2025 P Cr. L J 824
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
ABDUL AZIZ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. (T)64 and Murder Reference No. (T)1 of 2022, decided on 16th
November, 2023.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324--- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of evidence-
--Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Accused was charged for committing
murder of his father -in-law/complainant and causing injuries to his mother -in-law---In the
unfortunate incident, the complainant, after receiving firearm injuries, was shifted to the hospital, where he reported the matter to Inspector of Police, who, after drafting Marasla prepared injury sheet and the injured were referred to Medical Officer for examination ---
Complainant succumbed to the injuries on the same night at 1:00 am ---According to the
report of deceased (then injured) on 04.09.2020 at 8:45 pm, when he along with his family
were present in their house, his son- in-law (appellant) and his two brothers, (acquitted
accused) were also present there---In the meantime, the appellant asked that he would take his wife and children with him, but the complainant answered that he might take them with him tomorrow as his mother -in-law was sick ---Appellant took out a pistol and started firing,
due to which the complainant, received bullet injuries on his left arm and left ribs while his wife received injuries on her left ribs and they were both shifted to the hospital ---According
to Medical Officer both the deceased received injuries by means of firearms ---Thus, the
medical certificates also supported the ocular account furnished by injured and son of deceased and dying declaration of the deceased (then injured) ---Circumstances established
that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt ---However, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence was
altered to imprisonment for life ---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.
(b) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 46---Dying declaration ---Scope ---Sanctity is attached to a dying declaration
because a dying man is not expected to tell a lie, however, it requires close scrutiny and
corroboration ---If the Court is satisfied about the genuineness and truthfulness of the dying
declaration, it can be acted upon without any corroboration.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324--- Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to
commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of evidence ---Dying declaration ---Scope ---Accused
was charged for committing murder of his father -in-law/complainant and causing
injuries to his mother -in-law---In this case, the dying declaration of the deceased (then
injured) had been recorded in the shape of Marasila prepared by Inspector of Police ---
Said witness mentioned in the dying declaration that at the time of making the report, the
deceased (then injured) was fully conscious ---Dying declaration bore the thumb
impression of the deceased as well as the signatures of its author ---Factum of orientation
and consciousness of the deceased (then injured) at the time of making the report could also be gathered from the medical certificate issued by Medical Officer to the Investigation Officer to the extent that the injured was capable of recording statement and the same certificate was also mentioned in the Marasla, "fit for recording statement"--- Complainant lodged the report promptly without any delay---From the
evidence, it had been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the deceased (then injured) made a dying declaration immediately after the incident, eliminating the
possibility of influence, etc ---Prosecution also produced the son of the deceased who
stated that on 04.09.2020, when he was present at Ajwa Hotel at 8:30 pm, he received
information about injuries to his parents ---Said witness reached the hospital, and there,
his father and mother told him that the appellant fired upon them ---Both the author of
Marasla and son of deceased had been subjected to cross -examination by the defence,
but nothing could be extracted from their mouth that the deceased was not capable of
recording his statement/report---Both the said witnesses, as well as the certificate issued
by the Medical Officer, had established the factum of consciousness of the deceased (then injured) and his capability to talk and make statements ---Dying declaration of the
deceased (then injured) was recorded on 04.09.2020 at 9:45 pm ---Deceased remained
alive till 1:00 am 05.09.2020---Firearm entrance wound on the arm and right side of the ribs of the deceased (then injured) resulted in his death---In view of the statement of the author of Marasla and certificate issued by the Medical Officer the deceased (then injured) remained alive till 1:00 am 05.09.2020; i.e. for more than five hours after the occurrence---Deceased, then injured was fully conscious, well -oriented in time and
space and capable to make a statement/report ---Dying declaration revealed that the
deceased (then injured) had directly charged the appellant with a specific role of firing at him and his wife ---Dying declaration of the deceased (then injured) was corroborated
with the statement of injured witness ---Son of deceased also corroborated the version of
injured witness in all particulars ---Circumstances established that the prosecution had
been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt ---
However, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life ---Appeal was dismissed with the said modification in the sentence.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324 ---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence---Presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence established ---
Accused was charged for committing murder of his father -in-law/complainant and
causing injuries to his mother -in-law---Prosecution witnesses were natural witnesses
who were inmates of the house and were supposed to be present there ---Presence of
injured was also established on the spot of the occurrence on the basis of the injuries she sustained---Injuries of injured were further confirmed by Medical Officer, who examined injured and issued medical certificate, according to which she received injuries by means of firearms ---Prosecution witnesses had been subjected to lengthy cross -examination by
the defence, but nothing favourable to the appellant or adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record--- Said witnesses had given all necessary details qua the date, time,
place, name of the accused, the manner of the occurrence the kind of weapon used in the occurrence, and the locale of injuries ---Said witnesses remained consistent on each and
every material point in as much as they made deposition according to the circumstances that surfaced in this case; therefore, it could safely be concluded that their testimonies were reliable, straightforward, and confidence -inspiring ---Circumstances established that
the prosecution had been successful is proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt ---However, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence was
