' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Muhammad Nasir and Muhammad Ijaz, both sons of Muhammad Yaqoob, have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 27-2-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, in Sessions Case No, 48/S of 1992, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as follows:---
(a) Both the appellants have been convicted under section 392, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo R.I. For five years each and to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. For one year each.
(b) Both the appellants have been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C.
For the murder of deceased Bashir Ahmad for which the following sentences have been passed:---
(i) Appellant Muhammad Ijaz has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,15,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. For two years, He has also been ordered to pay compensation of Rs,15,000 to the legal heirs of deceased Bashir Ahmad under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. 'and in default of payment to further undergo imprisonment for six months.
' Appellant Muhammad Nasir has been sentenced to death and also to pay a fine of Rs,15,000 and in default of payment to further undergo R.I. For two yeaRs, In addition, he has been ordered to pay an amount of Rs,15,000 as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default of payment to further undergo six months' imprisonment.
' The trial Court has also made reference for confirmation of death sentence awarded to appellant Muhammad Nasir, being Criminal Murder Reference No3/L of 1994.
2. We heard at length the arguments of Shaikh Khizar Hayat, learned counsel for the appellants.
Arguments of Mr. Syed All Raza, learned counsel for the State, were also heard. With the assistance of the learned counsel, the entire record was perused. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. On close of the arguments on 19-6-1995, by our short order this appeal was partly accepted inasmuch as the conviction and sentences of appellant Muhammad Ijaz were set aside and he was acquitted of the offences for which he was convicted and the conviction and sentence of appellant Muhammad Nasir under section 392, P.P.C. Was also set aside, but his conviction under section 302, P.P.C. Was maintained,. However, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, but with no change in the sentence of fine and compensation imposed by the trial Court against him for the said offence. The Murder Reference was not confirmed. Reasons for our short order are contained in this judgment.
3. P.W.2 Allah Yar is the complainant in this case and on whose complaint (Exh.PB) formal F.I.R. No, 227 (Exh.PB/1) was recorded at P.S. Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran, on 20-6-1991 at 9-15 p.m.
By P.W.6 Nawazish Ali. According to the complaint, on 20-6-1991 at about 8-00 p.m. The complainant along with deceased Bashir Ahmad were returning from his fields and were going on metalled road towards bus stand Pir Jewan, but when they reached near Hussain Cotton Factory owned by Haji Mansoor Hussain, accused Nasir (armed with mauser), accused Ijaz (armed with revolver) and co-accused Ismail (absconding) emerged all of a sudden from the side of a `Keeker) tree and asked the complainant and the deceased to stop. According to the complaint, all the accused were known to complainant previously as they used to visit their relatives, who were residents of Chah Nathoo Wala, Mauza Naseer-ur-Wahin. According to the complaint, Nasir pointed his pistol at the complainant while Ijaz and Ismail brought out the purse of the complainant from his pocket which contained his National Identity Card and Rs,50 in the shape of five currency notes of Rs,10 each and then Ismail went towards the deceased and snatched his wrist-watch on which the deceased resisted and in the meantime the complainant grappled with Ijaz but then Ismail raised a Talkara' to Nasir upon which Nasir fired at Bashir Ahmed which hit him in his abdomen on the left side of his chest. On account of the aforesaid injury, the deceased fell down on the ground. According to the complaint, the complainant attempted to inflict 'Sow' blow on Ismail, but he succeeded in running away, but complainant was able to cause some injuries on the person of the two appellants by his stick. On raising alarm, P.W. 3 Muhammad Hanif, P.W.4 Rashid Ahmad and Imam Bakhsh (given up as unnecessary) who were present in their shops were attracted to the place of occurrence and witnessed the same. According to the complaint, the accused were identified in the moonlit night and also in the electric light. All the accused fled away from the spot towards Railway Station Pir Jewan along with their weapons firing in the air. P.W.10 S.I.
