JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.
1. The above appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Banda in S.T. No. 136 of 1996 (connected with S.T. No. 83/98 and 137/96) whereby the appellants are convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one years. Appellant Naseem Ahmad is further convicted under Section 504 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for three months.
2. The brief facts mentioned in the report lodged by Shamshad Ali at police station Chilla District Banda are that on 11.1.1996 at 10 a.m. he had come to Chilla and he was going towards the shop of Mehboob for taking tea. His brother-in-law Abdul Razzaq was standing near the shop of tea. Naseem Ahmad carrying his licensed Rifle, Kaseem Ahmad carrying licensed 12 bore gun of his father, Azeem Ahmad armed with licensed Gun and Nairn Ahmad armed with D.B.B.L. Gun came out of the house of Mushtaq Neta and on the exhortation of Naseem Ahmad, Kaseem Ahmad, Azeem Ahmad and Nairn Ahmad started firing at his brother-in-law. The shot fired by Nairn Ahmad hit his brother-in-law who fell on the ground. The occurrence was witnessed by Peer Baksh, Gayasuddin, Anwar and several other persons. The accused persons started indiscriminate firing and created terror in Chilla Kasba and the shop keepers started closing their shops, public order was disturbed. The accused persons went away threatening them. The family members of his brother-in-law took him to the Hospital. It is further stated that on 10.1.1996 some altercation had taken place between Azad, Abdul Razzaq with Mustafa son of Naseem Ahmad. On account of this enmity his brother-in-law has been assaulted by the accused persons. The report was registered at the police station on 11.1.1996 at 10.40 a.m. The distance of the police station is only 500 yards from the place of occurrence. The case was originally registered under Section 307/504 I.P.C. After the registration of the case S.O. M.P. Pal commenced investigation. He recorded the statement of first informant and also informed the higher authorities and reached at the place of the occurrence. He had also sent two constables for the protection of the injured. He prepared the site plan, which is Ext. Ka-12. He recorded the statement of Mehboob, Gopal, Brijlal. He also collected 8 empty cartridges of 12 bore, two empty cartridges of Rifle and prepared its recovery memo which is Ext. Ka-13. He received information that appellant Nairn was arrested by the public. He arrested him at the police station and a case under Section 25 Arms Act was registered against him. After the death of injured Abdul Razzaq case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C. on 13.1.1996 and Mushtaq was also made accused under Section 302/34/120B I.P.C. He recorded the statements of witnesses Peer Baksh, Gayasuddin and Anwar on 12.1.1996. The statement of Afzal Hussain was recorded on 14.1.1996. After the conclusion of the investigation he submitted the charge sheet on 22.1.1996, which is Ext. Ka-14. He had also sent the Guns of Azeem and Naim and recovered empty cartridges to the Scientific Laboratory, Agra for the examination. He had also investigated the case under Section 25/27 Arms Act against Nairn. He had prepared the site plan of this case which is Ext. Ka-15 (S.T. No. 136/96, State v. Naim). He had recorded the statement of Anwar, Ansad Ahmad, Manjar Ahmad and Rasool. During the investigation he came to know that the Gun which was recovered from the possession of Nairn was of Rehmat Ilahi. He had obtained the sanction for the prosecution from the District Magistrate and submitted the charge sheet against Nairn Ahmad under Section 25/27 Arms Act and under Section 30 Arms Act against Rehmat Ilahi. The charge sheet is Ext. Ka-16.
3. Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.P. Tripathi on 12.1.1996 at 12.10 p.m. and he noted following ante mortem injuries:
1. Gun shot wound of entry 1.8 cm. x 1.8 cm. x chest cavity deep on back of the left side of the chest 2 cm. medial to lower end of left scapula and 6 cm. lateral to midline. Margins inverted. Abraded collar present;
2. Gun shot wound of exit 2.5 cm. x 2.4 cm. x communicating to injury no. 1 on anterior lateral aspect of right side of chest (paper torn) away from right nipple at about 10 O' Clock position. Margins everted direction backward to forward, left to right and upward.
3. Oval shaped abrasion 1.8 cm. x 1.7 cm. on anterior aspect of right (paper torn) upper arm 15 cm. above to the right elbow joint. Margins of the inner l/3rd are inverted and out (paper torn) are everted.
4. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. P.W. 1 Shamshad Ali, P.W. 2 Peer Bux, P.W. 3 Anwar, P.W. 4 Afzal Hussain, P.W. 5 Head Constable Raghuwanshi Rathor, P.W. 6 C.P. Har Dayal, P.W. 7 Constable Ramesh Chandra, P.W. 8 Sarju Ram, P.W. 9 Mahendra Singh, P.W. 10 M.P. Pal, Station Officer, P.W. 11 Dr. S.C. Tripathi, P.W. 12 S.I. Ayodhya Prasad, and P.W. 13 Constable P.C. Sharma.
5. The defence had examined Naseem Ahmad as D.W. 1 during the trial.
6. P.W. 1 Shamshad Ali deposed that he knew Naseem Ahmad, Kaseem Ahmad, Azeem Ahmad, Mushtaq, and Rahmat ilahi. Nairn and Azeem are real brothers and they are sons of Faheem Ahmad. Faheem is real brother of accused Naseem Ahmad. Kaseem son of Naseem is also accused in this case.
7. He further stated that Sadi Madanpur is at a distance of 600 - 700 meter from Chilla and people from there come for taking tea at Chilla. Abdul Razzaq was murdered in this case he was his brother-in-law. This occurrence has taken place on 11.1.1996. A day prior to the occurrence of this case, his brother Azad Ahmad and brother-in-law Abdul Razzaq had some altercation with Mustafa son of Naseem Ahmad and reports were lodged. On 11.1.1996 at about 10 a.m. he came to the shop of Mehboob in Chilla for taking tea. On the eastern side of the shop of Mehboob there is a Hand Pump and thereafter there is a field and thereafter there is a house of Mushtaq. Near the field there is a house of Mushtaq. Abdul Razzaq was standing at the tea shop. Accused Naseem Ahmad, Kaseen Ahmad, Azeem Ahmand and Nairn Ahmand came out of the house of Mushtaq. Naseem was carrying licensed Rifle, Kaseem had 12 bore Gun, Azeem Ahmad having licensed Gun, and Nairn was armed with D.B.B.L. Gun. All the accused are resident of village Gausipur. Naseem Ahmad exhorted to kill Abdul Razzaq and all the accused persons fired at his brother-in-law. The shot fired by Nairn Ahmad hit Abdul Razzaq and he fell down. The accused persons were firing thereafter. The occurrence was witnessed by Peer Bux, Gayasuddin, Anwar and he also witnessed the occurrence alongwith several other persons. Accused persons after threatening him went away towards eastern side. He rushed near his brother-in-law who had received gun shot injuries. Several family members also reached there and he was taken to Banda on a private Bus. He prepared the report at his shop and went o the police station. The persons who had accompanied him informed that this occurrence is committed after planning and accused persons have assembled at the house of Mushtaq. The report is Ext. Ka-1. The investigating officer had also recorded his statement at the police station.
8. P.W. 2 Peer Bux deposed that he knew the accused persons of village Gausipur. He also knew accused Rehmat Ilahi and Mushtaq. The occurrence had taken place on 11.1.1996 at 10 a.m. He came to the shop of Mehboob for taking tea. Gayasuddin and Anwar were also sitting there. The accused persons came out of the house of Mushtaq. Naseem was armed with licensed Rifle, Kaseem was armed with single Barrel Gun, Azeem Ahmad was carrying a licensed D.B.B.L. Gun and Nairn was armed with D.B.B.L. Gun. He further deposed that when they reached near the tap Naseem exhorted to kill and thereafter accused persons started firing at Razzaq alias Raja who was standing near the shop of Mehboob. The shot fired by Nairn hit Razzaq who fell down. Several family members also reached there and accused persons ran away after indiscriminately firing and created terror and shop keepers have closed their shops. The injury of Razzaq was covered with a cloth and he was taken to Banda Hospital on a Bus. At that time Razzaq was alive. Shamshad went to the police station for lodging the report.
