'IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Shaukat Ali and Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellants have preferred Cr1. Appeal No, 9 of 2005 and Crl. Appeal No,52 of 2005, respectively against the judgment dated 18-12-2004 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby on conclusion of trial in case F.I.R. No,573/2001 dated 27-9-2001 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Sanda, Lahore they were convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. For committing qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Irshad deceased and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Both the them were also directed to pay Rs,1,00,000 each to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to further undergo six months R.I. Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to both the appellants.
Muhammad Afzal Zaigham complainant has preferred Criminal Revision No,57 of 2005 seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to both the appellants. I propose to decide all these matters jointly through the present consolidated judgment.
'However, it is pertinent to point out here that Amjad Ali co-accused of the appellants being a juvenile was tried separately and through a separate judgment dated 21-9-2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, was acquitted of the charge while extending benefit of doubt to him.
2. Concisely the facts of the prosecution case setup in the F.I.R. (Exh.PD) got lodged by Muhammad Afzal Zaigham complainant (P.W.5) are that he was working as Deputy Superintendent, Section IV, S&GAD, Civil Secretariat, Lahore whereas his younger brother namely Muhammad Irshad deceased was working as Senior Clerk, in Administration, II, Civil Secretariat, Lahore. However, both of them were residing at separate residences along with their families. Gulzar Ahmad neighbour of his deceased brother informed the complainant on telephone on 27-9-2001 at about 4-30 a.m. That the condition of his deceased brother was precarious whereupon the complainant reached the house of his deceased brother and saw the dead body of his brother Irshad lying naked on the floor. The complainant's Bhawaj/sister-in-law, namely, Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant told that the deceased had been murdered during the night by some unknown persons.
3. The investigation of this case was conducted by Muhammad Sharif, S.-I./I.O. (P.W.13) and during the investigation, the dead body of the deceased was inspected, injury statement and inquest reports were prepared, statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Were recorded, the place of occurrence was inspected, bloodstained chaddars were taken into possession, rough site- plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the mortuary for autopsy, the last-worn clothes of the deceased were received, a formal site-plan of the place of occurrence was got prepared, both the appellants were arrested on 18-9-2001 and on 21-10-2001 one Danda P.1 and Chhuri blood stained were taken into possession vide recovery memos Exh.PB and Exh.PC, respectively. Then after completion of the investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted in the Court.
4. At the commencement of the trial, the learned trial Court after supplying copies of the documents required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. To the appellants framed the charge under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Against them on 14-4-2003, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case.
P.W.1 Muhammad Akram and P.W.2 Muhammad Anwar identified the dead body of Muhammad Irshad deceased while P.W.3 Ahmed Din H.C. Handed over two sealed parcels to Abdul Ghaffar, Constable for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner. Abdul Ghaffar Constable (P.W.4) took the dead body of Irshad deceased to the mortuary for autopsy. Muhammad Afzal Zaigham complainant (P.W.5) and Shaukat Ali (P.W.10) were the witnesses of extra-judicial confession made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant. Muhammad Boota (P.W.11) was the witness of Vajtakkar while Hamid-ud-Din Chishti, Draftsman (P.W.9) on the pointing out of the witnesses and on the instructions of the police had prepared scaled site plan. The medical evidence was provided by Dr. Khaliq Hussain, (P.W.8), who on 27-9-2001 had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Irshad (deceased) Muhammad Sharif, S.-I./I.O. (P.W.13) stated about the various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. The remaining evidence produced by the prosecution was more or less foral in nature.
6. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants had denied and controverted the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. However, to a question that "why this case against you and why the P.Ws have deposed against you?", Shaukat Ali appellant replied in the following terms: "The complainant is a greedy and dishonest person, his wife Mst. Shaista alias Anwari Begum abetted the murder of the deceased through culprits Yousaf Sialvi etc. Mentioned ' above, who are close relatives of wife of complainant in order to save skin of said culprits, the complainant firstly lodged F.I.R. Against unknown persons, and as a result of long deliberations and afterthoughts being in connivance with Investigating Officer and other police officials, the petitioner and his co- accused have been falsely involved in this case, to show fake karvai by short cut method, with the malicious motive to extort the property of my father, and also for the reason that complainant has deprived numerous people of money on the pretext of getting them employed as Government officers, and also on the pretext of postings and transfers of government employees. The complainant had deprived some of my friends and some village fellows of lacs of money and when my friends demanded said money back, he handed over a brief case containing fake appointment letters and transfer orders and also fake stamps whereas his brother deceased Irshad took said brief case from my village, with the promise to bring the complainant Afzal to my village so as to return the defrauded money to the concerned victims but complainant's wife on knowing that my father and Irshad were pressing the complainant hard to face the victims by coming to village, got Irshad murdered alleging that Irshad used to commit sodomy with boys and got me and my younger brother falsely involved in this case. Mst. Shamim is also a greedy woman, both complainant and she having stake over the property and service benefits of deceased Irshad, his house and custody of children. The complainant has been subjecting Mst. Shamim Akhtar to coercion having snatched children, got her falsely incarcerate, forcibly dispossessed her from house of the deceased, misappropriated all the house hold items of the deceased, forcibly abducted her during trial compelling and alluring her to depose against me and co-accused Amjad Ali, falsely according to his dictation. The P.Ws have impeachable character whose statements cannot be relied upon."
