Abdul Sami Khan, J: Through this appeal under Section 410 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Shafqat @ Buggan and Muhammad Yousaf appellants have assailed the judgment dated 25.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Faisalabad, wherein the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b)/34 PPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo six months S.I. They were also convicted under Section 364/34 PPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.50,000/- in default thereof to further undergo two months S.I. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellants.
2. The prosecution story set forth in the private complaint Ex.PA is reproduced below:- "Haji Muhammad Asghar, husband of Mst. Tahira Firdous complainant used to run jewelry shop in the name and style of Saif Jewelers in Chak No.122/JB, Noorpur, Faisalabad. Her son Saif Ali also used to work with him. Accused Muhammad Ibrahim @ Razi and Zahid were working there as employees and they were got employed by Liaqat Ali brother of the deceased. It came to light later that accused Liaqat Ali got employed the above said accused through planning. On 21.02.2005 at Maghrab time, accused Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Shafqat and Asif reached the shop on a car No.FDQ-40. These accused also used to visit the shop earlier. Accused Muhammad Ibrahim @ Razi took along Saif Ali to get meal for the said accused. The accused Ibrahim made Saif Ali sit in Tikka shop situated at Noorpur Bus Stop and himself went away from there on the pretext of meeting one of his friends. When Ibrahim did not come back, Saif Ali reached the shop at 07:00 p.m. where accused Zahid told him that accused Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Shafqat and Muhammad Asif took his father with them to fetch borrowed amount from a person. Accused Zahid also asked him that his father had told him that Saif Ali should close the shop and go to home. Saif Ali closed the shop, reached home and narrated the entire story to the complainant. The husband of the complainant did not come back till next day, whereupon the complainant alongwith her son Saif Ali went to the house of Ibrahim and Zahid accused situated in Malakpur, Faisalabad to inquire about his husband, but the accused were not present in their house. On the asking of Liaqat Ali, brother of Haji Muhammad Asghar, the complainant got registered FIR No.133/2005 under Section 365 PPC against Akbar Ali, son of the deceased from his first wife, at Police Station Sargodha.
On 27.02.2005 at about 11:00 a.m. Saif Ali went to Rana Khalid Mehmood Ex-councilor of Mohallah Tariqabad where accused Ibrahim came and told Rana Khalid Mehmood that he alongwith Zahid, Asif, Yousaf, Shafqat and Liaqat Ali had taken away Asghar Ali near Cheema Petrol Pump, Satiana Road, Faisalabad in a car No.FDQ-40, where they strangulated him with a rope of cloth and had thrown away his deadbody in drain in order to grab his shop. He asked Khalid Mehmood to get all the accused pardoned from his legal heirs. On the same day at 07:00 p.m. accused Muhammad Yousaf also told the same story to Rana Khalid Mehmood Ex-councilor. On 28.02.2005 at 07:30 a.m. accused Shafqat and at 04:00 p.m. Muhammad Asif also narrated the same story to Rana Khalid Mehmood and sought pardon. Ibrahim @ Razi pointed out the place of occurrence to Saif Ali and Rana Khalid Mehmood. All the accused also confessed their guilt before the complainant and accused Liaqat Ali stated that in order to avoid case of murder, he got registered the case against Akbar Ali.
3. Initially, FIR No.133/05 was got registered by Mst.Tahira Firdous complainant at Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad. Later on, she filed private complaint, wherein, after observing legal formalities, the learned trial Court summoned the appellants as well as their co-accused to face regular trial. After procuring attendance of the accused, the learned trial court framed charge against them on 02.05.2006, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant in order to prove her case against the accused examined ten witnesses before the learned trial Court, while the learned trial Court has recorded the statements of seven court witnesses. Mst. Tahira Firdous (PW-1) is the complainant of this case, Asghar Ali (PW-4) is the witness of last seen, while Rana Khalid Mehmood (PW-5) and Asif Ali (PW-6) are the witnesses of extra judicial confession.
