MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus State
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- Mushtaq Ahmed son of Mukhtar Ahmed, caste Machhi, resident of Chak No.154/GB, Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh, appellant, was involved in case FIR No.275/2006, dated 22.07.2006, offence under sections 302, 201, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh and was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who vide judgment dated 21.06.2007 convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him to death on two counts with direction to pay Rs.50,000/- on each count as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo SI for six months on each count. Under section 201, P.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of non-payment whereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, Mushtaq Ahmed/appellant impugned the same by way of filing Crl. Appeal No.991 of 2007 while the learned trial court forwarded Murder Reference No.368 of 2007 for confirmation of death sentence in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C. As both the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment of the learned trial court, therefore, these are being disposed of through single judgment.
3. Prosecution story as contained in the FIR (Exh.PJ/1) lodged on the complaint (Exh.PJ) of Muhammad Ishtiaq Aslam son of Muhammad Aslam, caste Arain, resident of Chak No.154/GB (PW-5) is that on 22.07.2006 the complainant alongwith Muhammad Aslam, father of the complainant and Jawad Aslam, brother of the complainant, were sleeping in the haveli of cattle, whereas, their servant Mushtaq son of Mukhtar was also sleeping on a cot. Suddenly hue and cry was raised upon which the complainant woke up and saw that Mushtaq armed with hatchet gave two blows upon the neck of Muhammad Aslam, father of the complainant. After waking up Jawad Aslam came forward upon which Mushtaq also gave a hatchet blow upon his neck. Father and brother of the complainant succumbed to the injuries at the spot. When Mushtaq Ahmed came forward to kill the complainant, he fled away and hid himself in a nearby sugarcane crop. After sunrise the complainant on reaching the village told his family members and others about the incident and when the complainant alongwith Muhammad Anwar son of Nawab Din and Abdul Hameed son of Muhammad Hussain and other inhabitants of the village went to the haveli , they saw that the dead bodies of Jawad and Muhammad Aslam were missing from there. All of them started search of the accused and the dead bodies in the fields when in the meanwhile Muhammad Ilyas son of Abdul Rasheed, resident of the same village told that after the occurrence he had seen Mushtaq while putting the dead bodies on the bull-cart wrapped in a cloth heading towards the canal. During the search they found Mushtaq who was inquired about the dead bodies and after some resistance he told that the dead bodies were thrown in the canal. At about 2:50 p.m. the complainant alongwith the accused was on way to Police Station when near Adda Bashir Abad he met with Mushtaq Hussain, S.I. (PW-4) and moved application (Exh.PJ) upon which the Investigating Officer after endorsing police karvai sent the same to Police Station through Dilshad Ahmed C/166 for registration of formal FIR (Exh.PJ/1). Thereafter the Investigating Officer visited the spot and took rough notes. During the course of investigation the accused made disclosure and led to the recovery of hatchet (P-2) and bullock-cart (P-3), which the Investigating Officer took into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PK. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of articles Exh.PK/1. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer secured bloodstained earth from the place of murder of the deceased and cot (P-4) and made into sealed parcel vide recovery memo Exh.PL.
On 24.07.2006 on the direction of the Investigating Officer and pointing out of the PWs, Kazim Hussain Shah Gillani draftsman (PW-2) took rough notes of the place of occurrence and thereafter prepared scaled site plan (Exh.PG and Exh.PG/1), which was made part of the file.
After the recovery of dead body of Muhammad Aslam deceased from the canal, the Investigating Officer prepared injury statement (Exh.PB), inquest report (Exh.PC) and entrusted the dead body to Muhammad Ilyas C/215 for autopsy. On recovery of dead body of Jawad Aslam, the Investigating Officer prepared his injury statement (Exh.PE), inquest report (Exh.PF) and entrusted the dead body to Muhammad Ilyas constable for escorting the same to mortuary. After the postmortem examination upon the dead body of Jawad Aslam deceased, his last worn shalwar (P-1) was produced before the Investigating Officer, which he took into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PH.
The Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery of dead bodies and also got prepared its site plan from the canal patwari (Exh.PN). He handed over the case property to the Moharrar Malkhana for safe custody and onward transmission to the quarter concerned and also recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
4. Having found the appellant guilty, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the court of Sessions en-routed through the Illaqa Magistrate as provided under section 190(2), Cr.P.C. On 18.01.2007, the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh formally charge sheeted the appellant under Sections 302, 201, PPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced as many as fourteen (14) prosecution witnesses.
