Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J:- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.64474 of 2022, filed by Haq Nawaz (appellant) against his conviction and sentence and Murder Reference No.248 of 2022, sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the Death sentence of Haq Nawaz (appellant). We propose to dispose of both these matters by this single judgment as these have arisen out of the same judgment dated 31.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhowana.
2. Haq Nawaz (appellant) was tried in case F.I.R. No.768/2020 dated 24.11.2020, registered at Police Station Bhowana in respect of offence under section 302 PPC. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.08.2022, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Under section 302(b) PPC to 'Death' for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Amanat Ali (deceased). He was also ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two hundred thousand only) as compensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C to the legal heirs of the deceased other than appellant/father recoverable as arears of land revenue and in default thereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by Malak Khan complainant (PW-6) in his Fard Bayan (Ex.PH), on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PG) was chalked out, are that the complainant was a cultivator by profession. On the intervening night of 23/24-11-2020, the complainant along with Muhammad Arif (PW since given-up), Mola Bakhsh (PW 7), was irrigating the land through tube-well. In the last part of night the complainant party felt cold, whereupon the complainant along with Mola Bakhsh (PW-7), started to collect woods, whereas Muhammad Arif (PW since given-up), was sent to the nearby house of Haq Nawaz (appellant), for bringing a match box. As soon as, Muhammad Arif (PW since given-up) reached at the house of Haq Nawaz (appellant), he heard hue and cry. The complainant and Mola Bakhsh (PW-7), along with their torches also reached at the spot. In the torch lights, the complainant party saw inside the room that Haq Nawaz (appellant) while armed with hatchet was inflicting hatchet blows on the nephew (Bhanja) of the complainant namely Amanat Ali deceased, who was sleeping at that time. In their view, Haq Nawaz (appellant), inflicted several hatchet blows on the right side of neck of Amanat Ali deceased. Haq Nawaz (appellant), while threatening the complainant party with his hatchet, fled away from the place of occurrence.
The complainant party attended Amanat Ali deceased but he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. They (PWs) raised hue and cry upon which many people attracted there.
The motive behind the occurrence was that Amanat Ali deceased was nephew (Bhanja) of the complainant. Earlier Haq Nawaz (appellant), committed murder of his wife who was sister of the complainant and who was also mother of Amanat Ali deceased. Haq Nawaz (appellant), had therefore, restrained Amanat Ali deceased from visiting the house of the complainant. On 23.11.2020, there was a Mahfel-e-Milad at the house of the complainant and Amanat Ali deceased also participated in the said Milad due to which Haq Nawaz (appellant), was annoyed with Amanat Ali deceased. Haq Nawaz appellant while nourishing this grudge committed the murder of his own son Amanat Ali deceased.
4. Haq Nawaz (appellant) was arrested in this case on 17.12.2020 by Rashid Hassan SI (PW-9). On 25.12.2020, the appellant disclosed and then led to the recovery of hatchet (P-3), which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer through recovery memo (Ex.PE). After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced nine witnesses during the trial. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of (Exh.PA) to (Exh.PS).
6. The statement of Haq Nawaz (appellant) under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. He refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. The appellant did not opt to make statement on oath as envisaged under Section 340 (2) Of Cr.P.C, however, documentary evidence in the shape of Ex.DA & Ex.DB, was produced in his defence.
The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.08.2022, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant being in-league with the local police; that the occurrence was unseen, which took place during the darkness of night; that the prosecution witnesses are chance witnesses because they could not establish any valid reason of their presence inside the house of the appellant at the odd hours of night; that there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution regarding number of injuries sustained by the deceased; that the recovery of hatchet at the pointing out of the appellant and the positive report of PFSA (Ex.PS), are of no avail to the prosecution because the occurrence in this case took place on the intervening night of 23/24.11.2020, whereas the hatchet has allegedly been recovered from the possession of the appellant on 25.12.2020 i.e., after a period of more than one month from the occurrence and the blood disintegrates in the meanwhile; that even the motive alleged by the prosecution could not be proved in this case because the complainant has himself admitted that children of the appellant used to come to the house of the complainant off and on as the parties effected a compromise about 4/5 years prior to the occurrence; that the impugned judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the prosecution 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 (appellant) may be acquitted from the charge.
