1. ' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,202 of 1998 filed by Nazar Farid, and Muneer Ahmad, appellants, who were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakpattan Sharif vide his judgment dated 12-6-1998 as under:--
(1) Nazar Farid, appellant, death under section 302(b), P.P.C. With the direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default six months' S. I .
(2) Muneer, appellant, life imprisonment under section 302(b), P.P.C. With the direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default six months' S.I.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 5-30 p.m. On 21-1-1996 within the revenue estate of Kot Dewan at a distance of 8.5 k.Ms. From Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif while the matter was reported to the police on the same day, at 9-00 p.m. By Jahangir complainant and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A.1 was recorded by Muhammad Ashraf M.H.C., P.W.7.
3. According to the 'F.I.R. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 21-1-1996, complainant, his sons Hakim Ali, Ithadim Hussain and Muhammad Siddique son of his sistef, were on their way to the house of one Abdul Karim at Village Bara and when at about 5-30 p.m. They reached near the Dhari of Cattle belonging to one Muhammad Sharif son of Baliya, in the ares of Kot Dewan and Hakim Ali was ahead to them, he heard reports of fire and saw his son falling on the ground and when hc, and his companions rushed towards him, they saw Nazar Farid and Muneer sons of Bashir Ahmad resident of Kot Dewan running towards their house, with the fire-arms, after giving fire shots on the person of Hakim Ali. The complainant and his companions attended Hakim Ali and he was found, to have expired. He further stated that a large number of persons attracted to the spot having heard hue and cry. Jehangir, the first informant, left Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Siddique near the dead body and proceeded to the police station for lodging the report.
2. ' Motive behind the occurrence was that Hakim Ali deceased was facing trial in a criminal case for giving Churri blows to Muneer Ahmed and that 21-1-1996 (fateful day) was the date of hearing before the Illaqa Magistrate at Pakpattan Sharif and because of that grudge, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed Qatal-eAmad of Hakim Ali.
3. After registration of the formal RF.I. F.I.R. Jaffer Ali A.S.I. P.W.10 went to the spot, prepared an unsealed site plan Exh.P.J, collected blood-stained earth and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K. On 1-2-1996, he arrested Nazar Farid, who in custody got recovered 7-MM Rifle through recovery memo. Muneer was arrested on 2-3-1996 and then the investigation was taken away by Muhammad Abbas S.H.O. P.W.11, on 16-3-1996 Muneer accused got recovered Rifle 7-MM p.13, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. And after completion of the formal investigation both the accused were challaned to face the trial.
3. ' At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11 witnesses in all, thereafter, statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication, report of the Chemical Examiner, reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exh . P . L. Exh.P.M . And Exh.P.N. Respectively and the judgments of the learned trial Magistrate dated 3-12-1997 were also brought on record. After conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated above.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellants after having read the entire prosecution evidence and other relevant material available on record submits that the appellants who are real brothers inter se have been falsely implicated in this case, it was an unwitnessed occurrence, the eye-witnesies were not present at the spot, the so-called eyewitnesses are cooked up witnesses, the report of the Fire-arm Expert does not connect Muneer Ahmad appellant with the commission of offence, recovery of rifle at the instance of Nazar Farid is concocted one for the reasons that the crime empty and the rifle allegedly recovered from Nazar Farid have been planted upon him, earlier the present occurrence two criminal cases between the parties under sections 334/337, P.P.C. Etc. Ended into a compromise, so the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in this case, the complainant Jehangir is father of the deceased while Khadim Hussain P.W. Is real brother of the deceased and so Muhammad Siddique P.W. Is also related to the complainant party and the complainant had made a lot of improvements in his statement before the learned trial Court in order to falsely implicate the appellants. Further submits that the statements of Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Siddique P.Ws. Were recorded later on by the police in order to make the same in line with the result of the post-mortem examination. He lastly submits that it is a case of no evidence and the appellants are entitled to clean acquittal.
5. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the occurrence had not taken place in the dark hours, matter was reported to the police promptly, names of the appellants are mentioned in the F.I.R., Muhammad Siddique is father-in-law of Nazar Farid appellant so there was no reason for Muhammad Siddique to implicate his own son-in-law at the risk of destroying the house of his daughter who was married to Nazar Farid appellant and that the prosecution has been successful in proving this case against the appellants.
