1. ' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.--- Appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq was tried by the Sessions Judge, Karachi Central in Sessions Case No,596 of 1988 which was outcome of F.I.R. No,78 of 1984 of Police Station New Karachi, for the offences punishable under sections 452, 307 and 302 of P.P.C. At conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, Karachi Central under his judgment, dated 26-2- 1992 convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of P.P.C. And sentenced him to death penalty with fine of Rs,50,000 or to suffer simple imprisonment for five years. Malik Muhammad Sadiq has filed Criminal Appeal No,50 of 1992 challenging his conviction and sentence, while the Sessions Judge has made a reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with subsection ,(2) of section 31 of Cr.P.C. For confirmation of the death sentence.
2. Under this judgment, Confirmation Case No,3 of 1992 and Criminal Appeal No,50 of 1992 would be disposed of.
3. ' According to the prosecution, on 25-2-1984 at 6-30 p.m. Deceased Naveedul Hassan was present in a room of his house in New Karachi, when appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq came there with an unknown person who had muffled his face. The unknown culprit who was carrying a tin of kerosene oil, sprinkled the same on person of the deceased. Thereupon, Naveedul Hassan was set on fire by use of a match box by the appellant. Due to this Naveedul Hassan raised` cries, which attracted to the place of incident his neighbours Akhtar Hussain and Younus. They extinguished the fire, while the appellant and his companion escaped by a waiting motor-cycle. P.Ws. Akhtar and Younus brought injured Naveedul Hassan to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where he was admitted. His entire body was found burnt except feet. Dr. Abdul Majeed who provided treatment to injured Naveedul Hassan, informed Duty Officer Rehmat Ali of Police Station New Karachi over phone about admission of Naveedul Hassan in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital in burnt condition. S.I.P. Rahmat Ali made such entry in the daily diary and after contracting concerned Medico-legal Officer visited said hospital where he recorded statement of injured Naveedul Hassan with permission of the former. On return to the police station, S.I.P. Rahmat Ali transcribed contents of the statements of Naveedul Hassan in F.I.R. Book and registered the case.
4. ' Motive for the offence was an earlier incident having taken place 20 to 25 days before the present incident, when Naveedul Hassan on seeing appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq beating a boy, intervened and got released the boy being beaten. This annoyed the appellant who gave two to four blows to Naveedul Hassan and threatened to see him at the evening time. On not finding Naveedul Hassan at evening of that day, the appellant beat Akhtar for his failure to produce Naveedul Hassan, who had gone on duty being Checker in Ramzan & Company. Akhtar Hussain complained to Councillor Aslam Shah. Due to all this the appellant nursed grudge against Naveedul Hassan.
5. ' After registration of the case, Rahmat All took over the investigation and visited Wardat which was in a room in New Abadi of New Karachi. He recovered burnt clothes of Naveedul Hassan torn from his body, after the incident and prepared such Mashirnama. On 26-2-1984 S.I.P. Rehmnat Ali arrested the appellant and on 29-2-1984 he received message from the hospital that Naveedul Hassan had died. He prepared memo. And inquest report of the dead body in the hospital and made entries in record. S.I.P. Rehmat Ali moved Medico-Legal Officer to disclose cause of death of Naveedul Hassan and Dr. Tariq Masood, M.L.O. Informed him that cause of death was 80% burns, septicemia and cardio respiratory failure. Initially F.I.R. Was registered for offence under sections 307 and 452 of P.P.C. And then section 302 of P.P.C. Was added. S.I.P. Rehmat Ali passed on the case papers to the S.H.O. For further investigation. In the meantime investigation was transferred to C.I.A., A.S.-I. Kalbe Bakar investigated the case by visiting the Wardat and examining the witnesses.
6. Ultimately the case was challaned.
7. ' At his trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge Exh.2 containing the prosecution allegations. Prosecution examined P.W. Zulfiqar Hussain Exh.5, Akhtar Hussain Exh.6, Muhammad Iqbal, Exh.7, Muhamniad Salim Exh.9, Salam Exh.10, Ali Athar Exh.12, Ghulam Shabbir Exh.13, Ghulam Haider Exh.18, Babuddin (erroneously given as Exh.18), Haji Nazar Hussain Exh.19, Aslam Shah Exh.20, Rahmat Ali Exh.33, Kalbe Bakar Exh.42 and Muhammad Anwar Exh.43. Prosecution was closed under statement Exh .49.
