' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 1785 of 2002 filed by Liaqat Ali, Ismail, Amir and Muhammad Nawaz, Criminal Appeal No,343-J of 2002 filed by Kameer, Shameer alias Shami and Liaqat Ali through Jail, Criminal Appeal No,344-J of 2002 filed by Mohabat and Abbas through Jail and Murder Reference No,900 of 2002 submitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death awarded to Liaqat Ali, Shameer alias Shami and Kameer, appellants, as all the matters arise out of the same judgment, dated 28-9- 2002.
2. The appellants have challenged the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, in case bearing F.I.R. 360 of 1997, dated 19-7-1997, registered with Police Station Satiana, for offence under sections 302, 109, 148 and 149, P.P.C., whereby be convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-- {{ DATA MISS ARRANGED }} #TBS Shameer: Under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE Sentenced to death as Ta'zir with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of Naseer alias Nasra deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. #TBS Under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE Imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,25,000 to the legal heirs of Amir Ali deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. #TBS Under section 148/149, P.P.C.
Kameer: Under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE Imprisonment for one year. Sentenced to death as Ta'zir with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Amir Ali deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. #TBS Under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE Imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,25,000 to the legal heirs of Amir Ali deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. #TBS Liaqat Ali: Under section 148/149, P.P.C.
Under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE Imprisonment for one year. Sentenced to death as Ta'zir with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of Naseer alias Nasra deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. #TBS Under section 302(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE Imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,25,000 to the legal heirs of Naseer alias Nasra deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. #TBS Under section 302/(b)/149, P.P.C. #TBE #TBS Under section 302(b)/149 #TBE #TBS Mohabat, Yousaf, Ismail, Amir, Abbas and Muhammad Nawaz: #TBE #TBS Under section 148/149, P.P.C. #TBE Imprisonment for one year. Imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,25,000 to the legal heirs of Naseer alias Nasra deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. Imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a sum of Rs,25,000 compensation to the legal heirs of Amir Ali deceased and in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months.
Under section Imprisonment for one year to each 148/149, of them.
P.P.C. {{ DATA MIIS ARRANGED }} All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. . Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to all the accused.
3. The F.I.R. (Exh.PC/1) was recorded on the complaint (Exh.PC) of Mst. Noor Bakhi, complainant, (P.W.3),. On 19-7-1997, at 6-15 p.m. Regarding occurrence which took, place at 4-30 p.m. The same day. The police conducted the investigation of the case but feeling dis-satisfied with the police investigation, Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) filed a private complaint. The prosecution story as narrated in the complaint, in brief, is that Bukhshs son of Ramzan was murdered by Amanullah etc. 1-1/2 months prior to the occurrence and in those days Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4), husband of the complainant, and his real brothers Amir Ali and Naser alias Nasra (both deceased) were confined in Jail in connection with some other murder case. The legal heirs of Bukhshs, deceased, suspected that Bashir Ahmad, Amir Ali and Naseer alias Nasra abetted the commission of murder of Bukhsh.
Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4), Amir Ali and Naseer alias Nasra were granted bail in that case 4/5 days prior to the occurrence. On 19-7-1997, at about 4-30 p.m., when Mst. Noor Bakhi complainant (P.W.3), Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) and Lal, P.W., were sitting at their dhari under a Sheesham tree whereas Naseer alias Nasra and Amir Ali were feeding the cattle, Yousaf, Shameer alias Shami, Kameer, Abbas, Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Nawaz, Liaqat, Ghulam Qadir, Gulzar, Shameer son of Allah Yar, Suleman, Amir son of Shahra, Mohabat, Ismail, Amir son of Noor and Sarang armed with firearm weapons emerged from the dhari of Bukhshs deceased and they encircled the dhari of the complainant party. Liaqat Ali and Ghulam Qadir raised lalkara whereupon Naseer alias Nasra and Amir Ali (deceased) ran to save their lives. Naseer alias Nasra entered the khola but Yousaf chased him and fired a shot with .12 bore gun which hit Naseer below his umbilicus. Ismail fired two shots with his kalashnikov which hit Naseer on his left thigh who fell down after sustaining the injuries.
Aamir son of Noor fired a shot with his rifle which hit Naseer on his left thigh while the shot fired by Sarang with .7MM rifle grazed his back. Kameer appellant fired a shot with .12 bore gun which hit Amir Ali below his neck while the shot fired by Abbas with .12 bore gun hit him on his left nipple.
