' RUSTAM ALI MALIK, J. --Through this Judgment we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1771 of 2001, Criminal Revision No,918/2001 as well as Murder Reference No,712 of 2001, all arising out of the judgment dated 31-10-2001, passed by the learned Additional. Sessions Judge, Jhang by which he had convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
(i) Mansabdar appellant convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing Qatl-i-Amd of Sahib Khan and sentenced to death.
(ii) All the five accused/appellants convicted under sections 302(b)/ 148/149, P.P.C. For committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mst.Saddan and four of them i.e, Haq Nawaz, Umar Draz, Sahib Khan and Mansabdar appellants sentenced to death while Noor Khan appellant sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. Aggrieved of the judgment of the learned trial Court, all the five accused have filed a joint appeal (Criminal Appeal No,1771 of 2001). The learned trial Court has sent a reference (Murder Reference No,712 of 2001) for confirmation of sentence of death awarded to the accused/appellants in this case. The complainant had filed a Revision Petition (Crl. Revision No,918 of 2001) for enhancement of sentence i.e, for awarding compensation to legal heirs of the deceased persons under section 544-A, Cr.P.0 as well.
3. The case against the accused/ appellants is based on F.I.R. No,224 registered on 10-4-1999 at 3:00 P.M relating to the occurrence which had taken place on the same day at 2-00 p.m. The F.I.R.
Was lodged by Ahmad Khan complainant (P.W-3) and wherein he had stated that on the day of occurrence i.e, on 10-4-1999 around 2-00 p.m. He along with his father Sahib Khan (deceased) Haji Muhammad Hayat and Hakim Khan P.Ws. And his mother Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan Mai (deceased) was present in his house. When his father came out of the house in order to ease himself. Mansabdar, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz and Umar Draz who were armed with rifles, Sahib Khan s/o Muhammad Khan armed with a pistol and Noor Khan armed with a gun. 12 bore came out of the house of Sahib Khan, accused and raised Lalkara that they had arrived to avenge the murder of Sada Bahar and at the same time Mansabdar fired with the rifle hitting Sahib Khan (deceased), the father of the complainant on the front of his neck and who fell down. While he was lying down. Mansabdar fired three other shots hitting him i.e, Sahib Khan deceased, on his right shoulder and back. On hearing the sound of firing and noise, Noor Khan fired a shot with the gun but Hakim Khan ran (towards him) and pushed the barrel of the gun upwards and as a result of which the shot fired by him missed him. Then all the five accused entered the house running. His mother (Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan Mai) tried to bolt the door from inside but the accused pushed the door open. Mansabdar fired with the rifle hitting his mother on his right thigh.. Then Sahib Khan fired two shots hitting his mother, on her left breast. Umar Draz fired a shot with the rifle hitting his mother on her chest towards right side. Then Haq Nawaz fired with the rifle hitting his mother on the front side of her chest. Noor Khan accused held the complainant. His father and mother succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
4. In the F.I.R. It was also stated by the complainant that Zahoor Chela, who was their tractor Driver, had killed Sada Bahar and the accused suspected that Sada Bahar had been got murdered by his mother and father and on account of the said grievance the accused had murdered his mother and father, after consultation and in connivance with each other.
5. On the conclusion of the investigation, the challan was submitted against the five accused persons and they were formally charged by the learned trial Court on 23-11-2000. All the five accused pleaded not guilty and the prosecution was thus asked to produce its evidence.
6. In this case the prosecution has examined as many as 10 P.Ws. Of them P.W.5 is Dr. Farooq Ahmad, who on 10-4-1999 at 10-30 p.m. Had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sahib Khan s/o Amir Khan and had observed as many as five injuries on his person. In his opinion injuries Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, causing haemorrhage, and 'shock. All the injuries were ante-mortem and had been caused by fire-arm. The probable time between injuries and death was within two hours and between death and post-mortem examination was within 24 hours. Exh.PL is the copy of post-mortem report while Exh.PL/1 1 is the sketch of injuries.
7. P.W.7 is Dr. Razia Afzal W.M.O. Who on 10-4-1999 at 11-00 p.m. Had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan Mai wife of Sahib Khan deceased and had found as many as 13 injuries on her person. In her opinion cause of death was haemorrhage and shock and injury to vital organ (Liver) resulting from injures Nos.3 and 4 and which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante- mortem and had been caused by fire-arms. The probable time between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem examination was about 8 to 12 hours. Exh.PQ is the carbon copy of the post-mortem report Exh.PQ/1 is the sketch of injuries.