Medical evidence has been furnished by Dr.Pervaiz Akhtar (PW-10), who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Haji Muhammad Asghar deceased. Khalid Mehmood Inspector and Abdul Sattar S.I. appeared before the learned trial Court as CW-6 and CW-7 and stated about various steps taken by them during the course of investigation of this case. The remaining prosecution witnesses as well as court witnesses are more or less formal in nature.
4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court went on to record the statements of accused persons as required under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein they controverted the allegations leveled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. However, they did not opt to make statements on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. to disprove the allegations leveled against them and also did not produce any evidence in their defence.
5. Upon culmination of trial, learned trial Court found the case against the appellants to have been proved beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt and, thus, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed in paragraph No.1 above. However, vide the same judgment, their co- accused namely Muhammad Ibrahim @ Razi, Zahid and Rana Liaqat Ali were acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt in their favour. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant challenged the judgment of the learned trial Court to the extent of acquittal of Muhammad Ibrahim @ Razi, Zahid and Rana Liaqat Ali co-accused through Petition for Special Leave to Appeal bearing No.50 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 01.07.2010. Similarly, the Criminal Revision No.274/2009 for enhancement of the sentences of present appellants has also been dismissed through the judgment dated supra. Now, this Court has to decide only the appeal in hands against the conviction and sentences of Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Shafqat @ Buggan and Muhammad Yousaf appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of this appeal, contends that the appellants are innocent; they have been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motive; primarily the FIR was got lodged by the complainant against Akbar Ali, her step son and after taking undue financial benefit from him, she changed the whole story of occurrence and narrated new facts in her private complaint only to falsely implicate the appellants in the instant case; three co-accused of the appellants with similar allegations have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court and the judgment to the extent of their acquittal was upheld and maintained by this Court, the case of the appellants is not distinguishable from that of their co- accused, so under the rule of consistency, the appellants also deserve the same treatment; the story narrated in the private complaint is absolutely unnatural and the same appears to be concocted and fabricated; even otherwise, there is no direct evidence against the appellants to connect them with the commission of alleged offence, whereas the chain of circumstantial evidence is also incomplete; there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the PWs and their testimony suffers from material irregularities; the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and as it is settled law that benefit of a slightest doubt has to be given to the accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right, so while accepting this appeal, the appellants be acquitted of the charge.
7. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes this appeal on the grounds that the complainant has produced sufficient incriminating evidence before the learned trial Court to prove the guilt of the appellants; the appellants themselves made confession of their guilt without any coercion or duress and the factum of extra judicial confession of the appellants is duly proved through the statements of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6, who had no enmity with the appellants; apart from the evidence of extra judicial confession, there is evidence of last seen against the appellant as the deceased was lastly seen by Asghar Ali (PW-4) in their company before his death; the witnesses of the prosecution stood firm to the test of cross examination and the defence remained unable to shatter their credibility; the medical evidence also fully supports the ocular account; the prosecution has brought the guilt of the appellants to the hilt, so the appeal filed by them be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the entire record with their valuable assistance. The machinery of criminal law was set into motion by Mst. Tahira Firdous complainant (PW-1) by submitting application for registration of FIR before Muhammad Yousaf ASI. In the FIR, the complainant narrated that on 21.02.2005 at 08:30 p.m. Haji Muhammad Asghar deceased was alone in his jewelry shop, where Akbar Ali accused, his son from first wife, came alongwith three unknown accused put him in vehicle No.SLB/8037 on gunpoint and took him to some unknown place. The FIR was registered on 25.02.2009, the matter was under investigation, when Mst. Tahira Firdous complainant (PW-1) got recorded her supplementary statements before the investigating officer, wherein she took somersault by letting off Akbar Ali accused and implicated the appellants as well as their other accused (since acquitted). Thus being so, possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that implication of the appellants in the instant case was the result of due deliberation and prior consultation.