8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt, therefore, he was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court; that both the prosecution eye witnesses have plausibly explained the reason of their presence at the spot at the relevant time; that the evidence of the prosecution eye witnesses could not be shaken despite lengthy cross-examination; that ocular account of the prosecution has fully been supported by the medical evidence and the minor variations between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution regarding number of injuries sustained by the deceased is ignorable; that the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the appellant, therefore, burden shifted upon the appellant to explain that under what circumstances, the deceased had died and as he (appellant) failed to explain the abovementioned situation, therefore, he was rightly found guilty by the learned trial Court; that the motive as alleged by the prosecution has also been proved in this case through reliable and confidence inspiring evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that the prosecution case against the appellant is further corroborated by the recovery of hatchet (P-3), on the pointing out of the appellant and the positive report of PFSA (Ex.PS); that the appellant has committed a brutal and reckless murder of his own son, therefore, the sentence of death was rightly awarded to him, hence, the same may be upheld and maintained, appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and Murder Reference be answered in the affirmative.
9. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State and have also gone through the evidence available on the record with their able assistance.
10. We have noted that no specific time of occurrence has been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.PG), however, it was stated therein that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 23/24.11.2020. However, Malak Khan complainant while appearing in the witness box as (PW-6), stated during his cross-examination that the occurrence took place at about 3.00/3.30 a.m.
Relevant part of his statement made in this respect reads as under:- "...............Occurrence took place 03.00/03.30........"
FIR in this case was lodged on 24.11.2020 at 10.05 a.m, whereas the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence was 7 1/2 miles, therefore, it is evident that the FIR has been lodged with the delay of about 6 1/2 to 7 hours from the occurrence. Even postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted on 24.11.2020 at 2.00 p.m, which means that there is delay of 101/2/11 hours in conducting postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. The abovementioned delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased is suggestive of the fact that the occurrence was unseen and the said delays were consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye witnesses.
Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgments reported as 'Muhammad Ilyas Vs Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others' (2017 SCMR 54) and "Khalid alias Khalidi and two others vs. The State" (2012 SCMR 327).
11. The ocular account of the prosecution has been brought on the record through the evidence of Malak Khan complainant (PW-6) and Mola Bakhsh (PW-7). The allegation against the appellant is that he committed the murder of his own son namely Amanat Ali. The occurrence in this case took place inside the house of the appellant. In order to justify their presence inside the house of the appellant at midnight, the abovementioned eye-witnesses stated that on the night of occurrence they were busy in irrigating their land from the tube well situated in Chak no.196/J.B and they sent Arif (PW since given-up) to the house of Haq Nawaz (appellant) to take a match box so that they may set on fire the woods, which they collected at their land in order to save them from the cold and when the abovementioned Arif (PW since given-up) reached near the house of the appellant, he heard hue and cry coming from inside the said house, whereupon both the above-mentioned witnesses also attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Admittedly both the eye- witnesses namely Malak Khan complainant (PW-6) and Mola Bakhsh (PW-7), are not residents of the house, where the occurrence took place. We have further noted that in the site plan (Ex.PF/1), the land of the complainant or Mola Bakhsh (PW-7), has not been shown. We have also noted that Malak Khan complainant (PW-6), admitted during his cross-examination that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 11/2 kilometer from his land. Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "..................place of occurrence is at a distance of 1 1/2 km from our land......................"
As mentioned earlier, in order to justify their presence in the house of the appellant during the odd hours of night, the abovementioned eye-witnesses stated that they sent Arif (PW since given-up) to bring a match box from the house of the appellant and under the circumstances, it was Arif (PW since given-up), who was the best witness to prove the abovementioned reason of presence of the eye witnesses at the spot at the relevant time but the said witness has been given-up by the prosecution being un-necessary. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution eye-witnesses could not establish their presence at the spot at the relevant time through any cogent evidence, therefore, they are chance witnesses and as such their evidence is not free from doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mst. Sughra Begunt and another Vs. Qaiser Pervez and others" (2015 SCMR 1142) at Para No.14, observed regarding the chance witnesses as under:- "14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily, is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot.
