2005 P Cr (PLP)

All the above captioned three appeals pertain to the one case and same judgment, therefore, these shall be disposed of through this single judgment. The precise facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that a case under section 17(4), E.H.A., was registered at Police Station Kotli. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R., are that Muhammad Taslim, watchman of Al-Ghazali College Kotli, lodged a report at Police Station Kotli verbally, that he is a watchman in the said college since three years. Professor Dr. Muhammad Ayub, Principal of College was living in a room of college. He was also living in the college. Today, during the intervening night of 9 and 10 September, 2004 at 1-30 a.m. he was sleeping outside the room of Dr. Muhammad Ayub in a gallery. Two persons entered into the college. They were wearing masks on their faces. One of them was armed with pistol. The other caught him and said that whatever he had hand over to them. After hearing this noise, Dr. Muhammad Ayub came outside. He gave three hundred rupees and keys to them. They further insisted him to hand over whatever he had. He said to them that whatever they want, they may take away, but the convict-persons infuriated and fired a bullet on Dr. Muhammad Ayyub which hit on his head. He died on the place of occurrence. The convicts took along with them the bag of Dr. Muhammad Ayyub. After registration of case, the police started investigation. In investigation, the police reached on the conclusion, that Muhammad Taslim, who lodged the F.I.R. was also involved in the case along with two others. The police submitted a challan against the three appellants in the District Criminal Court, Kotli. The Court, after the conclusion of the trial, found them guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment under section 302, A.P.C., 10 years' R.I. under section 396 and Rs.20,000 fine to each of them. A sentence of further two years was awarded to Muhammad Farid under section 13 of the Arms Act. In case of non-payment of fine, the convict appellants have to undergo further imprisonment for six months. Now two appeals have been filed by the convict-appellants, while one has been filed for enhancement of sentence. The learned counsel for Muhammad Taslim and others strenuously argued that the instant case is based on weakest type of circumstantial evidence. He submitted that in this case, the lower Court has placed reliance on the statement of convict Sadaqat Hussain recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. He submitted that no conviction could be awarded on the statement of co-convict (co-accused). He further submitted that the statement of one convict (accused) could not be read against the other (accused) convict-persons. In this respect, he referred para. No.26, Verse No.6 of Surat Alhujraat of the Holly Qur'an and submitted that no conviction could be awarded on the statement of a co-accused (convict). He referred following authorities in support of his contentions:-- (1) PLD 1995 FSC 20; (2) and 1994 SCMR

932. It was further contended by him that Sadaqat Hussain, in his statement, under section 342, Cr.P.C., has clearly deposed that his statement was recorded under coercion. He was tortured by the police and compelled to state as such. It was next contended by him that Sadaqat Hussain was brought from jail by the police and his statement was recorded by, the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C., after which he was not sent to jail. He was given in the custody of police, while legally he was to be sent to jail, therefore, no reliance could be placed on his statement. He referred PLJ 1997 B.J. 22 and NLR 1994 Sh. Court Decisions 56 (57) in support of his contentions. It was further argued by him that Saqib Bashir produced licence of his pistol before the police on 13-9-2004, which was allegedly used in the occurrence; but his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17-9-2004, while his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18-9-2004. He submitted that why his statement was not recorded on the same date. He submitted that why he remained silent from 13-9-2004 to 17-9-2004. He contended that it seriously casts doubt and no reliance could be placed on such a belated statement. He referred 1996 PCr.LJ 130(c) in support of his contention. It was further submitted by him that Saqib Bashir is yet a student of the said college, while according to the college administration, he has been expelled from the college; but he deposed that he is yet the student of the college. He was telling a lie and no reliance could be placed on such a liar. It was further argued by the learned counsel that according to the prosecution story, Muhammad Taslim was a watchman. He saw a pistol in the custody of Saqib Bashir. When he was looking his dress in the kitchen, he submitted that if at all, he has to look at his dress then he should have gone to bath room and not in to the kitchen. It was next contended by him that Mian Akram appeared as a witness and deposed that extra-judicial confession was made by Muhammad Taslim before him on 11-9-2004, while according to prosecution version, he was in the custody of the police on the said