1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---This judgment shall dispose of jail appeal, which challenges the judgment dated 31-672009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze, in sessions Case No,19 of 2003.
2. ' Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 17-12-2002 complainant Amir Bux lodged F.I.R. with Police Station Naushero Feroze stating therein that his son Muhammad Rahim (The deceased in this case) was serving as Sepoy in Sindh Regiment of Pakistan Army, who had come home on leave. He further stated that on 13-12-2002 while he/the complainant, his son Muhammad Rahim and three other persons namely Nek Muhammad, Rah Dino and Zaheer were available in the Otaq, accused Abdul Hadi came. there. The accused Abdul Hadi expressed that he had arranged meals for Muhammad Rahim and Nek Muhammad and thus took both of them away. However, during the following night, the complainant's son. Muhammad Rahim and Nek Muhammad did not return, therefore, in the morning the complainant along with Rab Dino and Zaheer went to accused Abdul Hadi to inquire about them. Accused Abdul Hadi did not give any satisfactory reply thus the complainant kept on searching for his son Thereafter on 17-12-2002 the Nek Muhammad came to the complainant and disclosed that on the fateful day viz. 13-12-2002 accused Abdul Hadi on the pretext of serving them meals had taken him and Muhammad Rahim to an abandoned well in the land of Yasir, Mob*, where three other accused namely Yasin. Abdul Ghani alias Adul and Ghulam Abbas were also available and within his sight, all the above said persons felled Muhammad Rahim ' down and throttled him to death and then put his dead body in a sack and threw it in the well. He further disclosed that the accused persons had threatened him with dire consequences, if he divulged the incident to any body and due to fear, he had gone to Karachi, where the conscience pricked him thus lie had come to inform the complainant. On hearing the above, the complainant immediately went and reported the incident to Police.
3. ' After registration of the. F.I.R., usual investigation was conducted and during the course of investigation, appellant Ghulam Abass was arrested and on the pointation of appellant Ghulam Abbas, the footwear belonging to the deceased Muhammad Rahim had been secured. The police after completing the necessary formalities presented the challan against the accused to face the trial. Accused Abdul Ghani, alias Adul and Abdul Hadi were ,declared proclaimed offenders On 28- 2-2003.
4. ' The formal charge against appellant Ghulam Abbas was framed at Exh.13, his plea at Exh.14, subsequently another appellant Yasin joined the proceedings, as such charge against both of them was framed at Exh.16, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide their pleas recorded at Exhs.17 and 18.
5. ' The prosecution examined complainant Amir Bux at Exh.19, lie produced the F.I.R. at Ex.19/A as well as photographs at Exh.19/B to Exh.19/E, P.W. Mashir Abdul Lateef at Exh.20, he produced mashirnamas of place of vardat, recovery of rope etc: search of house of accused, arrest of accused Ghulam Abbas, recovery of chappal, Danistnama of dead body; at Exhs.20/A to 20/F respectively. P.W. Rab Dino was examined at Exh.21, who produced his 164, Cr.P.C. statement at Exh.21/A. P.W. Zaheer Hussain at Exh.22, he also produced his 164, Cr.P.C. statement at Exh.22/A.
6. Medical Officer Dr. Muhammad Hashim Larik at Exh.23, he produced post mortem report at Exh.23/A, P.W. Nek Muhammad at Exh.24, who also produced his 164, Cr.P.C. statement at Exh.24/A.
7. P.W. Rasool Bux was given up by the learned D.D.P.P. for the State vide statement at Exh.25. P.W.
8. Ishrat Waseem, the Tapedar was examined at Exh.26, who produced sketch of vardat at Exh.26/A, Investigating Officer Nazar Hussain Shah at Exh.27. P.W. concerned Magistrate was given up and the prosecution side was closed by the learned D.D.P.P. for the State vide statement at Exh.28.
9. ' The statements of appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exh.29 and Exh.30 respectively, wherein they denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution against them stating therein that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to enmity with the complainant party. Both the appellants did not examine themselves on oath. However, they examined concerned criminal clerk of trial Court namely Mr. Aqeel Ahmed Tunio at Exh.32, who produced the documents viz. application and letter of Commanding Officer, 23 Sindh Regiment Chhor Cantonment etc. at Exhs.32/A to 32/D respectively.
