Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.--The appellants (convicts) namely Muhammad Aamer , Majeed, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid, Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Asim ur Rehman and Abu Turab were tried by the learned Judge, Anti-T errorism Court No, 1, Multan, in case FIR No, 265 of 2016 dated 12.08.2016 registered at Police Station Saddar Multan , under Section 353, 186, 427, 341, 342, 395, 224, 225, 506-B, 148, 149, PPC, Section 7' of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and Section 16 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 16.10.2017 convicted Muhammad Aamer , Majeed, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid, Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Asim ur Rehman and Abu Turab (convicts) and sentenced each of them as infra: "(i) Under Section 148, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months.
(ii) Under Section 353 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs, 15,000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months.
(iii) Under Section 186 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs, 1,500/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of fifteen days.
(iv) Under Section 427 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs, 15,000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months.
(v) Under Section 506 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs, 15,000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months.
(vi) Under Section 341 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs, 1500/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of fifteen days.
(vii) Under Section 342 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs, 3000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of fifteen days.
(viii) Under Section 225 read with 149, PPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs, 15,000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months.
(ix) Under Section. 7(h) of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 : Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs, 50,000/- and in default thereof directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment of six months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently . The convicts were extended the benefit available under Section 382 B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr .P.C.)."
2.Feeling aggrieved', Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid and Ghulam Nabi (convicts) lodged Criminal Appeal No, 916 of 2017, Asim-ur-Rehman and Hassan (convicts) lodged Criminal Appeal No, 991 of 2017, Muhammad Aamir (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No, 1061 of 2017, Abu Turab (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No, 994-A TA of 2017 and Muhammad Javed and Majeed (convicts) lodged Criminal Appeal No, 992-A TA of 2017 against their conviction and sentences. Muhammad Javed (convict) had lodged two appeals as mentioned above, hence, Criminal Appeal No. 992-A TA of 2017 is made redundant to his extent in view of the existence of Criminal Appeal No, 916 of 2017. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No, 916 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No, 991 of 2017, Criminal Appeal No, 992-A TA of 2017, Criminal Appeal No, 994-A TA of 2017 and Criminal Appeal No, 1061 of 2017, through this single judgment.
3. Precisely the facts necessary , as divulged in the statement of Muhammad Bilal, ASI (PW -2) are as under: "On 12.08.2016, I was posted at Police Station Qutab Pur Multan. On the same date, I alongwith Muhammad Asghar 2175/C, Javed 559/C, Ansar 53/C, while riding on private car Bearing Registration No, 5801/MNA in connection with the investigation of case FIR No, 546/2016 dated 10.8.2016 under Section 392, PPC Police Station Qutab Pur. On the pointation of accused Liaqat Hussain son of Ashiq Hussain caste Khichi resident of Mill Muzaffarabad conducted raid and arrested accused Muhammad Ahsan from Pul Wasil. At about 4.00 PM, when we reached at Chongi No. 1, 20/25 relatives of accused Muhammad Ahsan while riding on motorcycle armed with fire- arms including Dandas sottas stopped out car and also called 150/160 other persons for their help. Accused persons damaged my car with Dandas Sottas and also deboarded us forcibly . The accused persons also had torn the uniform of the police officials. Accused Muhammad Ahsan also resisted with the help of his relatives and other persons and also got released the accused Muhammad Ahsan from our custody . Accused persons also snatched net cash Rs, 20001- and I.D card from me. On interrogation, I came to know the names of accused persons as Muhammad Mohsin, Muhammad Mumta z Rab Nawaz, Sunny , Muzamil, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Aamir , Muhammad Waqas, Asim ur Rehman, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Arshad, Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Abu Turab, Shehbaz, Amin @ Meena, Khizar Rasool, Sajiad, Nabi Masih and I also could identify the other persons if they came in my front. Accused persons also confined us in a shop. With the act of accused persons. sense and fear and insecurity was spread among the general public. I drafted written complaint Ex. PA and sent it to Police Station Saddar Multan through Ansar 53/C.
I am the complainant of this case. I nominated 21 accused persons and also 150/160 others persons of the accused in this case. I am searched for the accused persons from different sources and I received video of this occurrence in USB Flash and respectable of the locality also verified the video film.
