MUHAMMAD YOUNAS TAHIR, J: Both the appeals (supra) filed under Section 25 of the AJ&K Islamic Penal Laws (Enforcement) Act, 1974, arise out of the judgment passed by the learned Shariat Appellate. Bench of the. High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter to be referred as the High Court) on 31.10.2019, whereby while partly accepting the appeal filed by Muhammad Ilyas, the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the District Criminal Court Kotli has been Converted into 14 years imprisonment and the amount of fine has been enhanced from Rs.
100,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation, in default whereof, he has to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. The counter appeal filed by Liaquat Jan and another (legal heirs of the deceased), for awarding the sentence of death as Qisas to Muhammad Ilyas, convict, and for conviction of Muhammad Razzaq, accused, has been dismissed. Since both the appeals arise out of the single consolidated judgment of the High Court, therefore, these have been heard together and being disposed of through the proposed judgment.
2. Muhammad Younas, complainant, filed a written report on 8.3.2003, at Police Station Baloch, against Muhammad Ilyas, convict and Muhammad Razzaq, accused, alleging therein, that he is the resident of village Noorsa, Tehsil Baloch, district Sudhenuti. On the fateful day, he was working in the front side of the courtyard of his house, when at 10:00 a.m, the nominated persons appeared on the spot and prohibited him from working on the pretext that the land belongs to them. They started abusing him. Muhammad Younas prohibited them from abusing but they did not stop.
Muhammad Ilyas, convict, rushed to the nearby situated house of his real brother Muhammad Qadeer and returned with a 12-bore rifle, with which he aimed at Muhammad Younas and fired 2/3 shots with the intention to kill him. Mamraiz Hussain, son of the complainant, halted the convict.
Muhammad Ilyas fired upon Mamraiz. The gun-shot hit at the face and ear of Mamraiz, who fell down. Muhammad Ilyas fired from the rooftop of his house. The occurrence was witnessed by Jehanzeb, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Ishfaque and residents of the locality. The motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over the piece of land. The accused was alleged to have committed the crime with the intention of murder. On this report, a case under Sections 334, 337, 506 and 34, APC, was registered at Police Station Baloch, under FIR No. 08/2003. Later on, the deceased Mamraiz Hussain succumbed to the injuries and section 302, APC, was added. After necessary investigation, challan was presented in the District Criminal Court, Pallandari/Sudhenuti, on 2.6.2003, against Muhammad Ilyas s/o Bahadur Khan, convict, and Muhammad Razzaq s/o Ghulab Khan, accused. The learned trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, convicted Muhammad Ilyas to life imprisonment under section 302(b) APC, alongwith the sentence of payment of Rs.
100,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. while the other accused was acquitted of the alleged charge. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C., was also extended to Muhammad Ilyas, convict-appellant through the judgment dated 25.11.2009.
