MUHAMMAD YASIR @ KALA S/O MUHAMMAD SULTAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

I^--,--L N I a^- - (vl*(.!- .. q(r I : D(-.h_1, \^P

CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT IN REGARD TO REPORTING

! A7A t! La^6 fr1 e/.

M *l^^^J Y^.'.' v ' 7/- s tr r,-

HIGH COURT OF SINDH

Composition of Bench: sd./D. B

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, \4n J.,r!^; 7*l 6.g. Ati (.^^t.

Date(s) of Hearing: .1 l.- tt- ri Decide on: r6' l2 -2079

(a)Judgment approved for reporting Yes

LV )

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the judgmentr/order is based upon or enunciates a principle of law */ decides a question of law which is of first impression ,/ distinguishes / over' rules / reverses / explains a previous decasion.

* Strike out whichever is not applicable

NOTE (i) This slip is only to be used when some action is to be taken (ii) If the slip is used, the Reader must attach it to the top of the first paBe of the judgment.

(ii)Reader must ask the ludge writing the Judgment whether the Judgment is approved for reporting.

{ rv) Those directions which are not to be used should be deleted.

tr qg 8II Eq r.),t-!.;... \\/J _

F"".. d5 ( / :t(/.7.

Ft-s*5bq' (Jua t

A\R

FI THE HIGH COURT OIT SINDH AT I(ARACHI

Cr. SPccial ATA Altlnal No' / 2017 q

II,'HAMMAD YASIR @ KALA

5o Muhammad Strltan, lluslim, Adtrlt. lt/o H.\o.-' Punjab Colouy, presently confitled at Central Jail, Ka rachi Appella t

Vrnsus

TI{E STATE Respoulelt

FIR No. 2018/2014 U ls 3921302134 PPC R/u' Section 7 ATA l'.S. Dcfence, Karachi

M INAL APPEAL U/S : " J CII.I'.C. vw

S ECTION ATA 19 9 7(2

Being aggrieved anil dissatisfied with the order Dated: 16-01-2017, passcd by the learned Judge of Anti Tcrrorism Court No.03, Karachi I Il Special Ctrse Ntr 3g9(iir)l2}L4, r,r'hereby the learned Court was pleased to convict the appellant Yasir @ Kala S/o Muhammad Sultan and tt'as pleascd to award him sentence to death and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Honorable Court was further pleased to direct the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- U/s 544-A Cr'P'C to the

q?(

I

IA,

i i i,. ),'r.T E l)

To, =ry',/,2 IJ r:,1],,

;1] B J] iRE N Crl u/s 314 :1t,, / 0r4.

I

I lr. 1-,rcso I l r

i: =cn -le ::::,1 [1ul-1.:ttL: ai.I iir t.l.r. .l i,,ren I ',,r r \al ,l

ii

'1.. ,:-r;:l of lfl

I

ltu

I (S Ve.l ljirdl,ieir L HY.] r] ;tLll

.a

S cY)

HI

Spe.ial Crl. Antll errorism APpeal No'55 of 2017.

Confirmation Case No.03 of 2017.

Pr csent:

l\'1r. Iustice l'lo Kttrit Rhtl illt.lns iR Zulfiltir A

Appellarrt: Il,luhammad Yasir rt]r Kala S/o. Nluhamnutl Sultan through Nlr' Umar Farooq Khan,

Through Mr- Muhammad Iqbal Ah'an, DePutl' Prosccutor General.

Date of hearinBj :7 11 :019)

Date of announcenrenti r 0.12.?0r9

I UDGMENT

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J.- APPctlant Muhammad Yasir @ Kala 5/o. Ivluhamnud Sultan has Preferred tlis apPeal against the impugned juclgment datcd 16.01 2017 Passcd bv the learned ludge Anti- Terlorism Court No.lll, Karachi in SPe(ial Case No 399(III) ot 20t4, I l l<' No.218 of 2O].a 'rls ?92/302/3t PRJ r/rv section 7 of ATA' 1997 lellistered al P.S. Defence, Karachi whereby the apPellant has beetr convicte,l and sentenced to death for an offence punishable U/s' 7(a) ATA, 1997 reacl with scction 302(b) PPC subjcct to con irmation by this court with fine of Rs.20O000,i'. Hc !r'as also ordcred to further Pay compensation o, Its.500,000/' tt/s. 541-A Cr'PC to thc lcgal heirs oi deceasetl Fayaz Ali. Thc aPPellant \a'as further sentenced to sLrfler R l for 10 ,"-ears with fine of Rs 50,000/- U/s.392 r/h'scction 34 PPC In case uf defaull in payrrcnt of fine hc $'as ordered to undcrgo Rl' of one Year more. 1'he properties of the a(cused werc also ordered to bc confis(ated to the Cc,vernnlcnt Ul5 7(21 ol ATA' 1997 The benelit of section 182 (t]) Cr.la- was extended to the dccused