8. P.W-9 is Muhammad Ashraf Basra, S.-I. (Retd.), who on 10-4-1999 was posted as S.-I./S.H.O. At Police Station Saddar, Jhang. On the same day, Ahmad Khan, complainant appeared before him and made statement Exh. PC (on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Was recorded). Thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the complainant, prepared injury statements of the deceased and also the inquest reports. He handed over the dead bodies of the deceased persons to Haq Nawaz Constable, for the purpose of post-mortem examination. He inspected the spot and prepared the site plan without scale which is Exh.PT. He collected the blood-stained earth from the places of murder of Sahib Khan and Mst. Sardaran deceased and took the same into possession. He recorded statements of P. Ws. Later he took other formal steps in connection with the investigation of, the case. He searched for the accused but they were not available. On 13-4- 1999 he summoned Muhammad Tanvir Vikki, Draftsman, who inspected the place of occurrence and took rough notes. On 15-4-1999 he produced the site-plans Exh. PP and Exh.PP/1. On 25-4-1999 he arrested Noor Khan, Umar Draz, Mansabdar, Sahib Khan and Hakim Khan accused and interrogated them. At the time of his arrest, Noor Khan accused had presented gun (P.5) along with 4 live cartridges Exh.P.6/1-4 which were taken into possession by him vide recovery memo Exh.PF. At the time of his arrest Umar Draz accused produced rifle (P.8) along with 5 live cartridges Exh.P.8/1-5 which were taken into possession. On the same day, Mansabdar accused while in custody produced before him rifle (P.9) which was taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh. PH. On the same day, Sahib Khan accused at the time of his arrest produced revolver (P.10) along with 7 bullets Exh.P.11/1-7 which were taken into possession by him. On the same day Hakim alias Haq Nawaz accused produced before him rifle (P.12) along with 8 live bullets Exh.P.13/1-8 and licence Exh.P.14 which he took into possession vide memo Exh.PK.
9. P.W.3 is Ahmad Khan complainant, while P.W-4 is Hakim Khan P.W., who had been examined in this case as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Both of them deposed on the same lines as indicated in the F.I.R. Both of them are also the witnesses of recovery of weapon of offence. P.W-3 also deposed about the motive. He stated that Zahoor Chela was their Driver who had murdered Sada Bahar and the accused had murdered his mother and father as a revenge for the murder of Sada Bahar aforesaid. On 26-10-2001 the prosecutor tendered in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.PV and Exh. P.W, reports of Serologist Exh.PX and Exh.PY and closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter the learned trial Court recorded the statements of all the five accused persons named above under section 342 Cr.P.0 and wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances. Mansabdar accused in answer to the question as to why this case against him and why the P.Ws. Had deposed against him deposed as under:-- ' "All the P.Ws. Cited and produced by the prosecution are closely related inter se and had motive to falsely implicate me.
Firstly: My mother Mst. Jannat Bibi, who is real sister of Sahib Khan, deceased had filed a suit for declaration to get a decree that she is owner of the land measuring 116 Kanals 11 Marlas before the alleged occurrence, which is still pending. Ahmad Khan complainant is also a party to that suit. He involved me falsely in this case to pressurize me and my mother to withdraw such suit; Secondly: Sahib Khan and Mst. Saddan deceased were my mother and father-in-law and at the time of their death, their daughter Mst. Sughra was my wife. My Nikah with Mst. Sughra Bibi was duly registered in the Union Council, and after the present incident, Mst. Sughra at the instance of Ahmad Khan complainant had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and an ex parte decree was obtained and I have filed a petition for setting aside ex parte decree, which is still pending in the Family Court Jhang. Ahmad Khan had contracted marriage with the daughter of Hakim Khan P.W.
And at the instance of Hakim Khan, he was not willing to send my wife Mst. Sughra in my house and after death of Sahib Khan and Mst. Saddan he had involved me falsely in this case; ' Thirdly: During the investigation of this case, according to the opinion of the Investigating Officer, at the time of alleged occurrence, I was empty handed and had not fired upon Mst. Saddan Mai and Sahib Khan deceased. Ahmad Khan complainant and the P.Ws. Have involved me in this case for previous enmity. In fact, I was not present at the scene of occurrence; ' Fourthly: I have enmity with my co-accused and for that reason my co-accused and I could not be joined hands. No case F.I.R. No,354/94 under sections 452/337L (ii), 337-A (ii), P.P.C. Was got registered by Sarfraz my uncle against Hakim Khan P. W and his brother Haider. I was a witness in case F.I.R. No, 263 dated 24-5-1994 under sections 324, 365, 148 and 149, P.P.C, Police Station Mochiwala against Sahib Khan accused and brother of wife of Noor Khan accused and F.I.R.
