' ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.---Muhammad Ramzan alias Kaifi, Mukhtar Ali and Muhammad Ameer appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, in case F.I.R. No,71 of 2006, dated 25-3-2006 under sections 302/436/381-A/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Maclod Ganj, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar for causing Qatl-e-amd of Mst. Mukhtar Bibi widow of Bashir Ahmad, and Muhammad Zafar son of Bashir Ahmad by setting them on fire. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 17-7-2008 convicted the appellants under sections 302(b)/436 and 381-A, P.P.C. As under:--
(i) Under section 436, P.P.C. Sentenced to undergo 7 years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs,10,000 XLVeach and in default of payment of the same to suffer further S.I. For a period of three months each;
(ii) Under section 381-A, P.P.C. Sentenced to five years' R.I. Each with a fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default of payment of the same each of them to undergo S.I. For three months;
(iii) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. Sentenced to imprisonment for life each on two counts with a direction to pay an amount of Rs,1,00,000 each to the legal heirs of each deceased, and in case of default in payment thereof undergo further S.I. For six months each on each count.
' All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Was also extended to the accused/appellants.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have lodged the instant Criminal Appeal against the above convictions and sentences. Muhammad Raman appellant has also lodged Criminal Appeal No,174- J of 2008 from Jail which has gone infructuous after filing the instant appeal along with other appellants duly represented by counsel. Counsel for Mukhtar Ali appellant No,2 however did not turn up therefore Ms. Gulraiz Abbasi, Advocate, is appointed as defence counsel on State expenses on his behalf. The complainant has also lodged Criminal Revision No,85 of 2008/BWP seeking enhancement of the sentences of the appellants. I intend to dispose of the above noted appeals and the revision petition through this single judgment.
3. Precisely the prosecution case as set-forth in the F.I.R. By Muhammad Iqbal complainant (P.W.2) is that he along with his brother Muhammad Zafar and mother Mst. Mukhtar Bibi (both deceased) reside at Mouza Dhan Singh; that during the night in between 24/25-3-2006 both the deceased were sleeping in the room of the house whereas he was sleeping in the other room; that at about 3 a.m. At night he woke up on the sound of falling of the roof and saw that the room in which his mother and brother were sleeping was ablazing on fire and smoke was rising; that on his hue and cry P.Ws. Talab Hussain resident of Bakka Rahmunka, Sliamsher Ali resident of Dhan Singh along with other persons attracted to the spot and saw that three unknown persons after setting the room ablaze were boarding motorcycle Honda 125 owned by Muhammad Zafar (deceased); that they attempted to apprehend the accused but they showing the firearm riding the motorcycle decamped; that the accused can be identified if brought before them; that the fire was extinguished with the help of P. Ws. And other persons and found that his mother Mst. Mukhtar Bibi and brother Muhammad Zafar had died due to burning in the fire; that the household articles lying in the room had also burnt to ashes and the roof of the room had also collapsed; that the unknown persons have murdered his mother Mst. Mukhtar Bibi and brother Muhammad Zafar by setting it on fire.
4. Muhammad Obaid Ullah Inspector/SHO (P.W.13) along with other police officials being on patrol duty present in the area o,f Mouza Dhan Singh on 25-3-2006 recorded the statement Exh.PB of Muhammad Iqbal complainant and sent the same to the Police Station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.PB/1 was recorded. Thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence, inspected the dead-bodies of Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtar Bibi, prepared their injury statements Exh.PM/3 and Exh.PH/4. He also prepared the inquest report (Exh. PH/3) of deceased Mst. Mukhtar Bibi and inquest report (Exh.PM/4) of deceased Muhammad Zafar and handed over the dead- bodies to Sabir Ali ASI for autopsy. Thereafter he inspected the spot, prepared rough site-plan Exh.PU, obtained Ash from the place of occurrence and sealed it into parcel vide recovery memo Exh.PE. He also secured a partly burnt turban (P.1) vide recovery memo Exh.PD and recorded the statements of the P.Ws. After postmortem examination he took into possession the last-worn clothes of the deceased produced by ASI Ali Sabir vide recovery memo Exh.PF.
