' M.A. ZAFAR. J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No 884 of 2008 tiled by Munir Ahmad and Faizan Ahmad who were convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge Anti- Terrorism Court No IV, Lahore vide, judgment dated 7.7.2008, as under:- MUNIR AHMED:
(i) Death and to pay Rs, 100,000/- as fine in default. R.I. For a period of two years under section. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 34, PPC,
(ii) Death and to pay Rs, 300,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased in default imprisonment for a period of six months for committing the Qatl-e-Amd of Ameer Bukhsh, under section 302(b), PPC read with section 34, PPC'by way of Tazir',
(iii) TEN YEARS' R.I. And to pay fine Rs, 25,000/- in default R.I. For a period of ONE year under sections 324/34, PPC for attempt to commit Qatl-e- Amd of Haji Khair Bakhsh,
(iv) ONE YEAR'S R.I. And to pay 'Daman' of Rs, 15,000/- under section 337-F(i), `PPC and was ordered to be kept in jail till `Daman' is paid, (v.) TEN YEARS' R.I. And to pay fine Rs, 25,000/- in default R.I. For a period of ONE YEAR undersections 324/34, PPC for attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Faisal Iqbal.
(vi) ONE YEAR'S R.I. And to pay Daman Rs, 15,000/- under section 337-F(1), PPC and in default ordered to be kept in jail till payment of 'Daman'.
(vii) THREE YEARS' R.I. And to pay Daman Rs, 15,000/- under section 337-F(3), PPC and in default ordered to be kept in jail' till payment of `Daman' .
(viii)TEN YEARS' R.I. And to pay fine Rs, 25,000/-and in default ONE YEAR'S R.I. u/s. 324/34, PPC for attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Arif Constable.
(ix) TEN YEARS' R.I. And to pay 1/3rd of `Diyat under section 337-D, PPC in, default to be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple.Imprisonment till the amount Of `Diyat is fully paid.
"FAIZAN AHMAD:
(i) IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay Rs, 100,000/- as fine in default R.I. For a period of two years under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 34, PPC.
(ii) IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and to pay Rs, 300,000/- as compensation under section 544A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased in default imprisonment for a period of six months for committing the Qatl-e-Arnd of Ameer Bukhsh under section 302(b), PPC read with section 34, PPC by way of `Tazir'.
(iii) TEN YEARS R.I. And to pay fine Rs, 25,000/- in default R.I. For a period of ONE YEAR under section 324/34, PPC for attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Haji Khair Bakhsh
(iv) ONE YEAR'S R.I. And to pay Daman of Rs, 15,000/- under section 337-F(i), PPC and was ordered to be kept in jail till Daman is paid.
(v) TEN YEARS' R.I. And to pay fine Rs, '25,000/- in default R.I for a period of ONE YEAR under section 324/34, PPC for attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd of Faisal Iqbal.
(vi) ONE YEAR'S R.I. And to pay 'Daman' Rs, 5,000/- under section 337-F(1), PPC and in default he was ordered to be kept in jail till payment of 'Daman' .
(vii) THREE YEARS' R.I. And to pay Daman Rs, 15,000/- under section 337-F(iii), PPC and in default he was ordered to be kept in jail till payment of 'Daman'.
(viii)TEN YEARS' R.I.' and to pay Daman Rs, 25,000/-and in default ONE YEAR'S R.I. Under section 324/34, PPC for attempt to commit Qatal-e-Amd of Muhammad Arif Constable
(ix) TEN YEARS' R.I. And to pay 1/3rd of Diyat under section 337-D, PPC in default to be kept in jail and dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment till the amount of `Diyat' is fully paid.
