JUDGMENT SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.--- Muhammad Mushtaq and Mahboob Ahmad appellants along with Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Ashfaq alias Mithu (acquitted accused) were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot in case F.I.R. No.27 dated 21-2-2004 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kotli Loharan District Sialkot. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 30-3-2005 convicted Muhammad Mushtaq appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death. Whereas, Mahboob Ahmad appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Both the appellants were directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,25,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased. In case of default, they were directed to further undergo, S.I. For six months each.
Muhammad Mushtaq and Mahboob Ahmad appellants have filed Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2005 against their conviction and sentence whereas, Muhammad Ashraf complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.401 of 2005 for enhancement of sentence and compensation awarded to the respondent No.1/Mahboob appellant by trial Court. Whereas the learned trial Court has sent a reference (M.R.No.693 of 2005) under section 374 Cr.P.C. For confirmation of death sentence of Muhammad Mushtaq appellant or otherwise. We propose to dispose of all these matters through this single judgment.
It is pertinent to mention here that it has been brought into notice of this Court that appellant Muhammad Mushtaq who has been sentenced to death for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Zahoor Ahmad alias Manzoor has expired in jail on 26-11-2010, and this fact has been confirmed by learned counsel for both the sides as well as vide letter dated 29-12-2010 of Superintendent District Jail, Sialkot, therefore, Criminal Appeal No.528-2005 to the extent of Muhammad Mushtaq stands abated.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the complaint (Exh. PD) by complainant Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.5), on the basis of which F.I.R. (Exh. PD-1) was registered, are that complainant on 21-2-2004 at 1-35 a.m.
Was sleeping on his Dera when all of a sudden he were up after hearing the noise (aahat) and saw that Muhammad Mushtaq, Mithu (Muhammad Ashfaq), Muhammad Sadiq and Mahboob Ahmad along with two unknown persons while equipped with fire arms, had come at the Dera. Muhammad Sadiq raised lalkaras that Zahoor alias Manzoor be finished, whereupon, accused Muhammad Mushtaq fired a shot, hitting on front side of chest of Zahoor alias Manzoor, second shot was fired by Mehboob Ahmad hitting near right knee of his brother, whereas Mithu (Muhammad Ashfaq) fired a shot, hitting at the backside of knee of Zahoor alias Manzoor. It is alleged in F.I.R. That Muhammad Sadiq continued firing. However, in pursuance of the reports of fire shots, Muhammad Tufail (P.W. Since given up) and P.W.6. Abdul Ghafoor also came at the spot and witnessed the incident, whereafter, complainant along with his companions, removed his injured brother to Civil Hospital, Sialkot for treatment but injured Zahoor Ahmad alias Manzoor succumbed to the injuries, in the way.
The motive for the occurrence is that deceased Zahoor Ahmad alias Manzoor, used to visit Shrine of Hazrat Shah Swar where the accused Mushtaq also used to pay the visits and previously a scuffle took place between them but the matter was patched up through the intervention of the respectable.
3. After the completion of investigation the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted to the Court. Charge against the accused was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven P.Was. The trial Court summoned Mirza Zafar Alam Baig as CW-1.
P.W.2 Dr. Abdul Khalid Sulehri, M.O. AIMH, Sialkot, on 21-2-2004 at 1-00 p.m. Conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Zahoor Ahmad and found following injuries on his person:--
(1) A lacerated circular punctured wound 3 cm x 3 cm on the front and middle part of the chest just on the xiphoid process. Margins of the wound were inverted, charring and blackening were present.
(It was an entry wound).
(2) A lacerated wound 7 cm x 6 cm bone exposed below the right knee joint front and medial aspect, blackening, and charring were present. Margins were inverted. (entry wound).
(3) A lacerated wound 5 x 3 cm x bone exposed on the posterior aspect of right knee joint. Margins of the wound were everted. (It was exit wound).
In his opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by fire arm weapon. Injury No.1 falls under section 337-C, P.P.C. As Jaifah and was dangerous to life while Injuries Nos.2 and 3 fall under section 337-F(i.e), P.P.C. As Ghayer Jaifah Mutalahimah. He further opined that death was caused due to Injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3 collectively due to damage to the vital organs leading to shock and causing cardiorespiratory failure and death. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was instantaneous and between death and post mortem was 10-12 hours.
