' On the 6th of July, 1987, Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of Suleman Khan, resident of Village Salhad, Tehsil and District Abbottabad, moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Abbottabad, for tracing out her real brother Muhammad Yousaf Khan who was missing for the 5/6 months; that he had married Mst. Fingerish and out of the wedlock 4 children were born, but the matrimonial relations between the spouses were not cordial as Mst. Fingerish was a cunning woman and was conscience of the -real background; that earlier she was residing in Banda Sappan but in the month of Ramazan, after renting out her house in the village, she had gone to live in Gawal Mandi, Rawalpindi.
2. On the 29th July, Mst. Iqbal Begum, resident of Banda Sappan, Tehsil and District, Abbottabad, moved an application to S.S.P., Abbottabad, for tracing out her step-son Muhammad Yousaf whose whereabouts were not known for about 6/7 months prior to her complaint. According to her, she was doing so lest the wife of Muhammad Yousaf should implicate the applicant or her children. In the issue of daily `Nawa-i-Waqr dated 8th of July, 1987, an advertisement had also been placed on behalf of his son Shaukat Khan wherein it had been maintained that Muhammad Yousaf was missing for the last about six months, therefore, anyone knowing his whereabouts or else Muhammad Yousaf himself should return home or inform the members of his family.
3. The application of Mst. Naseem Akhtar was marked to Khurshid I.H.C. Wile that of Mst: Iqbal Begum to Yunus-ur-Rehman, A.S.I. On the Ist of August, 1987, the S.H.O. Police Station, Cantt.
Abbottabad, was permitted under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. To conduct inquiry. A similar application of Mst. Naseem Akhtar dated 11-8-1987 through D.I.G./S.S.P. Was endorsed to Inspector, Special Investigation Team (C.IA.) for inquiry. In the meantime, Mst. Fingerish along with her minor children disappeared. On the 31st December, 1987, statement of Mst. Naseem Akhtar was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By a Magistrate of the Ist Class, Abbottabad, whereupon a case under section 364, P.P.C. Was registered vide report Exh.P.W.11/3 against Mst. Fingerish, her sister Mst. Parveen, her husband Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Daud, her brothers and one Muhammad Ashraf. The report was duly incorporated in the F.I.R. (not exhibited) dated 31-12-1987. The case of the prosecution thus set up was that Muhammad Yousaf brother of Mst. Naseem Akhtar was missing for the 4/5 months prior to `Eid-ul-Fite and that he had been done away with the connivance and at the instance of Mst. Fingerish her sister Mst. Parveen, by her brothers, Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Daud and one Muhammad Ashraf, Tangawala. Muhammad Daud, Muhammad Ashraf and Mst. Parveen were arrested on the 3rd January, 1988. On the 26th May, 1988, Muhammad Younas accused was arrested and during his interrogation it transpired that Muhammad Yousaf had been done to death and that his dead body had been buried in the courtyard of his house. Muhammad Yuitas accused while in handcuffs led the police party on the 27th of May, 1988, in the presence of Durr-e- Aman and Muhammad Yacioob to the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Yousaf and pointed out vide pointation memo. Exh.P.W.6/2 the place where his dead body had been buried. On digging the courtyard on the 27th of May, 1988, a dead body hacked in piece was exhumed vide memo.
Exh.P.W.6/1 in the presence of Mr. Ahsanullah Khan, a Magistrate of the First Class and Dr. Amanat Shah, D.H.O. Through the same memo. a Militia Shalwar P.10, a printed Chaddar P.11, a Banyan all blood-stained, a string P.12 and burnt cotton P.13 etc. Were also recovered from the point. The Shalwar P.10 was identified by Mst. Naseem Akhtar (P.W.9) and her husband Suleman vide Memo.
Exh. P.W.6/3 to be of the deceased and duly testified to by Durr-e-Aman (P.W.6) and Muhammad Yaqoob aforesaid.
4. On the same evening at 5-30 p.m. Dr. Amanat Shah (P.W.20) had conducted on the spot the autopsy of the dead body and observed as under:--- "It was a dead body of middle-aged person, medium built, height 5' wearing dark grey coloured Shalwar. Its upper and lower limbs were amputated and the head was also chopped. All parts of the body found decomposed. External wounds not visible due to decomposition.
