' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--Mst. Razia Bibi and Sabir Hussain appellants (in Cr.A. No,1993/2002) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, in case F.I.R. No,81/2002, dated 18-4-2002, registered at Police Station, Jalalpur Jattan, in respect of offences under Sections 302/392/34, P.P.C.
Vide his judgment dated 30-10-2002, he found both the appellants guilty for the murder of Seeman Bibi and Mehdi Khan-deceased and hence convicted and sentenced Sabir Hussain-appellant to death under section 302(b), P.P.C. On two counts with a direction to pay Rs,100,000 each, as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of both the deceased, respectively, or in default of payment thereof, he was directed to undergo six months S.I, whereas Mst. Razia Bibi- appellant was convicted under section 308-A/34, P.P.C. And she was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment as tazeer. She was also directed to pay Rs,3,00,000 each as diyyat on two counts to the legal heirs of both the deceased, respectively. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. However, was given to her.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, Mst. Razia Bibi and Sabir-appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing a joint Cr. Appeal No,1993 of 2002, while the trial Court has sent a Reference (M.R. No,879 of 2002) for the confirmation of the death sentence, awarded to Sabir-appellant. Complainant has also filed Cr.R. No,165/2002 for the enhancement of sentence awarded to Mst. Razia Bibiappellant to that of death sentence. This consolidated judgment will dispose of all the said matters.
3. Pithily, the prosecution's story, as narrated by the complainant-Muhammad Aslam, P.W.2, through his statement (Exh.PC), which culminated into F.I.R. (Exh.P.U.) was/is to the effect that, on 18-4-2002 at about 5-30 a.m., he was informed by a niece of his wife, namely, Mst. Razia Bibi that her father and mother were murdered at about 1-00 a.m. Of the same date. When the complainant along with other relatives as well as two other people namely, Ghulam Rasul, P.W. And Muhammad Anwar (P.W.6), reached the place of occurrence, he was told by Mst. Razia-niece of his wife that at about 1-00 a.m. In the night, she, along with her father Mehdi Khan and mother Mst. Seeman Bibi, was asleep in the residential room of the home. The outer gate was locked from inside, however, they forgot to bolt the door of the room from inside, as told by Mst. Razia-appellant. According to the complainant, she further stated that four unknown young men of medium height entered the house after scaling over the outer wall and, all of a sudden, barged into the room. On hearing the muffled tone of their footfall, she (Mst. Razia) along with her father and mother woke up but on seeing the accused armed, did not rise from their cots. Out of them, one person fired two shots, one after the other, which hit Mehdi Khan (deceased) in his head, who died at the spot. Thereafter, the said intruders demanded keys of the box, which were provided by her (Razia appellant), after taking out from the pocket of Mehdi Khan, however, she did not know what had they taken along with them, as claimed by her. She further told the complainant that while the muggers were leaving, her mother said that she had recognized them, upon which one of them fired from his pistol at Mst. Seeman (deceased), which hit in her head, and, consequently, she also bled to death at the spot. When the accused made their escape good, she started wailing on which her aunt, Mst.
Seeman and cousin Muhammad Yaqoob were attracted to the spot, and since the electric bulbs were on, the accused were also seen by them, as was reported to the complainant by Mst. Razia, who further claimed that she as well as Mst. Seeman and Muhammad Yaqoob, P.W, could identify the murderers, if they appeared before them. She further told the complainant that she had intimated the police about the occurrence on telephone. After registration of case against the unknown accused, the complainant made the supplementary statement and nominated both the appellants as well as Zafarullah-appellant (in Cr. A. No,1996 of 2002) as perpetrators of the double murder.
4. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer found the appellants as well as Zafarullah, co-accused guilty and challaned them to face the trial. However, after declaring Zafarullah, co-accused as juvenile, he was tried separately.
5. During the trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, produced as many as 13-witnesses.
' Muhammad Aslam-complainant entered into the witness-box as P.W.2 and reiterated his version about the occurrence as given by him while making the complaint (Exh.PC) as well as his supplementary statement.
' Ms. Seeman Bibi appeared as P.W.3 and gave the ocular version about the occurrence.
