1990 P Cr (PLP)

10. The prosecution in support of its case, examined. Kabir Khan, Muhammad Akbar, Akhtar Khan, Ghulam Mustafa, Abdul Malik, Abdul Rehman, Nishtar, Shabbir Khan, Sardar Khurshid Ahmed Khan, S.D.M. Dadyal, Ghulam Rasool Patwari, Dr. Manzoor Ahmed, C.M.O. Mirpur, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Asghar Ali, Constable, Qazi Shabbir Ahmed, Head Constable, Ghulam Sarwar, Investigating Officer, Chemical Examiner, Lahore, Ch. Muhammad Zaman, S.I. Raja Abdul Razaq Khan, Police Inspector, Sardar Noor Muhammad A.S.I., Ch. Bashirullah, S.I. and Mirza Muhammad Amin, S.I. of whom evidence of only Muhammad Kabir, Akhtar Khan, Muhammad Akbar, Dr. Manzoor Ahmed, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, and Sardar Khurshid Ahmed Khan, S.D.M. Dadyal, is worth mentioning here, as the evidence of other witnesses is of only formal nature.

11. Muhammad Kabir, P.W. in his evidence has stated to have lodged the F.I.R., Exh.PA. and further deposed that when he and Muhammad Jahangir deceased while returning to their home from Kathar Bazar reached near the Kathar Dispensary, Muhammad Nisar, appellant raised a Lalkara to the effect that both of us would not go alive on which they ran away near to the mosque where Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub and Gul Hussain, appellants, Shah Nawaz deceased accused and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent armed with sticks launched an attack on them. He further deposed that on this they went inside the compound of the mosque where Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub and Gul Hussain, appellants caught hold of Muhammad Jahangir deceased who was then given Chhuri blow on his left buttock by Muhammad Nisar, appellant while he was caused stick injury by Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent and that he (witness) was given stick blow on his head by Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent and a Chhuri blow on his stomach by Muhammad Nisar, appellant when he tried to rescue Muhammad Jahangir deceased from the clutches of his assailants. Muhammad Akbar, P.W. stated that he had gone to Kathar Dispensary to enquire about the health of daughter of Saida Khan who was bitten by the snake when he saw the accused in the case launching attack on Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. who were passing from near the said dispensary while returning to their home from the Bazar. His further deposition is that on the Lalkara having been raised by Muhammad Nisar, appellant, Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. ran away towards the compound of the mosque where Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub and Gul Hussain, appellants caught hold of Muhammad Jahangir deceased while Muhammad Nisar, appellant caused an injury on his left buttock with the `Chhuri' and that when Muhammad Kabir, P.W. tried to rescue Muhammad Jahangir deceased, Shah Nawaz, deceased accused caught hold of him while Muhammad Nisar appellant gave a Chhuri blow on his left thigh. Muhammad Akhtar, P.W. has stated that he runs a meat shop in the Kathar Bazar and that on 13‑7‑1981 when Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. reached near the school and dispensary of Kathar, Muhammad Nisar, appellant who was following them, raised a Lalkara that they would not go alive today on which the other accused armed with sticks came out from a nearby lane. He further deposed that in the compound of the mosque, Gul Hussain, Banaras and Muhammad Yaqub had caught hold of Muhammad Jahangir deceased whom Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent gave a blow with stick while Muhammad Nisar, appellant inflicted a Chhuri blow on his left buttock and that when Muhammad Kabir tried to rescue Muhammad Jahangir deceased from the accused, Shah Nawaz, deceased accused, caught hold of him while Muhammad Nisar, appellant attempted to inflict a Chhuri blow on his stomach which struck on his left thigh. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed, P.W. stated that he conducted the post‑mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Jahangir decacased on 13‑7‑1981 and found the following injuries on his person: ‑‑ (i) An incised wound 3" long, 6/7" deep and 1‑1/2" wide on the medial side of the left buttock. There was damage to the glutted muscles and gleeted blood vessels. Bleeding all round the wound evident. (ii) A contusion along side the left ear. According to his opinion the cause of death of the deceased was severe injury to the small bowal leading to severe haemorrhage, circulatory shocks and death and that injury to the glutted vessels and to the bladder had caused the acceleration in causing the death. He claims to be author of post‑mortem report Exh.P.M. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal P.W. in his statement has stated that he had found the following injuries on the person of Muhammad Kabir, P.W. on his examination: ‑‑ (i) An incised wound on left thigh, medial at middle (wound is in vertical size) 2" x 1" x 1/2". (ii) An incised wound on left foot dorsam 1/2" x 1/2" x 2" long. In his opinion, the above injuries were simple in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon. He is the author of the report Exh.P.P. Sardar Khurshid Ahmed Khan, S.D.M. Dadyal, P.W., has deposed to have recorded the dying declaration Exh.P.Z. of Muhammad Jahangir, deceased in which he had accused Muhammad Nisar, appellant to have caused a `Chhuri' blow on his left buttock.