' On external examination scalp hairs found on isolated area, skull fractured at various places on the front frontal (zygomatic orbital), fracture of the upper survical vertibra. Membranes were intact, brain matter was liquefied and of grayish colour.
' Thoracic-fracture of the 6th and 7th ribs on left side and 3rd, 4th and 5th were fractured on right side. Pleura was ruptured. Larnyx and trachea were intact. Right lung and left lung were ruptured and collapsed. Pericardium and heart were intact. Blood vessels were having haemorrhage on the right side internally. Stomach and its contents were normal filled with contents. External genitalia was amputated, only portion of scrotum was present. There was fracture of left fibula. Right mandible had been crushed."
' Death, in the opinion of the doctor, had occurred due to "shock and internal haemorrhage and injuries to the vital organs, i,e, right and left lungs and amputation of neck. The time that elapsed between injuries and death was one hour" and that "between death and post-mortem examination was 16 months".
5. In this view of the matter, the section of law ,was altered from 364, P.P.C, to that of sections 302/201/148 read with section 149, P.P.C.
6. Mst. Fingerish was arrested on 11-12-1988 by Muhammad Sadiq Khan S.I. (P.W.23) from Haripur and obtained her police custody for five days. She led the police party vide pointation memo.
Exh.P.W.1/1 to a `Ziarat' known as `Choi Wala Baba' from where the two iron hacks P.1, the Chhuri P.2, the knife P.3 and an axe P.4 without handle were recovered. On 17-12-1988 she pointed out vide memo. Exh.P.W.7/1 the wooden ,box P.22 wherefrom the aforementioned weapons were taken out and the body of the deceased was hacked into pieces. She also pointed out the `Charpai' P.21 on which Muhammad Riaz accused has throttled the deceased.
7. On the 18th of December, 1988, Mst. Fingerish was produced before Mr. Laiq Khan, a Magistrate of the First Class, Abbottabad (P.W.22) who recorded her confessional statement Exh.P.W.22/2 wherein she had divulged the facts which are as follows: Muhammad Riaz her brother and the principal accused in this case had visited their house to convince the deceased and his family to participate in his marriage but the latter was adamant; the deceased in the meantime got enraged giving rise to exchange of hot words between him and her brother Riaz accused; thereupon Riaz accused caught hold of the deceased from his neck resulting in asphysia ultimately leading to the death of the deceased; she raised hue and cry but Riaz accused silenced her by hurling threats. Then Riaz and Mst. Fingerish hacked the dead body into pieces in the presence of her son Shaukat (absconder) and daughter Saiqa (who had since run out her term of imprisonment) who were weeping. The hacked body was placed in the bath room. Blood-stained Quilt and Pillow were put on fire. The blood was removed from the room. The trunk of the body was wrapped in a mattress while the head and the legs were tied in a printed `Chaddar' and placed under the Charpai. On the following day, an Afghan labourer was hired by her son Shaukat for digging a pit in the courtyard of their house and the hacked body of the deceased was buried therein. Then she started giving currency to the news that her husband had gone to Karachi in search of service. According to her, the deceased was an addict and used to compel her to lead immoral life. She went to Rawalpindi along with her children for a week and on return she got the courtyard cemented through Gullo and Zaida masons and again left for Rawalpindi. She returned to the village after a month. But she had to leave for Karachi out of fear because the relations of her husband had in the meantime started searching for the deceased. She had thrown the weapons of the crime near the grave of 'Choi Wala Baba' before going to Karachi. The police party traced her out in Karachi on account of which she left for Abbottabad but was arrested in Haripur.
8. The evidence which the prosecution relied upon for the conviction of the appellants and the accused who were acquitted consisted of the following items:---
(a) Various circumstances of case alluded to above;
(b) Recoveries of Charpai through memo. Exh. P.W.7/2, Shalwar P.10 of Militia cloth, a printed `Chaddar' P.11, Shalwar string P.12, burnt cotton P.13 and a Banyan vide memo. Exh.P.W.6/1; 2 hacks P.1, a dagger P.2, a knife P.3 and an axe P.4 from near the grave of 'Choi Wala Baba' at the pointation of Mst. Fingerish appellant vide recovery memo. Exh.P.W.1/1.