Muhammad Ilyas filed an appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court against the conviction order passed by the trial Court while the legal heirs of the deceased and the complainant-filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused. Abdul Razzaq and for awarding sentence of death as Qisas to Muhammad Ilyas. The learned Division Bench of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, through the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2011, has decided the appeals in the following manner: "In view of above, the appeals stand disposed of in the terms that the impugned judgment is modified and the convict-appellant. Muhammad Ilyas is convicted under section 302(b), APC and is awarded 14 years' imprisonment. The convict appellant shall also pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., which shall be recoverable as arrears of the land revenue and if the recovery of compensation amount is not possible as land revenue, then the convict-appellant shall undergo for further 6 months' simple imprisonment. The convict shall also be extended benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
3. Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of Muhammad Ilyas, argued that the Courts below while awarding sentence to the convict-appellant have failed to consider the important aspect of the case that the complainant party was aggressor, as, in the incident the convict-appellant was also injured and two cross FIRs were registered regarding the same incident. According to the learned counsel, non-explanation of injuries received by the convict-appellant Muhammad Ilyas, by the prosecution makes the case doubtful. The prosecution has suppressed the real story and the Investigation Officer failed to present true facts. The learned counsel added that the prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and the complainant and their testimony is not reliable. The learned counsel further submitted that Muhammad Razzaq, accused respondent in the cross appeal, has been acquitted by the trial Court while extending him the benefit of doubt on the score of insufficient evidence but in the same circumstances, the convict-appellant has been awarded the harsh penalty. The learned counsel further contended that seven empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence but only three were sent for chemical examination, which makes the prosecution case doubtful. The learned counsel next submitted that there is also major contradiction in the prosecution version and statements of witnesses regarding the angle of tiring and the distance between the deceased and the convict. According to the learned counsel, as per medical report, the deceased received injury due to straight fire but as per prosecution story, the accused fired from the rooftop. Moreover, from the medical report, the distance between the deceased and the convict appears to be 7 to 15 yards whereas the site plan suggests the distance of only 3 to 4 feet. The learned counsel also called into question the recovery of rifle and license from the Convict-appellant by submitting that the alleged recoveries do, not match with each other. The learned counsel in continuation of the arguments submitted that despite major dents in the prosecution story, the enhancement of the amount of compensation from Rs. 100,000/- to heavy amount of Rs.10,00,000/- under section 544- A, Cr P.C. is not warranted by law or legally justified at any cost, rather the provisions of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. are not attracted at all in the case in hand. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the case' is one of acquittal. Even otherwise, according to the learned counsel, the convict-appellant has already served the period of imprisonment including the sentence of six. month's awarded in default of payment of compensation amount and after excluding the period of concession extended under section 382-B, Cr.P.C., he. is entitled to be set at liberty. The learned counsel referred to and relied upon the following case-law:
1. Abdul Qayyu m & others vs. The State [2019 SCR 105],
2. Rashid Hussain vs. The State & another [2018 SCR 260],
3. Nazir Ahmed vs. The State [2018 SCMR 787],
4. Muhammad Juman vs. The State & others [2018 SCMR 318],
5. Ali Bux & others vs. The State [2018 SCMR 354],
6. Muhammad Yaqoob & 4 others vs. The State & another [2009 SCR 104], and
7. Muhammad Rashid Khan vs. Muhammad Basharat & another [2007 SCR I].
4. During the course of arguments, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant and the legal heirs of the deceased to address the arguments and despite notice, the written arguments have not been filed, however, from the concise statement filed on behalf of the complainant, the points for consideration brought before the Court are that the accused-respondents are nominated in the FIR, which was promptly lodged. The convict has admitted in the counter-FIR that he fired upon the deceased with 12-bore rifle. From the statements of prosecution witnesses, the case is fully proved and their- evidence is cogent and reliable. All the witnesses are residents of the locality, who were gathered at the scene of occurrence by hearing noise and witnessed' the whole occurrence. Thus, the case is one of death sentence in Qisas. In a murder case, the normal sentence is death and while awarding lesser sentence, the Court has to assign reasons. The Courts below at one side believed the witnesses and declared that it is a broad daylight occurrence and the witnesses are natural and reliable; but on the other hand, the trial Court failed to award the legal sentence and the first appellate Court wrongly converted the sentence of life imprisonment into 14 years' sentence without any mitigating circumstance and assigning any plausible reason. In the presence of direct evidence, the benefit of doubt could not be extended in favour of the accused-respondent, Muhammad Razzaq. The accused were trespassers, who entered in the land of complainant and committed the crime. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below whereby they believed the witnesses. After believing the witnesses, the accused were liable to be awarded the maximum punishment provided for the offences. The accused, Muhammad Razzaq, provoked the convict, Ilyas, to shoot down the deceased but he has been acquitted without any legal justification. The Court below has wrongly come to the conclusion that the convict is entitled to lesser sentence on the ground of old age. A prayer has been made for acceptance of appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, for setting aside the acquittal of the other accused and to sentence him under law, while the convict-respondent Muhammad Ilyas may be awarded the sentence of death as Qisas. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as Muhammad Alam vs. The State [2008 P.Cr.L.J. 837].
