Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J:- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.99880 of 2017 , filed by Muhammad Nawaz (appellant) against his conviction and sentence and Murder Reference No.605 of 2017 , sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the Death sentence awarded to Muhammad Nawaz (appellant). We propose to dispose of both these matters by this single judgment as the same have arisen out of the same judgment dated 28.10.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala.
2. Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), along with his co-accused Muhammad Sarfraz, Maqbool Ahmad, Mazhar and Mannu (since acquitted), were tried in private complaint filed by Allah Ditta (complainant), under sections 302/34 PPC, police station Mamukanjan, Tendlianwala, District Faisalabad. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.10.2017, has convicted and sentenced Muhammad Nawaz (appellant) as under: - Under Section 302(b) PPC to 'Death' for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased). He was also ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C and in default thereof the same would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and to further undergo simple imprisonment up to four months.
However vide the same judgment, accused Muhammad Sarfraz, Maqbool Ahmad, Mazhar and Mannu were acquitted of the charges.
3. Initially Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1) got registered case FIR No.59/2016 dated 05.03.2016 offences under sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Mamukanjan, Tandlianwala, District Faisala bad against Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), Muhammad Sarfraz and Maqbool Ahmad (accused since acquitted). Feeling dissatisfied with the proceedings and investigation of the police, private complaint was filed by the complainant. After recording the cursory statements of the complainant, as well as, PWs the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala summoned the accused persons nominated in the private complaint to face trial.
4. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Allah Ditta (PW-1), in his private complaint (Exh.PC) are that on 05.03.2016, the complainant along with his son Rang Zeb (PW-2), Muhammad Waris (PW since given-up) and daughter namely Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased), was cutting fodder (Barseem ), from his field bearing Killa No.12, Square No.42. Suddenly Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), while armed with 12- bore gun, Muhammad Sarfraz (co- accused since acquitted), while armed with pistol 30- bore and Maqbool Ahmad (co-accused since acquitted), with their common intention came there, while raising lalkara to teach a lesson to Mst. Ghulam Fatima for not marrying with Muhammad Nawaz (appellant). Muhammad Sarfraz (co-accused since acquitted), raised a lalkara to kill Mst.
Ghulam Fatima (deceased) by making fire-shot. Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), thereafter , made a fire shot with his 12-bore gun, which hit Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased) at her right thigh and same went through and through, due to which she fell on the ground. Maqbool Ahmad (co-accused since acquitted), remained present there with his motorcycle. The complainant party attended Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased) and shifted her to the Civil Hospital of Chak No.509- G.B. After examining Mst. Ghulam Fatima, the then injured, the doctor present there referred her to the Allied Hospital Faisalabad due to her critical condition. The complainant party took Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased) to the Allied Hospital Faisalabad but she succumbed to the injuries.
The motive behind the occurrence was that the accused party was demanding hand 'rishta' of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased) for Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), aged about 60/65 years but the complainant had given the hand 'rishta' of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased) to one Bahawal Sher and the marriage was to be solemnized on 13.03.2016. Due to the said grudge the accused committed murder of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased).
It was further alleged in the private complaint (Exh.PC), that Mazhar and Mannu (co-accused since acquitted), also played an important role during the occurrence as both of them informed Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), Muhammad Sarfraz and Maqbool Ahmad (co-accused since acquitted), regarding the movement of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, on the day of occurrence, which fact was confessed by Mazhar and Mannu (co-accused since acquitted), before Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1), Gul Muhammad (PW since given-up) and Muhammad Arif (PW-4), on 28.04.2016 and asked for pardon.
It was added by the complainant in his private complaint (Exh.PC) that the local police being in league with the accused party and without any legal justification, did not initiate proceedings against Mazhar and Mannu (co- accused since acquitted), despite the fact that on 28.04.2016, the complainant submitted an application before the police regarding involvement of the above-mentioned accused in the instant case, which necessitated the filing of the abovementioned private complaint.