5. On 25-4-2006 the investigation of this case was entrusted to Zakir Hussain SI (P.W.15) who recorded the statements of Muhammad Sabir and Mukhtar Ahmad P.Ws. And formally arrested the accused Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Amir and Mukhtar Ali and sent them to judicial lock-up for identification parade. After identification parade of the accused on 19-6-2006 he obtained remand of the appellants and interrogated them, During the investigation each of the accused got recovered pistols, .30-bore which the I.O. Took into possession through recovery memos. On 9-7- 2006 Tracer produced before him scaled site-plan Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1 whereupon he recorded his own notes with red ink and thereafter concluded the investigation and handed over the file to the SHO for preparation of the challan.
6. Pursuant to submission of the challan learned trial Court formally charge-sheeted all the above named appellants under sections 302,436,381-A/34, P.P.C. To which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. Prosecution produced as many as 18 witnesses to prove the charges. Besides the above noted Investigating Officers, Muhammad Iqbal complainant/eye-witness (P.W.2), Shamsher Ali eye- witness (P.W.3), Muhammad Sabir (P.W.4) and Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W.5) are material witnesses. Rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.
8. After concluding the prosecution evidence learned trial Court recorded the statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Whereby they denied the prosecution evidence while pleading their innocence. Muhammad Ramzan accused/appellant in answer to question "Why this case is against you and wily P.Ws. Have deposed against you" stated as under:-- "I have been falsely involved in this case. In fact this is a blind occurrence and delayed reported case. This state of affairs shows that the occurrence was not even seen by the complainant as at the time of occurrence, he was residing at Lahore where he was doing labour. This case remained untraceable for a sufficient time and when all the efforts were failed to trace out the real culprits of this case, the complainant with the collusiveness with the local police roped me in this case as my brother-in-law namely Manzoor Ahmad sons of Muhammad Siddique, caste Sheikh resident of Mauza Kahan Singh is residing at a distance of 4/5 kms from the place of occurrence who had political rivalry in the local polls with Mian Khadim Hussain Kaloka, former Minister. Thus I have been involved in this case to fill in the blanks. Many persons even complainant was doubted and inquired as the deceased and the complainant had a dispute over the sale of the land by the deceased and he was thrown out by the deceased from his house. The prosecution has failed to prove its case. All the witnesses are partials and inter se related and deposed falsely against me.
The factum of taking away motorcycle is concocted version in order to strengthen this blind case and to connect me with this case. This motorcycle did not belong to the deceased and for this reason the F.I.R. Does not bear the particulars of the alleged motorcycle. I never confessed before the witnesses who are closely related with the complainant. The identification test is also illegal.
The police showed my formal arrest on 6-6-2006 while this arrest according to the police diary and the report 173, Cr.P.C. It was made on 1-6-2006 while I was actually arrested 1-1/2 months earlier to this test. In the childhood I and my maternal uncle Shah Muhammad had been cultivating the land of the complainant party and as such I was known to them. During all the illegal stay at Police Station, the complainant and the witnesses had been visiting the Thana. The deceased was a bad repute person, indulged in the trafficking of the intoxicants and a person having many enemies. I am a poor person having 6 children, the youngest of them is about 2-1/2 years old. I am mason and do not think to commit such like offence. No one is after me to care my children and wife who are helpless; therefore, I seek mercy from this court."
9. In answer to the same question, Mukhtar Ali accused/appellant replied as under:-- "It was a blind occurrence and I have been falsely involved in this case because of only suspicion and on the basis of mala fide."
10. Muhammad Amir accused/appellant in answer to this question replied in the following words:-- "I have been falsely involved in this case. In fact I and Tariq Javed maternal cousin of Mukhtar Ahmad my co-accused used to reside together and to ply a Rickshaw at Karachi. Mukhtar Ahmad my co-accused was on visiting terms with Tariq Javed at Karachi. At the time of arrest Mukhtar Ali my co-accused from Karachi, I was present there and the police also arrested me from there. I have no concern whatsoever with the alleged occurrence. P.Ws. Have deposed against me at the asking of the complainant."
