Allahabad High Court
Shahru Son Of Dr. Ishrar Sakib vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2006
Author: R.N. Misra
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, R.N. Misra
JUDGMENT R.N. Misra, J.
1. Since these appeals relate to the one and same crime and arises out of the common judgment therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The judgment is being passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4027 of 2005; Shahru v. State of U.P.
2. The Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Pilibhit, Sri Jai Veer Singh has made reference for confirmation of death sentence, passed by him against the appellant Shahru who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death. He has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for two years has been awarded. He has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year has also been awarded.
3. These appeals have also been preferred by the accused/appellants against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2005, passed by Shri Jaiveer Singh, the then Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Pilibhit in Sessions Trial Nos. 36 of 2003 and 638 of 2003, by which the appellants Dr. Israr Sakib, Dr. Azaher and Mohd Rashid @ Chand, have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15000/- each and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 years. They have further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with a fine of 10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergone additional R.I. for two years. They have further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. For 7 years with a fine of 10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for one year. Accused/appellants Shameem, Smt. Reshma, Smt. Rashmi, Smt. Anjum, Husna, and Muslima have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. For 7 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for one year. All the accused/appellants have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 364/411 I.P.C. There were two other persons namely Ritesh Agrawal and Raja Ram before the Trial Court who were acquitted for the charges under Sections 394/411/201 I.P.C. Both the above noted cases were jointly tried by the learned Trial Court and the judgment was delivered in ST. No. 36 of 2003.
4. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under: -
According to the prosecution case Jasdeep Singh resident of Mohalla Pakadia P.S. Kotwali District and City Pilibhit was complainant-informant. Smt. Uttam Kaur aged about 65 years was the grand-mother of the complainant-informant. She had some trouble in her teeth and for that purpose, she was under treatment of accused appellant Shahru, and Israr Saqib. On 9.6.2002, the accused-appellant Shahru came to the house of Smt. Uttam Kaur (deceased) at about 9:30 AM and asked her to come to his clinic at about 12:30 noon. Prior to that also the said accused/appellant used to take the deceased to his clinic on his scooter and send back to her house, meaning thereby both the family members were acquainted with each other. On the said date, the deceased went to the clinic of accused/appellant Shahru and did not turn up. While going for her treatment, the deceased was wearing golden bangles, kangan, chain with locket, rings in the fingers and in the ears. All the ornaments were made of gold and were valued about 50 or 60 thousand. When the deceased did not turn up to her house even up to evening, the family members went to the house of Shahru and asked about the deceased but he did not give any satisfactory reply. Therefore, the F.I.R. exhibit Ka-1 was lodged by the complainant/informant at P.S. Kotwali, Pilibihit. On the same day at about 11:40 PM, the police registered a case on crime No. 409/2002 under Section 364 I.P.C against Shahru and started investigation. During investigation on 10.6.2002, Sub Inspector Ram Rais Singh , in-charge of police station Kotwali came to know about certain facts. He was on patrol duty at Drummondganj Chauraha , where he met with Sub-Inspector Ramesh Kumar Rastogi who was initially investigating the case. Both had some discussions regarding this crime. The informer told the police party that Dr. Israr Sakib and his sons have committed the murder of the deceased and the dead body had been concealed somewhere. The police party immediately came into action on this information and reached the house of Dr. Israr Sakib in mohalla Maszid Pathani P.S. kotwali where Dr. Israr Sakib, Shahru and Azaher were present. The police party interrogated them regarding this case and took them to police outpost Kamalley of Police Station KotwaM, where they were further interrogated and told the reality to the police. They confessed the fact that due to ornaments of the deceased they had committed her murder after snatching them they killed her in the water tank situate in the inner courtyard of their house. During interrogation this fact also came to the notice that Mohd. Rashid @ Chand was also involved in the murder. He was deputed to watch visitors out side of the house where the aforesaid accused/appellants were committing murder of the deceased. They also told the police that they were in a position to get the dead body recovered from the water tank in their house. The police party reached the house of the accused/appellants on the said information along with the public witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar Yadav and Trilok Singh. Accused were also with them. When they reached the house, the lady accused/appellants came there and wanted to misguide the police that there was nothing. The male accused persons removed the cover of the water tank and got the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur recovered from there in the presence of police party and public witnesses. The dead body was taken out by the accused from the tank and the recovery memo Exhibit-Ka-2 was prepared by the police. A copy of the recovery memo was given to Dr. Israr Sakib and the accused persons were formally arrested.
5. On interrogation by police, the accused/appellants Shahru told the Investigating Officer that the ornaments snatched from the deceased were sold by him to Raja Ram Sunar for Rs. 20,000/- only. He also told the police that he would like to get the said money recovered from his room which was situate in the southern portion of the second floor of the house. He went there with the police, opened the suit-case kept in the upper side of Almirarh and get the money Rs. 20,000/- recovered which were received by him after selling the ornaments of the deceased. The police took the custody of the said amount and prepared recovery memo Exhibit Ka-13.
6. On the basis of information given by the accused/appellant Shahru, the police party went to the house of Raja Ram, Gold Smith and interrogated him. Raja Ram told the police that the ornaments sold by the Shahru to him were melted and weight of the same was 50.640 gms. A pendant belonged to the deceased was recovered from the shop of Raja Ram which was mortgaged by the accused/appellant Shahru to him for an amount of Rs. 1200/- only. Ritesh Agrawal was sitting on the shop at that time therefore, he was also made accused in the case. The police prepared recovery memo Exhibit-ka-14.
7. The dead body of the deceased was inspected and sealed by the police. The inquest memo Ex-ka-5 was prepared. The Challan Ex-Ka-7, photo lash Ext-Ka-9 were also prepared. The I.O. wrote the letters Ext-Ka-6, Ext-Ka-7-A, and Ext-Ka-8 and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Dr. Vimal Kumar conducted the post-mortem examination and report of the same is Ext-Ka-4. Accused Israr Sakib and Azaher were medically examined. The I.O. interrogated the witnesses, collected the evidence and after concluding the investigation submitted charge-sheet Ex-Ka-18 against the accused persons.