(c) Pointation Memo. Exh.P.W.6/1 whereby the place of burial of the deceased in the courtyard was detected and the dead body was exhumed; another pointation memo. Exh.P.W.7/1 vide which Mst.
Fingerish pointed out the wooden box wherein the crime weapons were placed and showed various places in her house where the deceased was hacked into pieces and then dumped and finally buried;
(d) Confessional statement Exh.P.W.22/2 of Mst. Fingerish appellant;
(e) Abscondence of Mst. Fingerish and Riaz appellants.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the convicts-appellants and the learned Assistant Advocate-General at considerable length and have minutely gone through the record. The crux of the arguments pressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants is that:---
(a) That the F.I.R. Which forms sheet anchor of the case set up by the prosecution stands unproved.
(b) That pointation of the pieces of bones recovered from the house where Mst. Fingerish appellant was once residing cannot be traced to Younas appellant with legal certitude.
(c) That no effort has been made to establish identity of skeleton of dead body or to identify that pieces of bones were those of Muhammad Yousaf deceased.
(d) That retracted and belated confessional statement was not recorded in accordance with law and was neither voluntary nor true and was extracted from Mst. Fingresh through duress and coercion practised upon her during the preceding 8 days when she was kept under police custody, and at any rate, was not admissible against Riaz appellant in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
(e) That the confessional statement stands contradicted by medical evidence as regards the time of occurrence, manner of assault at every step.
(f) That the motive set up by the prosecution is hazy and does not fit in the ambient circumstances of attending the commission of crime.
10. Mr. Abdullah Jan Mirza, learned counsel for the appellants while elaborating his first contention concedes that a combined reading of sections 154, 155 and 157, Cr.P.C. Postulates that investigation of cognizable case can commence with information furnished from any sources and that Investigating Officer is competent to investigate legally to discover truth and also apprehend offenders even not nominated in the F.I.R. Nonetheless, according to the learned counsel after registration of the first F.I.R., as is deposed to by A.S.I. Rab Nawaz (P.W.11), registration of second F.I.R.
On foot of unproved application of Mst. Iqbal Begum is not warranted by law notwithstanding the divergent version contained therein. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am afraid, being highly technical is untenable. From the perusal of section 154, Cr.P.C., which deals with recording of first information report relating to the commission of cognizable offences, it appears that any person may set in motion machinery of law by making a report under this section and the information so given is called the first information report. It is the basis upon which an investigation is commenced under Chapter XIV, Part V of the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). However, receipt and recording of first information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation. See Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed (AIR 1945 PC 18) which was followed in M. Bashir Saigol and another v. State (PLD 1964 Lah. 148). Even if the first information report is not proved in the case, as has been canvassed before me in this case, it would not per se vitiate a conviction. Reference in this context may be made to Ram Deo Singh etc. v. State (AIR 1959 Allahabad 511). The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants thus stands repelled.
11. Coming to the second aspect of the case in connection with pointation resulting in discovery of dead body, it has been vehemently contended on behalf of the convicts-appellants that it is of no legal consequence nor can any significance be attached thereto. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Wali Astam S.I. (P.W.18) wherein he has stated that on the pointation of Muhammad Younas accused he had taken out the dead body in pieces after digging the courtyard of the house of deceased and that he had prepared on 27-5-1988 a memorandum Exh.P.W.6/2 in this behalf in the presence of Duria Aman (P.W.6) and Muhammad Yaqub, not produced. He had further stated that skeleton was identified through Shalwar Exh.P.10 which was also recovered therewith amongst other articles, such as Chaddar Exh.P.11 and trousers string Exh.P.12.
12. In this context it is further urged that although it is alleged by the witness in hand that Mst. Nasim Akhtar (P.W.9) and her husband Muhammad Suleman (P.W.10) were present at the time of recovery of the dead body but, nevertheless there is no mention in the police statements of these two witnesses that recovery was effected at the instance or on pointation. Of Muhammad Younas accused. To reinforce this inference, reference is made to the statement of Muhammad Asif (P.W.19). While giving his evidence he has stated that the courtyard of the house of deceased was dug out by labourers with spade and pick-axe provided to them by the residents of Mohallah and that pieces of dead body were recovered from a ditch. He makes no reference to the recovery of dead body's pieces at the instance or on pointation of Muhammad Younas accused. And on these premises, it is argued that the testimony of this witness has been rendered doubtful on the.
