1988 P Cr (PLP)

INAYAT ELAHI KHAN, J.--Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1986 by Mohammad Karim and three others and Criminal Appeal No.80/86 by Hazrat Khan are directed against the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda dated 20-1-1986 whereby they were convicted under section 396/460/149, P.P.C and sentenced on each count to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default of payment of fine to six months' R.I. They were also convicted under section 307/149, P.P.C with a fine of Rs.500 each or in default thereof to R.I. for six months with further conviction under section 404/380/484/414/148/149, P.P.C. and a sentence of three years R.I. on each count with a fine of Rs.500 or in default of payment of fine to six months R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The fine, if realized, is to be paid to the heirs of deceased Khawaja Mohammad Khan as compensation. They were also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Mir Alam and Inayatullah, co-accused, were, however, acquitted for lack of evidence. The aforesaid appeals as well as Criminal Revision No.42 of 1986 filed by Sher Mohammad Khan for the enhancement of the sentence of the appellants are disposed of by this order.

2. The occurrence had taken place on 7-12-1979 at about 2 a.m. in the Hujra of Khawaja Mohammad Khan, deceased, situated in village Umaray, Tehsil Charsadda. In the F.I.R. lodged by Inayatullah (PW), at 4-30 a.m., he stated that at about 2 a.m. Khawaja Mohammad Khan and Nisar Hussain (deceased) were asleep in the "Chappar" of the "Hujra" of Khawaja Mohammad Khan, the doors whereof were left open and he being a servant of Khawaja Mohammad Khan was also asleep in the "chappar". Somebody pulled out a .30 bore pistol alongwith holster from underneath his pillow and he tried to catch hold of the holster from the person who was removing it. In the transaction the quilt was removed from his face and he saw several persons around the cot of Khawaja Mohammad Khan deceased. He was deprived of his pistol and the said persons started firing at Khawaja Mohammad Khan and Nisar Hussain deceased. They were also given axe blows. Some of the culprits entered the house whereas others went towards the room where Niaz Mohammad (PW) was asleep. He came to know that Mst. Sardaro wife and Niaz Mohammad son of Khawaja Mohammad Khan deceased were also injured. He alongwith others then put the injured person on different cots and took them to Civil Hospital, Charsadda, wherefrom they were directed to take the injured persons to Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. When they reached the Hospital at Peshawar, Khawaja Mohammad Khan and Nisar Hussain succumbed to their injuries and he lodged the report in the form of a Murasila, Ex.PA/1, recorded by Sultan Mohammad, ASI (PW.7) in Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar which was later on forwarded to the Police Station, Khanmai, where the present case was registered vide F.I.R. Ex.PA.

3. During the course of investigation, it was found that as many as nineteen persons were involved in the crime. Besides the appellants, Qasam, Janab Shah and Gul Rehman were also put on trial. After the charge was framed and some prosecution evidence was recorded, Qasam, Janab Shah and Gul Rehman absconded and, therefore, proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C. were taken against them. Jamil, Hussain Khan, Azizur Rehman, Gul Sanat Shah and Ali Haider absconded before the commencement of trial. Bahauddin accused was murdered and one Khanay accused had died before the trial. The prosecution case against them, therefore, stood abated. Sher Wali and Marwat Shah, accused, became approvers. They were granted pardon and examined at the trial as prosecution witnesses.

4. At the trial the prosecution examined 39 witnesses in support of its case and also relied on the evidence of the approvers (PW.15) and (PW.16), the confessional statements of the appellants and recovery evidence of pistol and a camera at the pointation of the accused. The learned trial Court by placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the approvers and the confessional statements of the appellants as well as on the recovery evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.