8. The acquitted accused persons Ritesh Agrawal and Raja Ram were charged for the offences punishable under Section 411 and 201 both read with Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C. All the lady accused persons were charged under Section 201 read with Section 302 and 394 I.P.C. Accused Shahru, Israr Sakib, Dr. Azaher and Mohd. Rashid were charged under Sections 364, 394, 302, 411 and 201 I.P.C.
9. Accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and alleged their false implications in this case. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused Shahru has stated that the police wanted Ritesh Agrawal to become prosecution witness. Dr. Israr Sakib has stated that the ground floor of his house was not used for residence. Smt. Shameem has stated that her husband had performed second marriage about 10 or 12 years back. Dr. Azaher and his wife Smt. Reshma had stated that they had no good relation with Dr. Israr Sakib therefore, they were residing separately in a rented house in Mohalla Pilkhana. The lady accused persons also claimed themselves to be innocent.
10. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Jasdeep Singh PW-1, Trilok Singh PW-2, Smt. Seema Bhaseen Pw-3, Smt. Bhupendra Kaur, PW-4 , Rajesh Kumar Yadav PW-5, Jitendra Pal Singh PW-6, Manjeet Singh PW-7 and Praveen Kumar Agrawal PW-8. Dr. Vimal Kumar PW-9 had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. PW-10, Sub Inspector Shiv Sharan Dwivedi had prepared the inquest report, PW-11 Sub Inspector R.K. Rastogi had made part investigation, PW-12 Inspector Ram Rahees Singh had completed the investigation. PW-13 Masood Hasan, has given secondary evidence regarding the test identification parade prepared by R.S. Chahat, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, PW-14 is constable Jamshed Ali, who had prepared his report on the basis of written report of the complainant-informant and made entry in the G.D for registering the case. The accused persons have examined Ramesh Chandra DW-1, Gurdeep Singh, DW-2 and Hanif DW-3 for their defence.
11. After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record the learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offences and passed sentences referred to earlier against which these appeals.
12. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the evidence on record.
13. In this case, one Smt. Uttam Kaur was murdered. According to the prosecution case, the deceased was aged about 65 years and she had some trouble in her teeth. She was under treatment of Dr. Israr Saqib who was a dentist in Qasba Pilibhit. The appellant Sahru was the son of Dr. Israr Saqib. Though he was not a qualified doctor and dentist but he was known as Dr. Shahru. The evidence which has come on records is that on 9.6.2002, the appellant Shahru came to the house of deceased and asked her to come at about 12.30 noon at his clinic for her treatment. When appellant Shahru had visited the house of the deceased for calling her, at that time, her family members namely Smt. Seema, Smt. Pinki and Trilok Singh were present there. At 12.30 noon, the deceased went to the clinic of accused and did not turn up. She was wearing golden ornaments like bangles, Kara, Chain, finger rings and ear rings. The chain had a locket (Pendant). The approximate price of ornaments was about Rs. 50 or 60 thousands. The accused-appellants had denied entire prosecution case even the factum of treatment of deceased by appellant Shahru or Israr Saqib, but the prosecution has adduced relevant evidence for this purpose.
14. PW-1 Jasdeep Singh, the complainant-informant of this case has stated that on the relevant date, when the appellant Sahru came to his house for calling the deceased to his clinic for treatment, the family members Smt. Seema, Smt. Pinki and Trilok Singh were present. Jasdeep Singh is grand-son of deceased. From his statement, it is clear that at the time when Shahru had visited his house, he was not present but he was told by the family members that when deceased went to the clinic of accused, she was wearing aforesaid ornaments. The prosecution has examined Trilok Singh as PW-1, and Smt. Seema as PW-3 who have clearly stated that when Shahru had come to the house of deceased to call her, they were present. Trilok Singh has stated that the deceased was under treatment of Dr. Shahru who was son of Dr. Saqib. He has further stated that the appellant Shahru had visited the house of the deceased twice or thrice in connection with her treatment. He used to carry her to his clinic and leave back to her house. He has further stated that when at about 9,30 A.M. on 9.6.2002, the appellant Shahru came to the house of deceased, he was present there. The appellant Shahru asked the family members to call the deceased by saying "MAATA J1 JINKA ILAZ CHAL RAHA HAI UNHEY BULA DO". The deceased came out to the house and had a talk with Shahru who asked her to come to his clinic at 12.30 noon when his father(Israr Saqib) would also be there. He has further stated that Smt. Seema and Smt, Pinki were also there at that time. Smt. Seema PW-3 has also corroborated the said facts in her statement on oath. She has stated that since last one month, treatment of deceased was going on in the clinic of accused and Shahru used to take deceased to the clinic and leave her back to her house. Both these witnesses have stated that when the deceased left her house for treatment at the clinic of Shahru, she was wearing following golden ornaments.
(i) Bangles 2 (ii) Kara 1 (iii)Chain with pendant. 1 (iv) rings in both ears (v) Finger rings 3
15. Smt Seema has stated that weight of aforesaid ornaments were about 9 or 10 Tolas and its price was about Rs. 50 or 60 thousands. In her cross-examination, Smt. Seema has stated that when Shahru came to her house, she was standing near the door. She asked Smt. Pinki to call the deceased to meet the appellant Shahru. Smt. Pinki called her and in her presence, Shahru asked the deceased to come to his clinic at about 12.30 noon. Further she has stated that she had no concern with the appellant Shahru but she was acquainted with him because he had visited her house several times in connection with treatment of deceased. PW-2 Trilok Singh has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased used to wear aforesaid golden ornaments on all times. He has denied the fact that widows in his family did not use to wear golden ornaments. Further he has stated that when accused Shahru came to the house of deceased, he was present there. There was a "Gurdwara" in his house near main gate and he was performing "Pooja" there. When Shahru called the deceased, she reached there only within two minutes. Further he has stated that there was another 'Gurdwara1 of big size at the distance of about 50 or 60 steps from his house but he was performing worship in the small Gurdwara situated in his own house. This fact is not disputed that these two witnesses belonged to the family of deceased.
