Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.--Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 186-J of 2017 filed by Shanaf Ahmad appellant against his conviction and sentence alongwith Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2017 filed by the complainant Qadeer Ahmad for enhancement of compensation amount as well as Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2017 filed against the acquittal of respondents namely Muhammad Nawaz, Faraz Ahmad, Khalil Ahmad and Mst. Nasreen Bibi, Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Murder Reference No. 176 of 2017 transmitted by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Shanaf Ahmad appellant, as all these matters have originated from the judgment dated 27-02-2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot in case FIR No. 235 dated 30-12-2014, regis tered under Sections 302, 337- A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 147, 149, PPC, at Police Station Headmarala, District Sialkot whereby Shanaf Ahmad appellant was convicted and sentenced as under: He was convicted u/S. 302 (b), PPC for the murder of Adil, and sentenced to death alongwith compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/-under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to be paid to the legal heirs of Adil, deceased. The compensation was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue or in default thereof to further undergo six months S.I.
Whereas the learned trial, Court acquitted Muhammad Nawaz, Faraz Ahmad, Khalil Ahmad and Mst. Nasreen Bibi co-accused, while giving them the benefit of doubt.
2. Prosecution is founded upon statement (Ex.PS) of Qadeer Ahmad, complainant (PW-10) wherein he stated that he was resident of Village Bharathanwala and for the last 25 years, he was in poss ession of the landed property by way of private partition. He further stated that his real brother Khalil Ahmad with his sons and family wanted to take forcible possession of valuable portion of said land and owing to that reason complainant had also moved application against his brother and his sons to the police and also filed petition under Section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. which was pending adjudication. On 30.12.2014, at about 12:30 p.m., he (complainant) alongwith his sons Adil (deceased), Basharat and his daughter Rukhsar went into the said land/fields for cutting the fodder for the cattle.
Meanwhile, accused persons namely Khalil Ahmad armed with sota, Muhammad Nawaz armed with dagger , Muhammad Shanaf (appellant) armed with dagger , Akash armed with knife (chhura), Sheraz armed with iron bar, Faraz armed with sota, Mst. Nasreen alongwith three unknown persons, armed with kassis, in furtherance of their common object, for usurping the valuable portion of land of the complainant came there and started digging foundations at the land. The complainant and his sons reprimanded them upon which accused Khalil Ahmad raised lalkara to teach lesson for reprimanding them upon which accused Nawaz inflicted dagger blow on the belly near the heart of complainant's son Adil. Accused Nawaz made second blow of dagger , which landed on right side of neck of Adil. In the meantime, accused Shanaf Ahmad, inflicted danger blow on Adil targeting the left side of his belly; Adil after sustaining the injuries fell down on the ground and in that condition, accused Shanaf gave dagger blow to the victim on his left thigh. Accused Akash (since PO) inflicted churri blow hitting the other son of complainant Basharat underneath his right eye. Accused Sheraz inflicted iron bar blow on the head of daughter of complainant namely Rukhsar . Accused Faraz inflicted sota blow on the left hand of complainant. The occurrence was witnessed by all the above injured as well as residents of the village. The victims were being shifted to the hospital when on the way to the hospita l, Adil succumbed to the injuries. Motive behind the occurrence was the dispute of land between the parties.
3. After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted before the trial Court. During trail, accused Akash disappeared and was declared proclaimed offender . Out of the accused of this case, one accused namely Sheraz being juvenile, was separ ately tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The trial Court after observing codal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant and his acquitted co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as 15 witnesses during the trial; Qadeer Ahmad, complainant (PW-10), Basharat Ahmad (PW-11) and Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12) have furnished the ocular account. Mirza Tahir Tasleem, draftsman appeared as (PW-9), who prepared sketched site-plan of the place of occurrence as (Ex.PR & Ex.PR/1). Ijaz Ahmad S.I. (PW-13), Muhammad Asghar S.I. (PW-14) and Muhammad Tariq S.I. (PW-15) being investigating officers stated about various steps taken by them during investigation of the case. Medical evidence was furnished by Doctor Jahangir Hussain, MO (PW-5), Lady Doctor Shyama Iftikhar (PW-7) and Doctor Umar Saleem (PW-8). On 31-12-2014, Doctor Jahangir Hussain, MO (PW-5) medic ally examined Qadeer Ahmad, complainant through MLC Ex.PB who noted the following injuries on his body:--
1. A swelling on the back of left hand 4 x 4 cm. investigating officer was advised to look into the matter , whether this injury , inflicted during fight, or otherwise and advised x ray left hand.
