' S.Z. CHOUDRI, J.--For the correct perception of the case, the facts, as claimed by the prosecution, briefly stated are that it was 19th of July, 1980 corresponding to 5th Ramazan. Both, Muhammad Malik and his father Sardar. Khan had arrived back in their house after saying their 'Traweeh' prayers in the village mosque. The scene of the crime was the premises of their house having its back to the north and front on the south with the courtyard enclosed by a 6/7 feet high wall having a gate on the eastern side. Inside the courtyard Muhammad Malik was lying asleep. His wife Mst.
Zareena Bibi was lying on a cot next to his but was still awake. Sardar Khan. Father of Muhammad Malik and father-in-law of Mst. Zareena Bibi, complainant was also lying asleep on a cot close to them but on the other side of the courtyard wall in the open space. The moon had not yet set and the lantern still alight was kept in the courtyard. A shortwhile thereafter the accused party arrived on the scene. Ghazanfar Ali, Muhammad Anwar, Muhammad Manzoor and Muhammad Nazir were armed with .12 bore guns while Muhammad Shafi, Sooba and Muhammad Akram were empty handed. Muhammad Manzoor, Muhammad Nazir and Muhammad Shafi stood around the cot of Sardar Khan while Ghazanfar Ali, Muhammad Anwar, Sooba and Muhammad Akram went to the cot of Muhammad Malik inside'the courtyard. Muhammad Shafi accused held Sardar Khan by his legs when Muhammad Nazir accused fired at him from the left side hitting him in the chest. Shot fired by Muhammad Manzoor hit Sardar Khan on his right arm. Inside the courtyard Sooba and Muhammad Akram are alleged to have held Muhammad Malik by his legs while Ghazanfar An and Muhammad Anwar accused fired at him hitting him in the chest and the right arm, respectively.
Complainant Mst. Zareena Bibi raised alarm and tried to intervene but was pushed aside by Sooba.
The accused,while firing in the air then withdrew from the scene. The occurrence is claimed to have also been witnessed by Allah Ditta, Ahinad Din and Abdul Aziz. The accused, after they left the place of occurrence and while going towards Pakistan territory were seen by Manzoor witness. Motive for the crime is stated to be ongoing litigation between the parties.
2. On the following morning i.e, on 20-7-1980 Mst. Zareena Bibi accompanied by Abdul Aziz PW left for Bernala Police Station and on her report case under sections 302/448 and 148/149, A.P.C. Read with sections 4 and 5 of the Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act was registered against the accused party. After making necessary investigation in the case, police submitted the challan and the accused were made to stand their trial in the District Criminal Court, Mirpur. Accused Muhammad Akram and Muhamamd Anwar having absconded were proceeded against under section 512, Cr.P.C. The trial Court on completion of trial and after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused standing trial except Ghazanfar Ali were therefore acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 28-2-1985. As regards Ghazanfar Ali accused, case against him, in the estimation of the learned Sessions Judge stood proved while the. Other Member of the Bench, the learned Qazi held him entitled to acquittal. So on account of difference of opinion between the members constituting District Criminal Court, reference has been made to this Court.
3. Since the acquittal appeal as well as the reference arise out of the common judgment, these have been heard together and are disposed of by this single order.
4. The correctness and legality of the acquittal order passed in favour of the respondents by the District Criminal Court on 28-2-1985 has now been challenged through this appeal filed by the State on the grounds:-
(a) The finding of the trial Court that F.I.R. For having been filed with considerable delay had lost its usefulness and was a suspicious circumstance adversely affecting the prosecution case, was conjectural and not supported by the evidence on 'record. The impugned judgment could not therefore be maintained;
(b) That the appraisal of evidence on record conducted by the trial Court was violative to the settled norms governing appreciation of evidence and its finding that the evidence of the eye- witnesses could not be relied upon on account of their relationship with the deceased persons was contrary to law. The impugned judgment was not therefore maintainable; and
(c) That the finding of the trial Court on the point of corroboration was based on a faulty approach and the impugned judgment suffered from non-reading and misreading of material evidence on record.
