SYED SHAHBAZ ALL RIZVI, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,82-J of 2010 titled as "Muhammad Akram v. The State", Criminal Appeal No,77-J of 2010 titled as "Mst. Pathani Bibi v. The State" filed lay Muhammad Akram and Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellants), respectively against their convictions and sentences and Murder Reference No,171 of 2010 titled as "The State v.
Muhammad Akram" transmitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Akram (appellant), as all these matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 23.02.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhalwal District Sargodha in private complaint filed by Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-2) under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. Whereby, both the appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, P.P.C., as a result whereof, Muhammad Akram (appellant) was sentenced to death and Mst.
Pathani Bibi (appellant) was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Muhammad Akram and Mst.
Pathani Bibi (appellants) were also directed to pay Rs,2,00,000/- and Rs .50,000/, respectively, as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Anar (deceased) as envisaged under section 544- A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and three months, respectively. Mst. Pathani Bibi was also awarded the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed by Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-2), in his private complaint (Exh-PF), was that he was cultivator by profession. His brother Muhammad Anar (deceased) was residing at some distance from his residence. On 17.05.2008 Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4), close relatives of complainant, at 04.00 a.m. Came to the house of Muhammad Anar to take him with them to Sargodha to attend the hearing of one of their friend in the court. They knocked on the door but no one opened the door despite the fact that sounds were coming out from the house. Upon which, Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4) entered the house by scaling over the wall. The electric bulb was lit and there was a cot in the courtyard. Muhammad Anar (deceased) was 'lying flat on the cot whereas, Muhammad Akram, Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellants) and Liaqat Ali, accused (since acquitted) were present on the cot.
Mst. Fatima Bibi, accused (since acquitted) was also present along with Muhammad Akram and Liaqat Ali accused persons. Muhammad Akram had closed the mouth and nose of Muhammad Anar (deceased) whereas, Liaqat Ali accused was pressing the neck of Anar. Mst. Pathani (appellant) was catching hold of legs and scrotum and was pressing the same whereas, Mst.
Fatima accused was standing nearby for their help and stood guard. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4) who tried to rescue Muhammad Anar (deceased). The accused persons fled away from the spot. Mst. Fatima accused helped Akram, Liaqat and Mst. Pathani accused persons in fleeing from the spot. Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4) took care of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
' The motive behind the occurrence, as disclosed by the complainant in the private complaint, was that Muhammad Anar (deceased), who was a simple man, had purchased a bus and wagon in which Liaqat accused (since acquitted) and Muhammad Akram (appellant) also became partners on the asking of Mst. Pathani (appellant) and Mst. Fatima accused (since acquitted). Akram (appellant) and Muhammad Liaqat accused became driver and conductor. Meanwhile, Liaqat accused and Akram (appellant) got transferred the papers in their names. Akram. (appellant) had visiting terms with Muhammad Anar (deceased). The accused persons made planning to deprive Muhammad Anar (deceased) from the income and the vehicles due to which differences developed between Anar (deceased) and accused persons, upon which, Anar deceased demanded rendition of accounts and lacs of rupees became payable by Akram and Liaqat accused persons and few days ago, an altercation of Anar (deceased) took place with accused persons, as a result whereof, Anar (deceased) stopped Akram (appellant) from coming to his house and announced to initiate proceedings against the accused persons. Moreover, Liaqat and Mst. Fatima accused persons used to demand from Anar (deceased) the hand of his daughter which he refused. Due to this grudge, the accused persons have committed the murder of Anar (deceased) by pressing his neck, nose and scrotum.
' The complainant further stated in the private complaint that Zafar Iqbal (PW-8) and Mukhtar (given up PW) witnessed the accused persons while fleeing from the house of Anar (deceased) and reached the spot after hearing the noise and that the accused persons have committed the murder of Anar (deceased).
' The complainant initially, on the day of occurrence, got registered case FIR No,146 dated 17.05.2008, offence under Sections 302 and 34, P.P.C., at Police Station Bheera District Sargodha (Exh-PC/1) and being dissatisfied with the police investigation, he filed the private complaint (Exh- PF).
3. Muhammad Akram and Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellants) were arrested in this case on 26.05.2008 by Sultan Ahmad SI (CW-2). On 02.06.2008, Muhammad Akram (appellant) while in police custody, after making disclosure, got recovered Chaddar (P-4), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh-PE. After completion of investigation, the challan 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 appellants and their co- accused (since acquitted) on 22.10.2008, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses, during the trial whereas, four CWs were also examined by the learned trial court. Muhammad Aslam (PW-2) is the complainant of the case whereas, Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4) furnished the ocular account. Zafar Iqbal (PW-8) is the witness of Waj Takkar. Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-2) and Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) are also the witnesses of alleged recovery of Chaddar (P-4) at the instance of Muhammad Akram (appellant).
