' NAIMUDDIN, J.--This judgment will dispose of both the aforementioned Criminal Appeals as these are directed against the single judgment of the Sind High Court.
' Appellants Muhammad Shafique and Mst. Asghari, her son Muhammad Raees and her daughter Mst. Parveen were tried for offences under sections 302 read with sections 34, P.P.C. And 201 read with section 34, P.P.C. For committing the murder of Muhammad Ismail, by the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas who by judgment dated 30-6-1983 convicted Muhammad Shafique and Mst. Asghari under sections 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to death. He also convicted Muhammad Raees and Mst. Parveen under the same sections and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. He also convicted all the four accused under section 201 read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. For 7 years, and also directed that Muhammad Shafique and Mst. Asghari will undergo imprisonment in case their death sentences were not confirmed by the High Court and the sentences awarded to other accused would run concurrently.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment the appellants preferred a joint appeal in the High Court of Sind at Karachi and the reference of death sentence awarded to the two convicts named above, also came up for confirmation. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as Muhammad Shafique and Mst. Asghari are concerned and accepted the reference against them and confirmed the sentences of death awarded to them. So far as Muhammad Raees and Mst. Parveen are concerned, they were acquitted of the charge of murder but their conviction under section 201, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Was maintained. However, their sentence was reduced to the one already undergone by them and they had already remained in jail for more than three years.
3. The prosecution case was that Nazar Muhammad had given application dated 14-2-1981 to the Superintendent of Police, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas stating inter alia that Mst. Asghari and Shafique had abducted his nephew Muhammad Ismail (though he mentioned him as his son) and perhaps they had murdered him, and requesting that search for his nephew be made and the accused be convicted as they were also giving threats to him as well. It may be convenient if this application is reproduced hereinbelow which reads as follows: "Request is that my son Muhammad Ismail s/o Nazar Muhammad resides in Satellite Town, Mirpurkhas. One Shafique who resides in Railway Colony used to visit the house of my son with an evil intent, as the wife of my son namely Mst. Asghari had illicit terms with Shafique. My son had tried to 'Samjhio' his wife but she did not listen and threatened. Shafique Ahmad also likewise threatened my son about 5/6 months ago. Shafique Ahmad and Asghari abducted my son and perhaps they have murdered him. It is requested that my son be searched and accused be convicted as they are also giving threats to me as well."
4. The application was endorsed by the Superintendent of Police, Tharparkar to Maluk Hussain, S.H.O., Mirpur Mathelo. On receipt of the application Maluk Hussain examined Nazar Muhammad, made an entry thereon at 12.30 p.m. On 14-2-1981 and then sent the application to S.H.O. Town Police Station for registration of F.I.R. Thereafter, Maluk Hussain, alongwith the complaint, went to the house of the deceased where he prepared Mushirnama in the presence of Sikandar and Abdul Hameed and also prepared Mushirnama of the Vardat. He then made inquiries from Imam Din and Nur Din and on the same day he sent for the accused Shafiq who was a waterman in the Railways through the Stationmaster, for investigation. He also posted police guard inside the house, as according to him the news that the dead body was buried therein, had leaked out and, therefore,there was a possibility that some culprit might attempt to remove it. He also posted some policemen, in plain clothes, outside the house. The S. H.O. Requested the Superintendent of Police for moving the District Magistrate for exhumation of the dead body and its post-mortem by a medical officer. Accordingly, on 15-2-1981 the Mukhtiarkar and First Class Magistrate, Mirpur and the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, accompanied him to the place of Vardat and in the presence of the same Mashirs namely, Sikandar and Abdul Hameed who were called there, each of the four accused pointed the same place where the dead body was buried. The S.H.O. Prepared four separate Mashirnamas Exh. 28 to Exh. 31 as according to him each accused had pointed the same place where the dead body was buried. In the presence of the F.C.M. And Mukhtiarkar two labourers namely Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Yamin were called to excavate the place, pointed by the accused. The two labourers dug about 31 or 4 feet deep when a plastic bag appeared which was taken out and inside it were found one Theli containing human bones and hair, some clothes, chappals and other material. Mashirnama was prepared in the presence of the same Mashirs by the S.H.O. Maluk Hussain. An inquest report Exh. 27 was prepared in the presence of the same Mashirs. Dr. Sultan Mahmood P.W.5 carried out post-mortem examination.