5. As regards the F.I.R. The learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the occurrence took place during the night and a shortwhile after. 'Teraveeh' prayers wherein fire-arms have been used as a consequence of which two innocent lives were lost. Reluctance, under the circumstances, on the part of Mst. Zareena Bibi to go to the police station for report during the night was natural. The delay thus caused in reporting the crime to the police could not therefore be taken as fatal to the prosecution case nor could it be made basis for drawing inferences adverse to the prosecution.
The finding on the point could not therefore be sustained, submitted the learned Additional Advocate-General.
6. Controverting the arguments, Mr. A .K . A nsari learned Advocate for the accused-respondents contended that all the prosecution witnesses who, as claimed by the complainant, witnessed the occurrence, were very closely related to both the deceased. If it was safe to send for prosecution witness Mushtaque who was in Gujrat there was no valid reason as to why report of the crime could not have been made at the police station within reasonable time after the occurrence. The fact of the matter was that the real assailants were not known nor the occurrence was witnessed by anybody. So therefore the time, according to the learned counsel, was consumed in cooking up a false case against the respondents. The finding on the point arrived at by the trial Court was based on proper consideration of evidence and was perfectly in accordance with law. It was, according to the learned Counsel, therefore, not open to any exception.
7. The question as to whether delay in filing the F.I.R. Stands explained by the evidence on record and if not how would it affect the prosecution case, is, in our view, to be considered in the light of the facts and attending circumstances of a given case. In the present case occurrence is alleged to have taken glace during the night. The husband and father-in-law of Mst. Zareena Bibi complainant had been killed. Mushtaque PW the brother of her deceased husband Muhammad Malik, according to her statement on record, was not available as he was at Gujrat at the relevant time. The complainant and her minor children were the only persons left in the family on that night.
From amongst the close relations of her husband and father-in-law were prosecution witnesses Allah Ditta the real brother of Sardar Khan and Abdul Aziz a cousin of Sardar Khan. As to why anyone of them did not care to go to the police station immediately after the occurrence is not known as no explanation was sought by the defence during their cross-examination. Besides somebody had to stay to guard the dead bodies. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the two lives had already been lost. These two witnesses, as appears from the evidence, were on inimical terms with the accused party. Their reluctance to go to the police station which was about three miles away and the complainant being a women, under the circumstances cannot be construed to mean that the time that lapsed between the occurrence and the report, was necessarily used for fabricating a false case against the accused. The complainant has given the explanation for delay while making the report. We are therefore of the view that the delay stands sufficiently explained by the complainant and no adverse inference against the prosecution could be drawn merely on account of delayed F.I.R. The objection on the point therefore stands rejected.
8. On the point of relationship if prosecution witnesses with the deceased persons and appraisal of evidence conducted by the trial Court the learned Additional Advocate-General argued that merely relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased persons cannot legally be made a ground for taking their evidence out of consideration. As regards the discrepancies on the point of small significance these, according to him, were bound to exist even in the case of truthful witnesses as it all depends on their reflexes, their power of perception and the ability to recollect all the details of an incident which invariably differs in case of each person. There existed convincing evidence on all material particulars of occurrence e.g.; the time of occurrence, sufficiency of light for identification purposes and the presence and participation of all the accused in commission of the crime. The finding of the trial Court that the evidence of eye-witnesses was not worthy of reliance on account of minor discrepancies was therefore a faulty approach, contended the learned Additional Advocate-General. Besides, appraisal of prosecution evidence conducted by the trial Court was violative to the settled norms relating to appreciation of evidence. The order of acquittal thus passed by the trial Court could not therefore, according to him, be maintained.