' Ghulam Rasool turned up as P.W.5 and stated that three days prior to the occurrence, he visited the house of both the deceased, who were not present in their house. However, he saw Mst.
Raziaappellant sitting in the drawing room with Sabir-appellant. He overheard them planning about the murder of Mst. Seeman and Mehdi Khan, upon which he threatened Sabir-appellant, who ran away. P.W.5 advised Mst. Razia to mend her ways, as stated by him in the witness-box.
' Muhammad Anwar appeared as P.W.6 and made his statement in line with Ghulam Rasool(P.W .
5).
' Amanat Ali appeared as P.W.8 and stated that Sabir Hussain and Zafarullahaccused-confessed to the crime before him.
' Muhammad Amjad appeared as P.W.12 and deposed about the recovery of the weapon of offence and other incriminating articles on the pointing out of the Sabir/accused-appellant.
' Ghulam Jafar Inspector/S.H.O, who investigated the case, appeared as P.W.13 and gave the detail of the investigation conducted by him.
' Dr. Muhammad Safdar Awan, who had conducted autospy on the dead-body of Mehdi Khan (deceased), came forward as P.W.7 and furnished the detail of injuries, observed by him on the corpse of deceased, as under:--
(1) A fire-arm entry wound 2 x 2 c.m. x cranial cavity deep on the right side of the vertex of the skull with brain matter manages and blood coming out of it.
(2). A fire-arm entry wound 2.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. x cranial cavity deep on the vertex of the skull 3 c.m.
Left and posterior to the wound No,1 with brain matter, meninges and blood coming out of it.
' According to the opinion of the doctor, the above-mentioned injuries were ante-mortem, caused by a fire-arm weapon. He further stated that the said injuries gave rise to massive brain haemorrhage and damage leading to shock and death under the ordinary course of nature.
' Dr. Anjum Ara, who had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Mst. Seeman (deceased) came forward as P.W.9 and furnished the detail of injuries, observed by her on the corpse of deceased, as under:--
(1) A fire-arm wound of entry 1 x 1 c.m. On the left cheek 5 c.m. Away from the left ear (lobule).
Blackening was present around the margin. Wound of exit 3 x 2 c.m. On the left temporal region posterior part of the right parietal region. Wound was bone deep. Margins were everted. Skull bone was fractured. On removing the scalp, membrane bleeding was present on its surface. Brain was damaged. Bleeding was present inside the brain tissue.
(2) Wound of entry 1 x 1 c.m. On the lateral aspect of the upper left forearm. Wound of exit side 1.5 x 1 c.m. On the interior aspect of left upper arm. Skull bone was fractured. Membranes were perforated.
' In her opinion, death was caused by injury No,1 due to massive destruction of vital organs (brain) causing cardiac-pulmonary arrest in ordinary course of nature.
' Rest of the witnesses, being formal in nature, need not to be discussed.
5. After tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner, (Exh.PDD), report of the Serologist (Exh.PBB) and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, (Exh.PCC), the learned A.D.A. Closed prosecution's evidence.
6. The appellants made their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution's version and claimed that they were innocent and termed the prosecution's version as fake and fictitious. While responding to the question, why this case against him, Sabir Hussain-appellant stated as under:-- "I have been falsely involved in this case at the instance of Muhammad Afzal A.S-I, who was the subordinate Investigating Officer of the Investigating Officer/S.H.O, who had registered a false case under the Arms Ordinance against Zafarullah accused vide F.I.R. No,66 dated 2-4-2002 P-S City J.P.Jattan. I went to the S.H.O. And said Afzal A.S-I. Where some hot words were exchanged and later on the accused Zafarullah was released by the police on his personal bond without producing him in the competent Court. Hence for this very grudge I and Zafarullah accused have been booked in this case falsely, under the public pressure of the vicinity."
' Mst. Razia Bibi-appellant in reply to the similar question stated as under:--- "I am innocent. I being only the off spring of the deceased parents have been booked in this case by the complainant party as the complainant party wanted to usurp my property. Seeman Bibi wanted to marry me with her son Yaqoob P.W. To usurp my property and when she was not successful and when dacoity by unknown persons was committed in my house and in the said dacoity my parents were murdered and I have been booked in this case later on by the complainant party. Previously dacoity was committed in our house and Aslam complainant has also pursued the same."
