ABID AZEEM Versus State
SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.--- Amjad Nawaz, Muhammad Amin, Abdullah alias Dulli, Abid Azeem and Mst. Irshad Begum accused of Private complainant, under sections 302/109/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Police Station City Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar, lodged by Mst. Fareeha Fatima, complainant, were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lodhran, for committing Qatl-i-amd of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem. At the conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 04.12.2012, the learned trial court acquitted Abdullah, Muhammad Amin, Irshad Begum, Tariq Azeem, Sajid Azeem and Arif Azeem of the charge, whereas convicted and sentenced Amjad Nawaz and Abid Azeem appellants as under:- "under section 302(b), P.P.C. to life imprisonment each with a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended."
2. Abid Azeem convict/accused has lodged Crl. Appeal No.409-J of 2012 challenging his conviction and sentence. Amjad Nawaz convict/ accused has also lodged Crl. Appeal No.410-J of 2012 against the conviction and sentence. Mst. Fareeha Fatima filed Criminal Revision No.05/2013 for enhancement of life imprisonment awarded to Abid Azeem and Amjad Nawaz accused/respondents. Mst. Fareeha Fatima complainant filed Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.2 of 2013 against the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 5, namely Mst. Irshad Begum, Tariq Azeem, Arif Azeem, Sajid Azeem and Abdullah alias Dulli. This petition was directed to be heard along with connected matters. This judgment will dispose of all the above mentioned matters.
3. It is observed that initially FIR No.240/2007, dated 30.5.2007 under sections 302/148/149/109, P.P.C. was got registered with regard to the murder of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem, husband of the complainant at Police Station City Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. During investigation, the police found the accused persons innocent, therefore, feeling dissatisfied with the investigation of the police, the complainant lodged the private complainant (Exh.PA) regarding the same occurrence.
4. Case of the complainant, as set-forth in the above said FIR as well as the private complaint (Exh.PA) filed by Mst. Fareeha complainant, was that her marriage was solemnized with Ghulam Muhammad Azeem (deceased) on 19.11.2005. About few months prior to the registration of the FIR, her husband divorced his 1st wife Mst. Irshad Begum. On 29.5.2007, Abid Azeem appellant along with his brothers and mother Mst. Irshad Bibi telephonically threatened the complainant and her husband Ghulam Muhammad Azeem of dire consequences that if they went to the Court. On 30.5.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. when the complaindrit along with her husband came to the Ihata of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, Amjad Nawaz appellant along with Abid Azeem appellant, Muhammad Azeem (since acquitted) and Abdullah alias Dulli accused (since acquitted) all armed with Pistols came there. Amjad Nawaz appellant fired with his Pistol hitting Ghulam Muhammad Azeem, husband of the complainant on his chest. Abid Azeem appellant fired second shot of Pistol which also hit Ghulam Muhammad Azeem on his chest. Abdullah alias Dulli accused (since acquitted) made successive shots of Pistol which hit Ghulam Muhammad Azeem on different parts of his body, who after receiving fire shots fell down on the ground. The accused fled away from the spot while riding on motor cycles. The injured was removed to the hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. Motive for the occurrence was second marriage of the deceased Ghulam Muhammad Azam with the complainant.
5. In order to prove the case against the accused persons, the complainant produced as many as 12 witnesses in all. Muhammad Saleem Constable (CW-1) escorted the deadbody of the deceased to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He delivered the last worn clothes of the deceased to the I.O. Mahmood-ul-Hassan Constable (CW-2) was the witness of blood stained earth which was delivered to him by the Moharrar on 28.6.2007 for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore who deposited there on the same day. Muhammad Nawaz Moharrar ASI (CW-3) was also witness of blood stained earth, crime empty and last worn clothes.
6. Muhammad Azam ASI (CW-4) was the witness of arrest of Abid Azeem appellant and recovery of Pistol etc.
7. Dr. Muhammad Afzal Medical Officer (CW-5) conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased and found following injuries:-
Injury No. 1-A.