8. ' In his statement Exh.50 appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq denied the prosecution allegations and added that he had no knowledge about facts of the case. He gave his statement on oath Exh.51 and examined in defence Mushtaq Ahmed Exh.52 and Abdul Sattar Exh.53 and closed his side vide statement Exh.54. At conclusion of the trial the appellant:was convicted and sentenced as already mentioned.
9. ' Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no ocular evidence in the case and that the statement Exh.14 termed by the prosecution as dying declaration, was not reliable, was full of contradictions and was intrinsically defective. It was pointed out that none of the doctors had given a cerificate in respect of the dying declaration Exh.14, to the effect that injured Naveedul Hassan was fit to give the same. In respect of the motive, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the depositions of Akhtar Hussain Exh.6 and Syed Aslam Shah Exh.20 and Zulfiqar Exh.5 and argued that the same was unreliable. In respect of the medical evidence, learned counsel argued that there was no evidence if post-mortem examination was conducted of the dead body and that no Medical Officer was examined and certificates Exhs.44 and 45 were produced through Compounder Muhammad. Anwar Exh.43.
10. ' Mrs. Rashida Patel, learned counsel for mother of the deceased, relied on evidence of P.Ws. Zulfiqar Hussain Exh.5 and Akhtar Hussain Exh.6 in support of her contention that the deceased was able to talk and that he had made the dying declaration Exh.14. Learned counsel for the complainant explained that condition of Naveedul Hassan was such that he could not sign and hence he had thumb-marked this statement Exh.14. It was also argued that injured Naveedul Hassan could be unconscious for a while but that did not mean that he did not regain consciousness. Reference was made to the evidence of P.W. Ghulam Haider Exh.18 who learnt from P.W. Akhtar that Malik Sadiq set fire. In support Mrs. Rashida Petal cited the case of Muhammad Kabir alias Kala v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2222, where it was held that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and it can be acted upon without any corroboration, if the Court is satisfied about its genuineness. That some of the tests for determining its genuineness are, whether it intrinsically rings true br, whether there is no chance of mistake on the part of the dying man in identifying or naming his assailant, or whether it is free from prompting from any outside quarter and whether it is consistent with the other evidence and the circumstances of the case. In cited case the dying declaration was not relied upon, because there were doubts about the deceased having been able to identify the assailant and about his having made the dying declaration before the Inspector of Police.
11. ' Mr. AShiq Raza, Advocate for Advocate-General for State supported conviction of the appellant and argued that the dying declaration was supported by S.I.P. Rehmat Ali and could be relied upon.
12. In support he cited the cases of Niamat Ali v. The State 1981 SCM R 61 and Ali Gul and others v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 1190.
13. ' The incident in which Naveedul Hassan was set down to fire, was supported by various 'witnesses but they did not name the appellant to have set fire to him. Zulfiqar Hussain Exh.5 who was maternal-uncle of Naveedul Hassan deposed that he was in Akhtar Colony when Akhtar Hussain told him that Naveedul Hassan had been injured and had been removed to the hospital. That he rushed to the hospital, where police recorded the statement of Naveedul Hassan, who was able to speak. Zulfiqar Hussain added that Naveedul Hassan, told him that Malik Muhammad Sadiq and a man with muffled face, threw kerosene oil over him and set him on fire. Zulfiqar Hussain is not an eye-witness and his evidence that he learnt about receipt of injuries by Naveedul Hassan from Akhtar Hussain Exh.6 is inadmissible because the latter did not state if he conveyed facts of the incident to Zulfiqar. Zulfiqar stated that his 161, Cr.P.C. Statement was never recorded by police. He denied having made statement before any Police Officer about the previous incident between Malik Sadiq and Naveedul Hassan. Evidence of Zulfiqar Hussain about having learnt from victim Naveedul Hassan that he was set on fire by Malik Sadiq and his companion with muffled faces, is belied by medical evidence. Dr. Abdul Basit Exh.47/A of Abbasi Shaheed Hospital stated in evidence that victim Naveedul Hassan was brought in the hospital in unconscious condition when he was examined by Dr. Capt. Abdul Majeed on 25-2-1984. In this way evidence of .P.W. Zulfiqar Hussain is of no material help to the prosecution. Police statement of P.W. Zulfiqar Hussain was not recorded by S.I.P. Rehmat Ali Exh.33. But A.S.