Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J.--This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 1671 of 2013 titled as Allah Bakhsh v. The State filed by Allah Bakhsh appellant against his conviction and sentence and Murder Reference No, 403 of 2013 titled as The State v. Allah Bakhsh transmitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Allah Bakhsh, appellant being originated from the same judgment dated 26.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, in case FIR No, 353 dated 02.11.2008, offence under Sections 302 & 376, PPC registered at Police Station Tirkhanwala, District Sargodha whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to death with the direction to pay Rs,300,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted under Section 376, PPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs,100,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. It is pertinent to point out that earlier the case was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide judgment dated 06.08.2009 wherein appellant was awarded same sentences but in appeal before this Court, the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court through judgment dated 30.05.2013 for decision afresh after recording cross-examination of Shamsher (PW-9), Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) and Noor Muhammad (PW-11). Hence, the learned trial Court after complying with the directions of this Court, decided the case as mentioned above.
3. The facts unfolded by Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-12) in his statement which culminated into the registration of FIR (not exhibited), are that on 02.11.2008 at about 02:00 p.m, he sent his daughter Mst. Mukhtar Bibi (deceased) aged 10/11 years to Mangwali Colony for buying grocery items but she did not return till "deeger vela" whereupon he (complainant) along with Noor Muhammad and Gull Sher started search of his daughter. During search, he came to know that after purchasing grocery items, she (complainant's daughter) had gone back whereupon complainant started her search in the fields and when at about 05:30 p.m they reached the sugar cane crop of Rai Nasrullah Bhatti, the complainant's daughter was lying there dead in naked condition. Her 'shalwar' was also lying there and a piece of cloth (chaddar) was wrapped around her neck. Subsequently Allah Bakhsh (appellant) was nominated in this case by the complainant through his supplementary statement.
4. The appellant was arrested in this case on 03.08.2011 by Muhammad Akhtar SI/IO (PW-13). During custody, on 04.11.2008, he got recovered his clothes Vest (P-1) and 'Shalwar' (P-2) which he was wearing at the time of occurrence which were taken into possession vide recovery memo. (Ex-PA).
On 04.11.2008 the appellant was also got medically examined regarding his potency.
5. Learned trial Court after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, charge sheeted the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as fourteen witnesses. In the instant case, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence rather the prosecution case is based upon the evidence of extrajudicial confession furnished by Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) whereas, Shamsher (PW-9) is the witness of 'Wajj Takkar'.
' The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Saleem (PW-5) and Dr. Labina Azam (PW- 6).
' Dr. Muhammad Saleem (PW-5) on 04.11.2008 at 03:00 p.m, medically examined the appellant and observed as under:-- ".... For getting penil erection the prostatic massage was performed. The test shows that penil erection was not there. Therefore, with certainty to say that the person under examination was capable of performing sexual act must be examined at some other time, when he could be in better mental condition.
B) Blood sampling, 10 c.c. Blood in a disposable new syringe was taken. That blood sample was sealed and signed for taking to DNA test laboratory at Lahore.
C) Collection of semen.
' First masterbation and then prostatic massage methods were implied to get semen collected but failed. The reason was in these circumstances under which he was brought and put to test. He was brought and put to test. He was frightened and confused. Therefore, it was advised to come at certain other occasion in better comfortable mental condition."
' But the appellant was never examined again as advised by the Medical Officer (PW-5).
' Dr. Labina Azam (PW-6) on 03.11.2008 at 09:00 a.m, conducted post-mortem examination of Mukhtar Bibi (deceased) and found following injuries:--
1. A ligature marks 18 cm x 4 cm started from left bide of neck 5 cm away from left ear lobule, covering centre of neck up to right side of neck behind right ear.
2. A lacerated wounti 4 cm x 3 cm around perinum.
' She was of the opinion that death in this case was caused due to Injury No, 1 which lead to asphyxia cardiopulmonary arrest, shock and death whereas Injury No, 2 also had cumulative effect and Injury No, 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem and homicidal. The time between injury and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem was within twenty-four hours. She further opined that in the light of report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PH) Mukhtar Bibi (deceased) was subjected to "Zinc".