10. ' After hearing the parties, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for offence under section 302, P.P.C. as Tazir and sentenced them to suffer RI for life imprisonment. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs,25,000 each for offence under section 201, P.P.C. The amount of fine, if recovered shall be deposited with Government treasury. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently and appellants were also extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
11. ' Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, present appellants have filed present appeal.
12. ' I have heard Syed Mushtaque Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the appellants,- Mr. Ghulam Shabir Dayo, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Sardar Ali Shah, learned A.P.-G. and have gone through the record so also case-law cited at the bar.
13. ' Mr. Shah, teamed counsel for the appellants has attacked the judgment impugned on the following grounds:--
(1) That P. W. Nek Muhammad is cousin of deceased Muhammad Rahim and said P. W. was missing for four days and did not inform the complainant about the murder of deceased. He further submitted that explanation of P.W. Nek Muhammad is not plausible and the same is fatal for prosecution.
14. (2)That there is no last scene evidence against the present appellants as according to the prosecution, accused Abdul Hadi had come to the complainant's place to take deceased and P.
15. W. Nek Muhammad for dinner.
16. (3)That delay of 4 days in lodging of F.I.R. has not been explained by the prosecution and benefit of such delay be extended to the appellants.
17. (4)That evidence of P. W-Nek Muhammad that after seeing the incident he travelled to Karachi and had resided at Karachi along with his uncle, but no evidence showing presence of P. WNek Muhammad at Karachi had been brought on record nor said uncle of P. W-Nek Muhammad was examined to establish his presence at Karachi.
18. (5)That evidence of P.W. Nek Muhammad is not worth reliance for the reason that no plausible reason in informing the complainant has been put forth nor he informed his uncle at Karachi nor examined the uncle in court to support his assertion.
19. (6)That evidence of P.W. Nek Muhammad is not corroborated by any other independent witnesses.
20. (7)That dead body was not recovered by the police on the pointation of the appellants but it was recovered on the pointation of P. W. Nek Muhammad. As per prosecution case, dead body was taken out from well on 17-12-2002 at 1745 hours after delay of 1-1/2 hours of recording of F.I.R., but the doctor's evidence says that that he had received dead body at 4-00 p.m. and completed postmortem by 5-30 p.m.
21. (8)That Chappals of the deceased were not recovered on the pointation of the appellant No,1 Ghulam Abbas but the same has been planted and Mashirs are interested parties. Their evidence may not be believed.
22. ' In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance on the following cases:-- (1)Qabal Shah and others v. The State (PLD 1960 (W.P) Karachi 697).
23. (2)Muhammad Khan v. Moula Bux and another (1998 SCMR 570)
24. (3)Gul Muhammad alias Guloo and another v. The State (1974 PCr.LJ 400)
25. (4)Nazoo alias Ali Nawaz v. The State (1977 SCMR 20)
26. (5)Imran Astral and 7 others v. The State (2001 SCMR 424)
27. (6)Mujahid Hussain v. The State (1985 SCMR 1573)
28. (7)Muhammad Dilwar Khan and 2 others v. The State (PLD 2004 Karachi 319).
29. ' On the other hand Mr. Dayo, learned counsel for the complainant argued that appellants had extended threats to P.W.-Nek Muhammad not to disclose the fact of murder of deceased Muhammad Rahim to anyone. That is why due to fear he had travelled to Karachi, but after four days he returned back and informed father of the deceased, the complainant who immediately put law into motion and all subsequent acts by the police were taken strictly in accordance with law. He further submitted that the deposition of P.W-Nek Muhammad is trustworthy and his evidence was fully supported by other P.Ws. so also medical evidence. Recovery of Chappals of the deceased was affected on the pointation of appellant No,1. Ghulam Abbass, hence charge against the present appellants stood proved and judgment of the trial Court is unexceptional. Recovery of Chappals on the pointation of Ghulam Abbass is fully proved by the evidence of Mashir. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of 2007 SCMR 778, 1996 SCMR 188, 2006 SCMR 1791, 2010 SCMR 401, PLD 1980 SC 223, PLD 2004 SC 663, 1985 PCr.LJ 349, PLD 2002 SC 62, PLD 1986 Sh.0 (AJ&K) 74, 2000 PCr.LJ 1665, 2008 SCMR 1049, and 2009 SCMR 523.
