SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. The appellants namely Muhammad Yasin son of Muhammad Aslam and Abbas alias Sadiqeen son of Muhammad Aslam were tried along with their co-accused namely Salim son of Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Nawab Bibi widow of Muhammad Aslam and Mushtaq son of Shameera (all three since acquitted) by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, in case instituted upon Private Complaint titled "Noor Bibi alias Nooran Bibi v. Muhammad Yasin and 4 others" (relating to HR No.95 of 2010 dated 20.08.2010 registered at Police Station Bahadar Shah, District Sahiwal, under Sections 302, 109, 34,.P .P.C.) for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Shehnaz Bibi, deceased. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 30.05.2013 convicted Muhammad Yasin (convict) and Abbas alias Sadiqeen (convict) and sentenced them as infra: 1) Muhammad Yasin: i) Death under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi deceased and pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead. ii) Life imprisonment under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Aslam and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months .
2) Abbas alias Sadiqeen i. Death under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi deceased and pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereo f, to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead . ii. Life imprisonment under section 302(b)134, P.P.C. for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Aslam and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court. The benefit available under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended. Both the appellants were, however , acquitted from the charges under Sections 452 and 379, P .P.C."
2. Feeling aggrieved; Muhammad Yasin and Abbas alias Sadiqeen (convicts) lodged Criminal Appeal No.93-J of 2014 against their conviction and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.43 of 2013 under section 374, Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to appellants Muhammad Yasin and Abbas alias Sadiqeen. We intend to dispose of both the Criminal Appeal No.93-J of 2014 and Murder Reference No.43 of 2013, through this single judgment.
3. Precisely the facts necessary , as divulged in the statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW .-1), are as under: "Stated that I deals with the business of selling milk of buffalos. About four years ago, marriage of my daughter Mst.
Shehnaz Bibi (deceased) was celebrated with Muhammad Aslam (deceased). The relation between second wife of deceased Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Shehnaz Bibi remained cordial. Thereafter , they started quarreling each other . We tried to settle the disputes between them but our all efforts were in vain. Muhammad Aslam used to reside separate along with Mst. Shehnaz Bibi. About one month prior to the occurrence, Muhammad Aslam sold his land. The relation between Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and Muhammad Aslam became strained with Mst. Nawab Bibi first wife of Muhammad Aslam after selling the above said agricultural land. About 1-1/2 years ago, I was present in the house of my daughter namely Mst. Shehnaz Bibi along with my son Abdul Razzaq, Muhammad Ashraf son of Shahmand, Serfraz son of Sadallon and Azam son of Bakhsh. It was about 07.30 a.m. We were present their to settle the disputes between Muhammad Aslam and his first wife Mst. Nawab Bibi. All of sudden, Muhammad Yasin accused armed with Gun .12 bore, Abbas alias Sadiqeen armed with Gun .12 bore, while Muhammad Saleem, Nawab Bibi and Musthaq were empty handed appeared there Mushtaq raised Lalkara that Aslam and Mst.
Shehnaz Bibi be taught a lesson for second marriage and they should not be spared. In our view, Yasin fired with his gun which landed Muhammad Aslam on his belly. Abbas alias Sadiqeen fired with his gun which hit on left side of chin of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) , who fell on the ground and died at the spot. Mst. Shehnaz Bibi ran out from her house. All the five above said accused persons chased her. Mst. Shehnaz Bibi caught hold by Muhammad Saleem and threw her on the ground where Yasin accused fired with his .12 bore gun which landed on right side of her belly. Mst. Shehnaz Bibi also died at the spot. All the accused persons remai ned there for a while. After that Muhammad Saleem took Rs.175000/- from the brassier of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi. After that Mst. Nawab Bibi alias Nabban Bibi took ear rings, nose pin and bangles of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi weighin g 3-3/4 tolas. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is that my son in law (DAMAD) had married with my daughter Mst. Shehnaz Bibi without having permission from his first wife Mst.
Nawab Bibi and his children and also due to selling of agricultural land. All the accu sed persons in connivance with their Mamoon Musthaq murdered Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and Muhammad Aslam with their common object. Thereafter , 1 and my son Abdul Razzaq got recorded FIR No.95/2010 at Police Station Bahadar Shah, Sahiwal. We were going to police station for registration of the case, meanwhile. I met with Thanedar near Chak No. 63/GD. He recorded my statement and obtained my thumb impression. The Thanedar not recorded my correct version as deposed by me due to this reason, I filed the present complaint Exh. PA through my counsel and 1 thumb marked the same."
