SADAQA T ALI KHAN, J.--- This single judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 586 of 2015 filed by Mateen Khan appellant (against her conviction ), Criminal Appeal No 585 of 2015 filed by Mst. Amina Shafique appellant (against her conviction ) and Capital Sentence Reference No. 33/T of 2015 sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence of Mateen Khan appellant or otherwise as the above-mentioned matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 20.03.2015 passed by learned Judge Anti-T errorism Court Ill, Lahore according to which the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:--- Mateen Khan appellant U/s. 365-A, PPCSentenced to death alongwith forfeiture of his property U/s. 7(e), Anti- Terrorism Act,1997Sentenced to death U/s. 302(b), PPCSentenced to death with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 544-A, Cr .P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased Imran.
Ws. 302(b), PPCSentenced to death with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 544-A, Cr .P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased Bilal.
U/s. 7(a), Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997Sentenced to death U/s. 7(a), Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997Sentenced to death U/s. 201, PPC Sentenced to seven years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- U/s 21-L of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997Sentenced to 10 years with fine -of Rs.1,00,000/-.
The amount of compensation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default whereof to undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382B, Cr.P.C. to Mateen Khan appellant.
2. Mst. Amina Shafique appellant U/s. 365-A, PPCSentenced to life imprisonment with forfeiture of her property.
U/s. 7(e)
Terrorism 1997Anti- Act,Sentenced to life imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to Mst. Amina Shafique appellant.
The above sentences were passed by the learned trial Court in case FIR No. 193, dated 17.03.2012 under sections 365-A, 302, 201, 34, PPC Police Station Green Town, Lahore, whereas their co-accused namely Sajid Hussain has been acquitted through the impugned judgment
2. The facts of the case have been stated by Allah Dina complainant P.W. 25 in his statement before the learned trial Court which is hereby reproduced for narration of the facts:--- "My Bhanja Muhammad Imran used to reside with me. On 16.03.2012 said Muhammad Imran alongwith his friend Muhammad Bilal went out of the house at about 07.00 p.m. It was Friday . On 17.03.2012 at about 06.00 a.m. I received a telephone call on my cell No. 0333-4316244 from the mobile phone No. 0312-4918077, of my Bhanja Muhammad Imran. A man was calling who, from his dialect, seems to be a Pathan. He stated to me that if I pay Rs.
50-Lacs as ransom, my Bhanja will be freed otherwise he will be murdered. I reported the matter through written application Ex.PA, to the police of Police Station Green Town, Lahore. On the same day at about 12.30 or 01.00 p.m. 1 called on the telephone number of my Bhanja and talked to the same perso n who told me to arrange money within three days. While I was talking to him, I heard sound of train in the background. I requested that man to let me talk to my Bhanja but he said it will be done in the evening. At about 09.00/10.00 p.m., P.W. Khalid and Karamat informed me that they had seen my Bhanja Muhammad Imran, his friend Muhammad Bilal, a girl and 3/4 other persons at China Scheme, Lahore. I started search for my Bhanja but in vain.
On 20.03.2012 1 was summoned by the police of Police Station Green' Town, Laho re. I, P.W Naeem and the police officials went to the dead house Mayo Hospital, Lahore where and Muhammad Naeem (Mamu of Muhammad Bilal) identified the dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Bilal. In the dead house 1 came to know that the murders were committed by Mateen Khan, Sajid Shah, Saraoo, Amina Shafique, Sajal Pari and Noshi. (At this stage learned defence counsel has objected to this part of the statement of witnes s being hearsay Over-ruled). On 20.03.2012 I got recorded my statement before the police wherein I implicated /nominated the above-said six accused persons, in this case."
3. After registration of the case, investigation started and on completion of the same report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the trial Court.
4. Learned trial Court after observing legal formalities provided under the Criminal Procedure Code framed the charge on 26.03.2013 against Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellant s and their co-accused namely Sajid Hussain (since acquitted by the trial Court through the impugned judgment) under sections 365-A, 302, 149,.