True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt."
Similar view was taken in the case of "Muhammad Irshad Vs. Allah Ditta and others" (2017 SCMR 142). Relevant part of the said judgment at Para No.2 reads as under:- "..................Muhammad Irshad complainant (PW8) and Rab Nawaz (PW9) were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence............"
As the above-mentioned prosecution eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and they could not prove the reason of their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence, therefore, their very presence at the spot at the relevant time becomes doubtful.
12. We have further noted that apart from Amanat Ali (deceased), there were two other children of the appellant, who were also sleeping in the house, where the occurrence took place at the relevant time and this fact was duly brought on the record during cross-examination of Malak Khan complainant (PW-6). His statements in this respect is reproduced as under:- "Amanat deceased had one younger brother Riasat Ali aged about 08/09 years and younger sister Fozia Bibi aged about 10/12 years. Both the above said children were born prior to the murder of my sister. Probably, both the children are aged about more than 12 years. Deceased along with his brother and sister were residing with accused Haq Nawaz............................................................Sister and brother of deceased were also sleeping adjacent to that room. They also woke up after hearing the noise about the murder of deceased. I did not mention their names as they were not witnesses. I.O inquired verbally from the sister and brother of deceased about the occurrence after his arrival......... ....................................................................................."
Under the circumstances, younger sister and brother of Amanat Ali (deceased), who were present in the adjacent room to the room of occurrence, were the most natural witnesses of the occurrence but they were not produced in the witness-box. The best evidence has been withheld by the prosecution therefore, an adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129(g) of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 can validly be drawn against the prosecution that had the abovementioned witnesses been produced in the witness box then their evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the case reported as "Lal Khan Vs. The State" (2006 SCMR 1846). Relevant para No.7 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- Para No.7 "There is no plausible explanation on the record that for what reason Mst. Noor Bibi did not disclose the story of murder of deceased till the registration of case after five days of the occurrence and why no other inmate of the house was examined in confirmation of her statement. The prosecution is certainly not required to produce a number of witnesses as the quality and not the quantity of the evidence is the rule but non-production of most natural and material witnesses of occurrence, would strongly lead to an inference of prosecutional misconduct which would not only be considered a source of undue advantage for prosecution but also an act of suppression of material facts causing prejudice to the accused. The act of withholding of most natural and a material witness of the occurrence would create an impression that the witness if would have been brought into witness-box, he might not have supported the prosecution and in such eventuality the prosecution must not be in a position to avoid the consequence."
(Bold and underlining is supplied for emphasis)
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgments reported as "Muhammad Rafique and others Vs. The State and others" (2010 SCMR 385), 'Pathan Vs The State' (2015 SCMR 315) and "Riaz Ahmed Vs. The State" (2010 SCMR 846).
13. It is further noteworthy that conduct of the abovementioned prosecution eye-witnesses was highly unnatural. The complainant party was comprising of three adult male members namely Malak Khan complainant (PW-6), Mola Bakhsh (PW-7) and Arif (PW since given-up), whereas Haq Nawaz (appellant), was alone at the spot at the time of occurrence. The site plan (Ex.PF/1), shows that there was only one door of the room, where the occurrence took place and the prosecution eye-witnesses were standing at point Nos.3 & 4, of the said room, which points were at the door of the abovementioned room. Statedly Haq Nawaz (appellant), was armed with a hatchet and he was not equipped with any formidable firearm weapon. Had the abovementioned eye-witnesses been present at the spot at the time of occurrence as claimed by them then they could have apprehend the appellant at the spot. Their conduct is un-natural thus their evidence is un- trustworthy. We may refer here the case of "Pathan v. The State" (2015 SCMR 315), wherein at Para No.5, of the judgment, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to observe as under:- "The presence of witnesses on the crime spot due to their unnatural conduct has become highly doubtful, therefore, no explicit reliance can be placed on their testimony. They had only given photogenic/photographic narration of the occurrence but did nothing nor took a single step to rescue the deceased. The causing of that much of stab wounds on the deceased loudly speaks that if these three witnesses were present on the spot, being close blood relatives including the son, they would have definitely intervened, preventing the accused from causing further damage to the deceased rather strong presumption operates that the deceased was done to death in a merciless manner by the culprit when he was at the mercy of the latter and no one was there for his rescue.............."
