AHMED RAZA @ MUSHKI S/O ABDUL REHMAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

Rd*-*.-..n $;* I;"-tt^ u- A-\ A -,5r,-

I1(

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Special Cr. .Anti-'Ierrorism Appeal No.223 of 2016 Special Cr. Anti-Terrorisrn Appcal No.224 of 2016 Spccial Cr. Anti-lerrorism Appeal No.225 oI2016 Confirmation Crsc No.07 of 2016

Prasent:

i\7t. llsticr l\loh tltrtrrri Knritt Khon Aglta ,\tt. Iusticc KLII!! jtLA jrltti,r Tj!!14.

Appcllnnts Ahmect Raza ia! Muskhi and Muhamnrad Arshad @ Dacoit thri)ugh lVlr. Abdul Razzak, Advocate.

Respondent 'l he Statc through Mr. Muharnmad Iqbal Awan Deputy Prosccutor General Sindh

Date ol hearing 02.10.2019

Date of airnoun(emcnt: 08.10.2019

I UDCM ENT

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, ].- Appcllants Ahmed Raza @ Mushki son of Abdul Rehman ancl Muhammacl Arshad @ Dacoit son of Muhammacl Anwar havc preferred the above appeals against the impugned judgment tlated 31.08.2016 passed bv the learned Judge Anti- Terrorism Court No.lV. Karachi in Special Case No.101/2012, F.l.R. No.54/2012 u/s.302/34 PPC r/w section 7 oI AT/\, 1997, registered at Policc Station Khokhrapar, Karachi whereby the appellants havc been convictcd as undelr

t Accused Nluhammatl Arshad d Dacoit son of lt'luhanrmad Anwar Iouncl guilty for the charge c'I the offcnce purtshablc r/s.3Q2/34 P.l'C r'/w. Scction 7(a) of AntlTcrrorism Act, 1997 and au'arde,.l dcath senten.e to hinl (subiect to coniirmation by this court) and to pay Rs. t,00,000/- (Rupees C)ne lac) as compensatior to the legal heirs ol the tieceascd antl in case of default to pay componsation to thc lcgal heirs of the deccased he shall further suffer R.l. for one year more, ii) Accused Aluned Raza @ Mushki s,/o. Abdul Rehman found Eiuilty oi the chargc oI the offcnce punishable { s.302/34 PPC r/w. Section 7(a) of Anti-Tcrrorism Act, 1997 and awarded impriwnrnent for life sentence to hinr and to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Iifh Thousantl) as compensation to the legal heirs of the ttereased anJ in tase of default to pav

trr compcnsation k, the legal heirs of the deceased he sh.rll further sufler R.l for 6 montlu more.

iii)Accused Muhamnrad Arshad @ Dacoit s/o. Muhanrmad Alrwar found guilty of thc charge of thc offence punishabie u/s.13 (e) of the Alms Ordinance is convicted and senten.ed to suffer R.l for seven (07) years and fine of lts.25,000/- I (Ilupees Twenty Five Thousands) in case of dcfault he shall further sufi:r R.l. for si-x months more.

2.lhe brief.facts ol thc plosecution case as per FIR are that the complainant namely Muhammad Aslam son oi lVlasoom Ali on 01.04.2012 along with his friend namely lr4uhammad Shahid were going for performing his dutv at PS Khokhrapar, rvhen he reached Khokhrapar Road No.02, four (04) persons came on two motorcycles out o[ them trvo persons who were sitting on rear of the motorcycles namely Arshad s/o Haji Aslam and Ahmed Razd @ Mushki who were affiliaterl i^,ith Jcay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz at about 1E:10 hours started firing with pistols on the complair,ant with intention to kill him, h result of u,hich the complaimnt had received bullet iniuries on his abdomen and on other parts of his body. Accused persLrns lrave lrranaged to escape good from the place of incident. Thereafter his friend Muhammad Shahicl moved the iniured / complainant to Government oI Sindh Hospital, then he was relerred to Iinnah Hospital and later transfcrred tL' Abbasi Shahid Hospital where he later expired from his Jirearm inju cs. A few days later thc nominated accuscd were arrested by the police on spy inJorrnation and accuscd Arshad took the police to the muidei weapon which vvas recovered on I'tis pointation.