' The appellants did not opt to make any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However they produced Allah Yar 317/HC as D.W.1 and Muhammad Jahangir 833/C as D.W.2 in defence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that they have been falsely implicated in this case with malice; that it was a blind occurrence; that the appellants are not nominated in the F.I.R.; that for a long time the alleged occurrence remained untraced; that the P.Ws. Are inter se related and falsely deposed against them to fill in the blank due to political rivalry; that Muhammad Ramzan appellant is already known to the complainant therefore the alleged identification test was illegal; that no recovery is effected from him and that the alleged recoveries are fabricated and planted; that Mukhtar Ahmad appellant reside at Karachi and ply rickshaw and has been falsely implicated on account of suspicion; that the alleged extra-judicial confession of the appellants is an afterthought and concocted version; that the appellants never confessed any guilt before Muhammad Sabir and Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.4 and P.W.5; that both the said witnesses are closely related to the complainant and have falsely deposed against the appellants; that no independent witness from the locality is produced by the prosecution; that the complainant has introduced dishonest improvements in his version through supplementary statement alleging it a case of theft as well to falsely implicate the appellants; that the prosecution version suffers from material self- contradictions and inconsistencies; that the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular account; that the alleged circumstantial evidence being absurd lacking intrinsic value and inherent worth cannot be believed at all; that the prosecution has not been able to bring the guilt home to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt; that in the absence of any motive of the appellants against the deceased the impugned convictions and sentences based on misappreciation of evidence causing miscarriage of justice are untenable and liable to be set aside.
12. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had no malice or against the appellants who are not resident of the locality; that after about 8/10 days of the occurrence the complainant came to know that Mst. Sharaf Elahi alias Shaffan resident of Mauza Lar Kahan Singh was arranging the marriage of his brother Muhammad Zafar (deceased) with the daughter of Mst. Faizan Bibi resident of the same village and for that his brother Muhammad Zafar had sold his mini-bus for Rs,6,00,000 and he had also purchased some gold ornaments which was in the knowledge of Mst. Sharaf Elahi; that the appellant Muhammad Ramzan son of Mst. Sharaf Elahi was living in village Moharwali, Tehsil Bahawalnagar and used to visit his mother of and on and thus came to know about cash and gold ornaments lying with Muhammad Zafar; that he reported the matter to the I.O. Who summoned Manzoor Ahmad resident of Lar Kahan Singh and interrogated him wherefrom it revealed that the appellants have been visiting Mst. Sharaf Elahi and thus having knowledge of cash amount and gold ornaments lying in possession of Muhammad Zafar (deceased), in furtherance of common intention committed the occurrence and also admitted so through their extra-judicial confession before the P.Ws. Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Sabir; that the Investigating Officer had also recovered the gold ornaments and cash of Rs,70,000 from the appellants but did not prepare the recovery memo thereof; that the motorcycle of the deceased Muhammad Zafar was also got recovered on the pointation of Muhammad Ramzan appellant; that charges have been established against the appellants with the help of reliable ocular account corroborated by the medical evidence and recoveries therefore the learned trial Court rightly convicted them for causing wilful murder of Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi by setting them on fire after commission of theft of cash and gold ornaments; that the appellants committed brutal and callous murder of Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi therefore they deserve capital punishment instead of imprisonment for life awarded by the trial Court.
13. I have given patient hearing to the learned counsel for the appellants, learned DPG for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the record.
14. Appellants are not nominated in the F.I.R. Complainant's version is that he was sleeping in the other room of his house and woke up on hearing the sound of falling of burning room wherein his mother Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi and brother Muhammad Zafar (both deceased) were sleeping; that he raised hue and cry in result whereof Shamsher Ali (P.W.3) and Talab Hussain (given-up P.W.) reached to the spot within five to seven minutes and they saw that three unknown accused were trying to start the .Motorcycle owned by Muhammad Zafar (deceased) and that they made an attempt to apprehend but the accused raising firearm caused threats to them and thereafter riding the motorcycle decamped.
