Lai Bux and Ghulam Nabi, shown to him V P. Ws. Ali Nawaz and Allahdino. He prepared such mashirnama of scene of offence in presence of the above mashirs. He secured blood‑stained earth, empty bag of cloth and three pieces of card‑board lying on cot and also a can. allegedly belonging to the appellant Murad, which was lying at a distance of about 12 paces on eastern side of the cot. He sealed blood‑stained earth and three pieces of card‑board and incorporated it in the mashirnama of scene of offence. He then recorded statements of P. Ws. Ali Nawaz and Allahdino under section 161, Cr. P. C. and returned to Police Station. He continued to search for the accused through his says and on 12‑5‑1974, while, in search of the accused persons near village of Thaheems, he saw a person running away in a suspicious manner and he succeeded in catching hold of him who was identified to be the appellant Murad. He prepared such mashirnama of arrest Exh. 8‑A, in presence of mashirs Ghulam Nabs and P. C. Muhammad. The accused Murad during course of interrogation offered to produce crime weapon and he voluntarily led the Police party and the masher Ghulam Nabi to railway crossing gate of Tando Masti and produced a pistol from bushes about 6 paces away from the crossing gate. He secured it and on it's opening found empty cartridge in it's chamber. After securing the pistol and the empty cartridge be prepared such mashernama Exh. 8‑B, in presence of same mashir and sealed the pistol as well as the empty. He came to know on 14‑5‑1974, that the accused Khair Muhammad was arrested and detained in the police lock‑up by Tando Masti Police. He. accordingly went to Police Station, Tando Masti and interrogated the accused Khait Muhammad there. He then handed over the case papers to S. H. O. for further investigation. He however produced the Chemical Analyser's report Exh. 10‑C, so also the Ballistic Expert's report Exh. 10‑D.

4. The prosecution ease is mainly based on the statements of eye witnesses. P. Ws. Ali Nawaz, Allahdino, Dying Declaration of the deceased Ghulam Hyder, as well as F.1 R. lodged by him, evidence of motive, medical' evidence and recovery of pistol.

5. The accused have given different versions. The appellant Murad denied all the allegations against him and claimed to have been falsely implicated when he had gone to see Khair Muhammad, co‑accused at Police Station Tando Masti, where he was arrested and a pistol was foisted on him which in fact was recovered from the co‑accused Khair Muhammad by Taudo Masti Police. He further stated that P. Ws. were colleagues and friends of the deceased, therefore they deposed against him. The appellant Khair Muhammad stated that it was he who had fired at the deceased from the pistol in his house where he saw him and Mst. Subhan Khatoon sitting in as objectionable position. When he saw his wife in such a position with the deceased he lost his balance and shot at him. He then fired a pistol‑shot at Mst. Subhan Khatoon but she succeeded in entering into the room of his house and raised cries on which Jan Muhammad and Soomar came there. He thereafter went to Police Station, Tando Masti and informed the police about the incident and also produced a pistol there. He further stated that the appellant Murad was not with him at the time of the incident. He has committed the murder of deceased Ghulam Hyder under grave and sudden provocation. He further contended that P. Ws. were interested and friendly to the deceased. He examined Jan Muhammad P. W. 1 in defence also.

6. There is no doubt that the deceased Ghulam Hyder died as a result of a pistol shot as it has been proved by the evidence of Dr. Muhammad Air Shah (P. W. 1), who has performed the autopsy and deposed as under : ‑

"He was Medical Officer at Government Dispensary at Kotdiji, when on 8‑5‑1974, Kotdiji Police sent an injured by name Ghulam Hyder son of Wahid Bux at 2 p.m. for examination, treatment and certificate. He examined him and found the following injuries on his person :‑‑

Nine Beeri size fire‑arm wounds of entry on the right side of chest middle 1/3rd going deep inside the chest. Three pellets recovered. Out of the 3 pellets 2 were recovered from the interior side of the chest and one from epigastric region.

The injury was grievous in nature and was caused by discharge from fire‑arm weapon. That the probable duration of the injury at the time of examination was 2 hours. He has further deposed that the injured was given available treatment and was immediately referred to the Civil Hospital, Khairpur. for better treatment. That the injured was conscious at the time of examination. He has further deceased deposed that on the same day at 4‑30 p.m. the dead body of the deceased-Ghulam Hyder was brought back by Muhammad Ramzan, a relative of the deceased, for post‑mortem examination. The Police Kotdiji was immediately informed accordingly and the H. C. Ghulam Hyder Shah B. No. 278 of P. SR Kotdiji came who handed over him the dead body of the deceased Ghulam Hyder for conducting the post‑mortem examination. The dead body was identified by Ghous Bux, brother of the deceased to be of Ghulam Hyder. It was of a male, Muslim, aged about 28,years well nourished and cold. The rigor mortis was absent. He started post‑mortem examination of the dead body at 5 p.m. and. finished t at 6 pm. on the same day. That on the external examination Oil the dead body, he found the same injuries as mentioned above.