3.'lhat aJter usual investigation challan was submitted on 05.05.20]2. As per challan accused Ahmcd Raza (cl Mushki s/o. Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Arshad (d Dacoit s/o. Muhammad Anwar werc shorvn in custodv and accuscd Ayub (g,'Lali, Qaim (A Pardam Das anrl Naveed t-,1 Arbab u,ere shown as absconders. NBWS were issued against accuscd Avub @ Lali, Qaim (d I'ardam Das and Naveeci @ Arlrab.

4.ln order to prove its case the prosecution cxamined 09 PW's who exhibitetl va.rious dosumenls and other items in support of the prosecution case where arter the prosecution closed its side. The accused persons rccorded their statements under 5.342 Ci.PC whereby they claimed their false implication in the case and plead not guilty and ll

l\t claimcd trial. The accuscd did not examine thcrnselves on oath but they callcd tb'o (02) defense lvitnesses as DIV-1 & DW-2 who deposed on behalf of thc appellaats that they wcre lalselY imPlicated in this case.

5.Learnetl ludge, Anti-Ierrorism Court-VI, Karachi, alter hearing the Icarned counsel for the parties and assessmeit of eviclence availablc on record, vide the impugnetl judgmcnt dated 31.013.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above, hence these appeals haYe been separalely fited bv the apPellants against thei! conviction. By this corrunon judgment we intend to decide the same.

6.The facts of the case as well as evidence Produced belore the tlial Court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment, therefore, the same are not tePaoduccd herc so as to avoid duPlication anrl unnecessary repetition.

7.Altcr the rcading out of the cvidcnce and thc imPugned ,udgment learned counsel for the appellants initially tried to argue the aPPellant's casc however in thc iace of the overwhelrning evidence against the appcllants on recor(i he decided not to Press the apPeals on merits excePt to the extent that the case did not fall within the Pu.vicw oI the ATA and that the appellants should not be convicted untler the ATA but only for the offenses charged under the PPC and otherwise prayed that the sentence in respect of Ahrned Raza be maintained and for reduction of the sentencc from thc death penalt-v to one of Iife imPrisonment in resPcct of appellant Arshad based on the following mitiSating circumstances (a) that the prosecution had neithe. alleged nor Proven any motive as to why appellant should orurder the dcceascd ASI Aslam and (b) that the appellant w'as of a young age and u'as pleviously of ttood characte! (') that the court must erercisc iudicial caution in awarding the death sentence as opposed to the alternate sentence of life imprisonment. ln support ol his contentioru regarding this not being an AI A case hc Placcd rcliance on Tahir Mehmood @ Achoo V The State (2018 SCMR 169) and in support of his contentions for a reductiot] in scntencc in resPect ot appellant Arshad from dcath to that of life imPrisorurcnt hc placed reliance on Muhammad An$'ar V Stat€ (2017 SCMR 630) ancl Chulam Ntohyuddin V State (2014 SCMR 1034).L

I 1u.

8.t,eamed DPG contended that based on tht'evidcnce on recortl the proscrution had proved its ca$e against the aPPellants [revond a reasonable doubt and as such the impugaed iudgment did not require interference. When, ho,-r'ever, he $'as co[flonted bv the court whether the case leil within tlle pulviela' of the Al A he candidlv conceded lhat it did not and when again {urther confuonted by the thc court whetlrer there $'as any mitigating circumstances raised by the aPPellant Arsha,'i u'hich justiried a reduction in sentence he also conceded that as a matter of law such mitigating circurnstances did justily a reduction in sentcnce from the death penalty to that oJ life imprisonment especially as it apPeared that no mrltive had been alleged or proved by the prosecution.

9.flaving gone throuSh the evidencc on record rve have no cloubt that the prosecutiorl has been able to provc its case against tho aPPeilants beyond a reasonable doubt for the ollenses for which they have been charged. In that thcre r.as no delay h iodging thc liR, which named both the accused with specilic roles; that it was a day light incidenti that the sole eyc witness PW 7 Syed Shahld Hussain in our view is trustworthy reliable ancl confidence inspiring, that therc is an admissible dfing declaration; that the eye witness is corroborated by the medical evidence, the lecove es, a positive FSL lcport and the pistol being the murcler vv'eapon which ltas recovered on the Pointation of the aPPellant Arshad

10.The only two issues tlrerclore before us are (a) whether lhe case falls within the Purview of the ATA ancl (b) n'hether suJficient niti€iatin8 circumstances have been shown to ,ustiJy the reduction in sentence from that of the death penalty to imprisonment for lile for aPPcilant Aishad as prayed by the appellart.

