Murder

When the Trial Court had arrived to the conclusion that prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt causing death of deceased lady, then the normal sentence of death under S. 302(a), P.P.C. or life imprisonment under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was required to have been awarded due to the use of word " shall" in S. 302, P.P.C, but, the appellant was sentenced under S.302(c), P.P.C. for 10 years without assigning any reason forwarding lesser punishment

Section 367(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, ('Cr.P.C.') on one hand, empowers the Trial Court that in the offence punishable with death, the Trial Court instead of awarding punishment of death, may award any other sentence upon the accused but for awarding lesser punishment, the Court must give cogent and convincing reason for awarding sentence other than the death

Record revealed that the appellant, in his defense, had not taken any plea of self-defense throughout the trial but the Trial Court in its findings (at relevant page of the judgment) had concluded that the appellant had exceeded in his right of defense which seemed to be a conclusion drawn beyond the facts and circumstances of the case, because there was no plea of self defense in the case from the appellant

Thus when the question of determination of plea of defense was not raised before the Trial court, the impugned judgment was not handed down keeping in view of the provision of S. 367, Cr.P.C

Judgment recorded by the Trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law, in circumstances

Impugned judgment was set aside

Case was remanded for re-writing of the judgment afresh after hearing the parties in light of evidence available on record and in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 367, Cr.P.C.

Appeal filed by the accused (under trial prisoner) was disposed of accordingly.

If the prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution might have reacted against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder and led to the alternate sentence of life imprisonment.

Decision was made not to perform life-saving surgery due to the poor quality of victim's life and as a result the victim died

Question was whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the accused for the murder of victim on basis that victim's low quality of life resulting from assault caused the decision not to undergo surgery, and whether conduct of accused was a "substantial or significant cause of death"

Held, that it was sufficient (for conviction) that the effects of the assault substantially or significantly contributed to the decision which, in turn, prevented the surgery that was reasonably expected to save victim's life

Decision not to perform surgery and only continue palliative treatment was based substantially or significantly upon the persistent, long-term, and catastrophic effects of the assault

Victim's severe cognitive decline as a result of the assault was operative at the time of his death

Assault by accused upon the victim was a sufficiently substantial or significant cause of the death to justify a conviction for murder.

Prosecution was to prove that all the said persons had the common object to commit the offence of murder or attempt to murder by causing firearm injuries to injured and alleged presence of all the accused on the spot

Narration in the FIR and statements of the witnesses were that the complainant party after getting the knowledge about sale of pine leaves by accused party, rushed to the spot and after exchange of harsh words, occurrence took place resulting into casualties of both the sides

Record transpired that fight was initiated by complainant party where-after a free fight was started

Accused party could not be said to have acted in prosecution of their common object and they had come out when the complainant party had reached the place of occurrence

Circumstances suggested that there existed no legal justification on the basis of which the accused could be vicariously held liable for the murder of deceased or injuries sustained by other injured persons at the alleged firing

Circumstances established that conviction of the accused for the murder of the deceased and injuries sustained by injured persons attracting the provisions of S. 149, P.P.C. would highly be unsafe as well as unjustified

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded against him by the Trial Court.

Occurrence took place during the night and the natural witnesses of the occurrence, i.e. the wife and children of deceased had not been produced before the trial court as eyewitnesses

Eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence

Person who could have established the motive set up by the prosecution was not produced before the Trial Court

Different motive had been set up by the prosecution during the trial but the said motive had not been confirmed by one of the alleged eye-witnesses

Alleged recovery of weapon from the custody of accused was legally inconsequential because admittedly the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after arrest of accused and after recovery of the weapon from his custody

High Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to accused

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Occurrence in the present case had taken place during the night and a collective allegation had been levelled by the prosecution against 6 to 7 persons including the accused regarding firing at the deceased

Medical evidence had shown that the deceased had received only one firearm entry wound on his body which, allegedly stood attributed to 6/7 persons

