Shahzado Sheikh, ACJ.--Through Criminal Appeal No.87/L of 2010 appellant Rafique Masih challenged the judgment dated 28.02.2004 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur whereby he was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to Death for causing murder of Shabbir alias Roshan Khan. He was also ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default whereof to further undergo 6. months Simple Imprisonment. The appellant was further convicted under Section 393 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for attempt to commit robbery and was sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine, in default whereof, to further undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. Accused Younis Masih and Tariq Masih have also been convicted under Section 393/34 of the Pakistan Penal, Code each for attempt to commit robbery and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment each. They were also ordered to pay Rs, 10,000/- each as fine, in default whereof to further suffer 6 months Simple Imprisonment each Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was, however, granted to all the convicts. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasure has sent a reference which was registered as Cr. Murder Reference No4L/2011 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant Rafique Masih. Complainant Muhammad Habib filed Criminal Revision No. 14/L of 2010 for enhancement of sentence.
This single judgment will dispose of all the above three matters i.e. Cr. A. No. 87/L/2010, Cr. Murder Reference No. 1/L/2011 and Cr. Rev. No. 14/L/2010 as they arise out of the same judgment and the crime report.
2. Brief facts of the case as set out in FIR No.458/2002 dated 18.11.2002 registered under Sections 302/396, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Raiwind Saddar, District Kasur are that on 18.11.2002 complainant Muhammad Habib PW-5 made an application (Ex.PD) to Station House Officer, Police Station Raiwind Saddar, Kasur stating therein that his real brother Muhammad Shabbir alias Roshan Khan was tractor driver Bearing No. 6602 KSB alongwith him, Jamil Ahmad PW .(given up) used to work with him. On 17.11.2002 after delivering fodder to Lahore, he (Roshan Khan) alongwith Jamil Ahmad was returning to Kot Radha Kishati. From Raiwind, he (complainant) also boarded tractor trolley, when they reached in the area of Zafarkay, his brother Muhammad Shabbir alias Roshan deceased was driving whereas they (complainant Muhammad Habib and Jamil Ahmad) were on trolla. Suddenly, unknown persons made fire shots which hit his brother Muhammad Shabbir alias Roshan on his head; Tractor stopped on the brink of road; the, injured was shifted to Noor Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Complainant further stated that due to darkness they could not identify the assailants. They have no enmity with any one and time of occurrence was mentioned as 3:00 a.m (night).
3. Consequent upon the FIR,- investigation was carried out by Naseer Ahmad Inspector partly. On 18.11.2002 complainant of the case Muhammad Habib produced before him an application Ex.PD for registration of the case. On the basis of application Ex.PD, he drafted FIR Ex.PD/1 without any addition or omission. After that he proceeded to Alnoor Hospital, Kot Radha Kishan where the dead body of deceased Shabbir alias Roshan was lying. He inspected the dead body; prepared inquest report Ex.PM; prepared injury statement Ex.PN; wrote down application for post mortem examination Ex.PO and dispatched the dead body of the deceased to DHQ Hospital Kasur for post mortem examination under the escort of Constable Zulfiqar Ali. After that he alongwith PWs proceeded to the place of occurrence; inspeded the place of occurrence; took into possession empty cartridges of .12 bore P.3 vide recovery memo. Ex.PE; sealed parcel was prepared; recovery memo. was attested by witnesses; took into possession blood stained earth from the place of occurrence vide recovery memo. Ex.PF sealed parcel was prepared; witnesses attested the recovery memo; also took into possession a piece (trunk/branch) of tree Safaida P.4 vide recovery memo Ex.PG: prepared rough scaled site plan of tie place of occurrence Ex.PP and recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter he returned to the Police Station. After post' mortem examination, Constable Zulfiqar Ali produced before him last worn clothes of the deceased Shabbir alias Roshan, Shalwar P.1 and Qameez P.2 vide recovery memo. Ex.PA; the same was handed over to the Moharrir of the Police Station for safe custody. Complainant also appeared before him. He recorded supplementary statement of complainant in which he nominated accused persons present in the court. He searched for the accused persons but they were not available. After that he was transferred from Police Station Raiwind Saddar.