6. ' We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the record with their assistance. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place on 21-1-1996 at 5- 30 p.m. That is, after the "Maghrib Prayer". The police station was though at a distance of 8.5 k.Ms. From the place of occurrence but the matter was reported to the police at 9-00 p.m. At "Nai Abadi Malik Pur" and the formal F.I.R. Was recorded at 9-30 p.m. The same night with the delay of 3-1/2 hours in lodging the F.I.R. Motive given in the F.I.R. Was that the deceased Hakim Ali son of the complainant had injured Muneer Ahmad, one of the appellant and the real brother of Nazar Farid the other appellant with knives, on the day of occurrence the said case was fixed in the Court of Area Magistrate Pakpattan Sharif and due to that grudge, the appellant committed the murder of Hakim Ali.
7. ' It may be noted here, that two cases of causing injuries inter se between the parties were registered prior to the present occurrence. The first case arising out of F JAL. No,164 was registered on 7-6-1992 against Hakim Ali deceased and Muhammad Suleman for causing injuries on the person of Muneer Ahmad under sections 334, 337-D, 337-F(ii) and 34, P.P.C., challan was submitted in the Court of Mr. Shahid Rafique, Magistrate Section 30, where the offence was compounded and both the parties entered into a compromise, on that ground an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved, as a result whereof Hakim Ali and Muhammad Suleman were acquitted. The other case F.I.R. No,343 was registered on 16-10-1992 against Muneer Ahmad, one of the appellants and one Muhammad Sharif, Hakim Ali deceased was injured in this case by Muneer Ahmad and Shafi as alleged in the F.I.R., the case was pending before Magistrate Section 30, since 1992, charge was framed under section 324/34, P.P.C., the injured Hakim Ali and the complainant compounded the offence, so both Muneer and Shafi were acquitted from the charge. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive against the appellants. It may be noted here, that though in the instant case Hakim Ali was murdered on 21-1-1996 but in case F.I.R. No,364 of 1992 in which Hakim Ali along with one Muhammad Suleman was accused, both the complainant and the accused compounded the offence at the time of confirmation of the pre-arrest bail, that may be in 1992 and on he basis of that affidavits Hakim Ali and Suleman were acquitted of the charge in 1997. Similarly, in case F.I.R. No,343 of 1992 Hakim Ali was the victim and the accused were Muneer and Shafi, it was registered on 16-10-1992 and affidavits of the complainant and the injured were available on the file of learned Magistrate and on the basis of that the accused moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Which was accepted and the accused were acquitted.
8. ' Dr. Muhammad Siddique P.W.9 who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Hakim Ali stated that probable time between death and post-mortem was about 18 to 24 hours.
9. According to prosecution the occurrence took place at 5-30 p.m. On 21-1-1996, the post-mortem was conducted at 1-50 p.m. On 22-1-1996 so that occurrence could not be said to have taken place at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. But at any time in dark hours of the night on 21-1-1996. The doctor also stated that he received the dead body in the hospital at 1-00 p.m. On 22-1-1996. This shows that the dead body was,despatched after a long delay to the hospital. Had the eye-witnesses been present as stated by them and the Investigating Officer if had completed the inquest report he must have despatched the dead body as early as possible and taking this aspect of the matter it should have been despatched between 8 to 10 a.m. On 22-1-1996. This delay in despatch of dead body to the hospital casts serious doubts upon the prosecution story rather it trends to show that the occurrence was un witnessed. Khadim Hussain and Jehangir P.Ws. Are real father and brother of the deceased while Muhammad Siddique himself stated tht he was father-in-law of Nazar Farid one of the appellant. Muhammad Siddique P.W.4 admitted that his daughter was but for the last 2/3 months prior to recording of his statement on 11-8-1997 and after the occurrence. We are not going to believe the story put forward by this witness. In fact.The suggestion put by the defence counsel that his daughter who was married with Nazar Farid was ( )1(," ) prior to the occurrence seems to be more plausible and reasonable because no father-in-law would depose against this son-in-law if his daughter was living happily with her husband. Muhammad Siddique P.W. Had grudge against Nazar Farid appellant for not settling his daughter in his house and sending her to the house of her father Muhammad Siddique. We are thus of the considered opinion that Muhammad Siddique P.W.Had falsely deposed against the appellants.