201 read with Sections 7(a), 7(e) and 21-L of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 to which they pleaded not guilty and prosecution evidence was summoned.
5. The prosecution produced following P .Ws:--- Fazal Elahi S.I. P.W.I Pervaiz Ahmad 1915/HC P.W.2 Muhammad Akram ASI P.W.3 Syed Younas Bukhari P.W.4 Maqbool Ahmad Constable P.W.5 Ali Husnain T/ASI P.W.6 Muhammad Riaz, ASI P.W.7 Talib Hussain, S.I. P:W.8 Abdur Razzaq, S.I. P.W.9 Muhammad Younas, ASI P.W.10 Muzaf far Hussain 1 1097/C P.W.I 1 Mushtaq Tariq S.I. P.W.12 Zulfiqar Ali 9525/C P.W.13 Amir Butt 418/HC P.W.14 Muhammad Naeem 1933/C P.W.15 lmran Kausar 17628/C P.W.16 Dr. Hamid Saeed P.W.17 Muhammad Farooq P.W.18 Zia-ur-Rehman P.W.19 Muhammad Irfan P.W.20 Muhammad Iqbal P.W.21 Dr. Zahid Manzoor P.W.22 Syed Naeem Abbas P.W.23 Shaukat Javed Khan P.W.24 Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.26 Liaqat Ali P.W.27 Muhammad Atif P.W.28 Muhammad Naeem P.W.29 Farman Ali P.W.30 Khalid Mehmood P.W.31 Karamat Ali P.W.32 Tasawar Hussain 14133/C P.W.33 Zulfiqar Ali Inspector P.W.34 Usman Ali P.W.35 Muhammad Munir Khan Inspector P.W.36 Shahid Mehmood P.W.37 Muhammad Rafique P.W.38 Muhammad Zaman P.W.39 Jaseem Ahmad Inspector P.W.40 whereas P.Ws. namely Mushtaq Ahmad 305/C, Muhammad Usman, Shahid Mehmood, Faqeer Hussain, Muhammad Younas 6183/C, Manzoor Inspector , Javed Inspector CTD and Faqeer Hussain were given up being unnecessary by the prosecution and after tendering certain documents i.e. reports of Chemical Examiner Ex.P.EE, Ex.P.EE/l, report of Serologist Ex.P .EE/2 and those of PFSA Ex.P .FF and Ex.P .GG closed its evidence.
Medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Hamid Saeed P. W.17 and Dr. Zahid Manzoor P.W.22. Dr. Zahid Manzoor P.W.22 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Muhammad lmran on 21.03.2012 at about 9:30 a.m. and observed as under: "INJURIES:
(i) An opened incised wound measuring 4 x 1. 5 cm on left front of head, 9 cm about left eye brow , 12 cm from left ear, under lying bone exposed.
(ii) An opened incised wound measuring 4 x 1 cm on right side of front of head, 7 cm above right eyebrow , 10 cm from right ear , underlying bone exposed.
(iii) An opened incised wound 3.5 x 1 cm on left side of back of head 6 cm from midline of head, 6 cm from left ear, underlying bone was exposed. On dissection under injuries 1, 2 & 3 sclap was cut. Skull was healthy .
(iv) A spindle shape opened wound with clean cut margins and angles measuring 7 x 3.5 cm going deep on right front of neck, 4 cm below chin, 8 cm above clavicle, 3 cm below jaw .
A spindle shape opened wound with clean cut margins and angles measuring 5 x 2 cm going deep, 2 cm below chin, 12 cm above clavicle on the front of neck.
A spindle shape opened wound with clean cut margins and angles measuring 8 x 5 cm going deep on left front of neck, 3 cm below jaw, 9 cm above left clavicle, 5 cm below left ear. On dissection under injury No. 4, 5 & 6, soft tissue including muscles of left and right side of neck were cut. Left carotid artery and left jugular vein were cut.