date. It was further contended by him that both the witnesses of recovery of pistol were related to the deceased. No independent person was cited as a witness of recovery of pistol, while independent witnesses were available, as such, the recovery has not been made according to law. It was further submitted by him that the house, from where the pistol, cash and bag of Dr. Muhammad Ayyub were recovered was not in exclusive possession of Muhammad Farid and Sadaqat Hussain, but some other persons were also living therein, therefore, it has no sanctity at all. He referred 1995 SCMR 127 and 2000 PRLJ 34 in support of his contention. The learned counsel for Sadaqat Hussain appellant argued that the statement of Sadaqat Hussain under section 164, Cr.P.C. was obtained under coercion, therefore, no reliance could be placed on it. He submitted that blood-stained clothes of Muhammad Taslim and Muhammad Farid have been recovered, while no blood-stained clothes of Sadaqat Hussain were recovered. He did not play any role in the occurrence of murder. He referred his statement and contended that even according to his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., he can only be liable for the offence of dacoity. At the most, the punishment for the offence of dacoity could be awarded to him. No punishment under section 302, A.P.C. could be awarded to him, because he was not involved in the murder of Dr. Muhammad Ayub (deceased). While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that Sajad Hafiz was with the convict-persons on 7-9-2004, when he came to meet Dr. Muhammad Ayub. He further submitted that Jawad Ayub son of Dr. Muhammad Ayub (deceased) also came to meet his father on 9-9-2004. He also saw all the three convict-persons together. This portion of his statement was not challenged during the cross-examination, therefore, it shall be deemed as admitted one. He further contended that the statement of Sadaqat Hussain was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., and he was not tortured by the police nor his statement was recorded under coercion, as it has clearly been stated by him before this Court during the course of arguments. Pistol was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Taslim and Muhammad Farid. Muhammad Farid fired bullet with this pistol. An empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. It was next contended by him that the same was sent to Fire-arm Expert, who reported that the empty was fired from the pistol. He further submitted that this pistol was obtained by Muhammad Taslim from Saqib Bashir, who was the student of the said college and he handed over the said pistol to Farid, who committed the murder of Dr. Muhammad Ayub with it. During the murder, they took the bag of Dr. Muhammad Ayub which contained the amount of Rs.16,500 which was also recovered from the convict-appellants. The circumstantial evidence is clear and cogent against all the convict-persons. They are equally liable for the murder of Dr. Muhammad Ayyub and dacoity. He further argued that the Court below was convinced and has recorded the finding that the murder was proved against convict-appellants; but despite it, the lower Court has awarded lesser punishment to them. No reasons have been assigned by the Court below, that why life imprisonment was awarded to them. Normal sentence for a murder is death. He further submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment may be enhanced to the sentence of death. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and have given my utmost muse to the respective arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in this case. Muhammad Taslim who was a watchman and complainant was also involved in the occurrence. The circumstantial evidence against the convict (accused) persons is:-- (1) Statement of Sadaqat Hussain under section 164, Cr.P.C.; (2) Statement of Saqib Bashir from whom Muhammad Taslim had obtained the pistol and handed it over to Muhammad Farid; (3) Recovery of pistol and amount of Rs.16,500 from the convict-appellants; (4) The report of Fire-arm Expert; (5) Recovery of cash of Dr. Muhammad Ayub from the custody of the appellants; and (6) The blood-stained clothes of Muhammad Farid and Muhammad Taslim. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, it is duty of the prosecution to prove all A the links of chain of circumstantial evidence. There should be no gap between the links of the chain. In case of circumstantial evidence, the rule is that the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the (accused) convict and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of (accused) convict. It is pertinent to note that a concurrence of well-authenticated circumstances composes a stronger ground of assurance than the positive testimony of circumstances. It is no doubt true that in a case based on a circumstantial evidence, one should remember that process of inference and deduction involves delicate and perplexing character liable to numerous cases of fallacy. It is to be noted that a man can tell lie but the circumstances cannot tell lie. In order to justify the inference of the guilt, incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused of the guilt of any other person and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence, no link in the chain should be missing and all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of the accused. This view finds support from 1999 SCMR

955. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-- "It is well-settled that in a case resting on the circumstantial evidence, no link in the chain should be missing and all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of the convict." It is to be noted that on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the conviction could only be recorded when it excludes all hypothesis of C innocence of the accused-convict. This view finds support from PLJ 1999 CRC 173(sic). It further finds support from 1992 SCMR 1047. An inference of guilt from the circumstantial evidence can be drawn, when circumstances sought to be relied upon have been established beyond any doubt. This means only a reasonable doubt, such as would assail a reasonable ground and not any and every kind of doubt and much less a doubt conjured upon by preconceived notions. This view finds support from PLD 1966 (SC)

664. In the instant case, one convict-appellant Sadaqat Hussain appeared before the Magistrate where his statement under section 164 was recorded. In his statement, he has deposed that he was working on the tractor of Contractor Qayyum. The labour of Qayyum was residing near Al-Ghazali School. He was also living there. About 879 persons were living in that house. Farid was our cook. The Watchman of Al-Ghazali School, Taslim, was our friend. He used to cone to our residence. Fifteen days before, they were sitting in a vacant plot. Taslim and Farid were also with him. Farid said that it is difficult for us to live on the pay of Rs.3,000, so we should commit some occurrence. Taslim said to me that he will arrange the pistol, he said that you will also accompany us. Taslim said that incident should be committed in his school where Raja Muhammad Ayub is retaining money. I will tell you the day, when the incident should be committed. On Thursday, Taslim came to our residence and handed over the pistol to Farid and said that tonight you should come and see the place of occurrence. We went and saw the place. A boy was sitting there. After some time, the boy went away, then, we asked Taslim that who was this boy, he said that he was the son of Dr. Muhammad Ayub. He said that you should come at 12 or 1-00 p.m. during the night. The door will be opened. After it, we came to our -residence and at 1-00 p.m. during night, we went to the school. We went inside. Watchman was sleeping in gallery. Farid awoke him according to the programme. He made noise according to the programme. Dr. Ayyub woke up and came out. Farid asked Dr. Ayub and watchman to hands up otherwise he will shoot them. Farid said to Dr. Ayub to hand over to him whatever he has. Dr. Ayub handed over Rs.300 from his wallet, which was in his shirt upon which Farid said that give other money too, otherwise he will shoot him. Dr. Ayub handed over a bag of blue colour. Farid asked him to check the bag. He checked the bag and found Rs.16,500 clothes and small cards containing phone numbers. After closing the bag, he was standing up, in the meantime an acrimony took place between Farid and Dr. Ayub. Dr. Ayub diverted his both hands towards the pistol. Farid fired a bullet on Dr. Ayub. He and Farid ran away. Bag was in his hands while the pistol was in the hands of Farid. We hide the bag in a tin box where the old parts of the vehicles were lying. Farid also hide the pistol in that tin box. Eearly in the morning, police apprehended us. Taslim remained in the school. The police also took other labourer to the police station and released them in the evening. The police again took Farid to the police station in the evening. He narrated before the police that Sadaqat and Taslim were also with him, upon which the police arrested them. After which, he gave this statement before the Magistrate. The learned counsel for Sadaqat Hussain appellant, Mr. Abdul Aziz Ratalvi and the learned counsel for Farid and Taslim, Raja Rafiullah Khan, argued that the statement under section 164 has been obtained from Sadaqat Hussain through coercion. The police tortured him and obtained the statement. Sadaqat Hussain was present in the Court in the police custody, as all the convict-appellants were summoned by this Court. He voluntarily stated before the Court that he was not tortured by the police. He gave the statement with his own free will. He further stated that his statement is correct and occurrence took place in the manner as he has, stated. Now the question emerges whether the statement of Sadaqat Hussain, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. can be read against the co-convict persons. Raja Rafiullah Sultani, the learned counsel for the convict-appellants strenuously argued that statement of co-convict cannot be read against other convict persons. In this respect, he referred para.26, Verse No.6 of Sura-Alhujraat of the Holy Qur'an and submitted that an accused could not be convicted on the statement of the co-convict (accused). For having proper perception, I would like to reproduce Verse No.6 of the said Surah