2 The brief facts of the case as unfolded in the l'IR No218 of 2014' P.S. Defence aJe tl1at on 30.0'1.2014 at 06:10 Pm at PNS Shifa HosPital' Karachi statemcnt of comPlainant Khurram Rasheed S/o Muhammad Arshad h'as recorded U/s. 154 Ci.P.C. wherein he narrate{l that he lvas

I

s6l serving in the Pakistan Navy as l\'lTD driver and was dePuted 14ith C/() Captain Iftikhar Ahmed. He natrated that on the same date he with C-aptain lftikhar Ahmed and gu[flan Favaz AIi LPM, in Cultus staff car rvhite color came at the PNS Shifa and alter thc checkuP of the Captain, they came at Faisal Bank DIIA Phase-I, where from they were proceetling to Ke lari and al atmut 12r15 pm duc to closure ol the traffic light stoPPed at Ab 1 Bakar Masjid Defencc Library lraflic Signal. ln thc mealrtrme tw1) perso rs wcaring pant shirt or a black color motorc)clc came on the left sidc ( the car and a person holding Pistol knocked at the glass of window of Ca )tain Iftikhar while the second brought motoicycle in flont and stood away. Captain Iftikhar oPened the door anel gave enveloPe of I{s.500,txl0/- to the bandit He narnted that Sunrnan Fayaz Ali tried kr pick-up l s gun but the person who had stoPPed the motorcvcle in ftont of the ca! noticed his movement towards his gun ancl started firing uPc'n gunman Fayaz Ali wl-to sustained serious injurics and iell towards lrinl The irccused persons fled away on lhciI motorcyclc towards Punial) Colon,-. He narrated that on the directions of CaPtain lihkhar, he brought the iniured gun$an Fayaz Ali at PNS Shifa \t hetc hc succumbed to the iduri(.s. He narlate.l that he can identify both the accused persons if he sees them again, fhe statement of the comPlainant Khurram Rasheed was trans(ribed in the FIR No.218/2014 at IIS Defence.

3.After usual investigation the accused were arested for an offcnce under section 302/392/34 PPC read with section 7 of ATA, 1997 and ltas scnt up for trlll. Charge was fnrned against the accused Yasir @ Kala to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial

4.In order to Ptove its case the Plosecution examined 12 PW's whc' exhibited vatious documents and other items in suPPolt of the 'lhe prosccution case vl'here after the prosecution closed its side appclJant/accused recoldcd his statemenl under 5.342 Ci.PC in which hc has denied the allcgatiot'ts of the Prosccution leveled agairut him and clahned his false imPlication by the Police of I'S llefeflse who he earlier had an argument with over thc Payment oI his costs for fixing one of thc tyres oD onc ol their carg ln suPPort of his defense he examined hin$elf on Oath and produccd two DW's.

v

s62

5.tearned JudP,e, Anti-Terrorism Court-lll, Katachi, after hcaring lhe learned counscl lor the partics and assesslnent oi e\'idencc availabltl on record, vlde the imPugncd judgment dated 2017, conf icted and sentenced the appellart as stated abovc, hence the aPPellant has filed this appcal against his convictions in the imPugned iudgment.

6.The facts of the case as wcll as evidence produced before the trial cou* find an elaborate mention in the imPugned jud&ment, thercfore, the same are not rePloduced here so as to avoid duPlication and unnecessar\' rcpetilicrn.