' All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the benefit of Sec. 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. 'Capital Sentence Reference No, 24-T of 2008 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence of Munir Ahmad, cofivict/appellant, shall also be replied through this single judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case as disclosed in complaint, Ex. PO are that Haji Khair Bakhsh complainant alongwith his-partners, i.e, Muhammad Zubair and Aamir Barkat Ali had been doing business in Badami Bagh Market and had supplied iron Jo Munir Ahmed Who 'owed an amount Of Rs,45,00,000/- to him in this regard and had not paid the same for last one and a half year despite making of repeated demands, 'therefore, Aamir Barkat Ali (his partner) moved an application before President of Traders Union of the Market where Munir Ahmed inspite of,his summoning did not turn up and the Traders' Union give a unanimous verdict that no businessman of the Market would supply material to Munir Ahmad due to which he had developed a grudge.
' According to complainant, on 21.11 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Munir Ahmed (the accused) made a call and asked him to come and receive the amount in pursuance of which he (Haji Khair Bakhsh), Aamir Barkat Ali, Patrus Masih alias Pati Khan and Faisal lqbal in vehicle No, WAF-223 being driven by Ameer Bakhsh whereas Muhammad Zubair and Lal Khan in another vehicle reached in front of the godown of Munir Ahmed at about 6.00 p.m. But meanwhile Muhammad Zubair and Lal Khan parted from there-to get repaired punctured tyre of their vehicle. As soon as he and his other said companions stopped their vehicle outside the godown and alighted from it, the police reached there and asked from them about the purpose of their arrival which was accordingly disclosed to them whereupon, the Police directed them to come to the Police station for settlement of the matter in pursuance of which they (Haji Khair Bakhsh etc.) sat in their vehicle but when the driver was still in the process of taking turn suddenly , Munir Ahmed, Mehran Ahmed, Faizan Ahmed and two unknown persons armed with fire-arms started targeted firing to kill them from windows and roof of the godown as a result of which Ameer Bakhsh died at the spot whereas, he Khair Bakhshj, Faisal. Iqbal (his employee) and a police official stood injured. Allegedly, the firing made by the said persons was so intense that it created a sense of fear and harassment in the area.
4. The FIR was recorded in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2007 passed by Mr. Muhammad Bakhsh Masood Hashmi learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio. Justice of Peace, Lahore.
5. Muhammad Qasim, PW-18, took over the investigation of case FIR No, 1024/07 recorded on the statement of Haji Khair Bakhsh. Earlier to this case another FIR No, '994/07' had already been registered on the statement of Munir Ahmad accused, with regard to same incident. He from the spot collected 91 empties of different fire-arms and took the same into possession vide memo.
Ex.PS. Eight Crime empties of 44-bore' rifle were also taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PT. From the spot, blood-stained earth was taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PR. The Inquest Report of the deceased is Ex.PE. Munir Ahmad and Faizan accused were arrested on 12.12.2007. Munir Ahmad, on 25.12.2007, got recovered his licensed 44-bore rifle, P2, which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PG. However after completion of investigation Munn- Ahmad and Faizan Ahmad accused were sent to face trial.
6. At the trial the prosecution in order to prove its case produced 21 witnesses in all The learned Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence reports, of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PZ and Ex.PAA, the report of Chemical Exarniner, Ex.PBB and report of Serologist Ex.FCC qua earth and closed the prosecution evidence.
7. The accused in their statements u/s 342, Cr.P.C. Pleaded false implication and gave their own version.
' However, after conclusion of the trial the accused were convicted and sentenced as detailed above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence inasmuch as the number of injuries does not coincide with the number of fire shots attributed to the appellants. Further submits' that there are material contradictions in the statement of alleged injured eye-witnesses and in this regard learned counsel has drawn our attention to pages Nos. 43, 56, 57, 60 & 68 of the paper book. It is maintained. That in fact the complainant party was the, aggressor and due to their own firing Ameer Bakhsh lost his life while the others were injured. According to learned counsel the motive also laid with the complainant party and not to the present appellants. It is argued that the recoveries are planted upon the appellants.
9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, who has filed Criminal Appeal No, 885/08, submits that the ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the wedding report of the fire-arm expert. Further submits that the discrepancies pointed out by learned. Counsel for the appellants in the statements of eye-witnesses are trivial in nature and cannot he made basis to convert the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court into acquittal. According to learned counsel it was the appellants who murdered Ameer Bakhsh, driver of the complainant, and injured the complainant his employee and as also a police Official According to learned counsel the presence of the injured eye-witnesses at the spot cannot he doubted without a pinch of salt.