16. When the deceased did not turn up on 9.6.2002, this caused worry to her family members. PW-1, Jasdeep Singh has stated that at about 7.00 P.M., he came back from his shop and started search of deceased. Since family members told him that the deceased had gone to the clinic of accused Shahru for treatment of her teeth , he visited the place of Shahru and asked him about the deceased. When Shahru denied even his visit to the house of deceased to call her for treatment, the doubt was created in the mind of PW-l. Further he has stated that Shahru denied this fact that at 12.30 noon, the deceased had come to his clinic but after treatment, she went back. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at about 5.00 P.M. when he was sitting at his shop, his mother sent him a message that his grandmother, Smt. Uttam Kaur did not turn up after treatment. This message was sent through the servant. He left his shop and came to his house and collected information from the family members about the deceased and went to the house of appellant Shahru. He has stated that between 5 to 7 P.M., he had made search of the deceased at the places of his relative and acquainted persons. He had gone to the house of Romi Singh situate in Ashok Colony, and Pappu Singh towards Rangi Lal Chauraha. At those places, he had inquired about the deceased. Further he has stated that when he visited the house of Shahru and asked him about the deceased, he was suddenly puzzled and created doubt in his mind. He got an F.I.R. Ext. K.a-1 typed in the tehsil compound and delivered the same to the police. In the meantime, the other family members also made search of the deceased. PW-2 Trilok Singh has also stated that he had visited place of Shahru for search of deceased because in his presence, Shahru had asked the deceased to come to his clinic at 12.30 noon and the deceased had gone there. The appellant Shahru told him that Smt. Uttam Kaur had come to his clinic and after getting treatment, she went back. He has also stated that Shahru denied the fact that he had visited the house of the deceased in the morning for calling her. This fact created doubt in his mind also. When they failed to search out the deceased, the report was lodged by Jasdeep Singh at the police station Kotwali, district Pilibhit. Further he has stated that he had visited the shop of Jasdeep Singh also and had told him about missing of deceased. Trilok Singh has further stated that he told this fact to the Investigating Officer that Shahru had told him that the deceased had come to his clinic and after getting medicines, she went back. However, this fact does not find mention in his statement recorded by Investigating Officer, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further stated that he had told the Sub-Inspector that he was apprehending murder of deceased by Shahru and his family members to loot the ornaments. From the statement of Trilok Singh and Smt. Seema, this is clear enough that Smt. Uttam Kaur had went to the clinic of accused for treatment of her teeth. This is also clear that while going to the clinic, the deceased was wearing golden ornaments worth Rs. 50 or 60 thousands.
17. PW-6 Jitendra Pal Singh has stated that on the relevant date at about 12-00 noon, he had come to the shop of M/s Rajani Scotels Agency to take connection of mobile phone which was situated near the house of Dr. Israr Saqib. He had seen Smt. Uttam Kaur in the house of Sahru alongwith him and Chand Babu who was known as Mohd. Rashid also. He had a talk with owner of M/s Rajani Scotels Agency for about 10-15 minutes and when he come back from the shop, he saw that Chand Babu was walking near the out door of house of Dr. Saqib. On the next morning he came to know that Smt. Uttam Kaur was murdered. In his very examination in chief, he has stated that Shahru and Chand Babu were friends and they were drug addicts. They used to walk with each other. Further he has stated that he was acquainted with Shahru, Chand Babu and deceased because he used to often visit the locality. In his cross examination, he has further stated that he was going on one Patri of the road and the deceased alongwith aforesaid two persons were going on other Patri. He identified them as they were well acquainted with him. Further he did not ask them where they were going. When this fact came to his notice that the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur was recovered from the house of Dr. Saqib, he told this fact to her family members that he had seen the aforesaid two accused persons while going with the deceased in the house of Dr. Saqib. No enmity of the accused persons with this witness has been brought on record. He has further stated that said facts were told by him to the Investigating Officer but he could not say why the 1.0. did not write it. At page 8 of his statement on oath, this witness has stated that he had come to know that the aforesaid persons were drugs addicts. He did not mind presence of deceased at the house of Dr. Saqib because so many persons used to visit his clinic as he was a dentist. Another witness, Manjeet Singh PW-7 has also added a link to prosecution story to make it reliable. This witness was also resident of Mohalla of the deceased. He has stated that on the relevant date at about 12.15 noon, he was visiting the shop of M/s Hindustan Lever in Mohalla Purani Galla Mandi, Pilibhit. When he was standing out side of said agency, he saw that Shahru, Chand Babu and Uttam Kaur were going on the road in Purani Galla Mandi. They were going towards south. Again he saw them after about 45 minutes near Drummondganj Chauraha, where he had gone to purchase Ghee and Oils etc. from the shop of M/s Gopal Trading Company. He has further stated that Shahru and other went towards Sunahari Masjid. This witness was acquainted with said persons. This may be pointed out that the house of appellant was situate near Pathani Masjid. In his cross examination, he has stated that he did not use to visit the house of deceased but he met her several times in the Gurdrawa. In the last part of his cross examination, he has stated that on the relevant date and time, he had gone to make payment of outstanding bills of M/s Hindustan Lever Trading Company. He paid amount of Rs. 1560/. No enmity of the accused persons with this witness has been suggested. Thus, from the statements of PW-6 Jitendra Pal Singh and PW-7 Manjeet Singh, it is clear that the deceased was seen with Shahru and Chand Babu alias Mohd. Rashid near the house of Dr. Saqib. When the statements of these witnesses is read with the statement of PW-1, Jasdeep Singh and PW-2, Trilok Singh that when they asked about the deceased from Shahru, he told them that she had come to his clinic and after getting medicines, she went back, it becomes more clear that the deceased had visited the house of Dr. Saqib where he was running dental clinic and under whose treatment, she got the medicines and did not come back to her house.