5. Muhammad Nawaz appellant was arrested in this case on 29.03.2016 by Muhammad Aslam SI and on 07.04.2016, he (appellant) disclosed and then led to the recovery of 12-bore gun (P-1), which was taken into possession by the I.O vide recovery memo Exh.PB. As mentioned earlier , being dissatisfied with the proceedings and investigation of the police, Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1), instituted a private complaint. After institution of private complaint the cursory statements of the complainant Allah Ditta (PW-1) and other PWs were recorded. The appellant and his co-accused mentioned in the private complaint were summoned by the learned trial Court to face the trial. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant, as well as, against Muhammad Sarfraz, Maqbool Ahmad, Mazhar and Mannu (co-accused since acquitted) on 21.12.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses during the trial. Five Court witnesses were also examined in this case. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of (Exh.P A) to (Exh.PK). Documents in shape of Exh.CW -2/A, Exh.CW -2/B, Exh.CW -3/A, Exh.CW -3/B and Exh.CW -5/A to Exh.CW -5/D, were also produced during evidence of CWs.
7. The statements of Muhammad Nawaz (appellant), Muhammad Sarfraz, Maqbool Ahmad, Mazhar and Mannu (co-accused since acquitted), under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Muham mad Nawaz (appellant), refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. While answering to a question that 'Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you" Muhammad Nawaz appellant replied as under:- "This is a false case. All the PWs are related inter-se with the deceased and they have made false statements against me and my co-accused due their enmity with us. None of the so-called eye witness was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and it was a blind murder which was committed by unknown culprits.
The complainant with consultation of the local police fabricated the present false version against me and my co- accused, much later after the postmortem examination of the deceased".
The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 28.10.2017, found Muhammad Nawaz (appellant) guilty , convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is absolu tely innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case by the prose cution; that the prosecution' s eye witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time and in fact the occurrence was unwitnessed; that there is delay of 8 hours in lodging the FIR, whereas, there is delay of 11 hours and 45 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the abovementioned delay has not been plausibly explained by the prosecution; that there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution because according to the site plan (Exh.CW -3/A), the appellant made fire shot with 12 bore gun from a distance of 4-feet but there was no blackening, burning or tattooing on the entry wound of the deceased; that according to the postmortem report of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased, there were three injuries on her body out of which one injury i.e. injury No.3 is an incised wound but the said injury has not been explained by any of the prosecution witnesses; that motive alleged by the prosecution has also not be proved in this case because Bahawal Sher with whom the marriage of the deceased was fixed, has not been produced in the witness box; that recovery of gun 12 bore (P-1) and positive report of PFSA, Lahore (Exh.PK) are of no avail to the prosecution because none of the prosecution witnesses stated regarding the date of arrest of the appellant; that in fact, the abovementioned gun was planted against the appellant and nothing was recovered from his possession; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted and he may be acquitted from the charge.
9. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that delay in lodging the FIR has plausibly been explained by the prosecution' s eye witnesses by stating that initially they took Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased in injured condition to RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B Faisalabad wherefrom, she was referred to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad on account of her precarious condition; that both the prosecution' s eye witnesses of the prosecution i.e. Allah Ditta (PW-1) and Rangzeb (PW-2) are father and brother of the deceased and they cannot let off the real culprit and would not falsely implicate the appellant in this case because substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon; that evidence of the aforementioned prosecution' s eye witnesses is confidence inspiring and trustworthy; that the prosecution case is fully supported by the medical evidence furnished by Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1); that incised wound on the leg of the deceased might be the result of her falling on the ground and receipt of the said injury might be due to her hitting against the sickle which the deceased was carrying at the time of occur rence to cut the fodder; that the prosecution case against the appellant is further corroborated by the recovery of gun 12 bore (P-1) on the pointation of the appellant and positive report of PFSA, Lahore (Exh.PK); that motive of the prosecution case was also proved against the appellant through reliable and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant therefore, the same may be dismissed and murder reference be answered in the af firmative.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. Prosecution case as set forth in the complaint (Exh.PC) has already been reproduced in paragraph No.4 of this judgment therefore, there is no need to repeat the same.