' Muhammad Akthar, SI (PW-13) is the Investigating Officer of this case. Allah Ditta, Patwari (PW-3) prepared the scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence. Muhammad Rafique, ASI (PW-1) and Muhammad Riaz C/121 (PW-7) are the witnesses of recovery memo. (Ex.PA) of Vest (P-1) and Shalwar (P-2) produced by the appellant before the Investigating Officer, whereas rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.
6. The prosecution tendered the reports of Serologist (Ex.PL), DNA test (Ex.PM) and Chemical Examiner (Ex.PN) and closed its evidence.
7. Statement of the appellant was recorded u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he negated the allegations and claimed his innocence. In reply to a question as to "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you", Allah Bakhsh (appellant) replied as under:- "Met. Talian Bibi wife of Muhammad Ramzan took the complainant to the place of incident where previously one boy namely Hafiz Amjad was subjected to unnatural lust regarding which an FIR No, 154/06 was registered with P.S. Tarkhanwala. After the occurrence police took Talian Bibi to the police station where from she was released with the intervention of some respectable of the area.
On 03.11.2008 snipher dogs also brought to trace out the incident. The dogs led the track to the shop of my brother whereafter I was arrested by the police, due to the local enmity of Bhatti tribe the area has become den of criminals and previously such like incident also had taken place regarding which FIRs had also been chalked. I do not know as to who has committed the crime. I am innocent, due to the pointation of snipher dogs I have been involved in this case at the time of my arrest the police subject me to the severe torture and falsely challaned in this case. Nothing was recovered at my pointation. A false case has been planted. Only due to the pointation by snipher dogs of my brother's shop I have been falsely involved in this case. Due to relationship with the complainant and deceased, PWs have falsely deposed against me".
8. The appellant did not opt to make statement on oath as his own witness in disproof of the allegations levelled against him as provided under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, however in defence, he produced copies of FIR No, 154/08 (Mark "A"), FIR No, 347/08 (Mark "B") and FIR No, 155/08 (Mark "C") and closed his defence evidence,
9. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above by the learned trial Court; hence the instant appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; that there is no direct evidence of the occurrence and that in fact it is a blind murder committed by some unknown person but the appellant has been roped in this case with mala fide; that all the private witnesses are closely related to the complainant as well as the deceased; that prosecution witnesses have made dishonest improvements in their previous statements; that evidence of extrajudicial confession has been manoeuvred by the complainant to implicate the appellant; that no semen of the appellant could be obtained for grouping and as such report of Serologist and the DNA test report besides the Medico Legal Report of the appellant do not support the prosecution case in any manner; that the prosecution evidence is self discrepant and untrustworthy; that the chain of circumstances is badly broken and is absolutely insufficient to connect the appellant with the alleged crime; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt; that this appeal may be accepted, the appellant be acquitted of the charges leveled against him and the Murder Reference be answered in the negative.
11. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and maintained that the prosecution witnesses have no mala fide or ill will against the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case; that there is no material improvement in the statements of prosecution witnesses; that the circumstantial evidence available against the. Appellant is consistent and confidence inspiring and the conviction has rightly been inflicted upon the appellant that should be maintained as is warranted under the law; that prosecution case is corroborated by the medical evidence; that prosecution has fully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt; that the appeal in hand may be dismissed and Murder Reference be answered in the affirmative.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
13. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has led evidence qua (i) extrajudicial confession, (ii) evidence of "Waj Takkar" (iii) medical evidence, and (iv) recovery of vest (P-1) and 'shal war' (P-2) produced by the appellant before the Investigating Officer. Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) appeared to furnish the evidence of extrajudicial confession against the appellant. We have noticed that the occurrence took place on '02.11.2008 and the alleged extrajudicial confession was made by the appellant before Muhammad Yousaf (PW10) and Allah Bakhsh s/o Muhammad Sharif (not produced) on 03.11.2008 separately. On the same day, the appellant was arrested who admitted his guilt before the Investigating Officer as reflected from the cross-examination of Muhammad Aslam complainant (PW12) but this story of the prosecution is not appealing to a prudent mind because of the fact that as per prosecution's stance this long episode was completed within a few hours. Moreover, Allah Bakhsh s/o Muhammad Sharif, the other witness of alleged extrajudicial confession has not been produced to corroborate the testimony of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10). However, the stance of Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-12) regarding extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) is also discrepant as in examination-in-chief the corn plainant (PW -12) stated that on 03.11.2008 at about evening time Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) came to him and told about the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before him whereas during cross-examination, the complainant stated that it is incorrect to suggest that Allah Bakhsh (appellant) made extrajudicial confession before Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10). We have also observed that at the time of alleged extrajudicial confession of the appellant, there was no compelling circumstance for the appellant which could prompt him to do so before the said witnesses. It is quite unnatural that a man after committing the heinous offence of rape and murder of a minor girl would confess his guilt on the very next day of the occurrence. If the version of Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10), that the appellant made confession before him for seeking pardon for him is given weight, it has to be seen whether the person before whom the appellant made extrajudicial confession is his close confident or said to be sharing any habit or association with him, but the entire I prosecution evidence is silent in this regard. Another important fact which needs consideration is whether the person before whom extrajudicial confession was made is having any social or official status so that he may have rendered any help to the appellant involved in C. Heinous case of rape and murder but in the instant case, the said witness of extrajudicial confession is not of such status as envisaged from his cross-examination wherein he admitted that he is not respectable of the locality having any authority of MPA or MNA rather is an ordinary cultivator. Although Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) is related to the complainant, yet there is nothing to expect that he could have managed pardon for the appellant on the next day of the gruesome incident, therefore, there was no occasion or charm for the appellant to make confession of a heinous offence entailing capital punishment before the said witness who otherwise was not in a position to help the appellant to save him from the penalty. Furthermore, Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-12), during, his cross-examination, has stated that the police informed them about the admission of the appellant. The relevant part of his statement is reproduced as under: " It is correct that we were informed by the police that accused has admitted his guilt, at about 10 p.m. On 3.11.2009..."
' Muhammad Yousaf (PW-10) is a relative of the victim/poor minor girl who had been cruelly murdered as it was in his knowledge since the last night i,e, 02.11.2008, but he while leaving the appellant behind at his 'dera' himself preferred to visit the house of the complainant (PW12) which is absolutely unnatural and unbelievable behaviour that renders his statement doubtful. We have also noticed that extrajudicial confession is\ always considered a weak type of evidence. The Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly held in plethora o judgments that the evidence of extrajudicial confession is to be scrutinized with utmost caution as it is not a direct evidence and extrajudicial confession must be corroborated in material particulars as it has become common that when an Investigating Officer fails to properly investigate the case, he normally adverts to the fabrication of evidence like extrajudicial confession, which can easily be procured to strengthen the prosecution case. In the present case, there was no occasion for the appellant to make extrajudicial confession. The question evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession came up for consideration before the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others (2006 SCM R 231), wherein, at page 238, the Apex Court of Pakistan has been pleased to lay emphasis as under:- "17. This Court and its predecessor Court (Federal Court) have elaborately laid down the law regarding extra judicial confessions starting from Ahmad v, The Crown PLD 1951 FC 103.107 upto the latest. Extra-judicial confession has always been taken with a pinch of salt. In Ahmad v. The Crown.
It was ob~ervgd that in this country (as a whole) extra-judicial confession must be received with utmost caution, Further, it was observed from time to time, that before acting upon a retracted extra-judicial confession, the Court must inquire into all material points and surrounding circumstances to 'satisf& itself fully that the confession cannot but be true'. As. An extra- corroborated in material particulars before being made the basis of conviction."