5. During the investigation Hazrst Khan, appellant, was arrested on 8-4-1980. Nadir Khan and Mir Hassan (Appellants) were arrested on 17-3-1980. Painda Gul and Mohammad Karim (appellants) were arrested on 14-11-1981 and 16-3-1980, respectively. From the scence of occurrence one empty of .22 bore (P.17) and two empties of .32 bore (P.18) vide memo Exh.P.E./5, were recovered. From the house search of Jamil (absconder), a pistol of 7.65 bore bearing No.1195 (P.1) was, recovered vide recovery memo. Exh.P.D. which, according to the Arms Expert's report, Ex.PQ.1/3, matched with crime empty of 7.65 bore. At the instance of Janab Shah (absconder) a pistol of .25 bore (P.4) bearing No.635-25, made in Spain, was recovered vide memo. Exh. P.D./1. Similarly, at the instance of Qasam, accused (absconder) a .30 bore pistol (P.61) was recovered vide memo Exh.P.D./6, of which the number was found defaced, from Dara Adam Khel for which a license copy (P-51) in the name of Khawaja Mohammad Khan deceased was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E./20. From the house search of Bahauddin (since dead), a vivitar camera P.69) was recovered through memo. Exh.P.D./9, which was later on identified as his property by Niaz Mohammad (P.W.33) in a regular identification parade held before a Magistrate.

6. Sultan Mohammad, A.S.I (P.W.7) was on duty in the Casualty Ward of Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. The report of the complainant Inyatullah was recorded' by him in the Hospital in the form of a Mursila, Exh.P.A./1, which was forwarded to the Police Station, Khanmai where the present case was registered on the basis of F.I.R. Exh P.A. He also prepared the injury-sheet, Exh.P.C./4, and inquest report Exh.P.C./5, of Nisar Hussain, deceased, and also prepared the injury-sheets of Mst. Sardara and Niaz Mohammad, Exh.P.C./7 an Exh.P.C./8, who were then produced for medical examination before the Doctor. Shamshad Khan, D.S.P. (P.W.10) was posted as Inspector C. I. A. He partly investigated the case and arrested Mohammad Karin appellant, on 16-3-1980. He recovered a .25 bore pistol, Exh.P.4 from a box inside the house of Gul Bahadur on the pointation of Janab Shah, appellant, who was in custody. Pir Sofaid Shah, EAC (P.1118) recorded the confessional statement of Gul Rehman (absconder) of 26-3-1980, Exh.P.K./1. He also recorded the confessional statement of Nadir Khan, appellant, on 27-4-1980, Exh.P.M.1. He stated that the confessional statements of the accused were recorded after observing all the legal formalities and after he was satisfied that the accused were making the confessions of their own free will. Muhammad Qasam, Inspector (P.W.20) was a member of the Special Investigation Team. During the house search of Bahauddin, accused (since dad) he recovered a camera, Exh. P.69, vide recovery memo. Exh . P. D./9. Sher Zamin Khan, Sub-Inspector (P. W .23) recovered a .32 bore pistol, Exh.P.l, alongwith a bandolier, Exh.P.2, and five cartrides, Exh.P.3, from the residential kotha of Jamil (absconding accused). Yar Mohammad (P.W.25) stated that he was asked by Qasam (absconder) to accompany him to Dara Adam Khel where he would sell the pistol and he would be repaid the money lent to Qasam. He stated that Qasam sold the pistol to a shopkeeper at Dara Adam Khel for Rs.6,500 and returned him Rs.200 which he had taken as loan . Said Akhtar Zaidi, D.S,P. Crime (P.W.26) also partly investigated the case and took into possession .30 bore pistol, Exh.P.61, (number defaced) on the pointation of Qasam (absconder) from the shop of Wazir Mohammad in Dara Adam Khel vide recovery memo. Exh . P.D./6. Fazle Azim, P. W .27, was posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Khanmai. He conducted preliminary investigation of the case anal prepared the site-plan, Exh.P.B., and also took into possession some blood-stained earth from the places where the deceased were done to death. Hayatullah, Revenue CAC Mardan (P.W.28) was posted as M.I.C. Charsadda. On 17-11-1981, Painda Gul was produced before him and he recorded his confessional statement, Exh.P.O., after observing all the legal formalities and after satisfying himself that he was willing to make the confession. Inayatullah (P.W.31) reiterated the version given by him in the First Information Report. Niaz Mohammad son of Khawaja Mohammad Khan, deceased (P.W.33) stated that while he and other members of the house were asleep. some people had entered their room and fired at him with which he was hit. He got up from the cot but one of the accused gave him an axe blow on his head, as a result of which he got injured. He stated that 4/5 persons were present in the room duly armed and he could identify them. After a while his mother came to his room and tied over his head injury with her 'dopata'. She was also injured. He came to know that his father has also been killed by the culprits. He stated that his camera was missing from the window where he had kept it on the night of occurrence before going to bed. This camera was subsequently recovered by the police which he correctly identified before the Magistrate in an identification parade. He further stated that in the said occurrence his father Khawaja Mohammad Khan, Nisar Hussain, a friend of his father and his servant Fazal Mohammad were killed whereas he, his mother Mst. Sardara and Noor Hassan were injured. Abdur Rehman Khan, E.A.C. (P.W.36) conducted the identification parade on 20-3-1980 through Niaz Mohammad regarding the vivitar camera bearing No.10813694 produced before him by D.S.P. Mohammad Ayub Khan of Crime Branch which was duly sealed in a parcel. He repeated the identification parade thrice and on all the occasions Niaz Mohammad P.W correctly identified the camera. The memo. of identification parade is Exh.P.W.3611. Abdul Jalil Khan, EA C (P.W .37) recorded the confessional statement of Inayatullah (acquitted accused) on 3-4-1980; the confessional statement of Janab Shah (absconder) on 26-4-1980; the confessional statement of Hazrat Khan (Appellant) Exh.P.J., on 15-4-1980; the confessional statement of Mohammad Qasam (absconder) on 26-3-1980 and that of Mir Hassan (appellant) Exh.P.N., on 27-3-1980. He stated that the confessional statements of the accused were recorded after observing all the legal formalities and giving sufficient time to the accused to think over the confessional statements which they were making before the Court. Mohammad Ayub Khan, D.S.P. Crime Brach (P.W.38) recovered the vivitar camera, Exh.P.69, alongwith other articles from the house search of Bahauddin accused (since dead). Wazir Mohammad, Senior Clerk, D.C. Office, Peshawar (CW.1) was posted as Stenographer to SDM, Charsadda, (Mohammad Asim Khan, since dead). He stated that he was well conversant with the signature and handwriting of Mohammad Asim Khan who on 26-3-1980 dictated to him the confessional statement of Mohammad Karim (appellant) and he accordingly typed the confessional statement which correctly bears the signature of Mohammad Asim Khan, the then SDM, Charsadda.