I nominated the accused persons through supplementary statement on 23.08.2016 as Umair , Muhammad Ali, Ashiq, Abdul Qadoos, Adeel, Bilal, Shaban, Jameel @ Muneero, Faisal, Rafique, Haq Nawaz, Allah Ditta, Majeed, Adnan, Shaka, Aslam, Majid, Tariq, Kaka, Nabeel, Umair son of Rana Ashraf Naved, Zuffiqar , Shah Gee, Altaf, Shahid, Latif, Younas, Baga, Nawab, Sajid, Arbaz, Iqbal, Aamir Hassan, Bilal @ Bhalo, Yamin were also present at the time of occurrence.
On the same day, I produced the torn shirt of official uniform P-1, DVD containing video P-2 and MLC of Liaqat Hussain before I.O. who took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PB attested by me and Javed 559/C. I.O recorded my statement u/S. 161, Cr .P.C. in this regard.
On 26.08.2016 I alongwith Javed 559/C and other police officials joined the investigation of this case before I.O, were present at Chongi No. 1 Multan. On the information of informer we apprehended Muhammad Waqas and others. On interrogation, Muhammad Waqas disclosed and got recovered a piece of brick P-3 which I.O took into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PC attested by me and Javed 559/C I.O recorded my statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. in this regard.
On 29.08.2016, I again joined the investigation and on the pointation of information we arrested four accused persons alongwith Muhammad Arbaz who interrogation disclosed and led to the police party towards mosque and got recovered a piece of brick P-4 near mosque on the edge of the road which IO took into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PD attested by me and Javed 559/C. IO recorded my statement u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. in this regard."
4. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants on 18.09.2017 to which they pleaded not guilty and the learned trial Court proceeded to examine the prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got recorded statements of five witnes ses. Muhammad Bilal, ASI (PW- 2) and Ansar 53/C (PW-4) gave evidence regarding the ocular account. Zahid Hussain 1889/HC (PW-1) stated that on 12.08.2016 he drafted the formal FIR (Exh.P A/1) on the basis of the written complaint (Exh.P A). Ijaz Ahmed T/ASI (PW-3) stated that on 21.08.2016 Mohsin (proclaimed offender) got recovered ID card (Exh.P5) and on the same day Abu Turab (appellant) got recovered Rs, 1000/- (Exh.P6). Irshad Hussain Inspector (PW-5) investigated the case and detailed the facts of his investigation in his statement before the learned trial Court.
6. On 10.10.2017, the learned DPG gave up PWs Shehzad 4230/HC and Javed 559/C being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court examined Muhammad Aamer , Majeed, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid, Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Asim ur Rehman and Abu Turab (appellants) under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and in answer to question "why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you", the appellants claimed that they had been falsely involved in this case as they failed to bribe the police in order to procure their release and were innocent. Neither the appellants opted to get themselves examined under Section 340(2), Cr .P.C. nor adduced any evidence in their defence.
8. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge, Anti-T errorism Court No, 1, Multan, convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above.
9. The contention of the learned counsels for the appellants precisely is that whole case is fabricated and false.
They contended that the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible and relevant evidence. They further contended that the statements of Muhammad Bilal; ASI (PW-2) and Ansar 53/C (PW-4) are not worthy of reliance. They also argued that there was no medical evidence supportive of the prosecution case. They finally submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt and prayed for acceptance of appeals lodged by the appellants.
10. On the other hand, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. He further submitted that there was no untoward delay in lodging the FIR. He further argued that the recovery of Rs, 1000/- (Exh.P6) from Abu Turab (appellant), recovery of piece of brick (Exh.P3) from Muhammad Waqas (appellant) and recovery of piece of brick (Exh.P4) from Arbaaz (appellant) corroborated the ocular account. He contended that the appellants had no previous enmity with Muhammad Bilal, ASI (PW-2) and Ansar 53/C (PW-4) and there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to substitute the real offenders with the innocent ones in this case. Lastly , he prayed for the rejection of all the appeals.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants and learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and with their assistance have carefully perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial.
