JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 has been preferred by Sambhal Singh and his three sons namely, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh against the Judgment and Order dated 17-12-2002, passed by Mr. O.P. Tripathi, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-IV), Deoria, in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2000 convicting and sentencing them to death for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.
Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003 arises out of the reference made by the learned trial Judge, to this Court under Section 366(1), Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence of Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh.
It is pertinent to mention that along with the four appellants, two others namely, Ram Nath and Ram Pyare Mall were also tried, but the learned trial Judge vide the impugned Judgment acquitted them and the State of U.P. has not preferred any appeal under Section 378(1), Cr.P.C. against their acquittal.
2. Since both Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003 arise out a common factual matrix and impugned Judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment.
3. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under :--
The informant Ram Kewal Mall P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased Munshi Mall, father of Km. Anuradha alias Dimple Virendra and Dhirendra Mall (all deceased) brother of appellant Sambhal Singh and uncle of appellants Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh. At the time of Incident the informant, his wife Smt. Maya Devi P.W. 2 and the aforesaid persons were living in village Majharihawa within the limits of Police Station Rudrapur in district Deorla.
There was enmity between the informant on one hand and his brother Sambhal Singh on the other, The informant's father de-, ceased Munshi Mall since 1976 used to stay with him and the informant, his wife and children used to look after him. On account of this, month before the incident Munshi Mall had executed a Will of his entire property in favour of informant's wife Smt. Maya Devi. This incensed the informant's real brother Sambhal Singh.
On 22-4-1999, at 6.30 a.m. the informant's son Dhirendra alias Dhirendra Singh had gone in the grove to pick Mahuva fruits. Appellant Sambhal Singh and his sons, appellants Hari Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Jag Mohan Singh were also picking the Mahuva fruits. They asked Dhirendra not a pick Mahuva fruits. On this, an altercation took place between them. Dhirendra said that Mahuwa tree belonged to him. Thereafter Dhirendra tried to run away. Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna, Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh chased him. They were saying today we will kill and would not leave anyone. Dhirendra running came to the informant and his mother Maya Devi, who at that time were preparing cow dung cakes. Maya Devi old him that they would protest against this conduct of Sambhal Singh and others. Thereafter, the informant and Maya Devi asked Dhirendra to get a bucket of water. In the meantime, Sambhal Singh armed with a licensed gun and bhujali (banka), Hari Mohan Singh with a country-made pistol, Jagmohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis came. They were saying that they would kill everyone. Thereupon, Dhirendra Singh and Virendra ran towards the Ghotha (cattle shed) and the informant and Maya Devi hid in a adjoining maize field. They saw that Sambhal Singh with his licensed gun fired upon Dhirendra Singh, and the shot struck him. Thereafter Sambhal Singh reloaded his gun twice and fired on Virendra Singh and Dhirendra Singh. Then Hari Mohan Singh fired with, a country-made pistol on Virendra Singh. Thereafter, Sambhal Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujali (in the evidence, it has also come that Sambhal Singh was armed with a banka) assaulted Dhirendra Singh and Virendra Singh. Then Sambhal Singh caught hold of the legs of Munshi Mall and Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh assaulted him with bhujali. As a consequence of the assault, commotion was created. When Sambhal Singh and others, after murdering Dhirendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Munshi Mall were leaving Anuradha (the daughter of the informant and Smt. Maya Devi) asked the appellants that what they had done. At that juncture on the instigation of acquitted accused Ram Pyare and Ram Nath that she be hacked to death, Sambhal Singh with a banka (bhujali) and Krishna Mohan Singh and Jag Mohan Singh with a bhujali assaulted her. Apart from the informant and Maya Devi, the assault on Anuradha was witnessed by Vishnawanath P.W. 3. Thereafter, Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh ran away. Then the informant called a passer by and got the F.I.R. (Ext. Ka 1) scribed by him. He, thereafter, proceeded along with it to Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria, and lodged it.
4. The evidence of Head Moharrir, Brij Bhushan Mishra P.W. 13 shows that on 22-4-1999, at 7.30 a.m. Ram Kewal P.W. 1 came at Police Station Rudrapur and lodged his F.I.R. on the basis of which, he registered C.R. No. 112 of 1999 under Section 302, I.P.C. and Criminal Amendment Act.