5. Muhammad Ishtiaq Aslam (PW-5) is the complainant, as well as, sole eyewitness of the occurrence. Muhammad Ilyas (PW-12) had seen the accused taking the dead bodies of the deceased while putting on bullock-cart. Muhammad Anwar Shahid (PW-6) and Abdul Hameed (PW-9) had supplemented the stance of the prosecution story with regard to confession of the accused and recovery of dead bodies. Khizar Hayat, SI on presentation of complaint (Exh.PJ) had chalked out formal FIR (Exh.PJ/1), whereas, Syed Kazim Hussain Shah Gillani draftsman (PW-2) had prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PG and Exh.PG/2). Mushtaq Hussain, S.I. (PW-14) is the Investigating Officer of the case.
Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-1) on 22.07.2006 at 10:00 p.m. while conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of Muhammad Aslam deceased had observed following injuries on his person:-
"1. An incised wound 11 x 2 cm, bone was visible, 2 cm below pina of right ear cutting muscles and blood vessels under it. Blood was oozing out of it.
2. An incised wound 16 x 6 cm, cervical vertebra under it were visible at right side of neck, 8 cm below right ear, mussels and blood vessels under it had been cut.
Clotted blood was oozing out by slight pressure from it."
After conducting the postmortem examination the Investigating Officer rendered the following opinion:-
"Cause of death in this case was haemorrhage and shock from injury Nos.1 and 2. Both injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. The death in this case was by these two injuries collectively and individually. These injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable duration between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was about 19 hours."
On 23.07.2006 at 7:00 a.m. the doctor conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Jawad Aslam and observed following injuries on his person:--
1. An incised wound 5 x 5 cm x brain matter was coming out of it at right side of head. Skull was fractured at multiple place under it.
2. An incised wound 5 x 1 cm x cutting skull under it at front of forehead, clotted blood was oozing out of pressure.
3. An incised wound at chin 16 x 3 cm x cutting mandible under it.
4. An incised wound 6 x 3 cm, trachea exposed at front of neck.
After conducting the postmortem examination the doctor opined as under:-
"The cause of death in this case was haemorrhage and shock from all injuries. All injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon which were sufficient to cause death individually as well as collectively. All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable duration between injury and death was immediate whereas between death and post mortem was about 28 hours."
Statements of rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.
6. Vide his statement recorded on 16.04.2007, the learned District Attorney after tendering in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner pertaining to bloodstained earth of Jawad Aslam deceased (Exh.PQ), report of Serologist in respect thereof (Exh.PQ/1), report of Chemical Examiner in respect of bloodstained earth of Muhammad Aslam deceased (Exh.PR) and report of Serologist in respect thereof (Exh.PR/1), he closed the prosecution evidence.
7. The appellant was also examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein he opted neither to produce defence evidence nor to appear as his own witness in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. in disproof of the allegations levelled against him in the prosecution evidence. While replying to the question why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant made the following deposition:-
"The PWs are closely related inter se and they deposed against me on asking of Muhammad Anwar PW. Actually on the preceding night of the occurrence Muhammad Aslam and Jawad Aslam were going to Gojra for taking the medicines. They did not return for whole of the night. All the family members went in search of Muhammad Aslam and Jawad Aslam. So much so they got announced in the mosques over the loudspeaker about their missing. On the next day the motorcycle of Muhammad Aslam was recovered from the canal. Then the complainant party started search of Aslam and Jawad Aslam. After some time the naked dead body of Muhammad Aslam was found from the canal. After inspecting the dead body the complainant party found sharp edged weapon injuries on his body and suspected that he and Jawad Aslam were murdered. The complainant party concocted a cooked up false story against me and have implicated me falsely in this case. Actually Muhammad Anwar PW had grudge with his elder brother Muhammad Aslam as he was in possession of whole property of his late father. Furthermore one son of Muhammad Aslam namely Abdul Razzaq died in an accident and accused of that accident case was forgiven by Muhammad Aslam but Muhammad Anwar PW had taken a considerable amount for that compromise from that accused. When Muhammad Aslam came to know it he became angry with his brother. I have been falsely challaned on the asking of Muhammad Anwar PW.
Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record found the version of the prosecution proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt resulting into his conviction in the afore stated terms.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant while opening his arguments submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the odd hours of night on 22.07.2006, whereas, the matter was reported to the police at 3:15 p.m. with an unexplained delay of more than twelve hours and the prosecution failed to lead any incriminating evidence against the appellant, hence the impugned judgment is based upon surmises and conjectures and the learned trial court while recording conviction against the appellant has not advanced any cogent reason. Learned counsel next argued that nevertheless the complainant claimed to be the sole eyewitness of the occurrence, who while reporting the matter to the police through application (Exh.PJ) gave exhaustive pen-picture of the occurrence, however, the medical evidence with regard to injuries on the person of Jawad Aslam deceased does not coincide with the occular account. Learned counsel vehemently argued that prosecution story with reference to presence of Muhammad Ishtiag Aslam (PW-5) is not probable especially when the appellant allegedly had committed the murder of father and brother of the complainant then why let off the complainant when it is not the prosecution version that the latter was armed with any weapon and the appellant being of very good stature and young age had not opted to chase him in the nearby sugarcane crops in order to eliminate the sole eye-witness of the occurrence and had also spent ample time while witnessing the occurrence. Learned counsel further argued that statement of Muhammad Ilyas (PW-12) could not be given any weight as nevertheless he had seen the appellant carrying the dead bodies on bullock cart towards the canal, however, he did not disclose this fact to any person until the complainant and other prosecution witnesses had approached him. Learned counsel vehemently agitated that the prosecution evidence is silent qua the fact that if it was the appellant who had taken the dead bodies towards the canal, how the bullock cart came back to haveli when as per prosecution version the complainant one other prosecution witnesses had caught the appellant about one KM away from the canal. Learned counsel agitated that neither while lodging the crime report nor during the course of trial the prosecution led any motive which compelled the appellant to have committed the occurrence. Learned counsel went on arguing that it has come in the prosecution evidence that motorcycle belonging to the deceased was also taken from near the canal, which supports the defence version that both the deceased while riding on motorcycle having proceeded to Gojra were missing and subsequently their dead bodies were found subsequently and the appellant was roped in this concocted story. The delay in the postmortem examination, learned counsel added, also supplements the defence version. In view of shaky and uncorroborated versions taken by the prosecution witnesses, it was contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court against the appellant is in utter disregard to the canons of safe administration of criminal justice. The learned counsel, in the circumstances, prayed for clean acquittal of the appellant from the charges.
9. On the other hand learned DDPP vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant with the submissions that nevertheless the matter was reported to the police with some delay, however, it happened due to extraordinary circumstances. Learned Law Officer argued that the apoellant is the sole proprietor of the occurrence, who by committing a gruesome occurrence had taken the lives of two innocent persons. It was argued that the complainant being member of unfortunate family had no ill-will for falsely involving the appellant in the instant case, who even otherwise was their servant being a trusted man. Learned Law Officer further submitted that the testimony of Muhammad Ishtiaq Aslam (PW-5) straightway rings true and statement of Muhammad Anwar Shahid (PW-6), Abdul Hameed (PW-9) and Muhammad Ilyas (PW-12) also corroborate the prosecution version on salient features. It was urged that the medical evidence is in line with the occular account. Recovery of hatchet (crime weapon), bullock-cart, it was alleged, also corroborate the prosecution version. Learned Law Officer next argued that positive reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist in respect of bloodstained earth further supplement the case. It was next argued that during the course of investigation the appellant was found guilty and while preparing report under Section the Investigating Officer placed his name in column No.3. Learned Law Officer finally argued that the prosecution through leading cogent and confidence inspiring evidence proved its case and the learned trial court while appreciating the prosecution evidence in its true perspective and advancing cogent reasons rightly passed conviction against the appellant, which is in direct proportionate to the act committed by him.
10. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, as well as, learned DDPP and gone through the record available on file with their able assistance.
11. Undeniably in the instant case the occurrence was a gruesome one in which father and real brother of Muhammad Ishtiaq Aslam (PW-5) were done to death in a brutal way without any fault at their part. This crime is not against one person rather against humanity. This Court is also conscious of the fact that in the crime report name of the appellant duly figures with the role of inflicting hatchet blows on the person of both the deceased and as per prosecution story he is stated to be the sole perpetrator of the occurrence but at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the facts and circumstances floating on the record in order to determine/evaluate whether it would be justified in maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence/material available on the record.