9. Mr. A.K. Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the alleged eye-witnesses were not only related to the complainant but were admittedly inimical to the accused-respondents. Their evidence on careful consideration was full of inherent defects and not worth placing reliance. The findings of the trial Court on the point for -having been based on proper appraisal of evidence was perfectly in accordance with law and was open to no exception, submitted the learned counsel.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record with utmost care. The question, in view of the point canvassed on their behalf that now therefore needs determination is as to whether the occurrence took place at the time and in the manner as has been claimed on behalf of the prosecution and as to whether the identification of the accused- respondents was possible considering the time when the occurrence took place. As regards the approximate time of occurrence according, to the evidence of the complainant Mst. Zareena Bibi, it was immediately after the 'Traweeh' prayers. When cross-examined the witness in her evidence on page 82 of the trial Court's file, admitted that it was midnight. The whole village was asleep. The deceased persons and her children were asleep. The correctness of this statement was again accepted by the witness in her statement to be found on the reverse side of page 89 of the trial Court's file. According to her, there were 12 to 13 trees with thick shade alongside the compound wall and on account of this, there used to be darkness inside the compound. According to the evidence of Allah Ditta PW, Muhammad Malik and Sardar Khan on their arrival back after 'Traweeh' prayer had gone to asleep. It was two or three hours after this when the occurrence took place. This part of evidence deposed by Allah Ditta witness would also bring the occurrence near about midnight. As it was admittedly 5th of Ramazan there could not have been any moonlight at the time of occurrence. There was no lantern alight either. As according to the prosecution witness, it was blown off by Sardar Khan deceased after he arrived back from 'Traweeh' prayers. The prosecution claim that the occurrence took place immediately after 'Ishaa' prayers when the moon had not yet set and the lantern inside the courtyard was still alight, in view of the evidence on record has no substance. The crime, in our, view, was committed at about midnight and in the darkness.
11. The alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence are Mst. Zareena Bibi complainant, Allah Ditta, Ahmad Din and Abdul Aziz. Before adverting to the appraisal of evidence of these witnesses who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, it will be helpful to have some idea and estimate of the place of occurrence. As appears from the evidence, the site plan included, on the back side of the complainant's house towards north there is a house belonging to one Nazir Ahmad (not a witness in the case). Further north and on the back side of his house there is a narrow lane from east to west taking a short turn at the north-western end of Nazir Ahmad's house running straight down toward south passing along the western wall of complainant's courtyard. On the north side of Nazir Ahmad's house and across the lane there are houses from east to west belonging to Allah Ditta P.W., one Niaz Ahmad and Ahmad Din P.W. With their front towards the lane on their south.
12. Having stated the general location of the place of occurrence we will now proceed to examine the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses. Although in her report to the police Mst. Zareena Bibi complainant claimed that the occurrence was witnessed by Allah Ditta, Ahmad Din and Abdul Aziz, she however in her statement before the trial Court deposed that after the occurrence when the accused had left the place she started crying. Hearing her vociferation then arrived Manzoor, Allah Ditta, Abdul Aziz and Ahmad Din. Abdul Aziz entered her courtyard from the roof top of his house.
There is nothing in her statement made before the Court to the effect that the crime was committed either in the presence of anybody or that she was told by anyone to have witnessed the occurrence. Abdul Aziz PW who happened to be the cousin of her father-in-law did not support her claim. He denied having witnessed the occurrence. She stands contradicted on the point by Ahmad Din PW as well who stated before the Court that after the accused had left the scene he then went there and after that Manzoor and Abdul Aziz also arrived running on the scene. Her claim that she alongwith her deceased father-in-law Sardar Khan and her mother-in-law spent the time between the evening prayer and he call for 'Ishaa' prayers sitting with Ahmad Din witness at the well, also stands contradicted by Ahmad Din who deposed that at no time till after the occurrence he had seen the complainant on 19-7-1980. Her statement about Abdul Aziz witness having accompanied her to the police station for filing the report and that after she had made the report, Mushtaque Ahmad PW also arrived there in the police station is not supported by either of them.
On the point of lantern which was claimed to have been alight when the occurrence took place, she also stands controverted by Ahmad Din according to whose evidence Sardar Khan deceased on his arrival back after saying his 'Traweeh' prayers had-blown off the lamp. Her claim that the accused-party after the commission of crime left the place of occurrence raising 'Lalkara' and firing in the air is also contradicted by Ahmad Din PW who deposed in his evidence that the accused-party came on the scene quietly and after the occurrence went away quietly. While filing the F.I.R. And also in her statement before the Court it has been claimed by the witness that while Muhammad Manzoor, Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Shafi accused stood around the cot of Sardar Khan outside the courtyard, Ghazanfar Ali, Muhammad Anwar, Sooba and Muhammad Akram accused entered the courtyard and then killed her husband Muhammad Malik. When cross- examined, she however admitted in her statement on page 82 of the trial Court's file that no one else was present exept Ghazanfar Ali accused and only he had killed her husband. It is also in her evidence that the courtyard of her house is enclosed by a 6/7 feet high compound wall having only one door on eastern side. Taking this part of her statement as it is, it is hard to belie e that she could have seen as to what had happened on the other side of the compound wall in the open space where Sardar Khan deceased was lying asleep at the time when the crime is alleged to have been committed.