9. P.W. 3 Anwar deposed that the murder of Abdul Razzaq had taken place on 11.1.1996 at 10 a.m. in front of the shops of Mehboob and Zalaluddin. At that time he was also taking teat at the shop of Mehboob. Peer Bux, Gayasuddin, Shamim, Razzaq and Rais were also sitting there and Shamshad was standing behind him. At his right side Razzaq was standing for taking tea. He had seen the accused persons Naseem, Azeem, Kaseem and Nairn coming from the house of Mushtaq Neta. Naseem had his licensed Rifle, Kaseem was carrying licensed Gun of his father, Azeem had his licensed D.B.B.L. Gun and Nairn was carrying a D.B.B.L. Gun. They came near the hand pump and on the exhortation of Naseem Ahmad, Kaseem, Azeem, and Nairn started firing. The shot fired by Nairn hit the deceased and he collapsed. They were also threatening the witnesses and they went away towards the eastern side. He had covered the wound of Razzaq with a cloth and his family members had taken Razzaq to Banda Hospital on a Bus. Shamshad went to lodge the report. He alongwith several other persons had chased the accused persons. Several persons had also followed them. The accused persons ran away, Azeem and Kaseem went away and could not be found. They could not trace the accused Naseem. Accused Nairn was surrounded by several persons and apprehended there. His Gun was taken into possession and three live cartridges were also recovered from the pocket of the coat of Nairn. Nairn was brought to the police station. Gun and cartridges were also handed over to the police. At about 3 - 4 p.m. he came to know that Razzaq succumbed to his injuries. His statement was recorded next day by the investigating officer.
10. P.W. 4 Afzal Hussain deposed that on 11.1.1996 he and Abdul Muhi were returning after taking tea from Chilla. At about 7 -
7:30 a.m. he reached near the house of Mushtaq and saw that Azeem Ahmad, and Nairn Ahmad and Mushtaq were talking each other in front of the fire and he heard that they were saying that Shamshad Ahmad, Ansar Ahmad and Abdul Razzaq are posing themselves and they shall be done to death, Mushtaq had agreed. Azeem and Nairn had asked Mushtaq Neta to do pairvi of the case. On the same day Abdul Razzaq was murdered. The investigating officer had recorded his statement on 14.1.1996.
11. P.W. 5 S.O. Raghuwanshi Rathor deposed that in the month of January, 1996 he was posted as Head Moharrir at police station Chilla. He had prepared the chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-2 on the basis of F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. He also prepared the G.D. entry and copy of G.D. entry is Ext. Ka-3. Accused Nairn was brought to the police station by Ansar Ahmad, Anwar, Raoof, Manzar and Rasool. They had also deposited a D.B.B.L. Gun and three cartridges He prepared the G.D. entry and copy of the G.D. entry is Ext. Ka-4. He had also prepared the recovery memo of Gun and cartridges, which is Ext. Ka-5. The case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C. after the information of the death of Abdul Razzaq on 13.1.1996. Copy of the G.D. report is Ext. Ka-3.
12. P.W. 6 constable Hardayal deposed that on 11.1.1996 he was posted at police station Kalijar District Banda as constable Moharrir. He had entered in the G.D. about the death of Razzaq and S.I. Adhya Prasad Misra was deputed to prepare inquest memo. Copy of G.D. is Ext. Ka-8.
13. P.W. 7 constable Ramesh Chandra deposed that on 11.1.1996 he was posted as constable at police station Chilla. He stated that after the information of the offence he was deputed for the security of the injured. He had accompanied Abdul Razzaq to the Hospital.
14. P.W. 8 Sarju Ram is the Inspector in C.B.C.I.D. He stated that on the application of Naseem Ahmad, the State Government by order dated 4.4.1996 had transferred the investigation of this case. On 17.4.1996 he had recorded the statements of Shamshad Ahmad, Peer Bux, Gayasuddin, Anwar, Rasool, Ansar Ahmad, Ajmad Ahmad, Mehboob Ali, Shabbir and also inspected the place of occurrence. Thereafter he recorded the statement of Afjal, Abdul Modi, Gopal, Bhaiyadin and Ors.. After the investigation, he also submitted the charge sheet.
15. P W 9 is constable Mahendra Singh. He stated that in the month of February, 1996 he was posted as constable at police station Chilla and he had taken the articles of this case to the Scientific Laboratory, Agra for the examination.