That on the internal examination of the dead body he found the following damages .

(1) The chest cavity was full of blood.

(2) The 3rd, 4th and 5th Ribs were fractured at the right aids of his

(3) The pleurae was pierced at the level of above injury.

(4) The right lung was pierced and fractured.

(5) The heart was empty.

(6) The stomach was empty.

(7) The small intestines contained gas and large intestine contained gas and faeces.

That all other organs were intact.

From the external as well as the internal examination of the dead body, he was of the opinion that the death of the deceased Ghulam Hyder was caused due to internal as well as external haemorrhage, rupture of right lung and shock, consequent upon the external injury mentioned above, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. That the probable duration between the injury and the death was 3J hours and that between death and post‑mortem was 2J hours. In support of his contentions he has produced post‑mortem notes as Exh. 3‑A, and the medical certificate as Exh. 4‑B."

7. The question for determination therefore is whether the offence was committed by the appellant Murad and Khair Muhammad at the Railway Station Tando Masti or by Khair Muhammad in his house under the circumstances as stated by him in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. before the trial Court.

8. In this regard, ocular evidence of P.. Ws. Ali Nawaz and Allahdino has been led by the prosecution. Ali Nawaz, P. W. 2, stated before the trial Court that he was in railway service as Keyman, whereas deceased Ghulam Hyder was also in railway service as a Chowkidar. The deceased Ghulam Hyder used to live with him in quarter No. 3 at Railway Station Tando Masti. which had a shed in front of it. It was four years back when at about 12 noon, he and the deceased Ghulam Hyder were sleeping under a shed in front of their quarter, on separate cots. He woke up on a fire shot report at that time and found appellants Murad and Khairo standing. The appel lant Murad was armed with a pistol who fired at the deceased. They raised cries and Allahdino P. W. 3, was the first man who came, running on cries and saw appellant Murad and Khairo who ran away towards north. He saw that the deceased Ghulam Hyder had a pistol shot injury on his right side of his chest. The cap of the accused Murad fell on "vardat" while he was running away. Ghulam Hyder was conscious at that time and on their inquiry he told them that the accused persons were inimical to him on matrimonial affairs hence they had fired at him. The accused Murad and Khairo were previously known to him. Then he and Allahdino P. W. removed Ghulam Hyder to Police Station, Kotdiji, where he lodged his F. I. R. His beat of duty was from R. Ds. Nos. 273/18 to 276/18 and duty hours during those days were from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 6 p. m. with rest from 11 a.m. to 3 p m. It was during the rest hours when he used to take rest at his quarter. The other eye‑witness Allahdino P. W. 3 who stated before the trial Court that he was keyman in railway whereas Ali Nawaz P. W. 2 was also working with him as keyman. Their beat was from R. D. Nos. 273/18 to 276/18 Railway line and their duty hours were from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. with rest for the intervening period. They used to take rest in quarters at Tando Masti Railway Station. The quarter No. 6 was allotted to him whereas quarter No. 3 was allotted to Ali Nawaz. He knew the deceased Ghulam Hyder who was working as a Chowkidar in railway and used to live with P. W. Ali Nawaz in Quarter No. 3. There was a shed constructed in front of quarter No, 3, It was 3/4 years back when at about 12 noon the deceased Ghulam Hyder and Ali Nawaz P. W. 2 were sleeping in the shed in front of their quarter where he heard a fire shot report and cries. He came out to his quarter and saw the accused Murad and Khairo running away. He also saw that accused had "Tamancha" (pistol) in his hand. He went to Ghulam Hyder and found fire‑shot injuries on his right side of his chest. He also saw a cap lying on "vardat". The accused ran away to north. Ali Nawaz P. W. 2 was standing over the injured Ghulam Hayder who on their inquiry told them that his cousins bad fired at him due to dispute with him over matrimonial affairs. He also told them that it was accused Murad who had fired at him. Thereafter he and Ali Nawaz P. W. 2 removed Ghulam Hayder to Police Station, Kotdiji, where be lodged his F.

