' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, C.J.---Muhammad Javaid (appellant) was tried by the learned Juvenile Court/Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, in case FIR No.258/2006 dated 14.09.2006, offence under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Luksian, District Sargodha for the murder of Muhammad Munsha brother of the complainant. Vide judgment dated 11.07.2011, passed by the learned Juvenile Court/Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- "37. ...Thus he has committed an offence punishable under section 302(b), P.P.C. And accordingly he is punished with life imprisonment as ta'zir. He is also ordered to pay compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the other legal heirs of deceased (except himself) under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, he shall further undergo six months' S.I. The accused is given the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C..."
2. The facts in brief, as contained in the FIR (Ex.PG/1) registered on the basis of statement (Ex.PG) of Muhammad Riaz, complainant (PW.6) are that he (complainant) was resident of Mid Ranjha, whereas, his brother Muhammad Mansha was residing at Hayat Pur. On the preceding evening i.e. On 13.09.2006 Muhammad Javaid paternal nephew of the complainant informed him that his father namely Muhammad Mansha used to quarrel with him and requested him to visit Hayat Pur and settle the matter, whereupon, complainant along with Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7), who were his close relatives, came to Hayat Pur. At night time, complainant along with Muhammad Hayat, Noor Muhammad, Mst. Basri, Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Mansha, while sitting on the cots in the courtyard, advised Muhammad Mansha that making quarrel in the house is not a good gesture but till late night, the matter could not be settled.
Ultimately, they went to sleep on cots in the courtyard. On 14.09.2006 at about 06.30 a.m. In the morning, complainant woke up after hearing the whispering and saw Muhammad Javaid armed with hatchet and Mst. Basri armed with sota, standing near the cot of the Muhammad Mansha.
Within his (complainant) view, Muhammad Javaid (appellant) inflicted hatchet blow to Muhammad Mansha, which landed on his palm of right hind. Muhammad Mansha woke up and tried to stand up from the cot but Muhammad Javaid again inflicted hatchet blow which landed on the head of Muhammad Mansha at back side. Mst. Basri gave sota blow which landed on the head of Muhammad Mansha at back side. Muhammad Javaid inflicted hatchet blow which landed on the front of forehead of Muhammad Mansha who fell down after sustaining injuries. On hue and cry of Muhammad Mansha, Muhammad Hayat and Noor Muhammad, who were sleeping near the place of occurrence, woke up and while witnessing the occurrence came at the spot. They pushed back Muhammad Javaid (appellant) and Mst, Basri after beseeching them and attended Muhammad Mansha, who succumbed to the injures at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the FIR was that there were domestic differences between Muhammad Mansha and Mst. Basri who used to quarrel with each other and due to the said reason, Muhammad Javaid (appellant) and Mst. Basri (co-accused since tried and acquitted separately) in consultation with each other, committed the murder of Muhammad Mansha (deceased).
3. After fulfilling codal formalities, investigation was completed and challan was submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction. The appellant was summoned by the learned Juvenile Court/Addl.
Sessions Judge, Bhalwal to face the trial. After framing the charge, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in all. Thereafter, the appellant got recorded his statement under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure on 05.07.2011 and stated as under:- "The witness of the complainant inimically deposed against me, as a matter of fact on 14.09.2006 at about 6:30 a.m. I along with my father Munsha deceased, my mother. Mst. Basri, sister Samina Bibi aged 13 years brothers Pervaiz Akhtar aged 15 years. And Amjid Ali aged 6/7 years were present in our house, when complainant Muhammad Riaz along with his co-accused Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Hayat, Muhammad Shahbaz armed with hatchet, sota came to our house and asked deceased Munsha to marry his daughter Samina Bibi to the son of complainant. Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Asghar on refusal by the deceased Munsha a scuffle took place between both parties, during the scuffle complainant Muhammad Riaz inflicted hatchet blows to the Munsha deceased as a result of which Munsha deceased fell on the cot and succumbed to his injuries. The complainant with connivance of the police got registered this case against me and my mother.
The PW Noor Muhammad is the real maternal uncle of the complainant and he has given false statement."