4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants on 25.02.201 1 to which they pleaded not guilty and the learned trial court proceeded to examine the prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution/complainant in order to prove its case got recorded statements of four witnesses namely Mst.
Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1), Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2), Dr: Munir Ahmad Qadri, CMO (PW.-3) and Dr. Uzma Ashraf, WMO (PW.-4). The complainant gave up witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf, Sarfraz and Azam as being unnecessary vide her statement recorded on 19.03.2012 and gave up witnesses namely Abbas, Ghulam Rasool, Shaukat and Haji as being unnecessary vide statement her counsel recorded on 11.04.2012. The learned trial court also examined as many as six witnesses as Court Witnesses. Abdul Latif 915/C (CW1) stated that on 20.08.2010 he took the dead body of Muhammad Aslam, deceased for post mortem and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the doctor which were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.CW1/A). Nazar Muhammad 283/C (CW-2) stated that on 20.08.2010 he took the dead body of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi deceased for post mortem and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the doctor which were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.CW2/A). Zahid Ali, Draftsman (CW-3) prepared the scaled site plan (Exh.CW3/A) of the place of occurrence. Muhammad Saleem, ASI (CW-4) on 20.08.2010 after receiving the complaint (Exh.DA), sent by Altaf Hussain ASI (CW-6), registered the formal FIR (Exh.DA/1). Sagheer Hussain (CW-5) investigated the case on 14.10.2010, 15.10.2010, 16.10.2010 till 27.10.2010. Altaf Hussain SI (CW-6) investigated the case from 20.08.2010 till 12.10.2010. The learned ADPP on 24.1.2013 gave up Muhammad Niaz 496/C as being unnecessary .
6. The prosecution also, got examined Dr. Munir Ahmad Qadri (PW.-3) who was posted as Chief Medical Officer at DHQ Hospital, Sahiwal, and on 20.08 .2010 conducted the postmortem examination of Muhammad Aslam (deceased). Dr. Muhammad Munir Qadri (PW-3) while examining Muhammad Aslam (deceased) observed as under: "INJURIES: i) Entry wounds whole has blackening and burning and CHADAR BADAMI Coloured also blood stained.
ON EXTERNAL EXAMINA TION: Following injuries were seen.
INJURIES: i) Four lacerated wound close to umblicus slightly to the left of umblicus measuri ng each 1 cm x 1 cm into deep going obliquely to right of abdomen, blackening and burning was present with inverted margins. It was the entry wound. ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm into 8 cm into right of umblicus evened margins. Exit wound. iii) Crush injury lacerated skin, starting underlying left half of chin, left mendible, left maxilla was crushed and absent, injury going deep to left tamporal part of skull, skin flap at the chin was having miled, burning and blackening.
ON DISSECTION: All the three cavities opened and closed.
ABDOMEN: The entrance of injury No.1 was going obliquely to the right side of umbilicus. Abdominal cavity was full of blood.
There was injury to small intestine, large intestine and right kidney , liver also injured. 2 pellets recovered from the abdominal cavity and one pellet was recovered from the back of lumber region.
Injury No.1 enteries were in bunch shape and wound 8 cm away from the umblicus to right side with everted margins and gut protruding out 2 cm x 2 cm in the exit wound of injury No. 1.
The injury on the face was crushed injury starting from left side of chin going to the skull crushed and left half of chin, mandible and maxilla and bullet entered the skull in front of left ear and vad with one pellet was recovered from skull. There was injury to temporal bone also which was fractured vad and pellets four sealed and handed over to the police. All other organs were found healthy .
OPINION: In my opinion the cause of death in this case was injury Nos.1 and 2 collectively . In such injury damaged to vital part brain, and head injury . There was perfused bleeding, shock leading to death.
All the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature.
The duration between injuries and death immediately (5 to 10 minutes) and between death and postmortem was about 6 to 7 hours."