No,274/95 under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar, Jhang dated 17-7-1995 was also registered in between the accused of this case; ' Fifthly: Ahmad Khan complainant has agricultural land near the river bed, and it was a sugarcane season. He and Hakim Khan P.W. Were busy in cutting and loading the sugarcane for mills, while Shahadat P.W. Was on his auto spare part shop, and they all on receiving the information of the incident reached the place of incident, while I was also present at my Chah for agricultural purpose. I have been involved falsely in this case due to enmity."
10. Noor Khan Umar Draz, and Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz adopted the same reply to this question as was given by their co-accused namely Mansabdar. Sahib Khan, accused in answer to the aforesaid question replied that the P.Ws. Were closely related inter se and were inimical towards him and that they had deposed falsely.
11. None of accused/appellants made statement on Oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C and all of them except Mansabdar accused stated that they do not want to produce any evidence in defence. However Mansabdar accused stated that he will produce evidence in defence. On 30-10- 2001 his learned counsel tendered in his defence evidence copy of the order of the learned Judge Family Court dated 20-6-1999 as Exh.DH. Attested copy of the application dated 14-3-2000 as Exh.DJ, attested copy of the order dated 13-10-2001 as Exh. DK, attested copy of the complaint as Exh.DL attested copy of the order dated 20-10-2001 as Exh. DM attested copy of the Nikahnama as Exh.DN. Attested copy of the F.I.R. No,263/94 as Exh.DP and attested copy of F.I.R. No 354/94 as Exh.DQ and closed his defence evidence.
12. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhang vide his judgment dated 31-10-2001 convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence the appellants have come up in appeal. As mentioned above the learned trial Court has also sent the Murder Reference for confirmation of sentence of death awarded by it to the accused/ appellants in this case. The complainant has filed the Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence i.e, for awarding compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C as well, to the legal heirs of the deceased.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that there is insufficient material on record to warrant conviction and there is a clear conflict in the ocular account and the medical evidence and that the conflict 'between two is in fact outrageous; that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that one of the alleged eye-witnesses i.e, P.W-3 Ahmad Khan is the son of the deceased whereas P.W.4 Hakim Khan is father-in-law of P.W.3 Ahmad Khan and hence both are interested witnesses and not a single independent witness had been produced in this case; that the learned trial Court had failed to take into consideration the fact that the alleged recoveries were fake and fabricated and violative of provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C.; that the weapons of offence were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory; that the alleged motive could not be proved by the prosecution; that the prosecution case is full of improbabilities; that P.W-3 had a clear motive to falsely implicate Mansabdar accused in this case; that no crime empty had been recovered from the spot and which creates doubt in the matter; that there existed enmity between the parties; that the accused had no reason to commit murder of Mst. Saddan who was an old women; that Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz and Umar Draz accused had no relationship with Sada Bahar and had thus no motive to attack and kill the deceased; that there was no injury on the right thigh of Mst. Sardaran as per post-mortem report and which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful; that Mansabdar was allegedly armed with a rifle but the injuries existing on the dead bodies had been caused with pellets; that in this case the prosecution evidence on record is not unimpeachable and there was no justification for recording conviction against the accused on the capital charge; that in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Mansabdar accused in answer to question No,7 had clearly taken the plea that his mother Mst. Jannat Bibi, who is real sister of Sahib Khan deceased had filed a suit for declaration before this occurrence to get a decree that she is owner of the land measuring 116 Kanals 11 Marlas and the said suit is pending and Ahmad Khan, complainant is also a party to the said suit and who had falsely implicated Mansabdar accused in this case in order to pressurize him and his mother to withdraw the said suit. Moreover Sahib Khan and Mst. Saddan deceased were the father-in-law and rribther-in-law of Mansabdar accused as he was married to their daughter Mst. Sughra and after this incident Mst. Sughra at the instance of Ahmad Khan complainant had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against him and had obtained an ex parte decree and during the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer had found that Mansabdar accused was empty handed at the time of occurrence and had not fired at Mst.
Saddan Mai or Sahib . Khan deceased; that Mansabdar and his other coaccused had enmity inter se and various criminal cases were pending between them and as such it was not logical for them to join hands in this case; that the presence of Ahmad Khan and Hakim Khan P.Ws at the time of occurrence was improbable as they were busy in cutting and loading the sugarcane at the time of occurrence and that they had reached the spot after receiving the information about the incident; that the allegation against Noor Khan accused is merely that of firing and holding he is not alleged to have caused any' injury to anyone; that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the accused are entitled to be acquitted.