Recovery of the dead body at the pointation of Muhammad Younas accused.
13. It is worthy of note that Wali Astam S.I. (P.W.18) has in unequivocal terms admitted that he had examined Muhammad Younas accused on 26-5-1988 between 7-50 p.m. And 11-00 p.m. And that recovery was made on the following day on or after noon. It means that the place of recovery had become known to the investigating officer much earlier than the actual discovery. It is well settled that where such place is already known to the prosecuting agency, the subsequent pointing out of the same, by the accused does not advance the C case of the prosecution as it is not a discovery of any new fact or circumstances supporting prosecution version. Apart from it, the recovery of an incriminating article at the instance of the accused is not contemporaneous with the utterance of disclosure, as both the elements are separated by long passage of time. Under the law, the words or action leading to discovery should be integral part of the recovery in the nature of cause and effect as forming part of res gestae. The recovery cannot, therefore, be pressed against Muhammad Yunas muchless Mst. Fingerish accused and must be discarded.
14. By far the most important question that calls for determination is whether pieces of bone recovered in this case relate to dead body of Muhammad Yousaf deceased. As already observed above, Suleman (P.W.10) was present at the time of recovery but, strangely enough, according to his own showing, there is no mention in his police statement representing his original version as to how and by whom and at whose pointation the dead body was recovered. Wali Astam S.I. (P.W.18) says that while interrogating Muhammad Younas accused it was not disclosed by the accused or by Suleman (P.W.10) as to how and in what manner, where and when, the deceased was killed. It is equally intriguing how did the dead body with upper and lower amputated limbs come to be found with blood-stained Shalwar at a time in a house, where none of the members of the deceased family was residing. Yet in the absence of ocular evidence, it is suggested and indeed Muhammad Sadiq S.I. (P.W.23) has adopted the version of Mst. Fingerish in confessional statement Exh.P.W.2/2 that the offence of murder in this case was committed by throttling and the prosecution has never deviated from this factual position. Doctor Amanat Khan (P.W.20), who conducted autopsy, has deposed that skeleton was that of middle age, medium built with five feet height. None of the witnesses appearing in this case has furnished the particulars about the weight, height, shape or built of body, features or colour of scalp hairs, not about the type and texture of clothes he was wearing at the time of his disappearance. The doctor has frankly admitted that he had not sent teeth, gums and jaw bones to the Chemical Examiner for ascertaining age of the subject of autopsy. Similarly, Muhammad Sadiq S.I. (P.W.23) has also stated that he could not get the age of the deceased determined by the doctor or through the Department of Toxicology. In the absence of positive evidence of age of Muhammad Yousaf deceased, the pieces of bones cannot be traced to or linked with him. Significantly, Suleman (P.W.10) accepts the suggestion that he identified the dead body due to grey coloured Shalwar which is generally worn by the people of the area and that he has not mentioned any specific mark of identification thereon. Wali Astam S.I. (P.W.18) has gone to the length of admitting that any clothes were identified and not the dead body by its contours and features and that none had appeared before him to testify as to what type of clothes, their colour and texture was worn by the deceased at the time of disappearance or death. It will have been seen that identification of the pieces of bones or dead body proceeds on illusory and specious grounds and more or less is based on patchwork of guessing.