' Concluding his submissions learned counsel submits that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellants.
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at great length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
11. In the instant case the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. On 21.11.2007 at a distance of half kilometer from police station Badami Bagh while the matter was reported to the police at 6.45 p.m.
On 3.12.2007 through written complaint of HajiKhair Bakhsh, Ex.PO, and the formal FIR, Ex.P0/1, was recorded by Ghularn Nabi, SI.. It is to be noted that the FIR was recorded on .The directions of learned Ex Officio Justice of Peace contained in the order dated 28.11.2007.
12. The deceased in this case is Ameer Bakhsh son of Musafir Khan while the injured are Haji Khan- Bakhsh, Faisal Iqbal and Muhammad Arif.
13. The time', date and the place of occurrence is admitted. In fact it is a case of two versions, one put forward by the complainant Khair Bakhsh and the other set up by Munir Ahmad convict/appellant, It is settled law that in-a case of two versions both the versions are to be put in juxtaposition and then to decide as to which version is correct. Applying this principle of law we would first discuss the case set up by complainant Khair Bakhsh.
14. The ocular account in this case was furnished by Haji Khair Bakhsh (PW-16), Faisal Iqbal (PW-17), Muhammad Arif FC (PW-12) and Naveed Ahmad FC (PW-13). Dr. Nadeem Alimad, PW-5, at 6.30 p.m.
On 22.11.2007 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Ameer Bakhsh deceased and found the following injuries on his person: "(1A) A fire-arm wound of entry lx1 cm on root of neck on its back, 5 cm from midline towards right.
(1B) A fire-arm exit wound lx1 cm in size just above the lip in midline, with averted margins."
' In cross-examination doctor admitted that the bullet which caused injury travelled on a straight.
15. According to complaint, Ex.PO, all the accused numbering five (three named & two unknown) all of a sudden from the windows and rooftop of the godown made firing. Had the deceased, as alleged by the prosecution, received the shot from the window or the rooftop of the godown, the injury could not have made its exit from the lip of the deceased as is reflected from the pictorial diagram, Ex.PF/1 at page No, 117 of the paper book.
In order to bring the ocular account in line with medical evidence following dishonest improvement was made by Muhammad Arif FC (PW-12): "I stated before the I.O. That the burst was fired from the gate of the godown (confronted with Ex.DA where the factum of opening of gate of godown and making it burst from it is not recorded)."
16. According to case of the complainant himself as alleged in complaint, Ex. PO, when he alongwith his accomplices reached outside the godown of Munir Ahmad, a police vehicle also came there and when the complainant in his vehicle and police party in other vehicle were turning towards the police station, all of a sudden accused started firing as a result whereof Ameer Bakhsh driver of the complainant lost his life while the complainant, his servant Faisal. Iqbal and a police constable were injured.
17. Haji Khair Bakhsh, complainant, while appearing as PW-16, made dishonest improvements and at page 45 of the Paper Book, in his examination-in-chief, stated as under: ' "At about 6/6.15 p.m. We reached the godown where two boys, sons of Munir Ahmad accused, One of them is present before the Court as accused, were sitting outside the compound of the godown on chairs."
18. Similarly in cross-examination the witness deposed "I told the police while lodging Ex.PO that sons of Munir entered the godown on arrival of the Police"; the confrontation was made where it was not so recorded. The witness also in cross-examination deposed "I have stated today before the Court that Munir, his sons and two unknown persons made firing from inside the godown and from the roof. I stated this fact before the police while lodging Ex.PO"; the witness was confronted with Ex. PO where it firing from ground was not so recorded. The said improvement was made to bring the ocular account in line with the medical evidence qua the injury of deceased. According to complaint, Ex.PO, allegedly Munir Ahmad convict/appellant made a telephonic call to Haji Khair Bakhsh to receive the amount upon which he alongwith others had just stopped the vehicle and alighted from it when the police vehicle came, asked the purpose of visit of complainant who in turn replied that he was summoned by Munir Ahmad, (convict) to get the money but allegedly the Police party asked the complainant to accompany him to the police sbtion and the matter will be settled there. According to complainant the driver was turning the vehicle and the other members of the complainant party had not seated in the car when Munir Ahmad, Faizan .Ahmad and two unknown persons made straight firing from the windows and roof top of the godown and they saved their lives.