Muhammad Nawaz fired three shots with his .303 rifle which landed on the back and left flank of Amir Ali who fell down. Liaqat Ali fired a shot with .7MM rifle which hit Amir Ali on his right jaw. People gathered there on the report of shots. The accused fled away after the occurrence. The deceased Naseer alias Nasra and Amir Ali succumbed to the injuries. It was further stated in the F.I.R. That on 17-4-1997 Allah Dad, Amir son Allah Ditta, Nazar Muhammad, Ali Muhammad, Allah Yar and Mst.
Jada hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4), Naseer alias Nasra and Amir Ali, deceased, in the presence of Aamir son of Sultan and Aish, P.Ws., while sitting in the house of Anwar Bibi.
4. The learned trial Court farmed charge against the appellants who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as 5 witnesses including Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence and 13 Court witnesses appeared as C.W.1 to C.W.13 whereas Shaukat Ali appeared as D.W.1. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In defence, all the appellants pleaded not guilty.
5. The appellants did not opt to appear as their own witnesses in disproof of the allegations levelled against them in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, Shaukat Ali, Warder, Central Jail, Faisalabad appeared as D.W.1 and except Shameer alias Shami appellant, who produced documentary evidence i,e, certified copies of F.I.R. No, 114/85 as Exh.DC., F.I.R. No,108/94 as Exh. DD, F.I.R. No,907/95 as Exh.DE, F.I.R. No,444/95 as Exh..DF, F.I.R. No,24/97 as Exh.DG, F.I.R. No,196/97 as Exh.DH and report under section 173, Cr.P.C., dated 2-8-1999 connected with F.I.R. No,407/95 as Exh.DI in his defence, no other accused produced any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated earlier which has been assailed through these criminal appeals.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that 12 accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court and the 13th died during the pendency of the trial, thus, on the same set of evidence the appellants could not have been convicted; that Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) in the complaint as well as before the learned trial Court had furnished an account of the injuries suffered by the deceased with such detail that it was not humanly possible particularly as 16 persons were firing from different places with different weapons at the deceased; that there were material contradictions in the ocular account and the medical evidence; that there were two groups of accused, one consisting of Yousaf son of Sarang whereas the other group comprising of Nawaz etc. And being rival to each other both the groups could not have got together to commit the murder of the deceased; that Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) the brother of the deceased and husband of the complainant was also present at the place of occurrence, however, he was not injured although the appellants and their co-accused had grudge against the said P.W. As well; that from the statement of Mst. Noor Bakhi complainant and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) it was 'evident that both the witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence; that the recovery of weapons from Abbas, Liaqat Ali and Mohabat appellants were of no consequence as according to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the empties and the guns were received together on the same day i,e, 13-11-1997; that the private complaint was filed by Mst. Noor Bakhi after 2-1/2 years after the occurrence.; that the Court witnesses who had conducted the investigation did not support the prosecution case in its entirety; that both the eye- witnesses being related to the deceased were interested and inimical to the appellants; that the statement made by the complainant at the trial was not confidence inspiring as she had implicated a number of innocent persons including her three real brothers; that major portion of the statement made by this witness was disbelieved by the learned trial Court; that Lal, the father of the deceased, refused to support the prosecution case and was, therefore, not produced at the trial; that contrary to what had been stated by the eye- witnesses at the trial as to the place of occurrence there was neither any dhari nor any khola as according to Younis (C.W.11) the place of occurrence was a deserted place and was not used by humans for dwelling and there were no signs that the place was used for keeping cattle and that in view of the infirmities in the prosecution case the appellants were entitled to be acquitted.
