P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

NAZEER AHMAD MAHMOOD, J.‑Muzaffar Ali, aged about 55 years, Muhammad Akram, aged about 24 years, Akhtar Hayat, aged about 19 years, Sikandar Hayat, aged about 28 years, Ali Ranjha, aged about 30 years, Shanu, aged about 25 years, and Shamsher Ahmad, aged about 33 years, have come up in appeal against the judgment, dated the 12th of March 1962, of Mr. Muhammad Ayub Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appel lants under section 120‑B, Pakistan Penal Code, for criminal conspiracy to murder Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 24), under sections 364/149, 148 and 395/149, P. P. C. and sentenced them each to transportation for life for an offence under section 120‑B, to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or two years' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for an offence under section 364/149, to two years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence under section 148 and to five years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs 2,000 or two year's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for an offence under section 395/149, P. P. C. He further directed that the sentences, except the sentences of fine, should run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Akhtar Hayat appellant under section 120‑B for criminal conspiracy to murder Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. under sections 364/149, 148 and 395 /149, P. P. C. and, in view of his young age, sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment under section 120‑B, to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 or six months' further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for his offence under section 364/149, to a term of one year's rigorous imprisonment for his offence under section 148 and to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 or further six months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for his offence under section 395/149, P. P. C. It is, however, not mentioned in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as to whether the sentences of Akhtar Hayat appellant would run concurrently or consecutively. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted Ali Ranjha appellant under section 120‑B for criminal conspiracy to murder Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. under section 302/149, P. P. C. and sentenced him to transportation for life on either count, with the further direction that the two sentences should run concurrently. Shanu and Shamsher Ahmad appellants were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for offence under sections 302/34 and 201/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to death for the offence under section 302/34 and to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, including solitary confine ment for three months, for the offence under section 201/34, P. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also directed that the sentence of Shanu under section 201/34, P. P. C. should come into operation only if his death sentence was not confirmed by this Court. Shamsher Ahmad appellant was further convicted under section 120‑B for criminal conspiracy to murder Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. under sections 364/149, 148, 395/149 and 404, P. P. C. and sentenced to transportation for life for an offence under section 120‑B, to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or two years, further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for an offence under section 364/149, P. P. C. to two years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence under section 148, P. P. C., to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or two years' further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine for an offence under section 395/149, P. P. C. and to two years' rigorous imprisonment for an offence under section 404, P. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that the sentences, other than one under section 302/34, P. P. G should run concurrently and should be operative only if the sentence of death was not confirmed by the High Court. The case is also before us under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation of the death sentences of Shanu and Shamsher Ahmad appellants. Muhammad Aslam P. W. has also filed a revision petition under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for the enhancement of the sentences of the appellants, other than Akhtar Hayat, to that of death for the Offences, for which they have been sentenced to transportation for life and for the setting aside of the order of acquittal of Akhtar Hayat appellant for his offence under section 302/149, P. p. C. or for enhancement of his sentences to the maximum periods for the offences of which he had been convicted. This judgment will dispose of the aforesaid appeal, the reference and the revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that Mst. Munira Sultana deceased became an orphan on the death of her father, Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, on the 31st of December 1959. She was related to some of the appellants and Muhammad Aslam P. W. in the following manner. Her father, Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, was a brother of Muzaffar Ali appellant. Muhammad Akram appellant, who is a brother of Muhammad Aslam P. W. (both being the sons of Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha) is her first cousin, their mother being a sister of Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha and Muzaffar Ali appellant. Sikandar Hayat appellant is a brother of Akhtar Hayat appellant, both being the sons of Mian Fazal Elahi Ranjha, a brother of Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha. Sikandar Hayat appellant is also a son‑in‑law of Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha and is thus a brother‑in‑law of Muhammad Akram appellant and Muhammad Aslam P. W. Shamsher Ahmad appellant, who is the son of Mian Nazir Ahmad Ranjha, a first cousin of Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha, is married to a sister of Sikandar Hayat and Akhtar Hayat appellants. Muhammad Akram appellant is also married to a sister of Sikandar Hayat and Akhtar Hayat appellants. Muhammad Akram and Shamsher Ahmad appellants are, therefore, hamzulfs of each other. While Muhammad Aslam P. W. and appellants other than Ali Ranjha and Shanu lived in village Wan Miana in the area of Police Station Kot Momin, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha. Muzaffar Ali appellant belongs to Bucha Kalan and lives in Kot Sultan, a place about two miles from Wan Miana. Ali Ranjha and Shanu appellants lived at Daulatpur, a village about six or seven miles from Wan Miana.

3. Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, the father of Mst. Munira Sultana, left behind him about twenty‑two squares of land in different villages and districts. The bulk of his land, however, was in District Sargodha. Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha had also a bungalow at 25‑Empress Road, Lahore, where he used to live with his daughter, Mst. Munira Sultana, who was getting her education as a student of the B. A. class in the Lahore College for Women at the time of the death of her father. She passed her B. A. Examination in the Second Division in 1960 after his death. The other appellants, namely, Ali Ranjha and Shanu are not related to Mst. Munira Sultana or any of the other appellants. Ali Ranjha appellant is a friend of Muzaffar Ali, Sikandar Hayat, Akhtar Hayat and Muhammad Akram appellants, being on visiting terms with them. He used to live in Dera Mubaraka in the area of village Daulatpur, Dera Mubaraka being at a distance of about three miles from Daulatpur, which is about two or three miles from Kot Momin. Shanu appellant has been a private servant of Ali Ranjha appellant and used to live near Dera Mubaraka in another dera belonging to Karam Elahi, a paternal uncle of Ali Ranjha appellant. The other person in conspiracy with whom the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana is alleged to have been committed after her abduction, is Ali Mochi, the approver (P. W. 2), who is a cobbler by trade. He used to reside in the dera of Sikandar Hayat appellant, known as Dera Chattianwala, in the area of Wan Miana. About five or six months berore the present occurrence, he (Ali Mochi approver) shifted to the dera of Ali Ranjha at the suggestion of Shamsher Ahmad and Sikandar Hayat appellants.

4. Mst. Munira Sultana was in Lahore when her father died. She, therefore, left her residence, 25‑Empress Road, Lahore, for Kot Sultan, where her father actually resided and had died, on learning of the death of her father. Muzaffar Ali appellant, her paternal uncle, was not in favour of her pursuing her studies further and he put restrictions on her movements. His idea was to marry her to his ten or eleven years old son, Ikram. Mst. Munira Sultana was about twenty or twenty‑one years of age and had already committed herself to a marriage with Muhammad Aslam P. W., whom she used to meet at her father's residence at 25‑Empress Road, Lahore, where Muhammad Aslam P. W. used to come occasionally to pay a visit to her father. Muzaffar Ali appellant, however, allowed Mst. Munira Sultana to return to Lahore for taking her B. A. Examination in March 1960. Her maternal grandmother accompanied her. Muzaffar Ali appellant also used to visit her during her stay in Lahore. After she had finished her examination, Mst. Munira Sultana was taken away to Kot Sultan by Muzaffar Ali appellant. Muhammad Aslam P. W. could not openly visit her there, but remained in corres pondence with her. In her letters to him, Mst. Munira Sultana used to refer to the restrictions that had been placed on her movements and the apprehensions that she had at the hands of Muzaffar Ali appellant. The result of this secret correspondence was that a programme was chalked out by Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W., pursuant to which Muhammad Aslam secretly brought Mst. Munira Sultana to Lahore by a car on the 2nd of September 1960. On their arrival at Lahore, the lovers, who had contemplated a marriage, put up in Zonobi Hotel, Gulberg. Rahim Bakhsh (P. W. 31) and Karam Ali (P. W. 32), who were the moeens of their village, had been sent up in advance to Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha's residence, 25‑Empress Road, Lahore, where Gaura and Saru, servants of Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, used to live more or less permanently. On the 3rd of September 1960, Muhammad Aslam P. W. came from Zonobi Hotel to 25‑Empress Road, Lahore, and asked Gaura and Saru to bring a nikah khawan to Zonobi Hotel for solemnising his nikah with Mst. Munira Sultana deceased. Later in the day Gaura and Saru, accompanied by Jalal (not produced), came to him in the Zonobi Hotel and informed him that the Maulvi was not willing to come to the hotel and that he rather wanted Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Munira Sultana to come to Jamia Hanafia on the Temple Road. Consequently Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam, accompanied by Gaura, Saru and Jalal, came to Jamia Hanafia on‑the Temple Road and contacted Abul Hasnain Qasmi (P. W. 13) and requested him to solemnise their nikah. By way of precaution, Maulvi Abul Hasnain Qasmi obtained an affidavit (Exh. P. Q/1) from Mst. Munira Sultana to the effect that her father was dead and she had not been married previously. This affidavit was attested by Saru and Jalal. Thereafter, Maulvi Abul Hasnain Qasmi solemnised the nikah of Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and the nikahnama Exh. P. B. was drawn up, which was signed by Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and attested by Gaura, Saru and Jalal. On the same day, viz., the 3rd of September 1960, Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana deceased, accompanied by Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws., left for Karachi by a passenger train which reached Karachi early in the morning on the 5th of September 1960. They took up their lodgings in Room No. 44 of Taj Hotel. Rahim Baksh and Karam Ali P. Ws. put up in a shop near the hotel. The couple remained in Karachi as the occupants of Room No. 44 of Taj Hotel till the 18th of September 1960. During this period, Muhammad Akram appellant met them at Karachi five or six days after they had arrived there. He stayed in Khyber Hotel. The couple used to go round sight‑seeing in his company and even had themselves photographed along with him by Shaukat Mahmood (P. W. 5): a photographer of Karachi. The aforesaid photographer took other photographs of the couple. In one of them, Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam both figure and for the other only Mst. Munira Sultana posed. The photograph of the married couple also appeared in the Mirror magazine for the month of November 1960.

5. During their stay at Karachi, Muhammad Aslam P. W. made a present of two gold balis Exh. P. 5./1‑2, costing Rs 185 and a jhumar costing about Rs. 375, to Mst. Munira Sultana after purchasing them from Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 29), a jeweller. Muhammad Akram appellant told Muhammad Aslam P. W. at Karachi that since he had married Mst. Munira Sultana against the wishes of Muzaffar Ali appellant, the latter had resented this union very much and suggested to Muhammad Aslam P. W. that the couple should accompany him to Lahore so that Muhammad Akram appellant could effectually mediate to bring about a reconciliation between Muzaffar Ali appellant and the couple. Acting on Muhammad Akram appellant's advice, the couple accompanied by him left Karachi by Khyber Mail on the 18th of September 1960, and reached Lahore on the 19th of September 1960. Gaura, who had accompanied Muhammad Akram appellant to Karachi, and Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws. also came back to Lahore. On their return from Karachi, the couple put up in Khayaban Hotel. They contacted Dr. Ghulam Yasin (P. W. 25) and had a bungalow in Scheme No. III, Gulberg, Lahore, on rent from him. The formal rent deed was executed between the parties on the 23rd of September 1960, although they had occupied the bungalow one or two days earlier. Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws., their servants, also started living with them in this bungalow. Muhammad Akram appellant, who had approved the rented premises, left Lahore, ostensibly for Sargodha, on the 21st or 22nd of September 1960, saying that he would meet Muzaffar Ali appellant and would inform Muhammad Aslam P. W. of the result of his talk with him (Muzaffar Ali appellant).