15. The matter is not res integra. Normally it is not possible to give exact time at which the blood begins to coagulate after death but it is a matter of experience that about four hours after, death is the usual period when coagulation of the blood commences and in a week's time, no bleeding occurs. Although Dr. Amanat Shah (P.W.20) has observed bleeding on right side of pericardium and heart from blood vessels, such a phenomenon is absent in larynx and trachea which were found intact. "In throttling, there is laceration of the sheath of the carotid arteries as also of their internal coasts with effusion of blood into thin walls besides fracture of the cornua of the hyoid bone and sometimes that of the cervical vertebra." The death, according to the doctor, was due to shock and internal haemorrhage and injuries to vital organs like right lung and amputation of neck. In other words, amputation of neck was part of violence resulting in death and not by throttling. The probable time between death and post-mortem was 14 to 16 months and that between injuries and death was within one hour. The death, if reckoned from the date of postmortem examination conducted on 27-5-1988 at 5-30 p.m. Took place between 27-1-1987 and 27-3-1987. But in refreshing contrast thereto, the doctor finds larynx, trachea pericardium and heart intact while stomach full and its contents normal and so were pancreas, small and long intestines, liver, spleen kidney. According to Modi, "during five to ten days after death, the walls of the abdomen become softened and burst open, protruding the stomach and intestines and that owing to the walls being softened, the intestines burst and discharge their contents, while spleen is reduced to diffluent mass and liver become coal-black and that decomposition of larynx and trachea and coincides with that of the abdomen". The condition in which the abovementioned organs were observed leaves no room for doubt that the skeleton related to an individual having met his death within days and not 12 or 14 months earlier. It is nobody's case that deceased died within a few days of the post-mortem examination. On the contrary, Muhammad Sadiq S.I. (P.W.23) informed the trial Court that period of death was ascertained from statement of accused and he could collect no evidence wherefrom the exact date of occurrence could be ascertained. In her confessional statement Exh.P.W.22/2, Mst. Fingerish has stated that the deceased was killed two years and a half from 18- 12-1988 on which date it was recorded. If this time is calculated, the conclusion is obvious that pieces of bone relate to individual other than Muhammad Yousaf and that is the reason that mystry shrouds the recovery of skeleton itself. Engima still persists if death of the deceased was brought about in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
16. This brings me to the consideration of confessional statement Exh.P.W.22/2, which, in fact, constitutes the principal and the only evidence against the convicts-appellants. It is in the evidence of Muhammad Sadiq S.I. (P.W.23) that Mst. Fingerish, appellant, was arrested on 11-12-1988 and was produced on 18-12-1988 before Mr. Laiq Khan, Magistrate, of the First Class, Abbottabad (P.W.22) on which date her confessional statement was recorded. It is urged in this context, and rightly so, that the confession. Exh.P.W.22/2 was recorded 8 days after the arrest of Mst. Fingerish appellant. The proposition is settled that a person longer remains in police custody, the greater is the suspicion that the confession is the result of duress, coercion or pressure. In a case of throttling, usually no recovery of any crime weapon is required as it is done in a case of killing by firearm or by a sharp-edged weapon. The Investigating Officer has admitted that recovery of articles like Tokas, Chhuri was not necessary to establish killing thereby and if it were so, then prolonged custody was intended to extract confession which she was not willing to make. The main reason pressed by the Investigating Officer for her longer detention was that she was not disclosing the names of the accomplice, although she was willing to admit guilt from the very time of her arrest.
This explanation is too perile to be treated with any seriousness. There is a string of authorities that if there is undue delay in the recording of the judicial confession as it is in the instant case, no evidentiary value can be placed thereon.
17. Notwithstanding the above, it will appear from the cross-examination of the learned Magistrate that basic requirements for recording confession were not complied with him. For instance, he has admitted that several questions put to and answers elicited from the confession of accused were not made part of the record of confession, It is elementary proposition of law of confession that all questions put to accused must be recorded in writing and his answers thereto must also be recorded. Failure to fulfil this legal requirement robs the confessional statement of its evidentiary value. This is not the only flaw inherent in the confession, but a lot more, chief among these are; firstly, that he omitted to write why confessing accused was making her confession two years and a half after the alleged occurrence; secondly, he admits that no endeavour was made by him to find out about any inducement, threat or premises. It is necessary to put to the confessor these elements in order to remove any vestige of doubt, if confession is the result thereof. In the absence of such questions, the doubt lurking in the mind is deepened. It is admitted by him that he did not cause her body examined through Lady Constable if she bore signs of violence on her person. It is further in his evidence that confessing accused felt penitent and hence made confession. It hardly needs the telling that if confession turns out to be the offspring of penitence and remorse, it must be rejected. The very fact that wrong date of arrest or short duration of detention is mentioned in the confession firmly indicates that the accused had made confession under some sort of pressure having been brought to bear upon her mind and this factor heavily militates against genuineness and voluntariness of the confession. So from whichever angle the confessional statement Exh.P.W.22/2 is judged, it is neither voluntarily recorded nor in accordance with law and cannot thus be legally used against its maker.