12. Noor Hussain and Muhammad Siddique were produced in defence. The statement of Noor Hussain, D.W. is to the effect that on the day of occurrence at about 10 a.m., Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. on one side and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent and Muhammad Nisar, appellant on the other, were abusing each other in front of the compound of the mosque where many persons from the locality were also present who separated them and that Muhammad Jahangir deceased again made an attack on Muhammad Nisar, appellant and tried to inflict `Chhur blow on him but Muhammad Nisar, appellant caught hold of his hand on which they grappled and fell in a drain after which he saw Muhammad Jahangir deceased in injured condition. Muhammad Siddique, D.W. deposed that at about 10 a.m. Muhammad Jahangir deceased, Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent started abusing each other and grappled on which they were separated by the persons gathered there and that he took Muhammad Jahangir deceased to .his house which is situate near the place of occurrence but Muhammad Jahangir deceased again came back as a result of which the above‑mentioned persons started quarrelling and that then he saw Muhammad Jahangir deceased in the injured condition and Muhammad Nisar, appellant with an injury on his hand.

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the accused‑appellants as the prosecution had failed to prove its charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt and in support of his above contention, he made the following submissions: ‑‑ (i) That the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence, besides being closely related to the deceased and the complainant, are inimical to the appellants for which reason their evidence is unreliable for basing the conviction of the appellants on it. (ii) That from the material on record, the presence of independent persons at the time of the occurrence on the spot is proved but the prosecution has attempted to suppress their presence and has not produced any such witness which infirmity raises adverse inference against its case and casts serious doubts on its truthfulness. (iii) That there are glaring and material discrepancies in the statements of the eye‑witnesses before the trial Court and those got recorded before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. with the. result that their evidence is unworthy of any reliance. (iv) That the recoveries of the `Chhuri' and sticks from Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent respectively, are doubtful as they have not been witnessed by any person of the locality and have been made many days after their arrest. (v) That the dying declaration of Muhammad Jahangir, deceased suffers from many infirmities, such as having been recorded in the presence of the relatives of the deceased and in the absence of any certificate of the doctor to the effect that the deceased, was physically fit and in his full senses when he made the s same and, as such, it should not have been relied upon as a piece of corroborative evidence against the appellants. (vi) That from the evidence on the record, the F.I.R. appears to have been written after the start of the investigation and thus its correctness is doubtful. (vii) That there was no evidence on the record justifying the application of section 149, A.P.C. to the case and, as such, Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub and Gul Hussain, appellants could not be convicted and‑ sentenced for their vicarious liability for the offences alleged to have been committed by appellant Muhammad Nisar, especially when during his investigation, Muhammad Zaman, S.H.O. finding them to be innocent, had recommended them to be released under section 169, Cr.P.C. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the conviction of the appellants under section 307, A.P.C. for causing hurt to Muhammad Kabir, P.W. is unlawful as in view of the nature of the injury sustained by the said witness and the place on which it was caused, it cannot be held that it was caused to kill him. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that even if the conviction of Muhammad Nisar, appellant is held to be justified for the murder of Muhammad Jahangir deceased, he should not have been awarded the sentence of Qassas as the occurrence was not pre-planned but had taken place all of a sudden in the course of the quarrel between the deceased party and the appellant.