12. The whole prosecution case revolves around the statements of Muhammad Bilal, ASI (PW-2) and Ansar 53/C (PW-4). We have observed that it is the case of the prosecution itself that the appellants and the witnesses did not know each other prior to the occurrence. What has persuaded us to reject the evide nce of prosecution in its entirety is the perusal of the statement made by Ansar 53/C (PW-4) when he appeared before the learned trial Court. It would be expedient to reproduce the portion of the examination-in-chief recorded of Ansar 53/C (PW-4), regarding the ocular account, which reads as under: "On 12.08.2016, I was posted at Police Station Qutab Pur, Multan. On the same day, I alongwith Muhammad Bilal ASI, Muhammad Javed 559/C, Asghar 2175/C alongwith accused Liaqat Huss ain while riding on private' car bearing registration No, 5801/MNA in connection with the investigation of case FIR No, 546/16 dated 10.08.2016 u/S. 392, PPC Police Station Qutab Pur. On the pointation of accused Liaqat Huss ain son of Ashiq Hussain Caste Khichi resident of Mill Muzafarabad conducted raid and arrested accused Muhammad Ahsan from Pul Wasil. At about 4.00 PM, when we reached at Chongi No, 1, 20/25 relatives of accused Muhammad Ahsan while riding on motorcycle armed with fire-arms including Dandas Sottas . stopped our car and also called 1501200 other persons for their help and they gathered at the spot. Accused persons damaged car with Dandas Sottas and also de- boarded us forcibly . The accused persons also had torn the uniform of the police officials. Accused Muhammad Ahsan also resisted with the help of his relatives and other persons and also got released the accused Muhammad Ahsan from our custody . Accused persons also snatched net cash Rs, 2,0001- and I.D. Card from Muhammad Bilal ASI. Muhammad Bilal ASI drafted written complaint Ex. PA and handed over me to send the same at Police Station Saddar Multan... ....... ."
A bare perusal of the statement of Ansar 53/C (PW-4) exposes that he failed to name any of the appellants as accused during the trial. Not only he failed to name them rather he failed to identify them even before the learned trial Court as being present in the said Court. As per law, evidence of a witness.has to be recorded in presence of the accused. This witness Ansar 53/C (PW-4) had made the above mentioned statement in the presence of the accused. Had the appellants been the real accused he would have definitely identified them before the learned trial Court. Neither Ansar 53/C (PW-4) was declared hostile by the prosecution nor any application, seeking his re- examination, was made by the learned DPG. Already there existed an inherent flaw in the prosecution case to the effect that the appellants were not previously known to the witnesses and when this statement of Ansar 53/C (PW- 4) is read with the awareness of the above mentioned facts, only one conclusion can be drawn, that the accused were not identified either at the spot or during the trial by this witness. Ansar 53/C (PW-4) also stated that 20 to 25 relatives of accused Muhammad Ahsan (proclaimed offender) had stopped their car and also called 150/200 other persons for their help. This witness never named the appellants as being relatives of Muhammad Ahsan or being one of the 150 to 200 other persons who allegedly came at the spot. Further Ansar 53/C (PW-4) stated that accused persons had torn the uniform of the police officials but again failed to identify any of the appellant present in the learned trial Court as being one of the accused present at the time of occurrence and also failed to name the police official whose uniform was torn. Lastly Ansar 53-C (PW-4) stated that Muhammad Ahsan (proclaimed offender) was got released and Rs, 2000/- and I.D card were snatched from Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2). Out of the eleven appellants, who were present before the learned trial Court at the time of the recording of statement of Ansar 53-C (PW-4), none was identified by him as the one who had committed the act of snatching the articles.
This absolute failure on part of Ansar 53-C (PW-4) to identify any of the appellants exposes the hollowness of the prosecution case as against them.
13. We have also carefully examined the statement of the other eye-witness namely Muhammad Bilal ASI/ complainant (PW-2). He too did not attribute any role to the appellants, who were present at the time of recording of statement, before the learned trial Court. Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) also claimed that 20-25 relative of Muhammad Ahsan (proclaimed offender) came at the spot and called 150/160 others persons for their help. He did not identify any of the appellants, as being either relative of the accused Muhammad Ahsan (proclaimed offender) or the one who was called at the spot, before learned trial Court. Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) also stated that the accused persons damaged his car and also tore his uniform and got released Muhammad Ahsan (proclaimed offender). He did not saddle any of the appellants with the responsibility of committing the above mentioned acts.
Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) then stated that accused persons snatched Rs, 2000/- and I.D card from him but failed to identify any of the eleven appellants, who were present in the trial Court, as being the perpetrators of this act of snatching. This failure on part of Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2), to identify the appellants before the trial Court at the time of his examination, leads to only one irresistible and irrefutable conclusion that the appellants were not the ones who had committed the of fences.
14. Learned Deputy District Public Prosec utor has laid much stress on the promptitude in reporting the matter . The written complaint (Exh.P A) was drafted by Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) and sent to the police station through Ansar 53/C (PW-4) where Zahid Hussain 1889/HC recorded the formal FIR (Exh. PA/1). We have perused the said written. application (Exh.P A). No time of the occurrence was recorded in the written application (Exh.P A) and only the time of recording the said written application (Exh.P A) was mentioned as 5.30 PM. Furthermore no time of occurrence was mentioned in the statements of Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) and Ansar 53/C (PW-4) recorded by the learned trial Court. When the time of occurrence was not mentioned in the FIR their the FIR cannot be treated as being lodged promptly because there exists no reference to make the said judgment regarding the promptitude or otherwise.
15. We have already mentioned that as per prosecution witnesses the names of the accused were not known to them. It was recorded in the written complaint (Exh.P A) that the names of the accused, mentioned in the FIR, were known after inquiry whereas those whose names were not known could be identified by the witnesses. Out of the appellants Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Javed Muhammad Waqas, Rashid , Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Asim ur Rehman and Abu Turab were named in the written application (Exh.P A). However , it is an admitted position that the source of information i.e who told the names of the appellants, was not mentioned in the written complaint (Exh.P A). There is a haunting silence with respect to the fact as to how Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) came to know about the names of the accused persons. Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) also made a statement to the tune that he remained in search of the accused persons and received a DVD (Exh.P2) containing a video through which he identified the accused. At the very outset, we have noticed that the maker of the above mentioned video was never produced before the learned trial Court. Muhammad Bilal (PW-2) either during the investigation or during the trial did not name any person who had made the video. The Investigating Officer namely Irshad Hussain, Inspector (PW-5) had not examined any witness who had prepared the above mentioned video. Failure of the prosecution to examine the maker of the video brings this video within the ambit of exclusionary rule of evidence and cannot be considered. Furthermore Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) during cross-examination admitted that till the lodging of FIR (Exh.P A/1) he had not seen any video of the persons who had gathered at the place of occurrence. If he had not seen them through video then how they were identified remains a mystery .
16. We have also noticed that the appella nts namely Majeed, Muhammad Iqbal and Arbaaz were not named in the written complaint (Exh.P A) but were only nominated through supplementary statem ent made on 23.8.2016, that is, after eleven days of the occurrence. Under law there is no value of such a statement. Furthermore no source was mentioned as to how the witnesses came to know about the names of the above mentioned appellants after eleven days.. Such statement cannot be used against the appellants because the witnes ses making the said statement had failed to disclose the source of information. The delay also adversely effects the prosecution case. The proposition of law is settled that supplementary statement regarding naming of the accused persons, without source, has no value. Reliance is placed on the cases of Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State (1993 SCMR 550), Akhtar Ali and others v. The Sate (2008 SCMR 6), Falak Sher alias Sheru vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1350 ) and Khalid Javed and another v. The State (2003 SCMR 1419 ) wherein it has been held that the supplementary statement, recorded subsequent to the FIR, can be viewed as improvement and gives rise to an inference that supplementary statement was introduced by the prosecution after deliberation and if it is so the same will adversely effect the prosecution case. We have also noticed that no test identification parade was held in this case which was necessary in view of the fact that the witnesses were not known to the accused earlier . Without conducting the identification parade of the accused by the witnesses, identification of accused could not be relied upon.