-I. Kulbe Bakar. Exh.42 claimed to have recorded police statement of Zulfiqar Hussain. Yet Zulfiqar Hussain did not admit this. P.W. Akhtar Hussain Exh.6 who was running a Watch Repairing Shop in New Karachi deposed that on 25-2-1984 at Maghrib time he came to his house and saw Malik Muhammad Sadiq and his companion coming out of house of the deceased and going away by a red coloured motor-cycle parking at gate of deceased's house. P.W. Akhtar Hussain added that on hearing noise he came at the gate of deceased's house and saw clothes worn by the deceased having caught fire. Akhtar Hussain claimed to have joined Younus in making efforts for extinguishing fire on the person of the deceased. He succeeded in extinguishing fire on person of the deceased, as stated by him. Akhtar Hussain further stated that after the fire was extinguished, he made enquiry from the deceased who replied that he had been set on fire by appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq and his companion. According to Akhtar Hussain, front portion of the body of the deceased was burnt and so also his clothes except some portion kit the trouser. Face of the deceased was said to have been saved. Akhtar Hussain claimed to have taken, by a taxi injured Naveedul Hassan to Police Station New Karachi, in company of Shabbir and another person. He added that Naveedul Hassan told the Head Moharir that he was burnt by the appellant. That the Head Moharir without recording the F.I.R. Directed removal of Naveedul Hassan to the hospital for saving his life. Instead of taking the injured to the hospital, Akhtar Hussain went to Aslam Shah to inform him of the incident and then went to the hospital. This story is in conflict with the prosecution evidence given by S.I.P. Rahmat Ali that information, about injured Naveedul Hassan having been admitted in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, was conveyed to him by Dr. Abdul Majeed. He did not state if Naveedul Hassan himself came to the police. Station assisted by Akhtar Hussain, Shabbir Ahrried and a third person. Akhtar Hussain admitted in cross-examination that he did not tell police that he and Younus went to P.W. Zulfiqar in Akhtar Colony and narrated the incident to him. Akhtar Hussain admitted in cross-examination that he was residing on first floor of the building, which had two rooms on the ground floor and one of them was with deceased Naveedul Hassan on rent and the other room was in occupation of another person 'whose name he could not give. Akhtar Hussain admitted that he did not see with his eyes setting of the deceased on fire. He stated in cross-examination that Naveedul Hassan was in senses after receiving the burn injuries. It is pertinent to nbte that in the dying declaration Exh.14 injured Naveedul Hassan did not state that he narrated the incident to Akhtar Hussain or Zulficiar.
14. ' P.W. Muhammad Iqbal Exh.7 having a shop 50 paces from the Wardat claimed to have heard noise but did not go to the Wardat. After 10 minutes he claimed to have seen Naveedul Hassan being taken by Younus and Akhtar Hussain on foot. He did not state if Naveedul Hassan or anybody else disclosed to him the incident. He also acted as Mashir of Wardat and produced Mashirnama Exh.8. In his cross-examination Muhammad Iqbal admitted that he stated before police that Akhtar Hussain or Younus did not tell him that the appellant had set Naveedul Hassan on fire.
15. ' P.W. Muhammad Salim Exh.9 a vegetable seller deposed that he saw a house on fire and heard noise of ladies coming from there. He named Akhtar to have opened the room engulfed by fire and claimed to have heard noise of Naveedul Hassan seeking help. Muhammad Salim went to the Wardat and saw Naveedul Hassan in burnt condition. He saw Akhtar and Younus extinguishing the fire on person of Naveedul Hassan. Muhammad Salim admitted that neither Naveedul Hassan nor Akhtar nor Younus told him as to who had set Naveedul Hassan on fire. He denied having seen the appellant at the Wardat.