15. Admittedly Shamsher Ali (P.W.3) is real Mamoon of the complainant as well as of the deceased Muhammad Zafar and brother of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi (deceased). It is on the record that his house is at a distance of about 15/20 houses towards the east from the place of occurrence. It is also on record that houses of Allah Ditta Gujjar and Manzoor Ahmad barber are situated towards south of the place of occurrence. House of Talab Hussaib P.W. (given-up) is situated at a distance of about one Acre from the place of occurrence and in between 15/20 houses are also located. It is therefore obvious that no independent witness from the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence is produced by the prosecution. Even Talab Hussain P.W. Has been given up for the reasons best known to the prosecution. His non-production in the witness-box is not sufficiently explained. It therefore causes material deficiency in the prosecution case. Mere fact alleged by the complainant that he woke up on hearing the sound of falling of the roof of the burning room makes it crystal clear that a considerable time must have been elapsed after setting the room at fire resulting into fall of the roof. Certainly it takes a couple of hours or at least not less than one hour to have an effect of fire resulting into falling of the roof allegedly made of iron guarders etc. Therefore complainant's version corroborated by his real Mamoon Shamsher Ali (P.W.3) that they had seen three unknown persons standing in the courtyard of the house attempting to start the motorcycle does not, appeal to the sense. It is not believable that the B unknown accused after commission of the alleged offence could be available in the courtyard for hours waiting the arrival of the P. Ws.
Even the medical evidence comprising postmortem examination on the deadbodies of Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi conducted by Lady Doctor Humaira Kanwal (P.W.9) and Dr. Muhammad Tariq Javed (P.W.10) makes it crystal clear that the deadbodies were badly burnt and about 2/3rd of the left leg of Muhammad Zafar was missing and his skull was grossly fractured and burnt and was missing above the level of both temples. Similarly deadbody of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi had also been burnt to 5th and 6th degree 'as right arm of her body below elbow was missing.
Similarly both the eyes and fingers of left hand were also missing totally burnt.
16. Muhammad Iqbal complainant (P.W.2) has categorically stated that he proceeded to the police station at about 7/7-30 a.m. To lodge report and was still in the area of his village when police met him near the Boys Primary School where the police recorded his statement Exh.PB. Shamsher Ali (P.W.3) also stated that Muhammad Iqbal complainant (P.W.2) had left the place of occurrence to go to the police station at about 7/8-00 a.m. For registration of the case and that the, police arrived at the spot within 15/20 minutes. Contrary to the above Exh.PB i,e, statement of the complainant recorded by Muhammad Obaid Ullah SI/SHO (P.W.13) transpires that it was recorded at 10-00 a.m.
In the area of Mauza Dhan Singh. Even the Daily Diary pertaining to the month of March, 2006 of the police station produced by Allah Yar 317/HC (D.W.1) transpires that the scribe of Exh.PB Muhammad Obaid C ur-Rehman SI/SHO (P.W.13) left the police station along with constables for patrol duty for Dhan Singh at 9-00 a.m. On 25-3-2006. Needless to mention that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is just 7 K.M. It therefore transpires material inconsistencies in the statements of the P.Ws.