P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf is the complainant of this case who fully supported the contents of the F.I.R.
P.W.6 Abdul Ghafoor is the eyewitness of this case who supported the version of the complainant.
P.W.7 Muhammad Anwar, S.-I. Had partly investigated this case.
Remaining P.Was. Are formal in nature.
CW-1 Mirza Zafar Alam Baig (retired S.P) partly investigated this case.
4. Learned ADA tendered in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Exh. PL, report of Serologist Exh.PM and report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh. On and closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statement of Mahboob Ahmad appellant was recorded under section 342; Cr.P.C. In reply to the question, "why this case was registered against you and why P.Was. Have deposed against you," Appellant replied as under:-- "That since long we and complainant party who are our Sharika Broder) living in the same village and since long we had political, social and physical superiority on Sharika Brodery, (complainant party). After 1995, some persons of complainant party settled down in America and they got better financial position as compared to us but despite of desire to have overcoming us in social and political condition of the village. We remained better in our village, a year ago, there was shamlat land at our village which was adjacent to the property of the complainant party, as the Shamlat is the common property of the whole village, the complainant party could not take possession of that Shamlat without consent of us; so the complainant party made an oral contact with us, that the complainant party would take the possession and sell it and out of the consideration of this land, Rs.3,00,000 (three lac) would be paid to the accused Muhammad Sadiq and his son Ashraf.
Muhammad Sadiq is one of the accused of this case and he is my real uncle. He is also uncle of accused Mushtaq and father of Mithu accused. The complainant party after taking the possession sold Shamlat in consideration of Rs.6,00,000 (six lac rupees) to Iqbal and Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) was remained unpaid to us. - Meanwhile, unfortunately, the murder of Zahoor Ahmad alias Manzoor was committed by some dacoit and complainant party got the chance to make us snub and they falsely implicated us. All the P.Was are interested witnesses and all the P. Was. Are related to each other and with the deceased."
Appellant did not opt to appear as his on witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And also did not opt to produce evidence in his defence.
6. Learned counsel for Mahboob Ahmad appellant contended that in this case the occurrence took place on 21-2-2004 at 1-35 a.m. In the mid of the night and no source of light has been mentioned in the F.I.R. But while appearing before the Court the witnesses made improvement by introducing a lantern present at the place of occurrence. It is contended that the occurrence took place inside the house and at that time the presence of the witnesses is highly doubtful and it cannot be said that the witnesses were natural in such a circumstance; that statements of these witnesses were not corroborated from any other independent source; that no crime empty was recovered from the spot, whereas, it is the prosecution case that repeated fire shots were made. Further contended that during the investigation the appellant was 'arrested and no recovery was effected from, him, whereas, the recovery of a double barrel licensed gun was effected from co-accused Muhammad Mushtaq; that the doctor observed that only two fire shots were received by the deceased, whereas, according to F.I.R. Three shots were fired upon the deceased and the third injury was attributed to Muhammad Ashfaq. Learned counsel further contended that there is a possibility of death due to the fire shots made from the double barrel gun which was later on recovered from Mushtaq co-accused; that no 'reason was available on the record with The appellant to have fired at the deceased; that earlier Muhammad Mushtaq accused fired on the deceased on the chest from a close range and thereafter there was no need for the appellant to fire at the knee of the deceased. It is further contended that during the investigation the first Investigating Officer was in league with the complainant party and he hastily submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And in this respect the proceedings were initiated against him; that later on investigation was conducted by Mirza Zafar Alam Baig, C.W-1, retired SP Investigation, Sialkot and appellant was found innocent: and CW-1 found only Mushtaq co-accused to be the real culprit; that no direct motive has been alleged against Mahboob appellant. Learned counsel further contended that two other accused persons namely Sadiq and Ashfaq were also implicated in this case but they were acquitted by the learned trial Court; that accused. Ashfaq was attributed the fire shot on the knee of the deceased, whereas, the appellant was also assigned the same role but the learned trial Court while disbelieving prosecution evidence acquitted Ashfaq co-accused therefore., the appellant is also entitled to the same relief as there is no corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant. It is contended that in the F.I.R. No kind of weapon was described and it was only stated that the appellant was armed with fire arm, whereas, while appearing in the Court the witnesses improved their version to bring the same in line with the medical evidence and stated that appellant was armed with gun. It is contended that such an improvement clearly indicates that witnesses tried to implicate the appellant by making statement in line with medical evidence. Lastly contended that if the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence then they would have been aware of the fact that the injuries were the result of two fire shots and the same were caused from a very close range which is evident by the medical evidence; that the appellant is a brother of Mushtaq and other accused namely Sadiq and Ashfaq were also closely related to the present appellant; that the complainant while throwing a wider net involved maximum number of family of appellant; that Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2005 filed by the complainant against acquittal of Sadiq and Ashfaq co- accused has been dismissed vide order dated 1-3-2006. Learned counsel also contends that occurrence had taken place in the mid of the night and it was in fact, an occurrence of dacoity and later on the appellant and the other accused have been falsely involved.
7. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that non-mentioning of presence of a lantern in the F.I.R. Is not a circumstance which goes against the prosecution because in villages at Deras usually the people use the lanterns and the same are always lit in the evening, so the presence of light at the scene of occurrence is proved from the facts of the case. It is contended that no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and it must have been taken away by some one. It is contended that although nothing was recovered from the possession of Mehboob appellant but his co-accused Mushtaq (since dead) got recovered a double barrel gun, which was a licensed gun. Learned D.P.-G. Has contended that presence of the people at the Dera is a common practice and presence of the witnesses at the relevant time is fully explained by the witnesses while appearing in the Court. It is contended that there is no reason for false implication of Mahboob appellant; that the appellant has not produced any record in the evidence to indicate that there was a dispute regarding the land between the complainant side and the appellant. It is contended that the motive part was specifically assigned to the co-accused Mushtaq who was real brother of Mahboob appellant and same motive can also be used against him. It is contended that the trial Court while giving benefit of doubt acquitted Ashfaq co-accused on the ground that injury attributed to him was an exit wound whereas injury assigned to appellant was found by the Doctor to be the entry wound. It is contended that the deceased died while he was being shifted to the hospital and in such a circumstance, it cannot be said that the occurrence remained un-witnessed, that the complainant was present at the spot because he immediately took the deceased to the hospital, where the police recorded statement of the complainant; that the injury attributed to the appellant on the leg was found to be having accumulative effect along with the injury assigned to the co-accused which resulted into the death of the deceased, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any leniency.
8. While arguing Criminal Revision No.401 of 2005 learned counsel for the complainant contends that amount of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Be enhanced against Mahboob Ahmad respondent No.2/appellant.
9. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
10. It is the prosecution's on case that the occurrence had taken place at 1-30 a.m. Both the witnesses are quite clear that it was a dark night. F.I.R. Is silent regarding any source of light but during trial Muhammad Ashraf complainant (P.W.5) improved his version that there was light of lantern. He was duly confronted with his previous statement where it was not so recorded. The presence of light of lantern at 1-35 a.m. Is not plausible and in order to meet this situation, Muhammad Ashraf complainant/P.W.5 for the first time during the trial made improvement that Zahoor Ahmad alias Manzoor deceased was studying in the light of lantern. He was duly confronted with his previous statement Exh.PD, where it was not so recorded. So, one thing is quite clear that neither the lantern nor reasons, for its being lit at that time is mentioned in the F.I.R. And the same for the first time, during the trial was introduced by the complainant. Admittedly, there was no electricity connection in the said Dera and this fact was admitted by the witnesses. It is admitted by Muhammad Ashraf complainant P.W.5 as under:- "There was no light available on our Dera at that night. It is also correct that the electricity is not available on our Dera."
This assertion of the complainant during cross-examination clearly indicates that light was introduced subsequently. It is the prosecution case that at the place of occurrence there was sufficient light to identify the assailants but without stating the source of light there always remains a chance of mistaken of identity. Although, subsequently, a lantern was invented but question arises whether there was sufficient light of said lantern to identify the culprits at that time. The lantern was shown in the site plan at point-G. This was the western end of the said veranda.
