' Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, J.--This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No, 162 of 2010 titled' as "Muhammad Boota versus The State" filed by Muhammad Boota (appellant) against his conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No, 434 of 2010 titled as "Sana Ullah versus Muhammad Shafi etc." filed by Sana Ullah (complainant) against the acquittal of Muhammad Shall, Imtiaz Ahmad and Fakhar Ali (respondents in said appeal) and Murder Reference No, 136 of 2010 titled as "The State versus Muhammad Boota" transmitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Boota (appellant) vide judgment dated 18.01.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozewala District Sheikhupura in case FIR No, 597 dated 04.07.2006 registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148 and 149, PPC at Police Station Factory Area District Sheikhupura. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellant under Sections 302(b), 148 and 149, PPC and sentenced him to death. He was ordered to be hanged by neck till death. The appellant was also ordered to pay Rs, 100,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased Zahid Iqbal, as envisaged under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed by Sana Ullah, complainant (PW-10) in his statement (Exh- PA), on the basis of which formal FIR was registered, are that he has installed a wheat grinding machine (Chakki). On 04.07.2006, he along with his son Zahid Iqbal (deceased) and his nephew Asim (PW-11) were working on the said grinding machine. At about 05.30 p.m., Boota alias Booti (appellant), Irfan, Aamoo Manj accused (since P.0), Shall accused (since acquitted) and two unknown persons armed with fire-arms came there. Shall accused (since acquitted) raised lalkara that they (complainant party) be taught a lesson for getting a case registered against Fakhar, upon which, all the accused persons started firing with their respective weapons and the bullets hit his son Zahid Iqbal (deceased) and his nephew Asim (PW-11) who became seriously injured. Zahid Iqbal (deceased) succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas, Asim (PW11) was shifted to hospital for treatment.
' The motive for the occurrence, as disclosed by the complainant in the FIR, was that two days ago, Fakhar "(since acquitted) brother of accused Aamoo (since P.0) committed a robbery with his nephew and they got registered a case vide FIR No, 591/2006 under Section 392, PPC and due to this grudge, the accused persons, on the abetment of Fakhar Ali accused (since acquitted), have committed the murder of his son and caused injuries to his nephew. The complainant further disclosed that the occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and Zaheer (given up PW) whereas, .The evidence regarding abetment of Fakhar accused (since acquitted) will be given by Asif (PW-12) and Muzaffar (given up PW).
3. Muhammad Boota (appellant) was arrested in this case on 13.12.2006 by Muhammad Ashraf, S.I.
(PW-14) who, on 27.12.2006, while in police custody, after making disclosure, got recovered .12 bore gun (P-5) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. ExhPI. After completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant and his co-accused (since acquitted) on 20.07.2007, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as sixteen witnesses, during the trial. Sana Ullah, complainant (PW10) and Asim (PW-11) furnished the ocular account of the prosecution. Muhammad Asif (PW-12) is the witness of abetment. Muhammad Qasim (PW-4) is the witness of recovery of .12 bore gun (P-5) allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant.
' The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Hussain Farooq Medical Officer, Sheikh Zaid Hospital, Lahore (PW-7) and Dr. Mian Muhammad Riaz SMO, RHC Sharaqpur Sharif (PW-16). Dr. Hussain Farooq (PW-7) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Zahid Iqbal (deceased) and found the following injury on his body:-- "1. There was a penetrating wound 8 x 4 cm with inverted margin on the front of right thigh, 6 cm below right Inguina region and 14 cm above right knee joint."
' The Medical Officer was of the opinion that death in this case occurred due to haemorrhage and shock caused by Injury No, 1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The injury was ante-mortem and caused by fire-arm weapon. He also produced carbon copy of post- mortem report (Exh-PC).
' Dr. Mian Muhammad Riaz SMO, RHC Sharaqpur Sharif (PW16), on 05.07.2006, medically examined Muhammad Asim (PW-2) and found following injury on his person:
1. Multiple tiny wounds 0.2 x 0.2 cm on left side of face over cheek. Wounds were going deep to skin, two tiny wounds on the fore-head and two wounds of same size on left side of his skull, no burning, no color of abrasion, no burns on hair and no blackening was present.
' He also produced medico-legal report (Exh-PM).
' Muhammad Ashraf, SI (PW-14) and Muhammad Nazir, SI (PW-15) are the Investigating Officer of this case. Ch. Zia-ud-Din, Draftsman (PW-9) prepared scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence whereas rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.
5. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor vide his statement dated 30.10.2010 gave up Zaheer Ahmad, Muzafar and Jamil PWs being unnecessary and after tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner (Exh-PO), report of Serologist (Exh-PP) and report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh-PQ) closed the prosecution evidence.
6. The statements of the appellant and his co-accused (since acquitted), under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded. They refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. While answering to a question that "Why this case against you and why PWs deposed against you?", the appellant replied as under:- "The motive set up by the prosecution is hanging in the air. Neither I am related to co-accused nor their party man. I along with my father Shan work in Sabzi Mandi as laborer to earn our livelihood.
The statement of the injured was recorded after three months when my father was granted pre- arrest bail by the learned ASJ it was observed that no statement of the injured was available on file and pre-arrest bail was confirmed. Subsequently the matter was taken up by Hon'ble Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore that the ASI has committed forgery as he has recorded statement ante- dated and ordered for inquiry against him. FSL report is fabricated on the face of it. The case was registered on 04-07-2006 and the blood-stained earth was sent to the office of chemical examiner on 28-07-06. The empties Were not sent on the day for the reasons best known to prosecution. The empties were sent to the office of Chemical examiner after one year i.e, on 05-12-07 after the recovery of the gun which took place on 27.12.2006 and the gun was sent to FSL on 09.01.07 after firing from the alleged gun. The recovery was not in exclusive possession and it was fund from open place accessible to every body. I am a poor man and the complainant party is land owner police interrogated the case dishonestly and did not placed on record our version of innocence.
The evidence produced by the prosecution is in not constant with Medical evidence. There is only one injury sustained by the deceased and seven accused has been attributed firing on the person of the deceased. I submit copy of the order dated 26-09-2006 in pre-arrest bail application passed by learned ASJ, Ferozewala. Ex.DA: copy of order of Hon'ble Lahore High Court, dated 20.11.2006 as Ex.D-B. I was not present at the spot"
7. The appellant neither opted to give evidence on oath as provided under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in disproof of the allegations levelled against him nor produced any evidence in his defence.
8. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.01.2010, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution story is improbable and unbelievable; that no specific injury was attributed to the appellant on the person of the deceased and general allegation of firing was levelled against the appellant and his co-accused (since acquitted); that the evidence which is disbelieved qua the acquitted co-accused of the appellant cannot be believed to the extent of the appellant unless and until there is strong independent corroboration which is very much lacking in this case; that there are contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses; that statement of Asim (PW-11) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded after a considerable delay; that medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account; that motive has also not been proved by the prosecution; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt rather it is full of doubts and it is, by now, established proposition of law that benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused as of right and not as grace; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant; that this appeal may be accepted, the appellant may be acquitted and the Murder Reference be answered in the negative.
10. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant maintained that the FIR has been lodged promptly wherein, all the details of the occurrence are mentioned; that both the eye-witnesses are natural witnesses of the occurrence; that the delay in recording the statement of Asim (PW-11) is not material; that the medical evidence fully supports the prosecution case; that the motive has been proved by the prosecution; that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and remained successful in discharging its duty to prove the same. Lastly, argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court which is well reasoned and the appellant deserves no leniency in quantum of sentence; that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of any doubt; that the appeal may be dismissed and Murder Reference be answered in the affirmative.
11. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record with their able assistance.
12. We have observed that it is a case in which the occurrence took place at 05.30 p.m. On 04.07.2006 whereas, the matter was reported to the police at about 06.00 p.m. And the FIR was registered at 06.15 p.m. On the same day whereas, the police station was situated at a distance of six kilometers from the place of occurrence.