Trachea was penetrated from left behind. Hyoid bone was intact.
CAUSE OF DEA TH All the injuries stated above were ante-mortem mid caused by sharp edge weapon. The cause of death in this case was cutting of blood vessels on left side of neck under injury 6 leading to profuse haemorrhage, shock and death.
This injury was sufficient to cause ,death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively , however the specimen mentioned (Stomach with contents, small intestine with contents a piece of liver, spleen, kidney and preservatives (saturated saline) were sent to the office of chemical examiner Government of Punjab for detection of drug or poison if any .
Probable time that elapsed (1) between injury and death, "within few minutes" (2) between death and post-mortem, "within 36-108 hours."
Dr. Hamid Saeed P.W.17 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Muhammad Bila: on 21.03.2012 at about 1 1:00 a.m. and observed as under:--- "INJURIES: Superficial incised wound 6 x 0.3 cm on front of left ear pinna.
Superficial incised wound 3 x 0.3 cm on left side of face adjacent to nose.
(iii) Superficial incised wound 2.5 x 0.3 0.3 cm on tip of nose on the left side.
(iv) An opened wound with clean cut marg in (incised wound) 20 x 2 cm on upper front part of neck involving left and right sides.
On Dissection: Skin, neck blood vessels (major) trachea and esophagus were all cut. Only the posterior wall of esophagus was intact.
Multiple incised wounds in an area 10 x 6 cm on left side of neck behind left ear maximum being 5 x 0.5 cm and minimum being 2.5 x 0.5 cm.
(vi) Multiple incised wounds on left outer back side of chest below left axilla, covering an area 12 x 5 cm maximum being 2.5 x 2 cm and minimum being 1 x 0.5 cm. On dissection: The skin and muscles on left side of chest were injured. The injuries in the 3rd, 4th & 5th intercostals spaces had made holes in these spaces alongwith damage to underlying pleura and lung. The left chest cavity was full of blood and blood clots.
(vii) An incised wound 2.5 x 2 cm on terminal phalanx of left middle finger , skin involved.
CAUSE OF DEA TH All the injuries stated above were ante-mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon. The cause of death in this case was cutting of blood vessels on both sides of the neck under injury No. 4 and injury to vital organ lung under injury No. 6 leading to profuse haemorrhage shock and death. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually and collectively , however viscera/specimen 1 Stomach and its contents
2. Small intestine and its contents
3. A piece of liver , spleen and kidney
4. Preservative were sent to chemical examiner Punjab Lahore for detection of poison/drug if any. Probable time that elapsed (1) between injury and death, "within few , minutes" (2) between death and post-mortem, "within 36-96 hours."
7. On the other hand, statements of Mateen Khan, Mst. Amina Shafique appellants and their co-accused Sajid Hussain (since acquitted) mentioned above were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they refuted the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution. Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants neither opted to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. as witness nor produced any oral defence evidence. However , in documentary defence evidence, they produced certain documents i.e. Ex.D.A. to Ex.D.E and Ex.D.K. In reply to the question ((Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you? Mateen Khan appellant replied as under:-- "I am not a nominated accused in FIR. In fact the occurrence of the case was unseen and the accused of the case were untraceable. The 1.0. involved me in this case at belated stage to show his efficiency . All the private P.Ws. are interested witnesses and they deposed on the asking of the I.O. Nothing was recovered from me during the investigation. I am previously non-convicted. I am innocent. I may be acquitted."
Likewise, in reply to the question "Why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you? Mst. Amina Shafique appellant replied as under:--- "I am Hafiza Quran and belong to a religious family . It is false, frivolous and bogus case against me. I was nominated in this case at a belated stage only on the basis of suspicion that I had an affair with deceased namely Imran on the Mobile phone: 1 was only nominated in this case on the basis of that suspicion. The entire evidence was crafted against me. As a matter of fact neither I knew deceased of this case or other co-accused. I got nothing to do with the occurrence in hand. I was only nominated in this case on the basis of suspicion raised by the I.O. of this case.