As per prosecution version the occurrence had taken place on 22.07.2006 at 3:00 a.m. (odd hours of night), however, the matter was reported to the police with a delay of more than twelve hours at 3:25 p.m. for the reasons best known to the prosecution especially when inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was only 8-Miles. Nevertheless it is the prosecution case that the complainant had himself witnessed the occurrence being committed by the accused and reportedly both dear ones of the complainant succumbed to the injuries at the spot coupled with the fact that it is claim of Muhammad Ilyas (PW-12) that he had seen the accused shifting the dead bodies on a bullock-cart just after the occurrence around 5:00 a.m. no extra-ordinary circumstances have been brought on record to justify such an inordinate delay in reporting the matter. Moreover, when the complainant had seen the accused committing the occurrence, his prime duty was to report the matter to the police in order to bring the machinery of law into motion instead of searching the accused or dead bodies himself. This aspect of the case itself is sufficient to discard the prosecution version and creates dents in the authenticity of the prosecution story. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mehmood Ahmed and 2 others v. State (1995 SCMR 127) , took serious notice of delay in lodging the FIR and held as under:‑
"Although in some circumstances a delay of two hours may not be of much importance yet in the facts and circumstances of this particular case as they have happened, the delay has great significance. It can be attributed to consultation, taking instructions and calculatedly preparing report keeping the names of accused open for roping in such persons whom ultimately prosecution may wish to implicate. This does not mean that in any other case where the complainant does not mention the names of the accused an adverse inference has to be drawn but in cases where the facts show that in the normal circumstances the complainant could have known or obtained the names of the accused, it will be rather dangerous to rely upon such witnesses unless very strong piece of evidence is produced to substantiate the prosecution case. In the present case if the complainant would have reached the police station within 15 to 30 minutes of the incident, one could say that immediately after the incident the complainant having no interest in the matter had rushed to the police station to lodge information so that immediate steps may be taken by the police. Such is not the case here and as discussed above, the delay in particular circumstances of this case has not been explained."
This Court is also conscious of the fact that nevertheless the complainant is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, however, the testimony of a sole witness if straightway rings true and finds corroboration from other attending circumstances the same can be made basis for conviction of any person even on capital charge, however, in the instant case if the conduct of the complainant and the contents of the crime report are taken into consideration and evaluated on the touchstone of wisdom of a person of a prudent mind, it does not appeal to reason especially neither in the crime report nor during the course of trial the prosecution had set any motive which prompted the appellant to commit such a gruesome occurrence. Even while lodging the crime report the complainant had not shown any remotest possibility of previous ill-will against the appellant. The manner of occurrence and the conduct of the complainant itself raises serious questions qua his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
12. Facts of the case when scrutinized on judicial parlance persuade this Court that there could be two possibilities regarding the occurrence. If the complainant was present at the place of occurrence there was no occasion at the part of the appellant to leave him scot-free as the complainant was empty handed and the appellant being a young man of 22 years had already taken the lives of two innocent persons. Other possibility could be that the complainant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and the whole story was fabricated. The story of the complainant that apprehending imminent danger at the hands of the appellant he succeeded in escaping himself from the place of occurrence and hid himself in the sugarcane fields cannot be given much credence as in all eventualities the appellant was more accustomed with the facts and circumstances and he was in a position to eliminate the best possible evidence, however, the circumstances speaks otherwise and the other possibility seems to be natural that the complainant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
The other circumstance is that while lodging the crime report the complainant had mentioned that the appellant had inflicted one injury on the neck of Jawad Aslam, whereas, while appearing in the witness-box, Dr. Muhammad Aslam (PW-1) had observed four injuries on his person, hence this fact also contradicts the prosecution story and extending strength to the defence version that the complainant had not witnessed the occurrence and the appellant was made scapegoat.
13. Nevertheless it is the prosecution case that after committing the murder of brother and father of the complainant the appellant himself boarded the dead bodies on the bullock-cart and threw in the canal from where he was apprehended by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and his person was handed over to the police and subsequently dead bodies were also recovered. If this was the situation why the postmortem examination was conducted with a delay of 28 hours. Even otherwise it is not the prosecution case that the dead bodies were recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. Another astonishing fact of the case is that it has come in the evidence of Mushtaq Hussain, S.I/Investigating Officer that the bullock-cart was recovered from inside the haveli parked in the eastern corner. This aspect when scrutinized with care and caution and juxtaposed with other attending circumstances that it is not the prosecution case that after throwing the dead bodies in the canal the appellant had returned to the haveli with the same bullock-cart and parked it there, if it so then how the cart reached the haveli is a circumstance, which further creates serious doubts going to the root of the prosecution story, which even otherwise is hinging upon surmises and conjectures.
14. At the cost of repetition we may mention here that as per prosecution version the appellant was the sole perpetrator of the occurrence since from committing the murder of the brother and father of the complainant, boarding their dead bodies on the bullock cart till throwing in the canal. It has come on record that the complainant and other PWs had started search of the accused while following the line of blood, however, the prosecution evidence is silent whether after his arrest, the appellant was wearing the same clothes, which he had worn during the occurrence or those were changed, if changed whether the Investigating Officer attempted to recover the bloodstained clothes of the appellant, which in the circumstances, in our considered view, would have strengthened the prosecution case on much better footing. Moreover, at the time of recovery neither the hatchet nor cart, were found stained with blood and recovered from his possession.