'Whereas Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant while recording her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Made confession to the allegations levelled against her by the prosecution. However, neither the appellants nor the acquitted accused had opted to make statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Or produced any evidence in their defence.
7. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties found the prosecution's case against the appellants to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced them as detailed above. However, Falak Sher co- accused was acquitted through the separate judgment. Hence, all these matters before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that acquittal of Amjad Ali co-accused by the learned trial Court has created a serious dent in the prosecution's case towards the involvement of the appellants as well and thus the same evidence could not be relied upon by the learned trial Court against the appellants in the absence of any independent corroboration; that the injuries attributed to Amjad Ali acquitted accused with chhuri as per extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida on the basis of which she was challened is in contradiction with the medical evidence as there was no sharp edged weapon injury on the body of the deceased; that manipulation has been made by the complainant while in league with the Investigating Officer that blood stained chhuri was recovered from Amjad Ali acquitted accused in spite of the fact that there was no injury attributed to him; that as per extra judicial confession Mst.
Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant claimed to have administered sleeping pills to Muhammad Irshad deceased in the evening which were brought by Amjad Ali acquitted accused, but according to the report of the Medical Officer this fact was also not proved; that Dr. Khaliq Hussain (P. W.8) during the cross-examination explained that the deceased was not given any intoxication before his murder; that P.W.5 Muhammad Afzal Zaigham complainant had wrongly shown himself to be Deputy Secretary and criminal cases were registered against him, who was demoted in two ranks after an inquiry as per allegation that he had received the amount in order to get employment orders for certain persons and he was not a reliable person; that Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant had been falsely involved as guardian cases were pending regarding custody of the children which were filed by mother of Mst, Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant and the complainant got registered the case against Amjad Ali acquitted accused brother of Shaukat Ali appellant under section 506, P.P.C. When he was on bail during the trial; that Exh.D-19 is the document which shows that a case under sections 420/468/ 471, P.P.C. Was registered on the application of Amjad All acquitted accused; that document Exh.D-9 is petition filed by Muhammad Sharif under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. Against the complainant for the abduction of her sister Mst.
Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant; that likewise Exh.D-16 is copy of writ petition filed by Muhammad Sharif for taking action under the contempt of Court for disobeying the orders of the learned ASJ; that document Exh.D-7 is an application preferred on behalf of Mst. Shamim Akhtar for the withdrawal of warrants of arrest wherein she claimed that the complainant and others had abducted her and she had been illegally confined and due to this reason she could not appear in the Court and through Exh.D-8, said application of Mst. Shamim Akhtar was accepted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29-9-2004 and non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against her were withdrawn; that Mst. Shamim Akthar alias Sajida appellant had given three versions; that the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar was in contradiction with the medical evidence; that she also filed a private complaint against the witnesses of the present case stating therein that Shaukat Ali P.W. And Yousaf Sialvi had committed the murder of the deceased; that she was brought from jail and she appeared as P.W.1 and also produced Muhammad Ramzan as P.W.4 in support of her allegations; that the alleged confessions made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar in her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. By changing counsel was due to the fear of the complainant certain offers made by him otherwise she had contested the trial and cross- examined the witnesses at length; that civil suit was filed by the complainant for the recovery of different amounts against the brothers of Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant namely Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Rafique, which have been placed on the record as Exh.D.-12, Exh.D-13 and Exh.D-14 is the copy of the plaint of suit for recovery of Rs,24,000 filed by Muhammad Afzal Zaigham against Mst. Jameela Bibi mother of Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant; that both the parties were arrested by the police at the time of holding inquiry into the allegations for the abduction of Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida by the complainant; that brothers of Mst.