4. Remaining part of the investigation was carried out by ASI Muhammad Sadiq PW-8. During investigation, on 21.11.2002, draftsman handed over to him scaled site plans (duplicate) Ex.PB and Ex.PB/1 and he put red notes on the site plans and the same bear his signatures. On 04.12.2002 all the accused persons were arrested by him. On 06.12.2002 he recorded the statements of Moharrir and Mukhtar Ahmad Constables with regard to parcel of blood stained earth deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore.
On 07.12.2002, accused Rafique Masih was interrogated. During investigation he made disclosure that he could get recovered gun .12 bore used by him during the occurrence. He also disclosed to get recovered a hatchet. As per disclosure accused Rafique Masih led' the Police party to his house and got recovered gun .12 bore P.5 lying in iron box from his residential room. Gun was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PH. Din Muhammad and Abdul Majeed attested the recovery memo. He also prepared unsealed site plan of the place of recovery of gun .12 bore which is ExPH/1.
Thereafter accused Rafique Masih got recovered hatchet P.6 lying nearby a wall of residential quarter. Same was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PJ. Din Muhammad and Abdul Majeed attested the recovery memo. He also prepared unsealed site plan of the place of recovery of gun .12 bore which is Ex.PJ/1. He prepared complaint to get registered a case against Rafique Masih for having illegal weapons.
On 10.12.2002 Younis Masih accused during investigation disclosed that he could get recovered pistol .30 bore used by him during the occurrence. As per disclosure he led the Police party and got recovered pistol .30 bore P.7 from quarter of Haji Gulfraz situated at brick kiln where Younis Masih had been residing. Pistol .30 bore was got recovered by accused Younis Masih lying in an iron box placed in a residential room. Pistol was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PK. Din Muhammad and Abdul Majeed attested the-recovery memo. He prepared unsealed site plan of the place of recovery of pistol which is Ex.PK/1. He also 'prepared complaint to get registered a case against accused Younis Masih for having unlicensed weapon. On the same day i.e 10.12.2002 accused Tariq Masih also disclosed during interrogation that he could get recovered pistol .30 bore, which he had at the time of occurrence. He led the Police party to his house situated in Chak No.55 and got recovered P.8 lying in an iron box placed in a residential room. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PL. Din Muhammad and Abdul Majeed PWs attested the recovery memo. He also recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 07.12.2002 he recorded the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Muharrar Shaukat Ali and Constable Mukhtar Ahmad with regard to parcels of empties to deposit the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. On 18.12.2002 he also recorded the statements of Moharrir Shaukat and Constable Mukhtar with regard to parcel of weapons who deposited the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. Thereafter accused persons were sent to judicial lock up.
5. The learned trial Court on receipt of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from local police framed charge against accused Rafique Masih and his co-accused on 16.06.2005 under Section 17(4) of the Offence against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses at the trial, in addition to documentary evidence. The gist of evidence of the witnesses is as under:-- (i)PW-1: Constable Mukhtar Ahmad stated that on 27.11.2002 he was posted at Police Station Raiwind Saddar. On the same day Moharrir handed over to him one sealed parcel containing blood stained earth for taking to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. He deposited the parcel in the said Office intact.
On 30.11.2002. Moharrir of the Police Station handed over to him one sealed parcel containing empties of cartridges for depositing with the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. He deposited the parcel in the said office on the same day intact.
On 16.12.2002, Moharrir handed over to him one sealed parcel containing gun double barrel .12 bore for depositing in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, which he deposited in the concerned Laboratory on the same day intact. His statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer.
(ii)PW-2: Constable Zulfiqar Ali was posted at Police Station Raiwind Saddar Kasur on 18.11.2002. On the same day he escorted the dead body of Shabbir Khan alias Roshan Khan to DHQ Hospital, Kasur for post mortem examination.