1. R. The Police came on vardae and examined him.

9. The other piece of evidence to prove this offence is dying declaration made by the deceased Ghulam Hyder before Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Kotdiji, in the hospital at Kotdiji. This dying declaration has been recorded at 2‑40 p.m. on the day of incident which took place at 12 noon. The deceased has stated that he was "Chowkidar" at Railway Station, Tando Masti. Murad, at 12 noon fired a pistol shot at him. Khairo was alongwith him. They both were inimical to him on matrimonial affairs and both were his cousins. Ali Nawaz was also sleeping on a separate cot with him Allahdino came running an fire shot report and cries. Murad and Khairo ran away towards Tando Masti. He narrated this fact to Allahdino who saw the accused persons running away.

10. It would be necessary to mention here that the deceased Ghulam Hyder had earlier filed his F. I. R. at the Police Station Kotdiji‑ and had disclosed facts in more or less same manner for commission of this offence and had assigned the same parts to both of the appellants and had also given the names of the same witnesses, who witnessed the incident, and saw the accused on the scene of offence.

11. The deceased thereafter was referred to the hospital at Kotdiji where he 'was examined by Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah at 2 p.m. and he stated before the trial Court that he was conscious at the time of examination.

12. Mr. Gul Muhammad, Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Kotdiji who recorded this dying declaration only 10 minutes after examination by Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah, who has deposed before the trial Court that the deceased Ghulam Hyder was in state of consciousness when he had examined him at 2 p.m. Mr. Gut Muhammad, stated before the trial Court that the police issued him a letter for recording dying declaration of the injured Ghulam Hyder and he on receiving such letter went to the Hospital Kotdiji where he recorded the dying declaration of the injured Ghulam Hyder. Injured Ghulam Hyder was in proper senses and he recorded his statement as verbatim, read out to him and obtained his L. T. I. He was shown Exh. 4‑C, being Dying Declaration recorded by him which he certified to be same, correct and bearing his signature. He also produced the letter of Police issued to him as Exh. 15‑A, for recording the dying declaration.

13. The motive advance by the deceased has been fully supported by the eye‑witnesses, which was disclosed by the deceased on the scene of offence and had mentioned it in his F. I. R. and dying declaration. There is absolutely nothing to contradict it and is thus proved.

14, It has already been discussed abeve that evidence of Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah has proved it that the deceased died as a result of fire‑arm injuries and this has not been disputed by the defence.

15. The last piece of evidence is production of pistol by the appellant Murad during course of interrogation when he was under arrest with the police. It would not connect the pistol as crime‑weapon used for commission of this offence even if its production by the appellant Murad is proved as no empty was found out from the scene of offence. The alleged empty was found lying in the chamber of the pistol by investigating officer after it was produced by the appellant. It could not therefore be used as the crime‑weapon against the appellant as there is nothing connecting it with the scene of offence or used as crime‑weapon at the time of incident. It is therefore not being used as crime‑weapon connected with the offence.

