MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN, J.--Muhammad Umar, Gul Rajim sons of Ali Baz, Ashiq Mir son of Mehr Dil Khan, Shahzada son of Zallah Khan and Samandar Khan son of Guldat were tried under section 148/452/307/302 read with :3ection 149, P.P.C. In the Court of Mr. Ziauddin Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu at Lakki on the charge that they along with their co-absconding accused Ilam Khan, Zard Ali and Daryob Khan on 24-7-1980 at 20-55 hours formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and committed rioting and in furtherance of the common object of the said unlawful assembly trespassed into the house of Ayaz Khan deceased and committed the murders of Avaz Khan deceased and his daughter Mst. Bakhtmir Jana and also attempted at the lives of Rabani Khan and Nabi Khan (P.Ws.) by effectively firing at them and per his judgment, dated 7-9- 1985 convicted all the five accused under the aforesaid sections of law and sentenced each of the accused to imprisonment for life on two counts under section 302/149, P.P.C., four years' R.I. On two counts under section 307/149, P.P.C. And two years' R.I. Each under section 452/149, P.P.C. And one year's R.I. Each under section 148, P.P.C. All the accused were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each payable to the victim as well as legal heirs of the two deceased in equal shares by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment of fine to undergo two years' R.I. Each. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentenced all the accused have come in appeal to this Court and Rabani Khan son of Ayaz Khan deceased has also preferred a criminal revision petition (16 of 1985) for the enhancement of the sentences awarded to the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Since both the appeal and the criminal revision are the outcome of the same transaction we would like to dispose them of through this judgment.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-7-1980 at 8-55 p.m. Ayaz Khan deceased in injured condition lodged a report in Police Station Domel to the effect that about five minutes before evening prayers time he along with his son Rabani Khan, his daughter Bakhtmir Jana and his nephew Nabi Khan was present in his house when in the meantime Madmarai (Muhammad Umar accused-appellant), Razimi (Gul Rajeem accused-appellant) sons of Ali Baz Khan armed with D.B.
Shotguns, Shahzad Khan son of Zallah Khan armed with S.B. Shotgun, Samandar Khan son of Guldat Khan armed with D.B. Shotgun, Ashiq Khan son of Mir Dil armed with D.B. Shotgun, Daryob Khan and Aleem Khan sons of Ilmai Khan armed with D.B. Shotgun, and Zard Ali Khan son of Aleem Khan armed with S.B. Shotgun, trespassed into his house and simultaneously started firing at them all as a result of which they sustained fire-arm injuries whereafter all the accused decamped towards their house. The occurrence was reported to have been witnessed by his wife Mst. Nazira, his son Taj Alam and his nephew Zangi Khan. The motive for the offence was that about: 20/25 days prior to the occurrence Ayaz Khan the maker of the F.I.R. Had some dispute over land with the accused party. This report was recorded by way of F.I.R. Ex.P.A. And was thumb --impressed by Rabani Khan, Nabi Khan and Mst. Bakhtmir Jana as reddens.
3. Since victims were all injured Maqbool Rehman, S.H.O. Domel after recording the F.I.R. And preparing their injury sheets referred them to the District Headquarters Hospital for medical examination and treatment. The I.O., therefore, proceeded to the spot and searched for the accused who were, however, not available. As it was night time the spot was guarded and on the following day the I.O. Again visited the spot and prepared the site plan EX.P.G. At the instance of the P.Ws. From the spot he took into possession blood-stained earth and packed it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Ex.P.D./I. He also took into possession 12 pellets P.6 and 75 cardboards of .12 bore P.7 and sealed the same into a parcel vide memo. Ex.P.B. Gul Rajeem accused-appellant was formally arrested on 24-7-1980 and since the remaining accused had absconded he applied to the Illaqa Magistrate for proceeding against them under section 87, Cr.P.C.