16. P.W. 10 M.P.Pal had investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.
17. P.W. 11 Dr. S.C. Tripathi conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.
18. P.W. 12 S.I. Ayodhya Prasad Misra stated that on 11.1.1996 he was posted as Sub Inspector at the police station Kotwali District Banda. The information of the death of Abdul Razzaq has been received from the Ward Boy Badri Vishal. He had gone to mortuary for the preparation of the inquest memo of Abdul Razzaq. The inquest memo is Ext. Ka-22. He had prepared the challan nash, photo nash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.S. for the post mortem examination, letter to C.M.S. for taking the cloths of deceased, sample seal, which is Ext. Ka-23 to 28. Dead body was handed over to the constable Pooran Chand Sharma and Home Guard Ramhit for escorting the same for the post mortem examination.
19. P.W. 13 constable Pooran Chand Sharma deposed that on 11.1.1996 he was posted as constable at the police station Kotwali Nagar Banda. He had gone to the District Hospital alongwith Ramhit and S.O. Ayodhya Prasad Misra for the preparation of the inquest memo. The dead body alongwith the relevant papers were handed over to him. After conducting the post mortem examination a packet and an envelope in a sealed condition was also handed over to him by the doctor which he had deposited at the police station Chilla. 20. Nairn Ahmad was examined as a defence witness. He deposed that he knew Shamshad, informant of the case. His elder brother Azaz Ahmad was a lawyer in Banda. He had a jeep since 1990. Babboo Singh Yadav, Advocate, was junior of Azaz Ahmad. He, co-accused Azeem and Kaleem never engaged Babboo Singh Yadav, junior of Azaz Ahmad as their advocate. Azaz Ahmad had got moved one bail application through Babboo Singh Yadav without his permission or the permission of other co-accused Azeem and Kaleem. He had moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda and District Judge, Banda, against Azaz Ahmad and thereafter he had filed a case against Azaz Ahmad in Allahabad High Court. Shamshad was Pradhan of Gaon Sabha in the 1988 and at that time he was Up-pradhan. His brother Azeem Ahmad was the member of Gaon Sabha. At present wife of Shamshad Ahmad is Pradhan. Shamshad Ahmad had contested the election of membership of Gaon Sabha but he was defeated. Shamshad Ahmad had got one application moved through his nephew Manjar Ashfaq for deleting his name and the name of his family members from the voter list. The application dated 9.9.1994 was addressed to Block Development Officer, Tindwadi. Due to their opposition Shamshad could not get their names deleted. The application is Ext. Kha. 1. He had also moved an application before the District Election Officer. The copy of the application is Ext. Kha 2. In the counting of votes in the election of wife of Shamshad for the post of Pradhan he was counting agent on behalf of his maternal aunt Nazma Khatoon. He had also moved an application dated 21.4.1995 before the Returning Officer with regard to irregularities committed in the counting on behalf of wife of Shamshad. The application is Ext. Kha 3. He had also file the map of village Chilla which is Ext. Kha, 4. He had also moved an application dated 22.4.1994 about the physical features of deceased Abdul Razzaq. He had given this application to Superintendent, District Jail. This application is Ext. Kha. 5. He had also filed the copy of voter list of 1994 of Ward No. 14. He had also moved an application against Shamshad for corruption and an enquiry was also conducted by Additional District Magistrate, Banda. Copies of the applications are paper nos. 226 Kha and 227 Kha. He had also filed paper cuttings regarding news of forged license and other news items to show that there was enmity with Shamshad. He further deposed that he had no enmity with Abdul Razzaq. He was a criminal. There was active gang of dacoits Kamlesh, Mithlesh, Rakesh @ Puchcha Aarakh and Prem Chandra Kewat and they were inimical with Razzaq. This gang had looted a truck of Abdul Razzaq and also abducted his nephew Abad. A named report was lodged by Abdul Razzaq and his brother Azim Ahmad was a witness in that case. Farooq, real brother of Abdul Razzaq had Sukhiya as a concubine. Razzaq had illicit relation with the daughter of Muraliya Kewat. He had also relations with one Bindi, who was the aunt of Kamlesh, who was a dacoit.