which reads as under;- Urdu arbi 1302 According to the Zia-ul-Qur'an, Vol. No.4, this Verse was revealed on the occasion when Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) sent Waleed Ibne U.qba Ibne Abi Moeez to Bani Mastalaq for the recovery of Zakat. A murder of that tribe was attributed to Waleed. Waleed apprehended that they will murder him. He came back from the way and narrated that they have refused to pay Zakat. They want to murder him. After hearing this. The Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) send Hazrat Khalid along with a unit of soldiers and ordered him that first he should inquire. If they pay Zakat, then they should not be disturbed, otherwise action should be taken against them. He came to know that they are willing to pay the Zakat upon which this Verse was revealed that before relying on any information, a further inquiry should be made. For having proper perception of the matter, I would like to reproduce the commentary of the aforesaid Verse stated in Zia-ul-Qur'an (Vol. 4, page 854), Marful-Qur'an Vol.8, page 104 and Tafheem-ul-Qur'an Vol. 5, pages 73-74 which reads as under:-- Urdu 1302-1303-1304-1305 The gist of the aforesaid Verse was that while relying on the statement of such a person, further inquiry and probe into the matter should be made, and if after it, one reaches on the conclusion that news furnished by such person is correct, then reliance should be placed on such news. The main theme of the Verse was that the news furnished by such a person should be confirmed through other corroborative evidence. It has not been laid down that the news, furnished by such a person, may not be believed or relied upon. It has been held by Federal Shariat Court in 1994 SCMR 932, that an accomplice falls within the category of wicked person in the terms of the aforesaid Verse of the Holy Qur'an, therefore, before acting upon his testimony, truthfulness of it should be verified from other corroborative evidence. In the aforesaid case, it was not laid down that no reliance should be placed on his statement; but it was laid down that before relying upon him, the truthfulness of it may be verified from other corroborative piece of evidence. For having proper perception, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment reported in 1994 SCMR 932, which is as under:-- Arbi 1306 "(O'Ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news ascertain the truth). (12) An accomplice who takes part in the commission of the offence for which his co-convict is charged which falls within the category of a wicked person in terms of the above Verse of the Holy Qur'an and, therefore, before acting upon his testimony, the truthfulness of it is to be verified by corroborative piece of evidence on material particulars." No doubt that the aforesaid Verse of the Holy Qur'an conveys that before relying upon the statement of co-convict, it should be verified from other corroborative piece of evidence. While section 43 of Qanun e-Shahadat Order, 1984, contained that when more than one persons are being tried jointly for the same offence and confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some others, may be taken into consideration against such other persons as well as against the person who made such confession. For having proper perception, I would like to reproduce section 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which is as under:

"Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under that trial for same offence. When more persons then one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons is proved:-- (a) such confession shall be proof against the person making it; and (b) the Court may take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against such other person." The same like proposition arose before Bombay High Court in a case titled Rama Kariyappa Pichi and others v. Emperor AIR 1929 Bom.

327. It was held by the Court that although the confession can be read against the party making it; but it should also be accepted against the co-convict with great caution, unless there is corroboration from the independent source, it should not be read against the co-convict person. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:-- "With regard to the conviction of the remaining accused they are based mainly upon the retracted confessions of accused 9 who implicates all of them and accused 10 who implicates accused 18 and 20 only. Although the weight of these confessions may be regarded as great against the parties making them, they must be accepted with great caution against the co-accused whom they implicate unless there is corroboration forthcoming from an independent source which would make it safe to act upon the confession." This view further finds support from PLD 1960 SC (Pakistan)

254. It would also not be out of place to mention here that section 16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, contained that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against the convict-persons and a confession is not illegal if it is based upon uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice. It will be useful to reproduce section 16 of the aforesaid Act, which is as under:

"Accomplice.

