Ujjagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2007] Insc 1288 (13 December 2007)
S.B.
Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi Harjit Singh Bedi,J.
1. Ujjagar
Singh, the appellant herein, a resident of village Bangawali, Tehsil Malerkotla,
was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur for the
murder of his niece Mukhtiar Kaur and was awarded the death penalty. In
addition, he was convicted for an offence punishable under section 376 of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine
of Rs.5, 000/- and in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for one year
and under section 309 of the IPC to a sentence of simple imprisonment for one
year. The aforesaid convictions and sentences have been maintained by the High
Court and the matter is before us in these proceedings by way of special leave.
The
facts of the case are as under:-
2. At
about 2.00 p.m. on 10th November 2002 a boy whose identity is not forthcoming, informed Satnam
Singh PW2 that an incident of firing had taken place in the house of Ujjagar
Singh situated in the fields on the outskirts of the village.
Satnam
Singh conveyed this information to Sarpanch Jora Singh PW1 who was attending a
marriage at that time. Jora Singh accompanied by Gurdeep Singh PW3 thereupon
rushed to Ujjagar Singhs house and found Mukhtiar Kaur lying dead with a
gun shot injury and the appellant also with a gun shot injury lying unconscious
on the ground in the adjoining room.
Jora
Singh and Gurdeep Singh immediately removed Ujjagar Singh to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri in the jeep belonging to Kulwant Singh PW4. Jora
Singh also met Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW14 at 4.40 p.m. near the hospital, who recorded his statement at
that place and with his endorsement Ex.P.A. sent it to Police Station, Dhuri
where the formal FIR was registered at about 4.45 p.m. with the special report being delivered to the Illaka
Magistrate at Dhuri itself at 6.20 p.m. the
same evening. The facts as narrated were that Arjan Singh of village Bangawali
had three sons Puran Singh, Ujjagar Singh (appellant) and Ajmer Singh. Puran
Singh had died about 20 years earlier leaving behind his wife, two sons and a
daughter Mukhtiar Kaur. The two sons and the wife also died long before the
incident and Mukhtiar Kaur the sole surviving member of this branch of the
family had been married to Balwinder Singh PW9 about 9 or 10 years earlier. Puran
Singh had however transferred 30 or 35 bighas of agricultural land falling to
his share after the death of his father in the name of the appellants sons
by a collusive decree in the year 1994 and the suggestion was that this
transaction had been objected to by Mukhtiar Kaur who was demanding that the
land be returned to her. It appears that Mukhtiar Kaurs relations with her
in-laws had got strained and she had left her matrimonial home and come to live
with Ujjagar Singh, her uncle, 7 or 8 months earlier and the suggestion was
that Mukhtiar Kaur had been killed by the appellant with his licensed gun and
he had thereafter attempted to commit suicide.
3.
Having recorded the aforesaid facts in the FIR, PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal
Singh reached the place of incident and lifted one spent 12 bore cartridge case
(Shaktiman make) from near Mukhtiar Kaurs dead body and one DBBL gun from
the place where Ujjagar Singh appeared to have been shot and another spent
cartridge case was recovered from the right barrel of the gun. After completion
of the investigation at the spot, Mukhtiar Kaurs dead body was sent for
its post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was also conducted by
PW5 Dr. Ishwar Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital along with Dr. Harwinder Kaur
PW17 and it was found that Mukhtiar Kaur had two gunshot injuries on her dead
body, a wound of entry on the back of right side of chest 2 cm x 1 cm with
margining (sic) and blackening and a corresponding exit wound of 5 cm x 3.5 cm
to the front of the right side of the chest. Dr. Harwinder Kaur aforesaid also
took swabs from the vagina of the deceased and as per the chemical
examiners report dated 2.1.2003 semen was found on the swab taken from the
vagina and from the underwear that Mukhtiar Kaur had been wearing at the time
of her death. The weapon and the recovered cartridge cases had also been sent
to the Forensic Science Laboratory which in its report dated 4.8.2004 opined
that the crime cartridge case CI could have been fired by the right
barrel of the weapon whereas the crime cartridge case C2 had been
fired from the right barrel.
4. On
the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under sections 302, 376 and
309 of the IPC was filed against the accused and as he pleaded not guilty he
was brought to trial. During the trial Jora Singh PW1, Satnam Singh PW2, Gurdeep
Singh PW3 and Kulwant Singh PW4 resiled from their statements given to the
police and were declared hostile.