15. As per prosecution version it was Muhammad Ilyas (PW-12) who disclosed to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses that he had seen the appellant while boarding the dead bodies on a bullock-cart and taking towards canal and on his clue, the appellant was caught, however, astonishingly statement of this prosecution witness was recorded on 23.07.2006 i.e. after one day of lodging the crime report.
16. While making his testimony during the course of cross-examination Muhammad Ishtiaq Aslam (PW-5)/ complainant admitted that motorcycle was recovered from the canal near from the dead body of Muhammad Aslam/deceased and this fact straightway supports the defence plea advanced by the appellant at the time of making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. that both the deceased having proceeded to Gojra on previous day of lodging the crime report while riding on motorcycle did not return and subsequently their dead bodies were found from the canal.
17. In the instant case the prosecution version is burdened/loaded with major discrepancies, which create serious doubts in its authenticity. The prosecution has absolutely failed to bring on record any convincing material to establish that the complainant had witnessed the occurrence and it was the appellant, who had committed the murder of father and brother of the complainant. There is chain of judgments of the superior courts of the country that benefit of even slightest doubt would be resolved in favour of the accused and that's too as a matter of right. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) ; wherein it has been held as under:-
"---Art. 4---Benefit of doubt, grant of---For giving benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts---If a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
Similar view was affirmed by the apex Court in the cases of Bashir Begum v. Safdar Ali and another (2000 SCMR 1038) and Akbar Ali v. The State (2007 SCMR 486).
18. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs, whereas, the defence has to show only glimpse. Moreover, the prosecution cannot take any benefit of weakness of defence plea. In the case of Shamir alias Shamla v. The State (PLD 1958 Supreme Court 242) , it has been held that even if the accused does not lead to prove plea of innocence but accused version receiving support to the extent of being reasonably possible from prosecution evidence, accused is entitled to his acquittal. Moreover, in its ratio decidendi in the case of Shera Masih and another v. The State (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 643) the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had held as under:-
"---Defence plea of the accused even if is not supported by any evidence direct or circumstantial and is discarded being improbable, still it will not be a circumstance to prove the guilt of an accused and the prosecution has to establish its case by standing on its own legs."
19. All the above narrated facts and circumstances lead this Court to only one conclusion that prosecution case hinges upon surmises and conjectures and it had badly failed to lead evidence of that stature required for conviction of any person. It is settled principle of criminal justice that merely on the basis of probabilities innocent person must not be convicted and punished. Moreover, the same has been discouraged by the superior courts of the country. In the case of Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. The Crown (PLD 1953 F.C. 317) , it has been held as under:-
"Evidence---Court canvassing mere probabilities of case and arriving at conclusion of guilt of accused----Disapproved---Judicial duty is to act on evidence duly admitted and tested according to recognized principles."
20. Upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution case is full of discrepancies pregnant with serious doubts with regard to unexplained delay of more than twelve hours in lodging the crime report, material contradictions in the occular account and the medical evidence regarding the injuries on the person of Jawad Aslam, the dubious conduct of Muhammad Ishtiaq Aslam (PW-5)/complainant, who happens to be brother and son of both the deceased coupled with improbable/unconvincing story advanced by him, the fact that how the bullock cart reached back haveli and the Investigating Officer took into possession while it was parked on eastern side of haveli and non-recovery of bloodstained clothes of the appellant when he was the sole perpetrator of the occurrence and line of drops of blood had led the prosecution witnesses towards the place where the dead bodies were thrown in the canal. In this backdrop it can safely be held that the prosecution case rests upon surmise and conjectures and it has badly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant to substantiate its case on capital charge and the learned trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant while basing upon such uncorroborated/shaky evidence which even otherwise is full of flaws and contradictions and conviction passed by the learned trial court in the circumstances is against all canons of law recognized for the dispensation of criminal justice. As per dictates of law benefit of every doubt is to be extended in favour of the accused. Moreover, it is golden principle of law that Court may err to let off 100 guilty but should not convict one innocent person. Resultantly, the salutary principle of benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the appellant as a consequence whereof; Crl. Appeal No.991-J of 2007 is ACCEPTED IN TOTO . Conviction and sentence recorded in the judgment of the learned trial court passed on 21.06.2007 is set at naught. Mushtaq Ahmed/appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.275/2006, dated 22.07.2006, offence under sections 302, 201, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh, and he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Murder Reference No.368 of 2007 forwarded by the learned trial court in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C., for confirmation of sentence of death inflicted upon Mushtaq Ahmed/convict is answered in NEGATIVE . Death sentence is NOT CONFIRMED .
HBT/M-13/L Appeal accepted.