18. Now we come to the point of recovery of dead body of the deceased from the water tank situated in the house of accused-appellants itself.
19. According to the police, the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur was recovered on 10.6.2002 at about 11.30 A.M. from the house of Dr. Saqib situated in Mohalla Masjid Pathani. The recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 contains the entire facts. The prosecution has adduced evidence to prove recovery of dead body. PW-2 Trilok Singh, PW-5, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, PW-10, SI, S.S. Trivedi, PW-11, SI, R.K. Rastogi and PW-12, Inspector Ram Rais Singh have given evidence regarding recovery of dead body from the house of accused. PW-12 Inspector Ram Rais Singh, who had investigated the case has stated that on 9.6.2002, the case Crime No. 409 of 2002 under Section 364 I.P.C was registered at the police station Kotwali, district Pilibhit when he was posted as Inspector Incharge of the said police station. Initially, the investigation was assigned to SI R.K. Rastogi but on 10.6.2002 he took over the investigation because this was a sensational matter. He has further stated that on 10.6.2002, he met SI R.K. Rastogi at Drummondganj Chauraha who was busy there in the investigation of this case. He had a talk with SI, R.K. Rastogi who told him that there was necessity to interrogate appellant Shahru and his family members because informer had informed that they had committed murder of deceased and concealed the dead body some where. He went to the house of Dr. Israr Saqib alongwith SI Rastogi. They met Dr. Israr Saqib and his sons Shahru and Dr. Azhar and had some talks about this case. The ladies of the house caused some hindrance in interrogation. It may be pointed here that Shahru was named in the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1, therefore, the police felt necessity to interrogate him. PW-12 has further stated that he took the aforesaid three persons to the police out post Kamalley and interrogated them. They were avoiding to disclose reality but after effective interrogation, they disclosed the fact that Smt. Uttam Kaur used to visit their clinic for treatment of her teeth. She had got denture prepared from their clinic. They further disclosed that the deceased used to wear considerable quantity of golden ornaments and to take those ornaments they murdered the deceased. The accused appellant Mohd. Rashid alias Chand Babu was deputed to watch the visitors outside of the house. The ladies of the house were also knowing this murder. Further they disclosed that they had killed the deceased by drowning her in the water tank situate in their house. The ornaments were melted at the shop of Raja Ram Sunar and were sold to Ritesh Agrawal. The pendant of deceased attached to the golden chain was mortgaged to Ritesh Agrawal for Rs. 1200/ only. The sale proceeds were kept by Shahru and his associates. After disclosure of these facts, the said, accused persons told the I.O. that the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur was lying in the water tank in their house and they could get it recovered if the police wanted so. PW-12 has further stated that on this information, he went to the house of accused along with his associate police personnel. When they reached at the house of accused and entered the house the ladies wanted to divert their attentions by saying that there was nothing, go back. However, the police party did not care for the ladies. The accused persons Dr. Saqib, Sahru and Dr. Azhar took the police party to the water tank situate near '"Zeena" of the house in the ground floor and opened its cover and pointed out dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur lying there. PW-11, SI R.K. Rastogi has also corroborated the said facts. He had accompanied the Inspector R.R. Singh to the house of accused, where dead body of deceased was recovered on their pointing. PW-10, SI Shiv Saran Trivedi has also corroborated the facts that when he reached the spot after getting information from the Inspector Ram Rais Singh , he saw that the dead body of the deceased was being taken out from the water tank, though once he has stated that when he reached there, the dead body had already been taken out. In his cross examination, he has repeated the fact that when he reached there, the dead body was being taken out from the tank. He prepared inquest report of dead body on the dictation of Inspector Ram Rais Singh. The other papers alongwith inquest report were also prepared by this witness and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination in the sealed cover. There were two witnesses of public regarding recovery of dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur from the house of accused and they are PW-2, Trilok Singh and PW-5, R.K. Yadav. This is admitted fact that Trilok Singh belonged to the family of deceased but R.K. Yadav was an independent witness. The defence has tried to connect this witness with the family of deceased to prove him interested one.
20. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that PW-5, R.K Yadav was friend of PW-2 Trilok Singh, thus both were interested witnesses and their testimony could not be relied upon. But we find no force in this contention. In the case of Barati v. State of U.P. 1974 (SCC) (Crl.) 420, it has been observed that the close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant in falsely mentioning names of other persons than actual culprits. In the case of Ravi v. State , it has been observed that it is well settled in catena of cases that evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related one. The observation made above in the case of Barati were also made in Ravi's case. It is a matter of common experience that in recent times, there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused due to threat to life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high ups in Government, or close to powers, which may be political, economics including muscle powers. This observation has been made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar . It is a fact that normally unconcerned persons do not want to be a party to a criminal proceeding investigated by the police. They avoid giving statements against the due harassment by the police and lengthy proceedings in the courts. PW-5, R.K. Yadav has stated in his cross examination that he was not friend of family members of deceased but was acquainted with them. He has further stated that he had gone to Drummondganj Chauraha for purchasing medicines and had purchased it worth Rs. 40 or 50 only. However, he had not got the receipt. On the Chauraha itself, Trilok Singh met him. The police personnel were also there. Further he has stated that the police personnel told him that the accused persons Dr. Saqib and others had confessed their guilt regarding murder of Smt. Uttam Kaur and they were ready to get the dead body recovered, therefore, he was asked to be a witness of the recovery. In his presence, the accused persons took the police to their house and the dead body of deceased was recovered on their pointing out from the Water Tank situate in the ground floor of the house. He specified that the dead body was not taken out by the police from the Tank but the accused persons themselves had taken out the dead body from the Tank in presence of police and witnesses. Further he has stated that the accused persons told the police that the dead body was of Smt. Uttam Kaur. He has denied this fact that on asking by the police personnel, the accused persons had told this fact. Regarding time of recovery, he has stated that it was about 11.15 A.M. He had given description of the house of accused which was three storied. Further he has stated that there were two gates in the house of the accused and the water tank had been constructed beneath the stair case. It was covered. The accused persons had removed the cover of the tank and took out the dead body from there. PW-2, Trilok Singh has also given details of recovery. In his very examination in chief, he has stated that the police informed him at Drummondganj Chauraha in presence of R.K. Yadav that the dead body of the deceased had been recovered. At that time, the accused persons were also there. On the basis of said statement, learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that when the dead body had already been recovered, there was no reason to give statement by this witness that the recovery was made in his presence. On plain perusal of entire statement of this witness clearly shows that when the police party met him at Drummondganj Chauraha alongwith the accused, he came to the house of accused, where on their pointing out, the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur was recovered from the water tank situate beneath the stair case in ground floor of the house. The ladies of the family were also there. The police asked Dr. Saqib and his sons to open the tank. They opened the tank and the dead body was found there. In the last part of his cross examination, he has stated that when the dead body was taken out from the tank, it was clear that Smt. Uttam Kaur had died.
21. On the point of some minor contradictions, learned Counsel for the appellants has tried to convince us to discard testimony of aforesaid two witnesses but we do not find any force in the same. In the case of Krishna Mochi referred to earlier, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made following observations:
A witness may not stand the test of cross examination which may be some times because he is heucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross examiner and at times under the stress of cross examination certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and therefore minor discrepancies have to be ignored.
22. PW-10, SI Shiv Saran Trivedi, PW-11 SI R. K. Rastogi and PW-12, Inspector Ram Rais Singh had given clear evidence regarding recovery of dead body from the house of accused persons. A plain perusal of their statements clarifies that when a case under Section 364 I.P.C was registered by the police on 9.6.2002, the investigation was given to SI R.K. Rastogi. On the next day i.e. on 10.6.2002, R.K. Rastogi was present at Drummondganj Chauraha in connection with this case, Inspector Ram Rais Singh also reached there. SI Rastogi wanted to interrogate Shahru who was named in the F.I.R lodged on 9.6.2002. They went to the house of accused persons where appellants Dr. Saqib , Sbahru and Azhar met them. They were interrogated by the police after that they were taken to police out post Kamalley where they were again interrogated, where they informed the police about the murder of Smt. Uttam Kaur committed for ornaments by them and were ready to get the dead body recovered from their house. The accused persons were taken to their house. The aforesaid two witnesses were also taken. In the meantime, SI Shiv Saran Trivedi was called. He also reached there. The accused persons took the police party to their house, opened the door, went inside the house and showed the water tank situate in the house beneath the stair case of ground floor. They removed the cover of the tank and took out the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur from the tank, A lengthy cross examination was made by the defence from these witnesses but nothing could be found in their cross examination which could discard the case of prosecution.
23. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that since one Kara and ring was found on the dead body by the doctor, hence this case of prosecution was false that murder was committed for ornaments. Had there been so, accused would have removed all the ornaments. But this contention has no force. It would have depend on the hurry and worry at that time because there is no evidence that accused were habitual offenders.
24. SI R.K. Rastogi PW-11 has clearly stated in his cross examination that no threat or temptation was given to the accused persons for making confession or recovery. The recovery memo was prepared by the police which is Ext. Ka-2. Much emphasis has been laid by learned Counsel for the appellants that the signature of Dr. Israr Saqib on the recovery memo was forged one because it had been written "SAKEB" whereas name of accused was " Dr. Israr Saqib". He further argued that Dr. Saqib was literate person and the alleged signature on the recovery memo was like a layman. All the police officials have clearly stated that copy of recovery memo Ext. Ka-2 was given to Dr. Israr Saqib and his signature was obtained. We can take notice of this fact that under such stressful situation, tremor in the hand of the accused who was not professional could occur and the writing could be a bit abnormal. From the statement of police witnesses, it is clear that there was a huge crowed on the spot and the accused persons were taken to the police station for the purposes of security. There was also apprehension of breach of peace and communal tension. In such circumstances, this statement of police witnesses can be fully relied upon that after preparing recovery memo, copy was given to Dr. Saqib and since the police was in hurry to control the situation, therefore, Dr. Saqib might have made signature on the recovery memo in some abnormal way due to fear or cleverness. Even if for a moment, it is believed that the police did not obtain signature of Dr. Saqib on Ext. Ka-2, even then the contents of recovery memo could not be thrown away. The factum of recovery is well proved from the evidence on record. No where, the accused persons have denied recovery of dead body from their house.
25. Learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that the dead body was taken from any other place and was kept in the water tank of the house of the accused. This is not believable. It has come in the evidence that the house of the accused was a big one and three storied. It was safe and had two main gates and water tank was inside the house. This was in possession of the accused persons at the time of incident. This was not possible for the police or anyone to take the dead body from other place and open the house of accused without their consent and knowledge and keep the dead body therein.
26. Learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attentions towards some contradiction regarding presence of accused Shahru in police lock up at the time of recovery. PW-1, Jasdeep Singh has stated in his cross examination that at about 10.00 A.M. on 10,6.2002, he had seen the accused Shahru in the police lock up. According to learned Counsel for the appellants there is no evidence from the side of prosecution that Shahru was taken from the police lock up to the spot. But this is the case of prosecution that Dr. Saqib and his two sons Shahru an Azhar were taken by the police from their house to Kamalley Chauki and from there they were brought to Drummondganj Chauraha and from there, they were brought to their house where dead body was recovered.