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the State has argued that there is sufficient evidence on record to warrant conviction and that inconsistencies/ contradictions in the prosecution evidence are not of such a nature so as to strike down the prosecution story from its very foundation; that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to establish the charge against all the five accused/ appellants and the four accused namely Mansabdar, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz, Umar Draz and Sahib Khan have been rightly awarded normal sentence of death, while under the circumstances of the case, the 5th accused i.e, Noor Khan has been awarded life imprisonment. He has argued that it is a case of double murder in which both father and mother of the complainant were done to death before the eyes of the complainant and that Mst. Saddan, the mother of the complainant had been murdered in her own house; that the learned trial Court has delivered a well reasoned judgment and that there is no reason or ground for interference and hence the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the sentence awarded by it to all the accused persons be upheld.
15. The learned counsel for the complainant adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the State and has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. He has however pointed out that in its judgment the learned trial Court had failed to issue any direction for the payment of the compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of the deceased and hence the complainant has also filed the Criminal Revision in that respect. He has requested that while maintaining the judgment of the learned trial Court, compensation under section 544-A Cr.P.C be also awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased.
16. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides.
17. So far as Mansabdar accused/ appellant is concerned it is he who is alleged to have, fired at Sahib Khan deceased and it is he who is stated to be the principal accused in this case although he claims that he was found to be empty handed by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. The accused was alleged to have raised Lalkara that they had arrived to take revenge of the murder of Sada Bahar it was then that Mansabdar accused had fired hitting on the neck of Sahib Khan deceased and who had fallen down and then he had allegedly fired two more shots, which had hit on his shoulder and back. Thereafter he is also alleged to have fired at Mst.
Saddan Mai, the mother of the complainant hitting on her right thigh. Except Mansabdar accused no other accused is alleged to have fired at Sahib Khan deceased the father of thet complainant.
He along with other accused except Noor Khan had also fired at Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan Mai.
18. So far as the other three accused namely Sahib Khan s/o Muhammad Khan, Umar Draz s/a Muhammad Hayat and Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz s/o Muhammad Khan are concerned they are alleged to have fired at Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan along with Mansabdar co-accused and there is sufficient ocular account on record in that respect which is corroborated by the medical evidence.
19. So far as Noor Khan accused is concerned, it has been alleged against him that he had fired at Sahib Khan deceased but Hakim Khan P.W had caught hold of his gun and though the shot fired by him had missed. Another allegation against him is that of holding the complainant in his grip wftile his co-accused were firing at Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan the mother of the complainant. In any way so far as Noor Khan, accused is concerned he is not alleged to have caused any injury to any of the deceased persons or to any of the P.Ws. Hence even though he was alleged to have been armed with a gun. 12 bore at the time of occurrence and although he is alleged to have fired at Sahib Khan deceased which had missed on account of the aforesaid reason and although he had later allegedly held the complainant in his grip, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt as he is not alleged to have caused any injury to anyone.
20. Admittedly it was a daylight occurrence. The complainant namely Ahmad Khan is son of both the deceased persons. He claimed to be present in his house when the accused persons had murdered his parents. P.W-4 Hakim Khan is stated to be the father in law of the complainant Ahmad Khan, but merely his relationship with the complainant does not render his testimony as untrustworthy P.W.4 admits that Sarfraz the paternal uncle of Mansabdar accused had got a criminal case registered against him and his brother but he has also stated that he and his brother namely Haider are paternal nephews of the said Sarfraz and that they have effected compromise in the said case. It is the version of Mansabdar accused himself that his mother Mst. Janatan had filed a suit for declaration against Sahib Khan deceased that she is owner of land measuring 116 Kanals and 12 Marlas and the said suit is still pending and that Sahib Khan deceased was the real brother of Mst. Janatan. The pendency of the aforesaid suit could also serve as motive for the occurrence and the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the enmity on account of the pendency on the said suit may have provoked Mansabdar accused to commit the murder of the deceased Sahib Khan, who was his maternal uncle as well as father-in- law. The accused other than Mansabdar may not have the common intention to commit Qatl-i-amd of Sahib Khan deceased yet they all except Noor Khan had fired at Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan, who was mother of the complainant and as the accused suspected that it was she i.e, mother of the complainant who on account of her relationship with Zahoor Chela had got killed Sada Bahar, therefore they certainly had the motive to commit the murder of Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan, in furtherance of their common intention. Mansabdar, Sahib Khan, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz and Umar Draz are all alleged to have fired shots at Mst. Saddan and which resulted in her