14. The learned Additional Advocate‑General and the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have contended that the offences with which the accused were charged have been fully brought home to them by the prosecution and they were rightly convicted and sentenced on the basis of the ocular evidence, the dying statement of the deceased Muhammad Jahangir, recovery of Chhuri at the instance of Muhammad Nisar, appellant and the medical evidence.

15. We have given our earnest consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on the record. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the eye witnesses' evidence is not reliable, we find much substance in it to the extent of Muhammad Akbar and Akhtar Khan, P.Ws. as in our view there is overwhelming A possibility of their having not witnessed the occurrence and becoming eye witnesses in the case on account of their close relationship with the deceased Muhammad Jahangir. We have come to the above conclusion in view of the glaring and irreconcilable discrepancies in their statements before the Court and those got recorded by them before the police and the other circumstances appearing on the record. It would suffice to mention here only a few instances of such contradictions and improvements found in their above statements. In his statement before the police, Muhammad Akbar has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he had come to Kathar Bazar to make purchases of daily necessities of life where he met Akhtar Khan, P.W. and that they both went together on the spot and witnessed the occurrence whereas in his statement before the Court, he has stated that he had gone to Kathar Dispensary to enquire about the health of the daughter of Sada Khan who had been bitten by a snake when he witnessed the occurrence and has denied his and Muhammad Akhtar, P.W's. coming together on the spot from the Bazar. In his police statement, Exh.D.B., he has deposed that only Muhammad Nisar and Muhammad Ashfaq Khan had launched attack on Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir injured P.W. and that besides him and Akhtar Khan, P.W. Muhammad Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub, appellants, Shah Nawaz deceased accused, Noor Hussain, Muhammad Nazir Kiani, Choudhry Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Siddique and Talib Hussain Shah were also present on the spot and had seen the occurrence of whom none had taken any part in the occurrence but instead were attempting to rescue the deceased and the complainant from the above‑named assailants, but in his statement before the Court, he has also named Muhammad Banaras and Muhammad Yaqub, appellants and Shah Nawaz, deceased accused, as accused persons who had also attacked the deceased and the complainant and caught hold of them. Had he seen the occurrence, he would not have made the above contradictory statements before the police and the trial Court. Moreover, this witness was not present at the dispensary when the deceased was brought there after the occurrence and had come there about two hours after that when Muhammad Akbar, P.W. had sent a person to his village to bring him there. Similarly, Muhammad Akhtar, P.W. in his statement before the Court, has deposed that he went to the place of occurrence from his meat shop in the Kathar Bazar on being attracted by hue and cry therefrom where he saw Gul Hussain, Muhammad Yaqub, appellants Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent and Shah Nawaz, deceased accused making attack on Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. whereas in his police statement, Exh.D.F./l, he has stated that on 13‑7‑1981 he had gone to Kathar Bazar for the purchase of goods of daily use from where Akhtar Khan and he went to witness the occurrence being attracted to the spot by the noise therefrom. In his police statement, he has deposed that besides him and Muhammad Akbar, Shahnawaz, Muhammad Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub, appellants, Noor Hussain, Nazir Kiani, Subedar Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Siddique and Talib Hussain Shah were also present on the spot but they had not taken any part in the quarrel and were trying to rescue the deceased from Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent. The above material and irreconcilable discrepancies in their statements also go a long way to show that these witnesses, in fact, had not seen the occurrence and had become eye‑witness in the case due to their being the father‑in‑law and a close relative respectively of the deceased. For the above reasons, the ocular evidence of the above two witnesses should not have been believed by the trial Court and accordingly, we discard their evidence against the appellant.