Similar view was reiterated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of "Zafar v. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 326) and "Liapuat Ali Vs. The State" (2008 SCMR 95).
14. We have also noted that there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution. In the contents of the FIR (Ex.PG), the complainant categorically alleged that the appellant inflicted number of hatchet blows on the neck of Amanat Ali (deceased). Relevant part of the FIR is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- (Bold and underlining is supplied for emphasis)
Malak Khan complainant (PW-6) and Mola Bakhsh (PW-7), while appearing in the witness box used the words hatchet 'blows', which the appellant inflicted on the neck of the deceased. Relevant parts of their statements in this respect read as under:- Malak Khan complainant (PW-6)
".................When I and PW Mola Bakhsh reached inside the house of accused Haq Nawaz we and PW Arif witnessed that accused Haq Nawaz was armed with hatchet who caused hatchet blows on my Bhanja Amanat Ali who was sleeping in said room. Above said Amanat Ali was the real son of accused Haq Nawaz. In our view, accused Haq Nawaz caused hatchet blows on the right side of the neck of Amanat Ali"
Mola Bakhsh (PW-7)
".......................When I and complainant Malak Khan reached inside the house of accused Haq Nawaz, we and PW Arif witnessed that accused Haq Nawaz was armed with hatchet who caused hatchet blows on Amanat Ali who was sleeping in said room. Above said Amanat Ali was the real son of accused Haq Nawaz. In our view, accused Haq Nawaz caused hatchet blows on the right side of the neck of Amanat Ali"
(Bold and underlining is supplied for emphasis)
On the other hand, according to the medical evidence, there was only one injury on the body
(neck) of the deceased. Dr. Fakhar Abbas (PW 1), during his examination-in-chief, as well as, cross- examination stated regarding the abovementioned fact in the following terms:- "..........................There was single injury on the neck of the deceased, which was caused by sharp edged weapon................"
Under the circumstances, there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution, which has created further doubt about the presence of above-mentioned eye- witnesses at the spot, at the time of occurrence.
15. Although it is argued by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the appellant and he could not explain the circumstance under which the deceased had died and the said circumstance has further corroborated the prosecution case against the appellant but it is by now well settled that mere recovery of dead-body from the house of an accused by itself is not sufficient to convict and sentence him under the capital charge in absence of other convincing and reliable corroborative evidence. Reference in this context may be made to the cases reported as "Nasrullah alias Nasro Vs. The State" (2017 SCMR 724), "Asad Khan Vs. The State" (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 681), "Muhammad Jamshaid and another Vs. The State and others" (2016 SCMR 1019) and "Nazir Ahmad Vs. The State" (2018 SCMR 787).
16. Insofar as the motive of the prosecution case is concerned, we have noted that Malak Khan complainant (PW-6), alleged the motive of this case in the following terms:- "Motive behind the occurrence is that accused Haq Nawaz is my brother in law, who previously committed murder of my sister Kauser Bibi in the year 2008. After that accused Haq Nawaz acquitted by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore and after that he demanded the custody of children and took the custody of his children from us including the custody of Amanat Ali deceased. Accused Haq Nawaz used to refrain Amanat Ali etc from visiting our house but my Bhanja Amanat Ali did not stop visiting my house and used to visit my house due to our relationship. On 23.11.2020, there was Mahfel-e Milad at my home and Amant Ali visited and participated in said Mahfil at my home due to which accused Haq Nawaz developed sever grudge against Amanat Ali. Consequently due to said grudge accused Haq Nawaz committed the murder of Amanat Ali.............................................. "
However, during cross-examination Malak Khan complainant (PW 6), admitted that he was on speaking terms with the appellant because 4/5 years ago, he effected a compromise with the appellant and the children of the appellant used to visit his house. Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "I had specking terms with accused Haq Nawaz because respectable of the area had arranged our compromise about 04/05 years ago. I as well as children used to visit houses of eachother....................."