11.With regard lo the first issue concerning the aPPlicability oi the AfA it appears from the record that the deceased ASI Aslam was not on duty at thc time of the incidenu this conclusion is bolstered bv the fact that this has never been asserted b)'the Prosecution; that thc Prosecution has proclucecl no evidence to sho\ ' that he rtas on dlrt]'; he vv'as not in uniforn't at the time oI the incident; that he was not carrying any weapon let alone an olficial weapon at the time of the incidcnt and as such under such

t1\ circumstances the appellants $'ould have no way of knowing that the accused rvas a police officer especially as it has not come on rccord that thel' did knon'and it is also apparent that the deceased Aslam was not on duty at the time of the incident and thcrefore might not have been killed because he was a police officer. lt has also not Lreen proven that the incir.ient was caried out r4,ith thc intent and design to sPread fear and terror amongst the pr-rblic at large which is also a rcquirement for the case to fall witfun the purvieh'of the A'IA. Thus, we find that the ATA is net applicablc to this case and as such the appellant's convictions undcr the ATA are set aside an<1 both the appellants stand convicted only under 5.302/34 PPC ancl in respect of appellant Arshad aiso unde! S.13 (e) of the Arnrs Ordinance. In this respcct reliance is Placed on Tahir Mehmood's case (Supra)

12.Tuming to thc applicable sentcncc We are also of the vlew that the prosecution has not been able to {utll' prove its motiYe or which of the appcllants fired the fatal shots. Generally it has been accePted by the superior courts that if the prosecution fails to prove the motivc for thc nrurder the courts are justiliecl in imposing the alternate scntence of life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty. Likewise is the case whelt it is uncleai as to \^,hich out oI a number of ac.used fired the fatal shots or struck the fatal blolv on the deceased which lead to his death. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Amjad Shah V State (PL.D SC 2017 P.152) where it was hcld as under at P.156 Para 9;

" Not1t'itltsttn{lltg thtll llte lnrtkipttliofi ol lltt tppcllottt itt llv confitisslo ol'of i' ts LI:LLV esltth!*1u'rl. lus rrleutiLtrt. g ilty ti d or noltlle to ao onit lhe sa ua ftnuitls sluourltd it tysletv ofitl rc lhereforr, utrprot t.rr. Itr suclt like cases u'here tlk fltotiae is ,tot lrtoaeil or is lot alleged by the |1rcsccutio,t, tlc Coutt fot the sake of snte alni,tistrntiott o/ itstice, d.lolrts cautioi attd tleats the lick oI totive os .t t itigtttittg ciiclntstdttcc for reducitrg the quaarttuit of seflterlce urarrled to a co trict. Relerettce is Dnde to Zeesh.rt AIzol 7,. Thc S t Rte (2013 SCMR "160b ." \bol ci atlded )

13.In our vicw taking into account thc lact that no motive has been proved a8ainst thc appellants, that it is un.lear as to ,vhich of the appellants fired the fatal shot u4rich killed the dcceasetl and by exercising iudicial caution by talcing guidance from the supremc court authoriry of

lnr' Ghulam Mohyuddin (supra) u,here it lvas stressed as under whilst dealing with sentencing in a murdet case in thc following tcrms;

"lttiiual ouboi rtursl be evtctscd ttt rt:( ard the alter altrc senlorct of lile tmpisonntl , l(sl in nt,l.o|cnt wrso r/tight tlot be xnl to lhe gallotos. So il is belter lo resP((l tlrc luman life, as far as possihle, ralhrr to Put it al e l, b-v assessing tlp edrlence, facts ttrtd circLonslances o.f fl patticulnt murder cnse, untbr uhic'h it lr,,as conmilted".