19. The other eye-witness, Faisal Iqbal appeared as PW-17 before the learned Trial Court. He is an employee of the complainant, who after undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life came out of jail a month prior to the 'happening of the present occurrence and had got employment from the complainant 15 days earlier. He, in his examination-, in-chief introduced a different stance and deposed that when the complainant directed Ameer' Bakhsh to turn the vehicle towards police station Munir Ahmad opened the door and started firing and one fire hit Ameer Bakhsh who was driving the said vehicle while Mehran 'and Faizan rushed into the godown and thereafter indiscriminate firing was made from the windows of the upper portion and roof of the godown. The witness in his statement u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. Stated that he received injuries at the hands of Munir Ahmad etc. The accused who were firing from the windows and rooftop of the godown Now we may advert to Ex.PB, Site plan, at page 141 of the Paper Book. Faisal Iqbal, PW, was allegedly standing on Joint C. While the three accused namely Munir, Mehran and Faizan tired shots from points H, I & J. The distance from points H & I to point 'C' is 23 and 29 feet respectively.
20. Faisal lqbal, PW, was medically examined by Doctor Javed Munir, PW-15, and the doctor observed the following injuries: "(1) A .Punctured wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm on medial side of the left wrist, depth not probed.
(2) Tattooing area 3x5 cm on back of right wrist."
' In cross-examination the doctor (PW-15) deposed as under: ' "Injury No, 2 in Ex.PW is caused from a distance of less than one foot."
21. It is thus crystal clear that Faisal PW did not receive the fire shot as alleged by him and he received the injuries A the hands of a person standing very close to him.
22. The other eye-witness who appeared before the learned Trial court was Muhammad Aril FC. He in his statement recorded uis 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex.DA) at page 133 of .The paper hook stated that when he was seated in the official vehicle all of a sudden from the windows and rooftop of godown of Munir Ahmad fires were issued. We may revert to Ex. PR at page 129 of the paper book Which is a.
Recovery memo. Of blood-stained earth. According to recovery memo. Inspector Muhammad Qasim took the blood-stained earth into possession from the place where Muhammad Arif constable was injured. We may observe that according to own statement of the injured he at the relevant time was sitting on the driving seat of the vehicle so how the blood-stained earth could have taken into possession by the Investigate 23. This witness in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. (Ex.DA at page No, 133 of the paper book) stated that two shots landed on the backside of his right shoulder as also left flank towards right side. The injured was medically examined by Doctor Javed Munir, PW-15, on 21:1L2007 and the doctor found the following injuries on his person: "(1A) A lacerated wound 1.5x1 cm circular inverted margins, severely bleeding on back of chest near mid line, 7.5 cm below nape of neck, DNP (entry wound).
(I B) A punctured wound lx1 cm circular everted margins, in right axilla, DNP"
' Here we may reproduce two lines from the cross-examination of the doctor who medically examined Muhammad Arif, FC.
' It is correct that Muhammad Arif 6797/C was brought in the hospital by Karamat Ali, SI PS Badami Bagh Lahore. Only one injury which has entry & exit was present at the person. Of Muhammad Arif constable."
24. It is thus proved that the injured witness did not tell the truth inasmuch as he in his statement u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. Stated that he has received two injuries while according to doctor .The injured was having only one injury on his person.