A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the four appellants namely, Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh are named therein.
The evidence of Brij Bhushan Mishra also shows that he prepared the chik F.I.R. a perusal of which shows that the distance between the place of incident and Police Station Rudrapur was eight kilometers.
5. The evidence of Senior Sub-Inspector, Chhabi Nath Prasad P.W. 9 shows:-- At the time of lodging of the F.I.R. he was on examination duty in Degree College, Rudrapur and he there received the copy of the F.I.R. etc. and thereafter, along with police force proceeded to village Majharihwa where the incident took place and commenced the Investigation. He asked S.K. Ranveer Singh to perform the Inquest on the corpse of Dhirendra and Virendra. He, himself, prepared the Inquest on the corpse of Anuradha and Munshi Mall. He, thereafter, sent the dead bodies for post mortem. He then Inspected the place of incident and seized there from plan and blood stained earth and empty cartridges under recovery memos. The same day, he arrested appellant Sambhal Singh and seized his single barrel licensed gun and on his pointing out a blood stained banka. The said seizure was made under recovery memo. On 28-4-1999, he recorded the statement of Vishwanath P.W. 3. He did some other investigation also to which in our view a reference is not necessary for the disposal of these matters. Thereafter the investigation was taken over by S.H.O. Rama Nand Gupta P.W. 8 of Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria.
6. The evidence of S.H.O. Rama Nand Gupta P.W. 8, in short shows that on 6-7-1999, the case property to the Chemical Analyst and on 6-7-1999, after competing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants and acquitted accused Ram Pyare and Ram Nath.
7. Going backwards the autopsy on the corpse of Anuradha alias Dimple, Munshi Mall and Virendra was conducted on 22-4-1999 by Dr. Vijay Kumar Garg P.W. 7 and that on the corpse of Dhirendra was conducted by him on 23-4-1999.
On the corpse of Anuradha, Dr. Garg found 5 incised wounds one of which namely, injury No. 1 has been described as three obliquely vertically incised wounds.
On the person of Munshi Mall, Dr. Garg found 7 incised wounds two horizontally incised wounds, one multiple abrasion, and one abrasion.
On the person of Virendra, Dr. Garg found four horizontally incised wounds, one multiple incised wound two incised wounds, one vertically incised wound and one obliquely lacerated wound.
On the person of Dhirendra. Dr. Garg found one multiple gun shot wound of entry and one single lacerated gun shot wound of entry.
The cause of death spelt out by Dr. Garg in the autopsy report of the deceased per-sons was shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries suffered by them. In his statement in the trial Court, Dr. Garg reiterated the said cause of death and further stated that the Incised wounds sustained by the deceased persons were attributable to sharp cutting weapon the gun shot wounds to a fire arm and arbrasions could be result of friction from some hard object.
8. The case was committed in the Court of Session in the usual manner, where the appellants and the acquitted accused persons namely Ram Pyare and Ram Nath were charged on a number of counts to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of denial.
During trial, in all, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Three of them, namely, Ram Kewal Mall. Smt Maya Devi and Vishwanath P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, were examined as eye-witnesses.
In defence, Ram Satya Yadav D.W. 1, (Criminal Clerk in the Court of C.J.M., Deoria), was examined to prove that the copy of the F.I.R. was received in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria on 5-5-1990.
The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence and found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to death. He, however, acquitted accused Ram Pyare and Ram Nath.
As mentioned earlier, aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the appellants have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 in this Court and the State of U.P. has not preferred any appeal under Section 378(1), Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of Ram Pyare and Ram Nath. As also mentioned earlier Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003 arises out of the reference made by the learned trial Judge to this Court, under Section 366(1), Cr.P.C., for confirmation of death sentence of Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh. As also mentioned earlier, since Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003 arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned Judgment we are disposing them off by one Judgment.
9. We have heard Mr. Prabhakar Ram Tripathi and Mr. Baij Nath Singh for appellants and Mr. R.K. Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for State of U.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 and Mr. R.K. Singh, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for State of U.P. and Mr. Prabhakar Ram Tripathi and Mr. Baij Nath Singh, for respondents, in Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003, Learned counsel for the appellants frankly and candidly admitted that they could not assail the impugned judgment on merits and restricted their submission to the quantum of sentence. They, contended that the Instant case cannot be put in the pigeon-hole of "rarest of rare", warranting only the imposition of death sentence and a sentence of imprisonment of life would meet the ends of justice.
