' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, J---This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dated 25-4-2007, whereby, Appeal No,44 of 2005 filed by Nazir Akhtar, convict, against the sentence passed by the Additional District Criminal Court, Sehnsa has been accepted resulting in acquittal of convict and Appeal No,35 of 2005 filed by complainant for enhancement of the sentence has been dismissed.
2. Wazarat Hussain, complainant, filed a written report at Police Station Sehnsa on 13-7-1998 to the effect that his brother Nazakat Hussain was serving in a company at Islamabad as Security Guard, who came to see him at his house at Doonga Gala. On 12-7-1998 he left his house for Islamabad at 1 p.m. Today at 10 a.m. He was informed that dead-body of his brother is lying in Charrora Forest.
There are fire-arm injuries on his body, and there is also injury on the head. He was murdered yesterday by some accused with lethal weapons. He suspected 'that Nazir Akhtar, Jehangir Akhtar, and Akhmet Hussain son of Muhammad Said have committed the crime. He alleged that few days before the occurrence a fight took place between the complainant and his family with accused. On this report a case under section 302, A.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Sehnsa. During the investigation police biought under arrest apart from Nazir Akhtar, respondent, Jahangir Akhtar, Muhammad Said and Akhmet Hussain. Later on Jahangir Akhtar, Akhmet Hussain and Muhammad Said were given benefit under section 169, Cr.P.C. Challan under section 302, A.P.C. And section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, was presented against Nazir Akhtar before District Criminal Court Kotli which was subsequently transferred to Additional District Criminal Court Sehnsa. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The, accused explained that he has falsely been involved in the case and the witnesses have deposed against him due to enmity. The Additional District Criminal Court Sehnsa Camp Kotli convicted the accused respondent under section 302, A.P.C. And awarded life imprisonment, while under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1956, he was awarded simple imprisonment of one year. The accused was also extended the benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. The convict Nazir Akhtar filed an appeal before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kahmir against the sentence, while, complainant Wazarat Hussain filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence. The learned single Judge in the Shariat Court accepted the appeal filed by the Nazir Akhtar, convict, and he was acquitted of the charge while the appeal filed by Wazarat Hussain, complainant, for enhancement of sentence was dismissed vide impugned judgment on 26-4-2007. Hence this appeal under section 25, I.P.L.
3. Mirza Abdul Aziz Rattalvi, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued the following points:--
(1) That there was a dispute in respect of land between Nazir Akhtar, accused respondent and father of deceased Abdul Qudoos. Due to this dispute of land a fight took place a few days before the occurrence. During that fight Abdul Qudoos beat the mother of accused Nazir Akhtar who was determined to take revenge of insult of his mother. Due to his motive he has murdered the deceased. By elaborating his point he argued that notables of the locality, settled the dispute in a Panchiat but Nazir Akhtar, accused, having a grudge in his mind did not sign the Panchiatnama.
(2) That Nazir Akhtar kept enquiring about the' deceased Nazakat Hussain that when he will go back. After attaining the knowledge of murdered the deceased. He referred the statement of witness Muhammad Ameer son of Muhammad Khan.
(3) That Nazir Akhtar respondent was seen going towards jungle soon after deceased left home with a .12 bore double barrel gun in his hand and was also seen coming back from jungle with empty-hands which proves that he has murdered Nazakat Hussain. He left the Gun hidden in the jungle which was subsequently recovered from near the place of occurrence.
(4) On the evening of the occurrence i,e, 12-7-1998 Nazir Akhtar respondent made an extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Sift, witness that he has murdered Nazakat Hussain son of Abdul Qudoos and sought his help.
(5) That .12 bore double barrel gun was recovered on the pointation of the accused from near the place of occurrence along with crime empties which proves the offence against the accused.
(6) That the accused has not proved that deceased was murdered by some one else. He vehemently contended that although no direct evidence is available in the case and it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused was liable to the sentence of death as Tazeer under Section 302, A.P.C. He relied upon the cases reported as Muhammad Aslam alias Tady and others v. The State 2006 YLR 2963, Yousaf v. The State 2000: PCr.LJ 366, Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another PL15 2007 SC (AJ&K) 27, Muhammad and others v. The State 1981 PLD 63, Muhammad Zia v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 361, Muhammad Yousaf v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 1426, Liaqat Ali and 2 others v. Raja Shahid Nawaz and 2 others 2007 PCr.LJ 246, Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 1304 and Mst. Sabhia Begum v. Ummat-ul-Islam 2007 M LD 653.