7 laamed counscl for thc aPPcllant has contended that thc.hargc is defectil,e and as such the case shoulcl be remanded lor a re trialj that no name and featurcs of the accusecl have been given in thc FIR; that the place of incident is in doubt; that there is onlv onc eye witness l^'ho cannot be safcly relied l,pory that no privatc Party has bcen associated as mushir in violation ot 5.103 Cr.rc; that the Police haci enmity lvith the a.cused Dver a dispute that had occurrcd beM'cen the accused and the police ovr'r payment for fixing the tyres of onc of the policemen's cam and theref(rre they have deliberately falsely imPlicated him in this case and fc'r anv onc of the above reasons the appellant be acquitted of the charge bascd ()n llinr beitlg extended the benefit of thc doubt. In suPport oi his contenLions he has placed reliance on Habibutlah Khan v. Arnir Zaman and 9 others (1995 5CN'iR 135). Muhammad ltfan v The State (2016 P. Cr.Ll 1178) and Kamran alias Ghulam Rasool alias Kaloo v. The State (PLD 1997 Karachi

8.On the othcr hand learned DPCj has contended that the Proscclltion has proved its case against thc accused tryond a reasonab)e doubt and that the impugned jr:dgment did not requile any interfcrence and the appeals should be tlisrnissed an(l the denth PenaltJ' maintained and ir1 particular pointed to lhe facts that the Prosecution cvidence lully supported the prosecution €sei that the PW cye witness is reliable and correctl)_ identitied the accuscdi 11tu1 15g 26gu5ed rvas correctly Picked out at the identification parade by the PW eye witness which was heLi in accordance $'ith law. In supPort of his cottentions he Placed reliance on Aiiaz Awan alias BABA v. The Srate (20191'. Cr. LJ 1775), Dadullah and another v. The State (2015 SCMR 856), Muhammad Yayat and 2 othere v'

I

t'o3

The State (2015 YLR 1326), Muhammad Ashraf and others v The State (2010 S(IN{R 407), Muhammad Amio v. Thc state (2002 SCi',|R 11117), Tahir Mehrnood @ Achoo v The state and another (2018 SCNlIt 1691, Wari5 Ali and 5 othcrs v. The State (2017 SCN{lt 1572), Amjad AIi a^d others v. The State (lJLI) 2017 Supreme Court 661), Muhamnrad Ehsan v. The State (20U6 SCNII{ 1857) and lrluhammad AJzal and 2 others v. The State (2003 Sclv{l.l 1678).

9.We havc heard the arguments o[ the lcarned couns€l for thc Parties, gone thlough thc entire evidence \a'hich has been rcad out by the appellant arrd the impugned iudSrnent with their ablc assistance and ha1'e conEidered the relevant law includinli thatcited at the ba!.

1tl. ln our view atter our reassessnlent of the evidence based on thc evidcnce of the PW's includinta the PW I'ILO, Post mortem rePort, recoveries of empties dt the scene, and a Positivc FSL rePort on the cnr, thc hunran blood [ound in the car and other evirlence on rc'c()!d 1ve at satisfied that thc prosecution has ptoved beyond a reasonablc cloubt that on 30.04.20t4 at about 1215 hours near Abu Bakr Masiid Defense Lib!ar], Traffic signal, DllA I'hase Il, Karachi CaPtain Iftikhar was rcbbed of cash and thereafter his gunflan Fal-yaz Ali (the deccased) was fired uPon by pistol v"hich tead to his death on nccount of re(eiving such firearm injuries

11.The only issue thcrefore, in oul Vierv, le{t before us is whether the appellant was the person who murdercd the tleceased by shooting hinr with a fireaml wluch iead to his death.

12.In our vicw alter our reassessment of the evidence wc find that thc prosecution lTas provcd its case against the aPPellant beyond a rea-qonable doubt for the following reasons;

(a)That in or.rr Yie,v thc amcnded chargc is not so defecti\-e as tc' r\,arrant the remarrd ol thc case for retrial. Essentiallv r4hat has happened in the clurge is that absconder Munazzam has been named in the charge as lhe peNon who iired the shots iflsteall of the accused which killed the deceas.d. It is quite aPpatent from the charge in our vicw that this rvas a i-Po/bona fide mistake and the inte;tion was that the name oI the d(cused should have been added in place of Nlunazzam. During the course of the trial counsel fol the accused made no comPlaint about this error and cross exalnined thc I,W,s on the basis that the aacused was the r)ne who had been r:Largecl with making thc firing and Icad his defense in that manner

I

(c t..l

and thus in our view no prejudice has been caused to the accuserl by this t) po/bonafide mistake in the amended charge and it would scrve no usciul purpose to remand the case kr the trial couft fori] rc' tlial. In tiis rcspect re]iance is piaced orr Nazir Ahmed V State (PLD 2005 Kar 18)

(b)That the FIR llas becn lodged PromPtlv by the eye witness who has sct out the facts of the incident and tirtrs there ha5 b.'en no time or chance to cook up a false case against the accused and what little delay there was has treerr fully exPlained b't' the comPlainant driving tlle deceased to hospital who was injured al that timc. I he fact that thc FIR was registercd against unknolvn Pcrsons is cntircly logical based on the Particular facts and circumstances ol the case and shows that the comPlainant who was also the eve rvitncss had no jrrtention ot falscly implicating an]'one in the offense.