Balwinder
Singh PW9, however, supported the prosecution case deposing that the land had
in fact been got transferred from Gurmail Kaur, mother of Mukhtiar Kaur to Ujjagar
Singh by fraud and Mukhtiar Kaur was therefore entitled to its return.
He
also deposed that Mukhtiar Kaur had told him some time earlier that the accused
had been beating her and had also committed sexual intercourse with her and
that at about 11 p.m. on 10.11.2002 Karam Singh PW10 had informed him as to
what had transpired on which he along with his father Hamir Singh PW12 and
several others had rushed to Bangawali.
PW10 Karam
Singh aforesaid confirmed the story given by Balwinder Singh. The prosecution
also relied on the statements of Dr. Vijay Kumar PW6 of the Civil Hospial, Dhuri
who testified that the appellant had been brought to the hospital at about 2.45
p.m. on 10.11.2002 with a serious gun shot injury, Dr. Ripan Miglani PW15 of
the Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana who deposed that he had
been admitted to the department of Neuro surgery with a serious gun shot injury
and Dr. Sanjay Uppal PW16, a plastic surgeon who disclosed that the appellant
had been under his treatment for almost 5 weeks and the burnt area around the firearm
injury had been removed by him. The prosecution also placed reliance on the
statement of ASI Jasbir Singh PW11 who had accompanied Inspector Harjinder Pal
Singh PW14 to the place of incident and supported the recoveries made from the
spot.
5. The
prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under
section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In reply to question 33 he stated as under:
I
am innocent. I have been implicated falsely in this case. I was treating Mukhtiar
Kaur as my daughter and loved her as my daughter. False allegations have been levelled
against me. I never harassed Mukhtiar Kaur nor ever got her land mutated from
her mother by fraud. I have not killed Mukhtiar Kaur. Mother of Mukhtiar Kaur
got the land mutated by her own free will and Mukhtiar Kaur had no dispute
about it. Balwinder Singh her husband was addicted to vices and used to beat
her due to which she used to remain under depression and sick generally, and
used to come to me as my daughter. My house (kothi) is situated on the outer
skirts of village Bangawali and door (planks) had not been fixed so far to
rooms. Some body suddenly came and fired at me. I fell down on the ground and
became unconscious.
Therefore,
I could not see what had happened to Mukhtiar Kaur as she was in other room.
Later on I came to know that some body had fired at her and she died. I
regained consciousness in hospital. The story of rape by me with her has been
fabricated by her husband as he is inimical towards me. Even I do not know who
took me to hospital. I have been implicated in this case falsely. The
trial court and the High Court relying on the circumstances available on the
evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant, as already mentioned above.
6. Mr.
Goburdhan, the learned counsel for the accused has raised several arguments in
the course of hearing. He has pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence
to suggest that Mukhtiar Kaur had been subjected to rape and in this view of
the matter the very basis for the imposition of the death penalty was not made
out. He has also pointed out that there were no eye witnesses to the incident
and the 4 witnesses i.e. Jora Singh and others who had reached the place of
incident and carried the injured appellant to the hospital had also resiled and
as the prosecution story now rested on circumstantial evidence alone, it was
imperative for the investigating officer to have taken the finger prints from
the weapon and that in any case the recovery of the spent cartridges and the
gun were clearly suspicious as the weapon had been sent to the laboratory after
an inordinate delay. It has also been submitted that in a case of attempted
suicide a firearm must of necessity be used from a very close range and the
absence of any blackening, charring or burning around the wound on Ujjagar
Singh clearly ruled out the possibility of such an attempt. It has finally been
submitted that the land had been transferred in the name of Ujjagar Singhs
sons in the year 1994 by Gurmail Kaur, mother of Mukhtiar Kaur by a collusive
decree and there was no evidence to show that Mukhtiar Kaur had ever displayed
any unhappiness or made any complaint to any person or any authority with
regard to the decree and as such, the very basis of the prosecution story did
not exist.
7. The
learned State counsel has, however, supported the judgment of the courts below.
He has further emphasized that the prosecutions case stood proved from
various factors including the medical evidence, the reports of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, the Chemical Examiner, from the post- mortem reports and
the recovery of the gun and cartridges.