Despite their concession, in the interests of justice we perused :-- the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the evidence of Ram Satya Yadav D.W. 1, and the impugned judgment. Having done so we have no reservations in observing that the learned counsel for the appellants acted wisely in restricting their challenge to the quantum of sentence.
10. We make no bones in observing that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants to the hilt through the credible ocular account furnished by Ram Kewal Mall P.W. 1, Maya Devi, P.W. 2 and Vishvanath P.W. 3. Out of them Ram Kewal Mall and Maya Devi have seen the entire incident and Vishvanath the murder of Anuradha. In our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in accepting their evidence.
We now propose furnishing our reasons for reaching the said conclusion.
11. We would first like to take up the ocular account furnished by Ram Kewal Mall and his wife Maya Devi. Since they have furnished the same version of incident we would cumulatively like to take up their evidence. Since, in paragraph 3, we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in their examination-in-chief, we do not want to burden our Judgment by reiterating the details.
In short, their evidence shows :--
Ram Kewal Mall and Sambhal Singh were the sons of deceased Munshi Mall. Maya Devi was the wife of Ram Kewal Km. Anuradha alias Dimple, Virendra Singh and Dhirendra Mall were their children. Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hart Mohan Singh were the sons of Sambhal Singh. About a month before the incident, the deceased Munshi Mall had executed a Will of his entire property in favour Smt. Maya Devi. This irked Sambhal Singh. On the date of the incident, at about 6.30 a.m., Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh were picking the Mahuva fruits. At that time, their son Dhifendra reached there and when they started picking Mahuva fruits, they asked him not to pick them. Thereafter, an altercation took place between Dhirendra on one hand and Sambhal Singh and others on the other. Dhirendra tried to run away. Sambhal Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh, Jag Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh chased him. Dhirendra came to them and informed them what had happened. At that time, they were preparing cow-dung cakes. They told Dhirendra that they would protest about the incident to Sambhal Singh. In the meantime, Sambhal Singh armed with a gun and bhujali (banka), Hari Mohan Singh with a country-made pistol, Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis came. They ran and hid In the adjoining maize field and from there they saw that Sambhal Singh fired on Dhirendra from his licensed gun and Hari Mohan Singh fired upon Virendra with a country made pistol. Then Sambhal Singh twice reloaded his gun and fired upon Virendra and Dhirendra. The fires struck Dhirendra and Virendra, who fell down. Thereafter, Sambhal Singh with bhujali (banka) and Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis assaulted Virendra and Dhirendra. Thereafter, Sambhal Singh caught hold of the legs of Munshi Mall and Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh assaulted him with bhujalis. In the meantime, their daughter Km. Anuradha alias Dimple came and asked them what they had done, whereupon on the instigation of the acquitted accused Ram Pyare and Ram Nath, Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis and Sambhal Singh with bhujali (banka) assaulted her. Thereafter, the appellants ran away:
The evidence of Ram Kewal further shows that from a stranger, who was passing by at that time, he got the F.I.R. scribed and lodged the same at Police Station Rudrapur.
12. We have gone through the statements of Ram Kewal and Maya Devi and make no bones in observing that we find them to be truthful witnesses.
In our judgment, while assessing their evidence it has to be borne in mind that Ram Kewal Mall is the real brother of appellant Sambhal Singh and the real uncle of appellants Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh and Maya Devi being the wife of Ram Kewal is the real sister-in-law of Sambhal Singh and aunt of Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh and on account of the close relationship between them and the said appellants they would not have falsely implicated them.
In our view, the evidence of Ram Kewal and Maya Devi inspires confidence.
In the first place the manner of assault as furnished by them is in consonance with medical evidence. They stated that Sambhal Singh fired twice on Dhirendra and Hari Mohan Singh fired once with a country-made pistol on Virendra and thereafter Sambhal Singh with a bhujali (banka) and Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis assaulted them. It is significant to mention that the medical evidence shows two multiple gun shot wounds of entry on the person of Dhirendra and one gun shot wound of entry and nine incised wounds on the person of Virendra. It is true that the autopsy surgeon did not find any incised wound on the person of Dhirendra, but, in our view, some margin has to be given to the fact that these witnesses had concealed themselves in the maize field and from there they saw the incident. If in these circumstances, they made a statement that Sambhal Singh with bhujali (banka) and Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis assaulted Dhirendra and Virendra they cannot be faulted.