(c)Ilr our view there are t\^(t key Prosecution h'itnesses both ol rvhom rvere traveling in the car at the time oI thc incident. The first is PW 3lftikhar $,ho was the naval caPtain !r'ho $'as being drivcn by his naval driver PW 2 Khurrarn Rasheed. PIV 3 lftikhar narrates in his evidence that he was colicrted b)'his driver who waited for hirn rthilst he went iJito the bark and collected monev and ramc out again before the)'procceded on their way accomPaiied bY th. tleceased. He gives evidence that his official car was intercePted at the traffil: lights near Phase tn'o DHA Iibrary Ly tw'(r Persons on motr)r bike one of whom robbed him bt' taking arvay the ,none) rvhich hc had rcceived from his hiend in the bank whillt the r)ther kept h'alch and firEd at the d€reascd. His eviclence oi the robbery ilnd thc s|ootirrg is corrcboratcd in all material resl)ects by his (iriver I'l\' 2 Khurranr Rasheed. The onlv diJference in their cvidence is that eye witncs! PW 2 Khurram Rasheed sa\^' thc person rvho fired on the deceased and was in a Position to iderltily him whilst Pw 3 Captain Iftikhar n'as not. We find this discrcPancy to be quite logical based on the particuhr fa.ts and circumstances of the case. This is b€cause PlV 2 Khurram Ilasheed was the drivcr r.ho was sitting in the front seat oi the car alorg w'ith thc caPtain's guarcl (the deceased) and the Pelson who fircd tlle shots at the cleceased rvas standing riSht in front of the driver PW 2 Khurram Rasheed. ivhereas I'W 3 Captain fftikhar was sitting in the bdck scat (,f the car and gave the enveloPe (ontaining the cash to thc' a(complice out of the rear side window and as such his view of the person who Iircd from tltc ftont of the vefur:lc at his gunman was obscurcd by both his gunman and the drivcr tDth ol \','hr)m r,v.rc in the front seats of the car vvhilst he was ir1 the back passenger seat of the car l)espitc being cross examined at length the accused counsel was uruble to make anv dent in his evidencc. In this respect rvt' iilid the evidencc ol PiV 3 CaPtain Iftikhar to be reliabie, trustwofihv and confidence ilrsPiring as if he r'.'anted to he could easil) lmve clninled to have had a Sood view of the accused and maleiidely pickcd him out at an identification Paradc instcad he very honestly statcd that he did not see the iacc ol the Person !r'ho fircd at the deceased. In this resPcct wc telcr to lhe case.)f Aijaz Arfan alias BABA (Supra) where at P.1785 I'ara 21 it was held as under:

"stricllu spe&king, hu,fian belfiilior Tnnes fto pcrson to lctso ; difbrent yeople belnw and teuL:t fufirettly nt dtfleenl situttl@ns. H mdn behaoior depends upon fatls ol ea<h case; hott a Pcrson rcacls anl lNhaus ih particular situfllion cttn neter bc prtdtcled. Etry pcrson t'ho toiblesses a serious ctifie, rettls it his ou\l Touy; so e urc sl tttltd, sonte nre speechless; sonrc l0o ld sec lhe inLidr l ttlurcns sofip ']vtld Jlec from lle qnt. thert is rLo seL ol rltle of ndl ral aonltcl."