An accomplice shall be competent witness against an convict person, expect in the case of an offence punishable with Hadd and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice." The crux of the aforesaid Verse of the Holy Qur'an and the other law is one and the same that while relying on the statement of the co-convict (or accused,) the Court has to verify it from the other corroborative evidence. If the statement of co-convict finds corroboration from the other evidence, then reliance can be placed on the statement of the co-convict. Now the next question emerges whether the statement of Sadaqat Hussain, co-convict, finds corroboration from the other evidence? A .30 bore pistol was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Farid-convict on September 12, 2004, in presence of Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali (P.Ws.3 and 4). This pistol contained No.252 and its body contained the following words:- "CAL.-30 Mauser Made As China by Norin CO." Recovery memo. Exh.P.O. was prepared. Both Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali appeared as witnesses. Amjad Ali deposed that on 12th September, 2004, Sajid Hafiz came on his shop and asked him to accompany him up to the investigation agency. He went there. The Investigating Officer asked us to go to Al-Ghazali College. We went to the said college. The police brought convict-Farid in a vehicle. Farid went into house. We were also with them. In corridor of the house, a tin box was lying; out of which Farid picked, up a pistol and, handed over to the police in their presence. A recovery memo. Exh.P.O. was prepared. He signed the recovery memo. He has seen his signatures and the pistol. It was the same which was recovered at the instance of Farid. Sajid Hafiz also stated as such. There is complete unison between both the prosecution witnesses, regarding the recovery of the pistol from Farid. There is no contradiction between the prosecution witnesses regarding:-- (i) the place of recovery; (ii) time of recovery and (iii) the manners of recovery. There is complete concordance between both the prosecution witnesses. From the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses, it is established that pistol was recovered at the instance of Muhammad Farid. It would also not be out of place to mention here that, the pistol belonged to Saqib Bashir who was a student of Al-Ghazali College. He also appeared as a prosecution witness. He deposed that he was the student of 2nd year. Tasleem was `Naib Qasid' in the said college. He obtained a licence of .30 bore pistol on July 22, 2004. He brought the pistol in the college as he wanted to incorporate a number on the pistol. He went into the kitchen of the college for looking his dress. Meanwhile, Tasleem also came there and saw the pistol. On September 8, 2004, Tasleem said to him that he also wanted to purchase a same like pistol, therefore, he may give him his pistol for the time being: On the next day, i.e. on September 9, 2004, he handed over the pistol to Tasleem. Parcel of the pistol was opened in the Court. Saqib Bashir deposed that number of his pistol was

252. The pistol was shown to Saqib Bashir, he narrated that it is the same pistol which he handed over to Tasleem and on the pistol, number was incorporated as

252. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotli. He has seen his statement, which is correct. From the evidence of Saqib Bashir, it is proved that pistol, used in the instant murder, belonged to Saqib Bashir which was handed over by him to Tasleem. The licence of the pistol was also recovered from Saqib Bashir which contained the number 252, therefore, it is proved beyond any doubt that pistol, used in the instant occurrence, belongs to Saqib Bashir. While, Sadaqat Hussain, deposed in his statement, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. that when they made the programme for committing the occurrence, then Tasleem said that he will arrange the pistol. He also included him. On Thursday, Tasleem came to their residence, and gave the pistol to Farid, and said to him, that tonight, they may come and see the place; thus, the version narrated by the co-convict Sadaqat Hussain finds corroboration from the statement of Amjad and Saqib Bashir. The chain of the evidence, that pistol was taken from Saqib Bashir by Tasleem, who handed over it to Farid and it was used in the instant murder and it was recovered from Muhammad Farid, who fired a bullet from the same pistol at Prof. Dr. Muhammad Ayub, is fully proved. There is no gap between the chain of the links of aforesaid circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has proved, beyond any doubt, that pistol was taken by Tasleem from Saqib Bashir and he handed over the same to Muhammad Farid, who used it in the