7. Dr. Parvaiz Akbar Khan (P .W .2) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Khawaja Mohammad Khan son of Mohammad Ashraf Khan on 17-12-1979 at 7 a.m. and found the following injuries (1) Fire-arm entry wound on the forehead size " x ". Fire-arm exit wound on the occipital region of skull size half inch and half inch. This exit corresponds to wound No.1. (2) Incised wound on the skull incised 3" into ". Brain matter was present in the wound. (3) Incised wound on the top of left shoulder size 2" x " muscle deep. He also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Fazal Mohammad son of Faiz Mohammad on the same date and time and found the following injures:- (1) Fire-arm entry wound on the top of left shoulder size 1" x 1". Two fire-arm exit wounds on the left pectoral region size of each x . (2) Fire-arm entry wound on the right upper arm size " x 1". Fire-arm exit wound No.2. (3) Incised wound on the right side of chest, size 6" x 2" cavity deep. The third, fourth, sixth right ribs were broken. (4) Fire-arm entry wound on the left nostral size " x ". Exit wound upper lip size x

1. He also examined Noor Hassan son of Mohammad Hassan and found the following injuries:- (1) Abrasion on the right cheek size 1 x . (2) Abrasion on the front of left knee size 1" x ". His report is Ex.PC/6 which correctly bears his signature. On the Court question, he stated that he is definite about the incised injuries that these are caused by axe.

8. Dr. Khaista Mir Afridi (P. W .40) performed post-mortem examination of the dead body of Nisar Hussain on 7-12-1979 at 9-00 a.m. and found the following injuries:- (1) An incised wound on the right side of forehead size 2" x ". (2) An incised wound on the left side of forehead 3" x 1" x 1" deep. (3) An incised wound on the superior aspect of the skull size 2" x " x 1" deep. (4) An inlet wound of fire-arm on left shoulder, superior aspect 2" medial from the tip of the shoulder size 1" x 1" charring present. (5) An exit wound of the above wound on the right side of the back of chest of medial aspect of the scapula size 1 " x 1". (6) An inlet wound on the right cheek charring present size " x ".