altered to imprisonment for life ---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in
sentence.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324 ---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence---Related and interested witnesses, evidence of ---Reliance---Accused was
charged for committing murder of his father -in-law/complainant and causing injuries to
his mother -in-law---No denial of the fact that witnesses were related to the deceased ---
Related witness could not be termed as an interested witness under all circumstances ---
Related witness could also be a natural witness ---If an offence was committed within t he
presence of the family members, they assumed the position of natural witnesses ---In case
the evidence of related witnesses was reliable, cogent, and clear, the prosecution case could not be doubted--- However, a related witness would become an interested witness
when his evidence was tainted with malice, and it showed that he was desirous of implicating the accused by fabricating and concocting evidence, but in the present case appellant could not show anything in that regard---Evidence of an eye -witness who was
a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized---Appellant could not point
out any plausible reason as to why the complainant and witnesses had falsely involved
the appellant in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed the murder of her husband---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon ---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt ---However, due to some mitigating
circumstances, death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal was
dismissed with the said modification in the sentence.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324 ---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence---Recovery of blood- stained earth and blood- stained clothes of deceased ----
Reliance---Accused was charged for committing murder of his father -in-law/complainant
and causing injuries to his mother -in-law---Record showed that the recovery of blood-
stained earth and blood- stained clothes of the deceased and injured had also been
affected ---Said articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Forensic
Science Laboratory Report in that regard was positive, which was available on record---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt ---However, due to some mitigating
circumstances, death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with the said modification in the sentence.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324 ---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence---Case of accused entirely different from that of the acquitted co -accused ---
Accused was charged for committing murder of his father -in-law/complainant and
causing injuries to his mother -in-law---Record showed that the same set of evidence had
already been disbelieved by the Trial Court to the extent of two co- accused who, too,
had been nominated in the FIR, and the specific allegation had been levelled against
both of them ---Due to such fact, the prosecution's case was seriously damaged and the
appellant was also entitled for such relief ---Two co -accused stood acquitted by the Trial
Court on 30.12.2020 inter alia on the ground that none of them was carrying firearms and none of them had caused injuries to the deceased and the injured---Appellant was assigned a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased and injured by means of a firearm, and similarly, the other accused were also attributed the general role that they were present at the time of the occurrence---These were reasons which weighed with the Trial Court to record the acquittal of the remaining two accused persons; therefore, stricto -senso it could not be said that the prosecution witnesses were disbelieved to the
extent of the acquitted accused persons ---Case of the present appellant was entirely
different from that of the acquitted co -accused, and it was only the appellant who was
carrying a firearm with him ---Appellant was nominated in the FIR with the specific
attribute of causing injuries to the deceased and injured---Deceased (then injured) succumbed to his injuries, whereas injured survived and appeared in the dock and made a statement in line with the narration of the FIR ---Thus, the prosecution had been
successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt ---
However, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life ---Appeal was dismissed with the said modification in the sentence.
(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 324 ---Qatl -i-amd, attempt to commit qatl- i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence---Sentence, reduction in ---Mitigating circumstances ---Accused was charged for
committing murder of his father -in-law/complainant and causing injuries to his mother -
in-law---On assessment of evidence, it was found that the motive had not been proved by
the prosecution against the appellants ---Moreover, it was observed that there was no
previous enmity between the parties ---Appellant was the son- in-law of the deceased and
he had married his daughter, and out of the wedlock, they had four children---On the day of the unfortunate incident, the appellant allegedly came to the house of the deceased and on refusal by his father -in-law/deceased to allow the appellant to take his wife and
the children with him, he took out a pistol and made firing upon him and mother -in-law
due to which his father -in-law and his mother -in-law received bullet injuries ---However,
the prosecution had failed to establish that there was any previous domestic issue
between the appellant and his wife, and in that regard, the prosecution failed to produce the wife of the appellant before the Court as a witness ---Moreover, it was observed that
the motive set up by the prosecution was quite vague; as such, the motive for the occurrence was not established from the record ---These were the mitigating
circumstances ---Moreover, it was not determinable in the case as to what was the real
cause of occurrence and as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of complainant (then injured) and injuries to the injured ---If a specific motive is alleged by the prosecution, then it is the duty of the
prosecution to establish the said motive through cogent and confidence -inspiring
evidence, and not proving of motive may be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused ---Considering the quantum of the sentence, the co- accused who,
too, had been nominated in the FIR stood acquitted, and the reasoning behind such acquittal had been found to be convincing; this factor also created mitigation---As such, while maintaining the conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death awarded
to the appellant was altered to imprisonment for life ---Since the charges under S.324,
P.P.C, had been fully proved, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded for the
same by the Trial Court was upheld ---Appeal was dismissed with the said modification
in the sentence of the appellant.
Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State 2009 SCMR 1188 rel.
Zahoor Ahmed Baloch for Appellant.
Sudheer Ahmed, APG for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2023.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J .---The appellant Abdul Aziz, son of Abdul Malik,
allegedly murdered his father -in-law, Ali Akbar, and caused injuries to his mother -in-law,
Mst. Sofia (PW -1) at the house of the deceased Ali Akbar (then injured) situated at
Sarikoran, District Panjgur, within the precincts of PS Sarikoran at about 8:45 pm on 04.09.2020. For the commission of the said offence, the appellant was booked in case FIR No. 45 of 2020, registered at the said police station on 04.09.2020 at 9:45 pm. After a regular trial, the appellant was convicted under section 302(b)P.P.C vide judgment dated 28.09.2022 ('the impugned judgment') passed by learned Sessions Judge Panjgur (`the trial Court') in Murder Case No. 03 of 2022 and sentenced to death as Ta'zir and also directed to be hanged by the neck till death subject to confirmation by the High Court. The appellant was also convicted under section 324 P.P.C and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years for causing injuries to Mst. Safia, widow of Ali Akbar, with a fine of Rs.100,000/ - and in default thereof,
he was directed to further undergo S.I for six months with the benefit of Section 382- B
Cr.P.C.
2. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the appellant has assailed his conviction and
sentence through Criminal Appeal No.(T) 64 of 2022, whereas the trial court has sent Murder Reference No. (T) 01 of 2022 for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence awarded to the appellant Abdul Aziz.
Since both the above cases are arising out of one and the same judgment of the trial
court, therefore the same are being disposed of through this single judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available
records with their valuable assistance.
4. In the unfortunate incident, the complainant, after receiving firearm injuries, was
shifted to the hospital, where he reported the matter to IP Javed Ahmed (PW -9), who, after
drafting Marasla prepared injury sheet, and the injured were referred to Dr. Shahab Younas Medical Officer (PW- 7) for examination. The complainant, Ali Akbar, succumbed to the
injuries on the same night at 1:00 am. According to the report of deceased (then injured) Ali Akbar on 04.09.2020 at 8:45 pm, when he along with his family we re present in their house,
his son -in-law Abdul Aziz (appellant) and his two brothers, namely Nazir Ahmed and Sultan
(acquitted accused) were also present there. In the meantime, the appellant asked that he
would take his wife and children with him, but the complainant answered that he might take them with him tomorrow as his motherCriminal in -law was sick then. Then the appellant
took out a pistol and started firing, due to which the complainant, Ali Akbar, received bullet
injuries on his left arm and left ribs while his wife, Mst. Safia Baigum received injuries on
her left ribs, and they were both shifted to the hospital by Akhtar (PW -2).
5. We would take first the dying declaration of the deceased, then the injured Ali Akbar.
Sanctity is attached to a dying declaration because a dying man is not expected to tell a lie;
however, it requires close scrutiny and corroboration, and if the Court is satisfied about the genuineness and truthfulness of the dying declaration, it can be acted upon without any corroboration. In this case, the dying declaration of the deceased Ali Akbar (then injured) has been recorded in the shape of Marasla (Ex.P/9 -A) prepared by IP Javed Ahmed (PW -9). It
has been mentioned in the dying declaration by its author (PW -9) that at the time of making
the report, the deceased Ali Akbar (then injured) was fully conscious. The dying declaration bears the thumb impression of the deceased as well as the signatures of its author. The factum of orientation and consciousness of the deceased (then injured) at the time of making
the report can also be gathered from the medical certificate (Ex.P/7 -C) issued by PW -7 Dr.
Shahab Younus to the investigation officer to the extent that the injured is capable of
recording statement, and the same certificate is also mentioned in the Marasla (Ex.P/9 -C) "fit
for recording statement".
The complainant lodged the report promptly without any delay. From the evidence, it
has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the deceased Ali Akbar (then injured)
made a dying declaration immediately after the incident, eliminating the possibility of
influence, etc.