5. According to Mashirnama Exh. 33 dated 15-2-1981 Rais son of Ismail produced one hammer with wooden handle from his house. The hammer was not blood-stained, and Shafiq produced a Sumbal and a Belcha with handle vide Mashirnama Exh. 31 which was also not bloodstained.
6. On 15-2-1981 the S.H.O. Produced the accused before the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Who recorded the confessions of the accused in presence of each other, and, thereafter, the accused were remanded to custody.
7. Defence of the appellants was one of denial and false implication on account of the fact that Nazar Muhammad was annoyed with the deceased because he had refused to give the hand of his daughter to his son Yusuf.
8. At the trial the prosecution examined Nazar Muhammad (P.W.1) and his cousin Imam Din (P.W.2) and Rasul Bux (P.W.3) who was Chairman of Bhishti Biradari and to whom the complainant, Imam Din and Nur Din not produced had gone and informed that Ismail was missing since 4/5 months and that they had searched for him at several places, and that they suspected that Mst. Asghari, Mst. Parveen, Raees and Shafiq had got Ismail murdered. The complainant had further informed him that accused Shafiq had illicit connection with Mst. Asghari who also asked him (complainant) to go to the police. The prosecution also produced and examined (a) Muhammad Yamin, labourer (PW.4) who dug the place of burial, (b) Dr. Sultan Mahmood (P.W.5) who conducted the post- mortem, (c) Abdul Hameed (P.W.6) who was a Mashir, (d) Muhammad Usman (P.W.7) who prepared the sketch of the Vardat, (e) Maluk Hussain (P.W.8) who carried out the investigation, and
(f) Ramesh Kumar (P.W.9) in whose presence the so-called dead body was exhumed and who recorded the confession of the accused.
9. Nazar Muhammad (PW.1) inter alia stated: "....And in the courtyard of the house they got dug the ground and after digging out for 4-5 ft., bones were found together with clothes and shoes. I identified it with clothes and shoes to be of my deceased nephew Ismail. The clothes were shalwar and shirt and sweater. The bones were skull bone which was broken and there were other bones also but all were in pieces."
' In cross-examination he stated that he identified the clothes being of Ismail because when he visited him the last time, he was wearing the same clothes which were dug out from the courtyard, shalwar was of Badami colour and sweater of blue colour. He admitted that the deceased used to wear other clothes of other colour as well. He does not say anything about footwear.
10. Imam Din PW.2, inter alia, stated that the bones were found in a plastic bag on digging out the ground in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ismail. There was neither skin nor flesh on the bones. On the skull bone, on one side, there was hair. Skeleton of face was there. Shalwar, Kamiz, both of Badami colour, white Banyan, blue sweater and red chappals were also found lying in the same plastic bag. Face of the bag was opened and Theli was lying on the face of the bag. The bag was taken out after digging out the ground at 5 feet. He further stated that the deceased was wearing the same clothes, which were taken out from the bag on that occasion. In his examination-in-chief he stated that Nur Din was not present when the ground was dug out though in his cross-examination he admitted that in his police statement he had stated that Nur Din was with them during the search. According to him a Bhangi of Civil Hospital had taken out the bag from the ground while the ground was dug by someone else. Noor Din and Bhangi were not examined.
11. Muhammad Yamin (PW.4) a labourer who dug out the ground deposed: "Police had asked me to dig the ground there. I was supplied one Tikam (genti) and Belcha. I dug about 3 ft. Deep. One Theli was found which contained bones. There was cloth bag in the plastic bag and in cloth bag there were bones. There was skeleton of the skull as well. I do not know Nazar Muhammad or Imamuddin. The uncle of the deceased had identified the cloth. It was not cloth bag but it was a piece of cloth. Doctor was present."
' In cross-examination he further stated that the cloth was dirty and was in pieces and he specifically stated that there was no shalwar or shirt. He also does not say about any, banyan, shoes or chap pals.
12. Dr. Sultan Mahmood (PW.5) inter alia stated that the place was dug in his presence and in the presence of Ramesh Kumar the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. a plastic bag was taken out containing bones. There were clothes also in the bag lying in the ditch outside the bag. All the bones were taken out and he found the following bones:
(1) All the soft parts of the body had totally disapeared.