4. While controverting the arguments Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that a false and fabricated case has been concocted against the accused.
The complainant has filed a written report at Police Station Sehnsa. In the said report the real brothers and father of the accused have been implicated due to enmity and with mala fide intention. The report is shown to have been filed at 11-30 a.m. By Wazarat Hussain, complainant. The report of murder was not filed at 11-30 a.m. Wazarat Hussain, complainant, in the Court statement has stated that report at police station was filed at "usar-kwakat" while Ejaz Hussain, witness, stated in the Court that he and Ishfaque Hussain have given the report at Police Station and on their report police came at the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. Was registered at a belated stage after deliberations. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The dispute of land was settled by notables of the locality a few days before the occurrence and both the families visited the house of each other and had meals. So there was no enmity on behalf of the accused. But the complainant was implicated in case whole the family of the accused with male fide intention. He further argued that the story of extra-judicial confession is false and fabricated. The extrajudicial confession has shown to have been made before the cousin of Abdul Qudoos, father of the deceased on 12-7-1998 while the statement of this witness was recorded on 31-7-1998. Similarly the story of going to accused behind the deceased was first time disclosed before the police on 18-7- 1998 by his mother, real brother and sister-in-law of the deceased, which is quite unnatural. He further argued that for a case. Which is based on circumstantial evidence a strong proof if required and such standard of proof is needed in which each circumstance is so placed that a chain of events is formed and if any link is missing then the chain is broken. He drew our attention towards the point that recovery of weapon of offence is made from such place which is accessible to general public. Such type of recovery is not admissible in evidence. The weapon of offence was allegedly recovered on the pointation of the accused. The recovery witnesses have not proved the recovery. The recovery memos. Were not put to the witnesses nor they identified their signatures.
The weapon of offence was not identified by the witnesses in the Court. Witnesses are close relative of the deceased and they contradict each other on material points. The testimony of such witnesses cannot be believed and made basis for conviction. He defended the judgment of the Shariat Court on all counts and requested for dismissal of appeal. He has relied upon the cases reported as The State v. Mst. Falawat Jan and another 1992 SCR 366, Muhammad Mishtaq v. State 2001 YLR 1164 and Ajaib Sikandar v. Muhammad Javed and others 2006 PCr.LJ 1893.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no direct evidence in the case and prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The case is based on evidence of motive, recovery of weapon of offence, crime empties along with the report of Ballistic Expert, extra-judicial confession, and conduct of accused and last seen evidence.
6. Before dealing with testimony of the witnesses it may be observed that circumstantial evidence means evidence afforded by testimony other than the eye-witnesses which bear upon a fact or other subsidiary facts which are relied upon as consistent that no result other than truth of principal fact and facts shall be so proved that they shall not leave any possibility of innocence of accused. And this possibility shall B be of such a high degree and standard that a prudent man after considering all the facts and circumstances is able to reach at the conclusion that he is justified in holding the accused guilty and from the evidence no other inference can be drawn except the guilt of accused. The circumstances from which the inference adverse to accused is sought to be drawn must be proved beyond all doubts.
7. The prosecution to prove the motive, has produced Wazarat Hussain complainant, the brother of deceased, Abdul Qudoos, father of the deceased and Wali Dad son of Qamar Deen as witnesses.
Wazarat Hussain and Abdul Qadoos have deposed that there was a dispute of land between the family of accused and of the complainant. A few days before the occurrence a fight took place between both the parties, during which Abdul Qadoos, the father of the deceased beat the mother of the accused. Later on, on the intervention of the notables of the locality the dispute was settled through negotiation and a Panchiat Nama was written. Abdul Qadoos and Wazarat Hussain stated that the accused Nazir Akhtar refused to sign the Panchiat Nama. Wali Dad stated that the Panchiat was conducted and the dispute was settled. During the cross-examination Abdul Qudoos stated that after the settlement of the dispute male members of both the families visited the house of each other and had a meal there. All the three witnesses have not narrated in their statements anything from which it could be ascertained that accused had a motive to C kill the deceased. If the version of Abdul Qudoos and Wazarat Hussain is accepted that Abdul Qadoos beat the mother of the deceased in that case if the accused wanted to take revenge of insult of his mother he should have killed Abdul Qudoos and not his son who was not present at the time of quarrel rather he was at Rawalpindi. The deceased was also not present at the time of Panchiat. Motive, if any, cannot be ascribed to accused towards the deceased. It is settled principle of law that if a case is solely based on circumstantial evidence then it is necessary to prove the motive. In a case reported as Noor Ahmed and others v. The State 1992 SCR 1 it was held that:-- "It may be stated that absence to prove the motive would not affect the prosecution case in presence of ocular evidence. The proof of motive to commit an offence may be required only if prosecution case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and not otherwise." ; The prosecution failed to prove the motive in the case. The statements of witnesses are not confidence-inspiring and cannot be relied upon.