6. On the 29th of September 1960, Muhammad Akram appellant came to the bungalow occupied by Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Munira Sultana at about 10 p. m. Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Munira Sultana were at home at that time. Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws. were also present outside the bungalow. Muhammad Akram appellant told Muhammad. Aslam that Muzaffar Ali, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants had also come with him and were present outside the bungalow and suggested to him to come out of the bungalow and ask the aforesaid guest to come in. Muhammad Aslam took up his licensed revolver, which was loaded, and accompanied Muhammad Akram appellant. Outside the bung alow, he found a taxi‑cab and a jeep No. PBU‑600 belonging to Sikandar Hayat appellant parked on the kacha road, which is about a furlong from the pacca road. Akhtar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants were standing near the taxi‑cab, while Muzaffar Ali and Sikandar Hayat were standing near the jeep, which stood behind the taxi‑cab. As Muhammad Aslam P. W. neared Shamsher Ahmad appellant, the latter advanced towards him and made a gesture as if he wanted to embrace him and put his hand round the waist of Muhammad Aslam P. W. and asked him to take a seat in the taxi‑cab. When Muhammad Aslam P. W. expressed a desire to meet Muzaffar Ali and Sikandar Hayat appellants, Shamsher Ahmad told him that they would be coming along into the taxicab. When Muhammad Aslam P. W. stepped into the back seat, Akhtar Hayat took his seat on his right side and Shamsher Ahmed sat on his left side. The latter relieved Muhammad Aslam P. W. of his revolver and threatened him, saying that he would be shot dead if he made a move. Muzaffar Ali appellant, who had by that time come near the taxi‑cab, inquired of Shamsher Ahmad appellant if Muhammad Aslam was well under control and Shamsher Ahmad replied in the affirmative, adding further that it was time that Mst. Munira Sultana was, also brought. out. Thereupon, Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat went inside the bungalow and forcibly brought Mst. Munira Sultana out and hustled her into the jeep, where Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat also took their seats. The jeep was the first to make a move. The taxi cab followed the jeep. At that time, Mst. Munira Sultana was wearing a gharara of Kimkhab, thirty gold churis Exh. P.‑4/1‑30, two gold earrings (balis) Exh. P. 5/1‑2, gold rings Exh. P. 7/1‑3 a gold wrist‑watch with a gold chain Exh. P. 6, a Parker, fountain pen Exh. P. 3 with the words "Munira Aslam B. A." engraved on it and a gold jhumar on her forehead. The pen Exh. P. 3 was present to Mst. Munira, Sultana .from her father, Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, and Muhammad Aslam P. W. got the words "Munira Aslam B. A." inscribed on it when they were at Karachi. When the taxi‑cab containing Muhammad Aslam P. W. reached a point between the Ravi Bridge and Buddha Nala Bridge the taxi‑cab was slowed down and Muhammad Aslant was pushed out by Shamsher Ahmad appellant. This spot is near the Ravi Road Police Post. Thereafter, the taxi‑cab and jeep continued their course towards the Ravi Bridge, Mst. Munira Sultana being one of the occupants of the jeep. Muhammad Aslam P. W. felt much shaken mentally after he had been landed on the pavement. He was not quite certain as to the fate of Mst. Munira Sultana. While, on the one hand, he thought that she would be taken to her village, on the other he had apprehensions that she might be killed. In this dual frame of mind, he proceeded on foot for some distance and, when he reached near the Post Office in the vicinity of Data Ganj Bakhsh, he hired a tonga and went to the house of Mian Maqbool in Mohallah Rahmanpura, Ichhra, Lahore. He knocked at the door of the house and when the door was eventually opened, he related to Mian Maqbool all that had happened and sought his advice as to what should be done. Mian Maqbool advised him to go to the Police Station, Ichhra, and await his arrival their before actually lodging the report. Muhammad Aslam P. W. also contacted Muhammad Ahmad (P. W. 28), a close friend of Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha and an acquaintance of Mst. Munira Sultana, who regarded him as a brother, and mentioned to him also what had happened. However, he went away to the Police Station, Ichhra, early in the morning and waited there for Mian Maqbool's arrival till 9 a. m. Finding that there was no likelihood of Mian Maqbool's arrival, he lodged the report Exh. P. G., which was recorded by Muhammad Zaman Khan, Station House Officer (P. W. 46) at 10.45 a. m. Some minutes later, Muhammad Aslam P. W. dictated his supplementary statement Exh. P. G./l, mention ing therein the ornaments and the Articles which Mst. Munira Sultana had on her person when she was taken away by the appellants' party in the circumstances mentioned above.

7. Some of the material events which preceded the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana deceased on the night between the 29th and 30th of September 1960 and some which followed it, are briefly summarised as follows.

8. After Muhammad Aslam P. W. had secretly brought Mst. Munira Sultana deceased to Lahore, Muzaffar Ali appellant sent for Ali Ranjha appellant and Ali Mochi approver (P. W. 2) from Dera Mubaraka. When these two persons arrived in the haveli of Muzaffar Ali at Bucha Kalan, they found already present there Muhammad Akram, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants. Muzaffar Ali appellant told Ali Ranjha appel lant and Ali Mochi that since Mst. Munira Sultana had eloped with Muhammad Aslam and had marred him against the wishes of her relations, he wanted them (All Ranjha appellant and Ali Mochi approver) to get her and her husband, Muhammad Aslam, decoyed and killed. Ali Ranjha appellant told Muzaffar Ali appellant that he did not feel himself strong enough to carry out this proposal, but that he would do the needful in case they were brought by some one within a striking distance. Muzaffar Ali appellant, however, did not give up his project. It was apparently at his instance that Muhammad Akram appellant, after learning from Gaura and Saru that Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Munira Sultana had gone away to Karachi, had followed them thither and persuaded them to return to Lahore on the 19th of September 1960. Some days after Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam had started living in the bungalow in Gulberg belonging to Dr. Ghulam Yasin. Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad approached Nasim‑ur‑Rahman (P. W. 43) at his house in Sheikhupura and sought his assistance in retrieving the girl from Muhammad Aslam's custody. Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W. told them that he would like to have his friend, Mumtaz Ahmad (P. W. 42), associated with the plan. Mumtaz Ahmad, P. W. who lived in Khariarwala was sent for, and when he arrived, Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants, accompanied by Mumtaz Ahmad and Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. Ws., proceeded to Lahore and met Muhammad Ayub (P. W. 44), a friend of Nasim‑ur‑Rahman and Mumtaz Ahmad P. Ws. in his office near Lakshmi Chauk. Muzaffar Ali and Akhtar Hayat appellants also joined them a little later. During the talk that took place in the office of Muhammad Ayub P. W., it transpired that the accused party wanted the girl to be taken away by force and not by conciliatory measures. Mumtaz Ahmad and Nasim ur‑Rahman, therefore, declined to help the accused party who left the office of Muhammad Ayub P. W. disappointed at the attitude of Muhammad Ayub and his friends, Mumtaz Ahmad and Nasim‑ur‑Rahman.

9. On the 29th of September 1960, at about 4 p. m., Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants contacted Shamshad Ahmad (P. W. 18) in his house in Samanabad, Lahore, and asked him for the loan of his car and a driver for taking them to Sargodha, As Shamshad Ahmad's own car was out of order, he told them that he would arrange for gett ing them a car from some friend. He, however, took them to Muhammad Amin (P. W. 3), who had been a driver of the car of Sardar Abdur Rashid, the father of Shamshad Ahmad P. W., and had left their private service for a job with the WAPDA, Lahore. Shamshad Ahmad P. W. told Muhammad Amin that Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants were his friends and that he should take them to Sargodha in a car to be provided by him. Thereafter he returned home, but after he had reached his place, Abdul Aziz (P. W. 39), the driver‑peon of Mr. Anwar‑ul‑Haq, Executive Engineer (P. W. 17), arrived there in the car, No. PBG (now GA) 780, belonging to Anwar‑ul‑Haq P. W. and conveyed to him the message of Anwar‑ul‑Haq P. W. that Ghulam Mohi‑ud‑Din, a common friend of theirs, had died and that Shamshad Ahmad should reach the residence of the deceased on the Ferozepur Road. Shamshad Ahmad P. W., although he was running temperature, accordingly reached the residence of Ghulam Mohi‑ud‑Din at about 4‑30 p. m. and met Anwar‑ul‑Haq P. W. there. He, how ever, left the place after ten or fifteen minutes, pleading his inability to joint the funeral on account of fever, but after he had obtained the loan of Anwar‑ul‑Hag's car. He himself drove the car to his house and, at about 8 or 8‑30 p.m., took the car to the house of Muhammad Amin. P. W. and left it there, saying that he should take Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants in that car to Sargodha. Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants came to the house of Muhammad Amin P. W. the same evening at about 10‑15 or 10‑30 p. m. apparently after Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Munira Sultana had already been forcibly taken away from their bungalow in Gulberg in a jeep car and a taxicab as already mentioned. Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad got into the car, and Muhammad Amin drove them towards the Ravi Road, where on the way some petrol was put in the car tank. After the car had crossed the Ravi Bridge and reached the Shahdara corner, the car was led towards the Sheikhupura‑Sargodha Road. After it had reached a point, two or three furlongs from Begumkot, on the Sheikhupura Lahore Road, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants directed Muhammad Amin to stop the car which Muhammad Amin did. Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants got down from the car and proceeded towards the left side and five or seven minuses later they re‑appeared with Muhammad Akrarr appellant and Mst. Munira Sultan who was clad in burqa. Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants and Mst. Munira Sultana got on to the back seat of the car, while Muhammad Akram appellant sat with Muhammad Amin on the front seat The appellants in the car directed Muhammad Amin to continue his journey to Sargodha. where they reached at about 1‑30 or 2 a. m. On arrival at Sargodha, the appellants in the car told Muhammad Amin to take the car a little further. When Muhammad Amin told them that Shamshad Ahmad P. W. had instructed him to leave them at Sargodha, the appellants persuaded him to go a little further, saying that they wanted to go as far as Kot Momin. The car, therefore, drove along a pacca road for some distance and from there struck into a road along the canal bank, along which road it sped a distance of about twenty‑five or thirty miles till they reached a small bridge on the canal which was not wide enough to admit the car to pass through. The car was pulled up, and Shamsher Ahmad appellant got down from the car and asked Muhammad Amin P. W. to accompany him on foot. After they had crossed the small bridge, they came upon a khal, alongside of which the two went on till after having traversed two or three fields, they came up to Dera Mubaraka where five or six cots lay. Shamsher Ahmad appellant called out the name of Ali and a person rose from one of the cots. This person, who, according to Ali Mochi approver, was himself, pointed out to Shamsher Ahmad appellant the cot of Ali Ranjha. Shamsher Ahmad appellant went up to the cot thus pointed out and shaking a person out of his sleep took him aside and had some conversation for about ten or fifteen minutes with him. Thereafter, Muhammad Amin P. W. and Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants came to the place where the car stood. Shanu, the servant of Ali Ranjha, his brother Hayat (since discharged) and Ali Mochi approver stood at some distance. Shamsher Ahmad, opening the door of the car, said, "Munira come out" Mst. Munira Sultana refused to comply with this order, but when Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat also told her to get down, Mst. Munira Sultana got down from the car and was escorted by Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants towards the dera by the same route by which they had come, viz., through the fields. After Mst. Munira Sultana had been thus taken away, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants asked Muhammad Amin P. W. to start the car, which he did. On the way, when Muhammad Amin asked Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat as to what this chakkar (mystery) was, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat told him that it was their private affair. He drove the car up to a distance of two or two and a half miles further on, where Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants got down and Muhammad Amin P. W. drove the car back to Lahore via Gujrat and left it at the residence of Anwar ul‑Haq P. W.

10. When Mst. Munira Sultana had been escorted away by Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants, the party con sisted of Shamsher Ahmad, Ali Ranjha, Shanu appellants, Hayat and Ali Mochi approver. The party went along the canal bank up to a distance of about two killas and from there proceeded in the direction of the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant and stopped at a distance of four killas. Shamsher Ahmad appellant asked Ali Ranjha appellant to put Mst. Munira Sultana to death, but Ali Ranjha appellant pleaded the innocence of the girl and suggested that the girl should be made over to her paternal uncle, Muzaffar Ali appellant. Thereupon, Shamsher Ahmad and Shanu appellants and Ali Mochi approver took Mst. Munira Sultana to a distance of about one kilo, and Shamsher Ahmad appellant again said that Mst. Munira Sultana should be murdered. Mst. Munira Sultana begged for mercy, saying that she was innocent, but Shamsher Ahmad replied that there was no mercy for her on this side of the grave. Mst. Munira Sultana was felled on the banna of a sugarcane field, and while Ali Mochi caught her by her legs and Shanu appellant caught her by her hands, Shamsher Ahmad appellant strangled her to death, and after satisfying himself by feeling her pulse which beat no more that Mst. Munira Sultana was dead, he directed Shanu appellant and Ali Mochi to carry the dead body to the van tree in the sugarcane field. The body was accordingly taken there and placed under the van tree which had a thick foliage and a deep shade. Shamsher Ahmad appellant then removed the ornaments of Mst. Munira Sultana which consisted of some gold churis, earrings, some other rings, a gold wrist‑watch with a gold chain and a fountain pen, and retained these things with himself. Shamsher Ahmad appellant further told Shanu appellant and Ali Mochi approver that the dead body should be kept where it had been deposited until the following day when he would come again and take it away for its final disposal. But before departing, he directed them to cut up the dead body and tie it up in a sack and keep it under the van tree till his return the next day. Thereafter, Shanu appellant and Ali Mochi approver went away to the dera of Ali Ranjha and Shamsher Ahmad appellant went his own way somewhere. They waited for the whole of the next day for Shamsher Ahmad, but he did not make his appearance. Since dusk had already set in, Shanu appellant suggested to Ali Mochi approver that the dead body should be dismembered and thrown into the canal. Shanu appellant accordingly cut the dead body into pieces with the toka Exh. P. 1, and Ali Mochi approver put the pieces into a gunny bag. After having packed the pieces of the dead body into the gunny bag, Shanu appellant and Ali Mochi waited for some time for Shamsher Ahmad appellant till it became quite dark. Ali Mochi then put the gunny bag containing the pieces of the dead body of Mst. Munira Sultana on Shanu's head and they both pro ceeded to the canal where the gunny bag was opened and emptied into the flowing water, and the clothes of the deceased as also the gunny bag were burnt in one of the barrow pits and the ashes were thrown into the canal. Shaun appellant took away the toka Exh. P. 1 with him after cleaning its balade with mud. The toka was later concealed in the kurh of Ali Ranjba appellant by Shanu appellant and Ali Mochi approver under a heap of fodder.

11. Muzaffar Ali appellant came to the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant the next day and inquired from Ali Mochi about the corps of Mst. Munira Sultana. When Ali Mochi told him that he and Shaun appellant had cut the dead body into pieces and thrown the remains into the canal, he told them that Muhammad Aslam P. W. had already escaped and the police had been informed by him and that it was imperative that the dead body should be disposed of. Ali Mochi assured Muzaffar Ali that the dead body had already been disposed of. The next day Ali Mochi dis appeared from the village.