' To another question 'Have you anything else to say?, The appellant replied as under:- "On 14.09.2006 as I stated in previous question. Complainant after committing heinous offence along with other co-accused went to the police station Luksian and lodged FIR No.258/2006 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Against myself and my mother. The police came to the place of occurrence and taken into possession the dead body of my deceased father Munsha and did not record my statement and statements of my brother and sister being natural witnesses of the occurrence. The police arrested me and my mother in the murder of my deceased father and my brother and sister namely Samina and Pervaiz missing since our arrest was murdered by the complainant Muhammad Riaz with the help of his co-accused and disposed off their dead bodies to remove the evidence against them and looted all our belongings left in the house. After getting bail, my mother started pursuing the case against accused/complainant Muhammad Riaz and other co-accused.
My mother got lodged FIR No.93 dated 13.04.2008 under section 379, P.P.C., 14/6/79 Offences Against Property (EOH) Ordinance, 1979 P.S. Luksian in which looted articles were recovered from the possession of complainant. My younger brother Amjid Ali was also recovered from complainant. On the orders of Lahore High Court, Lahore finally my mother succeeded to got register our version of the murder of my father Munsha and missing of my sister Samina Bibi and brother Pervaiz Akhtar by registration of FIR No.499 dated 25.12.2008 under sections 302/201, 379/34, P.P.C. P.S. Luksian against Muhammad Riaz and other co-accused but the police did not prefer our version and ultimately my mother had to file a direct complaint titled Basri Bibi v. Riaz and others. The complainant deceive us twice on the pretext or compromise firstly my mother recorded her statement of compromise in FIR No.93/2008 and secondly she withdraw private complaint against the complainant. The prosecution case against us is absolutely false."
' The appellant did not appear as his own witness in disproof of the allegations levelled against him as provided under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he produced certain documents i.e. Private complaint titled "Mst. Basri v. Muhammad Riaz" (Mark.A), copy of FIR No.499/2008 registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Luksian (Mark.B), photocopy of FIR No.93/2008, registered under section 379, P.P.C. At Police Station Luksian (Mark.C) and photocopy of application of Mst Basri to SHO Luksian as (Mark.D) in his defence.
4. As per para No.35 of the impugned judgment wherein it is mentioned that charge of murder of Muhammad Mansha (deceased) against Mst Basri could not be proved, therefore, benefit of doubt was extended in her favour.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that Muhammad Javaid (appellant) has falsely been implicated in this case; that this incident, as per prosecution's own case, took place at about 6:30 a.m. On 14.09.2006 whereas it was reported to the police on the same day at 9:15 a.m. i.e. 2-3/4 hours after the occurrence and there is no plausible or satisfactory explanation in this behalf as to why the matter was not earlier reported to the police despite the fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and police station was just seven kilometers; that both the witnesses of ocular account i.e. Muhammad Riaz, complainant (PW.6) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7) were chance witnesses because the occurrence took place inside the house of Muhammad Mansha (deceased) situated at village Hayatpur, whereas, Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW.6) was resident of Mid Ranjha and Noor Muhammad, the other witness of ocular account was resident of village Bucha KaIan; that both these witnesses have not given any plausible explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time; that distance between the village Mid Ranjha and BUcha Kalan, where both the witnesses of ocular account were residing, was about 5/6 kilometers and as such stance of the complainant that he along with Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) went to the house of deceased together does not appeal to a prudent mind; that it is the case of prosecution in the FIR as well as before the learned trial court that the occurrence took place in the house of the Muhammad Mansha (deceased) and at the time of incident all the witnesses of ocular account namely Muhammad Riaz, complainant (PW.6), Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) were sleeping near the deceased and subsequently woke up on hearing the hue and cry but circumstances of the case suggest that complainant (PW.6), Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence because had they been present at the spot, they could have easily overpowered Muhammad Javaid (appellant) or Mst. Basri co-accused of the appellant because it is not the case of the prosecution that at the time of alleged incident Muhammad Javaid (appellant) or Mst.