10. ' Another important factor in this case is that the F.I.R. Was lodged by Jehangir who is father of Hakim Ali deceased. He had not stated in the F.I.R. About the Fire-arms which the appellants were carrying at the time of occurrence even it was not stated in the F.I.R. That as to where the fires of both the appellants hit the deceased but before the learned trial Court Jehangir in his examination-in-chief stated that Muneer Ahmad and Nazar Farid appellants were armed with 7- MM Rifles and pointed out specific injuries. He was duly confronted with his statement Exh.P.A. It seems that the statements of Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Hussain P.Ws. Were recorded by the police after getting the post-mortem report and also after the deliberation and consultation in connivance with the complainant. We, therefore, do not believe the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot.
11. There is yet another important factor and that is, that Nazar Farid appellant was arrested on 1-2- 1996, Muneer was arrested on 2-3-1996, rifle on the pointation of Nazar Farid appellant was recovered on 12-2-1996 and according to the report of Fire-arm Expert which is at page 28 of the paper book relating to recoveries from the appellants, the parcel of crime empties was sent on 19- 2-1996 that is after arrest of the. Nazar Farid appellant and also after the alleged recovery of Rifle 7- MM from him while the rifle was sent to the expert on 3-3-1996. This is all concoction in order to falsely implicate the appellants. Moreover, according to the fire-arm expert, all the three crime empties recovered from the spot matched with the rifle of Nazar Farid appellant. It means that Muneer Ahmad appellant did not fire at the spot and was also not present at the spot because according to report of the Fire-arm Expert Exh.P.N. Relating to recovery from Muneer Ahmad, the 7- MM Rifle was found to be in working order. No crime empty matched with his rifle, so no reliance can be placed on the report of Fire-arm Expert relating to recovery from Nazar Farid. The report of the fire-arm expert relating to Nazar Farid appellant could have been a corroborative piece of evidence against him but we disbelieve the same and hold that it was a case of dishonest investigation from all angles.
12. ' It also needs to be mentioned here, that the complainant has stated in the F.I.R. About causing of injuries by Muneer Ahmed to his son Hakim Ali but he did not amention that Hakim Ali had alsO caused injuries to Muneer Ahmad prior to the occurrence. He did not approach the Court with clean hands. The case got registered for causing injuries by Muneer Ahmad to Hakim Ali and vice versa, as noted earlier that both the parties compromised and compounded the offence.
13. As a result of the above discussion we are of the considered view that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, parties were inimical towards each other, motive is not proved, so the question of false implication cannot be ruled out specially when no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. As an abundant caution we while extending the benefit of doubt to the convict- appellants accept their appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned trial Court. Both the appellants are in jail, they shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. The death sentence awarded to Nazar Farid appellant is not confirmed. Murder Reference to his extent is replied in the negative.
14. Appeal accepted.
15. 200 1 YLR 1633 [Karachi] Before Faiz Muhammad Qureshi and Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, JJ ABDUL HAMEED and another---Appellants versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No,48 and Criminal Jail Appeal No,53 of 1992, decided on 22nd March, 2001.
16. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- ----Ss. 302/149 & 365-A/149---Appreciation of evidence-Identification parade---Possibility of the accused having been shown to the prosecution witness before holding the identification parade could not be ruled out---Witnesses while identifying the accused in the identification parade had not assigned to the accused the respective roles played by them during the commission of the offence and no proper ratio of dummies was mixed up with accused as required under law---Such identification parade was of no help to prosecution---Murder of the deceased had not been proved---Complainant and the kidnapees had not supported the prosecution case with regard to the payment of ransom to the F accused---Three co-accused alleged to have received ransom money had been acquitted by to Trial Court---Prosecution evidence was full of material contradiction---Accused were acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances. [pp. 1637, 1638] A, B & C PLD 1996 Kar. 246 and 1995 SCM R 127 ref. Allah Bachayo Soomro for Appellants (in both the Appeals).
17. Ali Azher Tunio, Asstt. A.-G. For the State (in both the Appeals).
18. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2001.
19. ' FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI, J.---Appellants Abdul Hameed son of Gul Muhammad Butt and Ghulam Rasool son of Abdul Hadi Tunio have challenged the judgment dated 28-6-1992, passed by Judge, Special Court, Suppersession of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, in Case No,130 of 1991 under sections 365-A, 302, P.P.C. Read with section 149, P.P.C. In Crime No,4 of 1991 registered with Police Station Thar-ri Mohbat, District Dadu, whereby they have been found guilty of the offence under sections 302 and 365-A, P.P.C. Read with section 149, P.P.C. It has not been established from the record as to who had caused butt injury to deceased Roshan Ali as a result whereof he has died and were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life which is the other sentence prescribed for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. As regards the offence under section 365-A, P.P.C. Both appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and confiscation of their movable and immovable property. The substantive sentences of imprisonment for life for offences under section 302, P.P.C. And under section 365-A, P.P.C. Awarded to each of these two accused are directed td run concurrently. However, in the case of Abdul Hameed, who is already serving sentence for life imprisonment in another case of abduction for ransom, the sentence of imprisonment, for life awarded in the present case shall commence from the expiry of that sentence. Hence these two appeals.
20. ' The charge against the appellants is that on 16-1-1991 at about 9-30 p.m. They alongwith .
21. Absconding accused namely, Yousif, Mula Bux, Ali Ahmed. Ghulam Mustafa, Saleh, Zameer, Sher Manzoor Akber, Mehboob and Gul Shah duly armed with kalashnikov, rifles and guns formed an unlawful assembly and with the common object of the assembly they abducted Roshan Ali, Mukhtiar Ali and Masood for the purpose of getting ransom for their release. The accused are further charged that on the aforementioned date and time, at distance away from the said Mill, in furtherance of their common object they - committed the murder of kidnapee Roshan Ali by causing his death with butt ends of their weapons. According to prosecution story, Haji Ghulam Umar, who is of deceased Roshan Ali and uncle of kidnapee Mukhtiar Ali and Masood briefly stated is that about 12 months back at about 9-30 p.m. He was sitting in his Mill alongwith deceased Roshan Ali and kidnapee Mukhtiar Ali and Masood. There was electric light available in the Mill, when 9/10 dacoits armed with Kalashnikov and other weapons, came inside the Mill and took control of all of them, the dacoits kidnapped deceased Roshan Ali, Mukhtiar Ali and Masood for ransom. There was firing made by the dacoits, the dacoits went away and after their departure they had covered some distance, complainant heard cries of Roshan Ali, after sometime when the firing by the dacoits ended, he alongwith 'Chair Muhammad and others went outside and found that Roshan Ali was lying dead due to having sustained blunt substance injuries; on the next day he went to Police Station Thar-ri Mohbat and lodged his F.I.R. Exh.18, he brought the police to the place of wardat and showed the dead body of Roshan Ali to the police which was removed by the Police for post-mortem. Gul Munir, Incharge of Police Post Sindhi Butra on 17-1-1991 when he recorded the Report 'lodged by the complainant Ghulam Umar at 10-00 a.m. He then went to the place of wardat and prepared mashirnama of wardat Exh.25; he found the dead body of Roshan Ali half furlong away from the place of wardat who had blunt injuries on his head; he prepared inquest Report Exh.26 and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination to Taluka Hospital Mehar. After about 15/20 days kidnapees Masood and Mukhtiar Ali came at Police Post, where their statements were recorded; then he was transferred and he handed over the police papers of this case to S.H.O.
22. Of Thar-ri-Mohbat, Police Station for further investigation. Nazir Ahmed S.I.P. C.I.A. Dadu received the case paper from Inspector C.I.A., Malik Muhammad Hussain who had also handed over to him accused Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool, Soonharo and Usman for interrogation. It may be stated here that Soonharo and Usman were neither accused before the Court nor they have been shown as absconders and they were let off by Police as they were not identified by the witnesses in the Identification Parade. On 16-9-1991, he produced all three accused persons before Resident Magistrate Dadu for identification through complainant and the other witnesses. The witnesses picked out only accused Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool, he then was handed over the Inspector C.I.A., Dadu for further investigation; on 17-9-1991 Inspector C.I.A. Arrested accused Muhammad Jamman, Ali Gohar, Wahid Bux, Mureed and Shoaban on the further statement of P.Ws; such mashirnama was prepared in presence of mashirs, which has been produced as Exh.31.