Lacerated wound measuring 1.25 cm x 1.00 cm into deep going (depth not ascertained) slightly oval in shape present at third intercostals space on right side of chest anteriorly 7. cm from mid line. Margins of wound inverted (wound of entry) no burning blackening present around wound. Abrasion ring present around wound.
On exploration muscle under the wound damage, third rib on the right side fractured. A hole in right pleura, upper lobe of right lung punctured. Right pleura cavity full of blood. Hole is pleura posteriorly.
Injury No.1-B.
Another lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 1.25 cm into deep going, slightly oval in shape on back of left side of chest. In fourth intercostals space, 4 cm from mid line. Margins of wound everted. No burning blackening present around wound. Muscles under the wound damaged. Injury No.1-B is the continuation of injury No.1-A. Injury No.1-B was mentioned in the injury statement as Injury No. 5.
Injury No.2-A.
Lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 1.25 cm into deep going (depth not ascertained), slightly oval in shape on left 9th intercostals space in the line of nipple. Margins of wound inverted. No burning blackening present around wound. Abrasion ring present on exploration. Lower lobe of left lung damaged. There was also hole in pleura. Left pleural cavity full of blood. There was hole in left pleura posteriorly. Corresponding holes in shirt, Bunyan also present.
Injury No.2-B.
A lacerated wound measuring 1.75 cm x 1.50 cm into deep going, slightly oval in shape, back of left side of chest 11th intercostal space, 3 cm from mid line. No burning blackening present around wound. Muscle under the wound damaged. Corresponding hole in Bunyan and Shirt were present. Injury No. 2-B is continuation of Injury No.2-A. Injury No.2-B was mentioned in injury statement as No.6.
Injury No.3-A.
Lacerated wound measuring 1.25 cm x 1 cm into deep going (depth not ascertained) present on 5th intercostals space on right side of chest interiorly 3 cm from mind line. Margins of wound inverted. No burning blackening present. Abrasion ring present on exploration, muscles under the wound damaged. Hole in the right pleura, lower lobe of right lung punctured. Right pleural cavity full of blood. Heart completely damaged. Hole in left pleura posteriorly, middle lobe of left lung also punctured. Corresponding holes in Bunyan and Shirt were also present.
Injuni No.3-B.
Lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 1.25 into deep going, slightly oval in shape on back of left side of chest in 6th intercostals space, 15 cm from mid line. Margins of would everted. No burning blackening present. Muscles under the wound damaged. Corresponding holes in Bunyan and Shirt were present. Injury No.3-B is continuation of Injury No.3-A. Injury No.3-B was mentioned in injury statement as Injury No.7.
Injury No.4-A.
A lacerated wound measuring 1.25 cm x 1 cm into skin deep present on left upper arm, at upper 1/3 antrolateraly. Margins of wound inverted. No burning blackening present. Abrasion ring present. Hole in shirt corresponding to injury present.
Injum No.4-B.
Another lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 1.25 cm into skin deep present on postrolateral aspect of left upper arm at upper 1/3.3 cm lateral and 1 cm blow the injury No.4- A. Margins of would everted. No burning blackening present. A hole in shirt corresponding to would also present. Injury No.4-B is continuation of Injury No.4-A.
Muhammad Jamil Civil Draftsman (CW6) prepared rough site plan on the pointation of the complainant and witnesses.
9. Syed Akhtar Hussain S.I. (CW-7) lodged formal FIR Ex.CW7/ Ex.PA/1 on the basis of complaint Ex.PA.
10. Liaqat Ali S.I. (CW-9) initially investigated the case. He deposed that on 30.5.2007, after getting information about the occurrence, he went to the Civil Hospital, Chishtian where complainant Mst. Fareeha Fatima submitted application Ex.PA which he sent to the police station for registration of the formal FIR. He prepared injury statement Ex.CW.5/C and inquest report Ex.CW.5/B of the deceased. He took into possession blood stained earth Exh.PC, four empties Exh.P.1/1-4 and a magazine of Pistol 30 (P-2) bore from the place of occurrence. He prepared site plan Ex.CW.9/ 1 of the place of occurrence. He declared Amjad Nawaz and Abid Azeem appellants innocent and arrested Abdullah and Muhammad Amin accused.
