' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Criminal Appeal No,185 of 1999, through leave of this Court, questions the conviction and punishments recorded against Muhammad Arshad and Mehdi Hassan appellants while Criminal Appeal No,184 of 1999, again through leave of this Court, prays for enhancement of the punishment of imprisonment for life awarded to Mehdi Hassan convict and for enhancement of the amounts of compensation directed to be paid by both the said convicts. Both these appeals arising out of the same judgment, dated 23-1-1997 of the Lahore High Court passed, inter alia, in Criminal Appeal No,539 of 1993 and Criminal Revision No,449 of 1993 are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. It was through F.I.R. No, 220, dated 30-9-1992 of Police Station, Sukhekey of the then District, Gujranwala (now District Hafizabad) that one Razzaq; his brother Zafar; two sons of the said Razzaq namely Arshad and Ulfat; one son of Zafar accused namely Najam-ul-Hassan; a brother of the wives of Razzaq and Zafar accused, namely, Aslam and a Gunman of Razzaq and Zafar, namely, Mehdi Hassan were accused of committing the murder of one Saud Ahmed who was a brother of Abdul Rauf complainant and of launching a murderous assault on Abdul Rauf (P. W.17), Bashir Ahmed (P. W.18), Bakhat Khan (P.W.19), Shabbir Ahmed (P.W.20) and Nawazishullah, father of Abdul Rauf complainant and Saud Ahmed deceased (given up), the same morning at about 6-30 a.m.
3. The above-mentioned Ulfat and Aslam accused disappeared after the occurrence and could not be arrested. Their case was consequently separated from the case of the other accused persons under section 512, Cr.P.C. And resultantly only the remaining five accused persons faced trial on the said charges before a Special Court established at Gujranwala under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975.
4. Through his judgment, dated 2-8-1993 the learned trial Judge acquitted Razzaq, Zafar and Najam-ul-Hassan accused of all the charges levelled against them Muhammad Arshad and Mehdi Hassan were, however, found guilty of the said charges. They were both convicted under section 302(b)134, P.P.C. For causing the Qatl-i-Amd of Saud Ahmed deceased and while Arshad convict was punished with death, Mehdi Hassan was directed to suffer a sentence of imprisonment for life on the said charge. They were also convicted under sections 337-C, D and E of the P.P.C. For causing injuries on the persons of the above-mentioned five injured P. Ws. And were directed to suffer various terms of imprisonment besides being ordered to pay Arsh and Daman.
5. Arshad and Mehdi Hassan convicts approached the Lahore High Court with Criminal Appeal No,539 of 1993 impugning the above noticed conviction and punishments recorded against each one of them. The State filed Criminal Appeal No,628 of 1993 questioning the acquittal of Razzaq, Zafar and Najamal-ul-Hassan accused while Abdul Rauf complainant petitioned the High Court under section 439, Cr.P.C. Praying for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Mehdi Hassan convict to a punishment of death and praying further that the amount of compensation directed to be paid by each of the said two convicts be also enhanced.
6. The above-mentioned State appeal against acquittal of the three accused persons was dismissed by the learned High Court on 1-3-1994 and as per the record available with us, no further proceedings were taken by the State against the said order of dismissal of the said appeal.
7. Through a judgment, dated 23-1-1997 a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No,539 of 1993 filed by the two convicts maintaining the conviction and punishments recorded against them and confirming the sentence of death awarded to Arshad convict. Abdul Rauf complainant's Criminal Revision No,449 of 1993 praying for enhancement of the punishment awarded to Mehdi convict and the amounts of compensation was also dismissed.
8. Arshad and Mehdi Hassan convicts filed Criminal Petition No,191-L of 1997 impugning the above noticed conviction and punishments while Abdul Rauf complainant approached this Court with Criminal Petition No,176-L of 1997 and insisted on enhancement of the punishment awarded to Mehdi Hassan convict and the amounts of compensation directed to be paid by the said convicts.
Both these petitions were allowed by this Court through an order, dated 16-6-1999 granting leave to:--- "ensure fair administration of justice."
9. We have heard Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court in defence of the two convicts. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court has been heard on behalf of the complainant while Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court made his submissions on behalf of the State. We have also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made before us.