7. The prosecution also got examined Dr. Uzma Ashraf (PW.-4), who was posted as Women Medical Officer at DHQ Hospital, Sahiwal and on 20.08.201 0, conducted post-mortem of Mst. Shehn az Bibi (deceased), and issued the postmortem report (Ex.PE). Dr.Uzma Ashraf (PW.-4) while examining Shehnaz Bibi (deceased) observed as under: "External examination: It was a dead body of female aged about 40 years strong built clad in Kameez KAREEM coloured (PHOOLDAR) and Shalwar both blood stained; eyes and mouth were closed. Rigor mortis and postmortem staining were present; lying flat on the table. On external examination I found following injuries:- INJURIES: i) Fire arm wounds multiple in number about nine each measuring about 1 cm x 1/2 cm into deep going inverted margins in an area 5 cm x 5 cm on the lower part of right chest and below right breast with corresponding holes on shirt.
ON DISSECTION: On dissection of skull the brain was found healthy and on dissection of thorax and abdomen, heart was found empty and healthy . Both lungs were healthy . Right lobe of liver was injured and abdominal cavity was full of blood Anterior right last rib was fractured. Stomach damaged and other visceras were normal looking.
On discussion of injury No.1 pellets entered through injury No.1 fracture of right anterior last rib damaging the liver and stomach. Pellets and metallic pieces were recovered from soft tissues lower lateral side of abdomen of left side in an area 5 cm x 5 cm above anterior superior iliac spine of left side. All other organs and visceras were found healthy ."
OPINION: In my opinion the death in this case was due to injury No.1 causing hemorrhage and shock, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1 was ante-mortem in nature and was caused by fire arm. Ex.
PE is the carbon copy of postmortem report No.78/10-UA and pictorial diagram of the injuries is Ex.PE/1 which are in my hand writing and bear my signatures. I also endorsed injuries statement Ex. PF and inquest report Ex.PG."
8. On 02.02.2013, the learned ADPP closed the prosecution evidence, after tendering the reports of Serologist (Exh.PK) the reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PH) and (Exh.PH/1) and report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh. PJ).
9. After the closure of prosecution evidence the learned trial court examined Muhammad Yasin appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. and in answer to question why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you. He gave the following reply: "It is a false case, Mst. Noor Bibi and Abdul Razzaq PW have deposed falsely being related with the deceased Shehnaz Bibi and being inimical towards me and my co-accused. The PWs were not present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. I and my co-accused were also not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. It was an unwitnessed occurrence and it was registered after preliminary inquiry and due deliberation against me and my co- accused only to deprive us from the inheritance of Aslam deceased."
Similarly , learned trial court examined Abbas alias Sadiqeen appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. and in answer to question why this case against you, adopted the answer as made by Muhammad Yasin appellant.
Neither the appellants opted to get themselves examined under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor adduced any evidence in their defence.
10. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicted and sentenced the appellants as referred to above.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant precisely is that whole case is fabricated and false. That the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible and relevant evidence. He further contend ed that the statements of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) and Abdul Razzaq, (PW.-2) are not worthy of reliance as being chance witnesses. He also argued that the medical evidence was not supportive of the prosecution case. He also contended that PWs examined by prosecution were related to the deceased and interested. He also argued that the recoveries were result of fake proceedings. He finally submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt.
12. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses.
They further submitted that there was no untoward delay in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel further argued that both the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hand of the appellants. They further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) and Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2). They further argued that the recovery of gun (Exh.P-7) from Muhammad Yasin appellant also corroborated the ocular account. They contended that the appellants had enmity with the deceased and there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the real offenders with the innocent in this case. Lastly , they prayed for the rejection of appeal.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial carefully .
14. we have observed that the prosecution in order to prove its case produced Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran A (PW- 1) and Abdul Razzaq (PW-2,) claiming that they were the eye-witnesses of the case. After the incident, the statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran, was recorded by Altaf Hussain SI (CW-6) and the same was produced before the learned trial Court as (Exh.DA) upon which the formal FIR (Exh.DA/1) was recorded by Muhammad Saeed ASI (CW-4). The witnesses who were mentioned in the oral statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran as recorded by Altaf Hussain SI (CW-6), were Muhammad Ashraf son of Shahmand and Sarfraz son of Sadallon.