17. Another aspect of the case is that Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) who, at the time of occurrence, was investigating the case FIR No, 546 of 2016 registered at police station Qutab Pur, however , was travelling on a private car. This witness admitted to the fact that during the days of occurrence there was a rumour that beggars were kidnapping minors and his travelling on a private car raises a question mark as to the veracity of his statement. Irshad Hussain Inspector (PW-5) also admitted during cross-examination that in the days of occurrence there were rumours of kidnapping of minors. The crowd, who allegedly gathered at the crime scene, may have harboured such suspicion towards Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) who was travelling on a private vehicle. Moreover , the said private car was taken into possession during the investigation of the case by Irshad Hussain Inspector (PW-5) but Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) did not make any statement to the effect that whose car it was. In the absence of any statement by Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2), the very recovery of the private car also submerges into oblivion.
18. We have also noticed that the prosecution claim was that Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) was confined in a shop.
During the cross-examination Irshad Hussain Inspector (PW-5) admitted that he did not join any shopkeeper in the investigation. He further admitted that he visited the place of occurrence many times but did not record the statement of any of the shopkeepers. There is no claim on part of Irshad Hussain Inspector (PW-5) that said shopkeepers refused to become witnesses. The Investigating Officer was under a binding duty to collect evidence and his failure has to be taken as a circumstance belying the prosecution case. The sole purpose of trial is the exhuming of truth. The prosecution case suffers from inherent defects which are irreconcilable as it is. Reliance is placed on the case titled Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher vs. The State (2010 SCMR 949) wherein it has been observed as under: "....further that no independent witness of the locality where the incident took place, a 'Bazar' joined, made case of the prosecution doubtful.. It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that any genuine doubt arising out of the circumstances of the case should be extended to the accused as of the right and not as concession. It is difficult to say that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt. "
We thus are satisfied that the evidence of Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) and Ansar 53/C (PW-4) has no worth and is to be rejected.
19. Learned Deputy District Public Prose cutor has also relied upon the recovery of Rs, 1000/- (Exh.P6) from Abu Turab (appellant), recovery of piece of brick (Exh.P3) from Muhammad Waqas (appellant) and recovery of piece of brick (Exh.P4) from Arbaaz (appellant). The recovery from Abu Turab (appellant) is inconsequential as Ijaz Ahmad T/ASI (PW-3) admitted during cross-examination that the said Rs, 1000/- was of common nature. There is no identifying mark on the said Rs, 1000/- (Exh.P6). More importantly Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) never stated before the learned trial Court that it was Abu Turab (appellant) who had snatched the said money from him. The recovery of pieces of brick (Exh.P3) and (Exh.P4) from Muhammad Waqas and Arbaaz (appellants) respectively are also inconsequential as Muhammad Bilal ASI (PW-2) never stated before the learned trial Court that it was they who had used the bricks at the time of occurrence. Failure of Muhammad Bilal (PW-2) to name Arbaaz and Muhammad Waqas makes any such recoveries, effected from them, inconsequential. The above mentioned pieces of bricks were allegedly got recovered after 14 and 17 days of occurrence respectively from places that were not under the exclusive possession of the appellants. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C. were also violated while making the said recoveries. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of recovery .
20. Considering all the above circumstances, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding the involvement of Muhammad Aamer , Majeed, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid, Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Asim ur Rehman and Abu Turab, appellants, in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt it is not necessa ry that there should be so many circum stances rather if only a single circumstance creatifig reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent mind is available, then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Relia nce is placed on the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) in which it has been observed in paragraph No, 13 of page 236 as infra: "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 SCMR 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. "
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772), has enunciated the following principle: "Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is circumstance which creates reaso nable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
21. For what has been discussed above, Criminal Appeal No, 916 of 2017 lodged by Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid and Ghulam Nabi (appella nts), Criminal Appeal No, 991 of 2017 lodged by Asim-ur-Rehman and Hassan (appellants), Criminal Appeal No, 1061 of 2017 lodged by Muhammad Aamer (Appellants), Criminal Appeal No, 994 ATA of 2017 lodged by Abu Turab (appellant) and Criminal Appeal No, 992 ATA of 2017 lodged by Majeed (appellant) are accepted and the conviction and sentences of the appellants awarded by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2017 are hereby set-aside. The appellants namely Muhammad Aamer , Majeed, Muhammad Javed, Muhammad Iqbal, Waqas, Arbaaz, Rashid, Ghulam Nabi, Hassan, Asim ur Rehman and Abu Turab are ordered to be acquitted. They are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.