25. This witness also made dishonest improvement to make his case in line with the medical evidence. In his statement n/s. 161, Cr.P.C. He showed himself to be seated on the driving seat while when he appeared before the Trial Court as PW-12 he deposed as under: ' "As soon as I alighted from the vehicle and was yet in the process of standing up a fire hit me at my back. In response to the fire, stood straight and the second fire hit me at right side of my chest, which made its exit from upper portion of my right arm. I was dispatched to hospital for medical treatment."
26. The cross-examination of this witness also makes an interesting reading: ' "First fire which was fired from the roof of residence hit at back side of my shoulder and the second fire seated at right side of my chest and made its exit through upper part of my arm."
27. From the above resume, we are of the opinion that neither Faisal Iqbal nor Muhammad Arif PWs have stated the true facts rather have made dishonest improvements to prove the case as set up by Haji Khair Bakhsh complainant. All the three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are not witnesses of truth, they had suppressed their own roles in the. Occurrence. The story put by the prosecution is not supported from the evidence on record.
28. Now we may discuss the merits of the version set up by Munir Ahmed appellant in his statement u/s. 342, Cr.P.C: ' "I have been dealing in business of scrap for last 25/26 years and had installed a Mill at Sheikhupura Due to loss, the Mill stood closed, I had been owing Rs, 10 million of the businessmen of Market of Badami Bagh and was to pay Rs, 38,00,000/- to Haji Khair Bakhsh the accused, which I could not pay. On 21.11.2007 at about 6:30 p.m. I was sitting at backside of my godown. Suddenly a noise was heard from my godown. Zubair son of Abdul Qayyum armed with pistol, Haji Khair.
Bakhsh armed with rifle, Aamir Gujar armed with rifle, Patti Khan armed with pistol, Faisal Iqbal alias Gogi armed with pistol, Ameer Bakhsh armed with pistol, Lal Khan armed with rifle and 6/7 unknown persons all armed with fire-arms came there on four vehicles. They entered my godown, caught hold of my sons Mehran and Fezan and subjected them to beating. They took my sons in Captivity made them to bow and slap them with shoes. I have been seeing the occurrence with my eyes.
After some time , I received telephonic calls of Muhammad Zubair from cell phone at my cell No, 0301-8449924. He asked me about my where-about. I told him that I was out of city but actually I was present at backside of my godown. I made determination that I would not let my sons abducted at any. Cost. I took my licensed 44-bore rifle and came in garage of my house whereupon one of the persons who were standing at the road targettedly fired at me. In response to which I also made 4/5 fires in the air. Thereafter all the accused started intense firing: I had also made call at 15 and vehicle of police had reached there. Police has boarded my sons in the official vehicle. As a result of the intense firing made by the accused Muhammad Arif, a police constable/driver, Faisal Iqbal alias Gogo, Haji Khair Bakhsh and Ameer Bakhsh stood injured. My son Mehran Ahmed who was sitting in the police vehicle also sustained the injuries. Muhammad Zubair etc. The accused boarded their injured companions in the vehicles and took them along whereafter I came to know that Ameer Baldish had expired. The accused mentioned above are habitual trespassers and hardened criminals. They have formed a QABZA Group, which works under the command of Muhammad Zubair alias "Zubairi son of- Quma Qasai Zubair the accused of case FIR No 994/07 is partner of Haji Khair Bakhsh. He alongwith the other accused of the said case came at our godown while armed With lethal weapons with the objects to abduct my brother and me and kill my father. The accused of case FIR No, 994/07 are influential persons. They bribed the police and got distorted the facts of the occurrence. The instant case was got lodged, after 12 days of happening of the occurrence while twisting the facts happening at the site on the basis of consultation and deliberation. I am innocent. My sons and I have been involved in this case falsely and with mala fide."
29. The recovery memo. Ex.PS, at page No, 130 of the Paper Book shows that 91 crime empties were recovered from the place where party of complainant Zubair etc. Made firing. The party of complainant Zubair was Haji Khair Bakhsh and his employee Faisal Iqbal and driver Ameer Baksh deceased; it means that 91 shots were- fired from the side of complainant and not from the side of convict/appellant. It was never the case of the complainant that they ever tired in self-defence.