According to Maqsood Ahmad Bhatti, Draftsman, P.W.9. Veranda was about 8/9 feet high and the lantern was fixed in the wall about 1/2 feet below from ceiling. The lantern was inside the said veranda and was almost 7/8- feet above the ground level. Whereas, according to site plan assailants were outside the said veranda on the opposite side i.e. Towards cast, so from such a distance the identification is not possible. Even the complainant for the first time improved the version while introducing lantern and also introducing the reasons for its being lit as allegedly the deceased was studying at that time. On the other hand, it is admitted by P.W.5 that the deceased was commonly known as Sain. Even otherwise for the purpose of study, lantern should be very close to the deceased and not at a distance of 7/8-feet high from the ground. P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf improved his version by stating that Zahoor deceased was studying at that time. On the other hand P.W.6 Abdul Ghafoor in his examination in-chief stated, that after taking the dinner he along with Muhammad Tufail, Muhammad Ashraf complainant and Manzoor alias Zahoor (deceased) were sleeping. It is also a circumstance that said lantern was not taken into possession by the police in order to prove that the same was available at the place of occurrence. Even otherwise, according to the Site plan the complainant was at a distance of 30-feet whereas the witnesses were at a distance of 38-feet from the deceased. From such a distance in the meagre light of the lantern, the identification of the assailants was not possible, especially, when the complainant admitted that all the accused persons were wearing Chadars around their faces and even then he was claiming that their faces were apparent.
In the F.I.R. It is mentioned that accused were armed with fire-arms but no description of fire-arm was given in the F.I.R. Subsequently, complainant introduced this fact that appellant along with co- accused were armed with.12 bore guns but if there was any sufficient light this fact should have been mentioned in the F.I.R. And should not have been' improved subsequently during trial. It was the case of the prosecution that about 10/12 shots were fired by appellant and his co-accused but surprisingly no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence rather the presence of crime empty was wilfully withheld as in the site plan between point E and point, D, the presence of an empty is shown, due to which under note 'D' some writing was erased, in site plan Exh.PK and Exh.PK/1. The I.D. Admitted that "it is correct that in site plans Exh. PK and PK/1 there is mention of empty between points D and E. Volunteered. I had not recovered any empty from the spot of incident. " From this narration it is quite clear that initially the prosecution tried to plant some empties at the place of occurrence but subsequently, the same were withheld as the same did not suit the prosecution case and due to which subsequently guns were introduced. 'These all facts create doubt regarding the prosecution case.
11. In the F.I.R. It is alleged that fire shot of Mushtaq (since dead) hit the deceased on his chest, whereas, fire shot of Mahboob appellant hit the deceased near the right knee and fire shot of co- accused Ashfaq also hit the deceased on the back of right knee. According to the doctor- there was only two entry wounds on the person of the deceased, one on the chest and the other was below the right knee. Both the witnesses during the trial remained consistent that the deceased received three fire shots. Muhammad Ashraf complainant/P.W.5 during cross-examination categorically stated that the deceased Manzoor sustained three bullet shots. Likewise, P.W.6. Abdul Ghafoor admitted that "total three fire shots hit the deceased" but according to the doctor the deceased received only two fire shots. The witnesses are consistent on this point that the deceased received three fire shots. This clear-cut contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence belies the whole prosecution case rather suggests that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence.
12. Muhammad Ashraf complainant/ P.W.5 while appearing in the Court stated that fire shot of Mahboob appellant hit Manzoor on his leg and it was clearly stated by P.W.5 that fire shot of Ishfaq alias Mithu hit Manzoor deceased below his knee. Whereas P.W.6 categorically stated that fire shots of Mahboob appellant hit on the right leg of Manzoor whereas, fire shot of Mithu hit on the right side of leg of Manzoor deceased. So, during the trial both the witnesses remained consistent that the fire shot of Mahboob appellant and Mithu hit the deceased on his right leg rather P.W.S. Categorically stated that fire shot of Mithu hit the deceased below his knee. According to the doctor there was only one entry wound on right leg and entry wound, below the right knee joint was having blackening and charring. Although, in the F.I.R. It was specified by the witnesses that fire shot of Mahboob hit near the Right knee and fire shot of Ishfaq co-accused on the back of right knee but in order to involve both the accused during the trial both the witnesses attributed the shots to Mahboob and Ashfaq alias Mithu, hitting the deceased on his right leg and it is clearly mentioned by the complainant that fire shot of Mithu hit below the knee. According to the doctor the lacerated wound below the knee was entry wound and the other lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of the right knee joint was the exit wound. Learned trial Court had not given weight to the evidence of these two witnesses during trial regarding the seat of injuries and while relying upon the F.I.R.