Shamim Akhtar were only released when they accepted terms of the compromise between them and the complainant and due to this reason Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida had made admissions while recording her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. That the complainant was a habitual litigant, who had filed number of civil and criminal proceedings against different persons; that other witnesses were chance witnesses, they were not residents of the same locality; that according to P.W.3 Ahmad Din, Constable, he had received parcels of Danda and Chhuri etc. On 2- 10-2001 at about 9/10 a.m. Allegedly recovered from Shaukat Ali appellant and Amjad Ali acquitted accused and handed over the said parcels to Abdul Ghaffar Constable for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner; that on the other hand, they were arrested on 17-10-2001 after about 15 days of the sending Danda and chhuri to the office of Chemical Examiner by Ahmad Din, Constable P.W.3; that Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida had also filed petition bail after arrest in which she had taken the same stand that the deceased had been murdered by Shaukat Ali P.W.
Etc. Which is mark-C, said application was disposed of by this Court on 24-11-2003; that she also filed W.P. No,7399/2002 before this Court in which she had taken the same stand, said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 3-5-2002; that the admissions made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar under section 342, Cr.P.C. Cannot be used against Shaukat Ali being statement of the co-accused; that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, the weakness of the defence cannot be made a ground for conviction of the appellants; that according to the extrajudicial confession Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant had cut the right ear of the deceased but it was never cut as per medico legal report, and that the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, both the appellants are liable to be acquitted.
9. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General on behalf of the State have maintained in unison that the place of occurrence was house of Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant; that Shaukat Ali appellant and Amjad Ali acquitted accused accused were also living there being real cousins of Mst. Shamim Akhtar; that on the information supplied by Mst. Shamim Akhtar F.I.R. Had, been got recorded against the unknown persons; that on 10-10-2001, co-appellant Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida got recorded extra judicial confession before Muhammad Afzal Zaigham complainant, Shaukat Ali P.W.10 and Muhammad Yousaf Sialvi who was given up while narrating the manner of the occurrence in which she along with the others had murdered her deceased husband; that Danda has been recovered from the possession of Shaukat Ali appellant; that case of Shaukat Ali appellant is entirely distinguishable from the case of Amjad Ali acquitted accused as Danda was recovered from the possession of Shaukat Ali appellant and blunt edged weapon injuries were found on the body of Muhammad Irshad deceased; that there was no previous enmity or ill will to falsely implicate Mst.
Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant or Shaukat Ali appellant.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
11. The occurrence in the present case had taken place at about 4-00 a.m. At night on 27-9-2001 in the house of Irshad deceased and Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant was his widow.
Initially the F.I.R. Was got recorded by Muhammad Afzal Zaigham (P.W.5) real brother of the complainant against the unknown assailants, but subsequently both the appellants were implicated along with Amjad acquitted accused. In the present case there was no eyewitness of the occurrence and the prosecution case rested upon the circumstantial evidence consisting of--
(i) extra-judicial confession;
(ii) medical evidence;
(iii) wajtakkar;
(iv) recoveries; and
(v) admissions made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant in the statement recorded under section 342, Cr . P . C .
12. First of all the evidence of extrajudicial confession is discussed. The prosecution produced Muhammad Afzal (P. W.5) and Shaukat Ali (P. W.10) to prove the same. The extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant before the said P.Ws was to the effect that she was having illicit relations with her co-convict Shaukat Ali, who was living with her in the house of her deceased husband along with acquitted accused Amjad Ali; that the accused lady committed the murder of her deceased husband to marry her co-accused Shaukat Ali that Shaukat Ali and Amjad Ali are cousins (Mamunzad) of Mst. Shamim Akhtar and were staying with her in the house of the deceased Muhammad Irshad; that the conspiracy of murder had been hatched one week prior to this occurrence; that on 26-9-2001 Amjad Ali had brought the tablets for intoxication and Mst. Shamim Akhtar mixed those tablets in milk, which was administered to the deceased Irshad and he slept at the upper storey of the house; that Mst.
Shamim Akhtar gave Danda to Shaukat Ali and Chhuri to Amjad Ali as per plan and she herself caught hold of her deceased husband from his legs whereas Shaukat Ali appellant inflicted Danda blows to the deceased at his head and Amjad gave Chhuri blows, which hit on the various parts of the body of the deceased; that Mst. Shamim Akhtar herself cut the right ear of her deceased husband with scissors to ascertain his death; that the dead body of the deceased and the blood marks were washed from the floor; that the blood stained Gadda Foam and the clothes used to clean the dead body of the deceased were washed, and that then the dead body was brought on the ground floor and kept on the floor in the drawing room in naked condition. It is settled law that the extrajudicial confession is a very weak type of A evidence and no conviction on it can be based without its corroboration by some independent piece of evidence. Reliance is placed on 2005 SCM R 277.