12. After recording the First Information Report Exh. P. G. and the supplementary statement Exh. P. G./1 of Muhammad Aslam P. W., Muhammad Zaman Khan, Station House Officer (P. W. 46) accompanied him to his tenanted bungalow in Gulberg. He recorded the statements of Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws., whom he found present there, and inspected the spot. Muhammad Aslam produced before the Sub‑Inspector the nikahnama Exh. P. B., his revolver licence Exh. P. W. 24/A and the letter Exh. P. J. J with its envelope Exh. P. J. J/1, which the Sub‑Inspector took into his possession vide memo. Exh. P. H. The same day the Sub Inspector left for Kot Momin and, leaving Muhammad Aslam P. W. there, went out to Bucha Kalan in search of the accused mentioned in the F: I. R. and Mst. Munira Sultana. He did not find any one of them there. He searched Wan Miana, Kot Fazal Ahmad and other neighbouring abadis for the same purpose, but to no effect. He searched for the appellants in different places in District Sargodha, Gujrat, Gujranwala and Sheikhupura, but was unable to trace them. On the 8th of October 1960, he recorded the statements of Mumtaz Ahmad and Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. Ws. and on the 9th of October 1960 recorded the statement of Muhammad Ayub P. W. On the 10th of October 1960, he recorded the statement of Muhammad Amin P. W., meanwhile continuing his efforts to trace the aforesaid appellants and Mst. Munira Sultana. On the 12th of October 1960, Muhammad Amin P. W. took the Sub Inspector to the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant in the area of village Daulatpur, but Ali Ranjha was not there. Muhammad Amin P. W. pointed out to the Sub- Inspector different spots connected with the case, including the small bridge where the car which had brought Mst. Munira Sultana from Shahdara had been parked, before she was escorted by Shamsher Ahmad appellant and his companions. On the 14th of October 1960, the Sub‑Inspector recovered the jeep, No. P. B. U. 600, from the residence of Yaqoob All (P. W. 10) in Gujranwala and took it into his possession vide memo. Exh. P. L. L. On the 19th of October 1960, the Sub‑Inspector applied for non‑bailable warrants of arrest of the five appellants mentioned in the first information report and obtained them on the 21st of October 1960. The warrants of arrest were returned by Muhammad Ishaq, Assistant Sub‑Inspector (P. W. 47), unexecuted, and the Sub -Inspector moved the authorities for proceedings under sections 87/88 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the five appellants mentioned in the First Information Report. Eventually, on the 15th of November 1960, Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat, Akhtar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants were produced before the Sub‑Inspector by some of their friends, and the Sub‑Inspector arrested them. After making a statement on interrogation, Shamsher Ahmad appellant led the Sub‑Inspector to his house in Wan Miana on the 19th of November 1960 and pointed out a locked almirah in one of the rooms. When the lock of this almirah was forced, thirty gold churis Exh. P. 4/1‑30, three gold finger‑rings Exh. P. 7/1‑3, one gold chain of watch Exh. P. 6, a pair of gold balls Exh. P. 5/1‑2 and the fountain pen Exh. P. 3 were found wrapped in a piece of cloth Exh. P. 8 in one of the shelves of the almirah. The pen Exh. P. 3 bore the inscrip tion "Munira Aslam B. A." The Sub‑Inspector took these Articles into his possession vide memo. Exh. P. J., which was attested by Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 24), Muhammad Bakhsh (P. W. 33) Muhammad Ashiq and Muhammad Aslam P. W. identified these articles as belonging to Mst. Munira Sultana. On the 26th of November 1960, the Sub‑Inspector went to India and, in his absence, the investigation of this case was transferred to the Crimes Branch and was then conducted by Ch. Bahadur Khan, Inspector of Police (P. W. 45), from the 28th of November, 1960.

13. As a result of the examination of Shamsher Ahmad appellant, Ch. Bahadur Khan, Inspector of Police, who remained in charge of the investigation, proceeded to the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant in Daulatpur on 2nd December 1960 but he was found missing. Eventually, Ali Ranjha appellant was produced at Police Station Ichhra, Lahore, by one Mian Barkhurdar on the 12th of December 1960. Ali Ranjha was arrested on the same day. On the 13th of December 1960, All Ranjha's remand to custody was obtained, and towards the arrest of Shaun appellant, Ali Mochi approver and Hayat (since discharged), Ch. Bahadur Khan took Ali Ranjha appellant with him to Kot Momin, where the aforesaid three persons were produced before him by Massu. The Inspector of police arrested them and on the 14th of December 1960, they were taken to Sargodha for obtaining remand to custody. On the 16th of December 1960, they were brought to Lahore along with Ali Ranjha. Shanu and Ali Ranjha appellants and Hayat (since discharged) were lodged in the lock up of Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore, while Ali Mochi approver was lodged in the lock up of Police Station Ichhra. On the 17th of December 1960, Ali Mochi furnished a clue, and on the 19th December 1960, he led the police to the place of the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana and also to the spot where her dead body was cut to pieces. From this latter spot, Ch. Bahadur Khan, Inspector of Police (P. W. 45), recovered a small piece of bone (Exh. P. 2), which had three or four small hairs sticking to it. The Inspector of police sealed this bone into a parcel. Thereafter, the approver led the police to the dera of Ali Ranjha and from the charna of the dera produced the toka Exh. P. 1, which the police took into their possession and sealed into a parcel. The approver also led the police to a barrow pit near the canal where the garments of the deceased and the gunny bag had been burnt and also to the place where the ashes of the burnt garments and the gunny bag and dismembered parts of the dead body were thrown into the water. Ali Mochi also pointed out to the police the place near the small bridge on the side of the canal where the car stood on the night of the occurrence before Mst. Munira Sultana had been brought out of it. Before coming to dera Mubaraka, the police had, at Kot Momin and Bhalwal, tried to secure the presence of a Magistrate at the time of nishandehi by Ali Mochi, but no Magistrate could be spared for the purpose. These different places were pointed out by Ali Mochi approver, in the presence of Ghulam Qadir (P. W. 21), Dosa (P. W. 22) and Saee (P. W. 23). On the same day, viz., the 19th of December 1960, Ali Mochi approver was brought to Sargodha where the police contacted Mian Ahmad Ali (P. W. 41), the maternal uncle of Mst. Munira Sultana, who in turn led them to the shop of Muhammad Ali, goldsmith (P. W. 40), to whom gold churis Exh. P. 4‑1‑30 were shown. Muhammad Ali P. W. showed to police the register Exh. P. N. N. wherein entry Exh. P. N.N‑1 relating to fourteen gold churis (Exh. P. 4‑1‑14) had been made. The Inspector of police signed the entry Exh. P.N.N. 1 and returned the register to Muhammad Ali P. W. with the direction that he should produce it when called upon to do so in Court. The Inspector of police returned to Lahore, accompanied by Ali Mochi approver, and handed over the parcels containing the bone and the toka to Muhammad Rafiq, Moharrir Head Constable (P. W. 12).

14. On the 21st of December 1960, Ali Mochi expressed his desire to become an approver and was granted pardon by the Additional District Magistrate on the 24th of December 1960 after his statement under section 164, Criminal Pro cedure Code, Exh. P. A. had been recorded. On the 22nd of December 1960, Muhammad Aslam P. W. produced the tuft of hair alleged to be that of Mst. Munira Sultana deceased, and the police made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. O. and made it over to Muhammad Rafiq, Moharrir Head Constable P.W. Muhammad Aslam P. W. also produced before the Inspector of police letters Exhs. P. N., P. U.‑1 to P. U.‑5 and P. V. in the handwriting of Mst. Munira Sultana. The Inspector of police took these into his possession. He also produced before him the photograph Exh. P. K. and the Mirror magazine containing photo Exh. P. C. and two sheets from the Mirror magazine Exh. P. M. M. M. 1, containing Photograph Exh. P. M. M. M.

5. The Inspector of police also took from Muhammad Aslam P. W. the group photograph Exh. P. D. On learning of the movements of the appellants preceding the alleged incident of abduction, the Inspector of police proceeded to Princes Hotel on the 24th of December 1960 and checked the hotel's registers. He found that Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants had stayed in that hotel from the 25th of September 1960 to the 27th of September 1960. He signed the relevant entries in the register. On the same day, he visited Braganza Hotel, Lahore, and on checking its register Exh. P. Y. found that Sikandar Hayat appellant had stayed in that hotel from the 27th of September 1960 to the 29th of September 1960 occupying two rooms. On the same day, the Inspector of police visited Elphinstone Hotel, Lahore, and on checking its relevant register Exh. P. Z. found that Muhammad Akram appellant had stayed in that hotel from the 24th of September 1960 to the 25th of September 1960. During the investigation Muhammad Aslam P. W. also produced the identity card Exh. P. O. O. of Mst. Munira Sultana and also letters Exh. P. E., P. L. P. M. and P. K. K. purporting to be in the handwriting of Mst. Munira Sultana. On the 6th of January 1961, Ch. Bahadur Khan P. W. visited the Railway D. S. Office and contacted Anwar Ali Chaudhri (P. W. 9) and took from him Exh. P. V. V. 1 and P. V. V. 2, forms of telegrams. Exh. P. V.V. 1 purports to be a telegram sent from Bhalwal by Allah Dad Khan (P. W. 15) to Muhammad Aslam P. W. at his Karachi address namely Taj Hotel. This telegram which is dated the 21st of September 1960, reads as follows :‑ "MIAN SAHIB SAYS, CHANGE YOUR FIRST STAYING PLACE CAREFUL, (?) UNTRUSTFUL DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WANT YOUR WELFARE." The other telegram Exh. P. V. V. 2 is dated the 22nd of September 1960 and purports to have been sent from Bhalwal Railway Station by Allah Dad Khan (P. W. 15) to Muhammad Aslam P.W. at his Karachi address. It reads as follows: "SHAMSHER (NOT LEGIBLE) AKRAM LEFT AFTER YOU FOR KARACHI BE CAREFUL."

15. On his return from India on the 29th of November 1960, Muhammad Zaman Khan, Sub‑Inspector, re‑joined the investiga tion of the case. On the 26th of December 1960, Muhammad Aslam P. W. took the Sub‑Inspector to Karachi, and the Sub- Inspector visited the Taj Hotel where he examined the entries Exh. P. RR. 2, P. RR. 4 and P. RR. 5 in register Exh. P.RR. 1 relating to the stay of Muhammad Aslam Ranjha and his wife in the hotel from the 5th of September, 1960 to the 18th of September 1960. The Sub‑Inspector also visited Khyber Hotel, Karachi, and examined the register Exh. P. YY and saw the entries Exh. P. YY. 1‑6 at Serial No. 12335. These entries related to the stay of Muhammad Akram with his servants Ahmad and Gauhar Ali from the 15th of September 1960 to the 18th of September 1960. The Sub‑Inspector took into his possession the copies of these entries Exh. P. ZZ.

5. On the 27th of December 1960, Muhammad Aslam P. W. led the Sub‑Inspector to the shop of Jamil Ahmad, Goldsmith (P. W. 29), and showed him the two gold balis Exh. P. 5‑1‑2, who identified them as having been sold by him to Muhammad Aslam P. W. The Sub‑Inspector also examined the relevant records of his shop, and the jeweller produced before him the copy Exh. P. DD. 1 of the cash memo relating to the sale of the balis. Muhammad Aslam P.W. also led the Sub‑Inspector to the shop of Shaukat Mahmood, photographer (P. W. 5), to whom the photograph Exh. P. C. printed in the Mirror magazine was shown for identification.