Observed that injury, attributed to Ishfaq was an exit wound of the injury attributed to Mahboob.
Whereas, both the witnesses during trial did not attribute the said injury as mentioned in the F.I.R.
Rather the entry wound is specifically alleged against Ishfaq alias Mithu who was acquitted by the trial Court. Appeal (No. 785-05) against his acquittal filed by the complainant was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21-3-2006. So, even if the statements of both the witnesses were taken as gospel truth, even then the entry wound is attributed by these two witnesses during the trial to Ishfaq alias Mithu which creates benefit of doubt in favour of Mahboob appellant.
13. The motive in this case as alleged in the F.I.R. Was that of a quarrel between Muhammad Mushtaq (since dead) and the deceased Zahoor alias Manzoor Due to visit of Khanqah Shahswar.
In order to connect the appellant with whole motive occurrence, during the trial Muhammad Ashraf complainant/P.W.5 improved his version by stating that a quarrel took place between Manzoor alias Zahoor and the accused person. He was duly confronted with his previous statement Exh. PD where quarrel between Manzoor and Mushtaq alone is mentioned. Regarding said quarrel no case was registered nor any proceedings under sections 107 and 151, Cr.P.C. Were initiated. Although, P.W.6 during the trial for the first time stated regarding the motive occurrence but he was confronted with his previous statement but nothing was mentioned in his previous statement Exh.DA regarding the motive. He also admitted that exchange of hot words between the deceased and Mushtaq took place about less than one year before the occurrence. He again stated that it might be 2/3 months prior to the present occurrence. So, the prosecution produced only one witness i.e. P.W.5 Muhammad Ashraf complainant to prove the motive but he while making statement regarding the motive" made improvement in order to involve all the accused persons along with Mushtaq (since dead). The other witnesses made improvement for the first time regarding the motive. He appeared before the police and never stated anything regarding the motive. No other witness for proving the motive was produced by the prosecution. Even otherwise, this motive has nd concern with Mahboob appellant. Motive is always considered to be a double edged that could be the reason for committing the murder. But on the other hand, the same could be the reason for false implication of an innocent person. There is another circumstance which creates doubt. According to the Investigating Officer he arrested the accused persons on 8-3-2004 almost 15 days after the occurrence. On the other hand, Muhammad Ashraf P.W.5. Stated during cross examination that accused were arrested after 2/2-1/2 hours of burial of the deceased, whereas, P.W.6 stated that accused persons were arrested on the following day of the occurrence from the village. Keeping the accused person for 15 days in Police Station without showing their arrest is a circumstance, which indicate connivance of earlier Investigating Officer with the complainant, party. It is worth-mentioning here that Muhammad Anwar S.-I./P.W.7 was reverted as an A.S.-I. CW-1 Mirza Zafar Alam Baig, S.P. Investigation also investigated this case in the capacity of S.P. Investigation and he also admitted that it had come to his knowledge that accused persons were arrested by the local police on the same day at about 7/8 a.m. He also came to the conclusion that after thorough investigation all the accused persons except Mushtaq were not found connected with this incident. Although, the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding or relevant but when the prosecution case, as already discussed above, creates doubt on each and every material point, then such an opinion of the Investigating Officer can be looked into and benefit of the same can be given to the accused persons. It is also a circumstance that during the investigation nothing was recovered from the possession of Mahboob appellant and only.12 bore gun was recovered from accused Mushtaq, since dead.
14. For giving benefit of doubt to any accused, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then accused will be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Where evidence creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story, its benefit has to be given to the accused.