During investigation accused had been declared to be innocent and his name was placed in column No. 2 of the challan

Nothing had been recovered from the custody of accused during the investigation

All the co-accused persons had been acquitted by the Trial Court and the case against accused was prima facie at par with the acquitted co-accused persons

Accused had remained on bail during his trial and no allegation had been levelled against him regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail

Accused had spent about fourteen months in jail after recording of his conviction by the Trial Court and there was no prospect of an early hearing of his appeal before the High Court

In such circumstances the High Court had rightly suspended the sentence of accused during the pendency of his appeal and had admitted him on bail

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

In the Inquest Report no time of death had been recorded which indicated that till preparation of the Inquest Report the FIR had not been registered

Post-mortem examination of the dead body of deceased had been conducted after nine hours of the incident which again was a factor pointing towards a possibility that time had been consumed by the local police and the complainant party in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and cooking up a story for the prosecution

Eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they had failed to bring any evidence on the record establishing the stated reason for their presence close to the deceased at the relevant time

Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had also seriously contradicted each other on many important aspects of the case

One of the accused had also received two incised wounds on his body during the occurrence, including one deep wound on his chest, but the prosecution had completely suppressed the said injuries sustained by one of the accused

Doctor who had examined said accused confirmed his injuries within a matter of three hours of sustaining them

Suppression of injuries on the body of said accused exposed the bona fide of the complainant party in narrating the incident

Motive set up by the prosecution had not been established through any independent evidence

Crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of accused persons and after recovery of the weapons of offence from their custody

High Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt

Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused persons was dismissed accordingly.

Even if the accused did not take the plea of self-defence and same was discernible from the prosecution evidence , benefit of the same was to be given to the accused.

Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence at the place of occurrence

Post-mortem examination of the deadbody of the deceased had been conducted with a noticeable delay

Medical evidence had contradicted the ocular account

Motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established

Report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory was in the negative

High Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt

Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused was dismissed accordingly.

FIR had been lodged by the complainant upon information supplied to him by the deceased's mother but the mother had not been able to identify any of the culprits at the time of the occurrence

Before the Trial Court deceased's mother had improved her version and had implicated accused, who was also her son-in-law and claimed that co-accused persons in connivance with the accused maneouvered the murder of deceased

No evidence had been produced before the Trial Court regarding hatching of any conspiracy by accused

Witness of last seen evidence was closely related to the complainant and to the deceased's mother and the conduct displayed by him was nothing but unusual detracting from the veracity of his statement

Witness before whom the accused allegedly made an extra-judicial confession made significant improvements before the Trial Court and had also made certain contradictory statements

Medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail because the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed

Weapon used in commission of crime had allegedly been recovered from a place which was open and accessible to all and, thus, it was unsafe to place reliance upon such recovery

Apart from that no one had seen accused firing at the deceased and, thus, mere recovery of a weapon of offence matching with a crime-empty was not sufficient to provide corroboration to the other pieces of circumstantial evidence

Whether weapon of offence had been kept in the mal-khana safely after its recovery and its dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory was not proved by any witness before Trial Court

High Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused and co-accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and had, thus, acquitted them of the charge

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the Supreme Court accordingly.

Only allegation against accused persons was in respect of causing firearm injuries to the injured-witness, which allegation was not supported by the medical evidence because according to the eyewitnesses accused and co-accused had fired at the injured witness from a distance of thirty-five feet but the medical evidence had shown availability of burning on the relevant injuries which was not possible from a distance of thirty-five feet

Apart from that the medical evidence had shown that injured witness had received injuries through pellets whereas according to the prosecution accused and co-accused were shown to be armed with rifles

Glaring contradictions could be observed in the eye-witnesses' statements with regard to who fired at the injured witness

Nothing had been recovered from the possession of co-accused during the investigation of the case and he had been declared innocent by the investigating agency whereas the alleged recovery of a firearm from the custody of accused was legally inconsequential because no crime-empty had been secured from the place of occurrence so as to connect the recovered weapon with the alleged murderous assault