' The appellants, however, denied to appear as their own witnesses under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
7. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence on the record; that the occurrence was feported to the police with the delay of doubt 5-1/2 hours; that the alleged eye-witnesses did not witness the said occurrence, as claimed by them; that the prosecution's. Evidence comprises interested witnesses, therefore, is not worth reliance; that the prosecution's evidence is replete with dishonest improvements, discrepancies and contradictions; that the prosecution levelled a baseless charge against the appellants and to prove the same relied upon fabricated pieces of evidence; that, in fact, it was a case of blind murder, which was committed at the dead of night; that as the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants miserably, therefore, they are entitled to clean acquittal of the baseless charge.
8. Conversely, the learned D.P.G, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, contending that the prosecution's evidence comprises natural and disinterested witnesses; that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt beyond any shadow of doubt; that the ocular testimony provided by Mst.
Seeman Bibi (P.W.3)-a disinterested witness-has got due support from the medical evidence, recovery of weapons of offence at the instance of the appellants, evidence regarding extra-judicial confession made by both the appellants before Amanat Ali (P.W.8) and last but not the least, positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the matching of crime empty with the crime weapon recovered from Sabirappellant.
9. We have given an ardent hearing to the respective learned counsel for both the parties and to know the repose of the case, have gone through the entire evidence and the other material available on the record with their able assistance. After doing so we have straightaway observed that the prosecution's case hinges upon the following pieces of evidence: (i) ocular testimony (ii) medical evidence (iii) recoveries of crime weapon as well as looted material at the instance of the appellants respectively (iv) positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (v) extrajudicial confession, allegedly made by the appellants (vi) evidence of conspiracy and (vii) motive.
10. First of all, we would like to discuss the evidence of conspiracy provided by Ghulam Rasool (P.W.5) and Muhammad Anwar (P.W.6). Both the said witnesses claimed that about three days prior , to the occurrence, they had visited the house of Mehdi Khan-deceased to see him.
According to them, neither Mehdi Khan (deceased) nor was his wife Mst. Seeman Bibi (other deceased) available in their house. The said witnesses further stated that Mst. Razia, daughter of Mehdi Khan-deceased was sitting along with Sabir Hussain-appellant, hatching a conspiracy to eliminate Mehdi Khan and Mst. Seeman Bibi, who according to them, were a stumbling block in the way of marriage between both the appellants. Ghulam Rasool-P.W.5 claimed that on his threat, Sabir-appellant fled, whereas Mst. Raziaappellant was admonished by him (P.W.5). To almost a similar effect, Muhammad Anwar P.W.6 made his statement. However, a careful perusal of their statements makes their testimony doubtful, for, though, both the said witnesses came to know about a serious plan of the appellants to lynch both the deceased, who were closely related to both the said witnesses, as admitted by them, yet none of them opted to bring this fact either to the notice of the concerned people or the police, as has been candidly admitted by them during their cross-examination. The said witnesses have tried to make the Court believe that said important information was swept by them under the carpet till the lodging of the F.I.R. Ghulam Rasool (P.W.5) further admitted that he had not brought this fact to the notice of any person. It is also an admitted fact, as has been admitted by P.W.2, that both the witnesses belong to a village, which is at a distance of 12 kilometers from the place of occurrence. The testimony of both the said witnesses of alleged conspiracy becomes further doubtful on account of the fact that, though, both of them after receipt of information of the double murder, accompanied Muhammad Aslam (P.W.2), who had lodged the First Information Report against unknown persons, yet they did not reveal the said conspiracy to the complainant. Both the said witnesses during their cross- examination candidly admitted that they had not informed Muhammad Aslamcomplainant (P.W.2) while on the way to the place of occurrence about the brooding of conspiracy between the accused! Appellants. Had the said conspiracy been in the knowledge of the said witnesses, they would have definitely informed Muhammad Aslam-complainant about the said conspiracy, who had set the legal machinery into motion right in presence of the said witnesses. Needless to point out here that F.I.R. Was registered against unknown killers. Therefore, we have found that the evidence provided by P.W.5 and P.W.6 is not worth reliance, rather, appears to be a pack of lies. So, we have got no option but to disbelieve and discard the said testimony.