' The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-1) and lady Dr. Nazia Tabish (PW-6). Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-1), on 17.05.2006 at 06.00 p.m., conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Anar (deceased) and found the following injuries on his body:-- "1- A contusion mark 1-1/4 cm x 3 mm on upper part of left side of neck.
2- A contusion mark 6 mm x 4 mm on left side of neck 1-1/2 cm below injury No,1.
3- A contusion mark 3 mm x 2 mm on outer side of angle of mandible on right side.
4- A cresentic contusion mark 1-1/2 - cm x 2 mm on front and upper part of right side of neck just below angle of mandible.
5- A contusion mark 7 cm x 2-1/2 cm on front and both sides of nose including tip of nose.
6- A contusion mark 4 cm x 11/2 cm on outer aspect of left elbow joint.
7- A contusion mark 1 cm x 3 mm on back inner aspect of left elbow joint.
8- A contusion mark 1/4 cm x 2 mm on both sides of right elbow.
9- An abrasion 1-1/4 cm x 3 mm with contusion mark 6 cm x 3 cm on right side of scrotum.
' In his opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to shock and asphyxia under injuries Nos.1 to 5 which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.1 to 5 were fatal to life and were ante mortem caused with blunt weapon. The duration between injuries and death was immediate whereas, between death and postmortem examination within one day. He also produced postmortem report (Exh-PA) along with pictorial diagrams (Exh-PA/1) and injury statement (Exh-PB).
' Dr. Nazia Tabish, Lecturer Medical College, Sargodha (PW-6) medically examined Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant) on 26.05.2008 and observed as under:-- "She was well-oriented in time, place and person. No mark of violence seen on her body".
' This external examination was done before arrest. She also produced application for medical examination along with her findings (Exh-PG and Exh-PG/1).
'Sultan Ahmad, Inspector (CW-2) and Ghulam Hasnain SI (CW4) are the Investigating Officers of this case. Muhammad Hafeez Khan, Draftsman (CW-1) prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence whereas, rest of the witnesses are formal in nature.
5. Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-2) vide his statement dated 29.08.2009 gave up Mukhtar PW being unnecessary and closed his case. Learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor vide his statement dated 03.02.2010 closed the case for prosecution.
6. The statements of the appellants along with their 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 the PWs have deposed against you?", Muhammad Akram (appellant) replied as under:- "The PWs made false statements against myself and my mother Mst. Fatima Bibi was implicated falsely many days after the occurrence at the instance of our political rival Muhammad Yar Kohli."
' In reply to same question, Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant) replied as under:-- "I am innocent. I was living happily with my deceased husband and I had children from him and they were school going. Just to grab the property of my deceased husband. The complainant who is brother of the deceased have cooked up this false story and now a days the land and property of my deceased husband is in the possession of the complainant. All the allegations leveled against me are false and concocted."
7. The appellants 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 them nor did they produce evidence in their defence.
8. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 23.02.2010, found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed above and acquitted Liaqat Ali and Mst. Fatima Bibi, accused persons while giving them the benefit of doubt.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case; that there is delay of more than seven hours in reporting the matter to the police without any satisfactory explanation; that the complainant is not an eye-witness of the occurrence and he has lodged the FIR on the basis of information furnished to him by Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW4); that both the said eye-witnesses are chance witnesses as admittedly, their residences are 20 miles away from the place of occurrence; that the eye-witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence; that both the eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased being first cousin; that the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements in their earlier statements and took three different stances during the investigation; that the statements of the witnesses are full of contradictions; that Muhammad Akram (appellant) was not named in the FIR; that the complainant filed a private complaint on 28.07.2008 with an entirely different story; that Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant) has falsely been involved in this case just to deprive her from the inheritance of Muhammad Anar (deceased); that the evidence of Waj Takkar furnished by Zafar Iqbal (PW-8).Is also not reliable; that the private complaint is crude attempt of the complainant to bring the case in line with the edical evidence; that motive set up in the FIR has also been changed dishonestly in the private complaint which has not been proved; that recovery of Chaddar (P-4) from Muhammad Akram appellant is inconsequential; that two co-accused of the appellants namely, Liaqat Ali and Mst. Fatima Bibi have been acquitted and on the basis of same evidence, the appellants could not be convicted; that prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt; that both these appeals may be accepted, the appellants may be acquitted and the Murder Reference may be answered in the negative.
10. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes both these appeals on the grounds that no mala fide on the part of the complainant has been pointed out; that the complainant is an illiterate person and the FIR was not lodged properly on the basis of actual facts, therefore, he had to file a private complaint; that defects in investigation cannot be taken into consideration when private complaint has been filed by the complainant and the case has been decided on the basis of said facts; that acquittal of Liaqat Ali and Mst. Fatima Bibi accused does not affect the prosecution case against the appellants as the learned trial court has rightly applied the principle of sifting grain from chaff; that there is no material improvement or contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the prosecution case is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and recovery of Chadder (P-4) which was used by Muhammad Akram (appellant) to close the nose and mouth of the deceased; that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellants; that both these appeals may be dismissed and Murder Reference may be answered in the affirmative.
11. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, 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 the occurrence in this case took place on 17.05.2006 at 04.00 a.m. But surprisingly, without any explanation by the prosecution, the same was reported by the complainant after more than seven hours of the occurrence i,e, at 11.15 a.m. And the FIR (Exh-PC/1) was registered at 12.00 noon while the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station has been mentioned in FIR as nine kilometers only. Despite the alleged presence of the eye A witnesses Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4), who are maternal cousins of the deceased and the complainant, at the scene of occurrence, inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police affect the prosecution case adversely. Furthermore, then is unexplained delay in conducting postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, which was conducted on the same day at 06.00 p.m. It has been held by the Hon'ble courts repeatedly that such unexplained delay is normally occasioned due to incomplete police papers necessary to be handed over to the Medical Officer to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased which happens only when the complainant and police are busy in consultation and preliminary inquiry regarding the culprits in such like cases of unwitnessed occurrence. In this regard, reliance is very respectfully placed on the case of Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCM R 6) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:- "S. ...The FIR was also not lodged at police station as mentioned above. 10/11 hours delay in lodging of FIR provides sufficient time for deliberation and consultation when complainant had given no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. It is enough time for complainant to fabricate the story even then the complainant did not nominate appellants and their acquitted co-convicts, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out qua false implication of the appellants. It is also a settled law that delay of 10/11 hours in making FIR not explained leads to inference that the occurrence was un- witnessed..."
' Same view was affirmed by .The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Nazeer Ahmad v. Gehne Khan and others (2011 SCM R 1473) and Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCM R 1190), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-- "3. ...We have further observed that the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Shehzad Ahmed deceased had been conducted with a noticeable delay and such delay is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had. Been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eyewitnesses and in cooking up a story for the prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a post-mortem examination of the dead body conducted..."
13. The prosecution has produced Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4), real brothers inter se and maternal cousin of the deceased and the complainant, as eye-witnesses but the reason for their presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time i,e, at 04.00 a.m. Is not convincing and plausible. Both the witnesses are admittedly residents of a village situated at a distance of twenty miles from the place of occurrence. Both of them have maintained that they went to the house of the deceased to take him along with them to Sargodha to attend the date of hearing of a friend but both the witnesses have not given the name of that friend, the particulars of the case and the name of learned court, which creates doubt about their stance. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that both the eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and they remained fail to give any plausible reason for their presence at the scene of occurrence. Both the witnesses are having emotional relationship with the deceased but surprisingly, according to the story narrated in the statement (Exh-PC). By the complainant and the statements of both the eye- witnesses recorded on the day of occurrence (Exh-DA and Exh-DC) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, despite the fact that admittedly, none of the accused persons was holding any weapon at the time of occurrence but they did not try to catch hold of any of the accused and even the ladies could not be apprehended by them. The eye-witnesses have made improvements in their statements in this regard which has been got confronted by the defence.
' Muhammad Akram (appellant) is not nominated in the FIR (Exh-PC/1) though, the presence of two unknown persons has been mentioned therein and role assigned to unknown persons was of catching hold of legs of the deceased and the role of pressing the neck of the deceased was assigned to Liaqat Ali nominated accused (since acquitted) yet surprisingly, in private complaint (Exh-PF) and in statements before the learned trial court, Muhammad Akram (appellant) has been assigned the role of pressing the nose, face and mouth of the deceased with a Chaddar and similarly, Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant), according to statement of complainant (Exh-PC) and the FIR (Exh-PC/1), was attributed the role of pressing the lower part of the body of the deceased while subsequently, she has been given a specific role of holding the legs and pressing the scrotum of the deceased.
Another important aspect of this case is that Liaqat Ali, accused who was nominated in the FIR with the specific role of pressing the neck of the deceased and Mst. Fatima Bibi have been acquitted of the charge by the learned trial court while disbelieving the same prosecution evidence and no appeal against their acquittal has been filed either by the complainant or the State and the evidence which has been disbelieved to the extent of one accused cannot be believed qua the other accused unless and until there is some strong independent corroboration but we have keenly observed that no such corroboration is available on the record.
