Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Chairman.--This appeal with the leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment dated 20.02.2006; passed by the Federal Shariat Court, whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and maintained the judgment dated 30.3.2005 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Swat.
2. Brief facts of the case are that three persons were done to death at different times and places with different weapons. Appellants were taken into custody on the basis of suspicion. During the course of investigation Musharaf and Syed Mehmood Shah, appellants, herein, expressed their willingness to make confessional statement. They were accordingly produced before the Magistrate where they confessed that they killed the deceased, by fire-arm and the other two with sharp edged weapons. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced tile appellants to death on 'dire% counts under Section 302(b) PPC and directed them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each on each count to the legal heirs of the deceased u/S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. They preferred appeal before the Federal.
Shariat Court which was dismissed as mentioned above.
3. While assailing the impugned judgment the learned ASC for the appellants contended that there is no circumstantial evidence on the record of a type as could furnish basis for conviction of the appellants nor is it of a nature which could be held to be incapable of explanation on all other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants, Evidence of confessional statement, learned ASC submitted, is there but these confessional statements stanc contradicted by the medical evidence.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State defended the impugned judgment by submitting that circumstantial evidence coupled with confessional statement sufficiently links the appellants with the clime, therefore, they have rightly been convicted. This finding, the learned Additional Advocate General added, deserves to be maintained when it is blessed with the virtue of being concurrent.
5. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the arguments so advanced.
6. Who named the appellants for the commission of the crime has not been explained by any of the PWs. What led the police to suspect their complicity in the commission of the crime, too finds no answer from the record. Assuming for the sake of arguments that because of their tainted background, they were hauled up in the case but nothing panned out against them in terms of evidence except confessions. But the story spelt out in the confessions does not conform to the medical evidence as none of the deceased has been done to death by fire-arm. We, therefore hold that they cannot be held to be true or voluntary.
7. Testimony of PW-9 who stated to have purchased a vehicle from one of the appellants which they allegedly snatched from one of the deceased could have added a loop to the chain but his failure to give description of the features of the appellants in his statement resulted in its loss.
Failure of the police to parade the appellants for identification to establish as to who out of them sold the vehicle further worsened the situation to the detriment of the prosecution.
8. When this being the position, we do not think the Prosecution has succeeded in discharging its responsibility of proving the case against the appellants. We, thus, have no alternative but to extend the benefit of doubt to the respondents.
9. For the reasons discussed above, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court as well as the Federal Shariat Court and acquit them of the charge. They be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.