30. ' Learned A.P.-G, has fully supported the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and has submitted as under:--
(1) That solitary evidence of P. W. -Nek Muhammad is sufficient to convict the present appellants.
(2) That delay in lodging of F.I.R. has been fully explained by the P.W.-Nek Muhammad.
(3) That recovery of Chappals is proved by the evidence of Mashirs hence present appellants are rightly awarded sentence by the trial Court.
(4) That judgment passed by the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference by this Court in this appeal.
31. ' In support of his contentions learned A.P.-G. has placed his reliance on the following cases:--
(1) Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857)
32. (2)Allah Baldish v. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225)
33. (3)Zafar Iqbal v. The State and another (2010 SCMR 401)
34. (4)Bin Yamin alias Khari and others v. The State (2007 SCMR 778)
35. (5).Sahib Khan v. The State (2008 SCMR 1049)
36. (6)Ajmal Khan v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 313)
37. (7)Muhammad Ashraf and others v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 1321) For decision of this appeal, following are to be examined:--
1. Motive
2. Last scene evidence
3. Ocular evidence
4. Circumstantial evidence and
5. Medical evidence.
38. ' With regard to motive in this case prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence except statement to the effect that there was matrimonial dispute between the accused party and the complainant party. However, all the private witnesses have categorically stated in their depositions, that such matrimonial dispute stood resolved in past and parties had very cordial relations with each other. Witnesses have further stated that parties had visiting terms and even they were having food together. Nothing has been brought on record to establish motive for commission of offence by the present appellants. From the perusal of record, it appears that the incident took place on .13-12-2002 at 8-00 p.m. whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 17-12-2002 at 4-00 p.m. Delay of four days have not been plausibly explained by the prosecution.
39. ' P.W.-Nek Muhammad in his examination-in-chief has stated as under:-- "On 13-12-2002 in the evening my uncle Amir Bux, his son Muhammad Raheem and our relatives Rah Dino, Zaheer and myself were chit-chatting in our otaq where at about 6-30 p.m. accused Abdul Hadi Larik came there. After exchange pleasantries; he asked Muhammad Raheem and me to dine the night meal with him. He ultimately took us and we all the three moved out of the otaq around 7-30 or 7-45 p.m. Accused Abdul Hadi took us to the abandoned well in the lands of Yaseen Mohajir. There we found three other brothers of accused Abdul Haek, namely, Yaseen.
40. Abdul Ghani alias Adul and Ghulam Abbas already available there. On seeing Muhammad Raheem they spontaneously expressed that Muhammad Raheem had presented himself to them for taking the old revenge of matrimonial dispute from him. Thereafter all the four of the accused fell down Muhammad Raheem on the ground. On this, I and Muhammad Raheem beseeched them and gave them names of Allah not to do tyranny. However, they did not listen and threatened me of the same consequences if I uttered a word more. I thus kept watching and within my sight, the accused persons torn off a strip from the woolen shawl of Muhammad Raheem and with it strangulated/strangled him and ultimately caused his death. Thereafter they put his dead body in a sack and after tying its opening, again tied the whole sack containing the dead body with a concrete slab and dumped it in the well. The accused after doing the above act adverted to me and warned me that in case I divulged this incident to any body or stayed at my native place, I would also be driven to the same fate. Out of such intimidation, fear and the shock of the incident. I went directly to Karachi from the place of incident. At Karachi I was under the constant pricking of my conscience and could not conceal the above incident any longer and thus ultimately on 18-12-2002 1 returned back from Karachi to may native village Rahu Khahi and went directly to the house of Amir Bux, the father of Muhammad Raheem, and narrated him the event in presence of P. Ws. Rab Dino and Zabeer. I then stayed there whereas complainant Amir Bux immediately proceeded to Police Station N. Feroze and lodged the report".