23. ' After usual investigation, the accused persons were challaned in the Court, which three accused persons have been shown as absconders as already stated above.
24. ' Prosecution examined 11 witnesses; P.W.1 Masood Ahmed kidnapped and has given details of his kidnapping P.W.2 Ghulam Umar, who is the first informer, who has lodged the F.I.R. As Exh.18; Mukhtiar Ali is another kidnapee who has also given details of his kidnapping; P.W. 4 Habibullah as Assistant Mukhtiarkar TCM Mehr who had conducted Identification Parade in respect of accused Abdul Hameed through complainant and kidnapee; P.W. Aftab Ahmad also acted ,as mashir in respect of identification of accused Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool on 16-9-1991 and in which test the witnesses had correctly identified Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool; P.W. Aftab has also acted as mashir of wardat and produced mashirnama of wardat as Exh.25 and also produced mashir of Inquest Report as Exh.26; P.W.6 Gui Muhammad was posted as Resident Magistrate, Dadu when on 19-9- 1991 he held Identification Parade in respect of accused Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool, Sonharo and Usman through kidnapees Mukhtiar Ali and Masood Ahmed and complainant Ghulam Umar; the witnesses picked out only accused Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool; T.W. And Nazir Ahmed, S.I.P., C.I.A.
25. Who conducted further investigation in the present case; P.W. Rasool Bux was Medical Officer at Taluka Hospital .Mehar, Ali who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Roshan Ali on 17-1-1991 and found that deceased had died due to sustaining injuries of had blunt substance; P.W.9 Khair Muhammad is eyewitness and has correctly identified accused Abdul Hameed in the Identification Parade and so also Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool; P.W.10 Ghulam Nabi is tapadar and produced sketch of wardat as Exhs.36-A and B. P.W. Gul Munir Incharge Police Post, Sindhi Butra of Police Station Thar-riMohbat; who recorded report of complainant Ghulam Umar on 17-1-1991 and he had visited the place of wardat and prepared Inquest Report of the dead body of Roshan Ali; he recorded the statement of kidnapee Mukhtiar Ali and Masood Ahmed.
26. ' The prosecution again examined P.W. Gul Munir, who has stated that he could not serve the warrants upon Sarfraz Ahmed P.W. And has given his reports Exh.41 and Exh.42.
27. ' The statements of all the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Have been recorded, they have denied the allegations that they alongwith absconding accused had abducted deceased Roshan Ali, Mukhtiar Ali and Masood for the purpose of getting ransom. They have also denied that they had committed the murder of kidnapee Roshan Ali. They have also denied that they had received a sum of Rs,3,20,000 as ransom for the release of kidnapees Mukhtair Ali and Masood Ahmed.
28. Appellant Abdul Hameed has admitted that he was arrested on 27-8-1991 from Police lock-up of Mehar Police Station. He has, however, denied that he was correctly picked up by in an Identification Parade held by P.Ws. Khair Muhammad Mukhtiar Ali and Masood. He has stated that in fact no Identification Parade was ever held. He has further stated that P.Ws. Had deposed against him because of enmity over the lands and complainant party. He examined himself on oath in his defence but did not produce any witness in his defence. Appellant Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool has also denied that he was arrested from Police lock-up Dadu on 3-9-1991. He has stated that he was working in Jute Mills Kotri from where the police arrested him He also denied that he was correctly identified by the kidnapee Mukhtiar Ali and Masood Ahmed in the Identification Parade. He has also stated that no Identification Parade was ever held. He further stated that all P.Ws. Are inter-related and there was suspicion against him regarding the abduction of the wife of one Abdul Wahab who was a near relation of the Complainant party. He did not examine himself on oath in his defence but stated that his Advocate would submit the list of defence witnesses. The other co-accused Wahid Bux, Mureed, Muhammad Jumman, Ali Gohar and Shoaban have denied the allegations of the prosecution and have suggested their enmity with the police of C.I.A.
29. ' The trial Court formulated the points for determination and after going through the evidence deposed by the prosecution and material available on record passed the judgment in terms as stated above.
30. ' We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we propose to dispose of both Appeals which have arisen out of the same judgment in Crime No,4 of 1991.