11. Masood Ahmad S.I. (CW-8) subsequently investigated the case, arrested Abid Azeem appellant and recovered Pistol (P-6) etc. from his possession.
12. Liaqat Ali DSP Investigating Cell Punjab, Lahore (CW-10) member of the Penal of Investigating Officers approved the investigation.
13. Syed Ali Raza DSP (CW-11) deposed that investigation was entrusted to him by the order of SSP RIB. On 7.12.2007, the complainant appeared and got recorded her supplementary statement and nominated Khadim Hussain and Manzoor Bhatti. On 17.01.2008, Tahir Hussan Butt and Khalid Hameed Arain appeared before him and got recorded their statements regarding extra judicial confession of Amjad Nawaz accused. On his investigation, Irshad Begum, Abid Azeem, Muhammad Amjad Nawaz, Abdullah alias Dulli, Khadim Hussain and Manzoor Ahmad Bhatti were declared guilty and Arif Azeem, Tariq Azeem, Sajid Azeem and Muhammad Ameen accused were declared innocent.
14. Abdul Karim SSP/ DPO, Jhang (CW-12) deposed that on 25.8.2009, investigation of the case was entrusted to him. Both the parties joined the investigation number of times and according to his investigation Amjad Nawaz, Abid Azeem, Abdullah and Irshad Begum abetted the occurrence and the murder was committed by Khadim Hussain and Manzoor Hussain. He also found Muhammad Ameen, Arif Azeem, Tariq Azeem and Sajid Azeem innocent.
15. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons was recorded. They refuted the prosecution allegation and claimed innocence.
Amjad Nawaz appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated as under:-
"I have falsely been involved in this case by the complainant due to her enmity with me. I had no motive to kill Ghulam Muhammad Azeem. In fact my grandfather and Ghulam Muhammad Azeem were cousin (phophizad) inter se who was having good terms with my family. In the year 1994-95 my family shifted to Bahawalpur from Chistian and I remained alone at my agricultural land at Chistian whereupon Ghulam Muhammad Azeem offered me to cultivate his land at Bahawalpur, thereafter I shifted to Bahawalpur and started to cultivate the land of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem deceased on lease during this period. Fariha Fatima complainant started to live with Ghulam Muhammad Azeem where Fariha Fatima developed illicit relations with Ghulam Muhammad Azeem. In the year 2003 I was called for by Ghulam Muhammad Azeem to his house in order to go with him to an advocate in connection with a civil suit regarding a plot about which I was named as a witness. I visited the room of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem but he was not present in his room there. I went another room where I found Fariha Fatima and Ghulam Muhammad Azeem in an objectionable condition which fell me in grief and then I disclosed this to my father who directed me not to cultivate the land of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem and my father also forbade my family to permit Ghulam Muhammad Azeem to enter into our house. Ghulam Muhammad Azeem made efforts to reinstate the relations with me and my family but I refused to do so. After lapse of sometime relations between Ghulam Muhammad Azeem and his sons became strained and they continued to get register cases against each other then Ghulam Muhammad Azeem again called for me and pressurized me to support him in affairs pending against his sons but I refused to interfere in their family disputes whereupon Ghulam Muhammad Azeem threatened me that he will involve me in my criminal cases and then he started to implicate me in criminal cases along with his sons and others and all the cases registered by Ghulam Muhammad Azeem were found false and I was declared as innocent but due to the visiting terms of Abdul Azeem with me Fariha Fatima, Shafique-ur-Rehman and Ghulam Muhammad Azeem became inimical towards me and issued threats to me and in this regard got lodged a rapat against Ghulam Muhammad Azeem. Elders of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem and Abid Azeem tried to effect compromise between Ghulam Muhammad Azeem and his sons and arbitrators were appointed to resolve the issues and date was fixed for compromise as 27.5.2007 but due to the non-availability of the Arbitrator appointed on behalf of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem i.e. Ali Akbar Wains compromise could not be finalized and date was changed. On 30.05.2007 I along with Abdul Rehman son of Barkat Ali resident of Bahawalnagar went to attend Bahawalpur Civil Court and we reached at the chamber