Basri were carrying any firearm; that complainant (PW.6) has admitted during the course of cross examination that Samina daughter of the deceased was present at the time of incident; that she was the natural witness of occurrence but neither she joined the police investigation nor appeared before the learned trial court to substantiate the version of the complainant, therefore, the prosecution withheld the best available evidence and in view of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution; that ocular account is in direct conflict with the medical evidence because in the FIR it was the case of prosecution that Muhammad Javaid (appellant) caused three injuries with hatchet, first on the palm of right hand, second on the back side of head and third, on the front of forehead of Muhammad Mansha (deceased) but while appearing before the learned trial complainant (PW.6) improved his version by stating that except the above three injuries Muhammad Javaid (appellant) also caused injury with hatchet at the right flank of Muhammad Mansha (deceased); that same was the stance of Noor Muhammad (PW.7), the other witness of ocular account, before the learned trial court but Dr Waqar Hameed (PW.5) who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased and prepared the postmortem report (Exh.PD) did not notice the injuries on the palm of right hand as well as on the right flank of Muhammad Mansha (deceased); that motive is not alleged against the appellant and the same was attributed to Mst. Basri who has been acquitted by the learned trial court; that recovery of hatchet (P.2) allegedly effected at the instance of the appellant does not advance the case of prosecution because both the witnesses of ocular account namely Muhammad Riaz and Noor Muhammad stated in their examination-inchief that Muhammad Javaid (appellant) ran away from the place of occurrence after throwing the hatchet at the spot but Munir Ahmad 956-C (PW.1) and Gulsher Ahmad, S.I. (PW.9) stated in their examination-in-chief that recovery of hatchet (P.2) was effected at the instance of the appellant; that viewing from all angles, the prosecution case is doubtful in nature and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as of right; that version of the appellant disclosed by him while making statement under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure and put to the witnesses of ocular account during their cross examination is more probable and gets support from prosecution's own case.
6. Notice was issued to the complainant but none has appeared on his behalf, therefore, I am proceeding with the matter after hearing the arguments of learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this appeal on the grounds that complainant of the case has absolutely no deep rooted enmity with the appellant for his false implication in this case; that there is no inordinate delay in reporting the crime to the police and even the postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased was conducted within four hours after the occurrence; that presence of both the witnesses of ocular account at the spot is quite natural and probable and they have given a plausible reason for their presence at the spot at the relevant time by stating that they had come to the house of deceased in order to settle the family dispute between the appellant's mother and the deceased; that it is the prerogative of the prosecution/complainant to produce as many witnesses as it deems appropriate and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution because of non-examining of Mst. Samina daughter of the deceased; that ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence qua the injuries caused by the appellant; that prosecution case is further corroborated by the recovery of hatchet (P.2) at the instance of the appellant coupled with the positive reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PT) and that of Serologist (Exh.PR); that motive has been proved against the appellant; that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and there is no merit in this appeal; that version of Muhammad Javaid (appellant) disclosed by him in his statement under section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure, is an afterthought; that Muhammad Javaid (appellant) did not opt to appear as his own witness in disproof of the prosecution allegations as provided under section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure nor did he produce any witness in support of his version.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State at a considerable length and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
9. Admittedly, it is a case of two versions. One set out by the prosecution in the FIR (Exh.PG/1) and brought on the record through the statements of Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW.6) as well as Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and the second disclosed by Muhammad Javaid (appellant) in his statement recorded under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure and put to the eye-witnesses during their cross examination. In such like situation, the court is required to first analyze the prosecution case in order to ascertain its truthfulness or otherwise. In this respect, I am guided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in the case reported as "Ashiq Hussain v. State" (PLD 1994 SC 879) wherein, at page 883, it has been observed as under:- "9. ...The proper and the legal way of dealing with a criminal case is that the Court should first discuss the prosecution case/evidence in order to come to an independent finding with regard to the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses and the probability of the story told by them, and then examine the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And the defence evidence. If the Court disbelieves/rejects/ excludes from consideration the prosecution evidence, then the Court must accept the statement of the accused as a whole without scrutiny. If the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Is exculpatory, then he must be acquitted. If the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Believed as a whole, constitutes some offence punishable under the Code/law, then the accused should be convicted for that offence only. In case of counterversions, if the Court believes prosecution evidence and is not prepared to exclude the same from consideration, it will not straightaway convict the accused but will review the entire evidence including the circumstances appearing in the case at close before reaching at a conclusion regarding the truth or falsity of the defence plea/version. All the factors favouring belief in the accusation must be placed in juxtaposition to the corresponding factors favouring the plea in defence and the total effect should be estimated in relation to the questions, viz., is the plea/version raised by the accused satisfactorily established by the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case? If the answer be in the affirmative, then the Court must accept the plea of the accused and act accordingly. If the answer to the question be in the negative, then the Court will not reject the defence plea as being false but will go a step further to find out whether or not there is yet a reasonable possibility of defence plea/version being true. If the Court finds that although the accused has failed to establish his plea/version to the satisfaction of the Court but his plea might reasonably be true, even then the Court must accept his plea and acquit or convict him accordingly."