12. We have noted that the occurrence in this case did not take place inside or near the 'abadi' of the village rather the same took place in the fields situated in the area of Chak No. 500/G.B District Faisalabad. Perusal of site plan (Exh.CW -3/A) shows that there was no residential house or 'Dera' near the place of occurrence. The occurrence in this case, as per prosecution' s case, took place on 05.03.2016 at 09:00 a.m., but the FIR has been lodged on 05.03.2016 at 05:00 p.m., i.e. with the delay of 8 hours from the time of occurre nce. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 9-kilometers. It is further noteworthy that even the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 05.03.2016 at 08:45 p.m., i.e. with the delay of 11 hours and 45 minutes from the occurrence. In order to cover the abovementioned delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the prosecution' s eye witnesses, namely , Allah Ditta (PW-1) and Rangzeb (PW-2) stated that in fact, they first took Mst. Ghulam Fatima in injured condition to RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B, where the doctor after examining referred Mst. Ghulam Fatima to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Neither the doctor who first examined Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased in injured condition on 05.03.2016 at RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B has been produced in the witness box nor any MLR regarding the medico legal examination of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased in injured condition and her referral to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad has been produced in the prosecution evidence. Although Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) has stated that Mst. Ghulam Fatima was referred to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad due to her precarious condition but she admitted that she was herself on leave on 05.03.2016 and the hospital staff had referred the deceased to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. She did not mention the name of any member of the staff who had referred the deceased to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad nor any such staff of the hospital appeared in the witness box before the learned trial Court. Statement of Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) regarding the referral of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased by the staff of RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad is hearsay evidence. It is further noteworthy that evidence of Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) in this respect is contradictory to the statement of Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1) and Rangzeb (PW-2) because both the abovementioned eye witnesses of the prosecution stated that in fact Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased in injured condition was referred to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad by the doctor of RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B. They did not state that the staff of RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B referred her to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, as claimed by Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1). Relevant parts of the statements of Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1), Rangzeb (PW-2) and Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- Allah Ditta complainant (PW -1).
"The injured Mst.Ghulam Fatima was shifted to hospital at Chak No. 509 G.B on car. The Doctor available there after examining referred the injured to Allied hospital Faisalabad."
Rang Zeb (PW -2).
"Thereafter we attended Mst. Ghulam Fatima injured who was alive and we shifted her to RHC, Chak No. 509 G.B on a car where from the doctor referred her to Allied hospital, Faisalabad but she succumbed to the injuries after arriving there."
Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW -1).
"It is correct that the injured Mst. Ghulam Fatima was referred to Allied Hospital Faisalabad due to her precaution condition. On 05.03.2016 I was on leave. Voluntarily stated that the hospital staff had refereed her to Allied hospital Faisalabad. It is correct that the duty of the staff of RHC Mamu Khan did not give first aid to the injured prior to refer the injured to Allied hospital."
Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the Death Certificate of Mst. Ghulam Fatima (Exh.PI), issued by the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad in order to explain the abovementioned delay and to establish that in fact, Mst. Ghulam Fatima was taken to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad in injured condition but it is noteworthy that no person from the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad appeared in the witness box to prove the abovementioned Death Certificate. Moreover , there is nothing on the record to show that Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased was referred by any doctor or staff of RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B, Faisalabad to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad on account of her precarious condition therefore, the abovementioned delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased has not been plausibly explained by the prosecution. It is further noteworthy that Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) stated during her cross-examination that dead body of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased was received in RHC Mamoon Kanjan at 06:00 p.m., on 05.03.2016.
She further stated that police papers were received at 08:30 p.m., and she conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased at 08:40 p.m. Relevant part of her statement in this respect reads as under:- "The dead body of Mst Ghulam Fatima deceased was received in RHC Mamu Kanjan at 6:00 PM on 05.03.2016.
The police papers to conduct the postmortem examination and the other documents i.e. the inquest report and injuries statement were not received alongwith the dead body . The police papers were received at 08:30 pm and I conducted the postmortem examination at 08:40pm.