Motive set up in the FIR for the incident was either not proved or remained too vague and generalized

High Court had rightly recorded acquittal of accused and co-accused by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Father and a brother of deceased appeared as prosecution eyewitnesses and claimed that they were with deceased at the time of the occurrence and immediately shifted him to a Government hospital in injured condition

Record of the case, however, proved that said witnesses were lying as it had been established before the Trial Court that after having been injured deceased had initially been shifted to a private hospital and from there he was transferred to the Government hospital

Record further confirmed that deceased had been brought to the Government hospital in an injured condition not by the eyewitnesses but by Emergency Rescue Service officials, and that it was the administration of the Government hospital which had informed the local police about arrival of deceased in an injured condition

Post-mortem examination had taken place after about 24 to 30 hours of the death of the deceased which factor clearly indicated that time had been consumed by the local police and the complainant party in cooking up a story for the prosecution and in procuring and planting eye-witnesses

Eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were actually not present with the deceased at the time of occurrence and, thus, the ocular account furnished by them was rightly ruled out of consideration

After the ocular account had been ruled out the other circumstances of the case providing corroboration or support to the ocular account automatically collapsed

Benefit of doubt had been rightly extended to the accused to acquit him of the charge

Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal accordingly.

Death sentence in a murder case was a normal penalty and the courts while diverting towards lesser sentence should give detailed reasons.

Motive in legal parlance was ordinarily not considered as a principal or primary evidence in a murder case, however in rare cases, motive did play a very vital and decisive role for committing murder.

Such ground was not sufficient all by itself to convert a sentence of death into that of imprisonment for life but it could only be considered as one of the circumstances which, in a given case, may persuade a court to reduce a convict's sentence from death to imprisonment for life if there were some other mitigating circumstances also available in the case.

Section 309, P.P.C. pertaining to waiver (Afw) and S. 310, P.P.C. pertaining to compounding (Sulh) in cases of murder were relevant only to cases of qisas and not to cases of ta'zir

For cases of ta'zir the matter of compromise between the parties was governed and regulated by the provisions of S. 345(2), Cr.P.C. read with S. 338-E, P.P.C.

Partial compromise may be acceptable in cases of qisas but a partial compromise was not acceptable in cases of ta'zir

Compounding of an offence falling in Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 was permissible under some conditions both in cases of qisas as well as ta'zir but at the same time it was equally true that such compounding was regulated by separate and distinct provisions and that such limited common ground between the two did not obliterate the clear distinction otherwise existing between the two separate legal regimes.

Medical evidence could show that deceased died due to firearm injury but could not connect accused with crime.

Quality and not the quantity of the evidence which would settle the guilt or innocence of accused; and conviction could be based on testimony of a single witness, even in a murder case.

Deceased, an innocent passer-by, caught in the cross-fire and accidentally hit by a bullet fired from the weapon of the defendant's adversary

Defendant's adversary guilty of murder under the principle of "transferred malice"

Questions as to whether the defendant would also be liable on the ground that he aided and abetted the murder of the deceased by aiding and abetting his adversary to shoot at him (i.e. the defendant) and whether defendant was guilty as a joint- principal to the murder of the deceased

Determination

Defendant was charged and convicted of murder by the Trial Court but his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal

Validity

Reasons recorded by His Lordship for his disagreement with the majority view.

Deceased, an innocent passer-by, caught in the cross-fire and accidentally hit by a bullet fired from the weapon of the defendant's adversary

Defendant's adversary guilty of murder under the principle of "transferred malice"

Questions for determination were whether the defendant would also be liable for the murder of the deceased in such circumstances, and if so, whether as a "joint-principal" or "accessory" to such murder

Defendant was charged and convicted of murder by the Trial Court but his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal

Validity.