20. Vijay Kumar Kewat and Prem Kumar Kewat were also assembled to attack on Razzaq. They were arrested alongwith weapons. Shamshad had also lodged forged report against Peerbux. He further deposed that Shamshad was a Dalai of police and he was in habit of lodging false report and falsely implicate persons who were opposing him. He also deposed that on 11.1.1996 at about 9.00 A.M. the police of P.S. Chilla took him away from his fish shop.
21. The trial court after considering the evidence on record convicted the appellants as aforesaid. Hence these appeals.
22. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and A.G.A. for the State and Sri V.B. Rao, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi for the complainant and perused the entire record and order of the Sessions Judge.
23. The Counsel for the appellants had challenged the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge and submitted that the Sessions Judge should not have relied upon the testimony of the eye witnesses who were inimical, relative of the deceased and chance witnesses. It is contended that P.W. 1 Shamshad was brother-in-law of the deceased, P.W. 2 Peer Baksh was Phupha of Rukhsana, wife of the deceased and P.W. 3 Anwar was nephew of the deceased. All the witnesses were resident of Madarpur which was about 600-700 meters away from Chilla, which is the place of occurrence and their presence at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. It is further contended that the prosecution did not examine independent witnesses who were present at the alleged time of occurrence. The occurrence took place at the shop of Mehboob and several persons were present at that time but the prosecution did not examine them.
24. It is not disputed that none of the witnesses of the place of the occurrence were examined and all the witnesses are close relative of the deceased but there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. Due to many reasons independent persons do not come out and depose as witnesses. If the relatives or interested witnesses are examined, the court has a duty to analyse the evidence with deeper scrutiny and caution.
25. In the case of Birendra Rai v. State of Bihar (2205) 9 SCC 719, the Apex Court had held:
It is then argued that several persons were named in the first information report, as also by the witnesses, who were present in the nearby shops when the occurrence took place but none of them has been examined. Mere failure to examine all the witnesses who may have witnessed the occurrence will not result in outright rejection of the prosecution case if the witnesses examined by the prosecution are found to be truthful and reliable. Moreover, we cannot ignore the reality that many eyewitnesses shy away from giving evidence for obvious reasons.
26. The Counsel for the appellants had challenged the presence of the witnesses on the ground that all are resident of Sadimadarpur whereas the occurrence took place in the market of Chilla which is at a distance of 600 - 700 meters from the place of residence of the witnesses. The witnesses have explained their presence and therefore, on this ground their presence cannot be doubted. It is consistent case of the witnesses that they normally come to Chilla market for taking tea and there is nothing on record to doubt their version. If the presence of these witnesses is doubted then the presence of the deceased is also unnatural because he had also come to Chilla for taking tea from Sadimadarpur.
27. The defence had also challenged the place of the occurrence. It is submitted that the deceased might have been killed in the night at unknown place and the prosecution had shifted the time as well as the place of the occurrence. In support of this submission the Counsel for the appellants submitted that no blood was found at the place of occurrence. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was fired upon and he fell on the ground, if the case of the prosecution is correct then the blood must have been fallen on the ground and should have been noticed by the investigating officer. We have considered this submission of the Counsel for the appellants and in our view there is no substance in this submission. It is to be noted that the occurrence being of winter, deceased was heavily covered and the blood was found soaked in the clothes. The inquest report shows that the deceased was wearing Baniyan, Kurta, Sadari and full Swetor and the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination found all the clothes blood soaked or stained. In such a situation if the blood is not found on the place of occurrence it cannot be said the occurrence did not occurred at the alleged place. The witnesses had also stated that immediately after the occurrence the injury was covered with a clothes (Safi) and at the time of the post mortem examination the doctor had removed the Safi which was also blood stained. On the other hand the investigating officer had collected ten empty cartridges from the place of the occurrence and had also prepared its recovery memo. The one of the recovered cartridges was fired from the gun, which was recovered from the possession of Nairn is also confirmed by the ballistic expert report.
28. The presence of the eye witnesses is also challenged on the ground that none of them had received any injury when the prosecution case is that three persons had fired at the deceased. In such a situation if the witnesses were present in the close vicinity they should have received some injuries. This submission has no substance because the presence of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not receive any injury. The prosecution case is that deceased was the main target of the assailants, therefore, there is nothing unnatural if the witnesses did not receive any injury.