After the post mortem examination on 18.11.2002 the doctor handed over so him last worn clothes of the deceased Shalwar P.1, Qameez P.2 alongwith post mortem report and other papers. He produced the said articles to the Investigation Officer who took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PA, attested by him alongwith Shaukat and Pervaiz Akhta His statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer.
(iii)PW-3: Muhammad Akram Patwari went to the place of occurrence on 23.11.2002; took rough notes as per direction of Nazir Ahmad Khan Investigation Officer and complainant and witnesses.
As per rough notes he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PB and Ex.PB/1 with a scale of 40 Karams equal to one inch. All the notes on black ink are in his handwriting. Both the plans bear his signatures. On 24.11.2002 he handed over both the site plans to the Investigation Officer who recorded his statement.
(iv)PW-4: Dr.Saleem ur Rehman, Medical Officer conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Shabbir alias Roshan Khan and observed as under:- "Rigor mortis and post mortem staining was present. Eyes and mouth were closed. On examination, lacerated wound 10 x 8 c.m on the top head starting from forehead upto occipital region from antero posterior and involving both temprale and parietal regions of both sides. Canial cavity was full with blood. Rest of the organs of thorax and abdomen were found healthy.
In the opinion of this doctor, cause of death in this case was shock and haemorrhage which was due to fire arm injury. Injury was sufficient to cause death and was ante mortem in nature.
After the post mortem examination, he handed over post mortem report, dead body, Police papers and last worn clothes of the deceased to Constable Zulfigar.
(v) PW-5: Muhammad Habib is complainant of the case. He endorsed the contents of his crime report Ex.PD. His supplementary statement was also recorded by the Police.
(vi)PW-6: Abdul Majeed was introduced by the complainant in his supplementary statement as witness of the occurrence. During his statement before the learned trial Court, he corroborated the version of the complainant Muhammad Habib PW-5.
(vii) PW-7: Pervaiz Akhtar identified the dead body of the deceased Shabbir alias Roshan at the time of post mortem examination; he was their employee as tractor driver and after post mortem, the doctor handed over last worn clothes of the deceased to Constable Zulfiqar. His statement was recorded by the Investigation Officer.
(viii) PW-8 is Muhammad Sadiq ASI. His statement has been narrated in Para No. 4 supra.
(ix)PW-9: Head Constable Shaukat Ali on 18.11.2002, Naseer Ahmad S.I/Investigation Officer of the case handed over to him two parcels of blood stained earth to Constable. Mukhtar whereas parcel of empties was handed over to said Constable on 30.1.2002 for onward transmission to the concerned office intact.
On 07.12.2002, S.I Sadiq handed over to him a parcel of .12 bore gun. The said parcel was handed over to Constable Mukhtar Ahmad on 16.12.2002 for depositing in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore intact.
(x) PW-10 is Naseer Ahmad, inspector. His statement has been mentioned in Para No. 3 supra.
7. Mr. Ahmad Maqbool Tahir, learned ADA tendered report of Chemical Examiner, Ex.PQ, report of Serologist Ex.PR and report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PB and closed the prosecution evidence.
8. The learned trial Court after close of the prosecution evidence recorded statements of all the accused. In reply to question, "Why this case against you and why the P.Ws have deposed against you?, the accused Rafique Masih stated as follows:-- "Case against me is false. Prosecution witnesses are related to deceased and interested. They have deposed against me falsely. In fact I alongwith my relatives 20/25 families used to work at the brick kiln of Haji Gulfraz. One Sajjad Mistri told Haji Gulfraz that he alongwith his relatives wanted to leave the job of Haji Gulfraz. Haji Gulfraz has relations with Sardar Tufail Meo who is from the Baradari of complainant. I have been falsely involved in this case due to connivance of Haji Gulfraz and Sardar Tufail Meo, with complainant of this case. The occurrence was blind. No body witnessed the occurrence. Some unknown culprits committed the murder of deceased. I have been falsely involved."