13. In the present case the witnesses failed to bring on record any specific circumstances, which had persuaded Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant to make the confession of the crime after about two weeks of the occurrence, when even there was no suspicion against her or the co-appellant.
Moreover, it is observed that the alleged account of the occurrence made in the said extra-judicial confession is found in contradiction with the medical evidence as during the post mortem examination it was not observed that the deceased had been administered sleeping pills/intoxicant, material and there were also no injuries with sharp edged weapon alleged to have been caused by Amjad acquitted accused. The role attributed to Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant that she had cut the ear of the deceased is also found in contradiction with the medical evidence.
Moreover, the dead body of the deceased had been found in naked condition in the Baithak and there were no signs noticed that the dead body had been brought from the upper storey. Gulzar Ahmad neighbourer, who had allegedly informed the complainant about the precarious condition of the deceased was never got examined during the trial to ascertain that how he had come to know about such condition of the deceased, whose dead body was lying in the Baithak in naked condition and he had already been murdered at the upper storey as per prosecution version. From such a stand of B the complainant, it can be inferred that such Gulzar Ahmad had seen the deceased in precarious condition in the Baithak and it has negated the prosecution stand that the deceased had already been murdered on the upper storey and then was brought to the Baithak.
The circumstances of the case did not support the extra-judicial confession, which cannot be made basis for maintaining the conviction and sentence unless the same is supported by some independent piece of evidence. Which is lacking in the present case. Even otherwise it is settled law that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate the other such type created evidence.
14. So far as medical evidence is concerned, it may confirm ocular evidence with regard to seat of injuries and kind of weapon used in the occurrence, but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of the crime unless there is other evidence giving the picture of the occurrence. As discussed above, the medical evidence having been found in contradiction with the manner of the occurrence narrated in the extra-judicial confession is of no value.
15. The other evidence which has been collected in the shape of recovery of blood stained danda vide recovery memo Exh.PB in the presence of the witnesses from the residential room of the deceased on 21-10-2001 is also not worthy of reliance that the recovery was effected after 24 days from the same room from where the other articles had been recovered at the instance of Mst.
Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida Bibi on 2-10-2001 and those were not taken into possession. Similarly, recovery of chhuri from Amjad acquitted accused from the veranda of the room of upper storey is also not plausible as the complainant and other witnesses and the children of the deceased had been visiting the house, the place of recovery. The police also got recovered pieces of gadda foam and scissors at the instance of Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida, then why chhuri and danda could not be noticed which were handed over by Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida allegedly to Shaukat Ali appellant and Amjad Ali acquitted accused and were used during the incident. It remained for a long period in the same house, but had not been taken into possession. Even otherwise, no independent witness was joined in the investigation and the recovery was effected in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. And as such the recovery is not worthy of reliance.
16. The other piece of evidence was of Vajtakker adduced by Muhammad Boota (P.W.11), who claimed that on 27-9-2001 at about 4.00 a.m. He along with Muratab had seen Shaukat Ali appellant and Amjad Ali acquitted accused running towards Band Road through main road while this witness was present at Chandani Chowk, Sanda, Lahore. The said story is not believable as the witnesses were not residents of the same vicinity, who at the most were chance witnesses and failed to explain the reason for being present there during the early hours at 4-00 a.m. In night. He was on the road and the story is not believable as the witness was close relative of the complainant, but he did not inform the complainant or the police immediately, which has created serious doubt about the veracity of the said version as he had shaky character and also supported the malicious litigation of the complainant party against Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida appellant and her relatives. It has been held in 2003 SCM R 477 that without any ocular evidence, no importance can be attached to evidence of Vajtakkar, G which is even otherwise weak and infirm.