13. In view of the facts listed above it becomes clear that she stands contradicted on all material particulars of the prosecution case. Besides, on various points of vital importance, the witness is found to have taken shifting stands in her evidence.
14. Next is the evidence of Allah Ditta PW who is real brother of Sardar Khan and uncle of Muhammad Malik deceased. According to his evidence he was asleep in the courtyard of his house, a place some 115 feet away towards north from the place where Sardar Khan was asleep.
On hearing the footsteps he saw the accused party going towards Sardar Khan's house. He then got up and went following the streetway and witnessed the occurrence from behind the wall, a point which according to the site plan is on the other side of the western part of the complainant's compound wall. This wall, according to the witness, was 6 feet high. The distance from the point wherefrom he claimed to have seen the occurrence, to the place where Muhammad Malik was lying asleep according to the site plan is shown as 40 feet. Since the courtyard was enclosed by 6/7 feet high compound wall and the time as has already been he'd was midnight, it is doubtful that the witness could have seen the occurrence and then identify the accused in the darkness of the night. The truthfulness of his claim becomes doubtful when considered in the light of the statement of the complainant wherein she had admitted that none of the accused except Ghazanfar All was present there. Besides, this witness stands contradicted by Ahmad Din PW whose evidence is that on the night when the occurrence took place he was lying asleep close to Allah Ditta PW and after the occurrence when the accused had left they both went running to the place of occurrence. As regards his claim that he was standing behind the western wall of the complainant's house when the crime was being committed, it would not in our view have been possible for the witness to have seen the occurrence either inside the compound or outside of it in the open space on the eastern side. How the witness was able to see the accused-party going towards Sardar Khan's house is also a doubtful proposition because although the witness denied, but according to prosecution witness Muhammad Sadiq Patwari his courtyard was also enclosed by a compound wall. As already stated, Abdul Aziz, PW denied having seen the occurrence. Ahmed Din PW on his part claimed that he was asleep close to Allah Ditta and while lying on his cot he saw the accused-party going towards Sardar Khan's house. Muhammad Shafi, Manzoor and Nazir Ahmad accused are claimed by this witness to have participated in the murder of Sardar Khan while Muhammad Shafi was holding the deceased by his legs. He however stated that he had no knowledge as to how and by whom Muhammad Malik was killed because he was unable to see inside the courtyard because of the intervening compound wall. According to his evidence, the witnesses kept lying on the cot and had seen the occurrence from there. It was only when the accused-party had left the place of occurrence after committing the crime that he alongwith Allah Ditta went on the place of occurrence. It is interesting to note that the distance from the place where he was lying asleep to the place where Sardar Khan was killed, according to the site plan, is shown as some 100 feet away -on the north from the place of occurrence. Since the occurrence, as has already been held in the earlier part of this judgment, took place at midnight in the darkness, it does not seem possible that the witness could have seen the commission of the crime or could have identified the assailants.
15. All the prosecution witnesses who are alleged to have witnessed the crime on their own admission are not only closely related to the deceased but were also inimical to the accused- party. Besides, they are persons of questionable character. On their own admission they have been involved in number of criminal cases like abduction and theft etc. Allah Ditta admitted that he was involved in countless number of criminal cases of all sorts. In some of those Sardar Khan deceased, Abdul Aziz PW and Manzoor were also involved alongwith him. Enmity and hostility towards the accused-party was also admitted by Ahmad Din witness on account of abduction of his niece by Ghanzanfar Ali accused. This is the sum total of evidence of those who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. On perusal of their evidence it becomes evident that each witness contradicts the other on all material particulars of the case. The evidence deposed by each besides being in conflict with that of the other witness, is full of inherent defects and infirmities throwing a thick cloud of suspicion about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. These infirmities cannot therefore be explained away simply by saying that these are minors in nature. The arguments on the point that there exist convincing prosecution evidence on all material particulars of the case, therefore stand rejected.
16. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the eye-witness account of occurrence stood fully corroborated by the evidence of recoveries and the report of ballistic expert establishing a clear connection of the accused with the crime. The trial Court by holding the recoveries illegal and the arms expert's report as of no evidentiary value, committed a grave legal error rendering the impugned judgment invalid.
17. The argument on careful consideration is found to have no substance. According to the prosecution recovery of four empties was made by the police when they arrived at the place of occurrence after the report had been made. Allah Ditta and Manzoor are alleged to be the witnesses of the recoveries of the empties and guns recovered from Nazir and Manzoor accused.
'Mst. Zareena Bibi complainant stated in her evidence that 8/9 crime empties lying on the place were picked up by her. She took those to the police station while going for filing the report and handed these over to the police in the police station. Allah Ditta PW, on the other hand, stated that he found and picked up those empties from the place of occurrence and had put those in his pocket. Later on when the police arrived he handed those over to the police. As regards the recoveries of guns, Manzoor PW admitted that the police never visited the houses of the accused.
The documents of recoveries except those relating to Ghazanfar Ali accused, according to him, were prepared at the police station. In the first instance two empties and the guns except that which is alleged to have been recovered from Ghazanfar Ali, were sent for examination by the ballistic expert. Later on the remaining two empties and the gun alleged to have been recovered on the pointation of Ghazanfer Ali were also sent for examination by the arms expert. Considering the evidence of Mst. Zareena Bibi and Allah Ditta, these recoveries in our view have no evidentiary value whatsoever. Assuming what PW Allah Ditta stated was correct then the question would naturally arise as to how on earth was it possible for the police to know as to which were the empties that had been used in the gun alleged to have been recovered from Ghazanfar Ali accused. In this view of the matter, neither the recovery of empties and all the guns nor the reports made by the ballistic expert have therefore any legal worth.
18. In the ultimate analysis considering the facts and circumstances of this case we find that the prosecution witnesses are not only related to the complainant party but are also extremely hostile to the accused. Their evidence suffers from inherent defects and infirmities. It was not of a quality that can'be safely relied upon. The prosecution case at least viz-a-viz the acquitted accused who are respondents in the appeal case (this observation shall have no effect on the case of Ghazanfar Ali which still remains to be considered) is held to have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The impugned judgment is found to have been based on proper appraisal of the evidence on record. We, therefore find no just reason warranting interference in the impugned judgment. The appeal having no force therefore stands dismissed.
19. Adverting next to the reference made by the trial Court as regards Ghazanfar Ali accused, the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that there existed convincing evidence on record clearly connecting accused Ghazanfar Ali with the crime. Mst. Zareena Bibi complainant, the wife of Muhammad Malik deceased, was the most natural witness of the occurrence. Her evidence on all material particulars of the case was confidence inspiring and was of a quality that the conviction of the accused Ghazanfai Ali can safely be based upon. It was further contended that since the complainant was lying on a cot immediately next to that of Muhammad Malik deceased when the accused approached Muhammad Malik and then shot him dead from a point-blank range, she recognized the assailants and the identification presented no problem. Her evidence is of a quality that alone can be made basis for recording conviction. Besides she stands corroborated by Abdul Aziz PW whose evidence is to the effect that on his arrival on the scene immediately after the occurrence, he saw some persons leaving the scene and the complainant was saying that Ghazanfar All had killed her husband. The learned District Qazi by his failure to have a correct perception of the legal as well as factual points involved, committed a grave legal error. The finding thus recorded by him could not therefore be maintained, contended the learned Additional Advocate-General.
20. Replying the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution it was contended on behalf of the accused that the evidence of Mst. Zareena Bibi PW was self contradictory and suffered from serious infirmities rendering the whole prosecution case doubtful. There being no convincing evidence on record, the finding recorded by the learned Qazi was based on proper appraisal of evidence. The conclusions arrived at and findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, according to the learned counsel, for having been based on superficial appraisal of evidence and being conjectural were therefore not sustainable.