Again their evidence that Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh assaulted the deceased Munshi Mall with bhujalis is corroborated by medical evidence inasmuch as Dr. V. K. Garg found on the person of Munshi Mall a large number of incised wounds and abrasions. Their evidence that Sambhal Singh with a bhujali (banka) and Jag Mohan Singh and Krishna Mohan Singh with bhujalis assaulted Anuradha alias Dimple is corroborated by medical evidence in-as much as the autopsy report of Anuradha alias Dimple reveals that she sustained five incised wounds, one of which (injury No. 1) has been described as three obliquely vertically incised wounds.
It is a trite witnesses may lie, but circumstances don't. In our judgment, the medical evidence leads a seal of assurance to the claim of Ram Kewal and Smt. Maya Devi of having seen the Incident.
Secondly, they have explained their presence on the place of the incident which was at their house. We see no reason to disbelieve their presence at their house at the time of the Incident. It is from there they ran in the adjoining field of maize and saw the incident.
It is significant to mention that although Ram Kewal and Maya Devi were subjected to extensive cross-examination, but nothing could be extracted therefrom, which could erode their credibility vis-a-vis the participation of four appellants, namely, Krishna Mohan Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Sambhal Singh and Hari Mohan Singh, in the instant case.
13. For the said reasons, the evidence of Ram Kewal and Maya Devi inspires confidence and proves the involvement of the four appellants in the incident.
14. Assurance to the ocular account furnished by Ram Kewal and Maya Devi is forthcoming by the prompt F.I.R. of the incident, which was lodged at Police Station, Rudrapur, We have seen that the incident took place at 22-4-1999, at 6.30 a.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Rudrapur, at 7.30 a.m., which was situated at a distance of eight kilometers from the place of the incident by Ram Kewal. It is significant to mention that in this prompt F.I.R. of the incident, the essential features of the prosecution story, including :-- the time of the incident, the place of the incident, the names of the deceased persons, the names of the appellants; the weapons wielded by the appellants; the names of the eye-witnesses; the manner of assault; and the motive for the incident, have all been mentioned. In our judgment, this prompt F.I.R. of the incident leaves not even an iota of doubt that the appellants participated in the incident and Ram Kewal and Maya Devi saw the incident.
15. We now take up the evidence of Vishawanath P.W. 3. As mentioned earlier, he was only a witness of the assault on the deceased Amiradha alias Dimple. His evidence shows:--
On 22-4-1999 (the date of the incident), at 6.30 a.m., while he was passing through the village of the appellants and the deceased persons, on way to get his machine repaired, he heard the sound firing and saw that on the instigation of Ram Pyare and Ram Nath, appellant Sambhal Singh with a bhujali (banka) and Hari Mohan, Krishna Mohan Singh and Jag Mohan Singh with bhujalis assaulted Anuradha. Thereafter the appellants ran away.
16. We have gone through the evidence of Vishawanath and make no bones in observing that we find him to be a truthful witness. It is true that he resides in another village, namely, Jungle Pipara, but as we have seen above he has furnished a reason for his presence on the place of the incident. His evidence that Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh were assaulting Anuradha alias Dimple with bhujalis and Sambhal Singh with bhujali (banka) is corroborated by medical evidence, inasmuch Dr. Garg (the autopsy surgeon) found a large number of incised wounds on the person of Anuradha alias Dimple.
It is significant to mention that although he was extensively cross-examined, but nothing could be extracted there from, which could either erode his credibility or show that he was inimical to the appellants.
17. For the said reasons, in our judgment, the evidence of Vishwanath PW-3 also inspires confidence.
18. We may also mention that there is circumstantial evidence to connect appellant Sambhal Singh with the crime, inasmuch as on the date of the incident itself he was arrested and his licensed gun was recovered and on his pointing out a bloodstained banka was also recovered.
It is pertinent to mention that the Investigating Officer seized three empty cartridges from the place of the incident and sent them and the gun to the ballistic expert, who found that two of them were fired from the said gun.
Further blood stained banka was also sent to the serologist, who found human blood on it but could not opine about blood-group. In our judgment, the presence of human blood on the banka is itself incriminating evidence.