6. The prosecution also produced Shah Mir (PW -3), the son of the deceased Ali Akbar.
On 04.09.2020, when he was present at Ajwa Hotel CPEC -road at 8:30 pm, he received
information about injuries to his parents. He reached the hospital, and there, his father and mother told him that the appellant, Abdul Aziz, fired upon them.
Both the author of Marasla (PW -9) IP Javed Ahmed and Shah Mir (PW -3) have been
subjected to cross -examination by the defense, but nothing could be brought from their
mouth that the deceased was not capable of recording his statement/report. Both the above PWs, as well as the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, have established the factum of consciousness of the deceased (then injured) and his capability to talk and make statements. The dying declaration of the deceased (then injured) was recorded on 04.09.2020 at 9:45 pm. The deceased remained alive till 1:00 am 05.09.2020. The firearm entrance wound on the arm and right side of the ribs of the deceased (then injured) resulted in his death, in view of the statement of the author of Marasla and certificate issued by the Medical Officer coupled with the deceased (then injured) remaining alive till 05.09.2020 1:00 am for more than five hours after the occurrence. We are firm in our view that he was fully conscious, well -
oriented in time and space, and capable to make a statement/report. The dying declaration Ex.P/9- A revealed that the deceased (then injured) had directly charged the appellant with a
specific role of firing at him and his wife, Mst. Safia Baigum.
7. The dying declaration of the deceased (then injured) is corroborated with the
statement of Mst. Safia Baigum. While appearing in the witness box as PW -1, she deposed
that the appellant Abdul Aziz is his son -in-law and her daughter, namely Mst. Zakia is his
wife. The appellant used to beat her daughter. They also had four children out of wedlock. She further stated that she does not remember the date; however, two years ago, when she and her husband and children were present in the house, the appellant Abdul Aziz and his two brothers, namely Nazir Ahmed and Sultan, came there over a domestic issue the appellant made firing upon her and her husband Ali Akbar (then injured). Noor Zaman (PW -
8), son of Ali Akbar (deceased), also corroborated the version of PW -1 in all particulars, and
he deposed in a categoric manner that on 04.09.2020, he was present with his parents at home. At 9:00 pm, the appellant made firing upon his father and mother, who received injuries, but later on, his father, Ali Akbar, succumbed to the injuries.
8. The above prosecution witnesses were natural witnesses who were inmates of the
house and were supposed to be present there. The presence of PW -1 is also established on the
spot of the occurrence on the basis of the injuries she sustained. The injuries of PW -1 were
further confirmed by Dr. Shahab Younas (PW -7), who examined her and issued medical
certificate Ex.P/7 -B, according to which she received injuries by means of firearms. The
above prosecution witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross -examination by the
defense, but nothing favourable to the appellant or adverse to the prosecution could be
brought on record. These witnesses have given all necessary details qua, the date, time,
place, name of the accused, the manner of the occurrence, the kind of weapon used in the occurrence, and the locale of injuries. The above PWs remained consistent on each and every material point in as much as they made deposition according to the circumstances that surfaced in this case; therefore, it can safely be concluded that their testimonies are reliable, straightforward, and confidence -inspiring. There is no denial to the fact that these PWs were
related to the deceased, but the law in this regard is well settled. A related witness cannot be termed as an interested witness under all circumstances. A related witness can also be a natural witness. If an offence is committed within the presence of the family members, they
assume the position of natural witnesses. In case their evidence is reliable, cogent, and clear,
the prosecution case cannot be doubted. However, a related witness would become an
interested witness when his evidence is tainted with malice, and it shows that he is desirous of implicating the accused by fabricating and concocting evidence, but the learned counsel for the appellant could not show us anything in this regard. The Court is required that the
evidence of an eye- witness who is a near relative of the victim should be closely scrutinized.
Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any plausible reason as to why the
complainant and PWs have falsely involved the appellant in the present case and let off the real culprit, who has committed the murder of her husband. Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon.
9. The medical evidence furnished by Dr. Shahab Younus (PW -7), who examined the
deceased (then injured) and Mst. Safia Baigum and issued medical certificates (Ex.P/7 -A and
B) according to which both the deceased received injuries by means of firearms; therefore, the medical certificates also support the ocular account furnished by PW- 1 and PW -8 Noor
Zaman and dying declaration of the deceased (then injured).
Besides the medical evidence is also supporting the prosecution version. We have
observed that the recovery of bloodstained earth and blood- stained clothes of the deceased
and injured have also been affected. These were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the FSL report in this regard is positive, which is available on record, i.e., Ex.P/9 -G and H.
