1. Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.--Zeeshan, 6, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, went outside his home along with his minor brothers, namely, Kamran and Faizan to play on 21-03-2013; as he did not accompany them back home at 10:00 a.m. the family set out in his search; he was finally found lying dead on 23-3-2010 at 11:00 p.m. within the area of British Home, situating 2- Kilometers from Police Station Naseerabad, District Rawalpindi; incident was reported to the police by his father Shah Rehman (PW-6) through statement (Ex.PF) recorded by Muhammad Nawaz, SI (PW-12) 1:00 a.m. on 23.3.2013 at the spot wherein he laid suspicion against the appellant as according to him, the child was last seen in appellant's company by Muhammad Asif (PW-8) on 21-3-2013.
2. Dr. Waqas Afzal (PW-3) conducted autopsy at 3:00 a.m. on 233-2013 and noted five wounds of different dimensions on the neck below right & left mandible; both upper thighs; toe and the back; external compression of neck correlating with other injuries resulted into respiratory compromise leading towards cardio pulmonary arrest, opined as cause of death. Probable time between injuries and death was less than 15 to 20 minutes whereas between the death and postmortem it was estimated as 24 to 36 hours. The appellant was arrested on 2-4-2013 and after completion of investigation, indicted by learned a Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi on 12-4-2013 when he claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution in order to bring home the charge produced as many as twelve witnesses. As there was no direct evidence, the prosecution relied upon various pieces of circumstantial evidence comprising of res gestae, extrajudicial confession, admission of guilt before the trial Court and recoveries, confronted by the appellant with a denial. The learned trial Judge vide impugned Judgment dated .20.12.2013 convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to death along with compensation in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- or to undergo six months simple imprisonment in the event of default, vires whereof, are being assailed through CH: Appeal No. 6-J f 2014 whereas the State seeks confirmation of death penalty vide Murder Reference No. 7 of 2014; these are being decided through this single judgment.
3. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant contends that entire edifice of the prosecution case is structured upon a misconceived and misplaced suspicion; that there is no legal evidence which may possibly frame the appellant with the charge; that the witnesses were stage managed subsequently in. support of a dishonest investigation; the bottom-line is that prosecution miserably failed to establish the - charge. Contrarily, the learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has defended the impugned judgment on the ground that with the help of various pieces of circumstantial evidence, prosecution successfully drove home the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, closely related both with the deceased as well as with the complainant and rest of the .witnesses; it is argued that every hypothesis of appellant's innocence stands excluded and as he has brutally murdered an innocent child, he deserved no leniency in terms of quantum of sentence.
4. 3.Heard. Record perused.
5. 4.Calamity that befell upon the child is grievously shocking and the pain and anguish suffered by the family abiding by all means. Appellant is no other than a first cousin of the deceased, witnesses produced by the prosecution are related with him in close degree, however, what is to be seen is whether various pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution constitute a nexus between the appellant and the crime and with such a certainty that excludes every hypothesis of his innocence.
6. Shah Rehman (PW-6) is the first who laid suspicion against the appellant soon after the dead body of his son was found in a Nulla; he mentioned Muhammad Asif (PW-8) as the one, who last saw the deceased in appellant's company. The child left home on 21.3.2010 before 10:00 a.m.
7. Muhammad Asif (PW-8) has not given any time as to when he last saw the deceased in appellant's company on the said date; his case is that after he saw the deceased in appellant's company. he went to Shankiari to visit his ailing maternal grandmother and returned on the following day to learn about child's disappearance; he also accompanied the complainant to the place of recovery of dead body on 23rd of March. Though closely related with the appellant as well as with the complainant, his statement warrants a careful scrutiny According to medical evidence furnished by Dr.