4. Doctor Muhammad Aslam Khan (P.W.5) had examined Ayaz Khan on 24-7-1980 at 10-30 p.m.
And found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) fire-arm inlet wound on the left scapula size 1/4" x 1/4".
(2) Fire-arm inlet wound 1/4" on the left upper arm 5" above the left elbow joint.
(3) Fire-arm outlet wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the left upper arm 2" below the left exilla medial side.
(4) Fire-arm inlet wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the right shoulder 2" above the right exilla.
(5) Fire-arm inlet wound on the lower arm 3" above the wrist joint in front.
The injuries in the opinion of the doctor were caused within a duration of 2 to 4 hours and were kept under observation. Deceased Ayaz Khan, however, did not survive the injuries and on 9-8-1980 he succumbed to the' same and the same doctor performed post-mortem examination on his dead body and on external examination he confirmed the injuries found on the person of Ayaz Khan deceased referred to above with bad sore 4" x 4" on the lumber spine and back of chest. On internal examination stomach, small and large intestine were found distendered. Kidney was friable. Left humerous bone was found fractured. Death in the opinion of the doctor had occurred due to general debility, bad sore and fara-plegi leading to secondary complications and urinary tract infection and constipation. Time between the injuries and death was 10 to 30 days.
5. The same doctor had also examined Nabi Khan P.W. On 24-7-1980 at 10- 30 p.m. And had found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the neck 4" above the left shoulder.
(2) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the left hipocondrium pellet was lying under the skill.
(3) Multiple small size wound 1/8" x 1/8" on the left side on chest within the radius of 4".
Duration of the injuries in the opinion of the doctor was 2 to 4 hours. He was admitted in the hospital on 24-7-1980 and discharged as cured on 28- 7- 1980. The nature of the injuries was declared simple and weapons used was fire-arm.
6. The same doctor had also examined Rabani Khan (P.W.10) on 24- 7- 1980 at 10- 30 p.m. And had found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) Fire-arm inlet wound 1/4" x 1/2" on the right hipocondrium over the 10th and 11th ribs in line of right axilla.
(2) A pellet is lying under the skin on the left traneal angle relating to wound No. 1.
(3) Fire-arm inlet wound 1/4" x 1/4" on the right lower arm back 3" below the elbow joint.
The injuries were caused with fire-arm within a duration of 2 to 4 hours. He was admitted in the hospital on 24-7-1980. The injuries were declared as simple.
7. Lady Doctor Farakh Gul examined Mst. Bakhtmir Jana on 24-7-1980 at 10-30 p.m. And found the following injuries on her person:-
(1) Fire-arm entrance wound 1/2" x 1/2" on right side back 2" above the alias crest.
(2) Fire-arm entrance wound 1/4" x 1/4" on back right side at the level of iliac crest.
(3) Fire-arm entrance wound 1/4" x 1/4" on right buttock.
(4) Two exit wound 1/4" x 1/4" on either side of umblicus.
(5) One pellet was found under the skin of abdomen on left lever portion.
The injuries had been caused in the opinion of the lady doctor within a duration of 2 to 6 hours arid the weapon used was fire-arm. She was kept under observation and ultimately she succumbed to the injuries on 22- 8- 1980 and at 5- 15 p.m. The same Lady Doctor performed post-morten examination on her dead body and on external examination confirmed the injuries already observed by her which have been reproduced above and on internal examination abdominal walls, peritonium and small intestine were found inflammed and infected. Large intestines were badly infected and inflammed.
8. On the death of Ayaz Khan and Mst. Bakhtmir Jana the section of law was changed from 307 to 302, P.P.C. Smandar Khan, Ashiq Mir, Muhammad Umar and Shahzad Khan accused-appellants surrendered to the local police on 20- 12-1980. They were formally arrested and a complete challan was put in the Court of learned Sessions Judge against the five accused-appellants while Daryob Khan, Aleem Khan and Radai Khan are still at large.