5. Mr. Mazhar Waheed Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General, in his written arguments, supported the prosecution version and submitted that the accused are nominated in the FIR, which was promptly lodged and the convict-appellant and co-accused are connected with the crime.
According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, the defence has failed to point out any dent in the prosecution story and the Courts below have rightly sentenced the convict-appellant.
He further submitted that Muhammad Ilyas came on the spot with a rifle in his hand and fired upon the deceased. His intention is very much clear that he wanted to do away with the life of the deceased. The motive behind the occurrence is proved. The learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that both the Courts below are unanimous in their findings on all vital aspects of the case and the impugned judgments have been passed quite in accordance-with law. He requested for dismissal of the appeal filed by Muhammad Ilyas and acceptance of the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Additional Advocate-General, in support of his written submissions, referred to and relied upon the following legal citations:
1. Muhammad Ramzan vs. The State & another [1998 SCR 47],
2. Muhammad Rashid Khan vs. Muhammad Basharat & another [2007 SCR 1],
3. Muhammad Yaqoob vs. The State & another [2007 SCR 332] and
4. Ghazanfar Ali vs. The State & another [2015 SCR 1052]
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the convict appellant and gone through the written arguments filed by the Additional Advocate-General and perused the record made available with utmost care.
7. First of all, we would like to deal with the contention of the learned counsel for the convict- appellant, Muhammad Ilyas, that the material witnesses are related with the Complainant and the deceased and are inimical towards him, hence, their testimony is not worth believing. it may be observed that it is the' consistent practice of the Courts that in the absence of any specific allegation of grudge or in will against the witnesses, the evidence cannot be discarded mere on the ground of relationship. Despite serious and lengthy cross-examination, the defence has failed to brought on the record any major contradiction in the statements of witnesses or prove their animosity towards the convict. The ocular testimony cannot be brushed away, only on the basis of relationship, if otherwise found confidence-inspiring and trustworthy and mere relationship cannot be made basis to discard the testimony of a witness, who otherwise has no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the murder case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case reported as Qamar Shahzad & 3 others vs. The State [2010 SCR 113], wherein this Court has laid down as under:-- "14. The objection of the defence counsel that recovery witnesses are relatives - of the complainant therefore, their testimony is not reliable is against the settled principle of law. No enmity was suggested to the witnesses towards the appellants. Nor it was suggested that they have motive to falsely implicate the appellants in the case. The appellants were apprehended in another dacoity case. During investigation they revealed that they have committed the offence of 'harraba' and got recovered the stolen articles from their houses. It may be observed that testimony of related witnesses cannot be thrown away merely on the basis of relationship. Mere relationship cannot be made a ground to discard the testimony of a witness who otherwise has no motive to implicate the accused in the case. This Court in a case titled Mehtab Khan v. The State [PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 23] has held that: After studying these authorities and considering the arguments, we have come to the conclusion that:--
(a) The mere fact that the witnesses are related inter se or related to the deceased is not sufficient to discredit, outright their testimony if otherwise such witnesses are found to be witnesses of truth.
(b) But where the witnesses are found to have been interested and inimical in the sense that they have motive to implicate falsely the innocent persons 'from other party, the Court should be on guard and cautiously look for some supporting circumstances with a view to eliminating the chances of false implication especially in cases where there is a background of " blood feuds, between the parties or a chain reaction of retaliatory murders. "'
Similarly, in the case reported as Abdul Aziz vs. Muhammad Lal & 2 others [2001 SCR 402], this Court has observed as under: "10. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of the eye-witnesses. cannot be believed because they are related to the deceased is also without any substance for the simple reason that it is well-settled principle of law that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship; if the evidence of a related witness rings true, he cannot be disbelieved simply because he is related to the concerned party. Even otherwise, in the instant case, as has been indicated above, both the rival factions are closely related and there was no deep rooted enmity which could justify the inference that the eye-witnesses are partisan. Even a related and inimical witness is not to be necessarily disbelieved as being partisan; a partisan witness is one who has motive to falsely implicate an accused person in the offence of murder.