16. ' P.W. Salam Ex.h.10 who was purchasing vegetable from Salim deposed that he had heard cries from a room which was closed from inside and that Akhtar came out of the room and called for a taxi. Salmi' claimed to have brought taxi, by which Naveedul Hassan, Akhtar and another person went to the hospital. This evidence is in conflict with the evidence of Muhammad lqbal Exh.7 who claimed to have seen injured Naveedul Hassan going on foot with help of Younus and Akhtar.
17. Muhammad IqVal did not state if the injured was being taken in a taxi. Salam Exh.10 stated that the taxi which took injured Naveedul Hassan and others to the hospital was brought by him and that he also accompanied the injured to the hospital.
18. ' Rest of the witnesses had little to say against the appellant. Ali Athar Exh.12 dresser in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital deposed that it was he who did dressing of wounds of Naveedul Hassan, who was burnt to sufficient extent. He added that police recorded statement of Naveedul Hassan in the hospital but not in his presence. Ali Athar claimed to have learnt from Naveedul Hassan while dressing him, that Akhtar had got him killed. This evidence makes Akhtar an accomplice. Ali Athar further stated that Naveedul Hassan disclosed that he was set on fire with assistance of Akhtar in order to involve someone but due to ill-luck he received the burns extensively. On next day of saying so, Naveedul Hassan died, as per Ali Athar Exh.12 who added that it was to involve Malik Muhammad Sadiq that Naveedul Hassan burnt himself with assistance of Akhtar. Ghulam Shabbir Exh.13 was driver of a mini bus of which the deceased was conductor. He deposed that on 25-2- 1984 he boarded B/2 mini bus whose driver questioned him as to what had happened to deceased Naveedul Hassan, because he was being brought with assistance of Akhtar Hussain and another person. Ghulam Shabbir added that on knowing this, he got down and wet to Naveedul Hassan who told him that he was inside his room when appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq and another person came and put kerosene oil over him and set him on fire. Ghulam Shabbir stated that he arranged a taxi and took injured Naveedul Hassan with Akhtar and another boy to the police station. He added that it was a Head Constable who directed removal of injured Naveedul Hassan to hospital and that Naveedul Hassan was taken in the same taxi to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital.
19. There is material contradiction about the person who brought the taxi that took the injured to the hospital. There is another contradiction about the injured Naveed having been taken first to police station and then to hospital or direct to the hospital. There is third contradiction about injured Naveedul Hassan having been taken by a taxi or by foot with assistance of Akhtar Hussain and another. P.W. Ghulam Shabbir added that statement of injured Naveedul Hassan was recorded by police inspector in his presence. He failed to state if Naveedul Hassan signed or thumb-marked his statement. He explained that he came out of the room after putting his signature on statement of injured Naveedul Hassan Exh.14. P.W. Ghulam Shabbir was confronted with an affidavit Exh.15 said to have been sworn by him before a Magistrate. In said affidavit Ghulam Shabbir said that Naveedul Hassan or Akhtar did not disclose as to, who had caused fire, that deceased Naveedul Hassan did not tell S.I.P. Rehmat Ali that Malik Muhammad Sadiq had committed the offence. In said affidavit Ghulam Shabbir further stated that he had signed a paper prepared by police although the same was not read over to him. Ghulam Shabbir admitted his signature on the affidavit Exh.15, which is accompanied by photo copy of his identity card. He denied contents of the affidavit Exh.15. In reply to Court questions, Ghulam Shabbir stated that it was the appellant who obtained his affidavit Exh.15, the contents of which were not read over to him before his signature was obtained. That his signatures were obtained on a blank paper by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh, Advocate for the appellant. At the same time this witness stated that he would not sign any blank paper, which can be used as his affidavit. He denied having appeared before a Magistrate for swearing the affidavit Exh.15. P.W. Ghulam Haider Exh.18 was living with injured Naveedul Hassan, but at the time of the incident he was not present in the house. He stated that one Barber told him that Naveedul Hassan had caught fire. This witness found his house locked but went inside by scaling over a wall. He added that at 11-00 or 12-00 mid night Akhtar came in the house and told him that Naveedul Hassan was set on fire by appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq. This evidence is inadmissible because P.W. Akhtar Hussain Exh.6 did not state if he told P.W. Ghulam Haider about the incident.