' The prosecution has produced Sana Ullah, complainant (PW10) father of the deceased and Asim (PW-11) who is the injured witness having fire-arm injuries .On his face. Both the witnesses have given completely an innocent and straightforward stance regarding the occurrence in a very natural manner and both of them remained consistent with each other and have not made any improvement or variation from their statements recorded by the police under Sections 154 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both of them are natural witnesses of the occurrence and supported each other regarding each and every material aspect of this caste. Asim (PW-11), who sustained fire-arm injuries at the time of occurrence was medically examined by Dr. Mian Muhammad Riaz Medical Officer (PW-16) which is sufficient fact to establish the presence of the witness at the scene of occurrence besides being natural witness as discussed earlier. Though both of the witnesses are closely related inter se as well as to the deceased, Sana Ullah, complainant (PW-10) being father and Asim (PW-11) being cousin of the deceased but this fact is not sufficient to brush aside their testimonies especially when their statements are quite natural as well as confidence inspiring being corroborated by other pieces of evidence including medical evidence, recovery of crime weapon further supported by the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory especially to the extent of appellant Muhammad Boota. During the cross- examination both the witnesses remained stuck to their stance taken up by them on the day of occurrence and deposed by them while appearing before the learned trial Court. The defence remained fail to shake their confidence and their consistency with each other during the cross- examination. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding recording of statement of injured PW Asim with a considerable delay is concerned, we have noticed that the injured was medically examined by the Medical Officer, on the same night at 01.20 a.m., who appeared as PW-16 which is sufficient proof of his presence and sustaining firearm injuries during the occurrence which resulted into death of deceased Zahid Iqbal. The Investigating Officer Muhammad Nazir SI who appeared as PW-11, during the cross-examination, has also stated that lie recorded the statement of injured witness and then injured witness himself appeared before the learned trial Court and made his statement which is otherwise confidence inspiring hence, in the circumstances of the case, when the witness has not deviated from his earlier statement, there is no reason to discard his statement as is argued by learned counsel for the appellant. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the prosecution remained successful in proving its case regarding the actual occurrence especially against the appellant Muhammad Boota through the ocular account furnished by Sana Ullah, complainant (PW-10) and Asim (PW-11).
13. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, the prosecution has produced medical ,officer Dr. Hussain Farooq who produced post-mortem report (Exh:PC) and pictorial diagrams (ExhPD and Exh-PD/1) and the medical evidence has proved that the injury available on the person of the deceased was ante-mortem caused by fire-arm and the same injury became the cause of unnatural death of Zahid Iqbal (deceased). Recovery of 60/70 pellets from the injury during the post-mortem of the dead body further confirms the use of .12 bore gun recovered at the instance of the appellant. This aspect of the case is sufficient to hold that the medical evidence is fully supporting the ocular account against the appellant.
14. As far as the evidence of recovery of crime weapon is concerned, the prosecution has produced Muhammad Qasim (PW-4) who witnessed the recovery of crime weapon .12 bore gun (P-5) through recovery memo. Exh-PI which was supported by the evidence of Muhammad Ashraf, S.I.
(PW-14), the Investigating Officer of this case. Both the witnesses are consistent with each other at this aspect of the case. Recovery of crime weapon (P-5) further finds strength and support from the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh-PQ) regarding the crime empty and the crime weapon.
15. Now adverting to the motive part of the occurrence, we are of the confirm opinion that the prosecution remained fail to establish any link between the appellant and the alleged motive. The prosecution stand, regarding the motive, is that the occurrence took place because of the registration of FIR against Fakhar co-accused (since acquitted), brother 'of Aamir alias Aamoo accused (since P.0) regarding the commission of robbery with nephew of the complainant and brother of the injured PW Asim. The prosecution could not lead any evidence to prove th relationship between Fakhar, Aamir alias Aamoo co-accused and the appellant Muhammad Boota While the appellant has denied this relationship or any link With the said co-accused. No independent evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the motive part of the occurrence.
Even the FIR allegedly got registered by the complainant party against Fakhar co7accused (since acquitted) has not been tendered in evidence hence, we are satisfied to disbelieve the motive part of the occurrence.
16. In view of the observations given by us in the preceding paragraphs, even if the evidence of motive part of the occurrence is excluded from consideration, we feel that the prosecution remained successful to prove its case against Muhammad Boota (appellant) beyond reasonable doubt as the injury available on the dead body of the deceased was caused by .12 bore gun whereas, a .12 bore gun (P-5) was recovered at the instance of the appellant and in this manner, the ocular account is having full support from the medical evidence and corroboration from the recovery of crime weapon effected at the instance of the appellant supported by the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh-PQ). ##TSE#
17. Now coming to the quantum of sentence of Muhammad Boota (appellant), we have noted mat the prosecution alleged a specific motive against the appellant but has failed to prove the same. It is not determinable in this case as to what was the real cause of occurrence and as to what had actually happened prior to the occurrence which resulted into the present unfortunate incident, therefore, in our view, the death sentence awarded to the appellant Muhammad Boota is quite harsh. In this regard light is sought from the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jehanzeb versus The State (2003 SCM R 98) and Has ii Khan versus The State and others (2012 SCM R 1936) wherein the Apex Court altered the sentence of death of the convict to life imprisonment by observing that where motive alleged by the prosecution has not been satisfactorily proved, this may be considered as a mitigating circumstance qua the quantum of sentence.