Thus, in the circumstances of the case in hand, it cannot be said that the statements of the prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon without independent corroboration."
The same view has been reiterated by the Courts while deciding the case reported as Muhammad Rashid Khan vs. Muhammad Basharat &, another [2007 SCR 1], referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased, in the concise statement. Thus, in the light of above state of affairs, from the record no inference can be drawn that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and inimical towards the accused, to falsely implicate him in the heinous crime.
8. Now adverting to the renaming points for Consideration, it may be observed that from survey of the record, the established facts are that the case in hand is one of direct evidence and broad daylight occurrence. The time and place of occurrence and the motive behind the occurrence is admitted and proved. Nothing regarding pre-meditation or pre-planning has been brought on the record. Although previous enmity between the parties is alleged, however, the quarrel started at a spur of moment and the death was not the result of pre-meditation or pre-intention. The case of the convict, Muhammad Ilyas, is that the complainant party was aggressor and he himself received injuries during the incident, which fact has not been considered by the Courts below while recording the conviction and that the deceased was injured by the firing of complainant party. The defence also disputes the number of cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence and the distance between the offender and the deceased. Although, scrutiny of evidence is not the function of this Court but for safe administration of justice, we have gone through the statements of the witnesses. Muhammad Younas, complainant, PW-1, in his statement has described and affirmed the prosecution version mentioned in the promptly filed FIR. Similarly, Muhammad Jehanzeb, PW-2, in his statement, supported the prosecution, version and clearly stated that the convict Muhammad Ilyas fired upon Mamraiz deceased, with 12-bore rifle. Muhammad Mudassar, PW-3, reiterated and supported the version of the prosecution in almost the same manner. PW-5, Kaleem Raza, has also narrated the same story, as was mentioned in the FIR. Zulfiqar Ali, PW6, deposed that on the fateful day, he was at his home. He has witnessed Muhammad Ilyas firing with a 12-bore gun and the gunshot hit the deceased, resultantly he was died.
The eye-witnesses of the occurrence have supported the prosecution version and even the defence has failed to point out any major contradiction among the statements of witnesses in the cross examination. The only objection is that the witnesses are related and interested witnesses which point has already been dealt with in the preceding paragraph. Even otherwise, the occurrence is of broad daylight and seen by the eye-witnesses, hence, it would be unnatural to falsely or wrongly implicate an innocent person as accused and to let the real culprit go away, despite murdering the complainant's son. Our this view is fortified from the case reported as Abdul Rashid & 3 others vs. Abdul Ghaffar & 5 others [2001 SCR 2401, wherein, it has been observed by this Court, asunder: An 'interested witness is one who falsely implicates an innocent person with the commission of offence with ulterior motive. Thus, a related witness would be interested to secure the punishment of the actual culprit and not falsely implicate a person in place of the real perpetrator of a crime. It may be observed that a party may rope innocent persons in a crime along with a real culprit but it is not natural that a party would leave the real culprit and instead falsely implicate innocent persons. Similarly, it has been observed by the Shariat Court that according to Dr. Muhammad Tufail, the injury, on the little finger of Muhammad Siddique, P.W., was with a blunt weapon but according to the prosecution, the same was caused by gun fire. It may be observed that according to Dr. Muhammad Tufail, the aforesaid witness was twice X-rayed, i.e., at Bhimber and Mirpur hospitals. Thereafter, a metal piece was taken out of the injury sustained by the said witness which clearly shows that Dr. Muhammad Tufail was not correct in mentioning in his medical report that injury to Muhammad Siddique, P.W. was caused with blunt weapon. It is on the record that according to Muhammad Siddique, P.W. when he was firstly referred to Dr. Tufail, C.M.O. Barnala, he did not examine him and referred -him to C.M.H., Mirpur because the doctor was related to the accused party. He has also given the precise relationship of Doctor with the accused party.
Therefore, there was hardly any justification to hold that the prosecution story was also falsified by the medical report of Dr. Tufail."