41. ' He further stated as under:-- "Thereafter the Police came and took me from our village and then I led them to the place of incident i.e, well in the lands of Yaseen Mohajir. On my pointation Police got the sack still tied with concrete slab from the said well and found the dead body of Muhammad Raheem lying in it in presence of Mashirs Abdul Latif and Zahid. The dead body of deceased Muhammad Raheem was not only identified by me and his father Amir Bux but was recognized by the scores of the people of our village who had gathered there. Such Mashirnama was prepared and other formalities were also conducted by the Police and then the dead body was shifted to Civil Hospital, N. Feroze for conducting its autopsy".
42. ' In his cross-examination P.W-Nek Muhammad has admitted as under:-- "It is correct that the accused persons were our relatives and we were on visiting and dining terms with each other."
43. ' He further admitted in his cross-examination that:-- ' "It is correct that neither had accused Abdul Hadi any weapon nor had only such weapon been with any of the other three accused."
44. ' He further stated in cross-examination that:-- "It is not correct that deceased Muhammad Raheem was in fact killed by me and thereafter I fled away to Karachi and on return from there we fabricated a false story and roped in the accused persons, after patching up with the parents of the deceased."
45. ' Similarly. complainant Amir Bux in his examination-in-chief stated as under:-- "I know both the present accused Ghulam Abbas and Yaseen. They are also our relatives and they resided in our village. We had got dispute over a matrimonial affair with the accused persons since about four years. However later on there was settlement between us and we resumed our dining terms."
46. ' In his cross-examination, complainant stated as under:-- "After the settlement between us and the accused persons, my deceased son used to visit the home on leave."
47. ' He further stated in his cross-examination that:-- ' "It is correct that during the period of our settlement till this incident, the accused persons had never shown any grudge to us."
48. It is apparent on record that deceased Muhammad Rahim and P.W.-Nek Muhammad did not turn- up in the night. Complainant party searched for them and even proceeded to the accused party in the morning, they were available at home. As per F.I.R, no reason for not reporting the matter to police regarding missing of P.W-Nek Muhammad and deceased was brought on record. The complainant did not lodge any or reported the matter to the police about missing of his son. It was only after four days when P.W-Nek Muhammad came and narrated story, thereafter F.I.R. was lodged. From the examination of depositions of complainant and P.W-Nek Muhammad it appears that prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence which establishes any motive behind commission of this offence on the part of the present appellants.
49. ' In view of above, I an of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish motive against the appellants.
50. ' With regard to last seen, there is evidence on record that one of the brothers of appellants, namely, Abdul Hadi had come to the complainant's place and had taken with him the P.W-Nek.
51. Muhammad and deceased Muhammad Rahim. None of the witnesses have stated that other three brothers, namely, Ghulam Abbass, Yasin and Abdul Ghani alias Adal had come to take the deceased with them. It is pointed out that Abdul Ghani alias Adal and Abdul Hadi are absconders.
52. All the four witnesses, namely, complainant, P.W-Nek Muhammad, P.Ws. Rah Dino and Zaheer have stated in respect of last scene evidence that Abdul Hadi had come and taken away P.W-Nek Muhammad and deceased Muhammad Rahim. In this view of the matter there is no last scene evidence against the present appellants available on record.
53. ' With regard to the ocular testimony, it is stated that entire case hinges upon deposition of P.W- Nek Muhammad and no doubt all other P.Ws., namely, complainant, Rab Dino and Zaheer have supported the same, but all the three witnesses, named above have given evidence on the basis of hearsay. Only P.W-Nek Muhammad stated that he was present at the scene. He further submitted that none of the accused was armed with any weapon. He further stated that all the four brothers had caught hold of deceased and torn off a strip from the woolen shawl of deceased it was wrapped around the neck and deceased Muhammad Rahim and with it strangulated and caused death of Muhammad Rahim. Thereafter, they put his body in a sack and threw it in the well. He had not assigned any specific role to any of the accused persons. From the statement of P.W-Nek Muhammad, it appears that when all the four persons caught hold of deceased, he was free but neither he ran nor he tried to save the deceased nor he called any one to save Muhammad Rahim from the culprits. He further stated in his statement that since threats of dire consequences were extended by accused persons he immediately travelled to Karachi but no material has been brought on record regarding his travelling and return from Karachi. Even he has not stated that he informed father of deceased on telephone about the incident. He has admitted in cross- examination that he did not disclose above incident to his uncle at Karachi. Prosecution has not examined uncle of P.W-Nek Muhammad to support version of P.W-Nek Muhammad that he was at Karachi. F.I.R. was lodged on the sole statement of P.W-Nek Muhammad and even dead body was recovered from the well on the pointation of P.W.-Nek Muhammad. Since P.W.-Nek Muhammad was allegedly aware of the incident and entire episode had taken place in his presence. There is no other material except statement of P.W.-Nek Muhammad which prevented him to disclose the incident to complainant immediately after the occurrence. Delay of four days has not been explained by the prosecution witnesses. Reason for delay advanced by P.W.-Nek Muhammad is not credible.