20. Ghulam Haider added that his statement was never recorded by police. P.W. Babuddin Exh.18 deposed that on 25-2-1984 at a time between 5-00 p.m. To 6-00 p.m. He was present near shop Of Iqbal at distance of 15 to 20 paces from house of Naveedul Hassan when he heard noise and cries of the people saying that house of Naveedul Hassan had caught fire. Babuddin went to house of Naveedul Hassan which was locked from inside but was opened. He claimed to have seen Younus and Aklitar extinguishing the fire on person of Naveedul Hassan while carrying a Gadda and a bucket of water respectively. Babuddin added that injured Naveedul Hassan was removed by a taxi to the hospital by Akhtar and Younus. This witness did not see the appellant or anybody setting Naveedul Hassan on fire. P.W. Haji Nazar Hussain Exh.19 was witness to the statement Exh.14 of the injured. P.W. Haji Nazar Hussain did not support the prosecution. He admitted his presence in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where his daughter was admitted. He denied if Inspector of police recorded statement of any injured in his presence. He added that his signature was obtained on a paper outside the room in the hospital while the injured was inside the room. Haji Nazar Hussain admitted his signature on the statement Exh.15 but hastened to add that he made enquiry from the injured on the next day, when the injured told him that Malik Muhammad Sadiq had caused him the injuries. This fact was not stated by him in his police statement, as per his cross-examination.
21. Nazar Hussain admitted that in his statement before C.I.A. Police, he did not name the appellant for causing the injuries to Naveedul Hassan. This witness showed his ignorance about Naveedul Hassan being in semi-conscious condition on the first day of his admission in the hospital. Aslam Shah Exh.20 deposed that Younus and Akhtar came to him and told him that appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq was harassing deceased Naveedul Hassan and extending him threats. Aslam Shah added that he went to house of the appellant and contacted him and made enquiries, but the appellant replied that there was no such matter and that Naveedul Hassan belonged to his village. He stated in cross-examination that his enquiry revealed that complaint of Akhtar and Younus was false.
22. ' P.W. Rahmat Ali Exh.33 deposed that on 25-2-1984 he was S.I.P. And Duty Officer Police Station New Karachi where he received information at 7-20 p.m. Over telephone that one Naveedul Hassan injured with burn injuries was admitted in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. His evidence belies prosecution evidence coming from Akhtar Hussain Exh.6.And Ghulam Shabbir Exh.13 that the injured was firstly taken to New Karachi Police Station and then to the hospital. S.I.P. Rehmat Ali added that on receiving the telephonic message he made such entry in the Daily Diary and went to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where injured Naveedul Hassan was admitted in the burn ward. S.I.P. Rahmat Ali further stated that after obtaining permission of the Medico-legal Officer (M.L.O.) he correctly recorded statement Exh.14 of Naveedul Hassan verbatim in presence of Haji Nazar and Shabbir and in absence of the M.L.O. Whose certificate was not obtained. S.I.P. Rahmat Ali claimed to have obtained L.T.I. Of injured Naveedul Hassan and signatures of Nazar and Shabbir on the statement Exh.14. The S.I.P. Produced F.I.R. Exh.34 registered by him on the basis of statement Exh.14. After registration of the case, the same was investigated by S.I.P. Rahmat Ali as well as by S.I.P. Kalbe Bakar of C.I.A. The evidence of Dr. Abdul Majeed Kajiani, who examined injured Naveedul Hassan as M.L.O. On his admission in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, could not be recorded because said doctor has gone to Canada for permanent settlement, as stated by Muhammad Anwar Exh.43 who is Compounder in said hospital. He produced medical certificates Exh.44 and Exh.45 in respect of injured Naveedul Hassan issued by Dr. Abdul Majeed.