18. When the principal evidence breaks down on account of one or more reasons, it becomes futile to discuss other issues connected therewith. But nevertheless, by way of abundant caution, other aspects allied with confession need discussion. The medical evidence leaves no one in any doubt that the death in this case was not due to throttling but was the result of fracture of ribs on both sides by blunt means causing collapse of and injuries to lungs as also of severance of neck by sharp-edged weapon. Both were simultaneous acts of violence causing extinction of life by employment of diverse weapons. There is no explanation how amputation of neck by sharp-edged weapon was brought about and no one is nominated as author of such injuries., According to the doctor, all the injuries were anti-mortem and, therefore, it can be easily held that death was solely due to the injuries caused by sharp-edged weapon and possibility of his having been first done to death by throttling and then cutting his body in pieces is out of question. Thus the manner of assault as mentioned in the confessional statement stands contradicted. Likewise, according to medical testimony death had occurred between 27-1-1987 and 27-3-1987 whereas the prosecution case is that it had taken place two years and a half from the date of confession recorded on 18-12- 1988. The difference in time as envisaged by these two items of evidence cannot be resolved. This disparity robs the very base of veracity of the prosecution case. It is obvious that the confessional statement is in conflict with the medical testimony both with regard to weapons used, manner of assault and time of occurrence and must be I excluded on this score too. It cannot be held with legal certitude if Muhammad Nousaf was murdered or, if so, when, where, how and in what manner.
19. The question of motive survives to be considered. In the applications of Mst. Iqbal Begum and Mst. Nasim Akhtar, the motive alleged was that Mst. Fingerish was a woman of easy virtue and deceased had developed hatred for her and hence it incited her to remove him from the land of living. The evidence in this regard is forthcoming from the mouth of Mst. Nasim Akhtar (P.W.9). She has admitted that no sinful act was done in her presence by the erring woman. She has neither disclosed source of information -nor personal knowledge. Clearly her assertion is based on hearsay and, therefore, her testimony is not admissible. Moreover, it is admitted by her that she had strained relations with Mst. Fingerish. If this is so, it renders her accusation and that of her husband Suleman beset with grave doubts. If Mst. Fingerish had illicit relations it would have been notoriously known to people in the locality and particularly in small village. Many villagers and other close relatives of the deceased had appeared during the trial but there is no material to faintly suggest that she did not abide by rule of rectitude and led a life of infamy. The motive as alleged thus stands unproved. The second motive asserted in the confession is that the deceased had refused to attend marriage of Riaz convict-appellant and this refusal infuriated the latter to throttle the deceased to death. But having regard to injuries on the deceased, one becomes skeptical about the truth of motive because these and the number suggest and disclose of furious nature of the accused which could hardly have been roused due to refusal to attend marriage. It would be useful to recall that no motive existed for minor or major children to allow Riaz accused to hack into pieces their father in the manner attributed or to see hacking of his dead body into pieces or to look the genital organ being removed in their presence. The whole transaction is honey-combed with improbabilities. If in the fabric of prosecution story, motive is inseparably interlinked and the prosecution fails to establish the same, such failure is bound to belie the features of the case set up by the prosecution, giving rise to a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
20. Before parting with the case, it is essential to revert to Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, which in a nutshell lays down that where several persons are being tried for the same offence and one of the accused makes a confession affecting himself and the other accused, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other persons as well as against the makers. In this case, the confession was retracted, and has been found neither voluntary nor true and also in conflict with medical testimony on various grounds and reasons. There is no untarnished evidence in support of this confession and stands equally uncorrobrated against co-accused Riaz. It is settled law that confessional statement alone cannot form sole basis for conviction of other co- accused, more so When the alleged confession is tainted with doubt as to its voluntary nature and veracity of other details mentioned therein. Except the bald and naked confession, marred by inherent infirmities, there is no other evidence to connect Riaz and other convicts-appellants with the offences charged with.
21. Resultantly, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Muhammad Yousaf was murdered in the manner as alleged and that the convicts-appellants knew that the body was concealed in the courtyard of the house, of Muhammad Yousaf or that they had taken part in the concealment of the bones and other articles in the courtyard of the house. The appeal is accepted and the convicts-appellants are acquitted of the offences charged with. Release warrants be issued in respect of Riaz appellant and other -appellants on bail are discharged of the bail bonds.