7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that all the appellants were named in the promptly lodged F.I.R. Which excluded their false implication in the case; that there was nothing on the record to suggest that the deceased had enmity with some other persons; that the appellants were duly identified by the witnesses as the occurrence took place in broad daylight; that the complainant party knew all the appellants, therefore, the possibility of their false implication did not exist; that the recovery of empties from the spot as well as the weapons recovered from the appellants fully supported the ocular account; that the discrepancies pointed out by the defence were not fatal to the prosecution case as they were minor in nature which had crept in on account of efflux of time between the time of occurrence and the time of recording of their evidence by the learned trial Court; that the doctor as well as the Investigating Officer had spoiled the prosecution case with mala fide intention in order to favour the appellants and others; that the motive behind the occurrence was fully proved by the witnesses at the trial and that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, no interference was called for in the conviction and sentences of the appellants.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
9. The F.I.R. In this case was lodged on the written complaint of Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) wife of Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) in which she nominated 22 accused, including six who had conspired to commit the murder of the deceased. The investigation of the case was conducted by Younis Ali Sub-Inspector (C.W.11) who arrested Abbas, Liaqat, Mohabat, Suleman, Shameer alias Shami and four other persons namely Ghulam Qadir, Amir Ali and Amir son of Shahra on 22-8-1997. On the said date Ismail appellant also appeared before the Investigating Officer who did not arrest him, as he had been declared innocent in his investigation. According to this witness he summoned the complainant time and again to joint the investigation and each time she left the Police Station stating that all the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. Should be challaned and refused to associate herself with the investigation proceedings in the presence of the accused. Similar stand was taken by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) in the course of investigation. In the investigation conducted by this witness Aamir and Suleman were not found present at the spot at the time of occurrence. He declared Shameer alias Shami, Shameer son of Allah Yar, Khameer and Suleman sons of Shahra, Amir. Son of Noor, Sarang son of Opera and Ghulam Qadir innocent. All the accused of abetment were also declared innocent by this witness in the course of investigation as the incident to the extent of abetment could not be substantiated by the complainant. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was conducted by D.S.P. As well as Additional S.P. Who endorsed the investigation conducted by Muhammad Younis (C.W.11) and the accused declared innocent by the Investigating Officer continued to remain so in the subsequent investigations. This witness categorically stated that during investigation it had come to his notice that Lal Khan P.W, the father of the deceased and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) was residing at village Maddu Tehsil Nankana along with his other family members. Since the complainant was dissatisfied with the outcome of the investigation conducted by Younis Ali Sub-Inspector and endorsed by the D.S.P. And the Additional S.P. She proceeded to file a private complaint in which she named all the accused including those who had been declared innocent by the police as the assailants. This exercise was undertaken by the complainant after about 2-1/2 years of the occurrence and no plausible explanation was extended by her to justify the delay. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court with the exception of the appellants who are 9 in number acquitted 12 co-accused whereas A Shameer son of Allah Yar died during the pendency of the trial. In this situation when majority of the accused had been acquitted by the learned trial Court it would not be safe to rely on the evidence furnished by Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) without corroborated from some other unimpeachable source which in our view is not forthcoming. Further, it has been observed by us that Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) had made material contradictions and improvements in her statement made before the learned trial Court. In her cross-examination she admitted that Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4), Amir and Naseer alias Nasra as well as Lal, the given up P.W., were residing in Chak No,432/GB during the days the occurrence took place and Lal Khan P.W. Had shifted to the residence of his other son in Tehsil Nankana on account of his illness. To a suggestion put by the defence she replied that it was incorrect that after the occurrence Lal Khan P.W. Came to the village and reprimanded them for implicating so many accused in the case and that on account thereof he had refused to support the prosecution case. To all the questions put to this witness regarding involvement of Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) in criminal cases including a number of murder cases, this witness has given an evading answer. She went to state in her examination-in-chief that the accused after encircling the dhari raised lalkara by shouting that family of Lal Khan be finished and although Lal Khan P.W.
And Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) were present at the place of occurrence yet they escaped unscathed even through 22 persons were firing at them. Admittedly these two witnesses neither took shelter behind any wall nor concealed themselves in any manner from the accused. The very fact that Lal Khan a material witness had not been produced by the prosecution goes to show that this witness was probably not willing to support the prosecution case. Further, it had come out in the evidence of the witnesses that the accused, including the appellants, belonged to two separate groups who had enmity With each other. There hardly existed any occasion for the said two sets of accused to joint hands in order to commit the murder of the deceased. The story narrated by the eye- witnesses as to the place of occurrence being their dhari where cattle were kept has not been supported by Muhammad Younis (C.W.11) who stated before the learned trial Court in his cross- examination that the place of occurrence was a deserted place which was neither used for human dwelling nor for keeping cattle. He further stated that there was no mention of khola in the inquest report prepared at the place of occurrence. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that Lal Khan (given up P.W.) along with his family members was residing at Maddu Tehsil Nankana. It has also been noted by us that Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3.) who was admittedly an illiterate person and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) furnished detail of each and every injury suffered by both the deceased at the hands of 16 assailants who were armed with different firearm weapons and firing at the deceased simultaneously so much so that a grazing injury caused by Sarang accused with a 7mm rifle to Amir deceased on his back was also noticed by Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3). This obviously makes the account furnished by these witnesses highly un-natural.