Muhammad Boota has stated in his evidence that on 20-6-1991 he was posted as S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca and at about 7-30 p.m. He was present at Dhanote Road alongwith A.S.I. Muhammad Amin and Constables Abbas, Muhammad Iqbal and Abdul Rashid when the police party were attracted on a fire-arm report and on hearing the same the party rushed towards the place of occurrence from where the fire-arm report came and when the party reached Adda Pir Jewan they found deceased Bashir Ahmad lying in injured condition and by that time many persons had already gathered at the site P.W.10 prepared the injury statement of Bashir Ahmad (Exh.PH) and sent him to the hospital for treatment. According to P.W.10, complainant Allah Yar was present at the spot and on his statement he recorded the complaint (Exh.PB) which was sent to the police station for registration of the case. Blood-stained earth lying at the spot was taken into possession by the I.O. (Exh.PE). One empty cartridge (P.12) was lying on the spot and its recovery memo. Is Exh.PF. The I.O. Also prepared a rough site plan (Exh.PJ). He then went to the police station where he was informed that injured Bashir Ahmad had died in the hospital. The I.O.
Then went to the hospital where the dead body of deceased Bashir Ahmad was lying. He prepared inquest report (Exh.PK). The dead bialy was entrusted by the I.O. To Constable Abdul Rashid for post-mortem examination. Last-worn clothes of the deceased were produced by P.W. 4 Rashid Ahmad at the police station being blood-stained shirt (P.13), blood-stained Chadar (P.14) and a blood-stained `Safa' (P.15). Recovery memo. For these clothes is Exh.PG. According to P.W. 10, the I.O., he arrested both the accused on 6-7-1991. According to P.W. 10, on 16-7-1991 accused Nasir, while in custody of the I.O. Led to the recovery of the mauser (P.1) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PC. According to the I.O. On the same day accused Ijaz led to the recovery of revolver (P.2) police uniform (P.3), one Identity Card (P.5) and purse containing Rs,50 and this purse recovered from Ijaz also contained his Identity Card (P.4). After completing investigation, the two accused were challaned whereas Ismail having absconded was got declared as proclaimed offender.
4. During the trial, 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The prosecution case depends on the ocular testimony of three witnesses, namely, P.W.2 complainant Allah Yar, P.W. 3 Muhammad Hanif and P.W.4 Rashid Ahmad (uncle of the deceased). In addition, the prosecution relied upon recoveries and the medical evidence. Statements of the two appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they denied the prosecution case and alleged false implication. In answer to question No,10 as to why the case was registered against them and why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against them, the following identical answer was given by the two accused:--- "I have falsely been involved in this case as the brother of my maternal grandfather namely Imam Khan was murdered and the case was registered. When I reached at Railway Station Pir Jewan after perusing the said case the police rounded me up and falsely involved me in this case and tortured me."
' Neither of the two appellants gave evidence on oath. They also did not examine any witness in their defence.
5. Complainant P.W.2 Allah Yar gave evidence on the lines of the complaint and added that he joined investigation after 20 days of the occurrence when he was summoned by the police and was informed that the culprits had been arrested. He stated that the investigation was joined by him and P.W. 5 Ghulam Rasool (recovery witness). According to P.W.2 he and P.W.5 Ghnlam Rasool accompanied the police and the accused for the purposes of recovery and that mauser was recovered at the potation of Nasir from underneath a bush near the Railway Line. He also deposed about the recovery of revolver, police uniform, complainant's identity card and his money (Rs,50) at the potation of Ijaz. He stated that one identity card of accused Ijaz was also in his purse when the purse was recovered. In his cross-examination, he stated that deceased Bashir Ahmed was son of his sister and, on the day of the incident, they had ploughed their cotton field and that first they went home and then were going towards Pk Jewan Adda for making some purchases when the incident took place near Hussain Cotton Factory where there are about 6/7 shops. According to the complainant, Bashir Ahmad was unconscious when the police had reached there within 10/15 minutes of the incident and Bashir Ahmed was taken straight to the hospital in the police wagon and the witnesses along with the complainant had gone with the injured in the hospital and as soon as they reached the hospital the doctor was called but when the deceased was checked by the doctor he had already died. According to the complainant, they had reached the hospital at about 9/10 p.m. He further deposed that throughout the night the complainant party remained in the hospital with the dead body along with one Police Constable. It was further stated that the S.H.O. Had reached the hospital at 9-00 a.m. Where he remained for two to three hours and post- mortem examination was conducted after departure of the S.H.O. According to the complainant, the police did not record the statement of any person in the hospital, but he had earlier recorded the statements of Imam Bakhsh, Rashid Ahmad and Hanif at the spot. According to the complainant, the names of the fathers of the two accused were told to the police by their relatives after their arrest and the police had summoned the relatives from whom names of their fathers and their residential addresses were enquired and were then recorded in the complaint made by the complainant. He admitted in his cross-examination that after the arrest of the accused the names of their fathers had come to their knowledge. He denied the suggestion that during the very night of the occurrence the complainant party had caught hold of the accused and had produced them before the Police. P.W.3 is Muhammad Hanif a shopkeeper. In his evidence he stated that Imam Bakhsh, Rashid Ahmad and the witnesses were sitting in the shop of the witness when they were attracted by an alarm from the west side. According to Hanif, when they reached the spot they saw the entire incident. In his cross-examination he stated that within 15 to 20 minutes of the occurrence one `Thanedar' and 4/5 constables reached the spot and that statements of the witnesses were recorded, but he also stated that the thumb-impressions of the witnesses including that Hanif were obtained by the police on blank papers, He stated that his statement was not recorded in the hospital by the police.