In reply to above-mentioned question, accused Tariq Masih alias Lakha stated as follows:-- "Case against me is false. Prosecution witnesses are related to deceased and interested. They have deposed against me falsely. I is a blind murder. No one witnessed the occurrence. I have been falsely involved in this case due to relationship with co-accused Rafique Masih. No overt act is attributed to me. Prosecution witnesses are not reliable and trustworthy."
Accused Younis Masih replied the above-mentioned question as follows: "Case against me is false. Prosecution witnesses are related to eased and interested. They have deposed against me falsely. It is a blind murder. Some unknown culprits committed the c me. No one witnessed the occurrence. I have been falsely in involved in this case due to relationship with Baradari with co-a used Rafique Masih. No specific act is attributed to me."
Neither the accused recorded their statements under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor they produced any evidence in defence.
9. The learned trial Court, after completing formalities of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.
10. Mr. Aric John, learned Counsel for appellant Rafique Masih has for Mulated the following points:- - Both complainant and other PW.6 Abdul Majeed are close relatives. Complainant is real brother of the deceased and the complainant is brother in-law (Sala) of the brother of PW.6 Abdul Majeed..So, the prosecution witnesses being interested witnesses are not worthy of reliance without any corroboration by some independent piece of evidence.
(ii) Independent/impartial witnesses Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Anwer, Naseer Ahmed and Deen Muhammad were not produced in the trial Court as PWs, therefore, the prosecution story is totally doubtful.
(iii) There is no application on the record for supplementary statement from the complainant and his oral statement could not be relied upon to maintain conviction.
(iv) The place of occurrence is very close to brick kiln of Haji Gulfraz and the accused persons were living and working at this brick-kiln, and it is not probable that accused would commit dacoity near his residence and place of work.
(v). It is an unseen occurrence. The accused were not nominated in the FIR. Neither any features were mentioned nor any indication was given if they could be identified on seeing them. On the contrary it was clearly mentioned that they could not be identified due to darkness. It was subsequently that they were nominated through supplementary statement of the complainant.
(vi)PW.6 stated that he had identified the accused at the time of occurrence but they were not nominated in the FIR.
(vii) The recoveries are fake and are planted against the accused in order to strengthen the prosecution case.
(viii) According to PW.6, accused Tariq Masih was his co-villager whereas according to PW.7 he was known to him earlier.
(ix)The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellant and the appellant deserves acquittal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgment:-- 2005 YLR 1770 [Lahore] Bashir Ahmad Vs. The State "Both complainant and other prosecution witness were real brothers and deceased was son of complainant--Prosecution's own version showed that occurrence took place during dark hours of cold night when atmosphere was also foggy-- Occurrence in circumstances did not occur at a place, where prosecution witnesses should have been present in normal course of events--- Prosecution witness during cross-examination made improvement that he was have a torch and in the light of same assailants were identified, but such torch was ever produced by him before Investigating Officer during investigation--Identification of assailants during dark night, when there was also no moon in the sky and assailants were at a distance of 10/15 Karms as per complainant's own version, was not possible--Evidence on record had established that both prosecution witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time, and that deceased was killed by someone outside the 'Bheni' of complainant during odd hours of night and on finding the dead body lying there, false story was cooked up and accused along with others was involved due to suspicion-- Incident was a blind murder and it could not be said with certainty as to who had committed the crime--F.I.R. was registered in case after preliminary investigation with due deliberation and concoction of prosecution story while introducing close relatives of deceased as eye-witnesses, who, in the facts and circumstances of case, were held to be interested witnesses and their oral statements could not be relied upon to maintain conviction against accused on the charge of offence entailing capital sentence unless those were corroborated by some independent piece of evidence which was lacking in the case--Ocular account was also in contradiction with medical evidence--Report of Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to crime empty and gun recovered from the spot, though was positive, but same was of no avail to prosecution its both said articles were sent to said Laboratory together---Such a report could not be used as corroborative piece of evidence of ocular account to connect accused with commission of crime---
11. On the other hand, Ch. Masood Ahmed Zafar, learned Counsel for complainant Muhammad Habib has made the following submissions:-- (i)The eye-witnesses corroborated each other on material points regarding presence of the deceased, witnesses and accused persons at the time and place of the occurrence.