8. We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We
first take up for consideration the question of the conviction under section
376 of the IPC. We find from the medical evidence and from the chemical
examiners reports that the vaginal swab and clothes taken from the dead
body did indicate the presence of semen. There is however absolutely no
evidence to suggest (even assuming that the intercourse had been committed by
the appellant) that he had done so without Mukhtiar Kaurs consent or
against her will. Some suspicions of rape could perhaps have been raised had
some tell tale injuries been detected on Mukhtiar Kaurs person but we find
that the two injuries other than the gun shot wounds i.e. injury No.3 being on
the left pinna and No. 4 an abrasion near the right eye do not indicate any
attempt to rape or the commission of rape. It is also significant that the
investigators had made no attempt whatsoever to have the appellant medically
examined to ascertain his capacity to perform sexual intercourse. The learned
State counsel relying on the statement of PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh
has however submitted that the examination had not been possible as the
appellant had received a very serious gun shot injury and was hanging between
life and death. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel that an
examination could not have been carried out immediately but we see no justification
in the omission of the prosecution to have him examined after he had recovered
his health and been discharged from hospital. We are further of the opinion
that even assuming for a moment that sexual intercourse between the two had
indeed taken place it cannot be said from the evidence before us that it was
without the consent or against the wishes of Mukhtiar Kaur. We, therefore, find
that Ujjagar Singhs conviction under section 376 of the IPC cannot be
sustained.
9. Mr.
Goburdhan has placed great emphasis on the fact that as the four witnesses who
had reached the place of incident i.e. Jora Singh, Satnam Singh, Gurdeep Singh
and Kulwant Singh had resiled from their statements and had disowned their
initial stories, the prosecution had of necessity to rely on circumstantial
evidence and if the chain of circumstances remained incomplete or even if one
link in the chain was broken, the prosecution must fail. He has also relied on
the judgment of Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 7 SCC 543 to
contend that it was open to the accused to take advantage (insofar as possible)
from the statement of a witness though declared hostile and the four witnesses
having disowned the prosecution story and having given a different version, the
appellant was entitled to derive such benefit as possible in this situation.
10.
The learned State counsel has, however, emphasized that both the trial court
and the High Court had for good reasons opined that the circumstances made out
a case for conviction and the accused having given a counter version some
obligation lay on him as well to explain the circumstances against him inasmuch
that admittedly he and the victim were alone in the house at the time of the
incident. Reliance for this argument has been placed on the decision of Raj
Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2007(1) SCALE 19 .
11. We
have considered their arguments very carefully. In Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542 it has been observed that in a case
dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence the court must be satisfied
(a) that
the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been
fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt;
(b) that
the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards
the guilt of the accused; and
(c) that
the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation on any
reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him.
In
this case this Court held that the omission of the prosecution, inter-alia, to
have the finger prints found on the alleged murder weapon was fatal to the
prosecution story. In 1984 (4) SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
this Court discussed the ratio of the judgments in Hanumant v. State of M.P.
AIR 1952 SC 343, Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of U.P. (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ramgopal
v. State of Maharashtra (1972) 4 SCC 625 and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 and observed thus:
A
close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must
be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.
It may
be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned
must or should and not may be established. There is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between may be proved and
must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made :
[SCC para 19,p.807 : SCC (cri) p.1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle
that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between may be is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3)
the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they
should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5)
there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
12.
Mr. Goburdhan has also cited Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542, Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 35, Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, Omwati (Smt) and
Ors. V. Mahendra Singh & Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 81, Sudama Pandey & Ors. V.
State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 679, and R.R.Khanna
Reddy & Anr. V. State of A.P. (2006) 10
SCC 172 in support of his plea relating to the evaluation of circumstantial
evidence.
These
judgments have broadly followed the principles laid down in the judgments
referred to above and need not therefore be dealt with us in extenso. It must
nonetheless be emphasized that whether a chain is complete or not would depend
on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal
yardstick should ever be attempted. It is in this background that we must
examine the circumstances in the present case.
13. A
few facts stand out from the prosecution story. First, the place of incident
being adjoining rooms in the residential house of the appellant and the fact
that the alleged murder weapon is his licensed DBBL gun is proved on record.
The evidence also reveals that the appellant was living in the premises along
with his wife, mother and son, and two daughters, who were studying outside the
village, were frequent visitors, but it is the admitted position that nobody
but the appellant and the deceased were present at the time of incident.
It is
also clear from the evidence that the two spent cartridge cases recovered, one
from near Mukhtiar Kaurs dead body, and the second from the right barrel
of the gun lying near the appellant had been sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory which opined that one of the cartridges had been fired from the gun
and the other could have been fired therefrom.