2. An abrasion 3 x 3 cm on the back of left forearm, lower 1/3rd area.
3. A swelling on the back of the right shoulder: Advised X- Ray of right shoulder .
On 30.12.2014 lady Doctor Shyama Iftikhar (PW-7) medically examined Rukhsar Qadeer through MLC (Ex.PO), who noted the following injuries on her body:--
1. A bluish bruise mark, 7 cm x 2 cm was present on the palmar surface of left 3rd finger of left hand. No swelling or wound was present on any part of the left hand. Movements of all fingers of left hand were normal at the time of examination.
2. An incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm bone deep was present on the right parietal region of the skull. No history of unconsciousness or vomiting was present. Clotted blood was present around the wound and hair and on clothes.
On 30-12-2014 Doctor Umar Saleem (PW-8) medically examined Basharat through MLC (Ex.PP) and observed the following injuries on his body:-
1. An incised wound of 3 cm x 1 cm with clean, clear margins on right upper cheek with maxillary bone exposed.
No other injury on any part of body seen.
It is pertinent to mention here that the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Adil was conducted by Doctor Saddam Hussain. Since the said doctor after leaving the job had gone abroad, hence, his evidence was proved through Doctor Umar Saleem (PW-8), who stated that on 30-12-2014 Doctor Saddam Hussain was posted at A.I.M.
Hospital, but now he had gone abroad. They worked together and he was well acquainted with handwriting of Doctor Saddam Hussain. As per post-mortem report (Ex.PQ), the said doctor noted following injuries on the dead body of deceased Adil:-
1. An incised wound on the right side of the chest upper zone supra clavicular region size 5x2 cm = DNP, edges inverted.
2. Incised wound on the left hypochondrium region medial aspect size 3 x 2 cm edges inverted DNP .
3. Incised wound on the left hypochondrium region 3 cm lateral to the Injury No. 2, DNP , edges inverted.
4. Incised wound on the left thigh lateral aspect middle part size 3 x 2 cm, edges inverted, DNP .
According to the opinion of the doctor , all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp weapon, leading to damage to the vital organ lung caused respiratory failure and ultimately leading to cardiopulmonary arrest, which was main cause of death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injury and death immediately whereas probable time elapsed between death and post-mortem 10 to 1 1 hours.
Rest of the prosecution witnesses are almost formal in nature. The prosecution gave up Nawazish Ahmad, Muzaf far Ahmad, Naseer Ahmad, Baseer Ahmad, Baseer Ahmad and Akhtar PWs being won over; Basharat Ahmad being dead, Muhammad Arif 1034 /C being unnecessary and Noor Hussain being not available in Pakistan and after tendering reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Lahore (Ex.PGG and Ex.PHH) closed its evidence.
4. The statement of appellant and his acquitted co-accused under Section 342 Cr. P.C. were recorded, wherein they refuted the allegations leveled against them and professed their innocence. They did not record their statement on oath as mandated by Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. however , they produced Duty Roster of male and female doctors performing duties in emergency of Civil Hospital, Sialkot on 30.12.2014 at Ex.DD.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 27-02-2017 after acquitting co-accused Muhammad Nawaz, Faraz Ahmad, Khalil Ahmad and Mst. Nasreen Bibi, convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant party; that eye-witnesses of the case are not only interse related but they are inimical towards the appellant, therefore, their evidence is not reliable without independent corroboration which is very much lacking in this case; that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account of the prosecution; that the fake recovery of weapon of offence was planted upon the appellant; that it is an established view of the Apex Court of the country that a slightest doubt in the prosecution evidence was sufficient to give the benefit of doubt to the accused in such like cases, whereas the case in hand is full of doubts; that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the case; that on the same set of allegations/ evidence co-accused of the appellant have been acquitted of the charge, thus, on the same set of allegations/evidence the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced; that the appeal in hand may be accepted and the murder reference may be answered in the negative.
7. Conversely , learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the appellant is specifically named in FIR with specific role of causing injuries on the person of deceased Adil. Goes on to maintain that the case was registered on the ground that the appellant alongwith co- accused committed the brutal murder of an innocent person and the prosecution witnesses, who witnessed the occurrence are residents of same vicinity where the occurrence took place and also close relatives interse as well as the accused party and the deceased and as such there was no chance of any misidentification of the appellant; that substitution is a rare phenomenon in our society; that the medical evidence is in line with the ocular account; that the recovery of crime weapon further lends support to the prosecution case; that prosecution has proved its case beyond the shadow of any doubt; that the appeal filed by the accused/convict may be dismissed, compensation may be enhanced and murder reference be answered in the af firmative.