Despite lengthy cross-examination, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses remained confidence-inspiring and they are unanimous in narrating the prosecution story. In this background, the prosecution version is sufficiently proved from the statements of the prosecution witnesses through corroborative evidence. Although it is an admitted position between the parties that the complainant party on the fateful day started working over the disputed piece of land on which the altercation started, however, it is evident from the record that the disputed place is adjacent to the house of the complainant Muhammad Younas from where they tried to extract stones. The extraction of stones from shamilat deh land cannot be declared as aggression, rather it was an interference on the part of convict Muhammad Ilyas, after which the unfortunate incident happened, which claimed an innocent life. The defence has failed to bring on record any piece of evidence or to prove through cross-examination that it is the complainant party, who was aggressor.
9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the convict-appellant Muhammad Ilyas is that the convict himself received injury over his hand, after which he was unable to make firing. Moreover, the alleged injury has not been explained by the prosecution, which casts serious doubts over the prosecution story. It may be observed that the prosecution version regarding firing made by the convict-appellant has been fully supported by the prosecution witnesses in unequivocal terms, which was corroborated by the recovery of weapon of offence from the convict-appellant and other incriminating material. The opinion made by the fire-arm expert and the post-mortem report etc. During the cross-examination, suggestions were put to the complainant, Muhammad Younas, that the deceased died due to the fire made by Jehanzeb, the second son of the complainant. The presence of Jehanzeb on the place of occurrence is though admitted by the defence and he has also fortified the prosecution version already taken in the FIR, however, the defence version to this extent is itself negated by the contents of counter-FIR No. 15/2003, registered at Police Station Baloch. The prosecution witnesses in the counter-case have deposed that the complainant Muhammad Ilyas climbed to the rooftop of his house and started firing from there. The prosecution witnesses have affirmed the same stance. The convict Muhammad Ilyas during the trial, changed his versions frequently. He took the stance that the deceased was injured due to the firing of his brother Jehanzeb. He also alleged that Mamraiz died due to the injuries sustained by the firing of Kaleem Raza, PW, however, he has failed to prove the stance by leading evidence. The record depicts that the defence never bothered to produce or examine witnesses in support of its version.
It is settled principle of law that when the accused admits the fact regarding the death of the deceased, but negates the manner of occurrence as stated by the prosecution, then the onus to prove the same lies upon him. This Court in the case reported as Muhammad, Khurshid Khan vs. Muhammad Basharat & another [2007 SCR 1] has laid down as under: .... Where death of a deceased has been admitted by a person but he has claimed that the death did not take place in the manner as stated by the prosecution but it took place in some other manner, then the onus lies upon him to prove as such. This view finds support from a case reported as Munjawar v. The State [1969 SCMR 407] wherein it has been held as under: 'Thus, on the crucial point of Munjawar's belief as to whether the gun was loaded or not, there is absence of such proof as was within the power of the defence to lead. The burden of proving facts necessary to establish such a plea as that of accident is placed by the law (Section 105, Evidence Act) upon the person who raises the plea. In this case, not only has Munjawar made no attempt to discharge that burden, but he has also made it impossible for that plea to be investigated at any stage of the case, by raising it at the very last stage of the trial and declining to produce any evidence. The consequence is that there is no indication to be found anywhere in the record outside the mere statement of the accused made at the very close of the trial; of the existence of any such belief as that upon which the plea of accident is based.
The aforesaid report clearly contained that where the death of a person is admitted and it is claimed that it took place in different manner, then the onus lies upon that person who alleged that death took place in different manner."'
On the other hand, the prosecution witnesses are unanimous in their statements that the convict Muhammad Ilyas fired upon Mamraiz, who sustained fatal injury which resulted into his death. The prosecution version is supported from the statements of witnesses in the counter-case.