16. As regards the recovery of `Chhuri' at the instance of Muhammad Nisar, appellant, it also, in our 'view, carries no corroborative value because, firstly, it has been recovered about a week after the arrest of the said appellant; secondly, the place from which it is recovered is a public place accessible to everyone and, thirdly, it is not witnessed by any person from the locality as, in the ordinary course, it ought to have been witnessed under the law. Therefore, this piece o evidence is also kept out of consideration while considering the evidence of the prosecution produced against the appellants. Similarly, the alleged motive for the commission of the offences is not such a piece of evidence in this case which may be read and used as corroborative evidence against the appellants. The appellants other than Muhammad Nisar had no motive whatsoever for the commission of such heinous offences as are alleged to have been committed by them while the motive attributed to Muhammad Nisar, appellant for committing the alleged offences is too weak to have prompted him to take away the life of one person and to cause injury to the other with sharp‑edged weapon. However, the absence of motive is of no significance in a case where the other evidence in it is so cogent and strong as to conclusively establish the charge with which the accused therein is charged. In our view, the absence of or weak motive is not material in this case being a case of ocular evidence.

17. Even after discarding the ocular evidence of Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Akhtar Khan, P.Ws. the recoveries of the crime weapon and the alleged motive for the crime, we have come to the conclusion that the remaining proof led by the prosecution in the case and consisting of statement of Muhammad Kabir, P.W. dying declaration of Muhammad Jahangir, deceased and medical evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Muhammad Nisar, convict‑appellant had committed the murder of Muhammad Jahangir deceased and caused hurt to Muhammad Kabir, P.W. Muhammad Kabir P.W. has attributed the fatal injury of the deceased Muhammad Jahangir to Muhammad Nisar, appellant, besides accusing him of causing injury to him as well with the `Chhuri' on his thigh. The presence of this witness at the time of the incident leading to the death of Muhammad Jahangir deceased, is also admitted by Muhammad Nisar and some other accused in their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. as well as by the defence witnesses in their evidence. Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq respondent, in their examination, while denying their having committed the criminal acts with which they are charged, have taken up the defence that in fact the above witness and Muhammad Jahangir deceased had launched the attack on and caused hurt to them. There appears no circumstance in the material on the record on the basis of which it could be inferred that this witness has falsely attributed to Muhammad Nisar appellant the causing of injuries to him and the deceased with the sharp‑edged weapon by substituting him for the real perpetrator of the crime. Taking into consideration the human psychology, it is inconceivable that this witness had not named the real accused who had not only seriously injured him with the sharp edged weapon but also caused the death of his close relative and had in his place implicated an innocent person who is also related to him.

18. The above evidence of Muhammad Kabir, P.W. finds full corroboration from the dying declaration of Muhammad Jahangir deceased recorded by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate Dadyal at the Dadyal Hospital. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the dying declaration is not reliable evidence because at the time of its recording, there was no certificate from the doctor about Muhammad Jahangir deceased being in his full senses and capable of making any statement, is devoid of any merit. The provisions of section 32 of the Evidence Act do not envisage the fulfilment of any such condition for the admittance of dying declaration in evidence. There was no question of obtaining such an endorsement from the doctor in the instant case as it is in the evidence that the doctor incharge of the hospital was not present there at the time the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. However, the mere absence of the medical certificate that the deceased was in possession of full senses to be able to make the dying statement ipso facto, does not affect the credibility of such a declaration if it is, otherwise, found to be true and genuine. In the present case, there is nothing to suspect that Muhammad Jahangir deceased was not in a fit physical condition to make a dying statement. Sardar Khurshid Ahmed, S.D.M. who recorded the dying declaration, has in his evidence, clearly deposed that before recording the same, he had satisfied himself after asking certain questions from Muhammad Jahangir deceased that he was in possession of full senses and in a fit state to make the statement. There is nothing on record to doubt the impartiality and integrity of this witness and to suspect the truthfulness of his evidence that he had faithfully and correctly recorded the statement made before him by Muhammad Jahangir deceased after being fully satisfied about his (deceased) being in possession of his full senses and in a fit physical state to be able to make the same. In his dying declaration, Muhammad Jahangir, deceased, has clearly accused Muhammad Nisar, appellant, of causing fatal injury to him which resulted in his death, besides mentioning the fact of Muhammad Kabir P.W. having been injured during the transaction. The above dying statement having been found contemporaneous and faithfully recorded, can be safely relied upon as a strong corroborative piece of evidence of ocular testimony furnished by Muhammad Kabir P.W. for basing the conviction of Muhammad Nisar, appellant for murdering Muhammad Jahangir, deceased, and injuring the above‑named witness. Even the statements of Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent accused indirectly and between the lines indicate that Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. were injured during the transaction of the quarrel and grappling which had taken place between the said accused and injured persons. Noor Hussain and Muhammad Siddique, D.Ws. have, in their statements, also deposed that they had found Muhammad Jahangir in an injured condition after the grappling ensued between Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. and Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq, accused‑respondent.