8. Insofar as the appeal against the acquittal of co-accused is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the said accused come to the spot while armed with their respective weapons and caused injuries to the deceased as well as the injured witnesses and as such they shared commo n intention for the murder of Adil (deceased) as well as the injured witnesses, therefore, there was no justification with the learned trial Court to acquit the respondents/co-accused from the above-mentioned charges, hence, they may also convicted and sentenced for the above mentioned charges.
9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Prosecutor General, and also scanned record with their able assistance.
10. According to crime report (Ex.P A), the incident in which Adil, real son of Qadeer Ahmad complainant met with an unnatural death, had taken place on 30.12.2014 at 12:30 pm; purportedly the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 02:00 p.m. and the crime report (Ex.P A) was chalked out at 02:45 p.m. at Police Station Headmarala, located at a distance of twelve kilometers from the place of occurrence. Though the complainant side has forcefully contended that it was a case of promptly lodged FIR, but could not offer any explanation from the record that if FIR (Ex.P A) had been chalked out at 02:45 p.m. then why the dead body of deceased was not dispatched to the mortuary within reasonable span of time as according to post-mortem report (Ex.PQ), the dead, body was received in the dead house at 11:00 p.m. and the relevant documents were produced at 11:30 p.m. and thereafter the autopsy was conducted at 11:45 p.m. Keeping in view the delay between the happening of incident, receipt of dead body in mortuary as well as relevant police papers by the doctor and conducting autopsy on the dead body of deceased, adverse inferenc e to the prosecution's case can be drawn that the intervening period had been consumed in fabricating a story after preliminary investigation and to wait for the relatives of deceased, who were made witnesses subsequently , otherwise there was no justification for not dispatching the dead body to the mortuary and providing police papers with such delay . In an identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding the case of "Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State" (2012 SCMR 419) has visualized the tendency on, the part of the police in showing that the FIR was got recorded with promptitude, but the Courts are bound to see it with distinct source. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "Incident in the present case had taken place, according to the prosecution on 3-7-2003 at evening time and case of the prosecution is that F.LR. was recorded at 9-00 p.m. without inordinate delay and on the other hand post- mortem was conducted by P.W.3 Dr. Asghar Ali Hunjra on the next day i.e. 4-7-2003 at 10-00 a.m. If F.I.R. was recorded with such a promptitude then why the post-mortem was conducted with such a delay . Even otherwise, according to P. W. 3 Dr. Asghar Ali Hunjra, the time between death and post-mortem was 15 to 16 hours. So, the F.I.R. was recorded with a delay and cannot be used against the appellant as a corroborative piece of evidence."
The delay in conducting post-mortem examination also indicates about the non-availability of so-called eye- witnesses at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of "Irshad Ahmed vs. The State " (2011 SCMR 1190) and "Nazeer Ahmed vs. The State" (2016 SCMR 1628 ).
11. Undeniably , it is an unfortunate occurrence in which one son of the complainan t named Adil was done to death, but the stamp of injuries can only reflect the cause of death, severity of injuries and the weapon used during the occurrence, but the same cannot disclose the name of assailant. According to complainant's version, he himself alongwith his other son Basharat Ahmad and daughter Rukhsar Qadeer had also sustained injuries during the same incident. While lodging crime report (Ex.P A), Qadeer Ahmad complaina nt (PW-10) maintained that on 30.12.2014 at 12:30 p.m. he alongwith Basharat Ahmad (PW-11), Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12) and Adil (deceased) went to their fields to collect fodder for the cattle, when they were taken to surprise by accused Khalil Ahmad, Muhammad Nawaz, Shanaf Ahmad (appellant), Akash, Faraz, Sheraz and Nasreen , equipped with their respective weapons, who started digging foundation, in his land and when he forbade them not to do so, they inflicted injuries to him as well as his sons and daughter . We have noted that for the murder of deceased Adil, the learned trial Court has awarded death sentence to Shanaf Ahmad appellant, but acquitted his co-accused namely Muhammad Nawaz, Faraz Ahmad, Khalil Ahmad and Nasreen Bibi. In crime report (Ex.P A), two injuries on the person of Adil deceased including the fatal one were attributed to co-accused Muhammad Nawaz and the remaining two injuries on his person were attributed to Shanaf Ahmad appellant. Like-wise, Khalil Ahmad co-accused was attributed the role of raising lalkara ; Faraz co-accused was attributed injury on the person of Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW- 10); Akash co-accused was attributed injury on the person of Basharat Ahmad (PW-11) and Sheraz co-accused was assigned the role of inflicting injury on the person of Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12), but the injured witnesses were disbelieved by the learned trial Court to the extent of their own injuries as well as the injuries attributed by them to Muhammad Nawaz co-accused (since acquitted). We too have not found any justification from the record that if the above said witnesses had sustained injuries during the same incident, then why Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW- 10), who, according