27. It might be possible that the police had apprehended Shahru earlier as a matter of pre-caution and kept him in the lock up and after interrogation released him and again took him from his house. This contradiction is not material for the prosecution because we have discussed earlier. There was recovery of dead body from the house of accused persons, therefore, it was immaterial whether Shahru was seen in the police lock up at 10.00 A.M. or not because at the time of recovery, he was present on the spot.
28. Learned Counsel for the appellants laid too much emphasis on interpretation of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. He argued that the police did not prepare memo of confessional statements of the accused separately and the alleged confession made by the accused persons in the police custody was not admissible in evidence. This question was discussed at length by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu . In that case the entire case was solved by the Investigating Agency on the statement of accused and on their pointing out, some recovery was made. In that case also, the joint disclosure was there and the Hon'ble Court observed as under:
The simultaneous disclosures by more than one accused do not at all enter into the arena of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as a proposition of law. There was good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section 27. However, there may be practical difficulties in placing reliance on such evidence. It may be difficult for the witness to depose which accused depose what words and in what sequence. In other words, the deposition in regard to the information given by the two accused may be exposed to criticism from the standpoint of credibility and its nexus with discovery. Admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects. Whether and to what extent such a simultaneous disclosure could be relied upon by the Court is really a matter of evaluation of evidence.
29. On the interrogation of accused Israr Saqib, he told entire prosecution story in which manner the deceased was deprived of her ornaments and was killed. The Investigating Officer, Ram Rais Singh has stated that Dr. Saqib had told him that he was ready to get dead body of deceased recovered from his house. According to the Investigating Officer, the accused Shahru had told him that his brother Azhar and Rashid alias Chand Miyan had helped them in killing the deceased. Rashid was deputed out side the house to watch the visitors. At that time, Azhar was there. Thus from the statement of Investigating Officer, it is evident that Shahru and Saqib had made disclosure of evidence and informed about presence of dead body in their house which was recovered by the police on their pointing out.
30. Learned Counsel for the accused has cited , Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab ; State of Karnataka v. Razario and Anr. and 1968 ALJ 466 Miss. Hardevi Malkani v. State and Anr. on the point of recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act, but as against these ruling, the latest pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu referrd to above clarifies all aspects of recovery and admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
31. If the recovery is made on the basis of information given by the accused persons and particularly when the recovery is made on their pointing out, the entire facts disclosed by the accused persons are admissible in evidence. In the case of Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where the evidence of I.O. who recovered the material objects was convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witness did not support the prosecution version. The following requirements of Section 27 of Evidence Act were given by the Hon'ble Court:
(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.
(2) The fact must have been discovered.
(3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by the accused's own act.
(4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.
(5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.
(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
(7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is admissible.
32. In the case of Ram Krishna v. State of Bombay it has been observed that when the Investigating Officer failed to record and prove the statements of the accused, even then, as independent provision of Section 27 of Evidence Act, it would be possible to take into account the conduct of the accused and thus the Apex Court observed as under:
What was stated by the Investigating Officer, Hujur Ahmad Khan in the present case was that certain information was supplied to him by the accused in consequence of which he took certain steps. He did not seek to prove that information or any part thereof I the evidence which he gave before the Court. Even when he said that Baliram dug out the tin box from the mud floor of a house at the instance of the accused he did not seek to prove what that information was. The operation of Section 27 was therefore not attracted and 'prima facie' there was nothing to prevent that evidence being admitted against the accused.
33. Further in the case of State v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate , it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if it is assumed that the recovery is made in illegal way, the recovery can be proved. In Kurma v. R All ER 236 the Privy Council laid down following principles:
The test to be applied, both in civil and in criminal cases, in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how it was obtained.
34. In the case of State Government of N.C.T. of Deli v. Sunil 2001 SCC(Crl) 248, the following observations have been made by the Apex Court:
Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effect pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily leads to recovery of any article it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
35. Since recovery of dead body from the house of accused and particularly on their pointing out, is fully proved, therefore, any irregularity or contradiction has no meaning. The accused persons had no enmity with the deceased or her family members. There was a relation of patient and doctor and not more than that. In such circumstances, there was no reason for false implication.
36. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no motive for the accused persons to kill the deceased. The prosecution has alleged that due to ornaments, she was killed. Learned Counsel for the appellants has further argued that the accused persons were wealthy and reputed persons and there was no need for them to kill an old lady for the ornaments worth Rs. 20,000/ only. This argument has no force because we have discussed earlier that the accused Shahru was drug addict and to meet out their necessities and requirements, such type of persons commit such crimes irrespective of their status and the family background whether social and economic. Learned Counsel for the prosecution has argued that if the accused persons were so wealthy what was the need to snatch ornaments of deceased and sell it for Rs. 20,000/ only which were recovered from their house from the room of Shahru. It is almost impossible for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the persons offended. What is cooking in the mind of offender cannot be known to others. In the case of State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh , the Hon'ble Apex Court had made the above observations.
37. The police witnesses R.K. Rastogi and R.R. Singh have stated that after recovery of dead body, the accused persons were removed from there for the purposes of security and were taken to the police station. After few hours when the situation became under the control, they were again brought to the spot and on pointing of accused Shahru, Rs. 20,000/ were recovered from his room which were obtained by him from selling the ornaments of deceased. Shahru also told the police that the ornaments of deceased were sold by him to Raja Ram Sunar who melted the same and gave him Rs. 20,000/ only. The police prepared recovery memo Ext. Ka-13. This recovery memo had been prepared by the aforesaid police personnel. They got the signature of accused Shahru on the recovery memo. They stated that copy of recovery memo was give to him. The accused Shahru was taken by the police to the shop of Raja Ram Sunar who told the police that after melting the ornaments, he had sold the same to Ritesh Agrawal. Ritesh Agrawal told the police that the accused Shahru has come to his shop on 9.6.2002 and had mortgaged the pandle for Rs. 1200/ only. Ritesh Agrawal and Raja Ram Sunar were also made accused of this case but they were acquitted by the learned trial court for want of evidence. However, from the statements Of aforesaid two police personnel, it is proved that the accused Shahru had sold the ornaments to these shop keepers and had obtained money which was recovered from his room.