9. In order to establish its case the prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses at the trial. The accused when examined claimed innocence and false implication. The learned trial Judge, however, believed the prosecution story and record the verdict of conviction against all the accused/appellants and accordingly sentenced them as referred to above. Hence the instant criminal appeal.
10. We have heard tire arguments of Mr. Zahoor-ul-Haq Khan, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Haji Saadullah Khan Miankhel, Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the State respondent.
Arguments of Pir Feroze Shah, Advocate were also heard on behalf of the complainant in the connected criminal revision petition.
11. Before we proceed to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel we would like to elaborate that the five accused-appellants had earlier been tried by Mr. Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, Sessions Judge, Bannu who per his judgment, dated 12-4-1983 did not believe the prosecution case and extending the benefit of doubt to all the accused--appellants acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. Dissatisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, State came in appeal to this Court under section 417, Cr.P.C. Which came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 7-4-1985 and the learned Division Bench of this Court accepted the appeal filed by the State and remanded the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lakki with the direction to afford an opportunity to the accused-appellants to explain all the pieces of evidence relied, upon by the prosecution in particular the F.I.R.-cum--- dying declaration lodged by Ayaz Khan deceased. It was also observed that since no question for forming unlawful assembly and committing rioting had been put to the accused, the same should be also put them and an explanation sought for. Thirdly it was observed that Gul Rajeem (accused-appellant) who had lodged an F.I.R. Should also be questioned about this fact.
Accordingly the case was again opened by the Additional Sessions Judge and all the accused- appellants were given the opportunity to explain the lacunas left in the earlier trial and on reappraisal of the evidence the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lakki through his impugned judgment recorded verdict of conviction which obliged the five accused-appellants to come in appeal to this Court.
12. In order to bring home guilt to the accused-appellants the prosecution had relied upon the F.I.R.-cum-dying declaration of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased, the ocular evidence of Nabi Khan (P.W.9) and Rabani Khan (P.W.10) who sustained injuries in the transaction and the ocular evidence of Mst. Nazira (P.W.I1). Nabi Khan (P.W.9) is the nephew of Ayaz Khan deceased. P.W.
Rabani Khan is his son and Mst. Nazira is the widow of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased. They are thus very closely related to Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased and naturally to Mst. Bakhtmir Jana deceased who was the daughter of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased. It is well-settled principle that where the prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of the close relations of the deceased their evidence requires deep scrutiny and corroboration. From the outer quarters, mindful of the fact that eight persons are charged all from the same family of the accused party.
No doubt Nabi Khan and Rabani Khan received fire-arm injuries in the transaction and the natural presumption is that they were present at the crucial time but the question for determination before this Court is whether their statements ring true. In Zaab Din and another appellants v. The State respondent PLD 1986 Pesh. 188 it was held that:- "Prosecution case mainly resting on testimony of prosecution witnesses who sustained injuries during incidence--Stamp of injuries on their persons although establishing their presence at spot yet would not per se tantamount to a stamp of credence on their testimony--"
Similarly in Said Ahmad petitioner v. Zamurd Hussain and 4 others respondents 1981 SCMR 795 it was observed that the fact of eye-witness being injured and injury being not self-suffered not by itself indicative of witness having told the truth. Yet in another case Ghulam Sarwar appellant v. The State respondent PLD 1983 Pesh. 152 it was observed that witness bearing injuries on his person by itself does not indicate that he has stated the truth. In the light of these guidelines we would see whether the prosecution witnesses have stated the truth and have given the true version of the incident without any exaggeration.
13. In this case as already observed the First Information Report was lodged by Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased who was then in full senses. To rely upon a dying declaration the Court has to carefully scrutinize all the physical circumstances as they appear from the evidence to reach a conclusion with a degree of certainty that the account given by the deceased of the manner in which he met his death is worthy of belief and credence. Some of the main tests for determining the genuineness of a dying declaration are whether the maker had the physical capacity to make a dying declaration, whether the maker had an opportunity to recognize his assailant(s), whether there were chances of mistake on the part of the dying man in identifying and naming his assailant(s), whether it was free from prompting from outside quarter, whether the witnesses who heard the deceased making the statement and heard him correctly and whether their evidence can be relied upon. It is in evidence that Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased remained alive and succumbed to the injuries on 9-8-1980 i.e. About 16 days after the receipt of the injuries but during all this interval no supplementary statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Or under section 164, Cr.P.C.