8. The prosecution has relied upon the recovery of weapon of offence, double barrel gun with two crime empties and report of Ballistic Expert. If the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the recovery of crime weapon is of paramount importance. The prosecution has relied upon Said Zaman son of Sher Khan and Manga Khan son of Shahadat Khan to prove the recovery of weapon of offence stated to have been recovered by the police on the pointation of accused. We, for our own satisfaction, perused the statements of Said Zaman and Manga Khan. The statement of Said Zaman was recorded in the Court on 19-8-2000. Said Zarnan stated in the Court that he was going towards Bhrind when he saw Makhan with Subidar, brother of Abdul Qudoos with some other men.
The Investigating Officer showed him a rifle. Manga Khan pointed towards a place and said that from here rifle was recovered. Along with rifle there were two white crime empties and one red crime empty. In cross-examination this witness categorically denied that the gun was recovered in his presence. Manga has pointed towards the place from where the Gun was recovered. The recovery memo. Was not put to this witness nor his signatures on recovery memo. Were got identified by this witness. The other witness of recovery of weapon of offence was Manga Khan. His statement was recorded in the Court on 15-3-2004. This witness is real uncle of the deceased and brother of the Abdul Qudoos the father of the deceased. He stated that the gun was recovered from near the place of occurrence which was in three parts. This witness has not stated anything about the recovery of crime empties. The recovery memo was not put to this witness nor his signatures were got identified by him. Shabir Ahmed S.H.O. Recovered the weapon of offence. He has stated that he has recovered the double barrel gun on pointation of the accused with two crime empties in its chamber. He prepared recovery memo. As Exh. PM and got identified his signature as PM/1. He has not identified the signatures of the witnesses on the recovery memo nor he has stated that he has recovered the gun in the presence of said witnesses. The crime weapon double barrel gun was sent to the Ballistic Expert on 5-8-1983. The Ballistic Expert sent a report Exhibit-PO. According to this report both the crime empties were fired from the left barrel of the gun. It is pertinent to note that Crime weapon, double barrel gun, was recovered from an open place in the Jungle which is accessible to general public and in a case or circumstantial evidence where prosecution rests its case on the recovery of weapon of offence, the recovery is very important and fate of the case rests upon this recovery. The gun is recovered from an open place accessible to general public then it cannot be said that this place is in exclusive possession of the accused. In a case reported as Ashiq Hussain v. The State 1993 SCM R 417, it was held that:-- "Anyway recovery witness P.W.12 Manzoor Ahmed has deposed the Ashiq Hussain took Police inside his Dera and gun was recovered from underneath iron chest. It is stated by this witness that Humayun and Ashiq Hussain both produced gun from underneath the same iron chest in the same room of Dera. When Police party came to the Dera of Ashiq Hussain one or two persons were present there, who disappeared after seeing the Police. Dera was lying open. It had only one gate.
From one room both Humayun and Ashiq produced guns lying underneath iron chest. Doors of both rooms in the Dera were open. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that gun was recovered from exclusive possession of Ashiq".
' And in a case titled Masood and another v. State 1994 SCM R 6 is held that:-- "So far as the incriminating recoveries from the appellants are concerned they are uninspiring and inconsequential. The recovery of the dagger attributed to Ashraf appellant had taken place from a graveyard, a place accessible to the public. The recovery attributed to Masood Ahmed had taken place from described house by opening the lock of which the key was produced by the Police and not by the appellant Masood Ahmed."