11. Now coming towards the motivating factor behind the occurrence, we have straightaway noticed that while lodging the F.I.R., the complainant did not nominate the appellants as murderers, therefore, naturally, no motive for the commission of the offence of double murder was attributed to them. So much so, the complainant failed to involve the appellants even as suspects. However, during the course of investigation, a story of motive was tailored by claiming that both the deceased, i.e, the parents of Mst. Razia-appellant, were a stumbling block to the marriage of the appellants, who could not tie the matrimonial knot during their (parents of Razia) life. The said story was advanced by producing P.W.5 and P.W.6, who have already been disbelieved by us in the preceding paragraph. Barring the said two witnesses, none of the prosecution witnesses claimed that both the appellants being love birds, were interested to marry each other. Besides it, initially the prosecution gave an impression that both the deceased were bumped off during the commission of offence of a dacoity. The prosecution further claimed that during the investigation, certain articles looted during the dacoity were recovered from Sabir Hussain-appellant and Zafarullah/coaccused, who being a juvenile, was separately tried. The claim of retrieving the said looted articles in order to show and prove that it was a crime of dacoity, also does not marry up with the prosecution's version regarding the elimination of both the deceased by the appellants in order to marry each other. Therefore, we have reached an inescapable conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the apple of discord behind the occurrence.
12. Insofar as evidence of extra-judicial confession is concerned, the same has been provided by Amanat Ali (P.W.8), who claims that a day after the occurrence, at 10-00 a.m. Sabir Hussain- appellant and Zafarullah-appellant of Criminal Appeal No,1996/2002 visited his house one after the other and confessed to their crime besides offering to return the looted ornaments and cash. A close scrutiny of the statement of the said witness reveals that he is a paternal first-cousin of Mehdi Khan-deceased and Mst. Seeman Bibi (P.W.3). During his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not tried to apprehend the said accused after their confession. Admittedly, the F.I.R.
Was lodged against unknown men. Therefore, the statement of this witness appears to be economical with truth, for, there was no occasion for the accused for making such a confessional statement before P.W.8. Even, otherwise, evidence of extra-judicial confession is always treated as a weak piece of evidence. Besides, it is the claim of the defence that under the pressure of the public the accused were arrested on 19th of April, 2002, i.e, the date on which the appellants along with his co-accused allegedly made an extrajudicial confession before the said witness, i.e, Amanat Ali (P.W.8). The defence further claims that on the said date, a video movie showing the arrest of the accused along with looted property was prepared and televised/played on cable.
P.W.8 during his cross-examination, candidly admitted the preparation of the said movie. However, he denied the fact of telecasting/relaying the said movie on cable. The statement of P.W.8 is contradictory to the statement of P.W.2, who candidly admitted that all the accused including the appellants were arrested by the police on the very next day of occurrence and a video movie of all the three accused was prepared by the police in the police station. P.W.2, during his cross- examination, further stated as under:-- "It is correct that a pistol, golden ornaments and cash recovered from the accused were shown in the said video film in the presence of S.S.-P, Gujrat. It is correct that the recoveries of stolen article, the weapon of offence and the amount was also published in the newspaper by the police."
In the said state of affairs, the statement, of P.W. 8 regarding the extra-judicial confession having been made by Sabir Hussain-appellant on the D very next day of occurrence, is neither believable nor confidence inspiring, therefore, the same is also discarded from consideration.
13. Now coming to the ocular evidence as observed above, the criminal proceedings in this case were triggered by Muhammad Aslam (P W .2), who admittedly, is resident of village 12 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence and not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He claimed that on receipt of a telephonic information through Mst. Razia Bibi-appellant, he had reached the place of occurrence, and after having a meeting with Mst. Razia-appellant, had got the case registered with the allegation that four E unknown people had shot both the deceased dead after committing the offence of dacoity. At the time of lodging the F.I.R. On the basis of hearsay evidence, it was further claimed that the said dacoits were seen by Muhammad Yaqoob (given up P.W.) and Mst. Seeman Bibi (P.W.3). Exh.P.C. Reveals that the statement of the complainant was recorded at 6-30 a.m. The said document further indicates that the statement of the complainant was recorded at the spot.