18. It is also, by now, well-recognized principle that accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt as circumstance while deciding question of his sentence as well. In this regard, we respectfully refer the case of "Mir Muhammad alias Miro versus The State" (2009 SCM R 1188) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan at page 1191 was pleased to observe as under:
9. It will not be out of place to emphasize that in criminal cases, the question of quantum of sentence requires utmost care and caution on the part of the Courts, as such decisions restrict the life and liberties of the people. Indeed the accused persons are also entitled to extenuating benefit of doubt to the extent of quantum of sentence."
' In another case "Ansar Ahmad Khan Barki versus The State and another" (1993 SCM R 1660), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the prosecution is bound by law to exclude all possible extenuating circumstances in order to bring the charge home against the accused for the award of normal penalty of death. We are convinced that Muhammad Boota appellant, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, deserves the benefit of doubt to the extent of his sentence one out of two provided under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code.
19. While treating it a case of mitigation, we have fortified our view by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the case of "Ahmad Nawaz and another versus The State"
(2011 SCM R 593) wherein at page 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has been pleased to lay emphasis as under: "9 The recent trend of the Courts with regard to the awarding of penalty is evident from several precedents. In the case of Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir and another, (PLD 2007 SC 111), it was held that "This is settled law that provisions of Sections 306 to 308, P.P.C. Attract only in the cases of Qatl-e-amd liable to qisas under Section 302(A), P.P.C. And not in the cases in which sentence for Qatl-e-amd has been awarded as tazir under Section 302(b), P.P.C. The difference of punishment for Qatl-e-amd as qisas and tazir provided 'under Sections 302(a) and 302(b), P.P.C. Respectively is that in a case of qisas, Court has no discretion in the matter of sentence whereas in case of tazir Court may award either of the sentence provided under Section 302(b) , P.P.C. And exercise of this discretion in the case of sentence of tazir would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no cavil to the proposition that an offender is absolved from sentence of death by way of qisas if he is minor at the time of occurrence but in a case in which qisas is not enforceable, the Court in a case of Qatl-e-amd, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, award the offender the punishment of death or imprisonment for life by way of tazir. The proposition has also been discussed in Ghulam Murtaza v. State 2004 SCM R 4, Faqir Ullah Khalil-uz-Zaman 1999 SCM R, 2203, Muhammad Akram v. State 2003 SCM R 855 and Abdus Salam v. State 2000 SCM R 338." The Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b), P.P.C. Awarded him sentence of life imprisonment under same provision and also granted him the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In Muhammad Riaz and another v. The State (2007 SCM R 1413) while considering the penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-e-amd it was observed that "No doubt, normal penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-e-amd provided under law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case." In Iftikhar Ahmed Khan v. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCM R 502) it has been noted that:- 'In other words, the law has conferred discretion upon the Court to withhold the penalty of death and to award the punishment of imprisonment for life, if the outlook of a particular case requires that course...."
20. We have noticed that the learned trial Court convicted Muhammad Boota (appellant) under Sections 302(b)/148/149, PPC but he was not sentenced under Sections 148 & 149, PPC. We have noted that the complainant got registered this case against six persons, out of whom four persons were nominated and two were unknown. The learned trial Court has already acquitted three accused persons namely, Muhammad Shafi, Imtiaz Ahmad and Fakhar Ali vide its impugned judgment, therefore, the provisions of Sections 148 & 149 PPC are not attracted in this case and the conviction of the appellant under above said Sections is not understandable especially when he was not sentenced for the said sections. In the light of above discussion, the conviction of Muhammad Boota (appellant) under Section 302(b), PPC awarded to him by the learned trial Court is maintained, however, his sentence is altered from death to imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation imposed upon the appellant and imprisonment in default thereof is also maintained. The appellant is, however, awarded the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
21. Consequently with the above modification in the quantum of sentence of Muhammad Boota (appellant), Criminal Appeal No, 162 of 2010 is hereby dismissed.