14.
Mr. Goburdhan has, however, laid great emphasis on the fact that no reference
to the gun or cartridges had been made in the inquest report and that in any
case the weapon and the spent cartridges had been sent to the laboratory
belatedly. We are of the opinion, however, that no adverse inference can be
drawn from either of these circumstances. The aforesaid articles had been
carried to the Laboratory by Constable Gopal Singh who in his affidavit dated
17th March 2003 deposed that he had first taken the articles to the laboratory
on 9th December 2002 but they had been returned by the Director on the ground
that the seals affixed thereon were not of the requisite number and that after
removing the objections raised by the Director, the articles aforesaid had been
returned to the laboratory on 18th December 2002. Gopal Singh was
cross-examined by the prosecution and but for some inconsequential questions
put to him with regard to the seals, not even a suggestion was made that the
aforesaid articles had in any way been tampered with. It is true, as contended,
that in Column 22 of the inquest report which refers to the articles found near
the dead body, there is no reference to the spent cartridges or the murder
weapon but we find from a perusal of the site plan Exh.PJJ prepared by the
investigating officer Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh PW14 on 10th November 2002
that the weapon is shown lying close to the place where the appellant had been
found unconscious and a spent cartridge recovered from near the dead body of Mukhtiar
Kaur.
15. It
has also been submitted by Mr. Goburdhan that there appeared to be no motive
for the incident as the story about Mukhtiar Kaurs unhappiness about the
transfer of land to the sons of Ujjagar Singh sought to be proved by PW9 Balwinder
Singh and PW10 Karam Singh had been disbelieved by the High Court with the
observation that the statements of these two witnesses could not be relied
upon. It is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive does
assume great importance but to say that the absence of motive would dislodge
the entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an importance
which is not due and (to use the clichi) the motive is in the mind of the
accused and can seldom be fathomed with any degree of accuracy. There is
however a hint in the testimony of PW14 Inspector Harjinder Pal Singh that his
enquiries had revealed that the accused was having illicit relations with Mukhtiar
Kaur and we can assume that some thing untoward had happened which could have
triggered the volatile and hostile incident. There could perhaps be some truth
in this suggestion, as it is significant that though the appellant had an
extended family living with him i.e. mother, wife, son living (in the village)
and two young daughters who were studying outside and residing in a hostel, but
were frequent visitors home, yet none of them has come forth to depose in his favour.
To our mind, therefore, this is yet another circumstance inculpating the
accused.
16.
Mr. Goburdhan has also laid much stress on the apparent discordance between the
prosecution story and the medical evidence and has argued that had the accused
attempted to commit suicide, the gun shot must, of necessity, had to be fired
from a very close range on which the wound would have marks of burning or
charring and that in any event a full blooded shot from a very close range
would have torn his face apart. He has in this connection referred us to the
statement of Dr. Ripan Miglani PW15 and the wound found on the appellant at the
time of his medical examination in the Department of Surgery of the Dayanand
Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana which was About 15 x 8 cm curvilinear wound present on the left
half of face extending upto bone. No blackening or foreign body was visible.
Underlying muscles were exposed and contamination was present.
17. He
has thus urged that the absence of any blackening underlined the argument that
the shot had been fired from some distance and as such an attempt at suicide
was clearly to be ruled out. He has also drawn our attention to the cross-
examination of the Doctor wherein he reiterated that there was no visible
blackening and that it was not possible for him to say whether the injury was
suicidal or otherwise. The learned State counsel has, however, relied on the
statement of PW16 Dr. Sanjay Uppal, who was apparently
the first doctor to have examined the appellant, wherein he clearly testified
that the blackened portion around the firearm injury had been removed by him.
We are therefore of the opinion that this statement falsifies Mr. Goburdhans
argument on this aspect. It is also significant that the shot had apparently travelled
upwards skirting the mandible, through the flesh of the cheek in an upward
direction with minimal damage to the bone structure and it is indeed
providential that the appellant got away with only an injury, albeit a very
serious one. The fact that the shot was fired from below going upwards is also
supported by the site plan Exh.PJJ wherein marks of a shot hitting the roof
were seen at point E whereas the appellant was found lying at point D in the
same room. It is therefore apparent that the weapon had indeed been fired by
the appellant from a close range and that the blackened portion around the
wound had been removed by Dr. Sanjay Uppal.
18.