(ii) There is no material contradiction in the statements of both the eye-witnesses.
(iii) The medical evidence supported the ocular account.
(iv)Recoveries were effected from Rafique accused.
(v) The crime weapon .12 bore gun was matched with the crime empty, which was recovered from the place of occurrence.
(vi)Eye-witnesses are natural and they have no previous enmity or grudge against the accused to falsely implicate them in this case.
(vii) The prosecution has fully proved its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The learned Counsel for the complainant has requested that the appeal filed by Rafique Masih may be dismissed and sentence of accused Rafique Masih and Tariq Masih may be enhanced.
12. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq DPG, appearing for the State, has adopted the arguments advanted by the learned Counsel for the complainant and additionally stated as under-
(i) The medical evidence is in line with ocular account which proves the occurrence.
(ii) Recovery of the crime gun is fully proved.
(iii) The report of Forensic Science Laboratory is positive. The learned DPG has fully supported the impugned judgment.
13. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned DPG appearing for the State and perused the record with their assistance. Relevant portion of the impugned judgment as well as the documents available on the file have been scanned. '
14. The plain reading of the FIR shows that the complainant did not mention any details regarding the occurrence of dacoity, even with regard to the occurrence of murder, and the complainant did not nominate any accused in the FIR. He clearly stated in the FIR that some unknown accused made firing and the bullet hit the head of his brother Muhammad Shabbir alias Roshan Khan, who was taken to Noor Hospital in injured condition where he succumbed to his injuries. The complainant himself got mentioned in the FIR that due to darkness he could not identify the assailants and that they had no enmity with anyone. From the whole story of the FIR, it appears that from the time of occurrence till the death of the deceased at hospital and lodging of the FIR, the complainant did not know about the real culprits. However in his statement as PW.5. the complainant stated that on 17.11.2002 his brother Muhammad Shabbir alias Roshan was proceeding to Lahore after having loaded fodder on tractor trolley, from Kot Radha Kishan, Jamil, helper remained with him throughout the journey and on their returning from Raiwind City, the complainant also accompanied them. At about 2:45 a.m. (night), when they reached at Zafarki Pulli, they saw tree accused persons, who had placed on road a piece (truck/branch) of cut tree with intention to commit dacoity. Rafique Masih accused attempted to stop his brother Shabbir alias Roshan driver but he did not stop tractortrolley, therefore, accused Rafique made fire shot with gun .12 bore which hit Shabbir alias Roshan on his fore-head. The other accused Younis Masih and Tariq Masih were present there having weapons, who were identified in the light of tractor.
Thus the complainant had given two versions of the same occurrence, first in his FIR and the other in his statement as PW.5. There was nothing in the FIR about the occurrence of robbery/dacoity and not even a single word was mentioned in the FIR regarding robbery/dacoity. FIR was registered against unknown accused persons and even the number of accused was not given in the FIR but when the complainant recorded his statement at the trial he at once stated them as three accused persons by giving them specific roles and also mentioned about robbery/dacoity.
However throughout his examination-in-chief he did not allege as to in what manner the accused had tried to snatch any valuables/articles from them.
15.Muhammad Jamil, who was helper of Muhammad Shabbir alias Roshan was with him on the tractor trolley while going to Lahore and coming back. He was the star witness of this case, and his not being produced at the trial as witness marks many questions on the prosecution story. The alleged eye-witness Abdul Majeed PW.6 stated that on 17/18.11.2002 at about 3.00 a.m. he alongwith his brother Din Muhammad, Naseer Ahmad and Anwar while proceeding towards Lahore on Kot Radha Kishan-Raiwind Road, saw in the light of tractor three persons having fire arm weapons, standing on road to commit dacoity. The accused persons attempted to stop one tractor, coming from their opposite direction but the tractor was not stopped, therefore, accused Rafique made fire shot from his .12 bore double barrel gun which hit on the forehead of Roshan driver. PW.6 further stated that the accused were identified in the light of tractor.