Admittedly, but, amazingly enough, nobody from the village, in which the occurrence took place lodged the F.I.R. It further appears that on one hand, the police was intimated by someone regarding the blind murder and on the other, the complainant, who is resident of place 12 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence, was intimated by Raziaappellant, regarding the unfortunate occurrence. When the complaint is recorded by the police at the place of occurrence, normally it is presumed that the same was F recorded after initial investigation. Till 6-30 a.m, the perpetrators of the double murder were not known to anybody in the village. However, during the investigation, the statements of Mst. Seeman (P.W.3) and her son Yaqoob were recorded as eyewitnesses. Mst. Seeman (P.W.3), who is resident of the adjoining house, claims that on the day of occurrence, i.e, 18-4-2000 at 12-00 midnight, while sleeping in her own house, she heard the knocking of the door of Mehdi Khan-deceased, upon which she went to the rooftop of her house and witnessed the entry of Sabir Hussain-appellant along with Zafarullah-co-accused/ co-convict into the house of the deceased. According to her, their entry was facilitated by Mst. Razia- appellant. After entering into the room, both the said accused, shot the couple dead and fled after looting ornaments and cash, as stated by P.W.3. A close examination of the statement of the said witness makes us conclude that she is not a trustworthy witness. For holding so, we have multiple reasons; firstly, her son another alleged eye-witness of the occurrence was not produced by the prosecution in the witness box. The said fact gives rise to a presumption that the said witness was not inclined to give false evidence. Secondly, though, a double murder was committed right in the sight and presence of P.W.3, yet neither she nor her son did opt to lodge the case against the appellants. Admittedly, the complainant, which culminated into the F.I.R, was lodged at the place of occurrence in the morning at 6-30 a.m. But this witness did not unveil the crime before the police or anybody-else, and swept the matter under the carpet by keeping mum till the lodging of the F.I.R. Thirdly, her claim that the lights of the room where the crime was committed, were on, is belied by the Investigating Officer who admitted that in the application for post-mortem it was incorporated that the occurrence was committed in the dark night during the dacoity. Fourthly, according to the said eye-witness, the occurrence which was committed in a room, for reaching of which one has to pass through a verandah also, was seen by her from the rooftop of her own house. It has come in the evidence that her eye-sight is weak, as admitted by her on Page-38 of the Paper Book. A reading of the statement of P.W.3 along with a perusal of the site-plan, makes her claim a big dubious. Fifthly, during her cross-examination, as recorded on Page-38 of the Paper Book, she stated that Muhammad Aslam-complainant had informed the police and narrated the occurrence at the place of occurrence in her presence but interestingly enough, the F.I.R. Was lodged against unknown killers. Besides, during her examination-in-chief, she stated that the police had reached the hosue of deceased at 6-15 a.m. Then they (including herself) had gone to the place of occurrence. The said statement contradicts P.W.2, who tried to show that before lodging the F.I.R, he could not come across Mst. Seeman (P.W.3), that is why, he failed to nominate the appellants in the F.I.R. Sixthly, according to P.W.3, just after recording the F.I.R, she made a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Giving the detail of the occurrence but this fact goes against the weight of evidence on the record, which shows that on the day of lodging the F.I.R, the police could not trace the actual culprits. That is why, the Investigating Officer submitted an application (Exh.D.C.) to the Telephone Department for placing an observation on telephone No,594389, owned by Mehdi Khan (deceased), who, along with his wife according to the contents of the said information, had been murdered by some unknown persons. On the same day, the said Investigating Officer submitted another application (Exh.D.D.) for seeking the complete record the calls made and received on the said telephone number. One can falsely presume that the said applications were submitted by the Investigating Officer after recording the complaint and initial investigation but having been failed to trace the actual culprits, he sought the said information in order to resolve the mystery of the blind murder and trace the culprits. Had P.W.3 disclosed about the identity of the culprits, as claimed by her, the Investigating Officer would not have submitted such applications.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to hold that the statement of P.W.3 is not worth reliance and confidence inspiring rather one would take the same with a pinch of salt. It appears that the story of her witnessing the occurrence was tailored after the arrest of the accused, probably, on account of some suspicion. Besides, her statement has not been corroborated by any other source or witness. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that even Yaqoob-very son of Mst.