19. The defence plea that Muhammad Jahangir deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W. who were armed with dagger and stick respectively had attacked and injured Muhammad Nisar, appellant and Muhammad Ashfaque, acquitted accused during the incident in which the above deceased and the witness has sustained injuries, does not appeal to reason in the facts and circumstances of the case. Had the above defence plea been true, it would have been but natural that the appellant Muhammad Nisar and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent would have received injuries of serious nature at the hands of their above assailants, whereas very minor and simple injuries of no significance were found on their person, such as lacerations in occipital region, in left index finger and a contusion on the back on the person of Muhammad Nisar and a bruise on the person of Muhammad Ashfaq. The appellant Muhammad Nisar has not explained as to how Muhammad Jahangir had received such a grievous and dangerous injury on the inside of his buttock and it is inconceivable that in case the deceased had attempted to injure the appellant and Muhammad Ashfaq, acquitted accused with his `Chhuri' aided by Muhammad Kabir, P.W., he would have himself sustained the fatal injury instead of causing any injury to the said appellant and the acquitted accused. The evidence and the circumstances and features of the case referred to above go to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was Muhammad Nisar, appellant who had inflicted Chhuri blow on the inside of the left buttock of Muhammad Jahangir deceased and the left thigh of Muhammad Kabir, P.W. thereby causing the death of Muhammad Jahangir and injuring Muhammad Kabir, P.W.

20. The above criminal act of Muhammad Nisar, appellant of fatally injuring Muhammad Jahangir deceased amounted to the commission of wilful murder as the nature of the injury and the place on which it was caused and the weapon used in causing it, leave no manner of doubt to us that at least he knew that his above act of delivering violent blow with lethal weapon to Muhammad Jahangir deceased, was likely to cause his death.

21. The post‑mortem report would show that an incised wound 3" long, 6/7" deep and 1‑1/2" wide on the medial side of the left buttock of Muhammad Jahangir was caused which had damaged the glutted muscles and gleeted blood vessels and caused bleeding all round the wound. From the severeness of the vabove injury caused on such a part of the body as buttock with a Chhuri, it can be safely presumed that Muhammad Nisar, appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as he knew was likely to cause death or was sufficient, in the, ordinary course of nature, to cause death and has thus committed the offence of murder under section 4 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act. So far as the causing of injury by Muhammad Nisar appellant to Muhammad Kabir, P.W. on his thigh is concerned, we think the same cannot be held to have been inflicted with the intention to kill him. As is the case of the prosecution itself, the above injury of the above‑named P.W. was caused when he was trying to rescue Muhammad Jahangir deceased from the clutches of the above appellant, which means that he would not have resorted to giving Chhuri blow to Muhammad Kabir P.W. if he had not intervened to rescue the deceased from him. The injury in question is of simple nature having been caused at a non vital part of the body. In this view of the matter, the act of Muhammad Nisar, appellant injuring Muhammad Kabir, P.W. on his left thigh, only amount to committing an offence of causing hurt punishable under section 15, Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act and not an offence of attempted murder as has been held by the trial Court.