16. All the appellants pleaded not guilty and denied the correctness of the allegations of the prosecution made against them. They denied having entered into any conspiracy for murdering Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. The appellants other than Ali Ranjha and Shanu denied their having forcibly abducted them from their tenanted bungalow in Gulberg on the night of the 29th of September 1960, and their having murdered Mst. Munira Sultana, Muzaffar Ali appellant in his statement, before the committing Magistrate, ascribed the case against him to the enmity of Muhammad Aslam P. W., saying that the latter wanted to have the lands of late Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha. He further stated that Ali Mochi approver belonged to the party of Muhammad Aslam P. W., and his brother was employed at the dera of Muhammad Aslam P. W. He further made the following statement: "I have old enmity with Ali Ranjha accused. Nadir Husain Shah, Tehsildar, Bhalwal, during the first world war was murdered by the near relations of Ali Ranjha accused. My father appeared as a witness against them in that case. Three or four persons were sentenced to death and the others were imprisoned. I appeared as a witness against Sharif and Hussain who are near relations of Ali Ranjha accused. They had murder ed a constable. Muhammad Ali, real Khalazad of Ali Ranjha accused, is married to the sister of one Mahand and this Mahand is married to the real sister of Muhammad Ali. Mirza and Khuda Yar fired at Ali Ranjha accused. Mirza is a friend of mine whereas Khuda Yar is my relative. The witnesses were made to resile in that case by me. Mirza and Khuda Yar were acquitted. I pursued that case. I am married in Mid Ranjha. Sultan Mahmood real cousin (khalazad) of my wife and her uncle are hostile towards Ali Ranjha accused. That Sultan Mahmood's son Sarwar injured a relation of Ali Ranjha accused with dandas. The injured man was Aman Ullah, son of Nazir. This Aman Ullah was convicted. The 1 sister of Nazir is married with the said Muhammad Ali. This Muhammad Ali is the khalazad of the father of Ali Ranjha accused. The bhanjha of Nazir fired at Sultan Mahmood. The name of this bhanjha of Nazir is Sikandar who is the son of Muhammad Ali. The case has been registered against 18 persons. The party of Sultan Mahmood have injured one Mochi of the opposite‑party. The party of Sultan Mahmood fired at the party of Nazir, but Nazir was not injured as he escaped. Nazir party have got a case registered against the party of Sultan Mahmood numbering about 32 or 33 persons. Muhammad Afzal and Qasim, my brother‑in‑law, are also involved in that case. The uncle of my wife Muhammad Bakhsh and her cousin Khuda Bakhsh are also involved in that case, Zafar and Nazar sons of Sultan Mahmood, are the sons of the cousin of my wife. They are also involved in that case. This incident took place about one month ago. I will give further statement about the enmity in the Sessions Court." In his statement before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Ali appellant adhered to the position taken up by him before the committing Magistrate and denied that he wanted Mst. Munira Sultana to be married to his son, Muhammad Ikram, who, according to him, was only eight or nine years old. He further denied that he had imposed any restrictions on the movements of Mst. Munira Sultana or that Mst. Munira Sultana or her father, was Shia. He disclaimed knowledge that Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. had secretly left Kot Sultan on the 2nd of September 1960, and had later married each other on the 3rd of September 1960. He further denied that he knew any Mumtaz Ahmad, Nasim‑ur‑Rehman and Muhammad Ayub P. Ws., or that he had approached them for enlisting their support in getting back Mst. Munira Sultana from Muhammad Aslam. Muhammad Akram appellant also denied that he had anything to do with the commission of any of the offences laid to his account. When asked his explanation for writing the letter Exh. P. N. he made the following statement :‑ "Yes. I had written this letter to my father because I wanted my share of the land as I wanted to cultivate it myself. My father, on the other hand, said that I was not married, so I will not be given the share. I wrote this letter in connection with my share. I had no differences when T got the share. We have been living together since then." When asked whether he had enquired about Muhammad Aslam P. W. from Gaura at 25, Empress Road, Lahore, he made the following statement :‑. "I enquired about Aslam P. W. from Gahra because Aslam P. W. had taken away Rs. 5,000 of mine without my permission. I needed the money immediately and so I enquired about Aslam P. W. Gahra P. W. told me that Aslam P. W. had married Munira Sultana and that they had gone to Karachi for honeymoon and that they were putting up in Taj Hotel. I and Gahra P. W. went to Karachi. Karam Ali and Rahim Bakhsh were not present with Aslam P. W. there." He further admitted that he had gone to Karachi along with Gahra and stayed in Khyber Hotel, Karachi, and although he admitted that he had met Mst. Munira Sultan: and Muhammad Aslam, he denied that he had persuaded them to come back to Lahore or that he had accompanied them from Karachi to Lahore on the 19th of September 1960. He claimed that he had come back earlier. When asked in the Court of the committing Magistrate why he had been implicated in this case, he made the following statement :‑ "The intention of Mohammad Aslam P. W. was to grab the land of Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha on his death. This was not possible until Muzaffar Ali accused, younger brother of Sultan Ali deceased, was involved in a case since I am a close relation of Muzaffar Ali accused so Muhammad Aslam P. W. thought that I might help Muzaffar Ali Muhammad Aslam P. W. also knew that as a brother I will not support any unfair action on his part. During the investigation of this case Aslam P. W., on my enquiry told me, that he knew that I was innocent but he wanted me to become an approver so that on the conviction of other accused I and he could share the land of the late Mian Sultan Ali. Aslam P. W. told me in the presence of Ch. Zaman S. I. that if I was not prepared to become a false approver, then I should be prepared to face the consequences, and that he will grab my share of the land also, when I am convicted. When I was involved in this case then Muhammad Aslam P. W. was the only heir of my share of land. A son has been born to me after about 4 or 5 months of my stay in jail. If my co‑accused were guilty, I would have become an approver. This is the reason for this case against me." He added further: "This is a false case against me. If anybody was aggrieved at the marriage of Aslam P. W. with Munira Sultana, then they could be Asghar and Mumtaz, brothers of the first wife of Aslam P. W., and her uncle. I used to see Mian Sultan Ali. I also saw him offering prayers. He was Sunni by faith but Aslam P. W. has tried to show him as of Shia sect in order to grab the whole land. The whole prosecution story is false. If we had to murder an innocent girl, then we had our own resources. There was no need for us to go to different districts and seek help. If we had to murder, we would have done it in our own Ilaqa which is about 6 miles from that place. We had our own jeep. Sikandar Hayat was a good driver and so there was no necessity for obtaining the services of another driver. If we had to murder Munira Sultana then how could we take her to Sargodha, when there were two rivers and jungles on the way. The approver is a personal servant of Aslam P. W. The son of the approver is also with Aslam P. W. The brother of the approver is also (with) servant of Aslam P. W. Rahim Bux and Karim All P. Ws. are the servants of Aslam P. W. We had our number of servants and so there was no question of our contacting Nasim Mumtaz and Ayub and Shamshad P. Ws. I had no grievance at the marriage of Aslam P. W. with Munira Sultana. This case has been falsely made out against me." In his statement before the Sessions Judge he stuck to the version that he had already given before the committing Magistrate. He also, like appellants other than Ali Ranjha and Shanu, denied his acquaintance with Mumtaz Ahmad, Nasim‑ur‑Rehman and Muhammad Ayub P. Ws. and their having met at the office of Muhammad Ayub P. W. Sikandar Hayat appellant admitted his having stayed in the Braganza Hotel on the 26th of September 1960, in rooms No. 21 and

22. When asked why he had been implicated in this case, Sikandar Hayat made the following statement before the committing Magistrate :‑ "Muhammad Aslam P. W. wanted to get the land of Mian Sultan Ali. He tried to prove Mian Sultan Ali as Shia, although he was a Sunni. I and Akhtar Hayat are the sons of one brother, namely, Fazal Ilahi, and Aslam P. W. and Akram accused, are the sons of the other brother, namely, Sultan Ahmad. The sister of Aslam P. W. is married to me. I have got one daughter aged about 2 years. Aslam P. W. is the successor to our property. He wants me to be hanged in order to acquire our property." He added: "I had come to Lahore with my wife. At Lahore I came to know from Akram accused on his return from Karachi that Aslam P. W. had married Munira Sultana and they had gone to Karachi. Muzaffar Ali, Akhtar Hayat and Shamsher were present in the village. They did not know about the said nikah because I also came to know only at Lahore. We had no difference over the said marriage with Aslam P. W. The only aggrieved persons could be the brothers of the first wife of Aslam P. W. The uncle of the first wife of Aslam P. W. could also be one of the aggrieved persons. Aslam P. W. has ousted his first wife, Shamshad. Nasim, Mumtaz, Ayub and Amin P. Ws. are great friends of Aslam P. W. Ali Mochi was employed as a servant at the dera of Aslam P. W. The son of Ali approver is even now with Aslam P. W. Two brothers of Ali approver are also with Aslam P. W . I am a good driver myself. If we had to abduct Munira and when we had also a jeep with us, then there was no necessity for seeking outside help. We have also our servants Just as Aslam P. W can make his servants give false statements, similarly we could also make our servants help us in illegal acts. There were jungles, rivers and canals and hills in the way. It was night-time. The distance from Lahore is about 170 miles. Ali Ranjha accused and Muzaffar Ali accused are hostile to each other which we know since long. If we had to murder Munira Sultana at the alleged place of incident ourselves, then we could have done it in the way. How could we go to the dera of Ali Ranjha when Muzaffar Ali and he were past enemies? Our area starts at a distance of about 3 miles from the dera of Ali Ranjha accused. If we could not commit the murder in the way, then we would have done it in our own area." Before the Sessions Judge be adhered to the version already given by him before the committing Magistrate, and when asked whether he had absconded after the occurrence, he denied that be had absconded and armed that he had remained all along in the village. Before the committing Magistrate Ali Ranjha appellant gave the following explanation of his being implicated in this case:‑ "About 5/6 years ago, the police of P. S. Mid Ranjha raided our house and registered a case against us. There was a fight as we resisted. A case under section 19 of the Arms Act was registered against us. We were convicted for four years. On appeal, we were acquitted. Thereafter the police opened our history sheets. Thereafter, whenever there was any offence, the police used to involve us unnecessarily, Muzaffar Ali accused is of my opposite party. The bhanja of Muzaffar Ali murdered a musalli. The brother of Shanu accused appeared as a witness in, that case against the bhanja of Muzaffar Ali. This bhanja of Muzaffar Ali is the real nephew of Ahmad Ali P. W. The khalazad of my father and the in‑laws of Muzaffar Ali accused are opposed to each other. There has been a firing incident between them. This incident took place about one month ago. The khalazad of my father has got registered a case against the brother‑in‑law and the cousins of Muzaffar Ali. We opposed the father of Aslam P. W. in the election. The father of Muzaffar Ali appeared as a witness against the khalazad of my father who had murdered a Tehsildar." He further added:-- "The mamuzad of Muhammad Ali and Qasim Mela fired at me. These Melas are close relations of Muzaffar Ali. We have old enmities. Mirza P. W., a brother of Muzaffar Ali, is also one of the accused m that firing case. I also re sorted to firing. There is also a cross‑case against me." After he had made the above statement, Ali Ranjha appellant submitted a supplementary statement in writing on the plea that he had forgotten to mention orally what was being submitted in writing. This statement was to the effect that he had been arrested on the 11th of October 1960, by Ch. Rabbani and Muhammad Ishaq, A.S.I., and brought to Ichhra Thana where he was pressed to become an approver, but when he declined to do so, he was released and again called on the 20th of November 1960, and again told to become an approver on pain of his and his relatives being implicated in the case, and when he again declined to fall in with the suggestion, he, along with Shanu and Hayat, was implicated and Ali Mochi who was an employee of Muhammad Aslam P. W., was made an approver. Before the Sessions Judge he adhered to the version already given by him in the committing Magistrate. Shanu appellant, besides denying participation in the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana, denied knowledge that her garments were burnt and their ashes and the dismembered pieces of her dead body were thrown into the canal in his presence. He further denied that the toka Exh. P. 1 was placed in a kurh in his presence or that gold churis Exh. P. 4/1‑30 and the chain Exh. P. 6 of the wrist‑watch were removed by Shamsher Ahmad appellant from the dead body of Mst. Munira Sultana after the murder in his presence. When asked why he had been implicated in this case, he made the following statement before the committing Magistrate :‑ "The khalazad of Aslant P. W. had murdered the khalazad of mine. The khalazad of Aslam P. W. is a nephew of Ahmad Ali P. W. My elder brother appeared as a witness in that case against the khalazad of Aslam P. W. Because of this I have been wrongly involved in this case." He added further :‑ "When I was challaned in this case, Ch. Zaman had apprehended me 12 or 13 days earlier and he asked me to become an approver. I said that I did not know anything." He stuck to his aforesaid version before the Sessions Judge. Shamsher Ahmad appellant, like Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants denied having entered into any conspiracy with any of the appellants for the murder of MR. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam. He denied that he had ever contacted Nasim‑ur‑Rehman P. W. at Sheikhupura or that he had, with any of the other appellants, later met at the office of Muhammad Ayub P. W. at 3‑Abbott Road, Lahore, or that he had, along with any of the appellants, forcibly abducted Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and had later, with the help of Shanu appellant and Ali Mochi approver, strangled her to death. When asked whether he had led to the recovery of the pen Exh. P. 3, churls Exh. P. 4/1‑30, balis Exh. P. 5/1‑2 and the gold chain Exh. P. 6, he made the following statement before the committing Magistrate :‑ "Chain P.6, churis P.4/1‑30 and walian P.5/1‑2, are mine and not those of Munira Sultana. The police after breaking open the lock of my house searched my house and took into posses sion the said articles of mine. At my pointing out nothing was recovered. At the time of search, recovery witnesses were not present. People of Wan Miana were present. No memo. was prepared there. Pen P.3 was not recovered. This belong to Aslam P. W., who produced it at Ichhra P. S. in my presence." When asked why he had been implicated in the case, he delivered himself of the following before the committing Magistrate :‑ "Aslam P.W. wanted to get the land of late Mian Sultan Ali. He could not get this land without involving Muzaffar Ali accused in any case. We are close relations of Muzaffar Ali accused. Mian Sultan Ali was Sunni by faith but Aslam P.W. is trying to show him as of Shia sect in the Court of Revenue Assistant so that he could get the whole land of Mian Sultan Ali. I have been involved in this case because of this." He added: "We are 5 persons. We have got number of servants. We had no necessity to see Mumtaz, etc. We had a jeep with us. I and Sikandar are drivers. 6 or 7 persons can sit in the jeep. If we had to kill anybody, then we should have killed Aslam P.W. who was thrown out of the taxi according to him. If we had to kill Munira, we would have killed her ourselves. We had no necessity for hiring the other co‑accused, as stated by Ali approver. Rivers, canals, forests and hills were on the way. Our deras are situated in an area of 6 or 7 miles. No outsider lives there. If we had to kill her, we would have killed her in the area of our deras. Ali approver is of the party of Aslam P.W. who lived with him. His brothers Manzoor etc. are even now living with Aslant P. W. They make shoes. Nasim, Ayub, Mumtaz, Shamshad and Amin P.Ws. are great friends of Aslam P.W. and they have appeared as witnesses against us." Before the Sessions Judge he adhered to the position taken up by him in the Court of the committing Magistrate. None of the appellants led any evidence in defence.