10. We were informed at the outset that Mehdi Hassan convict/appellant had suffered the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him and had since been released from custody. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court, however, submitted that he had instructions to press the appeal even vis-a-vis Mehdi Hassan convict while Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court submitted that he also had instructions to canvass imposition of sentence of death on Mehdi Hassan convict. Therefore, both these appeals are being decided on merits not only vii-A-vis Arshad convict but also with respect to Mehdi Hassan convict.
11. Arguing for acquittal of Arshad convict, his learned, Advocate Supreme Court submitted that both the learned Courts i,e, the learned Special Judge and the Honourable High Court were in error in having rejected the defence plea of Arshad convict regarding his presence on duty in Murree on the day of occurrence. He further contended that the ocular testimony offered by the prosecution against Arshad convict was highly inimical and no corroboration whatsoever was available on record in support of the said interested testimony. He added that in the circumstances Arshad appellant deserved a clean acquittal. He argued in the alternative, that Arshad accused having committed the murder, even according to the prosecution's own case, at the instance of his father Razzaq because of the murder of his brother and other close relatives, by the complainant party, deserved leniency of treatment and was consequently entitled to a lesser penalty.
12. Praying for acquittal of Mehdi Hassan appellant, the learned Advocate Supreme Court submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the present occurrence; that he had no connection with any of his co-accused persons; that he was not burdened with any specific overt act or any specific injury to any of the victims of the said occurrence except the proverbial allegation of joint firing during and after the crime in question; that even in his case no corroboration was available in support of the interested eye-witness account and that in the circumstances Mehdi Hassan appellant also deserved a clean acquittal.
13. We will first take up the case of Muhammad Arshad appellant.
14. It is an admitted fact established on record that the two parties were inimical towards each other and it also stands proved on record that Abdul Rauf complainant (P.W.17) who was a brother of Saud deceased was more than inimical towards Arshad appellant. But then the other three injured eye-witnesses, namely, Bashir Ahmed (P.W.18), Bakhat Khan (P.W.19) and Shabbir Ahmed (P.W.20) were neither related to the deceased party nor did anyone of them have any background of any enmity whatsoever with Arshad appellant or his family. Shabbir Ahmed (P.W.20) was a driver employed with the complainant party; Bashir Ahmed (P.W.18) was a servant of the complainant party and Bakhat Khan (P.W.19) was a peon employed with the Department of Education posted in the Education Centre of Sukhekey who was to go to Gujranwala Courts on the day of occurrence in connection with his Arms licence and who had only taken a lift from the complainant party to reach Gujranwala. The presence of these three eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not open to any doubt on account of the fire-arm injuries received by them. And it could also not be shown that they or anyone of them had any motive or to maliciously implicate Arshad appellant in the crime in-question. All three of them thus offered the necessary and requisite corroboration to the testimony of Abdul Rauf complainant who was himself an injured witness of the present occurrence. We have gone through the statements made by the said three injured witnesses and the cross-examination faced by them and find that the defence had failed to shake their credibility or to bring anything on record which could militate against their reliability.
Their testimony, therefore, inspires confidence.
15. The injury on the chest of Saud deceased had been specifically attributed to Arshad appellant.
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, the learned Advocate Supreme Court attempted to demonstrate that the said injury which had damaged the heart of the deceased could well be the result of the shot allegedly fired by Ulfat, the absconding accused. We have examined the eight injuries suffered by Saud deceased as noticed by Dr. Khalid Farooq (P.W.1), who had conducted the post-mortem examination on his dead body. The injury in-question with which Arshad appellant had been burdened appears at SI. No,7. The dimensions of the other wounds of entry found on the body of Saud deceased measured 1-1/2 x 1-1/4 c.m., 1-1/2 x 3-3/4 c.m, 1-1/2 x 1-1/4 c.m. And 2 x 1-1/2 c.m. While the injury in-question mentioned at Serial No,7 measured 3/4 x 3/4 c.m. It is thus evident to us that the said injury No,7 could not have been caused by the same fire-arm which had caused the other four wounds of entry. It is in evidence that Ulfat P.O. Was armed with a klashnikov while Arshad convict was armed with a .7mm rifle. The only other accused person allegedly armed with a rifle was Mehdi Hassan convict but, as has been noticed above, he was not saddled with any specific injury to any of the victims of the present occurrence. According to the testimony of Dr. Khalid Farooq (P.W.1) the projectile which had caused the said injury No,7 had exited from the outer most part of left chest. It is also in evidence through Ghulam Abbas Khan, I.O./S.H.O. (P.W.22) that amongst the crime empties found by him at the place of occurrence was only one crime empty of .7 mm rifle. The medical evidence and the said noticed circumstances did not run counter to the prosecution case and in fact lent support to the ocular testimony.