The case of the prosecution was that Munir Ahmad etc., convict appellant, fired at them and as a result thereof Ameer Bakhsh lost his life while Faisal lqbal and Muhammad Arif were injured. These facts also lend support to the defence version of the appellants.
30. Here we may reproduce few lines from the crosexamination of PW.18 Muhammad Qasim, Inspector occurring at pages 56 to 58 of the paper book:-- ' "It is correct that I noticed three bullet marks at net of the window. There are shades on the windows, there were two marks of bullets on the outer gate."
' "No empty was recovered from the roof."
' "It is correct that I got' signed the recovery memo. About securing 91 empties from Kabeer Ahmad and Naveed Ahrnad, constables. Kabeer Ahmad had collected the empties i.e, 91 bullets i.e, Ex.P23/1- 24 of 9 mm, Ex.P24/1-44 of Kalashihkov, Ex.P25/108 of 222 rifle, ,Ex.P26/1-7 of 30 bore pistol and Ex.P27/1-7 of 233 bore rifle from the place around the DALLA."
' "In my challani Zimni, I wrote that both the parties were responsible for the occurrence."
' "It is correct that I and the DSP drew our conclusion that it was not possible for us to give verdict that with whose fire who had been injured. "
31. Ex.PU makes an interesting reading and lends support to the defence version of the appellants: {{URDU TEXT}}
32. Naveed Ahmad FC, PAW-13, is the prosecution witness. He while appearing before the learned Trial Court in his examination-in-chief deposed as under: ' "States that on 21.11.2007 I was posted in PS Badami Bagh Lahore. On the same day, L Muhammad Kabeer constable and Muhammad Arif driver were performing our duty with Karamat Ali, SI and were present near the PS. Karamat Ali, SI received a telephonic information that some persons had arrived at godown of Munir Ahmad. Whereupon, we reached there and saw the 4/5 persons standing. They had caught hold of two boys whose names later on revealed as Faizan and Mehran.
Karamat Ali, SI intervened and asked them to come to the PS. When we were turning the vehicle the firing started from the godown and the roof: It was evening time and intense firing was made as result of which Muhammad Arif driver sustained injuries and was transported to the hospital."
' This witness has fully supported the case set up by Munir Ahmad appellant in his statement u/s. 342, Cr .P.C. The witness was never declared hostile.
' So much so, defence version gets support from his cross-examination when he was duly confronted with his previous statement made before police which is, as under:-- ' "I did not state before the 10. While getting my statement recorded dated 21.11 .2007 that Faizan Ahmed and Mehran Ahmed sons of Muneer Ahmedwere got released from captivity of Muhammad Zubair, Aamir Gujjar, Haji Khair. Bakhsh, Faisal lqbal alias Gogi, Patti Khan Thekedar, Lal Khan and Ameer Muhammad who were armed with firearms (confronted with Ex.DB where so has been recorded). I did not state before the 1.0. That 'in the meanwhile Zubair etc. Also made firing and two fires hit Muhammad Arif at his right shoulder and he was seriously injured and Haji Khair Bakhsh, Faisal Iqbal and Ameer Muhammad alias Ameer Bakhsh, Zubair etc. Boarded the injured persons in the vehicles and took them along' (confronted with Ex.DB where to has been recorded."
' It is pertinent to mention here that Haji Khair Bakhsh and Faisal Iqbal had gone to the hospital themselves for their medical examination no police official was accompanying them, whereas injured Arif was brought in hospital by Naveed Ahmed FC PW.15 which lends support to the defence version that Muhammad Zubair etc. Boarded their injured companions in the vehicles and took alongwith them. There is also difference of eye-witnesses in the application- presented before DIG and in petition filed before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore for registration of case (page No, 57 of the paper book).
33. For what has been discussed above we'are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt rather the version put by the defence that the complainant had attacked upon them seems to be confidence inspiring and rings true having been supported from the evidence on record, with the result that the benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the appellants, the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment is set aside, they are acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
' Capital Sentence Reference No, 24-T of 2008, is answered in the NEGATIVE.