of Ch. Noor Hussain Advocate who was then gone to Lahore High Court and I along with clerks and clients of Ch. Noor Hassan remained present at his chamber till 12.00 p.m. and then I went to the house of Abdur Rehman my friend. I produced the clerks of Ch. Noor Hassan and other persons before the police during the course of investigation and my plea of alibi was investigated by all the investigating officers and found as true. I was declared innocent by the local police which was verified till DSP but on the influence of Fariha Fatima and her supports RIB illegally arrested and challenged me as an abettor without any evidence. Even Chistian Bar Association passed a unanimous resolution regarding the commission of murder by some unknown persons and not by us. Even no incriminating evidence is available against me. I just have been implicated by complainant and PWs due to their previous grudge against me as I refused to support them, neither I was present at the place of murder of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem at the alleged time of occurrence nor I have had my knowledge qua the murder of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem. My plea of alibi thoroughly investigated by all the investigating officers and was found true. Ulterior motive of the complainant forced her to drag me in this case. Both prosecution witnesses are related inter se and are inimical towards me due to their previous enmity with me and due to this reason they falsely involved me in this case."
Abid Azeem appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated as under:-
"The reason of the false involvement of myself, my mother and real brothers has been described in the above lines in reply to different questions. At the time of alleged threats, planning and instigation on telephone, a night before the alleged occurrence my brother, Sajid Azeem, Tariq Azeem and Arif Azeem were living different places in London. The prosecution has failed to prove the telephonic contact with the deceased on behalf of either of the accused. The reason of the false involvement of me in the present case is that amongst the sons of the deceased, I was the only one with some knowledge of our affairs in Pakistan as I had lived and studied here for some time whilst also managing my own and brothers financial affairs here. The fact of the matter is that my parents shifted from Pakistan to U.K quite a long time before. All of us put hard efforts and earned money from abroad and thereby jointly purchased properties in District Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar and Lahore. Some of the properties were in the name of each of my brother including myself and many of the properties were purchased by the joint pool of earning in the name of my deceased father out of which some of the properties were alienated by my father through gift and most of the properties were still joint and in this respect certain cases of civil litigation are also pending in different courts in District Bahawalpur and Bahawalnagar. The lady complainant with mala fide motive to usurpation of property of the deceased, succeeded to get rid of him and by involving me there is no male member of the family in Pakistan to challenge her mala fide motives and defend the present case and to bring incriminating material against her. Complainant has also involved me and my family to blackmail us in order to give her crores and more money and property and also to cover the real crime as it happened and the real culprits who are themselves the complainant and witnesses. Therefore, I along with my mother and brothers have been falsely involved in the case. The complainant has given up the alleged PWs except Shafique-ur-Rehman who is husband of her real sister and is availing the monetary gains from the lady complainant since the enstart of intimacy and its culmination into murder of my father till today. It is questionable that a person of no means at all Shafique-ur-Rehman PW has been living in a life luxury with money, cars, vehicles with guard ever since the murder of my father."
The appellants did not opt to appear as their own witnesses under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However they produced defence evidence.
16. In defence evidence, the accused persons produced Hafiz Abid Hassan (DW-1) stamp vendor who stated that on 30.5.2007 Abid Azeem appellant purchased Stamp of Rs.100/ - Mark-B/1 from him for the purposes of lease agreement in favour of Mian Abdul Ghaffar who signed and put his thumb impression before him.