death. The accused have taken the plea that there was enmity between the accused as well and they could not have 'joined hands in an occurrence of this nature. It is proved On record that the accused, the deceased, the complainant as well as P.W-4 Hakim Khan and Sada Bahar aforesaid were all related to each other. Previously there might have been enmity between the accused persons but at the time of occurrence it was a thing of the past and as they related to each other, it was not improbable that the accused had joined hands in the occurrence to avenge the murder of Sada Bahar, who was allegedly murdered by Zahoor Chela, the tractor Driver of the complainant family. Mansabdar accused having personal grudge against Sahib Khan, deceased who was his maternal uncle and father-in-law had alone fired 3 or 4 shots at him and which resulted in his death. In his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C Mansabdar accused has taken the plea that he was found empty handed by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigating and that actually he was not even present at the time of occurrence. But the contention that even though he was found present at the time of occurrence but was empty handed does not appeal to reason. Had he been merely present, he would have tried to rescue the deceased from the assailants as they i.e, the deceased were his father-in-law and mother-in-law as well and would had not have remained silent spectator. It has also been argued that it had been alleged as against Mansabdar accused that he was armed with a rifle but some specific injuries attributed to him appear to have been caused with pellets and it was also, pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants at the time of arguments that injuries Nos.2 and 4 out of the 5 injuries on the person of Sahib Khan deceased were wounds of exit while injuries Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 out of the injuries of Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan were also the wounds of exit. It was not understandable as to how a common man at the time of occurrence of this magnitude could distinguish a rifle from a gun. 12 bore and a pistol from a revolver. When the accused persons were allegedly firing with deadly weapons, how the eye- witnesses could be specific about the seat of injuries. It is not understandable as to why the complainant would like to spare the actual culprits who had done to death his father and mother
(both) before his very eyes and would like to falsely implicate Mansabdar, etc in this case as accused merely because the sister of Mansabdar had filed a civil suit against Sahib Khan deceased who was her real brother. The contradictions and discrepancies existing in the prosecution evidence of this case are not sufficient to strike down the prosecution story from its very foundation. In fact the eye-witnesses i.e, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have fully proved the case against Mansabdar, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz, Umar Draz and Sahib Khan s/o Muhammad Khan accused persons. As regards Noor Khan, accused it has been mentioned above that as he is not alleged to have caused injury to any of the deceased or to any of the P.Ws. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt. But so far as the remaining accused appellants namely Mansabdar, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz, Umar Draz and Sahib Khan are concerned the prosecution has clearly established that they had fired at and caused the death of Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan, the mother of complainant in furtherance of their common intention whereas the prosecution has clearly established that Mansabdar had fired 3 or 4 shots at Sahib Khan deceased and which had resulted in his death. The medical evidence furnished in this case by P.W-5 Dr. Farooq Ahmad and P.W-7 Dr. Razia Akhtar fully support the ocular account. The discrepancy if any in the ocular account and the medical evidence is not of such a nature as to lead us to disbelieve the prosecution version or to disbelieve the statements of P.W.3 and P. W.4 who are natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
21. As Mansabdar, accused/appellant had caused Qatl-i-amd of Sahib Khan deceased, and which charge is fully proved on record, he had been thus rightly convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C.
And has been correctly sentenced to death for the said offence.
22. So far as the Qatl-i-amd of Mst. Sardaran alias Saddan is concerned, the four accused/appellants namely Mansabdar Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz, Umar Daraz, and Sahib Khan s/o Muhammad Khan had clearly a common intention in that respect and thus all four of them are liable to be convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. For causing Qatl- i-Amd of Mst.
Sardaran alias Saddan and hence we convert their conviction from section 302(b)/149, P.P.C, to that under section 302/34, P.P.C. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment, we confirm the sentence of death awarded to them by the learned trial Court. We also direct that all the four accused/appellants named above will also pay Rs,40,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the two deceased persons under section 544-A, Cr.P.C and in case of default in payment of compensation the defaulting accused will undergo S.I of six months. Criminal Revision No,918 stands disposed of in the above terms.
23. Criminal Appeal of the accused appellants (No, 1771/2001) with the aforesaid modification is Dismissed to the extent of the accused appellants namely Mansabdar, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz, Umar Draz and Sahib Khan s/o Muhammad Khan and sentence of death awarded to them by the learned trial Court is Confirmed. We however accept the said Criminal Appeal to the extent of Noor Khan accused/appellant and by extending to him the benefit of doubt, acquit him in this case. If not required in any other criminal case, he shall be set at liberty forthwith.
24. Murder Reference (No,712/2001) to the extent of the accused/appellants namely Mansabdar, Hakim Khan alias Haq Nawaz, Umar Draz and Sahib Khan s/o Muhammad Khan is answered in the Affirmative.