to prosecution's own showings, had suffered a fracture injury , was medically examined with the delay of twenty seven and half hours. Same is the position of Rukhsar Qade er (PW-12) who was medically examined with the, delay of more than ten hours, whereas the other so-called injured witness Basharat Ahmad (PW-11), who was having a minor injury on his right upper cheek, had been medically examined within two hours of the incident, but the duration of his injury was observed by the doctor as three hours. This aspect of the case is sufficient to believe that Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW-10), Basharat Ahmad (PW-11) and Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12) had not sustained the injuries during the incident, in which their ill-fated close relative namely Adil was done to death. We have further observed that though Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW-10), Basharat Ahmad (PW- 11) and Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12), in their examination-in-chief, reiterated almost the same facts, but during cross- examination Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12) admitted that it was only she and her brother Basharat Ahmad (PW-11), who went to forbid the accused from digging foundation, but they did not stop rather insulted them, upon which she informed her brother Adil (deceased) that the accused had insulted them and thereafter Adil came there and forbade them from doing work over there. The prosecution version is further belied by the statement of Mirza Tasleem Baig, Draftsman (PW9), who prepared the scaled site-plan (Ex.PR) of the crime spot, as he has categorically admitted that the foundations around the place of occurrence had already been dug and construction material was also lying there. We have also observed the unnatural conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses as according to their own version, they were four in number and were equipped with the instruments used for cutting fodder , but they let all the accused escape unhurt, which further created a reasonable doubt with regard to their presence at the crime scene at relevant time. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Muhammad Asif vs. The State" (2017 SCMR 486). The overwhelming analysis of the depositions of Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW10), Basharat Ahmad (PW-11) and Rukhsar Qadeer (PW-12) has led us to hold that they were not present at the scene of occurrence and had not seen the tragedy with their own eyes and as such the ocular account produced by the prosecution is not trustworthy and confidence inspiring, therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be maintained on the basis of such type of shaky evidence.
12. We are conscious of the fact that the prosecution has made an abortive attempt to strengthen its case through the recovery of daggers at the instance of Muhammad Nawaz co-accused (since acquitted) and Shanaf Ahmad appellant vide recovery memos (Ex.PBB & Ex.PEE) respectively , but has failed to examine any of the attesting witnesses of said recoveries. Similarly , recovery of sota is shown to have been effected at the instance of Faraz Ahmad co-accused (since acquitted), but that too is hardly helpful to the prosecution case. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to any prudent mind that after committing the incident, the accused would keep the weapons of offence in safe custody only to enable the police to recover the same at some subsequent stage and use as incriminating evidence against them, therefore, we are of the view that it is not safe to rely on such a weak piece of prosecution evidence, which even otherwise is merely supportive of direct evidence and is not the evidence of charge, hence, does not offer any help to the prosecutio n case in the absence of any trustworth y and confidence inspiring eye- witness account.
13. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that after the incident the appellant remained fugitive from law for considerable period, which is a strong corroborative piece of evidence against him, but even the said contention is not much helpful to the prosecution. We may observe here that mere absconsion of accused is not the conclusive proof of his guilt and it is only a suspicious circumstance that he was under the guilty conscious. However suspicions after all are suspicions which cannot be given the place of proof and the value of absconsion always depends on the facts of each case. The absconsion of the accused may be consistent with his guilt or innocence, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. In "Muhammad Khan and another vs. The State" (1999 SCMR 1220 ), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the absconsion itself can never remedy the defects in the prosecution case as neither it is necessarily indicative of guilt, nor is ever suf ficient by itself to prove the guilt.
14. Now the only evidence left with the prosecution is in the shape of motive set up by Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW-10) in FIR (Ex.P A) that the incident had taken place on the backdrop of a dispute of ancestral property .
Though the defence has not denied the said dispute of property between the parties, yet we are of the view that such type of motive is double edge weapon which may cut either side. If it may be the reason for the accused to commit the occurrence, it is equally a reason for their false implication in the case. Furthermore, Ijaz Ahmad S.I.O/I.O. (PW-13) has stated in his cross-examination that during his investigat ion, three relatives of PW Noor Hussain (given up) were died in a roadside accident, but Qadeer Ahmad complainant (PW-10) was adamant to implicate the accused party in that case as well, which shows that he was interested to prosecute them at any cost.