17. Now the pivotal question in the present case is that while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant has made admission to the certain portions of the evidence/allegations put to her towards their guilt. It has been held by the august Supreme Court in 2000 SCM R 338 that reply to the charge and statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. By the accused would not amount to confession. She had not made any detailed answers and only admitted as correct the allegations without giving any explanation for not doing the same earlier and what were the reasons, which had induced her to make such positive answers when earlier she had denied the charge and also contested the trial by lengthy cross-examination on the P.Ws about her innocence. It has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in S.A.K. Rehmani v. The State (2005 SCM R 364) that the whole object of the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused, so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: " Section 342, Cr.P.C. Can be bifurcated into two parts. Subsection (1) of section 342, Cr.P.C. Confers discretion to the Court while its second part is mandatory and besides that the section revolves around the maxim audi alteram partem, i.e, that no one should be condemned unheard. The purpose of this section is that the Court should give an opportunity to the accused to give such explanation as he may consider necessary in regard to the salient points made against him. It is, however, not intended merely for his benefit. It is a part of a system for enabling the Court to discover the truth, and it constantly happens that the accused's explanation, or his failure to explain, is the most incriminating circumstance against him. The result of the examination may certainly benefit the accused if a satisfactory explanation is offered by him; it may, however, be injurious to him if no, explanation or a false or unsatisfactory explanation is given.
'The provisions as contained in section 342, Cr.P.C. Were enacted to safeguard the interest of the accused for the simple reason that prime object of the section is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence; the intention of the provision is the furtherance of the ends of justice and to enable the Court to decide the question of the guilt of the accused.
'The whole object of enacting this section is that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the evidence on I which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused, so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give."
18. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution evidence has already been disbelieved by this Court in the above paras. And its admission by one of the appellants without giving any explanation J for doing so at a belated stage cannot be taken into consideration for the benefit of the prosecution, which on its turn had failed to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
19. It is settled law that burden to prove all the charges lay on the prosecution and it could never shift to the accused, who is entitled to stand on innocence assigned to him under the law till it is dislodged. Moreover, if any dent is caused in the, prosecution evidence, then its benefit must K go to the accused and on failure to discharge its onus, the prosecution cannot derive any benefit from the defence plea, but it has to stand on its own legs. Reliance is placed on PLD 1996 SC 1, PLD 2005 SC 1906, 2004 PCr.LJ 2052 and 2006 YLR 3070.
20. In the criminal cases great responsibility rests upon the Courts to determine if the confession is voluntary and true or is lacking within the scope of either L term "voluntary" and "true". If the confession directly or indirectly is the result of inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority, it would be treated as not voluntary. Voluntary and true are two, different terms related with confession and' each of those has its own significance. A confession, which is voluntary, is admissible in evidence though it may be incorrect in its contents. As against above, a confession, which is not voluntary, is not admissible though it may be true and whether a confession is voluntary or true is a question of fact, which has to be determined keeping in view the attending circumstances of each case. Voluntariness of confession and of being true are totally distinct.
Voluntariness relates to its admissibility while its truth is looked into for the purpose of assessing its value. Therefore, for proving confession it should be both voluntary and true. The august Supreme Court in PLD 2007 SC 202 has observed that rule of evidence of Islamic Law envisages that real test to believe or disbelieve a confessional statement is not the method in which confession is recorded rather is to be seen that what is stated in confessional statement is true and confession is made voluntary. Principle of English Law that accused while appearing before Court is not bound to speak truth is not in consonance with the concept of criminal administration of justice in Islam, according to which a Muslim whether accused or witness must be truthful and must not tell lie in his statement recorded by the Court on oath or without oath.
21. The prosecution according to the principles of criminal administration is duty bound to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and discredit the version of the accused. Where two possibilities float on the surface of the evidence, one favourable to the accused is to be given preference over the other. Mst. Shamim Akhtar had earlier filed a private complaint against the complainant party alleging that the deceased had been murdered by Shaukat Ali (P.W.10) along with the others. In such facts and circumstances mere admissions made Mst. Shamim Akhtar appellant cannot be accepted as the evidence for recording/ maintaining conviction against the appellants. Even otherwise the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed out from the evidence on the record during the arguments noted above she had made the same under some duress, fear and inducement by the complainant party, which has no' evidentiary value. Moreover, when the prosecution evidence has already been disbelieved by this Court, mere admissions N thereto made by Mst. Shamim- Akhtar! During her statement recorded under! Section 342, Cr.P.C. Is of no help to the/ prosecution.
22. For the foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in my mind that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Resultantly, both the appeals are accepted, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and both the appellants, namely, Shaukat All and Mst. Shamim Akhtar alias Sajida are acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt, who shall be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other case whereas Crl. Revision No,57 of 2005 seeking enhancement of the sentence of the said appellants has become infructuous as no question arises therefor and is dismissed accordingly.