16.The complainant PW.5 and the alleged eye-witness PW.6 made many improvements in their statements. No doubt a person has been killed, but it does not seem that it happened in the alleged manner/circumstances as given by the complainant and eye-witness Abdul Majeed. The complainant stated in his cross-examination that he all alone went to police station and Thanedar namely Naseer Ahmad met him at police station and FIR was lodged' as per his application Ex.PD which was got scribed by him at about 6.00 a.m. by Munshi of police station. He admitted that when the application Ex.PD was written the names of the accused persons were not mentioned.
However Naseer Ahmad Inspector/LC, PW. 10 stated in his cross-examination that he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant at 3.00 p.m. wherein he stated that at the time of lodging of application Ex.PD he was not in full senses, therefore, he could not nominate accused persons.
17.PW.8 Muhammad Sadiq, ASI/I.O, stated that he arrested all the accused persons on 04.12.2002 whereas the complainant stated in his cross-examination that the accused were arrested on the same day i.e. 18.11.2002. The I.O. recovered gun .12 bore P.5 on the disclosure of accused Rafique Masih from an iron box lying in his residential room. He also recovered a hatchel P.6 from accused Rafique Masih. Although no role of hatchet was mentioned either in the FIR or in the supplementary statement yet in order to prove the story of blocking the road with trunk of Sufaida tree, the., I.O. also introduced recovery of hatchet in order to show his efficiency rather no witness has deposed that any of the accused was armed with hatchet. Naseer Ahmad, Inspector PW.10 was another Investigating Officer of the case who inspected the place of occurrence, took into possession empty cartridge of .12 bore P.3 and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution case, the deceased got the bullet injury on his fore-heard while he was driving tractor. There is no iota of evidence on the record that the deceased fell from the tractor in injured condition rather he remained on the driving seat of the tractor even after receiving injury on his fore-head. But there is no mention about blood present on any part, e.g., driver seat, steering, etc., or collection of blood sample from the tractor.
18.PW.4 Dr. Saleem-ur-Rehman conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Shahbir alias Roshan Khan deceased on 18.11.2002 at 1.00 p.m and observed a lacerated wound 10 x 8cm on the top head starting from fore-head upto occipital region from antero posterior and involving both temporal and parietal regions of both sides. According to his opinion cause of death in this case was shock and haemorrhage which was due to fire arm injury. This witness stated in his cross-examination that no pellet or bullet was found during the dissection of cranial cavity.
According to the prosecution version accused Rafique Masih was armed with shot gun and he fired a shot with his shot gun which hit on the forehead of the deceased. The size of the entry wound as mentioned above, and non-detection of the bullet causing such a heavy entry wound, with no exit wound, causes mystery.
The I.O., as PW. 10 stated that the empty was recovered from the nearby water course adjoining to road, whereas PW.6 Abdul Majeed stated that the empty was lying at some distance from tree and empty was taken from the spot where the deceased sustained fire shot. Such contradictions put the course of occurrence under question mark.
19. All the above contradictions and improvements are sufficient to create dent in the prosecution case and where the doubts occur in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same definitely goes in favour of the accused and on the basis of such type of contradictory evidence conviction cannot be based against the appellant.
20.In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, Cr.
Appeal No.87/L/2010 filed by Rafique Masih against his conviction under Section 302(b), PPC and sentence of death penalty with order to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default thereof to further suffer six months S.I. and under Section 393 read with Section 34, PPC and sentence of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo six months S.I. as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide judgment dated 28.02.2004 in Sessions Case No.32 of 2003 and Sessions Trial No.23 of 2003 is allowed and he is acquitted of the charges. He should be released immediately if not required in any other case.
Resultantly, Cr. Murder Reference No. 1/L/2011 is answered in negative and not confirmed.
Cr. Revision No. 14/L/2010 filed by complainant Muhammad Habib for enhancement of sentence has become infructuous which is dismissed accordingly.
21.These are the reasons of our short order dated 23.7.2012.