16. The mainstay of Arshad appellant's defence was his plea of alibi which he had allegedly taken during the course of investigation and which plea he had sought to establish through the testimony of Safdar Hussain, A.S.-I. (D.W.2) and Shakoor Ahmed Khan, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Murree (D.W.3).
17. This Safdar Hussain, A.S.-I. Had appeared at the trial initially as P.W.3 whose statement was recorded on 15-6-1993. He did not utter a single word regarding his having been deputed by Ghulam Abbas Khan, I.O./S.H.O. (P.W.22) to proceed to Rawalpindi and Murree to verify the plea of alibi taken by Arshad appellant. Even when he was offered to the defence for cross-examination, no question whatsoever was put to the said Safdar Hussain (P.W.3) about his having collected any evidence regarding the innocence of Arshad appellant on the strength of the plea of alibi offered by him. The said Safdar Hussain was subsequently summoned as a defence witness and his claim that he had found the said appellant's plea of alibi to be correct appeared to be an afterthought.
He produced in his evidence an alleged statement of Shakoor Ahmad Khan, Assistant Registrar (D.W.3) as Exh.D.W.2/A and admitted that Shakoor Khan had never signed the said statement which was in the handwriting of the said Safdar Hussain, A.S.I. He claimed to have visited the office of Arshad appellant at Murree where the colleagues of the said appellant were also present but he admitted that he had not examined any of his colleagues or any other official of the said office regarding the alleged presence of Arshad appellant in his office on the day of occurrence i,e, 30-9- 1992. It is strange that despite having even deputed by the S.H.O. To investigate this aspect of the case at Rawalpindi and in Murree and despite having allegedly collected the statement (Exh.D.W.2/A) of Shakoor Ahmed Khan (D.W.3), he never made any mention of the same in the case diary. He also failed to offer any proof in the form of any report in the Roznamcha of Police Station, Sukhekey or of the concerned Police Station in Rawalpindi or Murree about his departure for the said cities and his arrival there nor had he mentioned the fact of having collected the evidence in question in the case diaries. The concurrent findings and conclusions of the two learned Courts regarding untrustworthy nature of his testimony is thus unexceptionable.
18. Shakoor Ahmed Khan, Assistant Registrar (D.W.3) was the Head of the office in Murree where Arshad appellant was posted as Sub-Inspector of Cooperative Societies. He claimed that Arshad appellant was present in his office at Murree on the day of the occurrence i,e, 30-9-1992 from 7-30 a.m. To 2-30 p.m. And worked as the Reader with him on the said date. He admitted that one Inspector, six Sub-Inspectors including Arshad appellant and three Clerks worked under him in Murree. He admitted that the Sub-Inspector's job was to work in the field in their respective circles regarding matters pertaining to the loans etc. Taken by the people. He also admitted that on the day of the present occurrence i,e, 30-9-1992 was the only day when Arshad appellant had performed duties as a Reader and he had never before worked as his Reader. He further admitted that in all the cases taken up by him on 30-9-1992 none of the defaulters to whom the said cases pertained had appeared in Court and no substantial proceedings had been conducted in the said cases. He also admitted that the job of the Sub-Inspector is in the field and not in the office. Could not offer any explanation as to why Arshad appellant had been asked to work as a Reader on the day in question when at least three Clerks were available in his office who could have performed the said duty. About the attendance Register where Arshad appellant marked his presence on the said date of occurrence, it was admitted by the said D.W.3 that the said register was maintained in his office not under any rules but only under the oral directions of the Deputy Director; that the pages of the said register were not numbered and the register in question was of a common kind generally available in the market; that the entries made in the said register on 30-9-1992 were not signed by him nor did the signatures of Arshad appellant appear against the entry showing his presence and further that he had not handed over any copy of the said register to the Investigating Officer. Having scrutinized the testimony offered even by this witness (D.W.3), we find that the evidence offered by him was more than un-reliable and no exception could be taken to the conclusions reached by the trial Court and the Hon'ble High Court about the same.