Seeman (P.W.3) did not come forward to support her statement.
15. Apart from the ocular evidence, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the recovery of pistol, i.e, the weapon of offence, from Sabir Hussain-appellant, apart from alleged recovery of looted articles. Though, the pistol allegedly recovered from Sabir Hussain-appellant wed with one of the crime empties as is evident from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, yet the said recovery is useless for the prosecution, because the same is not confidence inspiring and appears to be a padding on the part of the Investigating Officer, who was tried his level best to improve the prosecution's case, step by step. The recovery memo. Regarding the crime empties reveals that some overwriting and cutting was made by the Investigating Officer while preparing the same. The figure showing three crime empties was entered after tampering with the original figure. Besides, the said crime empties were received by Abid Hussain (P.W.11), who delivered the same to Muhammad Malik, FC for their onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory but the said Muhammad Malik while appearing in the witness box as P.W.1 failed to prove the delivery of the said empties in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, inasmuch as, he did not utter even a single sentence in this regard. Besides, the said empties were delivered to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 3-5-2002, whereas the pistol had already been recovered from the appellant Sabir Hussain on 27-4-2002. There is another aspect of the matter, which belies the recoveries and makes the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory useless, i.e, it has come on the record that on the second day of occurrence, both the accused were arrested by the police. After their arrest, a video movie was prepared showing their arrest along with the recovered looted articles, the said recording was televised and displayed on cable. P. W.2 candidly admitted that accused had been arrested on the next day of occurrence, whereafter, according to him, a video movie of all the three accused was prepared in the police station. He further admitted that recovery of stolen articles, the weapon of offence and amount was also published in the newspapers by the police. The fact of preparing the video movie was admitted by Amanat Ali (P.W.8), as well. Abid Hussain (P.W.11) also admitted the said fact by stating as under:--- "I know that a video tape was recorded in the police station in presence of S.S.P. The accused were shown in the said video film."
' However, the Investigating Officer showed ignorance about the preparation of the Video Tape.
Nevertheless, the said movie was exhibited in defence. The said fact was proved by the defence by producing Malik Fiaz (D. W. 1) and Mudassar Bashir (D.W.2). During their cross-examination, the prosecution failed to suggest that their evidence was false. The said facts clearly indicate that the accused were arrested on the very next day of occurrence, and their arrest along with weapons of offence and looted articles was recorded and televised on cable as has been admitted by prosecution's own witnesses, but ironically enough, the police showed the arrest of the appellants on 26th of April, 2002 and the recoveries were shown to have been effect on the next date of their arrest. In these circumstances, one can easily infer that the investigation was conducted in an unfair and dishonest manner. Therefore, a possibility of sending the crime empties after producing the fires from the weapons, allegedly recovered from the appellant, to the Forensic Science Laboratory, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the positive report of the Forensic Science I Laboratory is useless for the prosecution's case.
16. Insofar as medical evidence is concerned, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it cannot lend any support to the prosecution's case, especially, when the prosecution had failed to prove its allegations against the appellants through trustworthy ocular account. Medical evidence cannot pinpoint the murderers.
17. For what has been stated above, we have concluded that the ocular evidence is not trustworthy and worth reliance. The other pieces of evidence are also tainted pieces of evidence. On tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another piece of evidence. In short, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt rather the doubts are floating on the surface.
18. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and both the appellants are acquitted of the charge. Mst.
Razia- appellants, is already on bail. Her bail bonds are cancelled. Sabir-appellant, be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case. Death sentence awarded to Sabir Hussain- appellant is not confirmed. Murder reference is answered in negative. As a natural corollary, the revision petition filed by Muhammad Aslam-complainant against Mst. Razia Bibi/respondent cannot be allowed. Resultantly, the same is dismissed.