17. As is evident from the above resume of the prosecution case, it comprises the evidence regarding conspiracy, abduction, murder and recoveries, besides the evidence regarding motive. Two conspiracies have been specifically mentioned by some of the prosecution witnesses, (1) conspiracy for murdering Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P.W. and (2) conspiracy to recover Mst. Munira Sultana from Muhammad Aslam P. W. The account of the latter conspiracy was apparently introduced to bring into relief the former. As regards the conspiracy for murdering Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P.W., we have the uncorroborated testimony of Ali Mochi (P. W. 2), the approver. He has told us that some time before the occurrence he and Ali Ranjha appellant were called by Muzaffar Ali appellant from Dera Mubaraka in village Daulatpur, a place about six or seven miles from Bucha Kalan where Muzaffar Ali lived, and were asked by Muzaffar Ali appellant and Muhammad Akram, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants, who were also present with him in the baithak at that time, to decoy Mst. Munira Sultana and her husband Muhammad Aslant and to compass their death. Ali Mochi approver further stated that Ali Ranjha appellant told his co‑accused, who made the aforesaid proposal to him, that he would do the needful only if Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam were brought within a striking distance, but that he did not feel strong enough to carry out the proposal on his own. We set no store by this evidence regarding conspiracy. In his statements before the Police, Exhs. D. A. and D. A./I, Ali Mochi approver made no reference to his and Ali Ranjha's having been summoned by Muzaffar Ali appellant to Bucha Kalan in connexion with the proposed murder of Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslant. Surely, if any such proposal had been made by Muzaffar Ali appellant to Ali Ranjha appellant and Ali Mochi approver as described by Ali Mochi approver in his statement in Court, he could not have failed to refer to this very material circumstance in his aforesaid statements made to the police.

18. Nor is the evidence regarding a proposal to recover Mst. Munira Sultana deceased from Muhammad Aslam P.W., contained in the statements of another set of witnesses, namely, Mumtaz Ahmad (P. W. 42), Nasim‑ur‑Rehman (P. W. 43) and Muhammad Ayub (P. W. 44), of any value. As has already been noticed, these prosecution witnesses between them have testified to the effect that Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants had approached Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W. for help in recovering Mst. Munira Sultana from Muhammad Adam P. W. and that Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W. got his friend, Mumtaz Ahmad P. W., sent for from Kharianwala and they accompanied Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants to Lahore and met Muhammad Ayub P. W. in his office on Abbott Road, where Muzaffar Ali and Akhtar Hayat appellants also joined the aforesaid appellants. These prosecution witnesses have stated that when it was discovered by them at Lahore in the office of Muhammad Ayub P. W. that Mst. Munira Sultana had to be taken away by force they declined to associate themselves with the plan of the aforesaid appellants, and the aforesaid five appellants went away. Nasim ur‑Rahman P. W. is not a man of good character. He admitted that two cases of smuggling of rice were pending against him and he was on bail and that those two cases were pending against him even when he made his statement in this case before the committing Magistrate. He further admitted that he had been challaned in a dacoity case. Besides, it appears rather improbable that merely because Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W. had, in the company of his friend Muhammad Zikriya, met Sikandar Hayat appellant only once five years before and never again since then, Sikandar Hayat together with Muhammad Akram and Shamsher Ahmad appellants would think of him as the person likely to render effective help in getting back their relation Mst. Munira Sultana. Other prosecution witnesses were friends of Nasim‑ur‑Rahman and not previous acquaintances of any of the appellants. It strikes us as unlikely that Muzaffar Ali appellant, etc., were willing to associate so many unknown persons in a venture of the kind described by Mumtaz Ahmad, Nasim‑ur‑Rahman and Muhammad Ayub P. Ws. The curious thing is that according to Nasim‑ur-Rahman P. W. it was the appellants who suggested that Mumtaz Ahmad and Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. Ws. should go to the office of Muhammad Ayub P. W. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant party knew Muhammad Ayub P. W. before, and even if it be said that Muhammad Ayub's name had been picked up by the appellant party from the talk of any of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it appears to us to be highly improbable that the appellant party considered him a person to be taken into confidence merely because they came to know from their conversation with Mumtaz Ahmad and Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. Ws, that Muhammad Ayub P. W. happened to be a friend of theirs. Besides, it was brought out in the cross examination of Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W. that this set or three witnesses had been interrogated by the police on the application of some of the appellants to the effect that Mumtaz Ahmad, Nasim‑ur‑Rahman and Muhammad Ayub had a hand in the disappearance of Mst. Munira Sultana and that they were responsible for having detained Muhammad Aslam P. W. first at Rajgarh and then at Kharianwala on the fateful night. We do not accept the correctness of the suggestion made by the appellants to Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W., but the circumstance of these prosecution witnesses having been examined by the police at the instance of some of the appellants after the latter had been arrested, would suggest that these witnesses were, if anything, adversely disposed to the appellant party on account of the accusation made against them.

19. But although we do not accept the evidence regarding the conspiracies specifically mentioned by the witnesses, we are inclined to think that the circumstances brought out on the record do suggest the forming of some sort of plan by some of the appellants. We are led to this conclusion, because we accept as correct the evidence regarding Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. having been forcibly abducted from the bungalow in Gulberg which they were occupying as tenants of Dr. Ghulam Yasin P. W. Muhammad Aslam P. W. has vividly described how at about 10 p.m. on the night of the 29th of September 1960 he had been called out by Muhammad Akram appellant from inside the bungalow on the plea that Muzaffar Ali, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants had also come with him (Muhammad Akram) and were present outside the bungalow ; and how after he (Muhammad Aslam P. W.) had gone out, he was relieved of his revolver by Shamsher Ahmad appellant and made to sit in the taxi cab between Akhtar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants; and how after he had thus been secured, Muzaffar Ali appellant inquired of Shamsher Ahmad appellant if Muhammad Aslam was well under control and on an affirmative reply from Shamsher Ahmad appellant accom panied by a suggestion that it was time that Mst. Munira Sultana should also be brought out, Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants went inside the bungalow and forcibly brought Mst. Munira Sultana out and made her sit into the jeep where Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat also took their seats and the jeep started away followed by the taxi cab in which Muhammad Aslam P. W. had already been made to sit; and how after the taxi cab carrying Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Shamsher Ahmad and Akhtar Hayat appellants had reached a little beyond the bridge of Budha Nullah on the Ravi Road, Muhammad Aslam P. W. was pushed out of the taxi cab after it had been slowed down, and the taxi cab and the jeep ahead of it went along towards the Ravi. All the material circumstances of the aforesaid incident were mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W. in the first information report Exh. P. G. which he lodged at Police Station Ichhra the next morning at about 10.45 a.m. Before lodging the first information report Muhammad Aslam P. W. stated, he had contacted one Mian Maqbool and related to him all about the occurrence. Mian Maqbool advised him to lodge the report with the police, saying that he would follow him to the police station. Before lodging the report Muhammad Aslam P. W. met Muhammad Ahmad (P. W. 28) also and related to him the aforesaid occur rence. This Muhammad Ahmad P. W. was a friend of late Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, the father of Mst. Munira Sultana, and was not only on friendly terms with him but had fraternal relations with his daughter, Mst. Munira Sultana. Some of the letters produced by the prosecution, for instance, Exhs. P. JJ and P.KK written by Mst. Munira Sultana to Muhammad Ahmad, show that fraternal esteem subsisted between this Muhammad Ahmad and Mst. Munira Sultana. Although Mian Maqbool has not appeared in the witness‑box to support Muhammad Aslam P. W. in the aforesaid version, Muhammad Ahmad P. W. corroborated him as regards Muhammad Aslam's meeting with him on the alleged night of the occurrence and as having related to him the circumstances under which Mst. Munira Sultana had been taken away by Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants and one other person whose name he did not remember.

20. Much criticism has been levelled by the learned counsel for the appellants against Muhammad Aslam P. W. as regards his statement that he had been pushed out of the taxi cab near the bridge of Budha Nullah. It has been urged that it is highly improbable that Muhammad Aslam P. W. should have been thus let off if Mst. Munira Sultana had been forcibly abducted in his presence and in his view from the bungalow in Gulberg. It has been suggested by the appellants' counsel that Mst. Munira Sultana disappeared from the bungalow when Muhammad Aslam P. W. was absent from there and had been detained at Kharianwala by Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W., etc. We shall notice the value of this suggestion later. At the moment, we should like to dispose of the contention as regards the improbability of Muhammad Aslam P. W. having been let off near Budha Nullah, a spot which was near the Ravi Road Police Post. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that not only was it extremely improbable that Muhammad Aslam P. W. should have been pushed out of the taxi cab in the circumstances alleged by him, it was further extremely unlikely that Muhammad Aslam P. W. who, as stated by him, had been thrown out of the car near the Ravi Road Police Post, should not have made the report at that police post and should have delayed the lodging of the report till the following morning. We see nothing improbable about either of the circumstances which have been described extremely improbable by the learned counsel. One of the learned counsel characterized the alleged act of leaving Muhammad Aslam behind on the Ravi Road as something bordering on madness. We are not quite sure if there was not a method in this madness. Before the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam took place from their bungalow, it might have been decided that Muhammad Aslam P. W. was to be left on the road, the idea might be that this would put Muhammad Aslam P. W. in an uncertain frame of mind as to whether fatal intentions with regard to Mst. Munira Sultana were entertained and this would result in the first information report being delayed. Indeed, Muhammad Aslam P. W. has actually given this as the reason of his delaying the lodging of the first information report. He has stated that he was in two minds after he had been left behind on the Ravi Road. He hoped that Mst. Munira Sultana would be taken to her village and would be eventually let off by her people and at the same time he had apprehensions that she might be killed. This dual frame of his mind also explains why despite the nearness of the police post Muhammad Aslam did not lodge the report after he had been pushed out of the taxi cab. Besides, even if it be thought that it was not with the aforesaid object that Muhammad Aslam P. W. had been thrown out, we cannot quite exclude the possibility of his having been so dealt with at the instance of his brother, Muhammad Akram appellant. After all blood is thicker than water, and even though the brothers were not on good terms as indicated by the letter Exh. P.N. admittedly written by Muhammad Akram appellant to his father Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha on the 19th of August, 1958 Muhammad Akram P. W. may have insisted on his brother being spared as condition of his continuing his support as regards the designs of his co‑accused respecting Mst. Munira Sultana we do not find any substantial basis for suspecting that Muhammad Aslam P. W. was not present in his house on the night when Mst. Munira Sultana was taken away. They were a newly married couple who had cast in their lots with each other in the teeth of the opposition of their relations, especially Muzaffar Ali, the paternal uncle of Mst. Munira Sultana and the maternal uncle of Muhammad Aslam P. W. There are numerous letters on the record written by Mst. Munira Sultana from Kot Sultan apparently to Muhammad Aslam, viz., Exh. P. U./1 to P. U./5, indicating the affection which had blossomed up between Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam and the restrictions that had been placed on the movements of Mst. Munira bultana by her relations, particularly Muzaffar Ali, presumably in view of her attachment to Muhammad Aslam P. W. Another letter in the same strain apparently sent from Lahore by Mst. Munira Sultana to Muhammad Aslam P. W. is Exh. P. V. Add to this the circum stance that the marriage was secretly solemnised at Lahore on the 3rd of September 1960. They had gone away to Karachi in order to be away from the madding crowd of their relations opposed to their marriage and had come back to Lahore at the instance of Muhammad Akram appellant who had admittedly followed them to Karachi, and there are indubitable indications emerging from the record that he accompanied them back to Lahore. Muhammad Aslam P. W. tells us that Muhammad Akram appellant had represented to him that he would mediate between him and Muzaffar Ali appellant and bring about a reconciliation. We have mentioned these circumstances for the purpose of showing that in their context it looks extremely improbable that Muhammad Aslam P. W. would be away at that unreasonable hour of the night from the side of his newly wedded wife, Mst. Munira Sultana. Indeed, the suggestion that on that evening Muhammad Aslam P. W. had in fact been decoyed by Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W. to Kharianwala, strikes us as prepos terous. If, indeed, Mst. Munira Sultana had been taken away on account of Muhammad Aslam having been lured away by Nasim‑ur‑Rahman P. W., etc., it does not stand to reason that he would omit mention of them as connected with the crime and substitute them with a list of his own relatives, including his full brother Muhammad Akram appellant. We have no doubt in our mind that when Mst. Munira Sultana was taken away on the night of the 29th of September, 1960. Muhammad Aslam was present in the bungalow and we, as already mentioned, find not even a plausible basis for thinking that he is being untruthful in describing himself as an eyewitness of the abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana and as having also been taken up to the bridge of Budha Nullah in the circumstances alleged by him. In coming to this conclusion, we are excluding from consideration the testimony of Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws., the two domestic servants of Muhammad Aslam P. W., who represent themselves as having witnessed the forcible abduction of Mst. B Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. Although there is nothing unlikely about these two persons having been present in the bungalow on the night of the occurrence, yet since their names were not mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W, in the first information report Exh. P. G. but were mentioned in the supplementary statement Exh. P. G./1, we cannot help having a suspicion that their names were mentioned as an afterthought.

21. Doctor Ghulam Yasin P. W., the owner of the bungalow, has mentioned during the trial that after his bungalow had been occupied by l1st. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam, he bad been seeing Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws. in that bungalow and that he had seen the evening of the 29th of September 1960 there and had also met them at 9 a.m. on the 30th of September 1960 and on his having inquired of them where Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. were, they had told him that Mst. Munira Sultana's uncle and Muhammad Aslam's brother and their other relations had taken them away the previous evening. But no such thing was mentioned by this witness either in his statement before the committing Magistrate or before the police. On the other hand, Muhammad Ahmad P. W., whose testimony we do not see any reason to disregard as that of an unreliable person, did not refer to Rahim Bakhsh and Karam Ali P. Ws. in his state ment as having been ever seen by him at the bungalow in Gulberg or at the house of his aunt where, according to him, Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam stayed for two or three days after their return from Karachi and before their occupying the bungalow in Gulberg. He rather mentioned the names of Gaura as the servant and Mst. Anwari as the maid servant who were with the couple when they stayed at the house of the aunt of this witness. We however, do not think that Muhammad Aslam P. W. would have lodged the first information report Exh. P. G. in which he had named his very close relatives, including his full brother and his maternal uncle, as the accused persons unless he was impelled to do so on the basis of his personal observation and experience.