(2) There was no skin except on the occipital region of the skull alongwith hair.
(3) All the viceras were absent.
(4) The skull was empty. There was fracture of left temporal parietal, frontal, sphenoid, left temporal parietal, frontal, sphenoid, left orbital and left maxilla.
(5) No fracture of mandible detected (6). No fracture of scapula and clavical detected.
(7) No fracture of vertebra detected.
(8) No fracture of pelvic bone detected.
(9) All the joints were separate.
(10) All the abdominal viceras were absent.
' According to him the following articles were also recovered alongwith bones:
(a) pieces of sweater blue in colour.
(b) white banyan siled (soiled) with decomposed material.
(c) white shalwar with tap.
(d) pair of old shoes.
' From the examination of the bones, he was of the opinion that the cause of death was shock and intracranial haemorrhage as a result of above-mentioned fracture of skull bones. In cross- examination he expressed his inability to say which bones were in plastic bag and which ones were outside but he added that the bones had separated at their joints. He further stated in cross- examination that the size of the bag approximately was 2 x 1/ feet. He also stated that except pair of shoes, bones and bag, nothing else was dug out. He was unable to name the colour of the shoes.
He also produced the postmortem report, according to which the dead body was found 1/' deep, covered with plastic sheet and dirty clothes and the sand was in direct contact, and the dead body was brought out from the grave in pieces. It will be seen that he speaks of a white shalwar and a pair of old shoes.
13. Abdul Hameed (PW.6) a Mushir of Vardat, recovery and arrest, in his examination on this point, stated as follows "Round about 3 ft. Ground was dug. The ground was dug by genti and belcha. First, a cloth appeared. Then another cloth was dug out. It contained skull bone and other bones. Everything was taken out. These were all bones but no flesh and skin. Shoes, nikar, shirt, shalwar were also dug out."
' In cross-examination he said that when the clothes were taken out all the bones came out. The bones were separate and, therefore, he could not give the number of bones. According to him, the clothes were intact and were of light colour. The chappals were of red colour Bata make.
' The material part of Mashir of recovery (Exh.26) inter alia reads as follows: "They digged the same and recovered human bones separately alongwith clothes. The clothes were containing yellow shalwar, white Banyan and two chappals in ruined position. The dead body was wrapped in a plastic bag and Rallies."
14. Maluk Shah (PW.8) the S.H.O. Who was present at the time of digging the ditch, has stated that they had dug the ground 31' to 4' when a plastic bag appeared which was taken out. In this bag was found a Theli, human hair, human-clothes, chappal and some other material.
15. Ramesh Kumar (PW.9) who was at the relevant time Mukhtiarkar and First Class Magistrate and who was present at the time of exhumation of the so-called dead body and who had recorded the judicial confessions, in his deposition, inter alia, stated: "As soon dug a plastic bag was seen containing the human skeleton. As soon as the bag was lifted the bones were seen falling. As soon as the skeleton was taken out, some hair were seen on the head part and the clothes worn by deceased were a Badami coloured shirt and white shalwar. Two rubber chappals were also there. The chappals, clothes and hair of deceased were identified by relatives of the deceased namely Imamuddin and Nazar Muhammad."
16. The trial Court, after appraising the evidence, found that there was no direct evidence against the appellants but convicted the appellants on circumstantial evidence consisting of:
(a) pointing out of the appellants of the place from where the dead body of Ismail was secured.
(b) the dead body of Ismail was fdund buried in the house occupied by Mst. Asghari, Rais and Mst.
Parveen.
(c) Recoveries.
(d) the circumstance that no report was lodged by the inmates of the house about the disasppearance of Ismail.
(e) Motive, and.
(f) the retracted judicial confessions,
17. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the conviction of appellants Mst. Asghari and Shafiq under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. On circumstantial evidence but discarded the retracted judicial confessions of the appellants on the ground that these were recorded in the presence of the other appellants as admitted by the Magistrate in his deposition.