Act of a person of unsound mind, murder, house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class

Appeal against acquittal

Reappraisal of evidence

Murder

Defence of insanity

"Epileptic insanity"

Proof and scope

Accused suffering from continuous mental sickness

Injury inflicted by accused insufficient to cause death

Effect

Accused was alleged to have hurled a stone on the head of the deceased which resulted in instantaneous death

Trial Court rejected plea of insanity raised by the accused and convicted him

High Court acquitted the accused on the ground that he was a person of unsound mind within the meaning of S.84 of the Penal Code, 1860 and gave directions to detain him in safe custody in a hospital or place of custody for non-criminal lunatics

Validity

Accused led oral and documentary evidence in support of his plea of insanity

Doctor who was treating the accused had stated that the accused was suffering from "Epilepsy" which caused fits and behavioral abnormality

Brother of the accused had stated that the accused was suffering from mental disorder since the year 1993 and just prior to the incident, accused suffered from epileptic attack and behaved violently and caused injuries to his own family members

Prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injury inflicted by the accused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was unable to afford and engage a defence counsel and the one provided by Trial Court only assisted the accused at belated stage of the trial

Fifty six (56) prosecution witnesses out of a total of sixty five (65) were examined without defence counsel

None of the said fifty six (56) witnesses were cross-examined by the accused due to non-presence of defence counsel

Accused was tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court

High Court confirmed death sentence awarded by the Trial Court

Validity

Trial Court had relied upon the evidence of witnesses who were not cross-examined

Accused was denied the right to cross-examination as he was not given the assistance of a lawyer to defend him

Poverty also came in the way of the accused to engage a counsel of his choice

Accused seemed illiterate and had asked for engagement of a counsel to defend him at State expenditure which was provided but unfortunately for him the counsel so appointed remained absent and a large number of witnesses had been examined in the absence of the counsel

Such witnesses had not been cross-examined and many of them had been relied upon for holding the accused guilty

Supreme Court observed that the judge of the Trial court forgot that he had an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice; that he failed to realize that for an effective instrument in dispensing justice he must have ceased to be a spectator and a recording machine but should have been a participant in the trial evincing intelligence and active interest so as to elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth and administer justice with fairness and impartiality, and that the accused was ultimately convicted and sentenced in a trial which was not reasonable, fair and just

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence of accused was set aside on the ground that his trial was not fair and just and directions were given to release and deport him to his country in accordance with the law.

Pending criminal litigation between the deceased and the accused persons proving enmity, which established the motive for the occurrence

One of the accused exhorted other accused persons to kill the deceased

Effect

Prosecution, in circumstances, had been able to establish that all the members of the unlawful assembly acted in furtherance of common object to cause death of the deceased

Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was involved in the supplementary statement in. which no good ground had been given as to why accused was charged at such a belated stage

No source of information had been disclosed in the supplementary statement

Case of accused being of further inquiry, no purpose would be served if he was kept in further custody

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Statements of certain persons of the locality were recorded by the Police who stated that accused at relevant time was present at another place

No empty had been recovered from the spot

Except for accused, the other two accused persons had become fugitive from law and accused unlike his absconding co-accused surrendered himself to the process of law

Whether surrender of accused to the process of law unlike his absconding co-accused, his plea of alibi and absence of any empty from the spot of occurrence, were compatible with his innocence or guilt, were the questions requiring further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he strangulated deceased in presence of complainant, but post mortem report produced by the Doctor who was also examined, was contrary to said ocular evidence as Doctor had specifically mentioned that death of deceased occurred due to asphyxia as a result of hanging caused by ligature

No enmity was alleged against the Doctor who was so confident about her finding

Evidence of said Doctor could not be brushed aside

Such situation had created a lot of doubt about the incident to have happened as alleged by the eye­witness

All witnesses produced by the prosecution were close relatives of deceased, two being brothers of deceased and one uncle of deceased-.