22. We have already indicated that the circumstances mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W. as having been responsible for his not having lodged the First Information Report immediately after the occurrence, having impressed us as a satisfactory explanation, of the delay. In this connection, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was highly improbable that Muhammad Aslam should have gone first to Mian Maqbool who lived at a much greater distance from the place where Muhammad Aslam is alleged to have been pushed out of the car, and should not have contacted Muhammad Ahmad in the first instance who was more interested in Mst. Munira Sultana and lived in Bhati Gate, a place much nearer from where he had been thrown out of the car. There is nothing improbable about it. Even though Muhammad Aslam was on more intimate terms with Muhammad Ahmad, he might have thought Mian Maqbool a more suitable person for the advice he needed.

23. But although we find it difficult not to accept the prosecution version as regards the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana deceased and Muhammad Aslam P. W. from the bungalow on the alleged night of the occurrence based, as this version is, on the testimony of Muhammad Aslam corroborated by the First Information Report Exh. P. G. and the statement of Muhammad Ahmad (P. W. 28), we doubt the correctness of the version regarding Mst. Munira Sultana being picked up from near Shahdara into the car driven by Muhammad Amin P. W. and her being taken away to the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant. It appears to us that Muhammad Amin P. W. has been brought into the picture for the purpose of affording corroboration to Ali Mochi approver as regards his version that Mat. Munira Sultana had been brought in a car up to a small bridge near the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant and that Shamsher Ahmad appellant had brought Mst. Munira Sultana out of that car and had, with the help of Ali Mochi approver and Shanu appellant, strangled her to death on the banna of a sugarcane field near the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant. The statement of Ali Mochi being that of an approver could not be accepted at its face value unless it was corroborated in material particulars by other credible evidence. Although apparently Muhammad Amin P. W. is supporting Ali Mochi approver in so far as he describes Mst. Munira Sultana as having been driven in car up to the small bridge and from there escorted by Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants towards latter's dera, there are such inconsistencies and dis crepancies between the statements of Ali Mochi approver and Muhammad Amin P. W. which show that not only the state ment of Ali Mochi approver stands uncorroborated in material particulars but that Muhammad Amin's version cannot be accepted as correct.

24. The first notable thing about the aforesaid part of the prosecution version is that while Muhammad Amin P. W. claims to have accompanied Shamsher Ahmad appellant to the dera of Ali Ranjha appellant, Ali Mochi categorically denied that any other person had accompanied Shamsher Ahmad appellant to the dera of Ali Ranjha when Shamsher Ahmad had, in the first instance, gone there. Furthermore, while Ali Mochi would have us believe that it was he who had been awakened by Shamsher Ahmad and that he and Shamsher Ahmad had joined Ali Ranjha and Shanu appellants and Hayat accused (since discharged) at some distance where they appeared to have already come from near the dera where they had slept by night, Muhammad Amin P. W. mentioned that after a person had been awakened first, he pointed to the cot where Ali Ranjha slept and Shamsher Ahmad appellant awakened Ali Ranjha appellant and thereafter only he and Ali Ranjha and Shamsher Ahmad appellants went back towards the place where the car had been parked. He neither refers to Ali Mochi approver having accompanied the party nor refers to any other person as having accompanied this party proceeding from near the dera of Ali Ranjha towards the place where the car bad been parked, which means that Muhammad Amin P.W. does not refer to Shanu appellant and Hayat accused at all as having accompanied Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants towards the side of the car. Further more, while Muhammad Amin P. W. stated that Ali Ranjha, after be had been awakened by Shamsher Ahmad, went to a kotha and brought a rifle with him which he carried dangling from his shoulder while proceeding towards the small bridge, Ali Mochi approver denied that either Ali Ranjha or any other member of their party carried any weapon with them at any time after Shamsher Ahmad appellant bad awakened him. Besides, while Ali Mochi would have us believe that when Mst. Munira Sultana got down from the car and she was escorted towards the dera of Ali Ranjha, she had been brought from a different route from the one by which Sbamsher Ahmad appellant, etc., had gone back to the car to bring her, Muhammad Amin P. W. stated that she was escorted by the same route by which Shamsher Ahmad appellant, accompanied by Ali Ranjha appellant, had come to the car.

25. One thing which, in our estimation, is conclusive as regards Muhammad Amin P. W. not having accompanied Mst. Munira Sultana or any of the appellants to the dera of Ali Ranjha, is the circumstance that although Muhammad Amin is said to have led the police to the dera of Ali Ranjha on the 12th of October 1960, the police, who applied for non‑bailable warrants for the arrest of the five accused mentioned in the First Information Report on the 19th of October 1960, did not consider it necessary to make that application as regards Ali Ranjha appellant. Surely, if Muhammad Amin had really gone to the dera of Ali Ranjha on the alleged night of the occurrence and had ever heard Ali Ranjha being accosted by Shamsher Ahmad appellant as `Ali', the police should have considered Ali Ranjha as an accomplice of the accused party and should have taken steps to arrest him, especially after Muhammad Amin P. W., as alleged by him, had led the police to the dera of Ali Ranjha pursuant to the object of showing them the places to which he had taken the car and where, under the circumstances alleged by him, Mst. Munira Sultana had been escorted away by Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants. One thing more. While Muhammad Amin P. W. claimed that on the very day that he led the police to the dera of Ali Ranjha, the latter's dera was raided and Ali Ranjha was arrested, on the other hand, Muhammad Zaman, the investigating officer, categorically denied that Ali Ranjha was found at his dera on the 12th of October 1960.

26. Muhammad Amin P. W. does not impress as a truthful witness. His statement was allegedly recorded by the police on the 10th of October 1960. His explanation for not having appeared before the police to make a statement before them before the aforesaid date, does not sound satisfactory at all. As a matter of fact, when, as is alleged by him, his incredibly torpid inquisitiveness was at long last aroused by the mystifying circum stances under which Mst. Munira Sultana had been led away from the car, after she had, in the first instance, refused to get down from the car, and he felt the necessity of inquiring from Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants when he drove back the car as to what the chakar (mystery) was, one wonders why on his return he had not mentioned all that he observed and suspected to Shamshad Ahmad P. W. or Anwar ul‑Haq P. W. His explanation for the delay in appearing before the police is that he had gone out on tour the day following his arrival back at Lahore. But when he was asked as to who his American master was with whom he had gone out on tour, he was unable to give his name. Muhammad Amin P. W. has indulg ed in inconsistencies and prevarications which show him up as a witness far from reliable. For instance, when asked whether he had remained in the District Jail, Lahore, for some days together with Ali Ranjha appellant, he first denied that he knew that Ali Ranjha had been his companion in the same jail, but in the next breath admitted that Ali Ranjha appellant was lodged in the same barrack in which he was lodged. He admitted that he was confined in the jail in connection with the abduction of a girl whom he claimed to have married. The defence suggested that he was coming forward to support the prosecution because the abduction case against him was cancelled by the police on the condition that he would support the prosecution case, It is noteworthy that although during the trial this witness stated that Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants had come to his house along with Shamshad Ahmad P. W. at 4‑30 p.m., before the police he had mentioned that they had come to his house at 8 p.m. or 8‑30 p.m. We are convinced that no store can be set by the evidence of this witness.

27. The eye‑witness account of the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana has been furnished only by Ali Mochi approver. An approver's statement, as already remarked, has to be regarded with particular scrutiny being the statement of an accomplice and normally not to be accepted unless corroborated in material particulars. We have already noticed how in one part of his version the discrepancies between his statement and that of Muhammad Amin P. W. show that he has not received the necessary corroboration from Muhammad Amin. Before we take into consideration any other circumstances corroborative of his testimony, we cannot help remarking that the inconsistencies that have been brought out in the different statements made by Ali Mochi approver at different stages show him up to be a wholly unreliable witness. One is not quite sure if Ali Mochi approver had indulged in these contradictions and discrepancies because he was talking about something of which he had no personal knowledge or he had deliberately created them for the purpose of helping the appellants. Whatever be the reasons or his motive, the fact remains that he has not said the same thing with regard to very important matters at the stage of the investigation and in his statement Exh. P. A. recorded by a Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and his statements before the committing Magistrate and the trial Court. What is more, he has caused irreparable damage to the authenticity of his version by having stated before the committing Magistrate that he had been beaten by the police and that as a result of that beating and out of fear he had made so many statements before the police. We have already noticed that his version regarding the alleged conspiracy between him and Ali Ranjha on the one side and Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants on the other at the haveli of Muzaffar Ali at Bucha Kalan, was not mentioned by him in his initial statements Exhs. D. A. and D. A./1 made by him to police. It was only after he had been in custody with the police according to him for twenty days that he offered to become an approver and made his statement Exh. P. A. under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, before a Magistrate and mentioned therein the alleged conspiracy. We have already given our reasons for not accepting this part of the approver's version. We have also given our reasons for rejecting the part of his version as regards the circumstances preceding Mst. Munira Sultana's murder, namely, her being escorted to a place in the neighborhood of the dera of Ali Ranjha by Shamsher Ahmad, Ali Ranjha appellants, etc. His eye‑witness account of the occurrence is hardly of any better quality. The discrepancies, self‑contradic tions and inconsistencies in the statements of this witness are too numerous to be noted in their entirety. We shall confine our selves to noticing only some of them.

28. Significantly enough, while before the Sessions Judge Ali Mochi approver described Ali Ranjha and Hayat as not present at the time of the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana and as having dissociated themselves from the murderous assault, in some of his earlier statements including the statement Exh. P. A made before the Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, he mentioned Ali Ranjha appellant as having been present at the time of the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana and as also being present when the dead body was cut into pieces and put in a sack and taken to the canal for being thrown into it. Indeed, in his statement before the police Exh. D. A., Ali Mochi mentioned that Mst. Munira Sultana besought Shamsher Ahmad and Ali Ranjha appellants both to spare her, which means that Mst. Munira Sultana was facing both the appellants as persons who contemplated her murder. What is more, in his statement Exh. D. A. the approver took up the position that what he himself did was at the instigation of Ali Ranjha appellant. Furthermore, while during the trial Ali Mochi ascribed the actual act of throttling to Shamsher Ahmad appellant, in his statement Exh. P. A. made before the Magistrate and in his statement Exh. D. A. made before the police he imputed that part to Shanu appellant, to whom in the Sessions Court he had assign ed the role of catching hold of the arms of Mst. Munira Sultana, While during the trial this witness claimed to have produced the toka Exh. P. 1 before the police after taking it out of the fodder heap, in his statement before the committing Magistrate he took up the position that it was on the pointing out of Shanu appellant that the toka Exh. P. 1 had been recovered and that actually the toka had not been recovered in the presence of this witness. Furthermore, In the Sessions Court he stated that the toka Exh. P. 1 was not used for cutting the fodder after it had been concealed in the charna under the fodder heap, but before the committing Magistrate he had stated that after cutting the dead body of Mst. Munira Sultana the toka Exh. P, 1 was being used for cutting fodder. The approver admitted that he had been committing thefts and was even challaned twice or thrice, but declared that he was never convicted. He admitted that he committed these thefts when he was residing in the dera of Sikandar Hayat appellant, but repudiated the suggestion that Sikandar Hayat appellant had turned him out after giving him a shoe‑beating on account of his having committed thefts. But, curiously enough, at another stage of cross‑examination he admitted that Sikandar Hayat and Akhtar Hayat appellants had accused him of committing theft of their citrus fruit and had even recovered a penalty of Rs. 50 from him on account of these thefts. He further admitted that Shanu appellant was hostile to him.

29. One other discrepancy merits notice. Although in his examination in chief the approver mentioned the banna of the sugarcane field of Ali Ranjha as the place where Mst. Munira Sultana was throttled to death, during his cross-examination he took up the position that the place where Mst. Munira Sultana was done to death was three or four karams away from the sugarcane field and was part of a field which lay vacant. In the Sessions Court the approver described Shamsher Ahmad appellant as having awakened him, but in his statement Exh. P. A. made before the Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, he had taken up the position that Ali Ranjha appellant had awakened this witness.

30. We do not think that a witness who had indulged in Contradictory statements of the type noticed above can be considered as a person whose testimony deserves any serious consideration. But when such a witness happens to be an approver, there is all the more reasons why his statement should be rejected out of hand as intrinsically of little value, especially when in one of his statements he had admitted that he had been beaten by the police and he had made many of his statements on account of the fear of police. The statement of the approver being inherently defective, not much strength can be imparted to it by any corroborative circumstance. However, no credible corroboration has been provided to his version as regards the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana and the disposal of her dead body.