instant occurrence. It is also pertinent to note that licence of the pistol was also recovered from Saqib Bashir, which contained the number as 252 and the same pistol was recovered from Muhammad Farid from his residence. As the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, that the statement of Saqib Bashir is a belated statement, it has no substance, because, it inspires confidence. The pistol of Saqib Bashir was a licensed pistol. The licence was recovered from Saqib Bashir and number of the pistol was 252 and the same pistol was recovered from Muhammad Farid, which was used in the instant occurrence. On the day of occurrence, an empty of .30 bore pistol was recovered, along with the bones of skull, from the place of occurrence, in presence of Amjad Ali and Mian Muhammad Akram (P.Ws. Nos.1 and 4). A recovery memo. Exh.P.M. was prepared. Mian Muhammad Akram deposed, that on September 10, 2004, he was informed on telephone that Principal Dr. Raja Muhammad Ayub has been murdered. He reached in the college on his vehicle. It was about 2-30 or 2-50 of early in the morning. The police, in his presence, recovered blood from the carpet with a cotton, after which, the police recovered an empty from the place of occurrence and prepared a recovery memo. Exh.P.M. He signed the recovery memo. Amjad Ali also stated that an empty was recovered from the place of occurrence in his presence, and recovery memo. Exh.P.M. was prepared. There is also complete agreement between both the prosecution witnesses regarding:

(i) The time of recovery of empty; (ii) Place of recovery of empty and (iii) The manners of recovery of empty. There is no contradiction between both the witnesses, regarding the recovery of the empty of .30 bore pistol, used in the crime. This empty, along with the pistol, was sent to Fire-arm Expert, who had reported that it has been fired from the pistol which was recovered from Farid. Therefore, the prosecution has established the fact, beyond any doubt that pistol, recovered from Muhammad Farid, was used in the instant occurrence. It is also established from the post-mortem report that Dr. Muhammad Ayub sustained the fire-arm injury. On 12-9-2004, in presence of Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali (P.Ws.) a bag of blue colour of Professor Muhammad Ayub, containing visiting cards, one packet of capsules, one application' addressed to Tehsildar, a Shalwar string, keys, Nail cutter, one pair of clothes and Rs.16,500 was recovered at the instance of Sadaqat Hussain. This bag was taken away by the convict-appellants, after committing the murder of Professor Muhammad Ayub. A recovery memo. Exh.P.S. was prepared. Both Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali, appeared as witnesses. They deposed, that this bag was recovered from the custody of the' convict-appellants. There is no contradiction between the statements of both the witnesses. Moreover, Sadaqat Hussain deposed in his statement, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., that a bag of blue colour was handed over to them by Professor Muhammad Ayub. and he checked the bag. There were Rs.16,5000, clothes and cards in the bag, which they took along with them after the commission of the murder of Professor Muhammad Ayub. Thus, the statement of Sadaqat Hussain finds corroboration from the recovery of bag. The prosecution has established that during the murder of Professor Muhammad Ayub, the convict-appellants took the bag along with them, containing the amount of Rs.16,500 and the same has been recovered from the convict-appellants. On 12-9-2004, at the instance of convict-Muhammad Talseem, a wallet containing Rs.300 and an identity card of the deceased was recovered by the police from Tasleem, which was produced by him after picking it out from the tin box, lying in the kitchen of Al-Ghazali College, in presence of Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali (P.Ws.) A recovery memo. was also prepared. Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali (P,Ws.) appeared as witnesses and proved this recovery. There is complete unison between their statements. There is no contradiction between their statements about:-- (i) the time of recovery; (ii) place of recovery and (iii) the manners of recovery. Thus, the prosecution has also established that on the day of occurrence, a wallet, containing Rs.300 was taken away by the convict-appellants and it was recovered from the custody of convict-Muhammad Tasleem. It is a strong incriminating evidence against Muhammad Tasleem, which is beyond any doubt. On 12-9-2004, the blood-stained clothes of convict-Muhammad Farid were recovered at his instance, from his place of residence in presence of P.Ws., Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali. The statements of both