All said three witnesses had deposed that they were present at the time of incident and deceased was murdered in their presence

No explanation had been given by said witnesses that why they did not make any effort to save the deceased or even to apprehend accused

Claimed presence of witnesses, in circumstances, was highly doubtful at the time of incident

Was not believable that accused who was empty handed was able to kill the deceased in presence of her two brothers and one uncle

State Counsel in view of said facts and circumstances did not support impugned order

Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the Trial Court was not justified to convict and punish accused.

Article 9 of the Constitution attaches great value to the "life and liberty" of human being which is most precious human right regarded by the Constitution as a Fundamental Right, therefore, as far as possible and whenever permissible (depending upon the circumstances of a case), the court may exercise its discretion in favour of lesser punishment, which also will be strictly legal having the statutory backing of S.302(b), P.P.C.

Such an. approach, is likely to be regarded as liberal, but will advance the rationale and philosophy behind the mandate of Art.9 of the Constitution.

Insufficiency of motive or the same being shrouded in mystery does not justify non-awarding of normal penalty of death to a murderer or to reduce his death sentence to a lesser punishment

Occurrence, though had taken place at the spur of moment resulting in a murder with a single shot which was not repeated, also did not justify withholding of sentence of death.

Circumstances where normal penalty of death sentence be awarded stated:

Where the motive is insufficient or the same is shrouded in mystery, where the occurrence resulting in a murder had taken place at the spur of the moment and where only one shot had been fired and the same had not been repeated, the only penalty deserved by the killer was the normal punishment of death prescribed for the said offence.

Petitioner himself having committed trespass into house of complainant to commit act of adultery with his wife, he could not plead self-defence against his own unlawful act

Petitioner stealthily coming to house at night, to bring dishonor to family by having intercourse with one of its female members, and if he was caught, he had no reason- to cause fatal injuries as even under the law deceased was entitled to apprehend him

Plea of lenient sentence equally groundless

Petitioner's act, rather having aggravated the offence, leave to appeal refused.

At the time of occurrence sentence which could be awarded under S. 302, P.P.C. was transportation for life and not life imprisonment as awarded to the accused by High Court

Supreme Court altered the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life with direction to grant to accused benefit of provisions of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.

[Sentence].

Leave to appeal granted to examine question of vicarious liability of accused persons and their conviction by application of S. 149, P.P.C. in so far as the offence of murder was concerned.

Deceased admittedly, having been carrying on intrigue with respondent's sister, attacked by them for rehabilitation of their family honour

Discretion exercised by Courts below in not imposing extreme penalty of death on respondents, held, could not be interfered with in circumstances

Petition dismissed.

Failure of prosecution witnesses to account for some of injuries and of defence to give a satisfactory explanation making case a typical case of a sudden fight involving both parties-Where in case of a sudden fight both groups were armed with fire-arms and used them, question of self-defence, held, would be academic and would not arise

Criminal responsibility of those involved would be individual and there would be no question of a common intention or a common object being pursued.

[Private defence, right of

Common object

Common intention]

Dead body of real brother of accused found near dead body of deceased-Recovery of blood-stained knife from a nearby field, coupled with fact that after committing murder, accused did not abscond but remained at place of occurrence till arrival of complainant, other witnesses and police, held, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that as pleaded by him defence, accused had killed deceased in defence of his brother who was being attacked by deceased

Principle enunciated in Safdar Ali's case P L D 1953 F C 93 was fully attracted to case of accused

Accused 's case being covered by provisions of S.103, P.P.C., he deserved to be acquitted in circumstances.

[Private defence, right of).

Consecutive sentence of imprisonment for life under S.302, P.P.C. and seven years' rigorous imprisonment under S. 307, P.P.C. awarded to accused

Leave to appeal granted to consider whether in view of provisions of S.35, Cr.P.C. which prohibited making of consecutive sentences aggregating more than 14 years, sentences as awarded to accused, were proper in law.-[Sentence].