9. Dr. Abdul Malik Safi (P.W.41) examined Mst. Sardara wife of Khawaja Mohammad Khan deceased on 7-I2-1979 at 4-40 a.m. and found the following injuries on her body:-. (1) Fire-arm wound 7 cm x.3 cm muscles deep on the lateral aspect of left thigh mid portion. There was charring of the wound. Corresponding weapon marks on clothes present. He also examined Niaz Mohammad son of Khawaja Mohammad Khan on the same date at 4-30 a.m. and found the following injuries:- (1) Fire-arm wound on the forehead about 5 cm x 4.5 cm extending from right canthus of right eye upto scalp and forehead. Frontal bone and muscles were visible. The wound was very irregular and fresh blood was coming from it. (2) Fire-arm entrance wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm on left scapular region on back, charring present. (3) Fire-arm grazing wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on front of neck just below adam's apple. Corresponding marks with charring present.

10. Marwat Shah and Sher Wali accused became approvers. They were granted pardon and examined as P.W.15 and P.W.16. Marwat Shah (P.W.15) stated that:- "About 6 months prior to m5 arrest I alongwith my brothers Hussain Shah and Masal Shah were present in our village. Janab Shah alias Mafroor of Kothrapal came to the said Gani and told us that he would require us for the work of one of his friends. We agreed to his request. On the following day I was working in the field when Mafroor Mama, Sher Wali and Hussain accompanied came there. This Hussain is not my brother mentioned above as Hussain Shah. From there we started and boarded a bus in Khair Abad. When we reached Bughdadn Mardan, we got down from the bus and there we boarded a Suzuki and went to village Chail. We went to a Baithak where we saw so many people present there. Out of these people Jamil, Bahauddin, Gul Rehman and Painda Gul were present and they were introduced to us by Habibur Rehman who was also present there. The other people present in the Baithak were introduced to me by Bahauddin. Their names were Chota Nadir, Qasam, Karim alias Fooji, Khanai, Gul Sanat Shah, Mir Hassan Shah, Bera Nadir, Azizur Rehman alias Azizo, we saw three topaks lying on the Charpai. We were served by Habibur Rehman with meals at late evening time and thereafter Habibur Rehman brought some weapons consisting of topaks, Tmachas and two axes. Habibur Rehman handed over the weapons to Bahauddin who distributed the same amongst us. Karim, Qasam, Azizur Rehman alias Azizo, Gul Sant Shah, Nadir Bera, Gul Rehman and mafroor Mama were given topaks whereas Chota Nadir, Mir Hassan, Sher Wali and Khanai were gilen Tamachas. I was given axe and Painda Gul was given tamacha as well as axe. Bahauddin took one pistol and topak. Bahauddin asked that in the house of Khan namely Khawaja Mohammad there was sufficient quantity of weapons. ornaments and cash amount and that we have to commit dacoity in his house. All of us started on foot from Chail and on way we reached a place mount like place where we met Ali Hader who was introduced to us by Bahauddin as our companion. After covering some distance Bahauddin told us to wait and said that the house of the Khan is nearby. He also said to us that we would be calling each other by code name as 'Lawany'. Chota Nadir and Bahauddin went towards the house of Khan and after sometime came back alongwith three dogs. The Chota Nadir warned us not to tease the dogs lest that may harm us. Thereafter, we were led by Bahauddin to a chappar in front of the hujra of the Khan. Bahauddin informed us that this is the house and hujra of the Khan but at the same time also told us that we were to kill the Khan namely Khawaja Mohammad Khan and his son. I and Sher Wali both said to Bahauddin that we were brought here for committing the dacoity and not for the killing of any body. Bahauddin replied that he had been offered a substantial amount of money by Mir Alam Khan and that he has already given some amount and if we kill the Khan anti his son the rest of the amount will be given to us and which would be distributed amongst us. Then we were allocated different places. Karim and Chota Nadir were made to sit in gate and were warned not to allow anybody getting out of the gate. Hussain was sent towards a damaged wall and had told him something which I could not hear. Bahauddin took Ali Haider, Azizo and Bara Nadir to the house of the