' The other eye-witness is P.W.4 Rashid Ahmad who states that he was sitting on his shop at Adda Pir Jewan where the other two witnesses Hanif and Imam Bakhsh were also sitting. He gave the same statement as the other witnesses and then stated that Bashir was removed to the hospital in injured condition and that when he was taken to the hospital he was dead. He also stated that the police had recorded the statements of the witnesses on the spot and had not recorded their statements in the hospital. He stated that deceased Bashir Ahmad was his nephew.
' P.W.10. Muhammad Boota was the S.H.O. Of P.S. Saddar, Kehror Pacca when the incident had taken place on 20-6-1991. Reference has been made to his evidence in the earlier part of this judgment.
In his cross-examination, he stated that after the report of the fire-arm he had reached the place of occurrence within 10/12 minutes and when he reached the spot first he prepared the injury statement and dispatched the injured to the hospital and P.W. Rashid Ahmad was sent with the injured and that after the occurrence and his visit to the spot he had reached the police station at about 10-00 p.m. He denied that complainant Allah Yar hid gone with the injured from the spot to the hospital. He admitted that complaint Exh.PB was recorded by him at 8-45 p.m. And that full particulars of accused Ijaz and Nasir i.e, the names of their fathers and their residential addresses were mentioned in Exh.PB. He denied suggestion that after the arrest of the accused' the F.I.R. Was recorded. He denied the suggestion that thumb-impressions of the recovery witnesses were obtained by him on blank papeRs, He admitted that the recovery witnesses had come with the complainant.
' Exh.PP is the report of the Fire-Arms Expert of the Office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. This report confirms that the crime empty recovered from the scene of the occurrence had been fired from .30 bore pistol recovered on the pointation of appellant Muhammad Nasir.
6. Mr. Shaikh Khizar Hayat, learned counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions in support of the present appeal:---
(a) The prosecution story was concocted after long deliberations and the F.I.R. Is not a truthful document.
(b) The eye-witnesses as well as the witnesses of recovery are unreliable witnesses and the story that the appellants had stopped the complainant and the deceased for the purposes of committing robbery and during this incident murder of the deceased took place is an unbelievable story. According to learned counsel, on its face, the prosecution version appears to be a false story,
(c) Admittedly, the complainant did not know the parentages and addresses of the two accused and the witnesses including the complainant have stated in their evidence before the trial Court that the names of the fathers of the two accused and their addresses became known after their arrest, but complaint Exh.PB was recorded at 8-45 p.m. i.e, within 45 minutes of the occurrence and the two appellants were arrested after about 15 days on 6-7-1991, but Exh.PB gives the names of the fathers of the two accused and their addresses which casts a grave doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution story.
(d) According to the 1.0., P.W.10 Muhammad Boota, on reaching the spot, he first prepared the injury statement of injured Bashir Ahmad and sent him to the hospital for treatment and then he recorded the complaint Exh.PB. In his evidence he had stated that blood-stained earth lying at the spot was taken into possession by him vide recovery memo. Exh.PE and the empty cartridges lying at the spot were taken into possession vide recovery Exh.PF and site plan of the place of occurrence Exh.PJ was also prepared by him and after these proceedings he went to the police station where he was informed that Bashir Ahmad had died in the hospital. According to learned counsel, therefore, when he had prepared the aforesaid recovery memos., the I.O. Was not aware that Bashir Ahmad had died as he had sent Bashir Ahmad in injured condition to the hospital, but despite this the aforesaid three exhibits, namely, Exh.PE, Exh.PF and Exh.PJ make reference to the site of murder and murdered Bashir Ahmad. According to learned counsel, this would show that these exhibits had been prepared not at the spot but perhaps at the police station and this also casts a doubt about the prosecution version.