the witnesses have been recorded wherein they have categorically stated that blood-stained clothes of Muhammad Farid, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, were recovered at his instance. There is complete unison between the statements of the P.Ws. There is no contradiction between the statements of both the witnesses. Convict Muhammad Tasleem pointed out that the clothes, which he was wearing during the occurrence, are in a tin box lying in the kitchen of the college. These were recovered on his instance, in presence of P.Ws. Sajid Hafiz and Amjad Ali. Both the witnesses stated as such in their statements. There is no contradiction between their statements, regarding the recovery of blood-stained clothes, of Muhammad Tasleem. Thus, the prosecution has proved that clothes of Muhammad Tasleem and Muhammad Farid became stained with blood, during the instant occurrence and the same were recovered at their instance, which is also a strong incriminating piece of evidence and is proved beyond any doubt. From the aforesaid circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved the all links of the chain of circumstantial evidence. There is no gap among these links. The statement of Sadaqat Hussain also find strong corroboration from the aforesaid circumstantial evidence. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. As the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the, convict-appellants are concerned, those are very minor contradictions, which were quite natural. There is no gap among the links of chain of circumstantial evidence. The facts proved by the prosecution are incapable of any other explanation than that of the guilt of the convict-appellants. Now the next question emerges about the quantum of the sentence. As the convict-Muhammad Farid and Muhammad Tasleem are concerned, Muhammad Tasleem was a watchman in the college where the occurrence took place. His duty was to ensure the safety of the College and Professor Muhammad Ayub; but he betrayed Professor Muhammad Ayub and he is the actual mischief-monger. He made the plan. It was a well pre-planned murder. Tasleem arranged the pistol, as he took the same from Saqib Bashir and handed it over to Muhammad Farid. He said to him and Sadaqat Hussain that he will tell them the day on which the occurrence should be committed. He asked them to commit the occurrence and assured them that the door of the college will remain open. He kept the door opened when convict-appellants came there. He also joined them and Muhammad Farid used the pistol in the instant occurrence. Muhammad Farid fired a bullet at Professor Muhammad Ayub. Therefore, both of them (i.e. Muhammad Farid and Muhammad Tasleem) do not deserve for any leniency. Even otherwise, in a murder case, normal sentence is death. The Court, while granting the death sentence, has not to record any reason, while awarding the lesser sentence, the Court has to assign the reasons that why lesser sentence is being awarded to the convict-persons. The perusal of the judgment of the lower Court shows that no reasons have been given by the trial Court that why lesser sentence was awarded to the convict-appellants. As the case of Sadaqat Hussain is concerned, that is different from both the aforesaid convict-appellants. According to his statement, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., he also joined the convict-appellants; but he was not armed with any weapon. His intention was only to the extent of dacoity. According to his statement, the bag was handed over to him and Farid said to him that he should check the bag. He went on a side and checked' the bag and find Rs.16,500, cards and clothes in the bag. After checking the bag, he was standing up when Farid fired a bullet at Professor Muhammad Ayub. There is nothing on the record that he asked Farid to fire the bullet or he has any hand in the commission of murder of Professor Muhammad Ayub. Therefore, it could not be said that he had any intention to commit the murder of Professor Muhammad Ayub or he joined the convict-appellants with the intention to commit the murder. The nutshell of the above discussion is that the appeal filed by the complainant to the extent of Muhammad Tasleem and Muhammad Farid is accepted and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to both the aforesaid convict-appellants is enhanced to the sentence of death under section 302, A.P.C., along with other sentences awarded by the N trial Court. While the appeal filed by Sadaqat Hussain is partly accepted. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to ,him under section 302, A.P.C., is hereby set aside. The sentence of 10 years' R.I. along with the sentence of fine of Rs.20,000 awarded to Sadaqat Hussain is maintained. H.B.T./13/Sh.C.(AJ&K) Order accordingly.