Similarly when Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) and Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) appeared before the trial court they again repeated the stance that Muhammad Ashraf son of Shahmand, Sarfraz and Azam had accompanied them to the house of the deceased Mst. Shehnaz Bibi deceased and Muhammad Aslam deceased. The complainant gave up the said witnesses namely Muhammad Ashraf, Sarfraz and Azam as being unnecessary vide her statement recorded on 19.03.2012. Instead of them Abdul Razzaq (PW-2) appeared before the learned trial court claiming to be a witness to the occurrence. However , a perusal of the statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran, which was recorded after the occurrence by Altaf Hussain, SI (CW-6) and the same was produced before the learned trial Court as (Exh.DA) upon which the formal FIR (Exh.DA/1) was recorded by Muhammad Saeed ASI (CW-4), reveals that Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) does not find mention in the same. Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) is son of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) and it cannot be even fathomed that a real mother would forget to name her own son as a witness if indeed that son had accompanied his mother to the place of occurrence. Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) was duly confronted with this omission during the cross-examination and remained unable to explain the same, only denying making such omission in naming Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) as a witness to the occurrence. The delayed introduction of Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) as an eye-witness raises many questio ns regarding the substance of prosecution case. This addition of Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) annihilates the very foundation of the case of the prosecution and lays bare the dishonest and false claim of the said witnesses to have been present at the place occurrence at the time of occurrence. Both these witnesses were under a burden to provide a convincing clarification, attractive to a judicious mind , of their presence at the crime spot otherwise their evidence has to be declared doubtful and unacceptable. We have further observed with concern that during cross-examination Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) candidly admitted that prior to appearing before the learned trial court on 14.02.2012, he had not appeared before the police ever during the investigation of this case and had not made any statement about the occurrence. Our law provides a protection against exposing the parties to such kind of "surprise evidence". The very purpose of enacting section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is to provide a safeguard regarding introduction of such kind of evidence. Article 151 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 provides a mechanism for impeaching the credit of a witness by producing the proof of former statement inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. If we allow such kind of witnesses to appear before he learned trial courts and depose against unsuspecting adverse parties then it could open floodgates for introduction of such unscrupulous witnesses. We are satisfied in our mind that the evidence of Abdul Razzaq (PW.-2) has no worth and is to be rejected outright.
15. We have also carefully scrutinized the statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1). She by her own admission was a chance witness. In her examination in chief she stated that the reason for her presence at the house of Mst: Shehnaz Bibi (deceased) was that Muhammad Aslam (deceased) had sold his land one month prior to occurrence and due to this reason relations between Muhammad Aslam (deceased) and his first wife Mst.
Nawab Bibi (accused since acquitted) became strained. A perusal of the Private Complaint (Exh.P A), as filed by Noor Bibi, reveals that it was recorded in the same that the said land had been sold twenty one days prior to this occurrence. The matter does not end here rather on the perusal of the statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (Exh.DA), which was recorded by Altaf Hussain SI (CW-6) and upon which the formal FIR (Exh.DA/1), it has been recorded that Muhammad Aslam (deceased) had sold his land ten days prior to the occurrence upon which a dispute arose between the two wives. When Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) herself is unsure regarding the origin of the dispute between the two wives of one of the deceased then how can we believe her explanation for being present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The prosecution witnesses were under a mandatory obligation that if they wanted the court to believe their chance presence at the crime scene then they should have proved the reason for such a chance presence, in which they have miserably failed. We have also observed that another aspect which negates the explanation for the presence of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) at the house of deceased Mst. Shehnaz Bibi is that she never mentioned as to when she arrived at the said house. The answer to this question is not available. No positive proof is on record to show as to when Mst.
Noor Bibi alias Nooran had actually arrived along with the witnesses, as mentioned by her, at the house of the deceased. During cross-examination Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran admitted that she was residing in Farid Town, Sahiwal for the last 15/16 years. She also stated that Abdul Razzaq (PW-2) was residing with her in Farid Town, Sahiwal. The said residence of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1), as per evidence, was at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. We have scanned the whole statement of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1). The said witness has utterly failed to establish the stated reason for her presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence as she failed to give any details of the reason for which she had arrived at the house of the deceased. It is more than obvious that the dispute and the anger was with Mst. Nawab Bibi, the first wife of deceased Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Shehnaz Bibi deceased, the daughter of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1). The dispute was between the wives of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) and both the wives were living separately . The arrival of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) along with her witnesses at the house of Mst.