(tl)lViih regard to !I1e olfen-<c ol murcler in our viera'the casc will mainh turn on h,hether we find the cviden.c t,1 the eye 'ltitnesr PW 2 Khurram Rashecd to lx reliable, trus vorth)' and .onlidenc!' inspirinL,, in terms of his identification of the accused. Eyc witness PIV 2 Khurram Rashecd gives dirccl evidence t:f the accused coming in lront of the car whilst his accomplice robbed InV 3 (japiain lftikhar and the a.cused firing on the dcieased E)'t' r,,''itness PW 2 Khurram Rasheed was a natural witness as hc ivas thc drivc! ol PW 3 Captain lftikhar and as such it was nahrral for him to be witlr hior at the time of the incid€nt. He was not a chance ivitness. fhe incident happerrecl ir broad day li8ht riSht in iront of him as thc accused was fa.ing the front of the car and therc is ncr evidencc that lhe accuscd hore any kind of muiller fhnt thc accused would have herr right in front of thc drivtr for a long cnough periocl for him to trave had a gooLl look at him as thc n(cuscd stopped his bike, dismounted and waited in front of thc car $,hile his acco rplicc robbed P\{ 3 Captailr lftikhar and then openoll fire when he realized that the deccasL'd was going for his gun. lle correctly pi.ked out the accused at thc i(icntitication parade and assigned to him thc spcailic role of shooting at thc tleceaserl n'hich identification parade rvas carried out h'ithin a fela' days oI the arrest o[ the ac(used and mainly in d.cordance with the guild Iines laid dou,n ft:r the conduct oF idcntificati{)n ParadL's as sct out in the case o[ Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLD 2019 Supreme Coult 488).He has no ill will or elxnitt'B'ith thc accused or anv other reason to falsely implicate the a.cuscd and lvould not have rranted the r{rong person h) havc been punished tt,r the death ol his collcague. He cooobbororates the evidence ni PIV 3 Capiain lltikhar in all matcrial respe(ts. He was aiso subiect to length!'cross examination but no dent (ould be made in his eviclcnce. We have no reason k) disbelieve the evidence of eye rvitness PW 2 Khurrant Rasheed h'hich we consider to be reliable, trustworthy anrl corJitlencc inspirirrg and are of the vierv that he has correctly identified the accused as bein8 the peIson who shot the deceased. I\Ic can confict the accuscd based on this evidence Provided ii is corrotr{)rated by some supportivc evidence. In this rcsPect reliancc is placed on Muhrmm.d ilhsnn (supra) ollhough notably in tle case ul' llluhrmmcd Afzsl (Supra) i1 as held that.orroboralion \rirs nol :r mnndakrry rcquir€menl ofcle witnesses Evidencc bul \r'as onl) required b) way of abundanl caulion and was only rcquired if the cye witne\s cvidence \,!rs doubtlul crr lacking in veracil)'. In this ca\c rvc do not find the cye wihesses identillcation ol the.rccused as being doubtlul or lacking in !emcit, but inslead to blJ entirel) beliovable.

(c)That the rnedical evidefte supp('rts the cye fitness oral cvialcnce in that the dccease(l died as a rcsult of sustaining over I0 fireaJm injuries which were the causc oI his death which shows r 1l

.{o (

that the dccascd was murdercd in thc most brutal manner with there being no possible chance of his survival.

(t)That the motive of the murder was robbery which turned int() rnurdct once the dclceasetl {'ent for his gun and was brutall}' shot by the accuscd.

(g)That empties were recoveted hom the scenc and thc bullct holes in the car were found to bc caused by firearm

(h)That the bloud louncl in the car was found to trc human f(,llowing a positive chemical report.

(i)That the PW's are all coroboratil'e of each other and that therc arc flo major cont&dictiorrs in their evi,fence which n'ould adlelsely irnpact on the prosecution case. Admittedlt'most of thc P!V's are naval or police witnesscs Florvcver it is well settlerl by now that a policc witness is as Sooci as any other h itness Provided that no ill rvill, enmity, malafide or Personal inlercst is Provcn against him vis a vis the apPellant. In this rcsPect reliancc is plat'ecl o; Riaz Ahmad v State (2001 SCMR 988), Zafar V State (2008 SCMR 1254) and Abba3 v State (20118 SCN,I{ 108).ln this case ill will ancl malafitle has been alleged against only one Police officer and even il the police wanted to falsely imPlicatc thc a.cused in an ofJense over a nronetary disPutc we.lo not consider that such IalsL' implicatioi 1{ould stretch beyond falsely imPlicating the accused in a lalsc ArnN casc under S.13 (l) (a) oI the Sindh Arms nct 2013 as opposed to a case o[ such a serious nature entai]ing the dcath senteice. Eve[ othenaise such suggeshons \r'ere nol Pul to the police IrtrV's and the kc)'lvitne$s being evc witncsses PlV 2 Klrurran Itasheecl antl PW 3 Captain litikhar had no ill !!'ill or enmity aSainst the accused whatsoever ancl had no reason to faisely iDrPli(ate him in this casc. In our vielv the defense of the ac.used seems t{) be Inore ol an afterthought which has been Put uP by his brothcr and bothcr in law.