' The above view has been reiterated in the case reported as Tahir Javed v. The State (2009 SCM R 166), wherein, at page 170, the August Supreme Court of Pakistan, has been pleased to observe as under: "10. .., It may be noted here that since extra judicial confession is easy to procure as it can be cultivated at any time therefore, normally it is considered as a weak piece of evidence and Court would expect sufficient and reliable corroboration for such type of evidence. The extra-judicial confession therefore must be considered with over all context of the prosecution case and the evidence on record. Right from the case of Ahmed v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 107 it has been time and again laid down by this Court that extra-judicial confession can be used against the appellant only when it comes from unimpeachable sources and trustworthy evidence is available to corroborate it. Reference in this regard may usefully be made to the following reported judgments:--
(1) Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others 2006 SCM R 231, (2) Ziaul Rehman v. The State 2001 SCM R 1405, (3) Tayyab Hussain Shah v. The State 2000 SCM R 683, (4) Sarfraz Khan v. The State and others 1996 SCM R 188."
14. Dr. Labina Azam (PW-6) who conducted post-mortem examination of Mukhtar Bibi (deceased) in her examination-in-chief has stated that in the light of report of Serologist, she concluded that the deceased was subjected to'zinc' put during cross-examination she stated as under: "It is correct that I did not mention the position of volva in post-mortem report. It is correct that I had not mentioned whether hymen was ruptured or not."
' Had there been any abnormality of two parts of the body of poor girl as is )alleged that she was subjected to rape by a fully grown up man, it would have been noticed and described by the Woman Medical Officer (PW-6). Furthermore, Dr. Labina Azam (PW-6) in post-mortem examination report (Ex.PE) has not given any specific opinion regarding the commission of rape with the deceased. In the postmortem report (Ex.PE) she has mentioned that "organ of generation was brosed, congested, blood collected in pelvic area". In our view, this opinion is vague and it cannot be safely inferred that the deceased was subjected to rape by the appellant. It also falsifies the alleged extrajudicial confession according to which she became unconscious when the appellant subjected her to 'zina-bil-jabar'. It shows that the alleged extrajudicial confession has not been truly made which is required to believe the same evidence as per established preposition of law.
' The medical evidence furnished by Dr. Muhammad Saleem produced by the prosecution as PW-5, does not support the alleged extrajudicial confession made by the appellant as the appellant on 04.11.2008, i,e, only two days after the occurrence was not capable of activity and despite the advise of the Medical Officer (PW-5), the appallent was never produced for the same test again.
Even the DNA test report (Ex.PM) does not advance the prosecution case in this regard.
' In light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the evidence of extrajudicial confession in the instant case is not worthy of reliance.
15. As regards the evidence of Wajj Takkar' furnished by Shamsher (PW-9), maternal nephew of the complainant Muhammad Aslam (PW-12), we have noticed that he, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that on 02.11.2008 he along with Ghulam Rasool (PW not produced) was going back from Mangowali Colony to Chak No, 140/NB, and at about 03:30 p.m, when they reached near the sugarcane crop of Rai Nasrullah Bhatti, witnessed Allah Bakhsh (appellant) wearing red colour vest and black blue shalwar' coming out from the crop and on seeing them the appellant went to other side. During cross-examination, Shamsher. (PW-9) admitted that he is nephew of the complainant and could not have any information regarding the occurrence on the fateful day. We have noticed that Shamsheer (PW-9) along with one Liaqat joined the investigation on 02.11.2008 as his name and signatures along with Liaqat are available at the end of inquest report which means that he intentionally denied the fact that he joined the investigation on the day of occurrence at the place from where the dead body of Mst. Mukhtar Bibi was found. He did not disclose anything regarding seeing the appellant coming out from the place of occurrence on that day i,e, 02.11.2008 rather he got recorded his statement regarding the Wajj Takkar on 03.11.2008. It seems that the complainant and the police have manoeuvred this piece of evidence to strengthen the prosecution case by fabricating incriminating evidence against the appellant in this case. In this view of the matter, we are of the firm view that Shamsher (PW-9) is not a reliable witness being not truthful.
16. So far as the medical evidence qua the death of deceased 'produced by the prosecution is concerned, we are of the view that it cannot identify the face of the culprit. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2' others (PLD 2009 SC 53). Similar view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State (2009 SCM R 1410) and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another (2008 SCM R 1103). As in the instant case there is no direct evidence against the appellant and even the and other circumstantial pieces of evidence have also been disbelieved by us, therefore, the medical evidence solely is of least importance. Moreover, in isolation; the same does not come forward' to strengthen the prosecution case, which even otherwise is standing on very weak footing.