Malak Khan complainant (PW-6), further stated during his cross examination that Amanat Ali (deceased) along with his brother and sister participated in the above-mentioned Mahfil-e-Milad.
Relevant part of his statement in this respect is reproduced hereunder:- "...............................It is correct that I arrange Mahfil-e Milad at my house on 23.11.2020. It is correct that deceased Amanat along with his brother and sister visited said Mehfil on that date................."
The other brother and sister of the deceased, who also participated in the Mehfil-e-milad in the house of the appellant, were sleeping in the adjacent room but they were not even touched by the appellant due to the abovementioned reason.
It is further noteworthy that the complainant has himself stated that on the night of occurrence he sent Arif (PW since given-up) to the house of Haq Nawaz (appellant) to bring a match box, which shows that there was no grudge between the parties as stated by the complainant. Admittedly the children of the appellant used to visit the house of the complainant because a compromise was effected between the parties about 4/5 years earlier to the occurrence, therefore, there was no motive with the appellant to commit the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, we have come to this conclusion that the stated motive of the prosecution has not been proved in this case.
17. Insofar as the recovery of blood stained 'hatchet' (P-3), on the pointing out by Haq Nawaz appellant is concerned, it is noteworthy that the occurrence in this case took place on the intervening night of 23/24.11.2020, whereas, 'hatchet' (P-3) was recovered on pointing out of the appellant from the house of his maternal aunt on 25.12.2020 i.e., after more than one month from the occurrence and during the abovementioned period, Haq Nawaz appellant had ample opportunity to wash away the blood on 'hatchet (P-3). In the light of above, recovery of blood stained 'hatchet' (P-3) on the pointing out of Haq Nawaz appellant is not free from doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Basharat and another Vs The State' (1995 SCMR 1735) disbelieved the evidence of blood-stained dagger which was allegedly recovered from the accused from his house after ten days from the occurrence. Relevant part of the said judgment at page No. 1739 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "11. The occurrence took place on 20.04.1988. Basharat appellant was arrested on 28.04.1988. The blood-stained Chhuri was allegedly recovered from his house on 30.04.1988. It is not believable that he would have kept blood stained chhuri intact in his house for ten days when he had sufficient time and opportunity to wash away and clean the blood on it"
It is also noteworthy that the blood stained 'hatchet' (P-3) was sent to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore on 29.12.2020 i.e., after one month and five days from the occurrence, therefore, it was unlikely that the blood on 'hatchet' (P-3) would not disintegrate during the above mentioned period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Muhammad Jamil Vs. Muhammad Akram and others" (2009 SCMR 120) has observed that recovery of blood stained hatchet was affected after about one month from the occurrence, therefore, it was not likely that the blood would not disintegrate in the meanwhile, thus, the alleged recovery of hatchet from the accused was disbelieved. We are, therefore, of the view that the evidence of alleged recovery of 'hatchet' (P-3) from Haq Nawaz (appellant) and positive report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PS), are of no avail to the prosecution.
18. 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 Haq Nawaz (appellant) beyond the shadow of doubt. It is by now well settled that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution 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 doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In the case of 'Tariq Pervez Vs. 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 Vs. 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 matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
19. 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.64474 of 2022 filed by Haq Nawaz (appellant), set aside his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 31.08.2022 and acquit him of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in custody, he be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Murder Reference No.248 of 2022 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death of Haq Nawaz (convict) is NOT CONFIRMED.