Private witnesses deposed against me on the asking of police being close relatives of deceased of this case. Police officials deposed against me being subo rdinate to 1.0. who implicated me in this case on my denial to fulfill his demand of bribe. My parents being poor could not rescue me from the I.O. who was only willing to conduct investigation on merits if paid by my family ."
8. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court while acquitting Sajid Hussain (co-accused of Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants) convicted Mateen Khan and Mst. Arnim Shatlqu e appellants with above-stated sentences. Hence these appeals.
9. Learned counsel for Mateen Khan and Mk. Arnina Shafique appellants have contended that:--
(i) the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.03.2015 is against law and facts and is liable to be set-aside;
(ii) it is submitted that the story of the prosecution is improbable and not believable;
(iii) it is further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt and the learned trial Court wrongly convicted appellants in surmises and conjectures;
(iv) and lastly submitted for the acceptance of the appeals of the present appellants.
10. On the other hand, learned DDPP has vehemently opposed the appeals and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellants with solid evidence and prayed for the dismissal of the present appeals.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned DDPP and perused the record.
12. The detail of prosecution case has been given in para 2 of this judgment, there fore, there is no need to repeat the same to avoid duplication and repetition.
13. Initially FIR No. 193 , (Ex.P A/1) was registered on 17.03.2012 at 1:55 p.m. at Police Station Green Town, Lahore for abduction of Muhammad Imran deceased for ransom on the written application Ex.P.A. moved by Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 (maternal uncle/Mamoon of Muhammad Imran deceased) against unknown accused according to which occurrence took place on 16.03.2012 at 7:00 `p.m. Thereafter on 18.03.2012 at 8:30 a.m. dead- bodies of Muhammad lmran deceased and his friend Muhammad Bilal deceased were found lying in the house of Liaqat Ali P.W.27, who got registered case FIR No.247/2012 (Ex.P .K./1) under Sections 302, 201, 34, PPC on the same day (18.032012 at 10:55 a.m.) at Police Station Shad Bagh, Lahore against unknown accused. It is important to note here that proceedings of case FIR No 247/2012 (Ex.P .K/1) were sent to Police Station Green Town, Lahore where already case FIR No. 193/2012 (Ex.P .A/1) was registered for abduction of Muhammad Imran deceased for ransom upon which investigation started and trial was conducted against Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants and their co-accused namely Sajid Hussain (since acquitted) against whom Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25/ State has not filed any appeal. Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 (materna l uncle/Mamoon of Muhammad Imran deceased) has made supplementary statement recorded on 20.032012 on the basis of statements of Khalid Mahmood P.W.31 and Karamat Ali P.W.32 (real brother of Allah Ditta , complainant P.W.25) who stated in their statements that on 16.03.201.2 at 8:00/8:30 p.m. they were going on a motor-cycle at China Scheme, when they reached near drain at China Scheme, they saw Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased in the company of a girl and three other unknown persons (appellants have not been nominated even in the statement of Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 and statements of Khalid Mahmood P.W.31 and Karamat Ali P.W.32, who are witnesses of last seen evidence). They further stated that on 17.03.2012 at 9:00 a.m., Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 told them regarding abduction of Muhammad lmran deceased for ransom, then these two P. Ws. told him (Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25) that they had seen Muhammad Imran decease d in the company of unknown accused mentioned above. It is importan t to note here that Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 got registered FIR No. 193/2012 (Ex.P .A/1) on 17.03.2012 at 1:55 p.m. at Police Station Green Town, Lahore relating to abduction of Muhammad Imran deceased for ransom but he has not mentioned the names of Khalid Mahrnood P.W.31 and his real brother Karamat Ali P.W. 32, who according to their statements mentioned above, told Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 on 17.03.2012 at 9:00 a.m. before registration of HR (Ex.P .A/1) that they had seen Muhammad Imran deceased and his friend Muhammad Bilal deceased in the company of unknown accused. It is further important to note here that Khalid Mahmood P.W.31 and Karamat Ali .P.W.32 (real brother of Allah Data complainant P. W.25) got recorded their statements regarding last seen evidence on 20.03.2012 before the investigating officer with unexplained delay of four days from the occurrence of abduction of Muhammad Imran deceased for ransom (16.03.2012), which shatter their credibility considering the close relationship of Karamat Ali P.W.32 with Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 (both are real brother s inter-se). The law is settled by now that credibility of a witness is looked with serious suspicion if his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. is recorded with delay without offering any plausible explanation. Reliance is placed on case reported as. "Muhammad Khan Vs. Maula Bakhsh and another" (1998 SCMR 570 ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page 575 as under:--- "It is a settled law that credibility of a witness is looked with serious suspicion if his statement under section 161, ,Cr.P.C. is recorded with delay without of fering any plausible explanation."