17. Now coming to recovery of vest (P-1) and ' shalwar' (P-2) which were produced by the appellant before the Investigating Officer. In our view, this piece of evidence is also of no help for the prosecution because prosecution has never alleged that the ' shalwar' (P-2) was stained with semen. Moreover, no report of Chemical Examiner or Serologist qua this piece of evidence is available on the record, thus the same is of no use to the prosecution being inconsequential.
18. Since there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case, just hinges on the circumstantial evidence, therefore, utmost care and caution is required for reaching at a just decision of the case.
It is settled by now that in such like cases, every circumstance should be linked with the other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one and touches the dead-body and other neck of the accused. But if any link of the chain of circumstances is missing then its benefit must go to the accused. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the judgments of the Apex Court of the country reported as Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia and another (1992 SCM R 1047), Sarfraz Khan v. The State (1996 SCM R 188) and Asadullah and another v. State (PLD 1999 SC 1018). In the case of Ch. Barkat Ali (supra), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1055, observed as under: "Law relating to circumstantial evidence that proved circumstances must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. See ' Siraj vs. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 123).... In a case of circumstantial evidence, the rule is that no link in the chain should be broken and that the circumstances should be such as cannot be explained away on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused".
' In the case of Sarfraz Khan (supra), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 192, held as under:- "7. ...It is well-settled that circumstantial evidence should be so inter-connected that it forms such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other neck of the accused' thereby excluding all the hypothesis of his innocence...."
' Further reliance in this context is placed on the case of Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another (2008 SCM R 1103) wherein, at page 1105 it was held by the hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "7. Needless to emphasis that all the pieces of evidence should be so linked that it should give the picture of a complete chain, one corner of which should touch the neck of the deceased and other corner to the neck of the accused. Failure of one link will destroy the entire chain."
' So, we are of the opinion that the required evidence, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to connect an accused with the offence in a case of circumstantial evidence is miserably missing in this case as all the evidence is a broken chain leading us nowhere.
19. It is cardinal principle of law that the prosecution is under incumbent duty to prove its case against the appellant by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of the defence. In the instant case, the prosecution remained fail to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against the appellant. It is by now well settled law that if there is a single circumstance which creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of the same to the appellant, whereas, the instant case is replete with circumstances which have created serious doubts about the prosecution story. In the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCM R 1345), the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1347, was pleased to observe as under: "5. The concept of benefit of doubt to an appellant 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 appellant, then the appellant will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
' In Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048), at page 1056 the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: ".... It is hardly necessary to reiterate that the prosecution is obliged to prove its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right. It is also firmly settled that if there is an element of doubt as to the guilt of the appellant the benefit of that doubt must be extended to him. The doubt of course must be reasonable and not imaginary or artificial. The rule of benefit of doubt, which is described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence which cannot be ignored while dispensing justice in accordance with law. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted". In simple words it means that utmost care should be taken by the Court in convicting an appellant. It was held in The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1973 SC 418) that this rule is antithesis of haphazard approach or reaching a fitful decision in a case. It will not be out of place to mention here that this rule occupies a pivotal place in the Islamic Law and is enforced rigorously in view of the saying of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) that the "mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while reiterating the same principle in the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCM R 230), at page 236, observed as under: "13. It is An axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the appellant as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCM R 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the appellant, then the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
' Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Luqman v. The State (PLD 1970 SC 10) was pleased to observe as under: "With due respect to the learned Judges, it may be said that a finding of guilt against an appellant person cannot 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 appellant 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."
20. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, we accept Criminal Appeal No, 1671 of 2013 filed by Allah Bakhsh (appellant), set aside his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 26.11.2013 and acquit him of the charges levelled against him by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in custody, be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
21. Murder Reference No, 403 of 2013 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death of Allah Bakhsh (convict) is NOT CONFIRMED.
(R.A) .