17. Besides above, complainant's version that he was sleeping in the adjacent room of the same house where the occurrence took place and he woke up on hearing the fall of the roof of the burning room does not appeal to the sense. While facing cross-examination the complainant stated that the burnt dead-bodies of his mother and brother were lying with the northern wall of the room whereas door of the said room was in the southern wall and there were two windows with the door. He further stated that the deadbody of his mother was lying connected with the wall. He explained that the deadbody of Muhammad Zafar was lying close to the deadbody of his mother and that both the deadbodies were lying fastened with each other with a Safa/turban of black colour. Contrary to the above Shamsher Ali (P.W.3) stated that both the deadbodies of Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi were present on burnt cot. He did not utter that the dead bodies were fastened with any cloth. Location of the dead bodies as alleged by the complainant lying with the northern wall whereas the door of the room was in the southern wall therefore fails to reflect that the deceased had made any effort to approach the door to get out of the burning room. It is also astonishing that the complainant sleeping in the other room of the same house did not hear any hue and cry of the deceased. It is also not alleged or explained by the complainant that the door of the burning room was bolted from outside. The above noted state of affairs therefore makes it crystal clear that the complainant Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.2) was not present at the time and place of occurrence and had not seen the accused at all standing in the court-yard of the house attempting to start motorcycle rather the occurrence is shrouded in mystery. Therefore I have no hesitation to conclude that it was a blind occurrence. As regards the alleged D identification parade, suffice to say that it was totally immaterial, insignificant and uncalled for as both the P. Ws. Had not seen the accused at the time of occurrence. Reliance be made upon Adrees v. The State (2002 SCM R 1439).
18. Prosecution has tried to build up its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The complainant in his statement has deposed that after 8/10 days of the occurrence it came to his knowledge that one Mst. Sharaf Elahi alias Shaffan resident of Mauza Lar Kahan Singh was arranging the marriage of his brother Muhammad Zafar (deceased) with the daughter of Mst.
Faizan Bibi resident of the same village and for that his brother Muhammad Zafar had sold his mini Bus for Rs,6,00,000 and he had also purchased some gold ornaments which was in the knowledge of Mst. Sharaf Elahi; that the appellant Muhammad Ramzan son of Mst. Sharaf. Elahi was living in village Maharwali, Tehsil. Bahawalnagar and used to visit his mother of and on and thus came to know about cash and gold ornaments lying with Muhammad Zafar; that he reported the matter to the I.O. Who summoned Manzoor Ahmad resident of Lar Kahan Singh and interrogated, him wherefrom it revealed that the appellants have been visiting Mst. Sharaf Elahi and thus having knowledge of cash amount and gold ornaments lying in possession of Muhammad Zafar (deceased), in furtherance of common intention committed the occurrence. Record reveals that the complainant did not report the above information to the Investigating Officer Muhammad Obaid Ullah. SI (P.W.13) the first Investigating Officer of this case, up till 25-4-2006 when the investigation of the case was entrusted to Zakir Hussain, SI (P. W.15) rather he for the first time reported the alleged information to Zakir Hussain (P. W.15) on 2-5-2006 i,e, after about one month and seven days of the alleged occurrence and that he merely asked the said Investigating Officer to associate Muhammad Ramzan alias Kaifi as accused in the investigation. It is also pertinent to mention that .The complainant has failed to disclose any source of information with regard to acquiring knowledge about this dimension of this case. Although during cross-examination he has, stated that Muhammad Zafar deceased had purchased gold ornaments from the goldsmith of the same village but he has failed to produce him before the Investigating Officer or in the witness-box.
Simultaneously the complainant's 'version that Muhammad Zafar had sold out his mini-bus in consideration of Rs,6,00,000' immediately before the occurrence is also not established through any ocular account or documentary account. It is also admitted by the complainant that Muhammad Ramzan appellant was not residing with his mother Mst. Faizan Bibi rather he was residing in village Maharwali Tehsil Bahawalnagar. Therefore prosecution version that he had knowledge through his mother Mst. Faizan Bibi of the amounts and gold ornaments lying with Muhammad Zafar deceased is not sufficiently proved through any ocular account. Prosecution has also miserably failed to bring any ocular account on the record to establish that Mst. Faizan Bibi was on visiting terms to deceased Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi or she had any direct knowledge that the deceased were in possession of some gold ornaments or cash of Rs,600,000.
Therefore in the absence of any reliable or trustworthy evidence on the above dimensions prosecution has miserably failed to establish the alleged segment of the circumstantial evidence.