9. According to the narrations of FIR, the occurrence committed by Akbar Ali alongwith three unknown co-accused was witnessed by Muhammad Ashfaq and Muhammad Arshad. Later on, Asghar Ali (PW-4), Rana Khalid Mehmood (PW-5) and Saif Ali (PW-6) were brought forwarded as the witnesses of last seen as well as extrajudicial confession. The story of the occurrence was also changed and it was alleged that on the day of occurrence, the deceased alongwith Saif Ali (PW-6), Ibrahim @ Razi and Zahid (acquitted co-accused) were present in the shop of the deceased when at Maghrab time, the appellants came there. Mst. Tahira Firdous (PW-1) has narrated in her private complaint (Ex.PA) that as the appellants were previously known to her husband and other persons present in the shop, he sent Saif Ali (PW-6) alongwith Ibrahim @ Razzi accused (since acquitted) to bring meal for the appellants and in the meanwhile, the appellants abducted Haji Muhammad Asghar deceased. Thus, it is crystal clear from the above facts that the complainant after departing from her previous stance taken in FIR introduced new story of the occurrence. She not only changed the set of accused and witnesses of occurrence, but also the time of occurrence from 08:30 p.m. to Maghrab time.
As already discussed above, Haji Muhammad Asghar deceased was allegedly abducted on 21.02.2005 and the FIR was got registered by Mst. Tahira Firdous complainant (PW-1) after the elapse of four days. It goes without saying that this was the sufficient time span to conduct preliminary inquiry into the matter and then report the same to the police. During trial, the complainant tried to give impression that the FIR was registered at the instance of Liaqat Ali accused (since acquitted), but this afterthought effort of the complainant could not find support from any independent material. It is an admitted fact that the complainant herself moved application before Muhammad Yousaf ASI, which was converted into FIR No.133/05 by Muhammad Abbas Moharrar (CW-4), so the effort made by the complainant to disown the FIR No.133/05 remained for from being successful. Even otherwise, the private complaint (Ex.PA) was filed by Mst.
Tahira Firdous complainant (PW-1) after considerable delay of more than nine months from the date of occurrence. Although the delay in filing private complaint is not considered as major flaw in the prosecution case, yet taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of nine months is very much material in this case. No plausible justification has been given by the complainant for this inordinate delay, which reflects that the private complaint was instituted under the legal advice in order to cover the factual as well as legal defects in the story incorporated in FIR. These facts are sufficient to hold that Mst. Tahira Firdious complainant (PW-1) is not a trustworthy, reliable or confidence inspiring witness.
10. Adverting to the evidence of extrajudicial confession, I have observed that Rana Khalid Mehmood (PW-5) and Saif Ali (PW6) have been cited as the witnesses of extrajudicial confession.
During his examination in chief, PW-5 stated that the actual culprits of the offence were untraceable and during cross-examination, he admitted that neither he was acquainted with the appellants nor he was known to them till 27.02.2005 i.e. the date of making alleged extrajudicial confession. It is very astonishing to note that the appellants had made confession of their alleged guilt before the person, who was not even known to them previously that too when the actual culprits were untraceable. According to PW-5, the appellants made extrajudicial confession before him in the presence of Saif Ali (PW-6), real son of the deceased, but admittedly they did not try to capture the appellants nor they bothered to inform the police about their presence in the house of PW-5. They even did not approach the police on 27.02.2005 to bring the making of extrajudicial confession by the appellants to the knowledge of investigating officer and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 01.03.2005.