Khany; Bahauddin returned back to us leaving the aforesaid persons there. I, Khanay Gul Sanat Shah, Jamil and Gul Rehman were sent to the room of the son of the Khan. Khanay removed the quilt from the person lying in a cot got up who was a young boy. Gul Sanat Shah fired at him with a shotgun, Khanay asked me to hit him (the son of the Khan lying on the cot). Consequently, I also hit him with axe, Jamil got frightened and as such the pistol in his hand went off with which the turban of Gul Rehman was hit and the bullet passed to it and hit a wall. Khanay removed a camera lying in 'Almirah' in the room. We also heard firing outside and there was a light on in front of the room where we had entered. Thereafter, we go: out of the room and came to the main gate, and all of us got together near the gate and then started running from there. We had run for about 2/3 miles, when Bahauddin stopped and counted us and we were also safe and sound. We again started and after covering some distance Bahauddin again stopped and showed us two Tamachas which he had accordingly taken from the room of the Khan. Khanay disclosed that he has brought the camera from the room of the Ron of the Khan. Mir Hassan disclosed that he had brought money from the room of the Khan which was counted by Bahauddin and it was about 4,000 rupees, and thereafter he gave each one of us two hundred rupees and then we started towards village Chail, On our way to Chail Ali Haider separated from us at the place where he had earlier joined us and when we reached village Chail it was morning Azan time. We went to the Baitak of Habibur Rehman, Bahauddin collected all the arms from us and handed it over to Habibur Rehman. And also gave him Rs.200 and directed him to clean all the weapons. Habibur Rehman served us with the tea. After having taken the tea Bahauddin closed the door of the baitak and fixed the prices of the two pistols. The big pistol was priced for Rs.3,000 whereas the small one was valued as Rs.800. The big pistol was purchased by Qasam whereas the small was taken by Mafroor Mama. Since Qasam had no money. Bahauddin entrusted the pistol to Gul Sanat Shah telling him to give it to Qasam after the later pays the amount. Mafroor Mama borrowed Rs.200 from me and Rs.200 from Sher Wali and paid the same to Bahauddin as the price of the pistol that he had purchased from him. Bahauddin promised that as soon as he received the amount from Mir Alam Khan he would give us our share. Thereafter,-we returned to our village. We however could not see Bahauddin thereafter. After about 2/3 months the police started raiding our houses. I and Sher, Wali then out of fear went to Prang Ghar. Three months later we however surrendered to the police. At the time when I first met the persons who accompanied me to the spot of occurrence were not identified because of 'insufficient light in the Baithak of Habibur Rehman. However, I identified them in the Jail." The evidence of Sher Wali approver (P.W.16) is in similar terms and tallies with the statement of Marwat Shah (P.W.15) in all material particulars. The confessional statements of the appellants also tally with each other in all material particulars wherein they provided full details about the commission of the crime. They are consistent on the point that all the accused involved in the case conspired together to commit dacoity with murder in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly in the house of Khawaja Mohammad Khan deceased who was stated to be a very rich man and a big landlord of the area. From their confessional statements and the testimony of the, approvers, it also emerges that at the time of occurrence Mohammad Karim (appellant) was armed with a shotgun, Mir Hassan (appellant) way having a five shots rifle, Nadir Khan and Painda Gul were, having a shotgun and an axe respectively whereas no arm was carried' by Hazrat Khan appellant. Similarly, in the confessional statements and the evidence of the approvers a consistent and specific account has been given of the role played by each one of the accused in the course of committing the crime.

11. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. retracted from their confessional statements and stated that the confessions were extracted from them by the police by torture. They pleaded innocence and their false implication in the case and refused to give evidence on oath.