' In the alternative it was argued that perhaps both parties had suppressed the real story and that some fight had taken place between the parties for reasons not disclosed by either faction and if at all deceased Bashir Ahmad was killed by appellant Muhammad Nasir, it was his own act and Ijaz had no common intention with Muhammad Nasir. Shaikh Khizar Hayat, learned counsel for the appellants, very vehemently argued that the prosecution version given by the three eyewitnesses that the two appellants along with the absconding accused had come with common intention to rob and had looted the complainant and the deceased is an improbable and unbelievable story.
According to learned counsel, in any case, it has not been established that Ijaz had common intention with Muhammad Nasir for killing deceased Bashir Ahmad and as such he cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of Muhammad Nasir. It was submitted that, as the true motive for murder of Bashir Ahmad had not come on record and the same was shrouded in mystery, if Muhammad Nasir is found guilty of murder of deceased Bashir Ahmad, his sentence may be reduced and that Ijaz was, in any case, entitled to acquittal.
7. Mr. Syed All Raza, learned counsel for the State argued that the evidence had established that Bashir Ahmad was killed by Muhammad Nasir and he agrees with learned counsel for the appellants that the story about the two appellants robbing the complainant and deceased Bashir Ahmad does not appear to be true. He was also of the view that on the basis of the evidence on record the case against ljzz was doubtful, but Muhammad Nasir was guilty of murder of deceased Bashir Ahmad.
8. After scrutinizing the entire evidence closely and after taking into consideration submissions made by learned counsel for the parties we have noted certain significant features of this case.
First is the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. Incident is alleged to have taken place at 8-00 p.m. On 20-6- 1991 in which Bashir Ahmad is killed by a fire-arm injury. Exh.PB, the statement of the complainant, is recorded on the spot by P.W.10 Si Muhammad Boota, S.H.O. P.S. Saddar Kehror Pacca, who was nearby and was attracted on hearing the fire-arm report. Statement of the complainant (Exh.PB) is recorded at 8-45 a.m. The statement is sent to the police station where formal F.I.R. Is recorded at 9-15 a.m. According to the prosecution case, all the accused were known to the complainant previously, but their parentages, castes and addresses were not known to the complainant which became known after arrest of the two appellants on 6-7-1991, after nearly 15 days of the incident.
But in Exh.PB the complainant gives the names of the three accused including the two appellants, the names of their fathers, their castes and their addresses. Prosecution evidence does not explain how the complainant could give such particulars at 8-45 a.m. On 20-6-1991 to the police when such particulars were not known to the complainant.
' Second feature that has struck us is that, despite the complainant stating in the Exh.PB and also in his evidence that accused Ijaz was armed with revolver, yet the other two witnesses, namely, P.W.3 Muhammad Hanif and P.W.4 Rashid Ahmad who were attracted to the scene of the incident from the nearby shops do not state that Ijaz was armed. All the three witnesses, namely, the complainant, P.W3 Hanif and P.W.4 Rashid stated about appellant Muhammad Nasir pointing his pistol and then firing at deceased Bashir Ahmad, but the role given to appellant Ijaz by the witnesses is that he and absconding accused Ismail, brought out the purse of the complainant from his pocket and that the complainant grappled with Ijaz. None of the witnesses have stated that Ijaz used or fired a revolver.
' The other feature noted by us is that despite the accused party being armed and had prepared for committing robbery with violence and that in the incident Bashir Ahmad lost his life, complainant was able to inflict several `Sota' blows on the two appellants which caused some injuries on the person of the two appellants and that, according to the complainant, he had even attempted to inflict `Sota' blows on absconding accused Ismail, but he succeeded in running away.