Was recorded by the Investigation Officer. It is only the First Information Report which is introduced by the prosecution as the dying declaration of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased. No doubt if dying declaration meets the required tests is by itself a strong piece of evidence to record conviction but it is consistent view of the superior Courts in such matters that a First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used for contradicting or corroborating the maker thereof although it lays the foundation for the prosecution case. The statement of Muhammad Ayaz Khan can well be called a statement before police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Which again is not substantive evidence and conviction cannot be based on it. A statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Can never be used by the prosecution for corroborating or for explaining any part of that witness's evidence in Court. Such statement is made available to the defence only for the purpose of contradicting the witness and contesting the veracity of that witness and never for any other purposes. Moreover,s the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased which is being treated as a dying declaration had been thumb---impressed by Mst. Bakhtmir Jana deceased, Rabani Khan and Nabi Khan P.Ws. Who were witnesses of the occurrence and who had sustained fire--arm injuries in the transaction. Dealing with a question of dying declaration the august Supreme Court in Hakim Ali and 4 others appellants v. The State and another respondents reported as 1971 SCMR 432 had observed that if dying declaration was recorded in the presence of the other prosecution witnesses then its reliability would be seriously suspected. It cannot be doubted that Muhammad Ayaz Khan while lodging the report was in full senses and had the physical capacity to make the dying statement but we have to seek its corroboration from the other evidence whether the deceased had a capacity of identifying the assailants. In this context we would refer to the statements of Rabani Khan and Nabi Khan who sustained injuries in the transaction and who have a stamp of presence at the spot at the relevant time. It is to be noted here that Mst. Bakhtmir Jana who had also received fire-arm injuries in the transaction and who also survived the injuries for about 28 days whereafter she died and had not been examined by the I.O. And no statement whatsoever is coming forth on the record with regard to this lady. It is also very strange that the I.O.
Did not care to record the statements of Nabi Khan and Rabani Khan under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Thereby depriving the defence to use it for the purposes of contradiction which is the main object of recording of such statements. Nabi Khan (P.W.) has admitted in the statement that there was a fence of reeds constructed adjacent to the house of Daryob Khan accused which was serving as `Parda' wall which was more than man's height on the other hand Rabani Khan (P.W.) categorically denied the existence of any such fence and went on to say that it had been constructed after the occurrence. The 1.0. In his statement has stated that there was a hole in one of the rooms of the house of Daryob Khan absconding accused towards the house of the complainant party and where some of the accused were Stated to have taken position. Mst. Nazira (P.W.) who also claimed herself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence, in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has stated before the I.O. That all the accused had fired at the two deceased and the injured P.Ws. From the door of the house of Daryob Khan accused, while in her statement at the trial she stated that all the accused came to the courtyard of their house and were standing a little away from the middle of the courtyard when they fired at the deceased party. It is consistently claimed by the two injured P.Ws. Mst. Bakhtmir Jana deceased and even by Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased in his report- cum-dying declaration that all the accused had entered into their house aid fired at them. It is the prosecution case that the occurrence took place about five minutes prior to the evening prayers times and it being the holy month of `Ramazan' all the victims who were keeping fast were awaiting the `Azan' when all the five accused-appellants along with their co-absconding accused entered the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ayaz Khart deceased and those who were armed with D.B. Shotguns fired two shots each and those armed with S.B. Shotguns fired one shot each at the deceased party whereafter they decamped from the spot. A glance over the site plan coupled with the statements of the