12. In support of the appeals it is contended that the confessions having been retracted by the appellants, could not be used as corroborative evidence of the testimony of the approvers; that since the recovery evidence does not connect the appellants with the crime the same cannot be used against them as corroborating the testimony of the approvers; that the confessions being not voluntary and having been obtained by torture by the police can be used neither against the makers thereof nor against the co-accused 'and that, even otherwise, a confession of a co-accused cannot be used as corroboration of the testimony of an approver. At the outset it may be mentioned that a retracted confession can be acted upon in corroboration of the testimony of an approver if the reasons given for retraction are found to be false or otherwise untrue. Excepting the statements of the appellants that they were subjected to torture by the police there is no material on the file to support them. The Investigating Officer was not questioned at all on this point. From the evidence of the Magistrates, who recorded the confessional statements, it is more than clear that the confessions were recorded after due observance of all the legal formalities and also when they were fully satisfied that the confessions were being made voluntarily by the appellants. The fact that the appellants remained in Police custody after their arrest for a couple of days or a little more than a week would not ipso facto lead to the inference that the confessions were the result of inducement, threat or promise. The appellants before their confessional statements did not point out to the Magistrates that they had been subjected to torture or undue influence by the police. Thus, there being no valid reason for retraction of the confessional statements, in our view, the same would be available for use as corroboration of the testimony of the approvers. They can also be used against the accused making them and could be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence against the other accused. Under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons is proved, such confession shall be proof against the person making it and the Court may take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against such other persons. Court, however, is careful in making use of the confession of a co-accused as corroboration of an approver's testimony. But where it is found that the confessions were voluntary, there would by no justification for declaiming to rely on them for the purposes of corroboration. The recovery of vivitar camera, Ex.P.69, from the house search of Bahauddin accused (since dead) which was later on, identified by Niaz Mohammad (PW.33) in a regular identification parade; the recovery of a .30 bore pistol Ex. P.61, the number whereof was found defaced, at the instances of Qasam, absconding accused, which belonged to Khawaja Mohammad Khan deceased; the recovery of a .25 bore pistol Ex.P.4 bearing No. 635-25, made in Spain, at the instance of Janab Shah. absconding accused, and the recovery of a pistol of 7.65 bore bearing No.1195 (EX.P.1) from the house search of Jamil, absconding accused, coupled with the medical evidence furnished by the Doctors lend sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the approvers as well as the retracted confessions of the appellants. It may be mentioned that the rule of corroboration about the testimony of an approver is based on the principle that it is dangerous to act on his uncorroborated testimony because he is a self-confessed criminal having betrayed his former associates for the reason of saving his own skin and as such his evidence cannot be viewed except with some element of distrust and reluctance. Thus, some independent evidence is required to support that the evidence of the accomplice is true and that it is a reasonably safe to act upon it. It is well-settled that each part of the statement of an approver need not be necessarily corroborated by independent evidence since the circumstantial evidence in this behalf may also suffice. On this principle the account of the crime given by an accused implicating himself and his co-accused can be taken into consideration as corroborative evidence of the testimony of an approver. It is clear that besides their own confessional statements in which the appellants had implicated themselves and the co-accused, the testimony of the approvers is also there wherein besides implicating themselves the approvers also implicated the appellants by furnishing full details of the criminal conspiracy and the particulars about the commission of the offence. The evidence of the approvers thus stands corroborated not only by the retracted confessions of the appellants but also by medical evidence and the recovery of the incriminating articles. Once the testimony of the approvers is believed, we find no reason to agree with the learned counsel that the same cannot be used against the appellants as the incriminating articles were not recovered at their instance. This contention is, therefore, repelled. In Fazal Dad v. The Crown PLD 1955 SC 152 it was held that:

"The rule that insists on corroboration of the approver's evidence does not require that corroboration must be on ell the particulars of the story, nor that there must be corroboration on that part of the story of the accomplice in which he implicates himself. If the independent evidence produced in corroboration tends to show that the persons named by him were parties to the' commission of the offence charged, the Court is entitled to accept his evidence even though there be no corroboration against the accomplice himself." Similarly, in Abdul Khaliq v. The State (P L D 1970 SC 166) it was observed:

"The extent and nature of corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice may vary from case to case. The rule of practice requiring corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice is that the corroboration must be in respect of some material particulars implicating the accused, and it is not necessary that evidence of the accomplice should be corroborated in every detail of the crime."

13. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution case against the appellants stands proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt and they have been rightly convicted for the offence. Regarding the sentence, imposed upon them, we consider that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it also does not call for any interference, with the result that both the appeals as well as Criminal Revision No.42 of 1986 fail which are hearby dismissed. M.Y.H./606/P Appeals and revision dismissed.