The delay in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased of 11 hours and 45 minutes is suggestive of the fact that the eye witnesses of the prosecution were not present at the spot at the relevant time and the said delay has been consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye witnesses.
We may refer here the case of 'Irshad Ahmad versus The State' (2011 SCMR 1190) wherein it was observed that the post-mortem examination of the dead body had been conducted with a noticeable delay and such delay is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eyewitnesses and in cooking up a story for the prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a post-mortem examination of the dead body conducted. Similarly , in the case of 'Khalid alias Khalidi and two others vs. The State' (2012 SCMR 327) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan considered the delay of 10/11 hours from the occurrence in conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, to be an adverse effect against the prosecution case and it was held that it shows that the FIR was not lodged at the given time.
Similar view was taken by the Apex Court of the country in the cases reported as 'Muhammad Ashraf Vs. The State' (2012 SCMR 419), 'Muhammad Ilyas Vs. Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others' (2017 SCMR 54) & 'Zafar Vs. The State and others' (2018 SCMR 326 ).
13. We have further noted that had the prosecution' s eye witnesses, namely , Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1) and Rangzeb (PW-2) been present at the spot at the time of occurrence then they would have provide the medical aid to Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased in order to save her life and stop her bleeding because injury sustained by Mst.
Ghulam Fatima was on her right thigh which was a non-vital part of her body . Even Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) stated that if any injured in such like case remained un-attended for 1-2 hours then his death may occur on account of loss of blood. Relevant part of her statement in this respect reads as under:- "Hypovolumia means loss of blood and fluids from the body due to the excess of bleeding which ultimately develops in Hypovolum shock which ultimately result into the cardio pulmonary arrest. It is correct that the death in this case occurred due to hemorrhagic shock as to loss of blood from the body of the deceased. The injured in such like cases if remain unattended by the medical staff then death might have occurred within 1-2hours. If the blood and fluids had been infused in the body of the injured Mst. Ghulam Fatima, there were chances of her survival in this case. The seat of injury No.1 was on the right thigh of the deceased which is non vital part of the body ."
We have further noted that in order to establish their presence at the spot at the relevant time and to show that they
(PWs) tried to stop the bleeding of Mst. Ghulam Fatima, Allah Ditta complainant (PW-1) stated that doctor of RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B District Faisalabad had bandaged the wound of the injured and thereafter , referred her to the Allied Hospital, Faisalabad. Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "The doctor at RHC Chak No. 509 G.B had bandaged the wound of the injured and thereafter referred her to the Allied Hospital Faisalabad."
Whereas, Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) stated that wounds of the deceased were neither stitched nor bandaged.
Relevant part of her statement is reproduced hereunder:- "It is correct that when I received the dead body of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased the wounds of the deceased were not found either stitched or bandaged. It is correct that in such like cases generally we provide the first aid, stitch the wound and apply the bandage for stopping hemorrhagic/oozing of bold."
We are therefore, of the view that the abovementioned eye witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time and death of Mst. Ghulam Fatima occurred on account of her excessive bleedings as she remained un- attended for a considerable period and in order to cover the abovementioned lacuna in the prosecution case, the prosecution witnesses made false excuse that Mst. Ghulam Fatima was provided bandaged by the doctor at RHC of Chak No. 509/G.B, whereas, Lady Dr. Uzma Andleeb (CW-1) has categorically stated during her cross- examination that there was no bandage or stitches on the injuries of the decease d when she received her dead body .
14. It is also noteworthy that acco rding to the prosecution case, only one fire shot made by the appellant landed on the right thigh of Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased but according to the medical evidence there was also an incised wound i.e. injury No.3 measuring 4 cm x 1.7 cm on the lower part of left leg and bone under the said injury was also exposed. The abovementioned injury has not been explained by any of the prosecution' s witnesses.