' The above view of the learned Apex Court of the country has been reiterated in another judgment reported as "Amin Ali v. The State" (2011 SCM R 323), therefore, following the principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in such like situation, I will first, examine the case of the prosecution.
10. Case of the prosecution has been discussed in detail in para 2 above. Gist of the same is that on the preceding evening i.e. On 13.09.2006 Muhammad Javaid paternal nephew of the complainant informed him that his father namely Muhammad Mansha used to quarrel with him and requested him to come Hayat Pur to settle the matter, whereupon, complainant along with Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7), who were his close relatives, came to Hayat Pur.
At night time, complainant along with Muhammad Hayat, Noor Muhammad, Mst Basri, Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Mansha, while sitting on the cots in the courtyard, advised Muhammad Mansha that making quarrel in the house is not a good gesture but till late night, the matter Could not be settled and at the end, they went to sleep on cots in the courtyard. On 14.09.2006 at about 06.30 a.m. In the morning, complainant woke up after hearing the whispering and saw Muhammad Javaid armed with hatchet and Mst. Basri armed with sota, standing near the cot of the Muhammad Mansha. Within his (complainant) view, Muhammad Javaid (appellant) inflicted hatchet blow to Muhammad Mansha, which landed on palm of his right hand. Muhammad Mansha woke up and tried to stand up from the cot but Muhammad Javaid again inflicted hatchet blow which landed on the head of Muhammad Mansha at back side. Mst. Basri gave sow blow which landed on the head of Muhammad Mansha at back side. Muhammad Javaid inflicted hatchet blow which landed on the front of forehead of Muhammad Mansha who fell down after sustaining injuries. On the hue and cry of Muhammad Mansha, Muhammad Hayat and Noor Muhammad woke up and while witnessing the occurrence came at the spot. They pushed back Muhammad Javaid (appellant) as well as Mst Basri after beseeching them and attended Muhammad Mansha, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
11. This unfortunate incident, wherein Muhammad Mansha brother of the complainant lost his life, as per FIR (Exh.PG/1), took place on 14.09.2006 at 6:30 a.m. In the area of Hayatpur, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Luksian District Sargodha. The matter was reported to the Police through the statement (Exh.PG) made by Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW.6) brother of the deceased on the same day at 9:15 a.m. i.e. 23/4 hours after the occurrence, whereas, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was about seven kilometers. In the FIR as well as before the learned trial court, it was the case of the prosecution that three persons namely Muhammad Riaz (PW.6), Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) were present at the spot at the time of occurrence but they did not bother to report the matter to the police soon after the incident. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this delay in reporting the matter to the Police could not be explained at trial which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.
12. Ocular account in this case was furnished by Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW.6) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7). Admittedly, both the witnesses of ocular account were not the residents of the place or the area where this incident took place. Complainant was resident of Mid Ranjha whereas Noor Muhammad, the other witness of ocular account, was resident of Bucha KaIan. Though the distance between village Mid Ranjha, from where the complainant (PW.6) along with Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) came to the house of Muhammad Mansha (deceased) and village Hayatpur, where the incident took place, has not been brought on the record but it is correct that Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given) were not the residents of village Mid Ranjha rather they belonged to village Bucha KaIan and village Mela, respectively. Complainant (PW.6) has stated during the course of his cross- examination that the distance between the houses of Noor Muhammad (PW.7) and Muhammad Hayat (PW since given up) was about two kilometers whereas the distance between Bucha KaIan and Mid Ranjha was about 5/6 kilometers, therefore, the stance of the complainant as well as Noor Muhammad for going along with Muhammad Hayat to the house of Muhammad Mansha (deceased) together does not appeal to a prudent mind. Both the witnesses of ocular account namely Muhammad Riaz (PW.6) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7) were chance witnesses who had not assigned a probable reason for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time: The presence of both these witnesses at the spot also becomes doubtful from another circumstance because in the FIR as well as before the learned trial court, it was the case of prosecution that the occurrence took place in the house of Muhammad Mansha (deceased) and at the time of incident, all the witnesses of ocular account were sleeping near the deceased and subsequently woke up on hearing the hue and cry but none of them tried to capture the appellant or Mst. Basri (co-accused tried separately and acquitted). Had they been present at the spot, they could have easily overpowered the appellant or Mst. Basri becauses it was not the case of the prosecution that at the time of incident, the appellant or his co-accused were armed with any firearm. Therefore, I hold that presence of both the witnesses of ocular account namely Muhammad Riaz, complainant (PW.6) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7) at the place of occurrence at the relevant time is not free from doubts.
13. The complainant (PW.6) has also admitted during the course of cross-examination that Samina daughter of the deceased was also present at the spot at the time of incident. She was the natural witness of occurrence but neither she joined the police investigation nor appeared before the learned trial court to substantiate the version of the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution withheld the best available evidence and in view of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, adverse inference, that had this witness been produced before the learned trial court she would not have supported the prosecution case, can safely be drawn against the prosecution.
14. So far as motive is concerned, in the FIR as well as before the learned trial court motive was not alleged against the appellant rather the same was attributed to one Mst. Basri co-accused of the appellant who was tried separately and acquitted by the learned trial court. Therefore, I hold that the motive alleged by the prosecution does not connect the appellant with the commission of crime.
15. As far as medical evidence is concerned, it was the case of prosecution that Muhammad Javed (appellant) caused three injuries with the hatchet, first on the palm of right hand, second on the back side of head and third on the front of forehead of Muhammad Mansha but while appearing before the learned trial court, the complainant improved his version by stating that besides the above three injuries, Muhammad Javed (appellant) also caused injury with hatchet at the right flank of Muhammad Mansha (deceased). Same was the stance of Noor Muhammad, the other witness of ocular account, but Dr. Waqar Hameed (PW.5) who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead-body of deceased did not notice the injuries on the palm of right hand as well as on the right flank of Muhammad Mansha (deceased), therefore, the prosecution case is not fully supported by medical evidence. Even otherwise, the medical evidence at the most is a supporting piece of evidence and relevant only if the primary evidence i.e. Ocular account inspires confidence, which is not the situation in this case.
16. So far as the alleged recovery of hatchet (P.2) at the instance of Muhammad Javaid (appellant) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PB) and positive report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PT) and that of Serologist (Exh.PR) are concerned, I may observe that before the learned trial court it was the case of witnesses of ocular account namely Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW.6) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7) that after the incident the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence after throwing the hatchet but surprisingly Munir Ahmad 956-C (PW.1) and Gulsher Ahmad S.I. (PW.9) stated in their examination-in-chief that the recovery of hatchet (P.2) was effected at the instance of appellant. Moreover, the occurrence in this case took place on 14.09.2006, Muhammad Javaid (appellant) was arrested on 23.09.2006 who allegedly got recovered hatchet (P.2) on 24.09.2006 whereas the same was received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 10.10.2006 i.e. About twenty six days after the occurrence. Therefore, it was unlikely that the blood on the hatchet (P.2) would not disintegrate during the above mentioned period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram and others (2009 SCM R 120) has held as under:- "...It is borne out from the record that the alleged recovery of blood-stained Chhuri has effected after about one month of the occurrence from an open plot which was not in exclusive possession of the respondent and was accessible to all. It was also not likely that the blood would not disintegrate meanwhile. So the reasons advanced by the learned Judge in Chambers are not arbitrary or fanciful for not believing the remfery..."
' Therefore, I am of the view that it is not safe to rely on the recovery of hatchet (P.2) and positive reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist.
17. Having examined the prosecution case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to connect the appellant with the commission of crime beyond any shadow of doubt. In "Ayub Masih v. The State" (PLD 2002 SC 1048), at page 1056 the hon'ble Supreme 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."
18. So far as version of the appellant taken by him in his statement recorded under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, and put to the witnesses of ocular account namely Muhammad Riaz (PW.6) and Noor Muhammad (PW.7) is concerned, since the prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature, therefore, there is no need to discuss the defence version which, even otherwise, is exculpatory in nature.
19. Seeking guidance from the dictum of law laid down by the apex court in Ayub Masih case (supra), this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence .Awarded to Muhammad Javaid (appellant) vide judgment dated 11.07.2011 passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Muhammad Javaid (appellant) is in custody. He be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.