19. Having thus considered all aspects of the matter regarding the guilt or innocence of Arshad appellant, we find and hold that the prosecution evidence offered against him inspired confidence and that having taken a special plea of alibi, the burden of proving which lay on the appellant, he had failed to prove the same.
20. This brings us to the case of Mehdi Hassan appellant.
21. As has been noticed above, he was not a close or even a remote member of the accused family/party. It was the case of the prosecution that he was a gunman of the accused party which claim was, however, denied by him and he had in fact pleaded that he was present in village Gandianwali in the area of Police Station, Alipur Chatha on the day of occurrence.None of the eye- witnesses including the complainant himself had any reason whatsoever to falsely involve the said appellant in the occurrence in question as none of them, including the complainant, had any enmity, or motive to maliciously rope the said appellant in the said occurrence. All the eye- witnesses vis-a-vis him were independent witnesses and no reason could be offered by the defence as to why all the eye-witnesses should have had designs on him if the said appellant was not actually present with the co-accused persons and if he had not actually participated in the said occurrence. The fact that none of the eye-witnesses burdened the said appellant with any specific overt act lends further support to the truthfulness of the said witnesses. In our assessment, therefore, no reason existed for discarding the prosecution evidence led against Mehdi Hassan appellant. It is true that he was not saddled with any specific injury to any of victims of the occurrence in question but this by itself was not sufficient to exonerate him of the liability incurred by him in view of the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. And section 149 of the P.P.C. Thus the findings of guilt recorded even against Mehdi Hassan appellant were not open to any doubt or exception.
Consequently, the conviction recorded even against the said appellant is maintained.
22. This brings us to the alternate plea taken by the learned counsel for Arshad appellant canvassing lesser penalty for him and the prayer of the complainant for imposing normal penalty of death on Mehdi Hassan appellant.
23. It is prosecution's own case that Mehdi Hassan appellant, though armed with a rifle, had not caused any injury either to the deceased or to any of the five injured persons. This situation is further corroborated by the Investigating Officer (P.W.22) who had found only one crime empty of .7 mm rifle at the venue of occurrence. Therefore, what is established on record is that Mehdi Hassan appellant was armed with a fire-arm weapon at the time of occurrence and had come to the place of occurrence in furtherance of the common intention of the other accused persons but he had not caused any injury to any of the members of the complainant party. In the circumstances, no serious exception could be taken to the quantum of punishment i,e, a sentence of imprisonment for life as found befitting for him by the two learned Courts. We, therefore, decline the complainant's prayer for awarding the sentence of death to Mehdi Hassan convict. Despite the prosecution's own case that he was only an employee of the accused party, he had been directed to pay Rs,1,00,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased. He has also been ordered to pay further amounts of money as Daman and as Arsh in connection with the injuries received by the P.Ws. No case for enhancement of the said amounts of money is, therefore, made out.
24. We have given some serious thought to the quantum of punishment awarded to Arshad appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. And find that in the given circumstances of this case he did not deserve any sympathy or leniency as he had taken the law into his own hands and was an active party to the mounting of a ruthless attack on the complainant party resulting in fire-arm injuries to at least six persons out of whom one had lost his life.
25. In this view of the matter, both these appeals i,e, Criminal Appeal No,184 of 1999 filed by Abdul Rauf complainant and Criminal Appeal No,185 of 1999 filed by the two convicts are dismissed.
I have accepted the appeal of convicts for which a separate note in appended.
' (Sd.) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, .1 Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J ' I subscribe to the opinion expressed by my learned brother Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, J.