0)[ven if there ar. ary coDttndiclions in thc e',idencc ofthe PW's we consider these contradislions as nlinor in nature and not marcrial und ccrtainty nol ofsuch rnaleriali(y so as to affcct thc proseculion case and lhe conviction of the appellant. In this respeol relia ce is placed on Z,akir Khan v srrre (1995 SCIIR | 791)

(k)That thc prosecutirlrl evidence Provides a belicvable chain ol evidefte from the time of thc accused and his accomPlice follo\aing thc naval officets car from the bank, robbing thc caPtain at the traflic lights and then firing upon the deceased until the arrest of the accused and his corect identification by natural eye witncss IrW 2 Khurram Rasheed at an identificahon Parade carried out in nrost material respe(ts in accordance with the larv.

Ij. Turning to the offenses under the ATA After our reassessnrcnt ()[ the evidence rve are of the view that this was nof an act of terrorism falling within the purvicw of the ATA- Ttus is because based on the cvidcnce on

S o?

impugncd judg rcnt in terms o( imprisonrnent fincs, Pcnalties etc ex'ept that the scntence uncler 5.302 (b) PIjC for murder is recluced fronl the death senten.e to that ol life imprisonment with the confirmation leferenc€ being answered in the negative and that the aPPellant is acquitted of all offcnses under the ATA and as such is convicted and sentence.l only for oflense u/s. 392 PIt,302 (b) PI'C and 34 fPC The sentences for inrpisonment shall run concurrently and the aPPellant shall have thc benefit of 5.382 ts Cr.I,C. APart froln the above modifi'ation in sentences the apP€als are dismissed

lh. 'Ihc al)peals and corrlirmittion rcference stand disposed oI in the t-L/ f\-4{

IU?68

14u-

I

s crl

record we are rlf the view that thcre was no design, obiecl or intention to create any fear or insecurity in society by robbing the caPtain or murdcring thc deceased and in fact the intent oi thc clime was robt'ery which then cscalated into that o[ murder once the deceased wcnt for his weapon and as such this was simply a case of robbery and murder lalling unLler Sections 392,/302(t))/3{ Prc' tn this rcsPecl reliance is Placed on the recent Supreme Court case of Ghulam Hussain V State (unrePorted) dated 3Gl0-2019 in Criminal APPcals 95 and 96 of 20]9 antl Civil Appeal No.10 l- of 2017 and Criminal Appeal 63 oI 2013.

74- The nexl issue i6 of senlenaing. ln our view although the crime was of an extrcmely brutal nature wherebv ovcr 10 fircarm shots wt're pumped into thc body of the deceased who was guardin8 a naval officer in broad day liglrt we harbour vcry siight doubts as to the guilt of the accus€d although .ertainlv not such as to disPlace our finding that the prosecution has proved its case lrevoncl a.easonable doubt against the appelldnt in that no rctovery of the lirearm was made lrom the accused and their may be some minor irregularities in the conduct of the identification parade whilst exercising iudicial caution b.v taking guidanre irom the Supr€me C-ourt authority of Ghulam Mohyuddin (suPra) where it was stresssd as under whilst dealing with sentencing in a murder case in the lollowing temrs we hereby reduae the sentence of death handed down to thc appellant to that of life imprisonment, "A sin8le rnilisalint circumst:urce. available in a panicular case, \r'outd b€ sullicieni to pul on guard lhe Judgt not t() award lhc pcnalt) of dealh but life imprisonnlcnt. No clcar guidclinc. in this rugard caD he laid do$n bccause lacts turd circurlsmDces ol ollc casu dillir from the olher. ho\re\er. il bc(on)os th( esscntial obligation of the Judge itr awardilrg onc or (lle other senlcnce to afpll his iutlicial minil lvith a dcep thoughr ro th€ fac[s of a parlicular case, II lhe Judg€/Judges cntertrir sonre doubt, llbcia ool sufficient for lcquiltal, jtrdici{l crurion must be excrciscd lo a}vard tht alternalive scnlencc of life imprisonmcrt, lcsl sIr innocenl pcrsorr might not be sent to lhe galloBs. So it is beltcr lo resPccl the humsn lilc, as fr. os possihle, ruthcr to pu( it {t end, h} :rsstcsing thr cvidente, facts aIld circunritancts uf ! plr'ticulsr Drlrder case, under which it rvos commitled. (Brrld addtd)

7i. Ihus. rve hereby uphrr)d all the convictions in the impugned judgmcnt agarnst lhe appcllant and all the othcr sentences in thc n.