15. The above circumstances of the case lead this Court to hold that the prosecution has nothing with it to prove the accusation against the appellant and from the scrutiny of prosecution evidenc e, taking part of the appellant in this incident is not free of doubts, therefor e, we are quite satisfied to observe here that though the prosecution was bound to prove the charge against the accused by standing on its own legs, in which af fair it remained failed.
16. At this stage, we would also weigh the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that when according to defence plea, only the appellant had murdered the deceased in self-defence, under grave and sudden provocation, the weakness of prosecution's case becom es irrelevant. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to the mode of cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses and the statement of appellant recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. According to the plea taken by the appellant, he acted in self defence in order to save the life of his brother Muhammad Nawaz from the hands of Adil deceased, but at the same time, he claimed innocence and pleaded acquittal on account of false implication, therefore, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Waqar Ahmad vs. Shaukat Ali and others" (2006 SCMR 1139), if the prosecution evidence is disbelieved by the Court in its entirety , the defence version is to be accepted or rejected as a whole and it is legally not possible to accept the inculpatory part of the defence plea and reject its exculpatory part. For reference, relevant portion of the above referred esteemed judgment is reproduced as under: "(4). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the evidence so produced by the prosecution before the trial Court to substantiate accusation against accused. First of all it is to be noted that in the criminal cases it is always primary duty of the prosecution to establish its own case independently instead of depending upon the weaknesses of the defence. No doubt, Asghar Ali in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. has stated that he fired in self-defence but his such assertion would not be sufficient to conclude that for this reason the prosecution has succeeded to establish the guilt against the appellant. Of course such statement of the accused can be accepted under Section 342, Cr.P.C. in toto, if there is no other prosecution evidence and the case' is to be decided only on the statement of the accused as it has been held in the judgment reported in "The State v.
Muhammad Hanif and 5 others 1992 SCMR 2047 ."
In view of the guidelines laid down in supra referred judgment, it was the primary duty of the prosecution to establish its own case independently instead of depending upon the weaknesses of defence, but in this case, the prosecution miserably failed to discharge its duty and did not produce sufficient incriminating evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of offence rather tried to get favourable decision from the Court only on the basis of inculpatory portion of his defence plea. We are quite confident to hold that the defence plea can be accepted or rejected in toto and the practice of pickin g and choosing some sentences favouring the prosecution in isolation of those favouring the accused/appellant is strictly prohibited by the law. We have also fortified the above view from the case of "Muhammad Asghar vs. The State " (PLD 2008 SC 513) and "Azhar Iqbal versus The State" (2013 SCMR 383), wherein it was held that the defence version is to be accepted or rejected as a whole and reliance should not be placed on that part of the statement which goes against accused. The legality of conviction awarded on the basis of admissions made by defen ce while conducting cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses and recording statement of the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. can also be adjudged on the basis of principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of "Iftikhar Ahmed vs. The State and others " (2014 SCMR 7), wherein it was held as under: ".........However , we are constrained to observe that the law laid down by this Court qua the value of the statement of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. when the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt escaped the notice of the learned trial Court. In Sultan Khan v. Sher Khan etc. (PLD 1991 SC 520), this Court at page 524 observed that "if the conviction of the accused is to be based solely on his statement in Court this statement should be taken into consideration in its entirety ."
17. Having comprehensively discussed the prosecution evidence and the defence plea, we are of the considered view that the defence version is not helpfu l to the prosecution case and when the prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellant beyond reasonab le doubt, he deserves acquittal even if he had taken a plea and admitted the killing of deceased. It is settled law that not many circumstances creating, doubt in the prosecution story are required rather a single circumstance creating doubt is enough to acquit the accused. Reliance is placed on the case of "Tariq Pervez vs. The State" (1995 SCMR 1345 ). It goes without saying that conviction can be based only upon unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be resolved in favour of accused/appellant not as a matter of grace, but of right. We have fortified the above view from the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of "Muhammad Akram vs. The State"
(2009 SCMR 230 ).
18. As a result of what has been discussed above, Criminal Appeal No. 186-J of 2017 is allowed and the appellant Shanaf Ahmad is acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt in his favour . He is in jail, be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Murder Reference No. 176 of 2017 is answered in negative and death sentence of Shanaf Ahmad accused is not confirmed .
19. In the light of our above findings, Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2017 seeking reversal of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court in favour of Muhammad Nawaz, Faraz Ahmad, Khalil Ahmad and Mst. Nasreen Bibi, Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2017 filed by Qadeer Ahmad, complainant for enhancement of amount of compensation, are hereby dismissed .