31. No part of the dead body of Mst. Munira Sultana or her garments had been recovered. The recovery of the toka Exh. P. 1 was made by the police, and the toka was found to be stained with human blood. But, as already noticed by us, although the approver stated during the trial that this recovery of the toka had been made at his instance, in his statement before the committing Magistrate he had stated that this recovery had not been made even in his presence. The value of the evidence regarding the recovery of the toka Exh. P. 1, therefore, stands destroyed by the approver by his two inconsistent statements made in two different Courts. He has also mentioned the recovery of the bone Exh P. 2, from the place under the van tree where the dead body of Mst. Munira Sultana was alleged to have been hacked to pieces. The bone Exh. P.2 was pronounced by Dr. S. M. Afzal (P. W. 1), an Anatomist of the Mayo Hospital, to belong to a human skull, but he was unable to say as to whether this bone was of the skull of a male or a female or an old or a young person. One does not, therefore, feel sure that this bone was connected with the alleged murder of Mst. Munira Sultana described by Ali Mochi approver. Furthermore, the bone Exh. P. 2 is said to have three or four small hairs sticking to it at the time of its recovery. The Anatomist does not mention these hairs as having been received by him with the bone. From the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Mr. Muhammad Aslant, it transpires that the bone had been received along with some hair of the deceased (presumably the tuft of hair belonging to Mst, Munira Sultana produced by Muhammad Aslam, P W. before the police. The Assistant Chemical Examiner has merely expressed the opinion in his report Exh. P. 000 that the hairs found on the bone resembled the hair of the deceased. The opinion, however, does not positively indicate that the hairs on the bone were of the same person whose hair had been sent up along with the hairs on the bone. We think that to say that ones quantity of hair resembles another quantity of hair is not the same thing as saying that one quantity of hair is of the same person to whom the other quantity of hair belongs. Further more, we do not quite see how a bone of the head could have hairs on it when there was no skin on it, because Dr. S. M. Afzal in his evidence stated that the bone Exh. P. 2 had no skin on it when he examined it. He, of course, referred to the office copy Exh. P. SS/2 containing the note showing that a few hairs were sticking on the bone, but the bone Exh. P. 2 when produced in Court bad no hairs on it, and Dr. S. M. Afzal admitted that in his forwarding letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police he bad made no mention of the hairs found on the bone. One does not quite understand why exactly was the expression "hairs sticking on the bone" employed. It appears to us that the expression "hairs sticking on the bone" is suggestive of the fact that the hairs had been artificially stuck to the bone. For, in the absence of a skin or scalp the hairs could only be artificially stuck and not be found on the bone as a natural growth.

32. Another corroborative circumstance of the version of the approver regarding the aforesaid alleged murder is the recovery of the ornaments said to have taken place at the instance of Shamsher Ahmad appellant. We shall deal with the value of this recovery independently of the version of Ali Mochi approver, because we think that although we cannot use it as a circumstance corroborating the version of the approver in a material particular, it has its own value because Shamsher Ahmad appellant himself admitted the recovery of all the ornaments, except the fountain pen Exh. P.

3. We are not using it as a circumstance corroborative of the version of Ali Mochi approver, because we are not accepting Ali Mochi approver as a credible witness on account of the defects already pointed out in his evidence. It may, however, be mentioned that with regard to the removal of the ornaments Ali Mochi approver has given two different versions at two different stages. While during the trial he stated that Shamsher removed these ornaments after Mst. Munira Sultana had been done to death, in his statement before the police Exh. D. A. be mentioned that it was after Shamsher Ahmad appellant had got the girl remove the ornaments from her person that he asked Ali (Ali Ranjha) to murder her. Indeed, with regard to the removal of the ornaments he bad not taken up a consistent position. In his statement Exh. P. A recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, there is no reference to the ornaments or their details of their removal from the person of Mst. Munira Sultana. So, we do not, as already mentioned by us, propose to consider the evidence regarding the recovery of the ornaments from Shamsher Ahmad appellant as a corroboration of a material part of the version of Ali Mochi approver. For, as already emphasised, we do not attach any value to the statement of Ali Mochi as a piece of credible evidence.

33. Since we are rejecting & evidence of Ali Mochi approver as unworthy of any importance, we must exclude from our consideration his version as regards the murder of Mst. Munira Sultana, which means that there is no credible evidence on the record to the effect that Shamsher Ahmad, Ali Ranjha and Shanu appellants murdered list. Munira Sultana, But while we are of opinion that Shamsher Ahmad, Ali Ranjha and Shanu appellants have not been proved to have murdered Mst. Munira Sultana, we do not say that Mst. Munira Sultana has not been murdered. As we have no doubt regarding the aforesaid forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana from the bungalow in Gulberg as described by Muhammad Aslam P. W., what we are left to examine is whether the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana was for the purpose of wrongful confinement only or for the purpose of murder, that is to say, whether the offence of the appellants who forcibly abducted Mst. Munira Sultana from Gulberg, fell within the purview of section 365, P. P. C. only or that of section 364, P. P. C. After taking into account all the relevant circumstances preceding, surrounding and succeeding the act of forcible abduction, we have come to the conclusion that the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana was for the purpose of murdering her or for being so disposed of as to be put in danger of her being murdered and that Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandir Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants are guilty of the offence under section 364/149, P. P. C. We have no manner of doubt that the aforesaid five appellants were last seen together with Mst. Munira Sultana and were responsible for first decoying Muhammad Aslam P. W. out of the bungalow in Gulberg and then for Mst. Munira Sultana being forcibly brought out of the bungalow and carried off in the jeep where Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants had also sat. Surely, some explanation was due from these appellants as to where she had disappeared after all these persons carried her away. Rather than give any such explanation, the appellants have contented themselves with a flat denial that they ever took her away. They have elected to face the charges of conspiracy to murder and have run the risk of being sentenced to death, but have not indicated where Mst. Munira Sultana was. They do not even say that she had runaway after she had been taken to her village. As we are thoroughly convinced that Mst. Munira Sultana was taken away by these appellants, we cannot help feeling that the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana was for the purpose of murdering her or so disposing of her as to be put in danger of her being murdered.

34. In this connection, we cannot help noticing the recovery of thirty gold churis Exh. P. 4/1‑30, a pair of gold balis Exh. P. 5/1‑2, three gold finger‑rings Exh. P. 7/1‑3, the gold chain of the wrist watch Exh. P. 6, and the Parker fountain pen Exh. P. 3, which was made at the instance of Shamsher Ahmad appellant from an almirah of his house on the 19th of November 1960, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhsh, Sub -Inspector Muhammad 2;aman Khan and A. S. I. Muhammad Ishaq P. Ws. have testified to this recovery having been made at the instance of Shamsher Ahmad appellant. We do not quite see why this recovery evidence should be disbelieved, particularly in view of the circumstance that Shamsher Ahmad appellant himself admitted that the recovery of articles other than the Parker fountain pen Exh. P. 3 bearing the inscription "Munira Aslam B. A." did take place. He, however, contended that the recovery was not made at his instance and the articles recovered did not include the Parker fountain pen Exh. P. 3 and that the ornaments recovered belonged to him. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the ornaments recovered have not been established to belong to Mst. Munira Sultana. They argue that these ornaments were not mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W. In the First Information Report Exh. P. G. but were mentioned by him only in his supplementary statement Exh. P. G/1 which was obviously a statement recorded by the police under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, and as such inadmissible in evidence. Of course, the statement Exh. P. G/1 is inadmissible in evidence as a sub stantive and corroborative piece of evidence. But when we find that a statement regarding the ornaments that Mst. Munira Sultana wore at the time of her forcible abduction was made under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, and the defence, during the cross‑examination of Muhammad Aslam P. W. when he mentioned in Court that the ornaments and the Parker fountain pen Exh. P. 3 were recovered from the house of Shamsher Ahmad appellant, was unable to confront Muhammad Aslam P. W, with this statement for pointing out any contradiction and inconsistency, we can draw the inference that this was not done because in his statement before the police during the investigation of the case immediately after the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana, Muhammad Aslam P W. had said nothing different from what he said in Court. Although the defence can say that the ornaments that Mst. Munira Sultana wore were not mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W. in the First Information Report, it cannot urge that they were not mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W. in his statement made to the police during the investigation of the case soon after he had lodged the First Information Report. So, it cannot be said that it was a new position that Muhammad Aslam P. W. had taken up at the time of his statement in Court after the aforesaid recovery had taken place. This was, in any case, his position on the morning following the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana. All the ornaments recovered have been identified by Muhammad Aslam P. W. as belonging to Mst. Munira Sultana and as the ones that she carried on her person at the time of her forcible abduction. Muhammad Aslam P. W. mentioned a gold jhumar also as one of the ornaments which Mst. Munira Sultana wore at the time of her forcible abduction. This jhumar was not among the ornaments recovered from the house of Shamsher Ahmad appellant.

35. Out of the ornaments recovered from the house of Shamsher Ahmad appellant, Jamil Ahmad (P. W. 29), a gold smith of Karachi, identified Exh. P. 5/1‑2 as the balls he sold to Muhammad Aslam P. W. on the 6th of September 1960 at Karachi along with a jhumar vide cash memo. Exh. P. U. U/

1. Out of the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑30, Exh. P. 4/1‑14 were identified by Mian Ahmad Ali (P. W. 41), the maternal uncle of Mst. N4unira Sultana, to have been got prepared by him for Mst. Munira Sultana from Muhammad Ali, goldsmith (P. W. 40), on one occasion and Exh. P. 4/15‑30' as having been got prepared by him from the same goldsmith on a different occasion. Muhammad Ali P. W., the goldsmith, prevaricated with regard to the identification of Exh. P. 4/1‑14, but clearly denied having prepared churls Exh. P. 4/15‑30 at the instance of Mian Ahmad Ali. Muhammad Ali, goldsmith, was obviously trying to help the appellants by his statement. He was, indeed, subjected to cross‑examination by the Public Prosecutor also. But it is significant that although he was making efforts to create doubt as regards churls Exh. P. 1/4‑14 being the same that he had prepared at the instance of Mian Ahmad Ali, during his cross‑examination by the counsel for the accused he came out with this statement :‑ "In those days when the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14 were prepared, the market rate of pure gold was Rs. 135 per tola." In this sentence the goldsmith gave himself away. For, he could not refer to the time when churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14 were prepared without locating their identity as the churls that he had prepared when the market rate of pure gold was Rs. 135 per Iola. It is significant that the register Exh. P. NN shows that order for preparation of fourteen gold churls was placed with Muhammad Ali, goldsmith on the 21.st of July 1960 together with an old guluband whose gold was to be used in the making of the churls. The register further shows under an entry dated the 10th of August 1960 that after the gold of the guluband had been used in the preparation of the churls and some of it adjusted towards the making charges, the price of the gold left over viz., one Iola eight mashas and five rattis, was returned to Mian Ahmad Ali P. W. Muhammad Ali, goldsmith, has described the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14 to be exactly of the same pattern as those he prepared for Mian Ahmad Ali, but in his cross‑examination added that the churls that he prepared for Mian Ahmad Ali were of pure gold but the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14 were not of pure gold. In his cross‑examination by the Public Prosecutor, however, he admitted that in the relevant entry in register Exh. P. NN he had made no mention of the circumstance that the churls that he made from the gold of the guluband given to him by Mian Ahmad Ali were intended to be made of pure gold. He further conceded that in most of the ornaments a join had to be applied and that some alloy bad to be added to the gold in order to obtain a join and that churis Exh. P. 4/1‑14 had also joins. It appears to us that Muhammad Ali, goldsmith, made an effort to help the appellants by suggesting that the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14 were not the same that he had prepared for Mian Ahmad Ali P. W., but we do not think he has succeeded in his attempt. For one thing, as already pointed out, by saying that when the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14, were prepared the market St rate of the pure gold was Rs. 135 per tola, he has implicitly identified the churls Exh. P. 4/ 1‑14 as being those that he prepared at the instance of Mian Ahmad Ali. Secondly, it also looks to us a rather remarkable coincidence that only fourteen churls out of those recovered from Shamsher Ahmad appellant should have been of the same pattern as that of the fourteen churls prepared by Muhammad Ali (P. W. 40) for Mian Ahmad Ali (P. W. 41) and their number should be neither more nor less. Mian Ahmad Ali has stated that he got these churls prepared for Mst. Munira Sultana and had given them to her. We have no manner of doubt that the churls Exh. P. 4/1‑14 are the same that were prepared by Muhammad Ali P. W. for Mian Ahmad Ali P. W. and had come into the possession of Shamsher Ahmad appellant after their transfer from the person of Mst. Munira Sultana.