Although it is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that said injury might have been caused to the deceased when she fell on the ground after sustaining firearm injury and hit the sickle with the help of which she was cutting fodder but we have noted that none of the prosecution witnesses had stated so in their statements recorded by the police or by the learned trial Court. Moreover , in the site plan (Exh. CW-3/A) or in the inquest report (Exh.PH), no sickle has been shown at the place of occurrence. It is not understandable that if the prosecution witnesses were present at the spot at the relevant time then as to why they did not explain the incised wound i.e. injury No.3 on the body of the deceased in their statements recorded by the police or by the learned trial Court. The abovementioned fact shows that the prosecution' s eye witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence therefore, they could not explain the abovementioned injury . Reliance in this respect may be placed on the cases of 'Muhammad Ali Vs The State' (2015 SCMR 137), 'Irfan Ali Vs The State' (2015 SCMR 840) & 'Usman alias Kaloo Vs The State' (2017 SCMR 622). It is also noteworthy that according to the site plan (Exh.CW -3/A), Muhammad Nawaz appellant made fire shot with 12 bore gun at Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased from a distance of only 4-feet but accordin g to the medical evidence, there was no blackening, burning or tattooing around the entry wound. Likewise, no wade of the empty was recovered from the entry wound which further contradicts the prosecution case. It is also noteworthy that in order to justify their presence at the spot, the prosecution' s eye witnesses stated that they along with Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased went to the fields in order to cut fodder but neither any cut fodder nor any sickle has been recovered from the spot at the time of inspection by the I.O.
15. According to the prosecution case, motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Nawaz appellant wanted to marry with Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased but the complainant party refused to give the hand of Mst.
Ghulam Fatima deceased to the appellant and fixed her marriage with one Bahawal Sher for 13.03.2016 but neither any wedding card of the abovementioned proposed marriage has been produced in the prosecution evidence nor the abovementioned Bahawal Sher appeared in the witness box to prove the alleged motive. We are therefore, of the view that motive alleged by the prosecution has not been proved in this case.
16. Learned Deputy Prosecution General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has heavily relied upon the recovery of gun 12 bore (P-1) on the pointation of the appellant and positive report of PFSA, Lahore (Exh.PK) but it is noteworthy that no date of arrest of the appellant has been brought on record by the prosecution through the statement of any of the prosecution witness. Under the circumstances, it is not determinable in this case that as to whether empty recovered from the spot was sent to the office of PFSA, Lahore after the arrest of the appellant or the same was sent to the said office before his arrest hence it is not safe to rely upon the abovementioned prosecution evidence. It is by now well settled that if the empty is sent to the office of PFSA after the arrest of the accused then it is not safe to rely upon the positive report of PFSA and recovery of weapon from the possession of the accused.
Reliance in this respect may be placed on the cases of 'Jehangir Vs Nazar Farid and another ' (2002 SCMR 1986 ), 'Ali Sher and others Vs The State' (2008 SCMR 707) & 'Mushtaq and 3 others Vs The State' (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 1). As mentioned earlier , the date of arrest of the appellant has not been brought on the record through the statement of any of the prosecution witness therefore, the abovementioned recovery of gun from the possession of the appellant and positive report of the PFSA are not safe to be relied upon. Moreover , recovery of gun and positive report of PFSA are only corroborative pieces of evidence and the same cannot be made basis for the conviction of the appellant, in absence of reliable direct evidence of prosecution' s eye witnesses.
17. We have considered all the aspects of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt. It is by now well settled law that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecu tion case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the prosecution story . In the case of 'Tariq Pervez versus The State'( 1995 SCMR 1345 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1347, was pleased to observe as under:- '5....... The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep rooted in our country . For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.'
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while reiterating the same principle in the case of 'Muhammad Akram versus The State'( 2009 SCMR 230 ), at page 236, observed as under:- '13. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as a 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."
18. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, we accept Criminal Appeal No. 99880 of 2017 filed by Muhammad Nawaz appellant, set aside his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court and acquit him of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. Resultantly , Murder Reference No. 605 of 2017 is answered in the negative. The appellant Muhammad Nawaz is in custody , he be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case.