Comparatively, the prosecution version appears plausible, which is also corroborated by the evidence in shape of site-map, post-mortem report and the firearm expert report etc. and it becomes crystal clear that the convict is fully involved in the offence.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the convict appellant that out of seven recovered cartridges, only three were sent to the chemical examiner, is also negated from the record. From the place of occurrence, three empty cartridges of 12 bore rifle were recovered on the same day and after the arrest of the convict-appellant; a 12 bore gun alongwith one cartridge was recovered from him in the presence of recovery witnesses, who appeared in the witness's box and supported the prosecution version. The recovered cartridge empties and the rifle were sent to the firearm expert for expert opinion. The report corroborates the prosecution version. The medical report has been affirmed by the doctor, who also appeared as witness and supported the prosecution story.
No discrepancy whatsoever has been pointed out on behalf of the convict-appellant. The learned trial Court has evaluated the evidence with utmost caution and care and no error appears to have been committed in this regard. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the convict in respect of the distance between the convict and the deceased has also been dealt with by the Courts below in the light of record. The argument regarding contradiction in the distance between the convict and the deceased is not available to the convict-appellant on the ground that the post-mortem report categorically suggests that the distance has been assessed from the scattering of pellets, which may vary due to the range of the weapon. Such-like minor discrepancy is not fatal for the prosecution story, which is otherwise supported from the ocular account and other corroborative evidence.
11. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the convict-appellant, Muhammad Ilyas, that there is mark contradiction in the prosecution version that the accused was firing from the rooftop of his house and in this scenario, how could the deceased receive straight fire, as is mentioned in the medical report, is concerned, the arguments is misconceived. Mostly, in the uneven land surfaces of the rural areas in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the houses are not situated at equal altitude and a fire made from the rooftop of a house may hit a target positioned at the same level, while standing at some higher altitude. The prosecution has otherwise proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and such like minute discrepancies are of no use for the convict. After considering the whole aspects of the case, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and both the Courts below have 'declared the convict- appellant responsible for the murder of the deceased, Mamraiz. The convict-appellant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the conviction order passed by the High Court.
12. Crl. Appeal No. 11/2019, titled Liaquat Jan & another vs. Muhammad Ilyas & another has been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased, for enhancement of sentence awarded to the convict- respondent, Muhammad Ilyas, and awarding him the sentence of death as Qisas. Notwithstanding the justifiable reasoning assigned by the Courts below while awarding lesser punishment, it has been brought into the notice of this Court that during pendency ,of the appeal, the convict- appellant has served the entire period of, sentence, as is envisaged from the report issued of Superintendent District Jail Pallandari, dated 09,11.2019, wherein it is mentioned that out of total 14 years of sentence, the convict-appellant has served 13 years, 7 months and 22 days' imprisonment, after excluding certain pardons/remissions. The convict is on bail under the order of this Court dated 17.6.2020. As 'he has already served the imprisonment awarded by the High Court during pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the deceased for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the convict-respondent has become infructuous and no further deliberations are required.
13. Muhammad Razzaq, accused-respondent in Crl. Appeal No. 11/2019 was acquitted of the charge by the trial Court. The learned Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal. The acquittal order concurrently passed by the Courts below in favour of the accused-respondent itself carries double presumption of innocence of the accused. This Court on appeal can only interfere with the acquittal orders passed by the Courts below, if the interpretation of law or the Constitution is involved or any miscarriage of justice is pointed out, which is missing in the instant case. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the case reported as Muhammad Ashfaq vs. Muhammad Ashiq & 5 others [2005 SCR 341], wherein, it was observed as under: "7. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings acquitting the accused respondents which raise double presumption of innocence in their favour. The learned Advocate for the appellant was not able to point out any illegality committed by the Courts below. The Supreme Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, can interfere only when interpretation of law or the Constitution is involved or when the miscarriage of justice done by any Court or where illegal or irregular practice is done or adopted."
The result of the above discussion is that finding no force in Cri. Appeal No. 11/2019, the same stands dismissed on merits to the extent of accused-respondent and having become infructuous to the extent of convict respondent, Muhammad Ilyas. Crl. Appeal No. 54/2019, filed by the convict- appellant, Muhammad Ilyas, also stands dismissed for the above-recorded reasons.