38. The medical report shows that the death was caused due to drowning. Post mortem report is Ext. Ka-4 which was conducted by PW-9, Dr. Vimal Kumar. The doctor had given clear opinion about the death by drowning. We find following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased:
(2) Multiple abraded contusion in an area of 5 cm x 4 cm on the back aspect of Rt. Wrist.
(3) Contusion of 6 cm x 4 cm on the front aspect of right forearm joint below elbow joint.
(3) Prominent veins of dark bluish black colour seen in an area of 6 cm x 5 cm on the front aspect of right elbow joint and adjoining area of right arm.
(4) Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the back aspect of left elbow.
39. These injuries could be caused due to throwing in the tank or while snatching out ornaments from her. The doctor found mud type of water in the stomach intestine and trachea. Thus it was clear that the death was caused due to drowning.
40. The injury report of Dr. Saqib has also been placed on record. He had sustained some minor injuries. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that Dr. Saqib was tortured by the police to sign the recovery memo but he did not sign it and his forged signature was obtained by the police on it. He further argued that there is no explanation from the side of prosecution about the injuries of Dr. Saqib and Azhar. Since this was a very sensational murder and there had arisen the problems of law and order, It might be in that situation that somehow or other this accused had sustained injuries by the public also. However, there is no evidence on record that the police personnel had caused these injuries. Regarding his signature on recovery memo, we have already discussed earlier.
41. From the statement of PW-1, Ramesh Chandra itself , this part of prosecution case is well proved that on 9.6.2002 appellant Shahru had mortgaged the pendant (locket) at his shop for Rs. 1,200/- only and Ext-Kha-2 was issued by his son Ritesh Kumar. Thus, from the defence evidence itself it is proved that the pendant (locket) belonging to the deceased was in the possession of the Shahru who had mortgaged it to the Ritesh Kumar and received money.
42. The pendant (locket) of deceased was recovered from the shop of Ritesh Agrawal and the same was put for test identification. PW-1, Jasdeep Singh, P-2 Trilok Singh, PW-3 Smt. Seema and PW-4 Smt. Bhupendra Kaur had participated in the test identification parade and had identified it. The identification memo is Ext. Ka-3. All these witnesses had made correct identification, Learned Counsel for the appellants had drawn our attention towards statement of Smt. Seema PW-3. In her cross examination, she has stated that when the pendant was recovered, the police constable came to her house and showed the pendant to her. On this basis, it has been argued that this identification was a farce but we see no force in this contention because if it is believed that the pendant was shown to Smt. Seema, it cannot be said that all the three witnesses had also seen it. All these witnesses had stated that they had seen the pendant when Smt. Uttam Kaur was going to the clinic of accused and after that they saw it during test identification. All the witnesses made description of the pendant. They have stated that they used to see daily the pendant in the chain of deceased and well acquainted with it. The identification memo has been proved by PW-13 Masood Hasan as secondary evidence. In his statement he had stated that he had no knowledge whether Executive Magistrate, R.S. Chahat who had conducted test identification parade was alive or not?. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that this witness has not deposed that he had seen said R.S. Chahat while writing and signing , therefore, his evidence could not be accepted. But this argument of learned Counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted because he was Peshkar in the Collectorate and had worked with Executive Magistrate R.S. Chahat. He identified his signature on the identification memo Ext. Ka-3. This was sufficient to prove it.
43. Now we come to the evidence regarding ladies appellants namely Smt. Shamim, Smt. Reshma, Smt. Anjum, Km. Rashmi, Km. Hushna and Muslima. In our opinion the evidence against these lady accused-appellants is not enough to prove the charge of murder or causing the evidence to disappear against them. The evidence is also not sufficient against them to prove that in any way they were involved in concealing the dead body of Smt. Uttam Kaur or committing her murder. PW-2 Thick Singh who was present at the time of recovery of dead body in the house of accused has stated that when he reached with the police party at the house of accused, the ladies of the house came there and said " YAHAN KUCHH NAHI HAI". This is the only evidence of PW-2 against the ladies. PW-5, R.K. Yadav another witness of recovery has stated in his very examination in chief that when he reached in the house of accused and when dead body was recovered from the tank, the ladies of the house began to run away from there. His relevant statement is quoted below:
WAHAN PAR DR. SAQIB NE KAMA ... SONE KE JEWAR KE LALACH ME MAAR KAR DAL DIYA AURTEY WAHA SE BHAGNE LAGI.
PW-11, SI R.K.Rastogi has stated in his examination in Chief that "PANI TANK KE PAAS PAHUCHA TABHI WAHA MAUJOOD MAHILAON NE KAHA YAHAN KUCHH NAHI HAI KAH KAR ARCHAN PALI.
44. He has not specified alleged hindrance caused by these ladies. What was the manner and mode of hindrance has not been specified. At page 17 of his statement on oath, he has stated that while police was interrogating the male members of the family, ladies caused hindrance. Here also hindrance was not specified. At page 18 of his statement on oath, he further stated that the ladies said that "YAHAN PAR KUCHCH NAHI HAI.
45. PW-12, Inspector R.R. Singh has also stated that when he took the male members of the family, the ladies caused obstruction. He also did not specify the obstruction. At page 8, he has stated the ladies were saying that "there was nothing and go back".