injured P.Ws. And the Investigation Officer would indicate that Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased, Rabani Khan and Nabi Khan the injured P.Ws., Mst. Bakhtmir Jana deceased, Zangi Khan, Taj Alam and Mst. Nazira P.Ws. Were at points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively while Daryob, Zard Ali and Haleem Khan absconding accused and Ashiq Mir, Samandar Khan, Muhammad Umar, Shahzada and Gul Rajeem accused-appellants were at points 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 respectively. Points 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, the alleged place of the respective accused, from where they allegedly fired at the deceased party are not located in the courtyard of the house of the deceased. Thus, the statements of the dying man and the injured P.Ws. That the five accused-appellants and the absconding accused had entered their house from where they were fired at is not supported by the site plan prepared at the instance of the prosecution witnesses and that is why although in the first instance the accused were charged under section 342, P.P.C. As well but the same section of law had been deleted by the I.O. As per his admission in the trial Court because the investigation revealed that the accused had not trespassed into the house of the deceased party. Now it is to be seen whether the deceased or for that matter the injured P.Ws. Or the eye-witnesses of the occurrence were in a position to identify the assailants from the places from where they are alleged to have fired at the deceased party as indicated in the site plan. The various points on which the various accused have been shown to be present at the time of firing are spotted on the thoroughfare near the house of Daryob absconding accused. The I.O. Admitted the presence of an oven in the house of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased intervening between points 13, 14 and 15 from where Muhammad Umar, Shahzada and Gul Rajeem accused are alleged to have fired at the deceased party. The height of this oven according to the I.O. Was about eight feet. In other words although the prosecution witnesses have tried to give an impression that it was open oven, from the statement of the I.O. In strict sense it can be called a kitchen and in such a situation it was impossible for Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased or for that matter the other victims to have seen the aforesaid three assailants what to speak if their proper identification. Moreover from the perusal of the site plan coupled with the statement at the trial of the I.O. And Nabi Khan (P.W.9) admitting the presence of a fence of reeds constructed to the house of Ayaz Khan deceased serving as a `Parda' wall it has been established that there was a fence intervening the house of Daryob absconding accused and the complainant party which also makes the identification of the assailants as doubtful. In this context it may also well be elaborated that point No. 9 from which Zard Ali absconding accused is alleged to have fired at the deceased party falls within the firing range of his co-accused which also makes the case for the prosecution as improbable.
14. It is the prosecution case that eight persons, five accused---appellants along with their three absconding accused had in all fired 14 shots at the deceased party. Muhammad Umar, Gul Rajeem, Samandar Khan, Ashiq Mir accused-appellants and Daryob and Haleem absconding accused are alleged to be armed with D.B. Shotguns and Shahzada accused appellant and Zard Ali absconding accused are charged to be armed with S.B. Shotguns. It is the prosecution case that those armed with D.B. Shotguns fired two shots each and those armed with S.B. Shotgun fired one shot each. In this context the allegation of the prosecution that in all 14 shots were fired is plausible but keeping in view the injuries sustained by the two deceased and the two injured P.W. Coupled with the fact that the deceased party was fired from a distance of less than 20 paces, the injuries sustained are not in conformity with the fires fired at them. Besides the recovery of pellets i.e. 12 in number from the place of occurrence also does not conform with the number of the shots allegedly fired by the accused party. As observed earlier the occurrence has taken place a few minutes before the evening `Azan' time and obviously the prosecution witnesses and the victims were all awaiting the `Azan' to come. At that odd hour particularly when they were keeping fast and were waiting for `Aftari' the identification of the fire-arms with which each of the accused were armed in a specific manner also casts serious doubt on the veracity of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased as also the prosecution witnesses.