(Sd.) Falak Sher, J ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- I had an opportunity to go through the judgment composed by my learned brother but respectfully I failed to persuade myself to subscribe to the reasons mentioned therein for the dismissal of appeals, therefore, I propose to write a separate note hereinbelow.
2. Facts of the case have already been noted in the proposed judgment, therefore, need not to be repeated, except stating that vide F.I.R. Exh.P.O., dated 30th September, 1992 appellants Muhammad Arshad, Mehdi Hassan along with five others were charged for the offences under sections 302, 324, 427/109, 148/149, P.P.C. On the allegation of committing the murder of Saud Ahmed son of Nawazishullah (brother of P.W. Abdul Rauf) and causing injuries to P. Ws. Abdul Rauf (complainant), Bashir Ahmed, Bakhat Khan, Shabbir and Nawazishullah (not produced). Acquitted accused Razzaq and Zafar were charged for hatching conspiracy and instigating to remaining accused, for the commission of the crime.
3. Learned trial Court on having recorded ocular evidence of all the injured witnesses named hereinabove, disbelieved them quo the acquitted accused Najamul Hasan, who contrary to prosecution version that he was present at the scene of incident along with appellants and others and caused injuries on the right side of head of deceased with Kalashnikov burst, raised plea of 'alibi' but on believing such discarded evidence against appellants convicted them, details of which are mentioned in the impugned judgment. As far as accused Ulfat and Muhammad Aslam are concerned to their extent, file has been kept in dormant, as they have been declared proclaimed offenders. Accused Muhammad Razzak and Muhammad Zafar have also been exonerated from the commission of offence charged against them.
4. It is to be noted that eye-witnesses i,e, ,injured persons, had not spoken whole truth, as their evidence to the extent of Najmul Hassn (acquitted accused) has been disbelieved by the trial Court and High J Court, while dismissing Appeal No,628 of 1993 filed by the State on 1st March, 1994 challenging his acquittal. As per available record, no further proceedings either by the State or by the complainant have been instituted before this Court.
5. Learned trial Court, on realizing difficulty for accepting discarded evidence of eye-witnesses against appellants, sought corroboration to the statement of P.W. Abdul Rauf (complainant) from other eye-witnesses i,e, Bashir Ahmed, Bakhat Khan, Shabbir Ahmed (all injured) by making important observations namely if Abdul Rauf is inimical towards accused persons on account of old enmity between the parties, remaining eye-witnesses are independent and they can provide also corroboration to the statement of Abdul Rauf (complainant). It is to be borne in mind that in criminal administration of justice if a witness has not deposed whole truth his statement requires close scrutiny and K corroboration from independent source as it has been held in the case of Shahzado v. The State PLD 1977 SC 413, Yar Muhammad and others v. The State 1992 SCM R 96.
Relevant para. From the latter judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "....There can be no cavil with the proposition that even witnesses related to the deceased injured or the complainant if they are in a position to identify the offender and were also present and further that there is no possibility of substitution then their statement can be accepted without corroboration. But if there is exaggeration in their statement and there is some doubt to the veracity then for the safe administration of criminal justice it would be proper to insist on independent corroborative evidence..."
' Thus in view of above principle, firstly the evidence of P.W. Abdul Rauf who is admittedly inimical towards appellants, cannot be believed against the appellants, without independent corroboration and; secondly on account of disbelieving his statement along with other eyewitnesses quo acquitted accused Najmul Hassan they cannot furnish corroboration to the statement of each other, in view of the principle of criminal administration of justice that "one piece of tainted evidence cannot corroborate another piece of tainted evidence". In this behalf I am fortified with the judgment in the case of Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 1993 SCM R 1602. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "In the final analysis of evidence, we are of considered view that in this case prosecution has failed to prove the case against appellant beyond doubt. Ocular evidence of two eye-witnesses does not inspire confidence and it is doubtful whether they had seen the incident. No doubt unfortunate incident has taken place in which two persons have lost their lives but not in the manner asserted by the prosecution. On the basis of evidence of these eye-witnesses, co-accused Abbas is acquitted by trial Court and finding is maintained by the High Court. There is again no corroborative evidence to supplement ocular evidence. Prosecution can seek support from motive, medical evidence and recoveries, but each piece of this evidence is defective and failing in intrinsic value, hence not fit for reliance to corroborate ocular version, which is itself defective. It is settled principle of law that one piece of tainted evidence cannot corroborate another piece of tainted evidence. We, therefore hold that it is fit case in which benefit of doubt can be given to the appellants. Conviction and sentence of appellants is set aside and appeal is allowed. They may be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case."