22. As far as Criminal Appeal No, 434 of 2010 filed by Sana Ullah complainant against the acquittal of Muhammad Shafi, Imtiaz Ahmad and Fakhar Ali (Respondents No, 1 to 3 in said appeal) is concerned, Muhammad Shafi Respondent No 1 was attributed the role of lalkara only. No injury has been attributed to him. He is not linked with the motive alleged by the prosecution and he is father of main accused Muhammad Boota who has been awarded death sentence by the learned trial Court. During investigation nothing was recovered from him and in the circumstances of the case possibility of throwing wider net upon the father of main accused Muhammad Boota can not be ruled out in view of prevailing practice in our society to involve such persons of the family of the main accused to keep them away from pursuing the case of main accused. Imtiaz Ahmad, accused was not nominated in the FIR and he was implicated through a supplementary statement of the complainant dated 16.07.2006. The stand taken by the complainant regarding Imtiaz Ahmad respondent remained self contradictory even during the trial. Imtiaz Ahmad respondent is also from the same area and the parties were known to each other even prior to the occurrence. Had he been present at the time of occurrence, he would have, been nominated by the complainant in the FIR. As far as involvement of Fakhar Ali respondent is concerned, Muhammad Asif (PW-12) has been produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of conspiracy between Fakhar Ali and other co- accused hatched by them in the hospital where Fakhar alias Fakhro was admitted while in police custody in connection with a criminal case is concerned, we have noticed that according to the prosecution case Fakhar Ali respondent was under detention in connection with dacoity case and one or two police constables were present to watch him. The narration given by Muhammad Asif (PW12) is not at all believable as it is not appealing to the prudent mind that private respondents along with others were hatching a conspiracy for the murder of the family of the witness in his presence as well as in presence of the police constables. Furthermore, no corroboration is available on record to this stance of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents after discussing and touching all aspects of the case.
23. Even otherwise, when a Court of competent jurisdiction acquits an accused of the charge after a regular trial, then double presumption of innocence is attached to the said acquittal and until and unless that is found arbitrary, fanciful, perverse, against the record and has led to grave miscarriage of justice, the said acquittal cannot be interfered with. Reference can advantageously be made to the case of "Iftikhar Hussain and others versus The State" (2004 S.C.M.R 1185) wherein the Honorable Apex Court was pleased to observe at page 1194 as under: "13. It is well settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with acquittal appeal under Section 417, Cr.P.C. Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption.
' Undoubtedly, two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, it is always insisted that the Court should follow the recognized principles for interference in the acquittal judgment as held in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another versus Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 that the Appellate Court seized with the acquittal appeal under Section 417, Cr.P.C. Is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it provided it has been established that the trial Court has disregarded material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally........
' In this regard further reliance is placed on the case of "Haji Amanullah versus Munir Ahmad and others" (2010 SCM R 222), wherein at page 226, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- "4 It is well-settled by now that in an appeal "the Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because re-appraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion; and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and for no other purpose. The important test visualised in these cases, in this behalf was that the finding sought to be interfered with after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shocking and ridiculous". Ali Sher v.
The State and 3 others PLD 1980 SC 317, State through Advocate-General N.W.F.P., Peshawar v. Amir Nazar and others PLD 1981 SC 286, Mst. Habi bun Nisa alias Bivi v. Zafar Iqbal and others 1981 SCM R 95, Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Din and others 1981 SCM R 415, Capt. Mahmood Jan v.. Madad Khan and another 1981 SCM R 474, Ahmad v. Crown PLD 1951 FC 107, Fateh Muhammad v. Bagoo PLD 1960 SC 286, Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 422, Feroze Khan v. Capt. Ghulam Nabi PLD 1966 SC 424, Usman Khan v. The State PLD 1969 Sc 293, Noora and another v. The State PLD 1973 Sc 469, Abdul Rashid v. Umid Ali and others PLD 1975 SC 227, Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf and others PLD 1976 SC 234, Farid v.
Aslam PLD 1977 Sc 4, Fcizalur Rehman v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1977 SC 529 and Ghulam Sikandar v.
Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11."
' Reference is also made to the case of "Jehangir versus Aminuffah and others" (2010 SCM R 491) and "Bashir Ahm,ad versus Fida Hussain and 3 others" (2010 SCM R 495).
24. Keeping in view the afore-referred circumstances coupled with guidelines given by the Apex Court of the country in the above quoted precedent case law, this Court is of the considered view that there iS nothing on the record in this case which could be considered to be arbitrary, capricious, fanciful or against the record to warrant interference in the impugned judgment to the extent of acquittal of Respondents No, 1 to 3. Furthermore no grave miscarriage of justice has been done due to acquittal of the respondents. The nutshell of the discussion is that Criminal Appeal No, 434 of 2010 is without merits and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
25. Murder Reference No, 136 of 2010 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death of Muhammad Boota (convict) is NOT CONFIRMED.