During their statements as PW-5 and PW-6, both the witnesses of alleged extrajudicial confession made material improvements in order to bring their testimonies in line with the contents of private complaint (Ex.PA) and this fact alone is sufficient to shatter their credibility. Another fact which creates doubt about the factum of extrajudicial confession by the appellants is that according to private complaint (Ex.PA) and the statement of Saif Ali (PW-6), his deceased father was taken away by the appellants, who were well known to him even before the occurrence, then what was the wisdom behind the manufacturing of witnesses of extrajudicial confession, because, had the appellants abducted the deceased from his shop, they must have been straightway nominated in the FIR. According to the version of the appellants, they have not made any extrajudicial confession before the above said witnesses and the prosecution has fabricated the evidence of extrajudicial confession just to strengthen its case. It has been asserted by the defence that these witnesses were manufactured by the prosecution with the aid and collusion of investigating officer who recorded anti-dated statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and prepared anti-dated case diaries. In my judicial consideration, the testimony of witnesses of extrajudicial confession does not carry any weight so as to give it credence. Even otherwise, it is by now well settled law that the evidence of extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence. The evidentiary value of the extrajudicial confession came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Sajid Mumtaz and others Vs. Basharat and others" (2006 SCM R 231), wherein, at page 238, the Apex Court of Pakistan observed as under: - "17. ......This Court and its predecessor Court (Federal Court) have elaborately laid down the law regarding extra-judicial confessions staring from Ahmed v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 103-107 up to the latest. Extra-judicial confession has always been taken with a pinch of salt. In Ahmed v. The Crown, it was observed 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 "satisfy itself fully that confession cannot but be true". As, an extra-judicial confession is not a direct evidence, it must be corroborated in material particulars before being made the basis of conviction.
18. It has been further held that the status of the person before whom the extra-judicial confession is made must be kept in view, that joint confession cannot be sued against either of them and that it is always a weak type of evidence which can easily be procured whenever direct evidence is not available. Exercise of utmost care and caution has always been the rule prescribed by this Court.
19. It is but a natural curiosity to ask as to why a person of sane mind should at all confess. No doubt the phenomenon of confession is not altogether unknown but being a human conduct, it had to be visualized, appreciated and consequented upon purely in the background of a human conduct.
20. Why a person guilty of offence entailing capital punishment should at all confess. There could be a few motivating factors like: (i) to boast off, (ii) to ventilate the suffocating conscience and (iii) to seek help when actually trapped by investigation. Boasting off is very rare in such-like heinous offences where fear dominates and is always done before an extreme confident as well as the one who shares close secrets. To make confession in order to give vent to ones pressure on mind and conscience is another aspect of the same psyche. One gives vent to ones feelings and one removes catharses only before a strong and close confident. In the instant case the position of the witnesses before whom extra-judicial confession is made is such that they are neither the close confident of the accused nor in any manner said to be sharing any habit or association with the accused. Both the possibilities of boasting and ventilating in the circumstances are excluded from consideration.
21. Another most important and natural purpose of making extra-judicial confession is to seek help from a third person. Help is sought firstly, when a person is sufficiently trapped and secondly, from one who is authoritative, socially or officially.......
22. As observed by the Federal Court, we would reiterate especially referring to this part of the country, that extra-judicial confessions have almost become a norm when the prosecution cannot otherwise succeed. Rather, it may be observed with concern as well as with regret that when the Investigating Officer fails to properly investigate the case, he resorts to padding and concoctions like extra-judicial confessions. Such confessions by now, have become the signs of incompetent investigation. A judicial mind, before relying upon such weak type of evidence, capable of being effortlessly procured must ask a few questions like why the accused should at all confess, what is the time lag between the occurrence and the confession, whether the accused had been fully trapped during investigation before making the confession, what is the nature and gravity of the offence involved, what is the relationship or friendship of the witnesses with the maker of confession and what, above all is the position or authority held by the witness".
To fortify the above view, I have moved my attention to the case of "Tahir Javed versus The State"
(2009 SCM R 166) wherein, at page 170, the August Supreme Court of Pakistan was 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 Ahmad v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 107 it has been time and again laid down by this Court that extrajudicial confession can be used against the accused 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."
Keeping in view the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above mentioned judgments, we are of the considered view that the evidence of extrajudicial confession furnished by Rana Khalid Mehmood (PW-5) and Saif Ali (PW-6) is not trustworthy.