' However, the High Court as against Mst.Parveen and Raees found that the evidence against them, consisted of only the pointation of the dead body and that they suppressed the fact about the disappearance of their father Ismail and thus caused the evidence to 'disappear' when they had the knowledge that the dead body of their father was buried in their house. The High Court further found that there was no motive on the part of Raees and Mst. Parveen to murder their own father and there was no evidence to sustain the charge of murder against them, and, therefore, it acquitted them of the charge of murder but convicted them under section 201 read with section 34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to imprisonment they have already undergone, as stated before.
18. After hearing the arguments of the learrred counsel for the appellants and Advocate-General, and going through the record, we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly discarded the retracted A confessions for the reason that the same were recorded by the Mukhtiarkar/F.C.M.
Ramesh Kumar in the presence of the accused.
19. Now taking up point (a) i.e "pointing out of the place wherefrom the dead body of Ismail was secured", it may be stated that S. H.O. Maluk Hussain, Police Station Nlirpur Pathora, on receipt of complaint made by Nazar Muhammad, had directly gone to the house of Muhammad Ismail where he prepared Mashirnama in the presence of Sikandar and Abdul Hameed. According to him Vardat had taken place inside the house of Muhammad Ismail.
' It is intriguing as to how he came to know of it but it is clear from his deposition that he knew beforehand that the so-called dead body was buried in the house of Muhammad Ismail although in the complaint made by Nazar Muhammad, he stated only that Ismail was missing and a suspicion was expressed that he might have been murdered by Mst. Asghari and Shafiq. He has further stated that he made inquiries from Imam Din and Nur Din and after that, on the same day, he sent for Shafiq through the Station-master. It is not clear that when he made inquiries from Imam Din and Nur Din. But Imam Din could not have told him that any dead body was buried inside the house because he did not so depose and he could not have known about it when he met the S.H.O.
' The case of the prosecution is that each of the appellants separately pointed the place where the dead body was buried in the house. Therefore, when the S. H.O. Knew about the place where the so- called dead body was buried, the question of appellants pointing the place of burial of any corpse did not arise. Further, if one of the accused had pointed the place then what was the reason and necessity for each of the accused to voluntarily point out the place wherefrom bones etc. Were recovered. This padding has obviously been done to involve each of the accused in the crime and to use it as corroborative evidence against them.
20. Taking up the point (c) i.e "recoveries" it may be mentioned that according to the prosecution one sumbal and one spade with handle, which were allegedly used by Shafiq for digging out a ditch for burying the so-called dead body of Muhammad Ismail, and a hammer, with wooden handle, produced by Raees from his house, were recovered. Now it is in evidence that deceased Muhammad Ismail was a plumber and a sanitary worker, and, therefore, the existence in his house of tools, namely, spade, sumbal and hammer which are usually used in such a job and these too were not found blood-stained, could not be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. Moreover, there is no evidence, direct or indirect that any accused gave a hammer blow to Muhammad Ismail.
21. As regards the recovery of the so-called dead body of Muhammad Ismail which according to prosecution, was found buried in the court-yard of the house of Muhammad Ismail, it may be observed that all the witnesses have stated that a dead body was recovered but in fact no dead body or even a human skeleton of bones was recovered. All that was found was only a plastic bag measuring 2'x 21' containing bones, clothes and other articles.
' The bones, mentioned in the post-mortem report, if considered minutely, do not make even a skeleton of human body. If the doctor had carefully examined the bones he would have mentioned in his report that bones of arms e.g. Ulna, radius and humerus and bones of legs i.e fibula, tibia and femur were not there in the bag, nor even the bones of hands and feet were found in it. The absence of legs and arms, bones leads to irresistible conclusion that no dead body was buried in the courtyard of the house and it could not have been enclosed in a plastic bag measuring 2' x 21' which was the measurement of the bag given by Dr. Sultan Mahmood.
' Further, if the bones of hands and feet could be destroyed by efflux of time or otherwise then how could the clothes, which, as stated by witnesses, were found in the same bag, remain intact. We feel that these bones were brought from outside and buried in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ismail.
' Moreover, no effort was made to identify that the bones or the skull was of Ismail. No explanation was offered that it could not be identified for any reasons. Then according to some witnesses only on a part of the skull re. On occipital region, some hair were found but they were not there on any other part. No other witnesses have said so. Even those who said so stand belied as no explanation is forthcoming as to how on a part of skull, skin with hair could remain intact when on no other part of the skull or any other bone, skin or hair were there, and when the skull was empty.
' Furthermore, Nazar Muhammad has not at all spoken of skull or part of it bearing any hair. Only Imam Din has spoken about it but he has not given the colour of the hair found on the skull, nor has he given the colour of the hair of the head of Muhammad Ismail. Thus, there is no evidence that the bones were of Ismail.
22. Recovery of clothes and chappal which were identified by Nazar and Imam Din is doubtful as there is lot of conflict in the statements of the witnesses on this point. Then, Nazar Muhammad, Abdul Hameed and Maluk Hussain, in their depositions have not mentioned about the recovery of any Banyan although Imam Din and Dr. Sultan Mahmood speak of white banyan. Further, Nazar Muhammad and Dr. Sultan Mahmood speak of shoes while Imam Din, Abdul Hameed, Maluk Hussain and the Mashirs speak of the recovery of chappal from the bag. Then, Nazar Muhammad and Imam Din stated that shalwar of Badami colour was found in the bag while Dr. Sultan Malmood and Ramesh Kumar say that the Shalwar was of white colour. Moreover, only Abdul Hameed speaks of the presence of a nickker in the bag and no other witness speaks of it. We have already mentioned that Muhammad Yamin specifically denied the recovery of any shirt or shalwar.
' We may mention that we have not mentioned other discrepancies for the sake of brevity but contradictions in the depositions on vital matters specifically mentioned make the testimony of the witnesses unreliable and the recovery of the articles highly doubtful.
23. Taking up the point of motive, it is alleged that appellant Mst. Asghari had illicit relations with Shafiq but we find that Nazar Muhammad, in his examination, has stated that he could not say anything about the fidelity of appellant Mst. Asghari and that he has never seen Shafiq in the house of the deceased. He, however stated that Muhammad Ismail had informed him 11 years prior to his disappearance that his wife was on illicit terms with appellant Shafiq. Imam Din supports him inasmuch as that the deceased told him and the complainant that his wife was not of good character and she had illicit liaison with appellant Shafiq. The deceased further told them that his wife wanted to give their daughter Mst. Parveen in marriage to Shafiq's brother and that on his refusal to agree with her, she had quarrelled with him. He further said that Nazar Muhammad told Muhammad Ismail that they were not happy with the proposed union. According to him, he told the deceased that they would prefer getting Mst. Parveen married in Biradari. Thereafter, he had disappeared and never since then met him. Nazar Muhammad has not said a word about appellant Mst. Asghari's desire to give her daughter Mst. Parveen in marriage to Rafiq, brother of Shafiq or that on Ismail's refusal to agree with. Her she had quarrelled with him. He also did say that he and 'Imam Din told Ismail that they were not happy with the proposed union, and we think because she had refused to give the hand of her daughter to his son Yusuf, she was involved in the case. In her statement, recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Appellant Mst. Asghari, in reply to a question that "she desired to marry co-accused Mst. Parveen d/o Muhammad Ismail with Rafiq the brother of Shafiq" stated that Nazar Muhammad had demanded her hand for his son.
' Indeed it appears that Nazar Muhammad and Imam Din were not happy with the appellant Mst.
Asghari giving her daughter's hand to the brother of Shafiq as admitted by Imam Din that they wanted the deceased to marry his daughter in the Biradari. Therefore, if at all there was a motive, it was on the part of Nazar Muhammad and Imam Din to say the least to falsely implicate the two appellants in this case. The statement attributed to Ismail finds no support from any independent source. Nazar Muhammad, in his complaint (Exh.11) to the Superintendent of Police had stated that the appellant Mst. Asghari had illicit terms with Shafiq. His son (nephew) tried to Samjhao his wife but she did not listen to him and threatened him. Shafiq Ahmad also likewise threatened his son and that about 5/6 months ago Shafiq and Mst. Asghari abducted his (nephew) son and perhaps they have murdered him. Nazar Muhammad in his deposition, has said not a word in support of this statement nor did the prosecution produce any evidence in support of these allegations. Although he denied in cross-examination that he did not demand the hand of Mst. Parveen for his son Yusuf from Ismail but it seems that he was not agreeable to the proposal. This could also be a motive to falsely implicate appellant Shafiq as Ismail and the appellant Mst. Asghari seemed to be agreeable to the proposal of marrying their daughter Mst. Parveen with the brother of Shafiq.