9. Had the accused committed the offence when no one saw him committing the crime he should have hiden the gun in his house which is in vicinity of place of occurrence. Recovery of weapon appears to be doubtful. The recovery can be seen from another angle, Said Zaman witness has categorically denied the recovery of weapon of offence in his presence. He stated that Manga Khan has told him that the Police has recovered a gun. Against this Manga Khan has not mentioned the presence of Said Zaman when the gun was recovered. The recovery memo. Was not put to both the witnesses so there was no question of identification of signature on the recovery memo. Even no question was put to the recovery witnesses that recovery memo. Was prepared to signature or thumb-impression, was affixed on it. From this aspect the recovery of weapon of offence is not proved and cannot be relied upon. The third aspect of recovery is the S.H.O. Shabbir Ahmed has stated that he has recovered a gun on the pointation of accused with two crime empties in both the chambers of the gun. The report of Ballistic Expert is that both the crime empties were fired from left chamber of the gun. If the gun has been used by the accused it was a double-barrel gun and two crime empties were present in both the chambers than how it is possible that both the crime empties have been fired from left chamber. The recovery appears to be fake. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Police Officer is as competent a witness like any other person and his testimony for the purpose of recovery has to be believed. He relied upon the case reported as Muhammad and others v. The State PLD 1981 SC 635. The law laid down in this authority is correct. In the present case the prosecution solely rests the case upon circumstantial evidence and recovery of weapon of offence should have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. From the circumstance described above the recovery of weapon of offence along with crime empties is not proved and cannot be relied upon.
10. The prosecution, to prove its case, has relied upon the extrajudicial confession of the accused made before one Sift Muhammad son of Muhammad Afzal, witness. The statement of this witness was recorded in the Court on 8-7-2000. He narrated in the Court that on 12-7-1998 Nazeer Akhter accused met him at Danna on "Urs" (anniversary of a saint) where he told him that he has committed an offence. Upon his query the accused told that he has murdered Nazakat Hussain son of Abdul Qudoos. The accused asked him that if he comes to Karachi what help he can extend to him, whereupon he replied that he is himself a labourer so what can be done for him. In the cross-examination this witness stated that he has no contacts with the family of accused. He never met the accused before the "Urs" for a long time. He also denied his relationship with the deceased or his father. The statement of this witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 31-7-1998, 19 days after the occurrence. It may be observed that extrajudicial confession is the weakest type of evidence. While accepting or rejecting the extra-judicaial confession made before any person, the position of such person in society, before whom confession is made, has to be weighed. If a person who is near relative of the accused person or to whom the accused has faith or he is an influential person who can be helpful to him or he can extend some help and exercise influence in his favour, then this type of extra-judicial confession has to be considered and believed couple with other circumstances of the case. In a case where extra-judicial confession allegedly has been made before a person who is neither an influential person nor has good, friendly or cordial relations with the accused so that the accused can trust him or seek his help, such confession is full of suspicion and cannot be believed. In the present case Sift Muhammad, the witness, denied having any relationship with the deceased or his father while witness, Muhammad Ameer, has stated in his Court statement that Sift Muhammad is first cousin of Abdul Qudoos. This casts a serious doubt on his testimony. The witness appears to have been planted by the prosecution with mala fide intention to enrope the accused. The statement of this witness can be judged from another angle.
His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 31-7-1998. The witness is uncle of deceased. It is not plausible that if a person is told about the murder of his nephew on 12-7-1998 his natural reaction should be that he immediately should have visited house of deceased or' have told his father; brothers or other inmates of the house that the accused has told such to him. This witness kept mum for 19 days and after 19 days he appeared before the police and told about the extrajudicial confession. His conduct is suspicious and doubtful. In a case reported as Muhammad Sadiq and another v. State PLD 1960 SC 223 when a witness who claimed to be friend of deceased appeared before the police after 24 hours of the occurrence and stated that he has seen occurrence and he is eye-witness of the incident, the Court disbelieved his evidence in the following words:-- "The courts below have not been able to accept the fragmentary and Unnatural statement of Sher Bahadur as to the attack by Sadiq on Hazrat Din. The circumstance that he did not choose to go to the help of his friend whom he found being attacked with a knife, that he did not disclose that he had seen to any person for nearly 24 hours, and that he showed no concern for the fate of Hazrat Din clearly militates against allowing the least value of his evidence."
' In the circumstances the extra-judicial confession is not beyond suspicion and it appears that the witness has concocted the story to L enrope the accused with ,the commission of offence.
11. The prosecution, for the purpose of establishing case, has produced three witnesses, namely, Qaisera, mother of deceased, Shahin Akhter, sister-in-law of deceased, and Sharafat Hussain, brother of deceased. They are witnesses of circumstances that soon after departure of deceased they saw accused going towards the forest armed with a .12-bore gun on the same way the deceased had left for Rawalpindi.