29. It is also contended that there is conflict in the medical and direct evidence. According to the prosecution case role of firing was assigned to three persons but the post mortem report indicates that the deceased has suffered only two injuries. In our view there is no substance in this submission. It is not necessary that all the shots fired by the assailants must hit the target. The role of firing by the three accused is consistent right from the first information report and also in the statements of the witnesses. The role of firing is also corroborated by the investigation. The investigating officer had recovered ten empty cartridges from the place of occurrence. In the first information report specific weapons in the hands of each accused was assigned. Appellant Naseem Ahmad was assigned Rifle, Kaseem Ahmad was carrying his father's licensed D.B.B.L. Gun, Azeem Ahmad was armed with his licensed Gun and Nairn Ahmad was armed with a D.B.B.L. Gun. After the registration of the F.I.R. Nairn Ahmad was apprehended by the persons who had chased him and a D.B.B.L. Gun was recovered from his possession and firing by this Gun is confirmed by the ballistic expert report. There is no substance in the doubt expressed by the Counsel for the appellants with regard to ballistic report on the ground that, on the cartridge which was alleged to be fired from the gun recovered from the possession of Nairn Ahmad, had two pin marks and only one pin mark had tallied with the Gun of Nairn. The Ballistic expert report is very clear which confirms that one of the cartridges had pin mark which had tallied with the Gun recovered from the possession of Nairn.
30. The presence of P.W. 3 Anwar is further doubted on the ground that he stated that he had chased and apprehended accused Nairn but this submission and on this ground alone his testimony cannot be rejected which is otherwise corroborated. It is not necessary for the police to mention the name of all the persons who had arrested the accused. A perusal of his testimony shows that it is credible and inspires full confidence. The report of the occurrence is promptly lodged at the police station and his name is also mentioned as an eyewitness.
31. We have carefully considered the submissions of the appellants and also cautiously examined the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses inspires full confidence and they are credible. All the witnesses were subjected to extensive cross examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. It is highly improbable that close relatives will falsely rope innocent persons and save the actual culprits. The eyewitness account finds corroboration from the post mortem report and recovered cartridge was fired from the gun, which was recovered immediately after the occurrence from the possession of the Nairn. The report of the occurrence was lodged at the police station at 10,00 a.m. on 11.1.96 and at that time Nairn was not apprehended. He was chased and apprehended by the villagers who had lodged him at the police station and a G.D. Entry No. 16 was prepared at 12.30 on 11.1.96. Nairn failed to offer any explanation about the recovery of Gun of Rahmat Ilahi from his possession. The use of the Gun is confirmed by the report of the ballistic expert.
32. Lastly the Counsel for the appellants submitted that the participation of Naseem Ahmad is doubtful in the occurrence. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the Counsel and we find force in this submission. So far as the case of the appellant Naseeem Ahmad is concerned, the allegation against him is that he exhorted others to fire at the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that though carrying a weapon he fired at anyone. Moreover, if all the accused had come determined to kill the deceased and all of them were armed with firearm, there was no need for appellant Naseem Ahmad to exhort his companion to fire at the deceased. Without casting any reflection on the eye witnesses, and only by way of abundant caution, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to appellant Naseem Ahmad. Thus it is not safe to convict the appellant Naseem Ahmad on the basis of his role of exhortation.
33. So far as the findings of conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge against other appellants is concerned we fully concur with the same,
34. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are decided as under:
1. Crl. Appeal No. 2811 of 1998 (Kaseem Ahmad, Azeem Ahmad and Naseem Ahmad).
Appeal of Kaseem Ahmad and Azeem Ahmad is dismissed. Their conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court are maintained. They are on bail. C.J.M. Banda is directed to take them into custody forthwith and send them to jail for serving out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by us.
The appeal of Naseem Ahamd is allowed. He is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds and sureties are discharged.
2. Crl. Appeal No. 2812 of 1998 (Nairn Ahmad) is dismissed. His conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court is maintained. He is in jail. He shall be kept there to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by us.
35. Office is directed to communicate this order to the C.J.M. Banda for compliance and C.J.M. Banda shall send the compliance report to this Court within a month.