Accused and absconding accused came to place of occurrence with motive to kill "W" who was injured, and did not know that deceased who was relative of complainant. could even be present at place of occurrence

Held: Merely because witnesses stated that accused was armed with rifle and presence of pellet injuries on deceased's body, could not by themselves form basis of conviction of accused on a capital charge

Accused could not have common intention to kill deceased and provisions of S. 34, P.P.C. were therefore, not attracted

Conviction of accused under S. 302, P.P.C. set aside and conviction and sentence under Ss. 307 & 449, P.P.C. maintained, in circumstances.

[Common intention].

Deceased having illicit relations with accused's wife-During night of occurrence on his usual visit for illicit connections was surprised by accused and killed

Plea of sudden and grave provocation-Prosecution evidence itself sustaining defence plea that it was on account of sudden and grave provocation that accused caused death of deceased

Benefit of doubt regarding this plea allowed to accused-Conviction altered to one under S. 304, P.P.C.

Sentence reduced to (7 years) already undergone.[ Grave and sudden provocation

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as barred by time.-

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302 read with S. 300, Exceptions 1 and IV-Murder-Accused, after being pushed by deceased into a muddy nallah, standing up and firing a shot at deceased from a distance of 10-12 feet-.No fight taking place before firing of fatal shot-Held, accused could not, in circumstances, be given benefit of Exception IV or of Exception I to S. 300, Peu1 Code-Conviction and sentence under S. 302 upheld.

Ss. 302, 300, Exceptions 1, 2 & 4 and 304, Part I-Murder-Appreciation of evidence-Four shots alleged to have been fired by accused Firing of first shot not witnessed by any of eye-witnesses-Held, since it was not known as to what preceded first shot, accused therefore, entitled to benefit either or more of Exceptions 1, 2 & 4 to S. 300, P, P. C. and guilty of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under S. 304, Part 1, P. P. C.-Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to imprisonment already undergone.-[Sentence].

Evidence-Court witnesses not charging accused with fatal injuries caused to deceased-Statement of another disinterested eye-witness charging accused with such injuries inflicted in his presence-Such statement supported by medical evidence and evidence regarding motive-Held, prosecution has succeeded in proving case against accused-Conviction and sentence maintained.

Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497(1), proviso 111-Murder-Leave to appeal granted in order to consider question whether High Court rightly interpreted S. 497(1), proviso III, Cr. P. C. in refusing to allow bail to accused on ground that delay in trial was occasioned by act or omission of co-accused.-[Delay].

Compromise-Contention that where death sentence has not been passed, in view of compromise, accused should be set at liberty, repelled by Supreme Court on ground that no such provision of law existed.

[Sentence].

S. 302-Murder-Evidence-Recovery of blood-stained weapons of offence-Evidence that other people had also access to place of recovery-Conviction of a man for murder merely because a bloodstained dagger was recovered at his instance-Held, unsafe.[Recovery].

Art. 185(3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34-MurderEvidence-Trial Judge disbelieving all evidence tendered by prosecution, except recovery of gun, High Court disagreeing in that behalf by relying on evidence of eye-witnesses

Held, evidence in case requires reappraisal-Leave to appeal granted.-[Evidence].

Motive-Witnesses having no motive, whatsoever, to falsely implicate accused-Maker of F. I. R. also not knowing of anything about motive

Ocular witnesses having no knowledge of motive though they mentioned that acquitted co-accused bad shouted that they were taking revenge"-Held, in such situation, absence of motive was inconsequential.-[Motive].

Art. 185 (3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Murder-Leave to appeal granted to consider question of enhancement of sentence.[Sentence).

Art. 185 (3)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302/34-Murder-Leave to appeal granted to consider question of vicarious liability of two accused convicts.-[Vicarious liability.]

Testimony of eye-witnesses, close relatives of deceased; contradicted by medical evidence and remaining uncorroborated-Facts showing that occurrence was unwitnessed one-Motive appearing to be doubtful-Acquittal of accused by High Court-Held, justified in circumstances of case-Leave to appeal against acquittal refused.