12. The statement of Sharafat Hussain, brother of deceased, was recorded by the police on 18-7- 1998, five days after the discovery of dead-body. His statement in the Court was recorded on 6-8- 2001. He has stated in the Court that his brother Nazakat Hussain was going to Rawalpindi. His mother directed him to go with his brother up to a place known as Ainti Daiwal. He and one Muhammad Ishaque accompanied brother, Nazakat Hussain. When they reached at a place known as Chapriyan, it started raining. His brother sent them back and went alone towards Ainti Daiwal. They went in a deserted house and after five/ten minutes he saw accused, Nazir Akhter, going towards forest on the way where his brother had gone while having a gun in his hand. On reaching home he told this fact to his mother, who raised hue and cry. In the evening time he went out for bringing cattle back to home. He saw accused Nazir Akhter coming towards home from forest empty-handed.
13. The statement of Mst. Qaisera, mother of deceased, was recorded in the Court on 21-10-2002.
She deposed that her son, Nazakat Hussain, was going back to Rawalpindi. She directed Sharafat Hussain and Ishaque to go with the brother upto place known as Plate. They came back from place know as Chapriyan due to rain. Upon her query that why they came back, they said that brother Nazakat Hussain has sent them back. When the rain stopped, she went out with the cattle, whereupon she saw that the accused Nazir Akhtar was going towards the forest while having a double barrel gun in his hand. At about 4 p.m. She saw Nazir Akhter coming back empty-handed.
The gun was not in his hand. Reaching home she told Sharafat Hussain that she had seen Nazir Akhter going towards forest with a gun and when he come back he was empty-handed and he looked disturbed. Upon this Sharafat Hussain said that there is no need to worry. The brother will make a call while reaching Rawalpindi. This is incident of 12-7-1998. Next day she came to know that Nazakat Hussain was murdered. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police on 18-7-1998, five days after the recovery of dead-body.
14. Shahin Akhter is the wife of Wazarat Hussain, complainant, and sister-in-law of deceased. Her statement was recorded in the Court on 12-12-2002. She stated that Wazarat Hussain and Muhammad Ishaque went with Nazakat Hussain on the direction of their mother. They came back and told that they had gone up to Chahchnar from where Nazakat Hussain sent them back. Next day at 8 a.m. They came to know about the murder of Nazakat Hussain. Upon this Sharafat Hussain told us that when he was coming back towards home after accompanying Nazakat Hussain for some distance, he saw accused Nazir Akhter armed with a gun going towards the forest in the same direction where Nazakat Hussain had gone. He further told that in the evening time he had seen Nazir Akhter, accused, empty-handed. The statement of this witness was recorded by the police on 18-7-1998, five days after the recovery of dead-body.
15. It is on record that the relations between the parties remained strained for sometime and a few days before the incident a quarrel also took place between the parties which was settled by the notables of the area in a Panchayat. In the circumstances when there are strong feelings between the parties and the case solely depends upon the circumstantial evidence, the testimony of a witness has to be scrutinized with great care and caution. The statements of all the three witnesses, mentioned above, when seen in juxtaposition contradict each other. Mst. Qaisera Bibi has stated that Sharafat Hussain and Muhammad Ishaque came back at home while it was raining and when the rain stopped she went out for grazing the cattle. Then she saw accused Nazir Akhter armed with .12 bore gun going towards forest and in the evening she saw him coming back towards home empty-handed. While reaching home she raised hue and cry that the accused, Nazir Akhter, must have committed crime, but Sharafat Hussain consoled her. Sharafat Hussain stated that when he was sitting in a deserted house in the forest at a place known as Chapriyan, he saw accused, Nazir Akhter, in armed condition going towards same direction where his' brother had gone and after reaching home he told this fact to his mother. He also stated that he himself saw accused, Nazir Akhter, coming back to home empty-handed in the evening. If we accept the statement of Mst.
Qaisera Bibi, then the statement of Sharafat Hussain is falsified. If we accept the statement of Sharafat Hussain, then the; statement of Qaisera Bibi does not ring true. As against these two witnesses, Shahin Akhter negates both of them. She states that the next day when they heard the news of murder of Nazakat Hussain, then Sharafat Hussain told that he had seen accused Nazir Akhter going towards forest in armed condition. It is astonishing that a young man of a family was murdered and two inmates of the house saw accused going towards forest on the way where the deceased had gone and they also saw him coming back empty-handed, but they kept mum and did not disclose this fact of anybody, even after discovery of dead-body of deceased upto five days. This fact was not mentioned even in F.I.R., although accused along with his father or brother was nominated in F.I.R. And arrested on 13-7-1998. The conduct of witnesses is unnatural. Their testimony to full of doubts and in a case of circumstantial evidence this type of evidence cannot be believed.