16. The learned counsel for the appellants, has put great stress that the ocular testimony should not be believed as the murder has taken place in front of the quarter of Ali Nawaz who would be under heavy pressure to account for it. He as well as another eye‑witness Allahdino being co‑workers and friendly with the deceased have not deposed truly and therefore should not be believed. He further stressed that the defence version put forth by the appellant Khair Muhammad that he had fired at the deceased Ghulam Hyder when he saw him and his wife Mst. Subhan Khatoon, sitting in objec tionable position in his house and he, under grave and sudden provocation, committed murder of Ghulam Hyder, be accepted. He has pointed out that Mst. Subhan Khatoon P. W. 10 who is wife of Khair Muhammad has supported the defence version to the extent that she was sitting in her house when the deceased was also sitting there. Khair Muhammad, her husband came in the house at that time and he fired a pistol shot at the deceased as well as at her which hit her on her left ear, and Hyder Bux ran away. She closed the door of room from inside and started raising cries which attracted Soomar and Jano (D. W. 1) who has been examined and he has supported the version given by the appellant Khair Muhammad and his wife Mst. Subban Khatoon. Jan Muhammad son of Kouro, Mari, Baloch, aged 40 years (D. W. 1) resident of Rahoja of Taluka and District Shikarpur, has stated before the trial Court that he had taken lease of. garden of Karim Bux near village Pir Chanon. It was three years back when at about 11 a.m. he was giving water to his garden where he heard fire shot report which was followed by another shot. The fire shot report came from the house of Karim Bux. He then saw Hyder Bux alias Ghulam Hyder (deceased) coming out of the house of deceased who had a band on his stomach and disclosed that the accused Khairo had fire a pistol shot at him and he ran away. He went inside the house of Karim Bux and found accused Khair Muhammad pushing door of room of his house, who challenged him not to come near him as he has taken action in "Ghairat". Jan Muhammad also challenged Khair Muhammad and on his challenge be ran away. Then he asked the woman who was inside the room to open door and she opened it. He saw that she was Mst. Subhan Khatoon with a pistol shot injury near her left ear, who told him that she was sitting with Ghulam Hyder when accused Khairo came and caught them and fired at them from a revolver. Then he came out of the house and left the lady there. He presently lived at Shikar pur, Sind. He was examined in other case filed by Mst. Subhan Khatoon against the accused and had given same statement as in this case as observed by the trial Court. The accused Khair Muhammad present in Court is same. He had not seen Murad at that time. In cross‑examination he had stated that he did not know as to how many houses would be there in villa Chaoon. There were about 4/5 houses of Mir‑Bahar near "vardat". There were houses of Mangees also. Many people came from the village and also from the neighbouring houses of Mangees. He can give their names. The Railway Station Tando Masti would be at about 3 miles from scene of offence at village Pir Chaoon. Hyder Bux alias Ghulam Hyder was previously known to him as he used to live at a distance of about 60 paces from the house of Karim Bux. He had never visited the house of Karim Bux except ing on the day of incident. He did not know as to how many male and female members live in the house of Karim Bux. It was not a fact that Ghulam Hyder was not there at the time of incident. It is not a fact that he had seen Khairo and Murad both firing at Mst. Subhan Khatoon only. None else came there excepting him at the time of incident as other people came later and police came at about 2 p.m. He learnt that accused Ghulam Hyder and Khair Muhammad had gone to inform the police. He was not with the police when they visited vardat. He did not know as to what was relationship between Ghulam Hyder and Karim Bux. The accused are Mari Baloch by caste. He was also Mari Baloch by caste. The accused persons were his caste‑fellows but not related. It was not a fact that he lived with accused persons hence he was deposing favourable to them. The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that dying declaration should not be believed as Mr. Gut Muhammad, mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Kotdiji (P. W. 12) has stated that Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah was not present at the time when he recorded dying declaration of the deceased. Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah P. W. I has also stated that he was not present at the time when dying declaration was recorded by Mr. Gut Muhammad P. W.

12. But Basher Ahmad, Investigating Officer has stated before the trial Court that doctor was present at the time when dying declaration was being recorded. We do not consider this minor contradiction material enough to disbelieve the dying declaration.

17. Mr. M. T. Memon, Additional Advocate‑General, has contended that both the eye‑witnesses are natural whose presence cannot be denied and they are the persons who removed the deceased to the Police Station. They have been examined on the same day and scene of offence has also been shown by them to the Investigating Officer. There are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve them as it has been established that the deceased Ghulam Hyder received a pistol‑shot injury in front of the Quarter No. 3 at Railway Station, Tando Masti. The blood‑stained earth, empty bag of cloth and three pieces of card‑board, have been secured from the scene of offence and this fact stands proved after examination of Ghulam Nabi masher P. W. 5 and Bashir Ahmad, Investigating Officer, P. W.

7. The names of both these eye‑witnesses are mentioned in the F. I. R. as well as in the dying declaration and their presence at the "vardat" and police station is not denied. As regards Dying Declara tion, it has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Gut Muhammad P. W. 12, Mukhtiarkar & F. C. M. Kotdiji, recorded it only ten minutes after Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah P. W. I had examined the deceased, who was in a state of consciousness when he was examined by him at 2 p.m. The learned counsel also contends that motive is also proved as it has been dis closed by the deceased on the scene of offence after its occurrence and has also been mentioned in his F. I. R. as well as in dying declaration. It stands fully corroborated by both the P. Ws. Ali Nawaz and Allahdino, who have supported it in their evidence. The medical evidence has also proved the death by fire‑arm injury. He does not rely on recovery of the pistol.

18. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as State. It is admitted position that the deceased was cousin of both the appellants. The incident had taken place during a broad daylight where question of mistaken identity has to be completely ruled out. It is also proved that the incident had taken place at 12 noon at the Tando Masti Railway Station and first information report has been lodged at 13‑20 hours by the deceased at Police Station Kotdiji, which is situated at a distance of 8 miles from the scene of offence. Both these eye‑witnesses were present at the scene of offence who brought the deceased to the police station and no circumstances have been shown as to why both these witnesses were falsely implicating the appellants. Their evidence is natural, true and there are absolutely no circumstances to disbelieve them.