17. Salman Ali Khan (DW-2) deposed that on 30.5.2007 at about 9.00 to 9.15 a.m., he along with his brother picked Abid Azeem appellant and went to the chamber of Ch. Muhammad Jameel Advocate at Court premises Bahawalpur and completed the documents of Mustajri Nama regarding agricultural land. After sometime they went to the house of their common friend Ejaz Safdar. Thereafter they went to the chamber of Stamp vendor and left the Court premises at 10.45 a.m.
18. Ch. Muhammad Jameel Advocate (DW-3) deposed that on 30.5.2007 at 9.30 a.m., appellant Abid Azeem came in his chamber in order to draft lease deed.
19. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Qureshi Advocate (DW-4) was General Secretary of Bar Association Chistian.
20. Muhammad Asif Advocate (DW-5) was President of Bar Association Chistian. On 30.5.2007 at 10.00 a.m. Ch. Ghulam Muhammad Azeem, member of the Bar was murdered within the Court premises and resolution was passed.
21. Muhammad Zahid Munir Advocate (DW-6) deposed that on 30.5.2007 Ch. Noor Hassan Advocate sent him to the Court of ASJ Chishtian. The deceased entered into the court premises on which an unknown assailant fired at him who fell down. The complainant Mst. Fareeha Fatima was not there. Police removed the injured to the hospital.
22. Muhammad Siddique Joyia Advocate (DW-7) and deposed that on the fateful day some unknown person fired at the deceased and murdered him and stated that Abid Azeem and Amjad Nawaz appellants were not at the spot.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt; that that it was un-witnessed occurrence; that no independent witness was cited by the prosecution; that there was previous enmity existed between the parties, so possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Further adds that no crime empty have been recovered from the spot and no recovery whatsoever was effected during the course of investigation from any of the accused-appellants. According to learned counsel all the accused nominated in the FIR were declared innocent during three consecutive investigations; that ultimately at the conclusion of the trial, five out of seven accused were acquitted; that the trial Court disbelieved the complainant. Adds that the prosecution case was full of discrepancies/contradictions; that the defence evidence produced during trial was not appreciated in its true perspective and that the appellants were entitled to be acquitted.
24. Learned DDPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed this appeal with vehemence and submitted that the appellants were specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injuries to the complainant which finds support from the statements of the eye-witnesses; that the medical evidence was in line with the ocular account; that mere relationship of the witnesses or with the deceased was no ground to discard their statements; that the accused party was aggrieved being deprived of their property after second marriage of the deceased and thus, the accused Abid Azeem, etc committed Qatl of their real father, which act was abominable; that the discrepancies/contradictions are minor and negligible and do creep up with the passage of time; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, thus, the sentence awarded to the appellants may suitably be enhanced. Adds that there were sufficient evidence to connect all the accused including the acquitted co-accused with this occurrence, thus, they may also be summoned and punished under the law.
25. We have heard the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
26. The occurrence in this case, took place on 30.5.2007 at 10.00 a.m. within precinct of Sessions Court Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. During this occurrence, Ghulam Muhammad Azeern, lost his life at the hands of the accused named in the FIR. The incident was reported to the police by his second wife, namely, Fareeha Fatima. Amongst the nominated accused were included the first wife of the deceased, namely, Irshad Begum (divorcee) and sons of the deceased including Tariq Azeem, Abid Azeem, Sajid Azeem and Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Amjad Nawaz, Muhammad Amin and Abdullah alias Dulli. All the accused mentioned in the FIR were declared innocent during three consecutive investigations and then, Mst. Fareeha Fatima filed a private complaint (Exh.PB) against the accused mentioned therein for committing Qatl-i-amd of her husband namely, Ghulam Muhammad Azeem.
The occurrence took place at the peak hours inside the Sessions Court. The incident was witnessed by the complainant Shafiq-ur-Rehman, Muhammad Asghar and Shahzad Rasheed.
27. At this stage, it may be mentioned that Shahzad Rasheed and Muhammad Asghar were given up by the prosecution being won over. The eye-witness, Shafiq-ur-Rehman appeared as PW during trial and stated that he was moving ahead of the deceased, when he was fired at by the accused and then he along with Shahzad Rasheed went towards the wall to save himself. The complainant party was intercepted by the accused then armed with their respective weapons but no injury, whatsoever, was sustained either by Shafiq-ur-Rehman or by any other PW. None of the PW came to rescue the deceased.