54. P.W-Abdul Lateef who is Mashir of recovery of dead body had stated as under:-- "On 17-12-2002 I was made Mashir in this case and in my presence and that of Co-Mashir Zahid Hussain, the investigation police of N. Feroze Police Station took out dead body of deceased Muhammad Rahim from an abandoned well on the showing of P.W. Nek Muhammad and complainant Arneer Bux. The dead body was in a green coloured sack. The opening of the sack was tied with a piece of cement block. The police opened the sack and in our presence the dead body was identified by complainant Ameer Bux and by us also to be of deceased Muhammad Raheem. Such Mashirnama was prepared which was attested by me and co-Mashir Zahid Hussain. I produced the said Mashirnama at Exh.20-A. It is same, correct and bears my signature.
55. Police examined the dead body and prepared a Danishnama which was also attested by us. I produce it at Exh.20/B and say that it is same, correct and bears my signature. On the same day at about 6-30 p.m. police prepared Mashirnama of securing the sack the cement block and the nylon rope in our presence. I produce it at Exh. 20-C".
56. ' In cross-examination, he stated as under:-- "On 17-12-2002 police had come to our village and taken me and co-Mashir Zahid Hussain from our village at about 4-30 p.m. Besides we the relatives of the deceased, there were so many other people of the, village when the police took out the dead body from the well. Police stayed there for about 30 or 45 minutes."
57. ' P.W. Dr. Muhammad Hashim in his examination-in-chief stated as under:-- "On 17-12-2002 I was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Naushehro Feroze. On that day I received dead body of deceased Muhammad Raheem son of-Ameer Bux Larik, aged about 28 years at about 4-00 p.m. through police of Police Station Naushehro Feroze for postmortem examination and report. The dead body was identified by Ameer Bux Larik, the father of the deceased. Accordingly, I started postmortem examination of deceased Muhammad Raheem at about 4.30 p.m. and finished it within one hour. "
58. P.W-Abdul Lateef's evidence is also not worth reliance. As per Mashirnama dead body was recovered at 1745 hours whereas doctor has produced medical certificate in evidence which says that dead body was received by him at 1600 hours and he started postmortem at 1630 hours and he completed postmortem by 1730 hours. In this view of the matter, evidence of Mashir is not supported by medical evidence. Even otherwise Mashir of recovery of dead body stated that dead body was lying in the sack of 'green colour' whereas P.W-Rab Dino says that dead body was recovered from well in his presence and same was lying in `white colour sack' P.W-Nek Muhammad has stated in his cross-examination that dead body was taken from the place of recovery at 6-30 p.m. All contradictions pointed out hereinabove make case of prosecution doubtful. In this view of the matter, ocular testimony of P.W-Nek Muhammad cannot be relied upon. Similarly. evidence of P.W-Abdul Lateef and Rab Dino also belied in view of medical evidence.
59. ' In the ease of Imran Ashraf (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with the ocular evidence has held as under:-- "It is important to reiterate known principle of reappraisal of evidence in criminal cases namely that if a witness is trustworthy -and reliable then conviction can safely be based on his evidence.
60. In view of his evidence but if he is an unreliable witness then it cannot be utilized for the purpose of passing conviction against the accused."