6. The scanning of material available on record reveals that against appellant Muhammad Arshad recovery of Rifle Exh. P.8 could have been strong corroborative evidence but on account of negative report of Forensic Science Laboratory declaring that crime empty recovered from the place of incident Exh.P/18 has not matched with Rifle, is of no use for prosecution. Next piece of corroborative evidence could have been motive but it can also not be used for said purpose as it was coming from the mouth of P.W. Abdul Rauf (Complainant) whose statement itself suffers from disqualification, as it has been noted above. Reference in this regard may be made to Mazhar Mir v.
The State 1999 PCr.LJ 454. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "The question arises if the evidence of motive which has come from the mouth of complainant or eye-witness, whose word in respect of main incident stands in need of extraneous corroboration, can be used to corroborate his own assertion in this behalf. The answer is simple and trite. It is independent corroboration which is required and the evidence of the same witness in regard to some other matter cannot be equated with independent corroboration. Reference may be made with advantage to Supreme Court Authority reported as Nawaz Ali and another v. The State 1981 SCM R 132."
' Besides it, motive and medical evidence do not furnish requisite corroboration in all circumstances to warrant conviction. In this behalf reliance can be placed upon the judgment in the case of Pir Bakhsh v. The State 1981 SCMR 1121(2).
7. As far as medical evidence is concerned it being in the nature of confirmatory evidence, cannot be issued for corroboration to ocular p evidence as injuries on the person of deceased and injured persons, does not speak of their authorship.
8. In view of above pieces of evidence I am of the considered opinion that evidence furnished by eye-witnesses is neither trustworthy nor sufficient to maintain conviction against appellants, particularly in view of the fact that on the same set of evidence co-accused Najmul Hassan has been acquitted, therefore in absence of corroboration from independent source, their statements can also not be used for conviction against appellants as it has been held in the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1984 SCM R 190. Operative para. Therefrom reads as under:--- ' Three persons were involved. Shahbaz was the most aggrieved .Person on account of the altercation and threat he allegedly gave, about 15 minutes before the occurrence to the deceased.
Despite that he came back empty-handed and did not even catch hold of his so called enemy.
Keeping in view all these circumstances and the tenure of trial Court judgment, it is safe to hold that the acquittal in reality was due to false implication. If that is so, then Nawaz appellant could not be convicted without corroboration, (which the recovery of hatchet) disbelieved by the High Court is not available. Otherwise too we agree with the trial Court that the eye-witnesses needed corroboration which now is not forthcoming. The appellant, therefore, is entitled at least to benefit of doubt. The appeal is accordingly accepted and he is acquitted."
9. It is equally important to say few words about appellant Mehdi Hassan. His involvement in the case, seems to be false and improbable because as per prosecution story he was present at the spot with a Kalashnikov in his hand, but did not fire upon the complainant party. Such version of prosecution seems to be misconceived hence it is beyond imagination that when a free fight is going on, an accused, allegedly being member of an unlawful assembly, having lethal fire-arm in his hand would not remain standing as a silent spectator, waiting that he should be killed either by the opponents or by one of his own accomplices. Therefore, his involvement in the commission of offence is also not free from doubt.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that on available evidence/material produced by the prosecution, appellants conviction is not sustainable. As such Criminal Appeal No,185 of 1999 filed by the convicts is allowed and they are acquitted of the charge. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
' As a consequence of acceptance of Criminal Appeal No,185 of 1999 Criminal Appeal No,184 of 1999 filed by complainant is dismissed.
(Sd.) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Judge.
' ORDER OF THE COURT ' In view of the opinion of the majority of the Judges, both these appeals i,e, Criminal Appeal No, 184 of 1999 filed by Abdul Rauf complainant and Criminal Appeal No, 185 of 1999 filed by the two convicts are dismissed.