21. We have given our careful thought to the points canvassed on behalf of the parties and have examined the record with great care. Identification of those, well known and often seen specially when they happened to be co-villagers, if seen frem a very close proximity would generally not be difficult even in the darkness of night. The question however that needs determination in the present case is as to whether the occurrence took place in the manner as has been claimed on behalf of the prosecution. It must first be proved by convincing evidence on record that crime in fact was committed at the place and in the manner as has been claimed by the prosecution. The question of possibility or otherwise of identification would, then therefore be considered in the light of evidence deposed by, Mst. Zareena Bibi witness.
22. Since all the other prosecution witnesses, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses have already been held unreliable in the earlier part of his judgment so what we are left with is only the evidence of complainant Mst. Zareena Bibi. We find that her evidence is not of a quality which can be relied upon for myriad reasons. In the F.I.R. And in most part of her statement in the Court she implicated all the seven accused. Then she ends up in admitting that no one else was present there except Ghazanfar Ali accused. He was the person who killed her husband and was her enemy. The question would therefore naturally arise that if she can falsely implicate six innocent persons would it then be safe to place any reliance on her evidence as regards the remaining accused. The fact that she is highly interested and inimical towards the accused and has falsely implicated six innocent persons, leaving aside other infirmities in her evidence, is itself a circumstance which makes it highly unsafe to place any reliance on her evidence.
23. , It is also in her evidence that on hearing first shot fired-from outside, her husband got up and that while he was lying dead had a blood-soaked shoe on one of his foot. The other shoe was missing from the place. The shoe with the blood on it, according to her was taken by the police. This part of her evidence is a clear proof of the falsity of the prosecution case or at least it raises serious doubts about the truthfulness of its case because if Muhammad Malik, as claimed by the prosecution, was in fact, while lying asleep on a cot, shot dead by the accused then he could not have had a blood soaked shoe on one of his foot. It simply does not make any sense. Apart from complainant's evidence PW Manzoor also accepted in his statement that when he went at the place of occurrence, he saw Muhammad Malik lying dead on a cot with a shoe on his one foot. The question Would naturally then arise as to why no recovery memo. Was prepared by the investigating officer and why this fact of so vital importance was held back by the police? Where had the second shoe gone and why it was not found on the place of occurrence, has not been explained. The complainant also admitted in her evidence that Mst. Nusrat Bibi, her daughter who was of 14/15 years of age at the time, was also asleep in the courtyard and when the firing took place she went inside the kitchen. There is no explanation on record as to why she was not cited as a witness either in the F.I.R. Or before the police during the investigation.
24.. There is another very important' circumstance which needs to be taken note of. On inspection 'by the trial Court, blood-stained bed-sheet recovered from the cot of Sardar Khan deceased was found having pellets holes in it while no such holes were found on the bed-sheet relating to Muhammad Malik. There is a note to this effect by the trial Court date lined 25-2-1985. Even medical evidence is. Not supportive to the prosecution case. Mst. Zareena Bibi claimed that injuries, both, one on the chest and the other on the arm of Muhammad Malik were caused by gunshots.
She stands contradicted by PW Doctor Muhammad Ishaque who conducted the post-mortem. His evidence is that the arm injury was caused by a blunt weapon and was not a gunshot injury. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that no challenge was made by the prosecution to this part of his evidence deposed by the Doctor witness. Not even a suggestion was made to the witness that he might have been mistaken on the point. Considering the evidence as it is, especially in view of the complainant's evidence that on hearing a shot fired from outside, her husband got up and that he had a shoe with blood on it on his one foot while the other shoe was not there, could the possibility be excluded that on hearing a shot fired from outside at his father, Muhammad Malik deceased might have gone after the assailants and while in pursuit might have been injured by the unknown assailants. We may not be taken to be of the view that the occurrence took place necessarily in that manner, but are merely pointing to the reasonable possibility on the basis of evidence available on record. The evidence of complainant, in our view, suffers from inherent defects and as such could not be relied upon.
25. On careful consideration of the evidence detailed above, we do not feel satisfied that the occurrence took place in the manner and at the place as has been claimed by the prosecution. For the aforelisted reasons we hold that the prosecution has not been, able to prove its case even against Ghazanfar Ali accused beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore stands acquitted and shall be released forthwith " if not required in any other case or offence. Reference stands answered in the terms indicated above. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.