61. ' In the case of Muhammad Dilawar (supra), learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the delay in information by the eye-witness has held as under:-- <i>"Withholding of such information by the eye-witness for one day came for consideration before the Lahore High Court in the case of Nawab v. Crown AIR, 1923 Lahore 391. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held as follows: "Prima facie there is no reason apparent why Farzand Ali and Hussain Shah should give false evidence against the appellant. It has, however, been frequently laid down that when a person sees a murder committed and gives no information thereof, his evidence is little better than that of an accomplice."
62. ' In this case, the circumstance that the only eye-witness did not disclose when he knew at the earliest possible opportunity, led to the opinion that it would be extremely unsafe to accept the evidence. The conviction and sentence of death was set aside and the accused was acquitted.
63. This point came for consideration before a Division Bench of Oudh Chief Court in the case of Emperor v. Kallu, 1937 Oudh 259. Murder of a woman's paramour was committed by her husband in the presence of women. She did not give the information of the commission of the murder to the nearest Magistrate, or police officer as required by section 44, Cr.P.C. even during the absence of her husband for about 10 days after the murder and it was .held that evidence of such witness without corroboration in material particulars was not acceptable. The acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Judge was upheld on the principle that a person aware of the commission of offence and withholding the information is an accomplice who provides protection to the accused and independent corroboration of the material particulars of the evidence of an accomplice has become a rule of law. The reason underlining the ride is that the testimony of an accomplice ,is regarded a tentative evidence and it is, therefore, considered un-safe to base a conviction on it unless there is independent, corroboration forthcoming. On the same principle corroboration is insisted upon in the case of evidence of informers."
64. ' In the case of Gul Muhammad (supra), learned Division Bench of this Court also held as under:-- "At Karachi telephones are frequently available at bungalows and at other places like restaurants, etc. and it would not have been difficult for any of these alleged eve-witnesses to have reported the matter to the police which it was their duty to do. Since they have not revealed the incident to any one and they have kept quiet, therefore, their evidence does not inspire confidence in us and as such no implicit reliance can be placed upon what they now alleged in Court about having seen the incident. Looking to the circumstances and the facts a doubt arises in our mind that perhaps the two alleged eye-witnesses are telling lies and they have not come out with the truth.
65. There is also law on the point that an eye-witness who keeps silent after having seen the incident ought not to be relied upon and this law need not be reproduced here. We are, therefore of the opinion that the two alleged eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable at all and their testimony has to be, kept out of consideration."
66. ' The rule laid down in the above reported judgments fully support the case of the appellants.
67. With regard to circumstantial evidence, it is apparent on record that recovery of dead body was not made on the pointation of accused persons; but the same was effected on the pointation of P.W.-Nek Muhammad. However, there is contradiction in timings in statements of P.Ws.-Nek Muhammad, Rab Dino and Mashir of recovery makes recovery also doubtful. With regard to recovery of Chappal, no doubt same was allegedly made on the pointation of appellant Ghulam Abbass on 5-1-2003, but such recovery has been denied by the appellant Ghulam Abbass. No prosecution witness independently proved that the recovery of Chappal was made from the site on the pointation of appellant Gulam Abbass. There is no evidence on record that anything was recovered from the appellant Yasin or on his pointation anything was recovered.
68. ' In case of Tahira Bibi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with the evidence of recovery has held as under:-- "In regard to the evidence of recovery of the incriminating articles, the contention that the appellant, who was not shown to have absconded and had thus the opportunity to get rid of the articles, would not keep the articles in his house for four days until 22-10-1975 when he was arrested is not without some weight. The police officer has not even stated as to from where he had arrested the appellant and, therefore, it could be presumed that he had been arrested from the place of his ordinary residence. That being so, he had ample opportunity to have disposed of the articles." With regard to medical evidence, it no way connects the present appellants with the commission of offence. On the contrary, it supports the appellants and makes the statement of Mashir Abdul Lateef doubtful.
69. ' The judgments cited by learned counsel for the complainant and learned APG have been examined by me and such judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the case in hand.
70. ' From the perusal of above, I am of the firm opinion that the case of the prosecution has become doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove its ease beyond any shadow of doubt. In this view of the matter, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court through judgment dated 31-8-2009 and acquit the appellants by extending them benefit of doubt. Appellants are in custody. They may be released forthwith if not required in any other case.