' Then we have noted that in the robbery only Rs,50 and a watch were robbed as well as the identity card of the complainant which was in his purse containing Rs,50, which purse had been snatched from the complainant. The recovery of these articles takes place on 16-7-1991. In the purse which is recovered there is an additional item i.e, the National Identity Card of appellant Ijaz. Even the revolver, reference to which has been made only in the evidence of the complainant and not the evidence of P.W.3 Muhammad Hanjf and P.W.4 Rashid Ahmad attributed to Ijaz, was also recovered.
' We have also noted that according to P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, who arrested the two appellants on 6-7-1991, medical examination of the two appellants was conducted.
' One crime empty recovered from the scene of the incident was found by the Ballistic Expert to have been fired from the pistol 30 bore recovered on the potation of appellant Muhammad Nasir.
' The defence version is of false implication and the reason given for their involvement in the present case was that the brother of the maternal grandfather of the two appellants (who are real brothers) namely, Imam Khan had been murdered and the two appellants had gone to attend the case of said murder when they reached at Railway Station Pir Jiwan the police arrested them and falsely involved them in the case and also tortured them.
9. The fact that Bashir Ahmad died on account of one fire-arm injury received on the day of the incident has been established. The presence of the two accused on the spot is also established when the incident took place. In this context, reference can also be made to the cross-examination of the complainant. In answer to a question by learned counsel for the appellants, the complainant gave the following reply:--- "It is incorrect that during the very night of occurrence they (meaning the complainant party) had caught hold the accused and had produced them before the police."
' From this it follows that, according to the appellants' case, both of them had been apprehended by the complainant party and they had produced the two appellants before the police on the night of the occurrence. The motive for false implication advanced by the appellants has not impressed us at all. The motive advanced is too vague and general and, in the facts of the case, we fad it difficult to accept it as a reason for false implication. The prosecution has also given a different story to hide the real reason for the killing and have also padded up their case to show that it was a case of simple robbery and in the process involved Ijaz also for the murder of Bashir under -section 34, P.P.C.
10. During the arguments, we had observed that in this case both sides had tried to withhold the truth and the question was whether this Court should, from the record, discover the truth and sift the grain from the chaff. Mr. Malik Muhammad Nusrat Mehal, learned counsel for the State, then referred to the of cited judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed All Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah reported in PLD 1962 SC 502. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Bepari's case as follows:- "Here we may observe that in a case of this type the parties do not generally come out with the true story. It is a normal incident of an `adversary proceeding' to minimize one's own part in the incident. In such a case the Court must not be deterred by the incompleteness of the tale from drawing the inferences that properly flow from the evidence and circumstances."
' We may also refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahid Raza v. The State 1992 SCM R 1647. In this judgment, the Supreme Court made reference to Bepari's case and observed as follows:- "Another interesting feature in this case is that apart from the afore noted interest of each side to make a statement favorable to itself, there should, bee obvious tendency further to introduce such falsehood in the narrative which from the complaint's point of view would prove the accused to be guilty-, while the latter would introduce similar falsehood to save himself from the gallows. In this light, there will be not much of difference between the afore visualized situation and the one visualised in the famous case of Syed All Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah PLD 1962 SC 502. When both parties are determined to withhold reality and truth from the Court, it was held by this Court in the said case that such stage and situation, should not deter the Court from discovering the truth and thus the sifting of grain from the chaff."
11. In the present case when we place the prosecution version in juxtaposition with the defence version, we find that both the parties have gone to great length to withhold the truth. The complainant party were at great pains to establish that this was a simple case of robbery in which on account of resistance, the assailants resorted to firing resulting in the death of Bashir Ahmad.
On the other hand, the defence has tried to show that they had no connection whatsoever with the incident and had come to the Railway Station after attending a criminal case and were arrested at the Railway Station and they were totally innocent and had no clue about the incident. As observed, we are of the view that in the facts of this case both the parties have not come out with the truth, but from the evidence on record it is possible to sift the grain from the chaff and, taking support from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Bepari's case (PLD 1962 SC 502) and Shahid Raza v. The State (1992 SCM R 1647), we proceed to sift the grain from the chaff in this case.