15. Nabi Khan (P.W.) in his statement at the trial had stated that there were two `Charpaies' lying in the courtyard and on one `Charpai' he along with his father Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased were sitting while the other `Charpai' was occupied by Rabani Khan (P.W.) and Mst. Bakhtmir Jana was sitting on the ground. He also stated that the cot on which Rabani Khan was sitting was closed to the cot on which he along with his father were sitting with a table lying in between and on that table dates and melons were kept for the purpose of `Aftari'. Rabani Khan (P.W.) on the other hand contradicted Nabi Khan by saying that he along with his deceased father Ayaz Khan and Nabi Khan (P.W.) were sitting on one cot while Mat. Bakht Mir Jana deceased was standing at the distance of one pace from their cot. The presence of the `Charpaies' has not been established because the I.O. Did not take into prosecution the said `Charpaies'. Mst. Nazira widow of Muhammad Ayaz Khan deceased who also claimed herself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence had stated in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. That the accused had fired at the deceased and the injured P.W. From the door of the house of Daryob Khan absconding accused while in her statement at the trial she has improved her statement by saying that all the accused entered the courtyard of their house and fired at the deceased party. From the perusal of the site plan and on going through the statements of the P.Ws. It is clear that the house of Daryob Khan absconding accused is situated towards the north of the house of Muhammad Aya2. Khan deceased. It is also in the evidence of the I.O. That there was a hole in one of the rooms of the house of Daryob Khan absconding accused towards the house of the complainant party and in such a situation keeping in view the statement of Mst. Nazira (P.W.) before the police the assertion of the I.O. That some of the accused were stated to have taken position in the house of Daryob Khan absconding accused also makes the prosecution case doubtful with regard to the trespassing by the accused party into the house of the deceased party. The number of the injuries sustained by the two deceased and the two injured P.Ws. If the prosecution case that all the accused entered the courtyard and fired at them about 14 shots, is not in consonance with the number of shots fired by the accused party. The prosecution witnesses have contradicted each other in respect of the existence of the hole in one of the rooms of Daryob Khan absconding accused towards the house of the deceased, the existence of the fence of reeds and the oven of about 8 feet height in the house of the deceased party.
16. In this case as we have already observed all the accused-appellants were acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the order, dated 12-4-1983 of Mr. Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan, Sessions Judge, Bannu and the State feeling aggrieved by the said order of acquittal moved an appeal in this Court under section 417, Cr.P.C. And the learned Division Bench, of this Court per its judgment, dated 7-4-1985 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu for putting certain question to the accused-appellants and thereafter to give his decision on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In Gul Nawaz v. State reported as 1968 SCMR 1168 it was held that:- "The appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court must always be given due weight and importance, for that Court has the advantage of not only hearing the evidence but also observing the demeanour of the witnesses deposing before it. It is judgment of the credibility of a witness is not to be lightly discarded, particularly, where such judgment is supported by cogent and substantial reasons:"
As has been said before the accused-appellants had been given the benefit of doubt by the learned trial Judge who had the advantage of hearing the evidence and also observing the demeanour of the witnesses deposing before him. When the case was remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lakki he had no opportunity to observe either the, demeanour of the witnesses or of hearing them. In strict sense keeping in view the aforesaid authority of the August Supreme Court it was the Sessions Judge, Bannu who can be termed as the trial Judge because he had recorded the evidence and had conducted almost the entire trial and the well-established principle duly approved by the august Supreme Court that before reversing the order of acquittal the judgment of the Sessions Judge must be shown to be unreasonable or manifestly wrong Ahmad v. Crown reported as PLD 1951 FC 107 refers. In the case Gul Nawaz v. State referred to above it was held by the august Supreme Court that the Court of appeal must in a case in which an acquittal is sought to be set aside, remember that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons has, if anything being made stronger by the fact of the acquittal by the trial Court arid this presumption is not to be lightly rebutted.
17. Long and short of the discussion above, coupled with the facts that the accused-appellants were given the benefit of doubt by the learned first trial Judge after full appraisal of the prosecution evidence, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt to the accused-appellants and accordingly extending the benefit of doubt, we would, by accepting this appeal, set aside their convictions and sentences and would direct their immediate release if they are not required in any other case. Criminal revision petition automatically fails and is accordingly dismissed.