13A. So far as the evidence of motive is concerned, we have observed that the prosecution remained fail to produce any cogent evidence in this regard. Ahmad Yar (PW-4), during his cross- examination, has admitted that no witness was produced during the investigation to prove any dispute between the deceased and the accused persons regarding income of wagon and bus.
Similarly, Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3), during his cross-examination, has admitted as under:-- ' Mst. Pathani was married with the deceased in 1994 or 1995. Mst. Pathani and the deceased were living happily with each other..."
While Sultan Ahmad, Inspector/SHO (CW-2) has maintained as under:-- "No witness was produced before me to prove that Mst. Pathani' was of ill repute woman.. .No witness was produced before me to prove any quarrel between husband and wife i,e, deceased and Mst. Pathani. I have not recorded any statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Of any witness who might have stated that there was dispute between the deceased and accused regarding any bus..."
' The complainant (PW-2), in his examination-in-chief, has also alleged that Liaqat Ali (appellant) was demanding Rishta of daughter of the deceased which was refused by him while he himself, during his cross-examination, has stated as under:-- "...The deceased had only three daughters namely Shakeela, Sobia and another daughter whose name I do not remember. The age of the said daughters are seven years and eight years and youngest daughter is a suckling baby and she is in jail with Mst. Pathani..."
' This statement of the complainant itself is sufficient to disbelieve this part of alleged motive as the eldest daughter of the deceased was of the age of eight year only so, the allegation of demand of 'Rishta' of such a minor girl even otherwise is not believable. This part of alleged motive is result of improvement made by all the three witnesses i,e, Muhammad Aslam, complainant (PW-2), Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4) as their statements recorded under Sections 154 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, respectively does not carry the motive as alleged by them in private complaint (Exh-PF) and in their statements before the learned trial court. The only motive narrated in the FIR (Exh-PC/1) was that Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant) was not having a good repute because of which the spouses -had been quarrelling every day with each other which is also negated by Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) during his cross-examination as discussed supra. We are of the firm opinion that the prosecution remained fail to prove motive part of the occurrence against any of the accused persons. We have also come to the conclusion that possibility cannot be ruled out that Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant) has been implicated in this case due to mala fide on the part of the complainant and his maternal cousins Muhammad Nawaz (PW-3) and Ahmad Yar (PW-4) as is evident from the statement of Zafar Iqbal (PW-8), another cousin of the complainant Muhammad Aslam, who during his cross-examination has admitted that the agricultural land of the deceased is being cultivated by his brother Muhammad Aslam, complainant. He has also maintained that the children of the deceased are being looked after by Liaqat Ali, accused (since acquitted), the brother of the appellant Mst. Pathani Bibi. The contention of Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellant), in her statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that she has been implicated in this case only to deprive her and her children from the property of her deceased husband does not seem ill founded.
14. So far as the evidence of Waj Takkar furnished by Zafar Iqbal (PW-8) is concerned, we have noticed that his statement that on hearing the noise, he went towards the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons running from the house of the deceased becomes doubtful when we take notice of the fact that the name of this witness has not been mentioned by the complainant in the FIR despite the fact that he has maintained in his statement that he and Mukhtar Ahmad (given up PW) informed the complainant regarding the occurrence. He or Mukhtar Ahmad (given up PW) never joined the investigation of this case as no statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 of said witnesses is available on the record. The statement of Zafar Iqbal (PW-8) is to be kept out of consideration being not believable as this piece of evidence was firstly introduced when the private complaint (Exh-PF) was filed by the complainant after a period of more than two months of the occurrence.
15. As regards the evidence of recovery of Chaddar (P-4) at the instance of Muhammad Akram (appellant) is concerned, we have noticed that Chaddar (P-4) was not blood stained due to which the same was not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner for its analysis. If Chaddar (P-4) was used to press the nose, mouth and neck of the deceased at the time of occurrence, it should have been stained with blood as according to Medical Officer Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-1) blood stained froth was coming out from mouth and nostrils of the deceased. In this view of the matter, recovery of Chaddar (P-4) is not only insufficient to connect Muhammad Akram (appellant) with the alleged offence but it is even otherwise, inconsequential to the prosecution case.
It is, by now, well established principle of law that it is the prosecution, which has to prove its case against the accused 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 appellants. 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 accused, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1347, was pleased to 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 matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.'
In Ayub Masih v. The State" (PLD 2002 SC 1048), at page 1036 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 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 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 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."
16. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, therefore, we accept Criminal Appeal No,82-J of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No,77-J of 2010 filed by Muhammad Akram and Mst. Pathani Bibi (appellants), respectively, set aside their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 23.02.2010 and acquit them from the charge under Section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. By extending them the benefit of doubt. They are in custody, be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
17. Murder Reference No,171 of 2010 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death of Muhammad Akram (convict) is NOT CONFIRMED.