11. As far as the evidence of last seen furnished by Asghar Ali (PW-4), real cousin of the complainant, is concerned, this witness claims to have seen the deceased while sitting in a car alongwith the appellants and acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ibrahim @ Razzi and Zahid. It was the case of the complainant that only the appellants took away the deceased on the day of occurrence at Maghrab time, but the assertion of PW-4 that he saw Ibrahim Muhammad Ibrahim @ Razzi and Zahid co-accused alongwith the appellants and the deceased on 21.02.2005 at 07:30 p.m. itself is sufficient to hold this witness unworthy of reliance. The case in hand is purely based on circumstantial evidence, rather I would like to observe here that the complainant opted to choose and rely upon circumstantial evidence instead of direct evidence, as per story incorporated in FIR, only to entangle maximum persons in this case. Law is quite settled on the point that in cases like the one in hands, each circumstance should be linked with other circumstance and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other to the neck of the accused and if any link of chain is missing, then the whole evidence falls on earth and its benefit must go to the accused. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of "Asadullah and another versus State and another" (PLJ 1999 SC 1018) and "Ch. Barkat Ali versus Major Karam Elahi Zia and antoher" (1992 SCM R 1047), wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to observe as under:- "9. ...Law relating to circumstantial evidence is that proved circumstances must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. See "Siraj v. The Crown" PLD 1956 FC 123. The prosecution evidence in this case was of the deceased last seen with the accused and from the latter was recovered a handle of the hatchet blood stained and he was absent from the forest after the murder. The learned Federal Court held that the evidence was not sufficient and the accused was acquitted. In the case of "Karamat Hussain v. The State" 1972 SCM R 15 it was laid down that "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."
The same view has been rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakitan in case of "Sarfraz Khan versus The State and 2 others" reported as 1996 SCM R 188, wherein it has been observed 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..."
Guidance can also be sought from the case of "Altaf Hussain versus Fakhar Hussain and another" reported as 2008 SCM R 1103 wherein, at page 1105, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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."
12. Apart from the above, no motive or ill-will of the appellants to commit this occurrence has been brought on record by the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses and the whole case is silent in this regard. Moreover, the case of the prosecution also could not find corroboration against the appellants from any independent corner. The motive part of the case was specifically attributed to Liaqat Ali accused, who has already been acquitted by the learned trial Court considering the case to his extent to be of doubtful nature. In this view of the eventualities, I am of the view that the case of the complainant does not have legs to stand on.
13. Insofar as medical evidence is concerned, it is by now well settled law that medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of "Muhammad Tasaweer versus Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others" (PLD 2009 SC 53). Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of "Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another versus The State" (2009 SCM R 1410) and "Altaf Hussain versus Fakhar Hussain and another" (2008 SCM R 1103).
14. I have considered all the pros and cons of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt.
It is by now well settled law that not many circumstances are required in a criminal case to extend benefit in favour of the accused rather single circumstance creating doubt regarding the prosecution case is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the prosecution story. Reliance can be placed on the case of "Tariq Pervez versus The State" (1995 SCM R 1345), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observe as under:- "5. ...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.'
It is universally recognized principle of law that conviction can only be based upon unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of the accused not as a matter of grace, but of right. In "Ayub Masih vs. The State" (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 1048), while quoting a saying of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) that 'mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent", and making reference to the maxim, that 'it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted', the learned Apex Court of our country has been pleased to observe as under:- " It is hardly necessary to reiterate that the prosecution is obliged to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so the accused 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 accused 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 accused. It was held in The State vs. 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 versus The State" (2009 SCM R 230) observed as under:- "13. The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused 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 accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right".
15. In the light of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, I accept Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2009 filed by Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Shafqat @ Buggan and Muhammad Yousaf appellants, set aside their conviction and sentences and acquit them from the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to their favour. They are in custody, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.