23. ' Learned counsel appearing for mother of the deceased vehemently argued that evidence of dying declaration was enough for maintaining conviction of the appellant for capital offence and cited the cases of Niamat Ali and Ali Gul. In the case of Niamat Ali v. State 1981 SCM R 61 there was nothing to suggest that maker of a dying declaration, who later on died, would have substituted an innocent man for the culprit and as such his statement in the form of the F.I.R. Was treated as a dying declaration. It was held that statement of the deceased in the form of F.I.R. Was rightly treated as a dying declaration and this was by itself a very strong piece of evidence against the appellant and no other corroboration through any so-called independent source was necessary. In the case of Ali Gul and others v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 1190 the dying declaration was recorded at a time when its maker was not expecting to die and it was recorded in the nature of a statement under section 162 of Cr.P.C. Without signature of the maker, who later on died and it was held by a D.B. Of this Court that the dying declaration to which clause (1) of section 32 of Evidence Act, applies, would not be hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C. And it is good piece of evidence in establishing the charge against the accused and it is admissible in evidence, and can be safely relied upon.
24. ' Reliance was also placed on the case of Muhammad Kabir alias Kala v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 2222 where it was observed as below:-- "A dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence. If the Court is satisfied about its genuineness it can be acted upon without any corroboration. Some of the tests for determining its genuineness are: whether it intrinsically rings true, whether there is no chance of mistake on the part of the dying man in identifying or naming his assailant or whether it is free from prompting from any outside quarter and whether it is consistent with the other evidence and the circumstances of the case. "
25. ' There can be no cavil with the observations made in the aforesaid cases. However, in the instant case it is doubtful if injured Naveed ul Hassan after burning his body to the extent of 75% could have been in a position to make statement Exh.14 before S.I.P. Rahmat Ali or could have told Zulfiqar, Akhtar Hussain, Ghularn Shabbir, and Haji Nazar Hussain that appellant Malik Muhammad Sadiq set him on fire. The certificates Exhs.44 and 45 show that body of the injured was burnt to the extent of 75% while the certificate Exh.45 shows that Naveedul Hassan expired at 9-00 p.m. On 29- 2-1984 due to spticemia and cardio respiratory failure. Dr. Abdul Basit who was Assistant Police Surgeon in same hospital on 25-2-1984 was examined as a Court-witness. He deposed that Naveedul Hassan was admitted in the hospital on 25-2-1984 and he expired on 29-2-1984. Dr. Abdul Basit supported the certificate Exh.44 which according to him was bearing signature of Dr. Abdul Majeed. In his cross-examination Dr. Abdul Basit stated that victim Naveedul Hassan was brought to the hospital in unconscious condition. He could not say if victim Naveedul Hassan remained unconscious during the period remained under treatment as an indoor patient. It was duty of S.I.P. Rahmat Ali to obtain a certificate from a doctor of said hospital, before recording the statement Exh.14 on 25-2-1984, that injured Naveedul Hassan was in a fit position to give statement.
26. This was not done. There is no dispute with the proposition that conviction can be based solely on dying declaration which is a good piece of evidence in establishing charge against an accused as held in case of Ali Gul and that it does not require corroboration as per the view taken in the case of Niamat Ali. However, before basing conviction for a capital offence on such dying declaration, it is essential for the prosecution to establish that maker of such dying declaration made the same consciously, and that he was in a fit position to make such statement. A doubt had been created about fitness of injured Naveedul Hassan to make the statement Exh.14 or to have made the statements before the witnesses mentioned above, about the cause of the injuries on his person. In such a situation the benefit of doubt as to go to the accused/appellant. Another drawback of this case is that S.I.P. Rahmat Ali chose to record statement of injured Naveedul Hassan Exh.14 without procuring services of a Magistrate. Obviously there is no dearth of Magistrate at a place like Karachi. Moreover, the statement Exh.14 was not recorded at such an odd hour of night that a Magistrate could not be contacted. The said statement Exh.14 shows that it was recorded at 10-30 p.m. Recording of the statement Exh.14 by a Police Officer and not by a Magistrate reduces its value.
27. For these reasons it would be risky and not in keeping with the established principles of law or with the recognized principles of Justice that a capital charge, which may entail life of the appellant, can be said to have been established on the basis of such kind of statement.
28. ' In this view of the matter, Criminal Appeal No,50 of 1992 stands accepted and conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he stands acquitted and he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The Criminal Reference No,3 of 1993 stands disposed of being infructuous.