The learned State counsel has emphasized that in the light of the admitted
position that the accused and the deceased were the only ones present at the
time of incident and that the accused had projected a counter story, some
credible explanation was also expected from him. Reference has been made to Raj
Kumar Prasad Tamarkars case (supra) wherein in circumstances surprisingly
akin to the present matter, this Court had the following observations to make:
The
conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge
as also by the High Court categorically go to show that at the time when the
occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were in the bedroom
and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other person. The cause of
death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e. by a gun shot injury is not disputed. The
fact that the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in
dispute.
The
autopsy report shows that a blackening and charring existed so far as
Injury No.(i) is concerned. The blackening and charring keeping in view the
nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go to show that
a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or charring is possible when
a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore,
cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a
shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet.
The
place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound was found over grabella
(middle of forehead). It goes a long way to show that the same must have been
done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There
was, thus a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other
person, who was not in the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show
that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of
the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what
circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him.
He
failed to discharge the same.
19. We
have considered the submission of the State counsel very carefully. It is true
that it is generally for the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt but in
circumstances such as the present one, some explanation is also due from an
accused in order to absolve himself from suspicion of the crime. In his
statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. his positive stand was that he alone
had been in the house with Mukhtiar Kaur when she had been killed and indeed as
per Exhibit P.JJ Mukhtiar Kaurs body had been found only one Karam (5
feet) away from the place where the appellant lay injured. It must be
emphasized that but for this self serving statement made by the appellant,
there is nothing on record to support his positive stance. Even otherwise, we
are of the opinion that had the shot been fired by some intruder, the direction
would have been more or less horizontal and parallel to the ground and not from
down upwards with the pellets hitting the jaw, skirting the cheek and hitting
the roof at point E. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (23rd
Edition) at page 765 while dealing with identification of homicidal and
suicidal injuries it has been observed that :
A
suicidal firearm wound is usually a contact wound situated on the side of the
temple, depending on which hand was used to shoot himself, in the centre of the
forehead, the roof of the mouth, in the chest or epigastrium in front or the
left side and some times under the chin. The firearm is usually fired at close
range. A small weapon like a revolver or a pistol is held in the hand, while a
rifle or a shot gun is supported on the ground or against the wall. Sometimes,
the firing is done by pulling a string tied to the trigger by the big toe.
The
skin around the entry wound shows characteristic blackening, scorching and
tattooing. In such cases the hand used to steady the weapon at the muzzle may
be blackened and scorched and may also be stained with squirting of the blood
from the injured arteries.
In
homicidal and accidental shooting, the wound may be on any part of the body and
the path of the bullet may be in any direction. Homicidal shooting by dacoits
is not uncommon in India, and they are known to make their
own firearms. Immediate death following a firearm wound is uncommon and even
when vital organs are injured, a person may be capable of doing extraordinary
things. Sometimes, firearm wounds may look like knife slashes or a bullet hole
may resemble a penetrating stab wound, if the bullet strikes the head of
shoulder at an angle or when an unstable bullet registers a broadside hit. A Fateh
describes a rare homicidal gun shot wound of the mouth, where the entry wound
was in the tongue and the direction was horizontally backward, while in
suicidal wounds the direction is upwardsentrance would be in the palate or
posterior pharynx.
20.
Dr. B.R.Sharma in his Book Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and
Trials (Fourth Edition), at Page 1160 too has delineated the circumstances
that could indicate suicide and while referring to the site of the injury has
observed:
Certain
sites are predominantly used by suicides for self-inflicted injuries. For
example, with firearm, temple,forehead,mouth and chest are the favourite sites.
With knife throat and wrist are the favourite sites. Hesitation injuries are
also observed in some suicide cases.
21. It
is, therefore, clear to us that the story of unknown assailants entering the
house and causing Mukhtiar Kaurs murder etcetera has to be ruled out and
that the prosecution story that it was the appellant who had first shot Mukhtiar
Kaur and then attempted to commit suicide, stands proved.
We
also find that no part of the evidence of the hostile witnesses comes to the
aid of the appellant.
22.
The question now arises as to the sentence that should be imposed on the
appellant. It would be seen that both the Sessions Court and the High Court
were appalled by the allegations and findings of incestuous rape and murder. We
are however of the opinion, as already noted above, that a case of rape has not
been made out. In this background the death sentence is not called for. We
accordingly acquit the appellant of the charge under section 376 of the IPC but
maintain his conviction for the other offences but commute his death sentence
to life.
23.
With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
Back