14.We hereby uphold the convictions in the impugned iudgment against both the appellants ulrder 5.302/3.l PPC but reduce thc sentence of the appellant Arshad from that of the death penaltY to life imprisonment and also uphold appellant's Arshad's scntence arld conviction u/s 13 (e) of the Arms Ordinance as such the conlirmation relerence is answcred in the negative- Apart ftom the above variation all othcr fines, Penalties etc imposetl upon the appellants in the impugned iudgment shall lemain in tact. With reSard to appeliant Arshad the sentenccs shall run concurrentlY Both of thc appellants shall have thc benefit o{ 5.382 (B) Cr.PCl.

ll The appeals stand disposetl of in the atxrve ternrs lu l zlrf r 1

8"t o '>-ot 1

O:,t a q"^ Co.,- CC I 2cl e ii lll1r l_c{!j. 9_t l !4 !-u-u-i :."11fl'*- ,. p r'lu. S? trl / 2",8 Il cr- l-a^ A L L^k0'^ Y '' ! o.a. r"fi.tL-:

y. Jl.u

SINDI I HICII COURT

.!@-lPt.*- M, 5""r-1^; (*tr**/ K^-r. KL^* C_9llpositi o| Iletrcll-

trlv.J,.r-d.* 6** 3 i^_l Datcs of heaJi-o8:,

Decidcrl ,ru l;l 1- t6- l\

(r)Judg$ent aPProvcd lor (cportiog. EYcs fl"/" 1

CERTIFICATE

,"$'I)',jll,j',ll'J'l,""ililtl'Tl;(,"ilii}"lTi'tiJ" Hr"*:l,3ii?,,1ffi:Ll;

.,i,.il,rr.ri-i,".i,"tt'cxplarns I pr':vicus dccision' 'SIrkc oul wldclcvcr is not apElicxblc'

NOTF.:-(i) Tlri$slip is only to bo rscd whco somc scljon is to bo taken' (iiJ If thc slip is used, the llcadcr musl sttach it to tltc top of the 0rsl pagc of lhc iudgrDcht.

tbc (iiit Rerdcr mnsl 0sk the Judge writing thc Judgrncnt whcthcr Judgnrellt is flpprovcd 'cr teporllnS' (ivr 'l'hosc dircclions wLich orc Dot to be us€d should bc delctcd sGP., Kir.--L (iii) 1459-5,000 - 6'93-T s S

ga:l

I

Jbtair'i-,ri, s*5L, l',*"; ) (Originai jurisd,.riJ,rl

j il, I ciY!i: oRlGlfiAL PET|t,ofi nlc,: //3{ ro1s

IN

.' Lonstitution petitiotl i.lc. 4el2013. t /l L,t

I

lApplic.0otr t yMr AbdutHarc!.r Knoso,4vo!.id lL t)

--*n .j+ -__-,iy_,r -:l:J,_-i" '.:-r. - .-.15 ,r _.;.(3i r.L-.a _, (._.,-;

c 1s\ .-3\\2 :l )-\ v ,) !L-r'* r J.j L-J jJ-J vERStrs

J f_J .;

j>:-r.;l.19r 5, 66 *;, a,._ _. . r,-) l_,-..

_-J*:r*j.-j- i. j A

1D-

islr, j !-1,..-!i,F-:-5 f-_ '{n\'' -li:.jruIJ'j,? lrj.+ .ijjr.- j.r ccDCL, ococl jsJr3,--l-., :"., ".,qr,_!,;ir.i,tiJ J-.? ri,+ i ij r.1,.& ococl. ocgcL 'csRrq.-4-.[r-,,.,g!,-,-r..,r!_r.^.,. JLir-rL,t !_..ti.r* L.,; Jjj.r.i-,)|,GOGDCL, oGDCL

, CSR;q7;,r ,lri __,l.i-p ,JbLr*t.J-j'j,. !.1q."l_p;.r.i-l jl,,,|i!, oGoCL, ()GDCL

,.j$,,-* 3.

--;+..\--! .;{>l .,ti'i.j/- {lUt ,. ---L-J jOGOCL, CGDCL ,"C.r.

*_r^.,,3 ,-,_r"-- *-, lJq'.^-v*l q,? ' ,.rri n,l.j !-J.i& OGDCL, OGCCL .CSR ,,+.j..r ,lrt-1, -_}.*, uA)j Jj} uq. J.,i _,,J,rr oGDcL, ocDal -,) .-j @l5)r$;ry'rpZ**,

Z()i

F_

,J"?r.. !il*! ,, , q oJ"|o

t d ,$C,i+1,-J+.)ori oGDcL .'i0

,p3;i:r&rr.r,*.1-,+. -11

,Jij(- 5JJ J}J!L: r..*!i R.c , w6 . ,.1r Ji. ,irr . -e df i:,.9,*.r ro rJrioGDCL ,.i,..ar' -:r.!"21 Jr-.:.,riJ- J..r.. -1J .Jijlf ,ir,Je,J+t*UJG ocDC L ,'l