19. The dying declaration has been promptly and properly recorded and it cannot be ruled out of consideration only because of a minor contradic tion that the Investigating Officer in his evidence has said that at the time when it was being recorded, Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah was also present which fact has been denied by Gut Muhammad, Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Kotdiji. as well as Dr. Muhammad Ali Shah. There is no doubt that dying declaration can only be accepted when the Court is satisfied that the same is true and genuine. In order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view the various circumstances as it has been laid down in P L D 1977 S C 612, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held, that "it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law, nor even of prudence, that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. Each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which dying declaration was made so that the Court is satisfied that the same is true and genuine".

As discussed above that the dying declaration in the instant case is free from doubt as it has been made in the hospital soon after the injured (deceased) was brought there and is within 2J to 3 hours of the occurrence. It is also evident that the occurrence took place in broad‑daylight and the deceased had full opportunity of identifying his assailants and observing the other facts leading to his death. It is fully corroborated by the eye witnesses Ali Nawaz and Allahdino. Their version being true, worthy of credence and is therefore accepted.

20. The cumulative effect on the case led alongwith direct evidence, dying declaration, motive and medical evidence. We consider the ocular testimony to be true and therefore with reliance. We also accept the dying declaration as to be genuine and true. We therefore hold that both the appellants in furtherance of their common intention have committed this offence resulting in death of the deceased Ghulam Hyder at Tando Masti, Railway Station for which they have been rightly convicted. The only reason for the appellant Khair Muhammad to accompany the appellant Murad who fired at the deceased is their common intention to kill the deceased Ghulam Hyder.

21. It is irony of fate that after committing such heinous offence, an effort has been made by registering a F. I. R. through Mst. Subhan Khatoon P. W. 10, who is wife of Khair Muhammad, the appellant No. 2. Nabi Bux P. W. 11 who recorded F. I. R. of Mst. Subhan Khatoon has said that the case under section 307, P. P. C. was registered by him against Khair Muhammad. appellant No. 2 as well as Murad, appellant No. 1. It is admitted fact that the appellant Murad is cousin of the appellant Khair Muhammad still Mst. Subhan Khatoon P. W. 10, before the trial Court has denied if he was known to her. It is therefore clear that Murad, the appellant No. 1 was known to Mst. Subhan Khatoon and that is how his name appeared in the F. I. R. Jan Muhammad D. .W. 1 who has been examined to support the version given by the appellant No. 2, has stated facts in such a manner that ' it has become clear from the circumstances and his evidence that he was a false witness. The incident took place at 12 noon and F.

1. R. was registered at 13‑20 hours at Police Station Kotdiji, within about an hour acid twenty minutes of the occurrence. There is absolutely no strength in the contention that the deceased after occurrence in the house of Khair Muhammad has managed a false scene of offence at Tando Masti, Railway Station and then filed his F. I. R. It is also not natural and possible that 1'. Ws. Ali Nawaz and Allahdino would falsely support the version of the deceased Ghulam Hyder without even occurrence taking place at the Railway Station. There is also another important factor to disbelieve the version of Khair Muhammad, appellant No. 2. It is admitted position that Khair Muhammad himself accepts to have fired at the deceased under grave‑ and sudden provocation but the deceased does not give him the role of firing at him except that he was with Murad, the appellant No. 3, who fired at him. Both the appellants are cousins inter se and also cousins of the deceased. There is absolutely no reason for the deceased for giving active part to Murad, appellant No. I for firing at him and not to Khair Muhammad who himself admits to have fired at the deceased.

21. We understand that after killing Ghulam Hyder for dispute on matrimonial affairs, a false defence by way of F. I. R. through Mst. Subhan Khatoon of giving cover to a cold‑blooded murder to avoid proper punish ment has been attempted. This case seems undoubtedly an effort in that direction to cloak this occurrence so as to fit in under Exception (1) o section 300, P. P. C. in order to take benefit of section 304(1), P. P. C. W are therefore convinced that it is a clear case of cold‑blooded murder during a broad‑daylight at Tando Masti Railway Station and we therefore uphold the death sentence of Murad, appellant No. 1 and the sentence of imprison went for life of Khair Muhammad, the appellant No. 2 and dismiss them appeal by maintaining the judgment of the trial Court in it's entirety.

Appeal dismissed.