10. Now adverting to the evidence adduced by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) at the trial, it has been observed that although his statement is in line with that of Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) to the extent of occurrence which had resulted in murder of the deceased, however, he has failed to give any plausible explanation as to why he was spared by the appellants and their co-accused who had allegedly come to commit the murder of the entire family of Lal P.W. Including this witness. It is not the case of the prosecution that Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) had escaped unscathed in the occurrence as he had taken shelter behind some object and was, therefore, obscure and hidden from the view of the appellants. This leads to a well founded presumption that Bashir (P.W.4) was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time as otherwise he would not have been spared by the assailants. Further, none of the eye-witnesses despite being aware of hatching of the conspiracy several days before the occurrence did not report the matter to anyone. The conspiracy part of the prosecution case was disbelieved by the police in successive investigations and even at the trial, the accused of conspiracy were acquitted. Thus, a significant part of the prosecution story was disbelieved by the learned trial Court. It is also worth nothing that the deceased were not Masoom Uddam but in fact were involved in a number of criminal cases including that of murder.
11. Now adverting to the medical evidence the same was furnished by Capt. Doctor Muhammad Akram (P.W.2) who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Naseer alias Nasra and Amir Ali on 20th of July, 1997. From a perusal of the statement made by this witness, it has become evident that there are material contradictions between the eye-witness account furnished by Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) and the medical evidence. The doctor conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body .Of Naseer alias Nasra and found the following injuries:--
(1) A firearm lacerated wound entrance 1 c.m. x 1 with inverted margin on the left side of chest upper part there was blackening around the wound. There was a corresponding whole on the Qameez.
(2) A firearm lacerated wound of exit 11 c.m. x 6 c.m. On the left side of chest 2 c.m. Lateral to the injury No, 1.
(3) 1 firearm lacerated wound of entrance 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. With inverted margin on the left side of lower abdomen. There was blackening around the wound corresponding holes were present on the Qameez. This injury has penetrated to the skin, Muscles, blood vessels damaged the ascending colon ceacum, and made its exit wound of 2 c.m. x 2 c.m .On the left side of right thigh upper part.
This is injury No,4.
(4) One firearm lacerated wound of entrance 2 c.m. 1 c.m. With inverted margin on the left side of lower abdomen 2 c.m. Below injury No,3. There was blackening around the wound corresponding holes were present on the shirt. This injury had penetrated to spin muscles, blood vessels and ruptured the urinary bladder abdominal cavity is full of blood and made its exit wound of 3 c.m. x 1 and half c.m. On the left thigh of upper part. This is injury No,6.
(7) One firearm lacerated wound of entrance 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. With inverted margins on the left side of abdomen lateral part. There was blackening around the wound. Corresponding holes were present on the Qameez. This injury has penetrated through the skin muscles, blood vessels ruptured the urinary bladder, abdominal cavity is of full of blood. Ruptured ascending colon ceacum rectum and made its exit wound of 3-1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the lateral side of right thigh upper part. This is injury No,8.
(9) One firearm lacerated wound of entrance 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. With inverted margins on the upper part of left thigh front corresponding holes were present on the Chadar. This injury has penetrated through the skin, muscles, blood vessles and fractured upper part of left femur bone and made its exit wound of 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the left lateral side of left thigh middle part. This is the injury No,10.
(11)One firearm lacerated wound of entrance 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. With inverted margins on the lateral side of right thigh middle part corresponding holes were present on the Chadar.
(12)One firearm lacerated wound of exit 2 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. With averted margin on the lateral side of right thigh lower part 7 c.m. Below injury No,11.
(13)An abrasion 6 c.m. 1-1/2 c.m. On the left side of back of chest lower part.
' The following injures were found on the dead body of Amir Ali deceased:--
(i) 1 firearm lacerated wound of entrance 1 c.m. x 1 c.m .With inverted margins on the right jaw, there was blackening around the wound. On dissection of this injury it has penetrated through skin muscles, blood vessels fractured the right jaw and made its direction downward and obliquely damaged the thyroid cartilage penetrated through the treachea oesophagus, blood vessel of the neck and made its exit wound of 4 c.m .x 4 c.m. On the left side of chest upper part 15 c.m. Above the left nipple.
(ii) 1 firearm lacerated wound of entrance 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left side of chest upper part 5 c.m.