,J+if Ji.g ,-ql elq,a*,r -Jlr.rt -14 ,,.r.:,..r_Ju-fq.-_,itr <L.J&r ,P.O Box No 1325,G.i O/4, j37 3;1,*,3j.13ro,.,,JJrapTET r ,- . .,rr]-aiJj5iJri, !!.+l $_J+ -.t5 ,tlativus Rc-source Limitod ,J!r*in-l,F-i oi 3 ,02f,""".i.-Jlt,09 ,)r6J u{ri^ '*:}n'rJli;r 5' re! rr-;L> ,,1 G .Jul},(*, .c-t o/3 .2 Ji.J __{,as-;,.:,-y,c, eaige Limited ,r:.-r:. Ji?, .*! Ll-r:q 17

,dJ, +{.Ji} Jij.jJrl RDC ,Jbi li(- ,c-1 0/3 ,Ot J+ai ..Jt , 9 J.^j , *.r,

I 3 |.6,

,;,.2;"a1r-5-r.1-3.;J, {1u*r ;iJx -1il . Tallu Pakistan (Devr:lopment) timited ,J !i l)i-l ,F-8,r1 ,34 J*.j _Jrt.5 Jr-J.rili^

'J+.:.JJ,+, .-E.3 -19

.Clrina ZhenHua Oil ,J!jt J{-r ,F-8/3,3 Jr-j.-_jJt.'115 Jr-i u4JJ!!

'J*tiJ-1..Q-d I ,*ir" /,-;i,;121, !.lorjJEij'rJj'r: .20 .liycarbrx Arne.ican Errcra,/ lnc.

- r.Ll

lE-

.J|l.b'I-JA'4,. j .

ri- .sr.rr!r.bd.. ..JtJdJ -21 ,Dewa petroleum pvt limit€d ,Jtip.r2r,F-24.5, . {olr.!a,46}\j ,i_*;,'-;, JJ],JFUl-&tl -22

.OGIL

,.-rar.)t,-j.nirt.S 5/..r:r-,i; rr+rf ,r,r; S,stlr*r 'J€y:.-J-r-r-, J.,;r.r..-*G 23 ,Horitage Oit and cas Ltmited ,JLii.i(-t,F-6/1 ,30 .,;.Aj _jt,24 rr-) u_jr^ ,J4i Jj.fL'.6-r !-L," .+t._)ir e\.a. , N€v/ Horizon Exptoraflon F,roduction Limited -..JelJt d'lJarJrJ.i,i;g,e.e.c.r.s, Or*^: Jla, 8€JJ'r.i,:_JJ ,.)..+ii -dJ:.sJ,'q ) !,i.+, {* J.qL,: ,24 ,Spud :nergy pvt ltmited , J Ll il^-l,c-6/3 U_-ir t JJ jE!, B6J*"j,.J]t,1 2-A r."J 'riJ i --a--hr-,*.or F?"i

,MPCL

, i'.,i ii(-, , G- I 0/4.: JJ J rd , gt I _iJ,.. 1 'J*"ri3(U.(r !j.q., --s;r-r r.=i_r r.+.- 21 ,pakist?n Irokoleum Limited '----5;t-E.P.o.Box 3942 :!.J-.r.; r*.;,-{- j.r.J,,ta plDc ,JJ1i 4th ,,-"+ii-,r,..-Sj"qt, rj.|, iJJJ.+ -2i I[. , Potroleum exploration (pvt) Limited ,,)r.ilJ,L-i.F-sl3 , jrj )dJ*20 i,

'J+...JJ.+ St';'-tr ,_Ju..J-u OMV ,iut -rL,l ,P.O.Box 2653 .;;19:r zLi;,55-E! 1.,*i 16,;3U tSE

,-,j.qJ,,i.-(,-*!., - S-J.r:f 6j,, * r

.Pol;sh OGC P.rkistan ,0 Utfi.is) , UJ.ltli r.,:{J I C.+.,2 _Ba-t,JU,Jji_.r lJri 6th

2 c'i

'_:)-r_q.:)t+.4!r v;g -,ujl .31 .tj*J. e.>,. ;l .