Reference can be given to the basic judgment reported as Muhammad Luqman v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 10) in which it is held that:-- "It may be said that a finding of guilt against an accused person can not be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case. The finding as regards his guilt should be rested surely and firmly on the evidence produced in the case and the plain inferences of guilt that may irresistibly be drawn from that evidence. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof. If a case were to be decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of "benefit of doubt" to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice in this country with the consistent approval of the Superior Courts, will be reduced to a naught."
In the case cited as Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCM R 1345), it is observed that:--. "the concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in our country. For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right".
15. The witnesses made improvements in order to prove the identity of the appellants, although, it is established on the record that it was a dark night and without any source of light which was subsequently improved through a lantern. The identification of assailant is not possible. In order to show the presence of the lantern the witnesses made improvement that the deceased was studying at that time. They were duly confronted and it was found that they made improvement during the trial in order to show source' of light through lantern.
In order to connect the appellants with the motive, witnesses also made improvement which was earlier to the extent of Mushtaq only but during the trial they implicated Mahboob appellant in the motive part and they were duly confronted with their previous statements. In the F.I.R. No weapon was specified and only a fire-arm weapon was mentioned but during the trial in order to bring the ocular account in line with the medical evidence,.12 bore gun was shown in the hand of the appellant and his co-accused.
From the above observation it is quite clear that witnesses made improvement in their previous statements. The said improvement indicates that their testimony is not above board as the prosecution would like us to consider. The improvements were made with a view to strengthen the prosecution case and in order to fill up the lacunas which were left while recording the. F.I.R. Their conduct in making these improvements made them absolutely unreliable witnesses who have no respect for truth and are capable of telling a lie and changing their statements as and when it suited them. Their evidence is not trustworthy and confidence inspiring.
It is held in the case of Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State (1993 SCM R 550) that:-- "Statements of the witnesses in the Court in which improvements are made to strengthen the case of the prosecution are not worthy of reliance."
It is held in the case Amir Zaman v. Mahboob and others (1985 SCM R 685) that:-- "testimony of witnesses containing material improvement is not believable.
It is held in the case of Sher D.1 alias Sher Gul and another v. The State (1973 PCr.LJ 802) that: "witnesses making improvements and changing version as and when suited---Held, improvements once found deliberate and dishonest, cast serious doubt on veracity of witnesses and no reliance can, therefore, be placed upon them."
Reference can also be given to the cases of Aslam Khan v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1677 and Shahbaz Khan Jakhrani v. Lal Beg Jakhrani and others (1984 SCM R 42).
It is held in the case of Farman Ahmad v. Muhammad Inayat and others (2007 SCM R 1825) that:-- "It is also a settled maxim when a witness improves his version to strengthen the prosecution case, his improved statement subsequently made cannot be relied upon as the witness had improved his statement dishonestly, therefore, his credibility becomes doubtful on the well-known principle of criminal jurisprudence that improvements once found deliberate and dishonest cast serious doubt on the veracity of such witnesses.,"
16. From the above citations it is crystal clear that the witnesses who improved their versions to strengthen their case could not be relied upon. In this case the witnesses had improved their versions in order to come in line with the medical evidence, which cast serious doubt on the veracity of these witnesses and no reliance can be placed upon them due to dishonest improvements. As the witnesses had improved their statements dishonestly, therefore, their credibility becomes doubtful on the well-known principle of criminal jurisprudence that improvements once found deliberate and dishonest cast serious doubt on the veracity of such witnesses. So, the only inference which can be drawn is that the complainant and the witnesses were not trustworthy and had not seen the occurrence. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It is well-settled that to bring home the guilt of an accused person there should be evidence which should be so sufficient to lead to a conclusion that it was only the (sic) in the present case, no such circumstance is in existence, so in this situation, we think that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, while extending benefit of doubt to Mahboob Ahmad appellant we accept Criminal Appeal No. 528 'of 2005 filed by Mahboob Ahmad and acquitted him from the charge. He is on bail. His surety bonds shall be discharged.
Due to above mentioned reasons, Criminal Revision. No.401 of 2005 filed by the complainant for enhancement of the, sentence and compensation of Mahboob F Ahmad appellant is dismissed.
17. Since the appeal to the extent of main accused Mushtaq Ahmad (since dead) stands abated, therefore, Murder Reference (No.693 of 2005) is answered in the negative; being infructuous..