16. The prosecution has also produced a witness, namely, Muhammad Ameer son of Muhammad Khan, who is real maternal uncle of deceased and complainant. He has stated that at one day he was sitting in the hotel of Hafiz at Panthal on Friday, along with Nazakat Hussain when he will go back to Rawalpindi. Nazakat told that he will go to Rawalpindi on 12th. He told that he will go via Danna. After sometime Nazir Akhter came there and inquired from him that when Nazakat will go and from which way he will go to Rawalpindi. He told him that Nazakat will go via Danna on 12th.
The statement of this witness carries no weight particularly in the circumstances when the houses of deceased and the accused are adjacent and they have settled disputes in respect of land which arose sometime ago between their families. It was not difficult for the accused to know about the movement of deceased. It is settled principle of law that a relative can be a competent witness and the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded only on the basis of relationship, but it must be seen that the evidence of a related witness is confidence inspiring or it rings true while connecting it with other circumstances. In the present case although nothing substantial comes out statement of this witness, but it appears that this witness has been planted only to strengthen the case of prosecution that accused remained inquiring about the movement of deceased. The evidence of this witness is not credible and is rejected.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that veracity of certain witnesses was not challenged on material points. While relying upon the judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another (PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 27) he stressed that if a witness states something in his examination-in-chief which goes against the accused and the defence is afforded an opportunity of cross-examination, but it never challenges the-same in cross-examination, but it never challenges the same cross-examination, the veracity of witness to that extent shall be deemed to be admitted as correct. The rule laid down in the above-referred case is correct, but there is nothing material in the statement of any of the witnesses, which was detrimental for the defence or on the basis of which the accused 0 could be 'connected with the offence and the witnesses were not cross-examined therefore, the argument is repelled.
18. As for the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that all the witnesses are related and their testimony cannot be relied upon is concerned, it may he stated that as has been held somewhere-else P in this judgment that the related witness is as competent a witness as any other. The testimony of such a witness can be believed like any other witness provided it rings true and is confidence inspiring. The witness is not inimical towards accused and has no motive to falsely implicate the accused, then his evidence can be relied upon for convicting the accused. The circumstantial evidence is conclusive only when it can possibly tend to no other inference except the guilt of accused and the facts should exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence of accused before conviction can be based on such evidence. The circumstances must unmistakably point towards guilt of accused and the circumstances shall be so connected that these shall form a chain of events and every link of chain in the circumstancs must be proved. If any link in the chain is missing then the whole chain breaks. Ina case of reported as Ajaib Sikandar v. Muhammad Javed and another 2006 PCr.L.J 1893 it was held as under:-- "The prosecution, evidence in our view, was not enough to sustain conviction of murder charge which was rightly discarded by the learned Judges of the Shariat Court. If separate pieces of evidence are taken together, the same do not lead. To an inference to guilt against the respondent.
We agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that on the basis of convincing circumstantial evidence, the order of conviction can be passed against the accused persons but at the same time let us make it clear that such circumstances must be incompatible with the innocence of accused."
' In another case reported as Muhammad Mushtaq v. State 2001 YLR 1164, it has been held as under:-- "In our considered view the prosecution has failed to bring guilt home to the convict-appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The prosecution evidence suffers from material illegality and irregularity. The suspicion and doubt how so much strong, cannot be a substitutie for proof.
' In another case reported as The State v. Mst. Falawat Jan and another 1992 SCR 366 it has been held as under:-- "It may be stated here that in case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence Should be of such a degree and character that it should exclude the possibility of innocence of an accused.. Besides, it should link together all the chains of prosecution story so as to convince the Court to reach an irresistible conclusion that the accused person was the culprit beyond any reasonable doubt."
19. The accused was acquitted by the Shariat Court, therefore, there is double presumption of innocence in favour of accused, one on the general principle that an accused is innocent until and unless he is proved guilty while the other on the basis of order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused and the Shariat Court rightly acquitted him.
20. The upshot of above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed.