' Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa, J.--After conclusion of trial in case FIR No, 137 of 2004 registered under Sections 302, 337-F(ii), 148 read with Section 149 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act No, XLV of 1860) (hereinafter called "Act No, XLV of 1860") at Police Station Abdul Hakim, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal, a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, through judgment dated 3r of August 2011 concluded culpability of Khalid Mehmood alias Kali (appellant in Crl. Appeal No, 809 of 2011) and awarded him sentence of death under Section 302 (b) of The Act No, XLV of 1860, requiring him to pay compensation to the tune of one hundred thousand rupees (Rs, 100,000/-) under Section 544-A of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) (hereinafter called "The Code "). Fine to the tune of Rs, 50,000/- was also imposed and in default, to further undergo six months S.I. He was also convicted under Section 337-F(II) of The Act No, XLV of 1860 and sentence of 3-years rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) was awarded, also requiring him to pay the amount of Daman to the tune of Rs, 30,000/-.
' Tasawar Abbas (appellant in Crl. Appeal No, 750 of 2011) was held guilty for facilitation of commission of offence and as such he was convicted on the principle of vicarious liability for commission of Qatal-e-amd of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased) and was awarded sentence of life imprisonment also burdened to pay Rs, 20,000/- as fine and in default thereof, to further undergo 2-months simple imprisonment (S.I.).
' Muhammad Riaz (appellant in Crl Appeal No, 669 of 2011) as per Para-51 of the judgment assailed, was attributed the role of abetment by holding the complainant providing assistance to Khalid Mehmood (Appellant) for causing knife blows on the abdomen of complainant and as such he was awarded sentence of 2-years R.I. Who was further required to pay Rs, 20,000/- as fine and in default thereof to further undergo 2-months S.I.
' Appellants (Muhammad Riaz and Tasawar Abbas) were extended benefit of Section 382-B of the Code. Same premium was granted to Khalid Mehmood (convict) with reference to punishment awarded to him under Section 337-F(II) of the Act No, XLV of 1860.
2. Rest of the accused, Muhammad Arif Muhammad Rafique, Ghulam Yaseen Muhammad Ashraf Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Aslam were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment recording conviction and awarding sentences, Khalid Mehmood (appellant) has preferred Crl. Appeal No, 809 of 2011 titled "Khalid Mehmood alias Kali v. The State etc. "while Tasawar Abbas alias Bhattu has questioned the legality of the judgment through Crl.
Appeal No, 750 of 2011 titled "Tasawar Abbas alias Bhattu v. The State" Crl. Appeal No, 669 of 2011 has been filed by Muhammad Riaz against the judgment of conviction and awarding sentence titled "Muhammad Riaz v. The State etc."
4. Since Khalid Mehmood (appellant in Crl. Appeal No, 809 of 2011) was awarded sentence of death, therefore, Reference was sent by the learned trial C.Ourt for confirmation of sentence of death or otherwise which has been numbered as Murder Reference No, 97 of 2011.
5. All the three appeals as well as Murder Reference shall be decided by us through this judgment.
6. Crime report Bearing No, 137 of 2004 (Ex,P-B) was lodged on the statement (Ex.P-E) of Muhammad Ajmal, complainant (PW-6) with the allegations that on the night of 21st of June, 2004, he alongwith his brother, Ghulam Abbas (PW-11) and his paternal cousin, Murtaza, went to Basti Attari and at about 11:15 p.m. They all in the company of his maternal nephew, Muhammad Sajjad went to participate in fair at Abdul Hakim and when they reached near Basti Nayanwala, an unknown assailant, approximately 22-23 years old (description of whom has been mentioned in the crime report) started misbehaving with his brother, Ghulam Abbas (PW-11), which was retaliated by complainant and said unknown assailant pulled out knife and gave blows on his back and buttocks, upon which complainant made hue and cry and Muhammad Sajjad (deceased), Ghulam Abbas and Murtaza intercepted whereupon 10/11 associates of the said unidentified assailant, all having knives, came there and gave knives blows on the abdomen of Muhammad Sajjad who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
' Unidentified assailants, finding an opportunity, managed to escape though public-at-large present in the fair gathered at the place of occurrence.
7. Zafarullah, S.I. (PW-10) recorded the statement (Ex.P-E) of complainant and sent the same to Police Station for registration of case.
' The said Investigating Officer after reaching at the place of occurrence prepared injury statement and inquest report (Ex.P-G and Ex.P-H) who also secured blood-stained earth through recovery memo. (Ex.P-I).
' Dead body of Muhammad Sajjad was sent to mortuary for the purpose of autopsy.
' Complainant who was also in injured condition was sent to hospital for medical examination.
' Last worn clothes of the deceased were handed over to the investigating Officer by Muhammad Riaz, Constable which were taken into custody through recovery memo. (Ex.P-C).
' On 29.06.2004, the said Investigating Officer recorded supplementary statement of complainant in which he implicated Khalid Mehmood, Tasawar Abbas, Muhammad Riaz (appellants), Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Rafique, Ghulam Yaseen, Muhammad Ashraf Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Aslam. Later on, investigation of the case was entrusted to Muhammad Nawaz, S.I.
(since dead). In order to prove his hand-writing, Zafarullah, S.I. (PW16) was produced by the prosecution.
' After usual investigation, Report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted in the Court.
8. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced Muhammad Iqbal Janjua (PW-1), Muhammad Hussain, Head Constable (PW-2), Muhammad Nawaz, Head Constable (PW-3), Ghulam Abbas, Constable, (PW-4), Allah Ditta, father of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased) (PW-5), Muhammad Ajmal, complainant-injured (PW-6), Ashiq Hussain (PW-7), Muhammad Aslam (PW-8), Muhammad Latif S.I. (PW-9), Zafarullah, S.I., Investigating Officer (PW-10), Ghulam Abbas, an eye-witness (PW-11), Zafar Iqbal (PW-12), Rab Nawaz (PW-13), Dr. Noor Muhammad Sagu (PW-14), Abdul Shakoor (PW- 15), Zafarullah, S.I. (PW-16) and Riaz Hussain, Constable (PW-17).
' After tendering report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.P-N) and that of Serologist (Ex.P-0), prosecution evidence was closed.
9. The appellants (three in number) denied the whole incriminating evidence put to them. Pleading falsity of allegations and claiming innocence, it was submitted that it was an unseen occurrence and they were made scapegoat. In order to substantiate their stance regarding innocence, it was contended on behalf of Khalid Mehmood (appellant) that he filed application for post-arrest bail before a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala on 12th of November, 2004 wherein Muhammad Ajmal, complainant (PW-6) submitted an affidavit (which is Ex.D-C) whereby he was exonerated. He further stated that Ghulam Abbas, an eye-witness (PW-11) also submitted an affidavit (Ex.D7B) on similar lines.
10. Dr. Noor Muhammad Sagu (PW-14) conducted medico legal examination on the person of Muhammad Ajmal, complainant (PW-6) and noted following injuries:--
1. An incised wound 1 cm x Y2 cm on base of thumb on palmar side of left hand.
2. An incised wound 1 cm x 1.4 cm on medial part of thumb of right hand.
3. An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm on left lumber area. 3 cm away from vertebral Column.
4. An incised wound 1 x V2 cm at left lumber area 5 cm obliquely below from Injury No, 3.
5. An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm on lateral side of right buttock.
6. An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm at medial at upper part of left buttock.
7. An incised wound 1 cm x V2 cm on medial and lower part of right buttock. Carbon copy of the medico-legal certificate is Ex.P-L.
' On the same day, the said Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased) observing the following injuries:--
1. An incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm on left lower part of chest. 8 cm below left nipple.
2. An incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm on left side of chest. Medially and obliquely 6 cm below Injury No, 1.
3. An incised wound 1 x 1/2 cm on right side of chest. 6 cm below right nipple.
' Time between injuries and death was 10 to 15 minutes and time between death and post-mortem examination was 10 to 12 hours.
' Ex.P-M is the carbon copy of the post-mortem report while pictorial diagram showing seat and locale of injuries is Ex.P-M/1.
11. Learned counsel for all the three appellants, at the very outset, submitted that none of the appellants was nominated in the FIR (Ex.P-B) which was registered against unknown accused.
Contended that appellants and co-accused were implicated by way of supplementary statement made by the complainant on 29.06.2004 but without disclosing the source of information.
' Further submitted that in view of implication through supplementary statement, appellants as well as Muhammad Arif Muhammad Rafique, Ghulam Yaseen, Muhammad Ashraf Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammhd Aslam were sent up to face trial and the learned trial Court after conclusion of trial though recorded conviction against the appellants but acquitted rest of the accused named above as is evident from Para-50 of the judgment.
' Contended that since the evidence of prosecution witnesses was not believed to the extent of acquitted accused (six in number), therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed upon the ocular account acted upon by the learned trial Court in order to record conviction against present appellants.
' Drawing our attention.To the contents of FIR (Ex.P-B), it was submitted that case was registered against unidentified assailants and particulars and description of the assailants except one was not mentioned in the crime report.
' Continuing the arguments, it was submitted that since case was registered against unknown accused, therefore, holding of identification parade was essential but no identification test was held which omission, argued, by itself is sufficient to brush aside the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
' Making reference to the statement of Allah Ditta, father of deceased (PW-5), it was contended that the said witness in cross-examination admitted filing of private complaint regarding murder of his son, Muhammad Sajjad, against Muhammad Ajmal, complainant, etc. ' Argued that the fact by itself is sufficient to put a serious dent in the case of prosecution.
' Adverting to the statement of Muhammad Ajmal, complainant (PW-6) and Ghulam Abbas (PW- 11), it was submitted that their evidence cannot be believed and acted upon as they were not in a position to identify the appellants as culprits in darkness at the time of occurrence and in view of failure of the Investigating Officer to get the identification test conducted.
' Referring to the cross-examination of complainant (PW-6), it was submitted that he himself admitted factum of darkness at the place of occurrence.
' While making reference to the replies given by the complainant in cross-examination, it was further argued that complainant identified all the accused at the police station after about 1 1/2 or 2 months of the occurrence.
' Submitted that in the circumstances, how evidente of these witnesses could have been believed in order to record conviction against the appellants.
' Questioning the presence of said witness at the spot, it was submitted that house of complainant is at a distance of 40-45 km from the house of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased) and it does not appeal to the reason that in order to participate in the fair, complainant alongwith his other relatives, first of all, will visit the residence of deceased and then to the place where occurrence took place.
' Making reference to the replies given in cross-examination, it was argued that the complainant made conscious improvements in his direct statement and as such his evidence cannot be relied upon.
' It was further argued that complainant submitted an affidavit in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala in the application for post-arrest bail, exonerating the appellant, Khalid Mehmood.
' Making reference to the statement of Ashiq Hussain (PW-7), it was submitted that his evidence cannot be taken into consideration as no cross-examination was conducted which was reserved and he later on left Pakistan for Dubai.
' Drawing our attention to the statement of Zafar Iqbal (PW12), it was contended that evidence of Ashiq Hussain, even if taken into consideration, alongwith evidence of this witness by itself would not be sufficient to prove the culpability of any of the appellants in view of his deposition stating that Khalid Mehmood (appellant) was telling others about the fight and sustaining of injuries by some persons.
' Referring to the evidence of Ghulam Abbas (PW-11), an eyewitness, similar arguments were advanced which were canvassed in order to question the credibility of complainant (PW-6).
' Similarly, while making reference to the evidence of Rab Nawaz (PW-13) and Abdul Shakoor (PW- 15), it was argued that their evidence, even if taken as gospel truth, would not be sufficient to prove the culpability of appellants.
' Submitted that deposition of Rab Nawaz (PW-13) disclosing extra-judicial confession on the part of appellants and others cannot be believed as according to the deposition of said witness, the said confession is joint one.
12. Controverting the arguments, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant though admitted that appellants were not nominated in the FIR but submitted that they were implicated by the complainant through supplementary statement dated 29th of June, 2004. Argued that complainant got no bias or malice against the appellants and as such deposition of complainant (PW-6) as well as Ghulam Abbas, an eye-witness (PW-11) can be safely relied upon. Further submitted that prosecution also produced evidence of extra judicial confession coming from the mouth of Rab Nawaz (PW-13).
' Referring to the statements of Ashiq Hussain and Muhammad Aslam (PW-7 and PW-8), it was contended that the witnesses saw the appellants having a conversation with one another telling about the occurrence which provides corroboration to the statement of complainant (PW-6) and Ghulam Abbas (PW-11).
' Drawing our attention to the evidence of Zafar Iqbal (PW-12), it was submitted that the said witness categorically stated that appellants alongwith others came at Bahawalpur Chungi in order to take tea and later on they went towards the site of fair. Further added that the said witness categorically stated that there were blood spots on the clothes of appellants. Submitted that evidence of this witness also provides corroboration to the prosecution evidence.
' Continuing the arguments, it was submitted that Muhammad Ajmal complainant (PW-6) is the injured' eye-witness whose presence at the spot cannot be questioned who was medically examined and the fact by itself is sufficient to controvert the arguments advanced on behalf of appellants questioning the presence of complainant at the spot.
' Further argued that though false implication was pleaded with vehemence by the appellants but nothing has been suggested prompting the complainant as well as eye-witness (PW-6 and PW-11) to implicate them falsely.
13. Perusal of the contents of FIR (Ex.P-B) clearly reveals that case was registered against unknown accused. As per allegations, occurrence took place at about 11:15 p.m. It is to be noted that particulars and description of only one accused find mentioned in the crime report. Though it was stated in the crime report that complainant as well as eye-witness can identify 10/11 unknown assailants but admittedly their complete particular does not find mentioned in the crime report and it was just stated that said 10/11 unknown assailants were young. The complainant as well as Ghulara Abbas (PW-6 and PW-11) admitted that the appellants were not known to them previously.
' Since the appellants were not known to them previously, therefore, holding of identification test was essential. We are fortified in our view by the law laid down in "Ismail and another v. The State"
(1974 SCM R 175), "State through Advocate General Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others"
(PLD 1995 Supreme Court 1) and "Farman Ali v. The State" (1997 SCM R 971).
14. It is an admitted fact that no identification test was ever held in order to identify all the three appellants as assailants.
15. We may also advantageously make reference to the statement of Muhammad Ajmal, complainant (PW-6) who in cross-examination, frankly admitted that they identified all the accused at police station after about 1 1/2 or 2 months of the occurrence.
16. In these circumstances, one can well imagine the evidentiary value of statement of complainant which cannot be taken into consideration in order to establish the culpability of all the three appellants. '
17. It is to be noted that Ghulam Abbas (PW-11) in cross-examination admitted that he did not nominate any accused in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. He also made frank admission that he also did not ascribe rote to any of the accused in his statement.
' In view of the matter, conscous and dishonest improvement was made by the said witness while ascribing role to the appellants in his statement as PW-11.
18. Complainant (PW-6) as well as Ghulam Abbas (PW-11) were also confronted with the contentn of FIR as well as his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code in order to suggest improvements with respect to the role of Tasawar Abbas and Khalid Mehmood.
' The eye-witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code, copy of which is Ex.D-A, which is sufficient to suggest that said witness made conscious and dishonest improvements with reference to the role of appellants named above and as such no reliance can be placed upon the statement referred to on this score as well. Reference may be made to "Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State" (1993 SCM R 550), "Akhtar Ali and others v. The State" (2008 SCM R 6) and "Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others" (2010 SCM R 385)
19. It is further to be noted that Allah Ditta, father of deceased, while appearing as PW-5 admitted that he filed a private complaint against Muhammad Ajmal, complainant (PW-6) and others regarding murder of his son, Muhammad Sajjad, Ghulam Abbas (PW11), brother of complainant (PW-6) also admitted in cross-examination that Allah Ditta levelled allegation against complainant and Mumtaz about murder of Muhammad Sajjad (deceased). He also frankly admitted filing of private complaint against complainant and Mumtaz in this regard.
' Admission regarding filing of complaint by Allah Ditta, father of deceased (PW-5) is another fatal blow to the case of prosecution.
20. Evidence of Ashiq Hussain (PW-7) and Zafar Iqbal (PW12) stating that they were sitting on a tea stall at Basti Bahawalpur, waiting for some friend and at about 10:00 p.m., appellants came there on a car in order to take tea and left the place would not improve the care of prosecution. Their further disclosure that at about mid-night, appellants and others again came at the place for taking tea when Khalid Mehmood (appellant) told others about the quarrel with him and according to evidence of both the witnesses, the other accused asked him to leave the place lest they might be apprehended would not improve the case of prosecution.
21. As referred earlier, Ashiq Hussain was not cross-examined as he left Pakistan for Dubai but even if evidence of Ashiq Hussain and Zafar Iqbal (PW-7 and PW-12) is taken as gospel truth, it will hardly provide any base to prove guilt of appellants because the deposition by itself does not suggest identity and particulars of the person with whom there was a quarrel of Khalid Mehmood.
' Similarly, evidence of Zafar Iqbal (PW-12) disclosing the arrival of appellants, Khalid Mehmood, alongwith Muhammad Riaz, Aslam and Arif at the place where he was sitting alongwith Haji Ashiq also disclosing that appellants and said persons had tea and their pockets were heavy by itself would not suggest any incriminating material in order to prove culpability of appellants before us.
' Though the witness stated that there were blood spots at the clothes of appellants and others as argued with vehemence on behalf of prosecution but nevertheless, how part of deposition will connect the appellants in the commission of crime because as per deposition, it came to his notice later on that there were blood spots on their clothes.
22. Similarly, evidence of Rab Nawaz (PW-13) disclosing the factum of extra judicial confession is liable to be brushed aside simply on the ground that his deposition clearly reveals that it is joint extrajudicial confession.
23. Matter can be examined from another angle as well. The said witness, according to him, was sitting at the residence of Falak Sher in Basti Atari but the said witness was not produced and as such adverse presumption can be conveniently drawn against prosecution.
' Conduct of this witness also does not appeal to the reason when he stated in cross-examination that the accused, referred to, in his statement approached them on the next day of occurrence and remained there for a period of 11/2 hours but they did not make any attempt to apprehend them.
24. It is further to be noted that occurrence took place on 21.06.2004 and according to this witness appellants made extra judicial confession on the very next date. It is not understandable that why said witness did not intimate these facts to the complainant or to the father of deceased.
25. It is worth mentioning at the cost of repetition that appellants before us alongwith others were implicated by way of supplementary statement made by complainant on 29.06.2004. Evidentiary value of supplementary statement is an open legal secret. Reliance is placed upon "Falak Sher alias Sheru v. The State" (1995 SCM R 1350), "Naar Muhammad v. The State" (2008 SCM R 1556) and "Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others" (2010 SCM R 385).
26. Evidence of Abdul Shakoor who appeared as PW-15 would not substantiate the case of prosecution deposing that Muhammad Rafique and Tasawar Abbas, accused, came at Darbar Gate and later on, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Arif Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Rihz also came there at car and went to fair ground. Evidence of this witness stating that accused were telling each other that two persons were injured by them, even if taken as gospel truth, would not be sufficient to prove culpability of appellants as the names and particulars of the stated victims were not disclosed. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to the reason that appellants will confess their guilt so loudly and that too at public place.
27. It is further to be noted that Allah Ditta, father of deceased, while appearing as PW-5, stated that he got information about the occurrence at about 10:00 p.m. When he was present in the house. However, different stance has been taken in the FIR (Ex.P-B) suggesting time of occurrence at 11:15 p.m.
28. We may also add here that Muhammad Ajmal, complainant, appeared before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted an affidavit exonerating the appellant i.e, Khalid Mehmood which is not a moot point.
' We are conscious that the said affidavit, copy of which was placed on record as Ex.D-C was not put to the complainant but it bears the thumb impression of Ghulam Abbas (PW-11) to whom his thumb impression was referred in cross-examination who admitted his thumb impression and submission of affidavit by his brother, Muhammad Ajmal exonerating Khalid Mehmood through to the extent of bail application.
29. Muhammad Ajmal, complainant, sustained injuries during the occurrence and as such though we cannot endorse contention of learned counsel for the appellants doubting his presence at the spot but sustaining of injuries by complainant by itself would not be sufficient to consider his statement as true and correct which has to be tested on its own merits. Deposition of complainant as discussed earlier does not inspire confidence.
30. In view of the discussion made, we are of the firm view that evidence led by prosecution is neither convincing nor finds any corroboration.
31. Argument canvassed by learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant that simple denial has been made by the appellants by itself would not be sufficient to prove the case of prosecution as it was the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of appellants beyond shadow of doubt, irrespective of the fact whether any defense has been taken by the appellants or not.
32. Guilt of the accused cannot be based merely on high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence. Reliance is placed upon "Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State" (2008 SCM R 336).
' Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Dealing with the proposition, the Apex Court held in the case of "Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa" (supra) at Page-340 as follows: "It is well-settled that suspicion howsoever strong it may be, by itself cannot take place of proof This view receives support from the following reported judgments:-
(i) Bhugdoman Gangaram and others v. State of Gujarat 1984 PSC 640 (sic), (ii) State of UP v.
Krishna Gopal and another 1988 MLD 1501 (sic) and (iii) Vijant Kumar and others v. State through Chief Ehtesab Commission, Islamabad and others PLD 2003 SC 56.
' It is also an established principle of the administration of criminal justice that conviction cannot be based on any other type of evidence howsoever, convincing it may be, unless direct or substantive evidence is available. Even, guilt of an accused cannot be based merely on high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a particular case. In this view we are fortified by the following reported judgments:--
(i) Muhammad Luqman v. The State PLD 1970 SC 10, (ii) Muhammad Noor v. Member-I, Board of Revenue, Balochistan and others 1991 SCM R 463 and (iii) Qalb-eAbbas alias Nehola v. The State 1997 SCM R 290.
33. Reliance upon the post-mortem report and medico-legal examination of the injured i.e, complainant (PW-6) would not be sufficient to prove the case of prosecution as medical evidence just provides corroboration to the seat and locale of injuries as well as weapon of offence used but cannot prove and establish the identity of the accused. Reliance is placed upon "Abdul Majeed v.
Mulazim Hussain and others" (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 637) and "Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State" (2008 SCM R 1221).
34. Viewed from whichever angle, prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt and as such C benefit of doubt has to be extended in their favour as a matter of right. Reliance is placed upon "Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State" (2008 SCM R 1221) and "Faheem Ahmed Farooqui U. The State" (2008 SCM R 1572).
35. Learned trial Court while recording conviction against Khalid Mehmood (appellant) under Section 302(b) of The Act No, XLV of 1860 imposed fine as is evident from Para-53 of the judgment.
Imposition of fine while recording conviction under the said provision bf law is legally not sustainable.
36. Pursuant to above discussion, while extending benefit of doubt and accepting appeals preferred by all the three appellants, judgment dated 3rd of August, 2011 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala recording conviction against all the appellants is hereby set aside, resulting in acquittal of all the three appellants.
37. Khalid Mehmood (appellant) is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
38. In view of acceptance of Crl. Appeal No, 809 of 2011 preferred by Khalid Mehmood (appellant), sentence of death awarded to the said appellant is NOT CONFIRMED.
39. Murder Reference No, 97 of 2011 is answered in NEGATIVE.
40. Sentences of Muhammad Riaz and Tasawar Abbas were 'suspended by this Court through orders dated 1st of December, 2011 and 29th of February 2012 on handed down in their respective appeals by accepting Crl. Misc No, 01 2011 who are present on bail. They and their surety stands discharged of their respective bonds.