In this connection, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 : 1991 Cri LJ 2653 where in paragraph 10, the Supreme Court has held that presence of human blood on a recovered article constitutes incriminating evidence. -
It is significant to mention that according to the eye-witnesses Sambhal Singh was armed with a banka (bhujali). It is common knowledge, as is also the evidence of autopsy surgeon (Dr. Garg), that the incised wounds suffered by the deceased persons could be caused by banka (bhujali).
In our judgment, the aforesaid recovery is a final nail in coffin of Sambhal Singh.
19. For the said reasons, we are of the judgment that learned Judge acted correctly in convicting all the four appellants namely, Sambhal Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh, Jag Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C.
20. This leaves us with the question of sentence. As we have mentioned earlier, learned counsel for the appellants have only restricted their submission to the quantum of sentence and have not assailed the impugned judgment on merits. They contended that considering the over all circumstances, the instant case cannot be categorised as "rarest of rare", warranting only the imposition of death sentence. We have given our anxious consideration to the said submission. On the first blush, we were not inclined to accept it because the appellants in a very brutal manner murdered their own kith and kin. However, on a deeper reflection, we came to the conclusion that the imposition of sentence of imprisonment of life would meet the ends of Justice.
21. A perusal of the evidence of the eyewitnesses would show that the whole incident happened on the spur of the moment and was the off-shoot of a very trivial issue, namely, picking of Mahuva fruits. According to the eye-witnesses, Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh were picking Mahuva fruits and deceased Dhirendra also happened to reach there and started picking Mahuva fruits. Then an altercation took place between Dhirendra on one hand and the appellants on the other and thereafter the incident took place. The learned Judge in the impugned Judgment has observed that the appellants launched a pre-meditated assault on the deceased. In our view, this finding is incorrect because a reading of the evidence of the eye-witnesses does not warrant this inference.
In our judgment, had Dhirendra on the date of the incident not gone to pick Mahuva fruits then no altercation between him and the appellants would have taken place and the incident also would not have taken place.
22. Apart from the above, we find that three of the appellants, namely, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh are the sons of appellant Sambhal Singh and it can safely be assumed that they participated in the incident under the moral influence of their father. This in our view is an additional ground for reducing their sentence from life to death (sic).
The Supreme Court in paragraphs 206 and 207 of the oft-quoted case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : (AIR 1980 SC 898 : 1980 Cri LJ 636) has considered the circumstance that an accused acted under the duress or domination of another person as a mitigating circumstance for imposing imprisonment for life.
In our judgment, it can safely be presumed that appellants Krishna Mohan Singh, Hari Mohan Singh and Jag Mohan Singh acted under the duress or domination of their father Sambhal Singh. Since at the time of the incident they were young they deserve the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. We are amazed that in their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C., the learned Judge has not noted their age. This was a serious error committed by him. He should have noted it because the estimate of age given by an accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. is taken to be correct by Courts (see AIR 1977 SCC 1822 : (1977 Cri LJ 1555), "Raisul v. State").
23. So far as Sambhal Singh is concerned, there also additional grounds for imposing a sentence of life imprisonment. A perusal of his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. shows that the learned Judge has also not noted his age. A perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that it was canvassed before him that he was old and had served the nation; being in the military. However, the learned trial Judge did not attach any weight to this. The Supreme Court in paragraph 26 of the case of Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 799 : (1974 Cri LJ 683) has held that if the accused is too old then it can be a ground for imposing on him the lesser sentence.
24. Apart from the above, there is another reason which warrants that the appellants be sentenced to imprisonment for life and that is that the sentence of death has been hanging on their heads from nearly the last ten months. They were sentenced to death way back on 17-12-2002.
We however hasten to add that merely on this ground we would not have opted for the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life.
25. We feel that totality of the circumstances, referred to above, warrants that the sentence of the appellants be reduced from death to life.
26. In the result :--
A. Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 The appeal is partly allowed. Although we uphold the conviction of appellants Sambhal Singh, Jag Mohan Singh, Krishna Mohan Singh and Hari Mohan Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C., but we set aside the sentence of death imposed on them and instead sentence them to Imprisonment for life. They are in jail and shall serve out the sentence.
B. Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2003 :--
The reference is rejected.