46. No proceeding against the ladies under Section 186 I.P.C. was initiated by the police for causing hindrance in the official duty. There is no evidence from the side of prosecution that these ladies had participated in snatching out the ornaments and causing death of Smt. Uttam Kaur. There is also no evidence that they had assisted the male members of the family in concealing the dead body in the water tank or they had in any way helped the male members while removing evidence of murder. The only fact was that the ladies belonged to the family of Dr. Saqib and only on this ground, no presumption could be raised that they were party to the crime in question. It might be possible that these ladies wanted to protect their male members being members of the family and this was natural conduct of human being. The mere knowledge of the crime could not lead to the presumption of participation therein.
47. Learned Counsel for the appellant Rashid alias Chand has argued that there is only evidence against this accused that he was seen out side of the house of Dr. Saqib, therefore his conviction was bad, but we do not agree with this contention because as we have discussed earlier, this appellant had helped Shahru and others in committing murder of deceased Smt. Uttam Kaur and played prominent role in watching the visitors outside the house to disallow them to enter the house so long the crime was being committed. The dead body was recovered from the house of the accused. This was to be explained by the accused that how dead body reached there. It is not possible for the prosecution to prove who participated in what manner. These facts were in special knowledge of the accused who could tell who had killed the deceased and who had thrown her body in the tank and who had participated in what manner.
48. The accused Dr. Azhar and his wife Smt. Reshma have alleged that on the date of occurrence, they were living separately in Mohalla Peelkhana, city and district Pilibhit in the house of Mohd. Haneef Khan, who has been examined as DW-3. Mohd. Haneef Khan has stated that the aforesaid two accused persons were living in his house on rent from the year 2002 and he issued receipt for the same. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the house was in the name of his wife who was illiterate person. The receipt issued by him do not bear serial number. Purpose of issuing receipt has also not been disclosed. These receipts Ext. Kha-3 to Kha-6 related to the period March 2002 to March 2003. The incident took place in June 2002. The receipts Ext. Kha-3 to 5 were issued month-wise but Ext. Kha-6 was issued for consolidated ten months. This was from June 2002 to March 2003. No reason has been disclosed that when the tenancy was running from month to month and initially the rent was being paid month-wise, why 10 months consolidated rent was paid in the last. Moreover, this receipt do not contains date of issue. In such circumstances, they are not believable.
49. In view of our above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Smt. Uttam Kaur was killed by the accused Dr. Israr Saqib, Dr. Azhar, Shahru and Rasid alias Chand Babu by drowning her in the water tank. The dead body was recovered from the house on their pointing out. It is also proved that the murder was committed for the ornaments of the deceased worth Rs. 50 or 60 thousand according to the prosecution. However, the ornaments were sold by Shahru for Rs. 20,000/ only and pendant was mortgaged for Rs. 1200/ only. Thus their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court has no lacuna and their appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.
50. As we have discussed earlier, the evidence against the ladies is not sufficient to hold them guilty of the charges levelled against them, hence their appeals are liable to be allowed and they may be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
51. Lastly, the question that arises for serious consideration is whether imposition of death penalty to accused Shahru is justified in the facts and circumstances of this case.
52. Under the old Code of Criminal Procedure ample discretion was given to the courts to pass death sentence as a general proposition and the alternative sentence of life time could be awarded in exceptional circumstances, that too after advancing special reasons for making this departure from the general rule. The new Code of 1973 has entirely reversed the rule. A sentence for imprisonment for life is now the rule and capital sentence is an exception. It has also been made obligatory on the courts to record special reasons if ultimately death sentence is to be awarded. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bechan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 page 898 while upholding the constitutional validity of the death sentence voiced that as a legal principle death sentence is still awardable but only in rarest of rare cases when the alternative option of lesser sentence is unquestionably foreclosed.
53. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has awarded death penalty to accused Shahru on the ground that due to temptation of ornaments and to fulfill his requirements for drugs, he killed an innocent old lady. At the time of committing offence, the age of Shahru was 29 years. No doubt this was the heinous crime but considering the age of accused and deceased, we are of the considered opinion that this was not a rarest case of rare. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Pal v. State of U.P. 2003 (47) A.C.C 567 for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment despite the fact that 21 persons were murdered in an incident. Compassion in sentencing is also a key factor. It allows the scars to heal. Longevity of incarceration may make them see reason. Passage of time may make them ponder over the crime they had committed. This might arouse in them a feeling of remorse and repentance. In the case of Indrajit Mallah v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2005 (3) JIC 298(All), the Division Bench of this Court has also reduced sentence to life imprisonment in which servant had killed the son of his master aged about 6 years for some dispute between them.
54. Considering the over all circumstances of the case, this case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare case and it cannot be said that imprisonment for lesser sentence of life term stood altogether foreclosed and we are of the view that a sentence of imprisonment for life to the appellant Shahru would meet the ends of justice.
55. We therefore, reduce the sentence of death penalty of appellant Shahru to imprisonment for life. In the result:
(A) The appeal of Shahru is dismissed with the modification that death penalty imposed by learned trial court on him is reduced for life imprisonment.
(B) The appeals of Dr. Israr Saqib, Dr. Azhar and Mohd. Rashid alias Chand Babu are dismissed.
(C) The appeals of Smt. Shamim, Smt. Reshma, Smt. Anjum, Km. Rashmi, Km. Hushna and Smt. Muslima are allowed and their conviction recorded by the learned trial court are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
(D) The reference No. 8 of 2005 stands rejected.
56. The accused Shahru, Dr. Azhar, Dr. Israr Saqib and Mohd. Rashid alias Chand Babu are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the learned trial court and confirmed by us with modification.
57. The appellants Smt. Shamim, Smt. Reshma, Smt. Anjum, Km. Rashmi, Km. Hushna and Smt. Muslima are on bail. Their bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender to their bail.
58. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
59. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on record of Criminal Appeal Nos. 3695 of 2005, 3702 of 2005, 3714 of 2005 3840 of 2005, 3922 of 2005 and 4124 of 2005.