10. The main thrust of learned counsel for the appellant was that the same set of evidence
has already been disbelieved by the trial court to the extent of two co- accused who, too, have
been nominated in the FIR, and the specific allegation has been levelled against both of them and by that fact, the prosecution's case was seriously damaged, and the appellant is also entitled for such relief. It is true that two co -accused, namely Nazir Ahmed and Sultan, both
sons of Abdul Malik, stood acquitted by the trial court on 30.12.2020 inter alia on the ground that none of them was carrying firearms and none of them had caused injuries to the deceased and the injured. We are mindful of the fact that the appellant was assigned a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased and injured Mst. Safia Baigum by means of a firearm, and similarly, the other accused were also attributed the general role that they were present at the time of the occurrence. Those were reasons which weighed with the trial court to record the acquittal of the remaining two accused persons; therefore, stricto sensu it cannot be said that the prosecution witnesses were disbelieved to the extent of the acquitted accused persons. The case of the present appellant is entirely different from that of the acquitted co -accused, and it was only the appellant who was carrying a firearm with him. He
was nominated in the FIR with the specific attributes of causing injuries to the deceased and injured Mst. Safia Baigum. Ali Akbar (then injured) succumbed to his injuries, whereas Mst.
Safia Baigum survived and appeared in the dock as PW -1 and made a statement in line with
the narration of the FIR.
11. We have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been successful to prove its
case against the appellant, Abdul Aziz, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction
recorded against the appellant is based on correct appreciation of evidence, which does not call for any interference.
12. Now, coming to the sentence awarded to the appellant under section 302(b) P.P.C, on
assessment of evidence, we also found that the motive has not been proved by the
prosecution against the appellants; we have observed that there was no previous enmity between the parties. The appellant is the son -in-law of the deceased Ali Akbar, and he had
married his daughter, namely Mst. Zakia, and out of the wedlock, they had four children. On
the day of the unfortunate incident, the appellant allegedly came to the house of the deceased
and on refusal to allow the appellant of his father -in-law, Ali Akbar (deceased), to take his
wife, Mst. Zakiar and the children with him took out a pistol and made firing upon him and
his wife, Mst. Safia Baigum, due to which his father -in-law Ali Akbar and his wife received
bullet injuries. However, the prosecution has failed to establish that there was any previous domestic issue between the appellant and his wife, Mst. Zakia, and in this regard, the prosecution failed to produce the wife of the appellant, namely Mst. Zakia before the court as a witness. We have observed that the motive set up by the prosecution was quite vague; as such, the motive for the occurrence was not established from the record. All the above are the circumstances as mitigating circumstances.
13. It is a well- recognized principle by now that the question of the quantum of the
sentence requires utmost attention and thoughtfulness on the part of the Courts. In this
regard, we respectfully refer to the case of Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State (2009
SCMR 1188) wherein the August Supreme Court has held as under: --
"It will not be out of place to emphasize that in criminal cases, the question of quantum of sentence requires utmost care and caution on the parts of the Courts, as such decisions restrict the life and liberties of the people. Indeed the accused persons are also entitled to extenuating benefit of doubt to the extent of quantum of sentence."
Moreover, it is not determinable in this case as to what was the real cause of
occurrence and as to what had actually happened immediately before the occurrence, which had resulted in the death of Ali Akbar (then injured) and injuries to Mst. Safia Baigum, therefore, in our view, the death sentence awarded to the appellant is quite harsh. It has been held in a number of judgments of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan that if a specific motive has been alleged by the prosecution, then it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the said motive through cogent and confidence -inspiring evidence and non- proof of motive
may be considered a mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused.
14. However, considering the quantum of the sentence, as detailed above, the co- accused
who, too, had been nominated in the FIR stood acquitted, and the reasoning behind such acquittal has been found by us to be convincing; this factor creates mitigation. As such, while maintaining the conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C., the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is altered to imprisonment for life. The imposition of compensation and punishment in case of default thereof, as ordered by the learned trial court, shall remain intact. Since the charges under section 324 have been fully proved, therefore, the conviction and sentence thereof recorded by the trial court is upheld; however, all the sentences shall run concurrently, with the benefit of Section 382- B Cr.P.C in favour of the appellant.
15. Consequently, with the above modification in the sentence of the appellant, Abdul
Aziz, son of Abdul Malik, Criminal Appeal No.(T) 64 of 2022, is hereby dismissed. The Murder Reference No. (T) 01 of 2022 is answered in the NEGATIVE. The death sentence awarded to the appellant is not confirmed.
JK/17/Bal. Sentence reduced.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.