14. Further , last seen evidence is a weak type of evidence and the same is procured at any time during the investigation when direct evidence is not available to the prosecution. Reliance in this regard is placed on case reported as. "Altaf Hussain vs. Fakhar Hussain and another" (PI,J 2008 SC 687) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page 689 as under:-- it is settled principle of law that the last seen evidence is a weakest type of evidence unless corroborated with some other piece of evidence which is conspicuously missing in this case."
15, Allah Ditta complainant P.W.25 is a welder by profession and he has not stated that he had paid ransom amount to Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafiqu appellants. Learned DDPP submits that admittedly ransom amount has not been paid in the present case to the accused.
16. Admittedly , dead-bodies of Muhammad lmran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased were found lying in the house of Liaqat Ali P.W.27 on 18.03.2012 at 8:30 a.m. who stated that on 15.03.2012, just three days before the recovery of dead-bodies of both the deceased, he rented out the house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased to unknown persons through his Mohallandar Farman Ali P.W.30, who is commission agent with property dealer Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.26 at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.26 and Farman Ali P.W.30 have also stated so. It is also important to note here that prosecution did not produce any written rent agreement between Liaqat Ali P.W.27 and Mateen Khan Appellant regarding the house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased. Liaqat Ali P.W.27 did not nominate Mateen Khan appellant in the FIR No. 247/2012 (Ex.P .K/1) got registered by him at Police Station Shad Bagh, Lahore after the recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased from his house, which according to him rented out to Mateen Khan appe llant through Farman Ali P.W.30 just three days before the recovery of dead-bodies of both the deceased. No article relating to Mateen Khan appellant has been recovered from the house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased which shows that Mateen Khan appellant was residing there. Likewise, no person from the locality has been produced to establish that Mateen Khan appellant was residing in the house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased. Considering above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased was rented out to Mateen Khan appellant by Liaqat Ali P.W.27 through Farman Ali P.W.30 and Mateen Khan appellant was in possession of that house being tenant since 15.03.2012 till the recovery of dead-bodies of Muhamma d Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased (18.03.2012). Zulfiqar Ali Inspector P.W.34 stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that he received information that Mateen Khan appellant is in jail of Peshawar , detained under Section 54, Cr.P.C. by the police of Police Station Gharbi Peshawar , he (Zulfiqar Ali Inspector P.W.34) got Mateen Khan appellant transferred on 30.01.2013 from Peshawar to Lahore and produced him before Anti-T errorism Court, Lahore and got sent him to jail for identification parade. Khalid Mahmood P.W.31 (relating to last seen evidence), Karamat Ali P.W.32 (relating to last seen evidence) stated in their statements (examination-in-chief) that they on 02.02.2013, during the proceedings of identification parade held in Central Jail, Lahore under the supervisio n of Shaukat Javed Khan, Judicial Magistrate P.W.24 identified Mateen Khan appellant as culprit of this case. It is important to note here that Liaqat Ali P. W.27 (who being owner has rented out the house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad lmran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased), Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.26 and Farman Ali P.W.30 (through whom house of recovery of dead-bodies of Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Bilal deceased was rented out to Mateen Khan appellant by Liaqat Ali (P.W.27) have not stated in their statements that they had participated in the proceedings of identification parade and identified Mateen Khan appellant. Likewise, Khalid Mahmood P.W. 31 and Karamat Ali P.W. 32 (relating to last seen evidence) stated in their statements (exam ination-in-chief) that they on 21.04.2012, they during the proceedings of identification parade held in Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore under the supervision of Syed Naeem Abbas, Civil Judge