22. As regards, the other appellants and Muhammad Ashfaq, respondent, we do not find any evidence against them for convicting them for the murder o: Muhammad Jahangir deceased and causing hurt to Muhammad Kabir, P.W. by reason of their vicarious liability. They are alleged to have been catching hold of the deceased when he was fatally stabbed by Muhammad Nisar, appellant and also caused injuries to the deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W., with the sticks they carried. There was no motive for these appellants to have conspired with Muhammad Nisar to take away the life of a person as they are not, in any way, related to the said appellant. The allegation of their having used their sticks in causing injuries to the deceased and Muhammad Kabir, P.W., stands rebutted by the medical evidence as no such injury was found on the person of the decease and the said witness. Moreover, they cannot be burdened with the vicarious liability for the act of Muhammad Nisar, appellant as there is nothing on the record to show that before the occurrence they had hatched a conspiracy with him to kill the deceased or to injure Muhammad Kabir, P.W. and that it was in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly that Muhammad Jahangir was done to death and Muhammad Kabir P.W. was hurt by Muhammad Nisar, appellant. Similarly, there is no evidence that these appellants knew at the time of the occurrence that Muhammad Nisar appellant had in his possession `Chhuri' which he was likely to use in injuring the deceased and the sad witnesses especially when Muhammad Nisar, appellant is alleged to have taken out the Chhuri from the wrapping of his trousers at the time of occurrence. It is correct that the persons belonging to a single party present at the spot might suddenly develop common intention or common object at the spur of the moment and commit the illegal act in prosecution or furtherance thereof, but the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, do not justify any such inference with regard to appellants under discussion.

23. The upshot of the above discussion is that the offences of his committing murder of Muhammad Jahangir deceased and causing hurt to Muhammad Kabia, P.W. stand fully proved against Muhammad Nisar appellant while no offence as proved to have been committed by the other appellants and Muhammad Ashfaque, respondent.

24. The next question that falls for determination is the sentence to be awarded to Muhammad Nisar appellant for his commission of the above offences. The sentence of `Qassas' cannot be awarded to him for the murder of Muhammad Jahangir deceased in view of our having discarded the evidence of Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Akhtar, P.Ws. inasmuch as after disbelieving and not relying on their statements, the only ocular evidence in the case remains only of one witness, namely, Muhammad Kabir. Under section 26 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, the sentence of Qasas can only be awarded for the offence of murder if two adult Muslim male witnesses have seen the occurrence. Therefore, Muhammad Nisar appellant is liable to any of punishments enumerated in section 3 of the said Act which also includes the death penalty, but in the circumstances of the case, we feel that the death penalty is not called for and justified here and that the imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life to the said appellant would meet the ends of justice. To us, the occurrence does not appear to be premeditated one but had taken place suddenly in consequence of some quarrel ensuing between Muhammad Jahangir and Muhammad Kabir P.W. on one side and Muhammad Nisar appellant and Muhammad Ashfaque on the other and in view of the injuries sustained by Muhammad Nisar appellant and Muhammad Ashfaque as well during the occurrence, the possibility of some grappling having taken place between the above parties is not ruled out. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of Muhammad Nisar appellant recorded by the trial Court for the murder of Muhammad Jahangir deceased, we convert the sentence of Qasas as awarded to him to that of life imprisonment under section 24 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act. The conviction and sentence of Muhammad Nisar appellant under section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act is also maintained. The convictions and sentences of the above appellant for the commission of other offences are set aside and he is acquitted in them. The appellant Muhammad Nisar shall be entitled to the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. with the result that the period for which he had remained detained in custody shall be counted towards the period of sentence awarded to him. Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub and Mistri Gul Hussain appellants' convictions and sentences are set aside and they are acquitted. They shall be released if they are not wanted in any other case. The appeal of the State against Ashfaque, Banaras, Muhammad Yaqub and Gul Hussain shall stand dismissed. The reference stands disposed of in terms of non‑confirmation of the sentence of Qisas awarded to Muhammad Nisar appellant by the trial Court. N.H.Q./105/Sh.C.A. Order accordingly.