12. The evidence in this case leads us to the conclusion that this was not a case of robbery. The story as built up by the prosecution witnesses on the foundation laid by Exh.PB, on its face, appears to be a doubtful. If at all the accused, duly armed, were waiting for victims to rob them, it is improbable that they would proceed to commit robbery against complainant and Bashir Ahmad previously known to them and in the presence of several witnesses near the bus Adda. Taking away of the purse with Rs,50 from the complainant in which purse identity card of the complainant was available and the fact that the accused do not throw away the purse and use the money, and same is recovered from a nearby bush and Ijaz should also place his own National Identity Card in the stolen purse, does not give a story which inspires confidence. The factum of complete details about the accused having been found in Exh.PB (the complaint) recorded within 45 minutes of the incident when such particulars about the parentages and addresses of the accused were not known to the complainant as according to the prosecution case such particulars came to the knowledge of the complainant party from the relatives of the accused after their arrest on 6-7-1991, also shows that, if the incident had taken place, the accused had been apprehended on the spot and that is why their full particulars appear in the complaint.
' It has already been 'observed that in our view the prosecution has not been able to establish that it was a case of robbery. It is not clear from evidence as to why the accused had come to the place of incident and the real motive for the killing has also not been established. The defence version that they had gone to attend a criminal case relating to the brother of their maternal grandfather and were standing at the Railway Station when they were arrested by the police and falsely involved in the case also does not appear to be true. An incident had taken place in which there was one fire which caused the death of deceased Bashir Ahmad. The accused were apprehended on the spot which is confirmed from the fact that their names with full details appeared in the complaint and from the suggestion put to the complainant from the side of the appellants that the appellants had been arrested the same night by the complainant party and produced before the police. The complainant's evidence that he had caused injury to both the appellants by his ' Sota' also confirms that the appellants had been apprehended on the spot, disarmed and then beaten up. It otherwise appears to be improbable that, in case the incident had taken place as alleged by the prosecution, complainant would be expected to attack the appellants, both armed with guns, and inflict several injuries on the person of the two appellants with a Sota'. The case is further strengthened from the recovery of the .30 bore pistol recovered at the instance of appellant Muhammad Nasir and the report of the Ballistic Expert according to which the crime empty was fired from the said pistol. In our view, the evidence establishes the infliction of fire-arm injury upon deceased Bashi'. Ahmad by appellant Muhammad Nasir which injury was the cause of his death within a very short time thereafter.
13. The evidence has not established that Ijaz was armed with revolver. P.W3 and P.W.4 do not give evidence of Ijaz being armed and only talk about Ijaz grappling the complainant. In view of the prosecution not establishing the case of robbery, we find no common intention of Ijaz with Muhammad Nasir in the murder of Bashir Ahmad. There is no credible evidence to establish why the assailants had come to scene of incident and what was the motive of the murder. However, as observed, the evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Muhammad Nasir had caused the murder of deceased Bashir Ahmad.
14. Here we may also refer to a submission made by Mr. Shaikh Khizar Hayat, learned counsel for the appellants that according to the appellants they had been arrested on 20-6-1991 i.e, on the day of the occurrence although the police had shown their arrest on 6-7-1991. From the scrutiny of the evidence and reasons given in earlier part of this judgment it would appear that what the learned counsel states is correct, but, in the facts of this case, the fact that the appellants had been arrested on 20-6-1991 and not later on 6-7-1991, as alleged by the police and the prosecution, is not fatal to the prosecution case that Bashir Ahmad had been murdered by appellant Muhammad Nasir. We have referred to the evidence and given our reasoning for coming to the conclusion that the evidence has established that Muhammad Nasir was responsible for F murdering Bashir Ahmad. Dishonest investigation would not demolish the case of the prosecution if the evidence on record establishes the case against the accused.
15. As a result, this appeal partly succeeds inasmuch as the conviction and sentences of appellant Muhammad Ijaz by the trial Court are set aside and he G is acquitted of the offences for which he was convicted and sentenced. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
The conviction and sentence of appellant Muhammad Nasir under section 392, P.P.C. Are also set H aside and he is acquitted of that offence. However, his conviction under section 302 is maintained.
The motive for the murder is shrouded in mystery and, in the facts of this case, the death sentence awarded to Muhammad Nasir is commuted to life imprisonment, but the sentence of fine and compensation awarded to him by the trial Court are maintained. Murder Reference No3/L of 1994 is in the circumstances, not confirmed. 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.