19. Prosecution has advanced its plea of extra-judicial confession of the accused through the testimonies of Muhammad Sabir (P.W.4) real Mamuzad and Mukhtar Ahmad (P.W.5) real cousin (Phuphizad) of the complainant. Muhammad Sabir (P.W.4) is resident of Minchanabad City whereas Mukhtar Ahmad is resident of Mauza Jamalkot Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara. Admittedly Mukhtar Ahmad is a chance witness who allegedly was present at the house a of Muhammad Sabir (P.W.4) after about one and a half month of the occurrence when the appellants allegedly came there and made a joint confession before them. Both reported the alleged confession of the appellants before the Investigating Officer on the following day. Although both the P.Ws. Have not mentioned any date of the alleged confession, however Zakir Hussain SI/I0 (P.W.15) stated that both the P.Ws. Had got recorded their statements before him on 13-5-2006. No reason is assigned by both the P.Ws. Muhammad Sabir and Mukhtar Ahmad that why they did not apprehend the appellants when they had allegedly made confession before them with regard to callous and brutal murder of their close relatives Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi. Both the P.Ws. In their statements stated that the appellants not earlier known to them came and introduced themselves and confessed that after committing the house trespass of Muhammad Zafar they had set his room on fire and as a result thereof Muhammad Zafar and his mother Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi were burned and thereafter they took the motorcycle of Muhammad Zafar and fled away from the scene of occurrence. It fails to show any intention of the appellants to cause murder of Muhammad Zafar and Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi by setting the room at fire in the absence of any motive or previous animosity against them. Therefore the alleged joint extra-judicial confession of the appellants before the P.Ws. Appears to be an afterthought and concocted version totally absurd and unbelievable and this being a weakest piece of evidence is not admissible at all in the circumstances of this case. Reliance is made on The State v. Kamal Khan alias Maloo and another (1993 SCM R 1378).
20. Alleged recovery of motorcycle (P.18) on the pointation of Muhammad Ramzan appellant from the sand dunes in the area of Chak No,193/Murad Tehsil Hasilpur is not attested by any independent witness of the locality rather both the recovery witnesses are relatives of the complainant and the deceased. Even the registration book does not reflect ownership of Muhammad Zafar deceased. Therefore it fails to furnish any reliable corroboration to connect the appellant Muhammad Ramzan with the alleged occurrence. Simultaneously the alleged recoveries of pistols .30-bore (P.10, P.13 and P.15) from the accused/appellants are also inconsequential as the same were not used in the occurrence.
21. Mere argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant has no previous animosity against the appellants to falsely implicate them who are also not resident of his locality is not sufficient to discharge the burden of proof. It is cardinal principal of criminal law that the prosecution remains under heavy burden to bring the guilt home to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. In case of circumstantial evidence it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the alleged circumstances as of conclusive nature to exclude every hypothesis but one proposed to be proved. The circumstances from which an inference adverse to the accused is sought to be drawn must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and must be clearly connected with the fact sought to be inferred therefrom. In order to jtistify an inference of guilt, the circumstances from which such an inference, is sought to be drawn must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.
Reliance be made upon Mst. Jahura Bibi v. Emperor (AIR 1931 Calcutta 11).
22. Careful appraisal and comparative analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution makes it crystal clear that it has failed to bring the guilt home to the appellants as actual assailants of the alleged occurrence regarding wilful murder of Muhammad Zafar and Mst.
Mukhtaran Bibi by setting them on fire after commission of theft of gold ornaments and cash etc. In the absence of any reliable, confidence-inspiring and trustworthy ocular account from the prosecution side conviction cannot be based merely on absurd, afterthought and concocted pleas of circumstantial evidence or joint extra-judicial confession.
23. For the foregoing discussion and reasons instant appeal (Criminal Appeal No,194 of 2008/BWP) is accepted, the impugned convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges given benefit of doubt. All the three convict/appellants are in Jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.
24. For the same reasons Criminal Appeal No,174-J of 2008 filed by Muhammad Ramzan from Jail is dismissed having gone infructuous. Simultaneously Criminal Revision No,85 of 2008/BWP lodged by the complainant for enhancement of sentences of the respondents having no merit is also dismissed.