Shehnaz Bibi deceased begs the question as how was the dispute being settled when Mst. Nawab Bibi, a necessary party to he resolution of the dispute, was resident of another house and was not present during the above mentioned negotiations being conducted to settle the dispute. We have also observed that Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW .-1) in her examination-in-chief stated as under: "We were present there to settle the dispute between Muhammad Aslam and his first wife Mst. Nawab Bibi."
This reason itself is contradictory because why would Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW-1) help out to resolve any dispute between Mst. Nawab Bibi the first wife of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) with whom she had no affinity.
Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.1) was the mother of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi (deceased) and in ordinary nature of things it is hard to believe that she will be rooting for the cause of settling the disputes between Mst. Nawab Bibi and Muhammad Aslam (deceased). Secondly; there was no earlier communication between Mst. Nawab Bibi and Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) nor Mst. Nawab Bibi has solicited Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) for procuring any resolution on her behalf. Thirdly Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1), while getting her statement recorded before the learned trial court, stated that the inter se relationship of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) and Mst. Shehnaz Bibi (deceased) were hosti le and then shifted her stance and deposed that they were present in the house of the deceased to settle the dispu tes between Muhammad Aslam (deceased) and his first wife Mst. Nawab Bibi. It is unclear when and why this dispute between Muhammad Aslam (deceased) and his first wife Mst. Nawab Bibi arose necessitating the interference of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1). We are unconvinced due to these reasons to believe the presence of Mst. Noor Bibi alias Nooran (PW.-1) at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The statement made by the said eye-witness has failed to receive any H independent corroboration or support. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Rafiq v. State (2014 SCMR 1698 ) wherein the August Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected the claim of witnesses who lived one kilometer away from the occurrence, but on the day of occurrence stated to be present near the spot as they working as labourers, inasmuch as they failed to give any detail of the projects they were working on. Reliance is also placed on the case of Nasrullah alias Nasro v .The State (2017 SCMR 724 ) wherein the August Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under: "In the case in hand the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution lived eighty kilometers away from the scene of the crime, their stated reason for presence in the house of occurrence at the time of incident in issue had never been established through any independent evidence."
16. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General along with the learned counsel for the complainant have also relied upon the recovery of .12 bore gun (Exh.P7), from Muhammad Yasin, appellant. A perusal of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory , Punjab (Exh.PJ) reveals that three crime empties of .12 bore and one gun of .30 bore were received on the same day i.e. 7.10.2010 at the Forensic Science Laboratory , Punjab. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Nasrullah alias Nasro v . The State (2017 SCMR 724 ) at page 727 has held as under: "The alleged recovery of a pistol from the appellant's possession during the investigation was legally inconsequential because the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory brought on the record shows that the recovered pistol and the secured crime-em pties had been received by the Forensic Science Laboratory together on one and the same day ."
Even otherwise as we have disbelieved the ocular account in this case, hence the evidence of the recovery would have no consequence. It is an admitted rule of appreciation of evidence that recov ery is only a corroborative piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then the recovery has no evidentiary value and loses its significance.
17. The only other piece of evidence left to be considered by us is the medical evidence but the same is of no assistance in this case as medical evidence by its nature and character , cannot recognize a culprit in case of an unobserved incidence. As all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case have been disbelieved and discarded by us, therefore, the appellant's conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its binding, judgment titled "Hashim Qasim and another v . The State" (2017 SCMR 986 ) has enunciated the following principle of law: "The medical evidence is only confirmatory or of supporting nature and is never held to be corroboratory evidence, to identify the culprit."
18. Considering all the above circumstances, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding the involvement of Muhammad Yasin and Abbas alias Sadiqeen, 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 creating 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. Reliance is placed on the binding judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan 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."
19. For what has been discussed above, Criminal Appeal No. 93-J of 2014 filed by Muhammad Yasin and Abbas alias Sadiqeen appellants is accepted and appellants awarded by the learned trial court through the impugned judgment dated 30.05.2013 are hereby set-aside. Muhammad Yasin and Abbas alias Sadiqeen appellants are ordered to be acquitted. They are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
20. Murder Reference is answered in Negative and the death sentence of Muhammad Yasin and Abbas alias Sadiqeen appellants is Not Confirmed.