31. ' Mr. Allah Bachayo Soomro, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly kidnapees Mukhtiar and Masood, the ransom was paid to co-accused Wahid Bux, Jumman and Ali Gohar and they have been acquitted by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence. He has further argued that murder has not been proved by the prosecution and it has also been discussed by the learned trial Judge in his judgment.
32. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the only piece of evidence against the appellants is Identification Parade which has been held on 5-9-1991 before the Resident Magistrate, Dadu through kidnapees Mukhtiar Ali, Masood, Ghulam Umar; appellants Abdul Hameed and Gulloo alias Ghulam Rasool are said to have been arrested on 27-8-1991 and 3-9-1991 respectively; there is delay in holding Identification Parade and there is signature of A.S.I. Of Dadu Police Station on the Mashirnama of Identification Parade which is said to have supervised by Resident Magistrate Dadu who is a IIIrd Class Magistrate and during the Identification Parade no role has been described to the appellant and ratio of dummies with three accused is seven and under law 10 or 11 dummies are to be intermingled with each accused and thus the Identification Parade lost sanctity and learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance PLD 1996 Kar. 246; 1995 SCM R 127 - 128 and has prayed acquittal of the abovenamed appellants.
33. ' On the other hand, Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the impugned judgment and has contended that all the accused caused injuries to deceased Roshan Ali and killed him and ransom is proved against the appellants. Mr. Ali Azher Tunio, learned Assistant Advocate-General has submitted that both the appeals have no merits and reliable to be dismissed.
34. ' We have gone through the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witness through the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the murder of Roshan Ali has not been proved which has also been discussed by the trial Judge while delivering the judgment. Admittedly, co-accused 3 to 7, namely Wahid Bux, Mureed, Muhammad Jumman, Ali Gohar, Shoaban have been acquitted by the trial Judge on the same set of evidence; ransom has been paid to co-accused Wahid Bux, Muhammad Jumman and Ali Gohar and yet they have been acquitted by the trial Judge while the afore named appellants have been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment as stated supra. We have also very carefully examined the evidence of complainant Haji Ghulam Umar, kidnapees Mukhtiar Ali and Masood who have not implicated the present appellants on the factum of ransom paid by them to afore named appellants; on the contrary, they implicated Wahid Bux, Muhammad Jumman, and Ali Gohar who have been acquitted by the trial Judge. We have also very carefully examined the entire record and it reveals that murder of deceased Roshan is not proved as to who caused injuries to him and who murdered him. Now the prosecution has left with the piece of evidence in the shape of Identification Parade held on 5-9-1991 before the Resident Magistrate, Dadu; Ghulam Umar Complainant Mukhtiar Ali and Masood kidnapee and whereas both appellants are said to have been arrested by Police on 27-8-1991 and 3-9-1991 respectively and thereafter they have been subjected to Identification Parade and possibility cannot be ruled out that they were shown to afore named witnesses before the Identification Parade by Police and thereafter they were sent for Identification Parade. We have also noted with care, the signature of A.S.I. Of Police Station, Dadu over Mashirnama of Identification Parade which cuts root and object of the Identification Parade and it cannot be said that Identificatin Parade has been held under the direction of A. S.I. And in that event that Identification Parade loses sanctity. We have examined very carefully the Mashirnama of Identification Parade and nowhere the afore named witnesses have assigned the role of the present appellant by pointing out that what kind of role was played by the afore named appellants during the commission of offence. No proper ratio of dummies has been mixed up with the accused as required under the law .
35. Since the prosecution is relying on the piece of evidence against the appellants in the shape of Identification Parade and such Identification Parade has been held against the norms of law as held by Superior Courts in PLD 1996 Kar. 246 and 1995 SCM R 127 128. The murder of Roshan Ali deceased has not been proved. The complainant and kidnapees have not supported the case of prosecution with regard to payment of ransom of afore named appellants and they have implicated co-accused Wahid Bux, Muhammad Jumman and Ali Gohar on the factum of ransom and they have been acquitted by the trial Court. We find doubtful case against the present appellants and the case of the prosecution is riddled with not only material contradictions but the same has not been proved at all against the afore named appellants.
36. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant and we give benefit of doubt to the appellants. Their conviction and sentences are set aside; In the result booth appeals are allowed; the appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.