' Nazar Muhammad admitted in his evidence that he had married his son Yusuf 11 months after the disappearance of Muhammad Ismail. Therefore, we are of, the view that the prosecution failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants to commit the alleged crime.
' Now, so far as the allegation of illicit connection of appellant Mst. Asghari with appellant Shafiq is concerned there are only words of Nazar Muhammad and Imam Din and those too are not based on their personal observations but are attributed to Muhammad Ismail that he told them to be so.
No other evidence has been produced, direct or indirect.
24. Now remains the question of not lodging the report about the disappearance of the deceased.
It is in evidence that the deceased was a plumber and was engaged in sanitary work. Nazar Muhammad had deposed that he had been searching for the deceased for about seven months before submitting his application to the Superintendent of Police. In connection with the search, he visited Larkana, Sukkur and Hyderabad etc. 7/8 days before submitting his application to the Superintendent of Police. Why he would go to other cities when Ismail admittedly was normally visiting other cities in connection with his job.
' Mst. Parveen, in her 342, Cr.P.C. Statement has stated that her father used to do sanitary work and some times he used to go to Khipro and Sanghar etc. In connection with his contracts. He had never disappeared before the incident. She further deposed that her father had given them Rs,300 for going to Sehwan Sharif and he had himself purchased a chadar and asked them to place it at the Mazar Sharif. She proceeded to state further that in all there were five persons including her brothers, sisters and mother. According to her, they stayed at Sehwan Sharif for about 8 days. Her father had told them that he would not be able to accompany them as he had some work to do.
She further stated that after returning from Sehwan Sharif in the morning they had gone to the house of Nazar Muhammad and intended to go to their own house in the evening. But Nazar Muhammad did not permit them to go as according to him, her father had asked him not to send them (his family) to their house and that they remained in the house of Nazar Muhammad for about 11 months. They had a dispute with Nazar Muhammad one day. Her brother brought a tonga and after breaking the lock of their house, they all went in their house. Next day Nazar Muhammad, his wife, Nur Din and his son came to take them back.They had also brought a tonga. All of them again went to Nazar Muhammad's house. Three times they returned to their house, but every time they were taken by Nazar Muhammad back to his house. One day at 10 p.m. 4 ladies, Nazar Muhammad, his son Yusuf, Imam Din and one Chairman of Biradari came to take them. They took them and detained them.
' If her statement is true and it appears to have a ring of truth in it, then the circumstances stated amply explain their inability to lodge the report. Even otherwise in the background that the deceased used to go to other towns for doing sanitary contract work, non-lodging of the report would not be a circumstance pointing to the guilt of the appellant Mst. Asghari. This finds some support froth the deposition of Nazar Muhammad as he, in his cross-examination, admitted that 4 months prior to the disappearance of the deceased, appellant Mst. Asghari, Mst. Parveen, Raees and appellant Shafiq had gone to Sehwan Sharif, and he further admitted that the deceased thus remained alone in his house, he, therefore, had been visiting and the deceased also paid him return visits. The period of time stated i.e, 4 months prior to the incident may not be as accurate as stated by Nazar Muhammad. Further, Nazar Muhammad himself says that he had been searching for the deceased for about 7 months. He most probably had been telling his family about it. If Ismail was not used to go out to other towns for doing sanitary work Nazar Muhammad would have himself lodged the report with the police after some time and he did lodge the report 7/8 days after his return from visit of Sukkur, Hyderabad and Larkana.
25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that (a) Muhammad Ismail was murdered at all (b) that appellants Mst. Asghari, her son and daughter concealed his body, as alleged (c) or that the appellants knew that the body was concealed in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Ismail and above all, that the appellants had murdered Muhammad Ismail. So far as appellant Shafiq is concerned, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial as discussed above, to connect him with the disappearance of Muhammad Ismail or concealment of the bones and other articles found in the courtyard of his house, or that he murdered Muhammad Ismail, and, thus the prosecution failed to prove the case against him at all. We, therefore, accept both the appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and they are acquitted. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
' These are the reasons for the short order passed earlier.