P. W.23 identified Mst. Amina Shafique appellant as culprit of this case. As we have already disbelieved the evidence of Khalid Mahmood P.W.31, Karamat Ali P.W.32, Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.26, Liaqat All P.W.27 and Farman Ali P. W.30 discussed earlier , hence, identification of the Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants in the proceedings of the identification parade has no evidentiary value. The law is settled by now that one tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate anothe r piece of tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then very necessity of corroboration would be frustrated. Reliance is placed on case titled "Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another vs. The State" (2009 SCMR 1410 ) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page 1417 as under:--- "It is well-settled that one tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another piece of tainted evidence because if this allowed to be done then very necessity of corroboration would be frustrated."
17. Khalid Mahmood P.W. 31 stated in his statement that on 26.04.2012, during interrogation Mst. Amina Shafique appellant disclosed and got recovered mobile phone Nokia 1600 (P-17). Karamat Ali P.W.32 also stated in his statement that on 26.04.2012, during interrogation Mst. Amina Shafique appellant disclosed and got recovered mobile, phone (P-17). Likewise, Muhammad Munir Khan Inspector P.W.36 has also stated in his statement that Mst. Amina Shafique appellant during interrogation disclosed and got recovered mobile phone Nokia 1600 (P-17) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.P.R, perusal of which shows that SIM No. 0312-4598383 was also recovered which is contrary to the statements of Khalid Mahmood P.W.31, Karamat Ali P.W.32 and Muhammad Munir Khan Inspector P.W.36. Even otherwise, according to the prosecution, above-mentioned SIM has been issued in the name of Muhamm ad Shafique father of Mst. Amina Shafique appellant, who has not been associated during the investigation as an accused or witness. Learned DDPP submits that recovery of mobile phone (P-17) on pointing out of Mst. Amina Shafique appellant is otherwise irrelevant in the present case. Further call-data has not been exhibited rather was marked which is inadmissible in evidence. Reliance is placed on case titled " State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another Vs. Javaid lqbal " (2011 SCMR 1013 ).
18. Recovery of Chhurri (P-14) on 15.02.2013 on pointing out of Mateen Khan appellant is inconsequential in the present case as the same was not blood-stained.
19. Further medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of the injury , nature of the injury , kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of crime.
Reliance is placed on case titled "Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another" (PLJ 2008 SC 687) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page 689 as under:-- it is also settled law that medical evidenc e may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of the injury , nature of the injury , kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the crime."
20. In view, of the above discussion, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding involvement of Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there shoul d he many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace 01 concession, but as of right. Reliance is placed on case reported as "Muhammad Akram Vs. The State" (2009 SCMR 230), in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in para No. 13 of page 236 as under:--- The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. 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."
21. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No 586 of 201.5 filed by Mateen Khan appellant against his conviction and Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2015 filed by Mst. Amina Shafique appellant against her conviction are accepted and convictions and sentences of Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants awarded by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment are hereby set aside. They are ordered to be acquitted in case FIR No. 193 dated 17.03.2012 under sections 365-A, 302, 201, 34, PPC Police Station Green Town, Lahore.
Mateen Khan and Mst. Amina Shafique appellants are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
22. Consequently , death sentence awarded to Mateen Khan appellant is NOT CONFIRMED . Capital Sentence Reference No. 33/T of 2015 is answered in NEGA TIVE .
23. Order accordingly