28. The learned trial Court after considering/discussing the discrepancies in the statement of Fareeha Fatima disbelieved her as she admitted that she was sitting in the Prado of the deceased at the time of incident, which admittedly was parked outside the Sessions Court and boundary wall was intervening between the complainant and the assailants. She was disbelieved and rightly so leaving behind Shafiq-ur-Rehman, the solitary eye-witness. He was the real behoni of the complainant and father of the complainant was "mamun zad" of his mother. He was doing his business at Faisalabad and leaving everything behind came to Chishtian at the request of the deceased, who wanted him there for his moral support and to pursue the litigation. It was in the evidence that Shafiq-ur-Rehman accompanied the deceased 15 to 20 times, in 2-3 months prior to the occurrence. He was neither intimidated nor fired at by any of the accused. He was living with Fareeha Fatima after the death of Ghulam Muhammad Azeem and it was the complainant, who was maintaining Shafiq-ur-Rehman as well as his family. In a way, he was performing as body guard to the deceased and after his demise to his family. He was biased and interested for the reasons that his wife got registered a case against the accused and thereafter, the accused booked this witness in other criminal cases. It was also in his evidence that he shifted the deceased to hospital in injured condition and his clothes stained with blood but he did not produce those blood stained clothes before the police during the investigation.
29. According to the medical evidence, the deceased sustained eight firearm injuries and injuries Nos.1-B, 2-B, 3-B, 4-B were observed as exit wound but attributed to Abid Azeem and Amjad Nawaz, the appellants, whereas, PWs attributed no role to Abdullah and Ameen (since acquitted).
30. On the same evidence, co-accused of the appellant have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. No witness uttered a single word to prove the conspiracy/abetment.
31. There was admittedly, a chain of civil litigation pending between the parties. The deceased was a rich person and after pronouncing divorce to Mst. Irshad Begum contracted marriage with Fareeha Fatima, real "Bhateeji" of Mst. Irshad Begum. After the marriage, he transferred considerable immovable property in the name of the complainant, thus, Irshad Begum filed various suits against the deceased and others and so did the complainant party, thus, the enmity between the parties was established and admitted.
As mentioned above, the best evidence was withheld as Muhammad Asghar and Shahzad Rasheed were not produced at trial and thus, necessary inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, can be drawn against the prosecution. Had they been produced by the prosecution they would have not supported its version. The co-accused of the appellants, namely, Mst. Irshad Begum, Tariq Azeem, Arif Azeem and Sajid Azeem have been acquitted on the same set of evidence.
It is settled law that if the co-accused of the appellants are acquitted on the same set of evidence, then, conviction on a capital charge can only be sustained on strong corroboration of the material available on record which is not forthcoming in this case and the statement of Shafiq-ur-Rehman is not corroborated from the evidence of unimpeachable source. Ref: " Muhammad Akram v. The State " (2012 SCMR 440) and " Mir Muhammad alias Miro v. The State " (2009 SCMR 1188).
32. It is settled by now that onus of proof in criminal cases never shifts and it is for the prosecution to prove this case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is by now well settled law that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubts about the prosecution story. In " Tariq Pervez v. The State " (1995 SCMR 1345), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page No.1347, was pleased to observe that the concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in our country. For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then, the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. The apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of " Muhammad Akram v. The State " (2009 SCMR 230).
33. For all the reasons mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, therefore, we accept Criminal Appeal No.409-J of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.410-J of 2012, set aside their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 04.12.2012 and acquit them of the respective charges by extending benefit of doubt. They are in custody. They be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.
For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision No.05 of 2013 for enhancement of sentence against the appellants and PSLA No.02 of 2013 for conviction of the acquitted co-accused filed by the complainant are hereby dismissed.
JK/A-54/L Appeals allowed.