,JuipLJJ.F.7/1 ,3.4 Jr.j..Jif ,12 r,+'i

oJi-, . -, . "^' .--q.L!rL..o.L-.. -lFriB -.....l?l.,lJ.:4.F-JS- a .:i_,,A,,J:r ,-Jj{-(., G.ply rii .:i3 '-.ffl,rl ' u!,-(-o,J;.-,oir,-:-., ;, -1.,g j. .-, ,.,iq)r,i.Ar..j!OJq, a4 .JrUi.' !r!,,(3at*,ai.Jq-o-+l-JJt Jr .JB d.*JjJ.j.!., jt6. p._r.1r,,,- u.i -35 -.JE d.i.J&iJ-.+ii * ! -t- j ,-J6 + J.&.JiJ ur-.,

,_:_':.!,_i.lat j, --,! !j+!,rt Gi-i, u,.a .3A -- . ,:!rJ u^.+it_in^t- +J ._.:+* i,r_,a o';"-r3il+ (-lli.'r, r+..rr -ur u""+UJit.l-,_.J! j ,JiJ ur-+ ,r:-r- +3,.1r.:,_,ir.

Jtrl' _.!.et OJU .-J! j .JorJ ur,, .JJrJ L."+iir,i^j,

u,.x.6l*!:;+._4-r-. jti, _f=r,_r-rF _3J -o,Jr.JJ.*t u.,tii'Jt itAs-_r.1,i,1rrr* r-f-.a

,J:r^t: +5. S4i ^-f^'. .rrt. .40 t .-U9Jtl !,J".+iiJr.t4r_.rr! j ,.r.p;ui! irr-e

'-jd.>*r_ili, eljrort,.r.-* -41 '-3$:C;'gi;.:^r. ;13,._-si6:. r.r.; ,3.e"s. +i, e+ ts$l^^y; 42 --lJl:j..F+iin J-. +j. .;r., . L1,,

I

,.;a.r_;r3, -s-lr.5,r(;r.

-.t" .j1(r-u..+ii.;-,:^r_-,:, j,j.,5u" rrr,_,

16L

Fr--*

,r!r"5. .li, Jj+(.Jt Jai r+U 4, -J Ji---(e *..iI ,-:.t jri.Ju'--..qrL ,

-tra-:J-, ir:.t ;,5., 1--U-i,Jrr* 5r5 -JJ ".i' J*--tiJ;j.r- - jr-13. ,*,:r r.r,.a 'Jr-:-' _JLJ r_J/r.! l!.Er -4G

i -J! ,-r->-F..r' i,:^J .jJJ.Jir!d>uL,

,rr.!^t. _.-.3, s:')d t-c -1., r Li ..u.5- - *i; +ir :.i,.:,Y;: r',-

I

,r:-:^f . +i, j-,;:-rt ll.a

lJ. rj. -'.:rlJ:. o..*irJ:,i^J- -_rr3,i ,ro U;-,;jrr..,.,r-a

D

,;.,ur +J:,ts*t'J'?',l)-;

-J.ltu c-..riJrt4l- -rr.li ,r.|<- r,r-+ .;*r ;*j, GSrl/l; I -,x^i.r+I,.!..' ._+3._,,^i r.r.,-n

,r:"r- +i, ses{_67. . ,:.,>L:,.fj) a1

,jt-rr""* o-.rIJ:.:J _-r+5 .fu,.* ,-a*

,;.ur-r1i. q-;Lt' ^* ')(U' -5i *--......--,-J,JeJj-Jju*lf-.,r-r .:+i,J_lrlrr#-, r.r-+ o oN uls 204 QONSl'ITUTION OF RI:PUBLiC OF PAKI .sr-t!,!, 1973 R/W 5/314. COIITEI\,PT qEc!:?D ,lAllcE,2003.

.J:{J rJUi L.i .Jlur* J.A !*!l .Jr!r.:Ju+ .---):" sJJt J,x e} eJJtulg,-rI i>. JJ.:r,.- -i..)4ri,.J,!.r L.tJttOJ,<-J,lrl'J.:_J Jr =r.AJj .rr.t Jg_.f -,-.:j€._l,ie!a..,a J vrola(edJJt iol:l€d, disobeyedJr\)!-jld.o .-a a'j Fr,-.rrl J rtr-. j Jqr,,J-3.r:J-l+,.j.1,J\.-.UJ'.27t2.2!lil (Plc ot odet is altachld with as .rinex A,')