Above the left nipple. There was no blackening around the wound. Corresponding holes is present on the shirt, bullet has wade its exist through the same wound.
(iii) 1 firearm lacerated wound of entrance 3 c.m. 1 c.m. With inverted margin on the left side back of chest, upper part. There was no blackening around the wound. Corresponding holes were present on the shirt. On dissection of this injury it has penetrated through the skin muscles and made its track upward and made a wound of exit 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m .On the left side of chest of upper part 6 c.m. Above injury No,3.
(iv) 1 firearm lacerated wound of entrance 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. With inverted margin on the back of chest middle part. Corresponding holes were present on the shirt. On dissection it has penetrated through the skin muscles, blood vessels entered into chest cavity/obliquely ruptured the left flung and chest cavity is full of blood and made its track downward damaged the spleen and small intestine and made a wound of exist of 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On the left lateral side of abdomen.
12. The first thing worth noting is that there is blackening present on a number of injuries suffered by Naseer alias Nasra deceased implying that the shots were fired from a close range. According to Mst. Noor Bakhi complainant (P.W.3), the accused had fired at the deceased from a distance of 4/5 karams from which distance blackening around the wounds would not be present. Further, the Medical Officer opined that injuries Nos. 3, 5 and 7 on the body of Naseer alias Nasra could be caused by one shot of .12 bore gun. This again is in conflict with the account furnished by the eye- witnesses who had assigned these injuries to different accused. As per the statement made by Capt. Dr. Muhammad Akram (P.W.2) at the trial both the deceased had received some injuries while they were in lying position whereas two separate injuries attributed to Ismail appellant by the eye-witnesses i,e, injuries Nos. 9 and 10 were in fact entry and exit wound of one injury. In the F.I.R. As well as the private complaint an injury was ascribed by the complainant to Amir appellant on the left thigh of Naseer alias Nasra deceased, however, at the trial the locale of injury was shifted by this witness to the right thigh of the deceased. This was done by the witness deliberately to bring her testimony in line with the medical evidence. Similarly injury attributed by the witnesses to Sarang (acquitted co-accused) with a .7mm rifle on the back of Naseer deceased was found to have been caused by a blunt weapon by Dr. Muhammad Akram (P.W.2.). From the foregoing it can be safely concluded that there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence.
13. Insofar as motive behind the murders of the deceased is concerned, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the same before the police in the course of investigation as well as at the trial through any cogent evidence. Mst. Noor Bakhi (P.W.3) and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.A) without providing any detail about the motive only mentioned that Bukhsha was murdered by one Amanullah and others and the decedents of Bukhsha suspected that Naseer alias Nasra, Amir Ali deceased and Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) were involved in the said murder.' Neither the F.I.R. Of the murder case of Bukhsha nor any other document was produced by the prosecution at the trial in support of the motive. Thus, it remained unsubstantiated at the trial.
14. On his first visit to the spot Younis Ali Sub-Inspector (C.W.11) took into possession eight crime empties of Kalashnikov P-1/1-8, two crime empties of .12 bore gun P-2/1-2 and one crime empty of 222 bore P-5 from near the dead body of Naseer deceased and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.PG. Another ten crime empties of kalashnikov P-3/1-8 and two crime empties of .12 bore P-4/1-2 were taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.PH. The said recovery was attested by Bashir Ahmad (P.W.4) and Lal Khan (not produced). On 27-8-1997, Abbas appellant led the police party to his dhari from where he got recovered a .12 bore gun C-1 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.C.W.-A attested by Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Nawaz Constables. On the same day Liaqat Ali appellant made a disclosure and led the police party to his house and got recovery .7 MM rifle C-2 which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.C.W-B. The appellant Mohabat also on the same day led to the recovery of .12 bore double barrel gun C-3 from his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.C.W.-C. It has been observed by us that the empties recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer remained in the Mall Khana till after the recovery of weapons of offence from the aforesaid appellants and were dispatched along with the weapons to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore which were received on 13-11-1997. Although some crime empties did match with the weapons recovered from the said appellants, however, the fact remains that the possibility of empties being manipulated cannot be ruled out, thus, rendering the recovery evidence unreliable.
' From the above discussion it is manifest that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, while extending the benefit of doubt we acquit the appellants of all the charges. They shall be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeals are Accepted and the sentences of death awarded to Shameer, Kameer and Liaqat Ali appellants are Not Confirmed. The murder reference is answered in the Negative.