36. Shamsher Ahmad appellant, while taking up the position that the ornaments recovered from his person belonged to him, also stated that other persons of Wan Miana were present when the police recovered the ornaments from his house. Surely, if, indeed, the ornaments were not recovered from Shamsher Ahmad appellant in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution, Shamsher Ahmad should have led evidence of some of those other persons in support of his contention. He has not even produced any witness in support of his claim that the ornaments recovered from his house indeed belonged to him or to any female inmate of his household or had been prepared by or purchased from any goldsmith or jeweler by him or at the instance of any other female member of his household In view of the above, we find no good reason for rejecting the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of the ornaments and the fountain pen Exh. P. 3 mentioned by Muhammad Aslam P. W. and other prosecution witnesses as having been recovered from Shamsher Ahmad appellant's house at his instance and as being the same as Mst. Munira Sultana carried on her person at the time of her forcible abduction. We, therefore, do not see any force in the suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellants that the recovery of the fountain pen Exh. P. 3 was planted on Shamsher Ahmad appellant at the instance of Muhammad Aslam P. W. and that the other ornaments recovered belonged to Shamsher Ahmad appellant. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was extremely unlikely that Mst. Munira Sultana should be carrying the fountain pen Exh. 3 on her person at the alleged time of her forcible abduction. We see nothing unlikely about it. If Mst. Munira Sultana was the owner of this pen; there is nothing unusual about her carrying it on her person. We all know that the clips of the fountain pens can be fixed on any part of a garment where it has border or a hem, and surely whatever type of a shirt Mst. Munira Sultana was wearing at the time of her forcible abduction, the pen could have a been fastened to its neck‑line or any other suitable part of her shirt. Besides, as it appears from the evidence of Muhammad Aslam P. W., Mst. Munira Sultana had a sentimental value for the fountain pen as it was a present to her from her father. Furthermore, her letters Exhs. P. U/1 to P. U/5 and P. V which have been placed on the record, show that Mst. Munira Sultana had a facile and expressive pen and was apparently not indifferent to the use and companionship of the fountain pen. It is not improbable that she kept this pen about her person till such time as she retired to rest. If, indeed, the recovery of the Parker fountain pen Exh. P. 3 had to be planted to Shamsher Ahmad appellant, the recovery of jhumar described by Muhammad Aslam P. W. as one of the ornaments that Mst. Munira Sultana had on her person at the time of her forcible abduction could similarly be planted. But the fact that the jhumar has not been recovered imparts a further touch of genuineness to this recovery, if at all any such further indication were necessary. This pen bore the inscription "Munira Aslam B.A." which establishes the ownership of the pen. We have already noticed that Muhammad Aslam P. W. had the fountain pen of Mst. Munira Sultana inscribed with these words at Karachi.

37. Nor do we see any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that at the alleged time of the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana, she could not be wearing the ornaments that she is said to have had on her person. Mst. Munira Sultana was newly wedded wife and we see nothing remarkable about her keeping all her ornaments on her person till she had retired to bed for sleep. Besides, the practice of wearing ornaments varies from person to person. In some families some of the womenfolk keep wearing most of their ornaments all the time and in some families very little of jewellery is used, except on ceremonial occasions.

38. We have dealt with the circumstance of the aforesaid recovery at a considerable length not only for the sake of indicating our opinion that we consider the recovery of the ornaments and the pen Exh. P. 3 as genuine; we have referred to this circumstance also for the purpose of emphasising that the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana was not for the purpose of her secret and wrongful confinement only and that the ornaments and the pen had come into the possession of Shamsher Ahmad appellant, after something much more serious than a mere forcible abduction, namely, murder, had taken place or they had been removed because her murder was contemplated. Shamsher Ahmad appellant is apparently a well to do man and could not have the appropriation or possession of the ornaments as the main object of the abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana. This possession of the ornaments of Mst. Munira Sultana really indicates that the purpose behind her abduction was her murder. After all why are the appellants not telling us what happened to Mst. Munira Sultana after they had forcibly brought her away from the bungalow in Gulberg, and why is Shamsher Ahmad appellant not explaining the circumstances under which he came into possession of the ornaments belonging to Mst. Munira Sultana when the appellants, who abducted Mst. Munira Sultana from the bungalow in Gulberg, were faced with very serious charges, some of which entail the penalty of extinction of life, etc. As we are convinced that the appellants, other than Ali Ranjha and Shanu, forcibly carried away Mst. Munira Sultana and as Mst. Munira Sultana has not since been found, a very strong presumption arises that she was either done to death by the aforesaid five appellants or she has been secretly kept somewhere for the purpose of murder and none of the appellants has done anything to rebut that presumption. Rather the circumstance of the recovery of her ornaments from Shamsher Ahmad appellant has, if anything, further strengthened the presumption. Although, therefore, we can neither definitely hold that Mst. Munira Sultana has been murdered nor are able to say that if she has been murdered who her murderer or murderers are, we have no manner of doubt that she had been forcibly abducted for the purpose of murder or for the purpose of being so disposed of as to be put in danger of her being murdered.

39. Other circumstances that fortify our conclusion are the fact, evident not only from the evidence of Muhammad Aslam P. W. but from the letters Exhs. P. U./1 to P. U./5 and P. V. of Mst. Munira Sultana said to have been received by Muhammad Aslam P. W., that Muzaffar Ali appellant, the paternal uncle of Mst. Munira Sultana, did not like her ways and had imposed restrictions on her movements. It is further clear from the record that Muzaffar Ali appellant did not like any intimate relations between Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Adam P. W., irrespective of the fact whether he wanted to marry her to his son Muhammad Ikram and thus wanted her inherited property to come to his family, and that Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam had to secretly run away from Bucha Kalan and they eventually entered into a clandestine marriage on the 3rd of September 1960, against the wishes of Muzaffar Ali appellant and other relations, including some of the appellants. Letter Exh. P. N. written by Muhammad Akram appellant to his father Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjah, quite some time before the occurrence, shows that Muhammad Akram appellant was not seeing eye to eye with Muhammad Aslam P. W. as regards his manner of life and that he was not well disposed towards his brother. We find no good reason to disbelieve Muhammad Aslam P. W. when he tells us that Muhammad Akram appellant, accompanied by Gaura, servant of Mian Sultan Ali Ranjha, the father of Mst. Munira Sultana, had followed them to Karachi and had persuaded Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana to go back to Lahore so that he (Muhammad Akram appellant) might make efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the lovers and Muzaffar Ali appellant who had disliked the marriage. Muhammad Akram appellant has admitted his having gone to Karachi with Gaura and his having met Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam there but he denied that he had gone there for the purpose of persuading them to go back to Lahore so that a reconciliation should be brought about between them and their uncle Muzaffar Ali appellant. He further denied that he had accompanied Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana back to Lahore, as alleged by Muhammad Aslam P. W. Although in his statement before the Sessions Judge he made no mention of the reason of his going to Karachi, in his statement before the committing Magistrate he gave as the reason of his going to Karachi the circumstance that Muhammad Aslam P. W. had taken away Rs. 5,000 of his without his permission and he needed the money immediately. It is curious, however, that not only had he refrained from mentioning this reason of his going to Karachi in his statement in the Sessions Court, it was not even suggested to Muhammad Aslam P. W. that Muhammad Akram appellant had asked him to return anything out of the amount of Rs. 5,000 that, according to Muhammad Akram's statement in the committing Magistrate's Court, had been taken away by Muhammad Aslam P. W. without his permission. Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence in the shape of the entries Exh. P. YY/1 and Exh. P. ZZ/5 of the registers of Khyber Hotel of Karachi Sadar that Muhammad Akram appellant stayed in this hotel with Gaura from the 15th of September 1960 to the 18th of September 1960. The entry Exh, P. RR/1 of the relevant register of the Taj Hotel, Karachi, shows that Muhammad Aslam Ranjha with his wife stayed in this hotel from the 5th of September 1960, to the 18th of September 1960. The dates of the departure of Muhammad Akram appellant and Mr. and Mrs. Muhammad Aslam Ranjha from their respective hotels tally. This indicates that Muhammad Aslam P. W. is right when he says that he and Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Akram appellant came back from Karachi the same day by the same train and that Muhammad Akram appellant i3 wrong when he says that he left Karachi much earlier than Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana. The patently wrong explanation of Muhammad Akram appellant suggests that his reason of visiting Karachi was merely to lure Muhammad Aslam P. W. and Mst. Munira Sultana back to Lahore, and that he was animated by designs and motives far from unexceptionable in persuading them to go back to Lahore. Add to this the circumstance that a telegram, copy Exh. P V V/1, was despatched from the Bhalwal Railway Station to Muhammad Aslam P. W. at his Karachi address by Allah Dad Khan, Station Master Bhalwal (P. W. 15) at the instance of Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhsha, warning him on the strength of a message of Mian Sahib (Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha) to change his first staying place anti not to trust anybody. Another telegram, copy Exh. P. W/2, was despatched by Allah Dad Khan from Bhalwal on the 22nd of September 1960 and was to the effect that Shamsher Ahmad and Muhammad Akram had left after him for Karachi and he should be careful. These telegrams were not received by Muhammad Aslam P. W., because he had already left Karachi when they were despatched. Allah Dad Khan (P. W. 15) has explained that these telegrams were despatched by him at the instance of Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhsha who had told him that Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha had asked him to convey these messages to Muhammad Aslant P. W. An objection has been taken to the admissibility of these telegrams on the ground that Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha has not come forward in the witness‑box to say that he got these telegrams sent. But Muhammad Bakhsh alias Baksha has appeared in the witness box and stated that he asked Allah Dad Khan at the instance of Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha to send these telegrams to Muhammad Aslam P. W. to Karachi for the purpose of warning him that he should guard himself against Muhammad Akram and that Muhammad Akram and Shamsher Ahmad appel lants had followed him to Karachi and he should be careful. Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the appellants. He is not only the father of Muhammad Aslam P. W. but also of Muhammad Akram appel lant. One can understand Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha's reluctance to support the prosecution when that meant throwing the noose round the neck of one of his sons. But apart from that, Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha has been described as a person who was leading a retired life. Even the letter Exh. P. N. written in 1958, by Muhammad Akram appellant to Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha indicates that Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha was leading a somewhat secluded life. It is possible that Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha is a person who has out of spiritual considera tions started leading a secluded life, but it is not improbable that Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha is by nature of a retiring disposi tion and not capable of bravely facing situations that arise in day‑to‑day life. Be that as it may, even though the contents of the telegrams may not be admissible as the messages of Mian Sultan Ahmad Ranjha, they certainly are relevant as messages sent by Allah Dad Khan at the instance of Muhammad Bakhsh alias Bakhsha P. W. These telegrams constitute a circumstance showing that the intentions of Muhammad Akram and Shamsher Ahmad appellants with respect to Muhammad Aslam's marital life had already become suspect quite some time before the 29th of September 1960.

40. It is further significant that Muhammad Akram appel lant occupied a room in Elphinstone Hotel from the 24th of September 1960 to the 25th of September 1960, as evidenced by the entry Exh. P. Z./1 in the register Exh. P. Z. of that hotel and thereafter along with Sikandar Hayat appellant he put up in Princes Hotel from the 25th of September 1960 to the 27th of September 1960, as evidenced by entries Exhs. P. AA/1 to P. AA/3 in the register Exh. P. AA. of that hotel. Further, the entry Exh. 5'/3 in the visitors' register of Braganza Hotel shows that Sikandar Hayat appellant occupied two rooms of this hotel from the 27th of September 1960 to the 28th of September 1960, and one room from the 28th of September 1960 to the 29th of September 1960. Obviously Sikandar Hayat did not require two rooms for himself and he was putting up in Branganza Hotel, after shifting from Princes Hotel, along with Muhammad Akram and some of the other appellants. Now, the entries regarding the stay of Muhammad Akram and Sikandar Hayat appellants up to the day on the night of which the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam from the bunga low in Gulberg took place, show that the appellant party involved in the forcible abduction of Mst. Munira Sultana were working in concert and their taking away Mst. Munira Sultana and Muhammad Aslam P. W. from the bungalow in Gulberg was pursuant to a plan. We have already noticed the circums tance of Muhammad Aslam P. W. having been dropped on the way. This might also have been pursuant to a design or the result of somebody's individual initiative, but the circumstance that Mst. Munira Sultana was not dropped on the way like Muhammad Aslam P. W. and was taken away, shows that a much more serious fate than that of Muhammad Aslam P. W. was designed for her, and for the reasons set out above we are of opinion that the fate designed for her was the extinction of her life or a situation where she was exposed to such a danger. The abscondance of the aforesaid five appellants from their villages till the 15th of November 1960, also reflects their guilty conscience. They were influential and otherwise apparently respectable people of the locality, and the mere fact that Muhammad Aslam P. W. had lodged a report against them which, according to them, was false, should not have frightened them into running away from their villages for a period of more than a month.

41. In view of the above, we are satisfied that a case under section 364/149, P. P. C. is made out against Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram, Akhtar Hayat, Sikandar Hayat and Shamsher Ahmad appellants. We, therefore, uphold their convictions and sentences for the aforesaid offence. Since we are satisfied that the aforesaid five appellants committed the offence of rioting, we alter their convictions from one under section 148 to 147, P. P. C. but maintain their sentences. We also uphold the conviction of Shamsher Ahmad appellant under section 201, P. P. C., but reduce his sentence for this offence to only three years' rigorous imprisonment, as his looking up the ornaments and the Parker fountain pen of Mst. Munira Sultana deceased in his almirah was tantamount to a criminal concealment of evidence of an offence under section 364, P. P. C. As the snatching of the revolver from Muhammad Aslam P. W. appears to us to be an individual act of Shamsher Ahmad appellant, we alter his conviction from one under section 395/149 to ‑one under section 392, P. P. C. for robbing Muhammad Aslam P. W. of his revolver but maintain his sentence. The sentences of the convicted appellants upheld or awarded by this Court for different offences shall run concurrently. We accept the appeal of Ali Ranjha and Shanu appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences on all the counts and acquit them. The convictions and sentences of Muzaffar Ali, Muhammad Akram, Akhtar Hayat and Sikandar Hayat appellants under sections 120‑B and 395/149, P. P. C. and those of Shamsher Ahmad appellant under sections 120‑B, 302/34 and 404, P. P. C. are set aside. Since we are setting aside the convections and sentences of most of the appellants under sections 120‑B, 302 and 395/149, P. P. C., there is little occasion for enhancement of sentences or for a retrial. The revision petition of Muhammad Aslam P. W., therefore, fails and is dismissed. Our answer to the reference under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, is that the death sentences of Shanu and Shamsher Ahmad appellants are not confirmed. Shanu and Ali Ranjha appellants should be set at liberty provided they are not required in connection with any other case. K. B, A. Appeal partly accepted.