Rashid Mehmood Versus State

Ameer Muhammad Khan, J .--- Rashid Mehmood, Asad and Javed convicts challenged their conviction and sentence awarded to them vide judgment dated 28.11.2024 passed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad at Havelian, in case FIR No.181 of 2020, registered at police station Nara, under Section 17(4) of The Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, (VI) of 1979, ( The Ordinance ) read with Sections 324 and 460 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) ( The Penal Code ) and Section 15-AA KPK wherein appellant Rashid Mehmood was convicted for lurking house trespass by night as a member of an unlawful assembly and sentenced to 14 (fourteen) years RI with fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default the payment thereof to further undergo 03 (three) months SI under Section 458 of The Penal Code read with Sections 148/149 of The Penal Code, besides that he was convicted for the commission of murder of Mst. Amraiza Jan and Muhammad Zaman co-jointly and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count with fine of Rs.500,000/- and in default the payment thereof to further undergo 06 (six) months SI. Appellant Rashid Mehmood has also been sentenced to imprisonment of 03 (three) years under Section 15-KP Arms Act, 2013. Appellant Asad was convicted for co-jointly commission of murder and sentenced to 10 (ten) years RI with fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default the payment thereof to further undergo 03 (three) months SI, under Sections 396/460 of The Penal Code read with Sections 148/149 of The Penal Code and appellant Javed for the same offences was sentenced to 10 (ten) years RI with fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default the payment thereof to further undergo 03 (three) months SI. All the said appellants/convicts were benefited with Section 382-B of The Code of Criminal Procedure, (Act V of 1898) ( The Code ) .

2. The brief facts of the case are that PW.6 Maria Zeb lodged the FIR Ex.PA regarding the occurrence taken place on 26.06.2020 at about 01:30 a.m, on the same night at about 03:15 a.m vide her fard-e-bayan/murasila recorded by PW.11 Fazal-ur-Rehman Inspector/SHO P.S Nara against unknown persons stating therein that on 26.06.2020 at night time, she along with Neelum Zaman PW, Saad son of Bashir aged about 13/14 years were sleeping in one room whereas her father-in-law Muhammad Zaman aged about 65 years and mother-in-law Amraiza Jan aged about 55 years (both deceased) were sleeping in their respective room. At about 01:30 a.m in the night she got up on the noise, came outside and saw that two amongst three young male were quarrelling with her father-in-law and mother-in-law and were manhandling, someone standing near them made fire shots, hitting her mother-in-law Amraiza Jan on the chest, who fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injury at the spot whereas her father-in-law also received firearm injury on his chest. Further stating that she did not scrutinize the losses in the room, however, the articles were found in a scattered position. A mobile telephone Nokia 216 bearing SIM No. 0308- 5644338 and that of her mother-in-law Nokia Mobile 3310 bearing SIM No. 0303-5625158 were snatched and taken away by the culprits. The occurrence was witnessed by her and Neelum Zaman PW. Thereafter, the appellants/accused were arrested and after completion of formalities they were finally charge sheeted on 14.03.2022 whereby they denied the charge and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution evidence was summoned and recorded by the learned trial Court. The gist of prosecution witnesses is as under:-

PW.1 Zahid Khan MHC recorded the FIR on the basis of murasila.

PW.2 Shabeer Ahmed IHC, a witness of the recovery memo. Ex.PW.2/1 regarding one green colour mask and a Q-mobile bearing SIM No.0345-0477547.

PW.3 Aurangzeb received the dead body of Muhammad Zaman deceased.

PW.4 Naeem Akhtar, is the marginal witness of the recovery memos Ex.PW.4/1, Ex.PW.4/2 and Ex.PW.4/3 regarding taking into possession of blood through cotton from the places of murder of two deceased persons, that of Sikka Goli, crime empties of 9mm and 30 bore pistol, electric bulb, and those of last worn clothes of Amraiza Jan deceased and those of Muhammad Zaman deceased.

PW.5 Fiaz Khan, is the witness of recovery of 9mm pistol from accused Rashid along with three live rounds and also the recovery of golden ornaments comprising of one chain (locket) and two Jhumkay and attested the memo. of said recovery Ex.PW.5/1.

PW.6 Maria Zeb, is the first informer, eye-witness of the occurrence, reiterated the story contained in the mursaila Ex.PA/1 and gave detail of the missing articles comprised of gold ornaments two earrings, one locket of her mother-in-law beside cash amount of Rs.28,000/-. This PW visited the injured Muhammad Zaman in the hospital, who disclosed the name of accused Rashid. She also recorded a video of making of said statement by the injured Muhammad Zaman to the police. She also participated in an identification test parade on 13.10.2020 and identified Asad accused.

PW.7 Neelum Zaman, is also the eye-witness of the occurrence and witness of the disclosure of the name of Rashid Mehmood by her father. On 13.10.2020 she participated in an identification test parade and identified Asad accused.

PW.8 Sardar Faisal MHC, got transmitted the case property to the Forensic Science Libratory.

PW.9 Jamshed constable, transmitted the case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

PW.10 Dr. Mariyam Riaz PGT, Ayub Teaching Hospital District Abbottabad, conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Amraiza Jan deceased.

PW.11 Fazal-ur-Rehman Inspector recorded the statement of Maria Zeb on 26.06.2020 at about 03.15 a.m in the form of murasila Ex.PA/1 and forwarded the same to the police station for registration of the FIR.

PW.12 Farooq Khan Inspector prepared the report under Section 173 of The Code.

PW.13 Asim No. 1328 transmitted the murasila on 26.06.2020 to the police station for registration of FIR.

PW.14 Dr.Aamir Nawaz Khan on 26.06.2020 at about 02:45 a.m medically examined Muhammad Zaman in an injured condition in the DHQ hospital Abbottabad and found firearm injuries. On 20.07.2020 conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Zaman deceased.

PW.15 Mehmood Khan, this PW as Madd-e-Moharrir at PS Nara got transmitted the case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

PW.16 Muhammad Bashir SI prepared supplementary challan under Section 173 of The Code against accused Javed and Asad.

PW.17 Shiraz No.602 received injury sheet, inquest report and dead body of Amraiza Jan and escorted to TDH hospital for postmortem examination.

PW.18 Gulvaiz Khan SI conducted the basic investigation of the instant case.

PW.19 Mr. Zeeshan Gul, Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, on 13.10.2021 supervised the identification test parade vide his report Ex.PW.19/2, wherein Asad accused was identified as culprit.

PW.20 Ghafoor Khan SDPO also conducted the investigation of this case, collected call data record of Rashid Mehmood accused, recovered the weapon and the stolen articles and also proceeded for arrest of the accused. He also recorded statement of Muhammad Zaman, who was in an injured condition in Ayoub Teaching Hospital which has been dealt with as dying declaration Ex.PW.20/28.

PW.21 Ghulam Naz constable is the witness of the recovery memo. of Rs.2,000/- effected from Asad accused.

PW.22 Hayat Khan Judicial Magistrate Havelian on 28.09.2020 supervised the identification of case property comprised of golden ornament and prepared report Ex.PW.22/1.

The learned APP gave up PW Irshad ASI being unnecessary on 31.05.2023 and closed the prosecution evidence on 02.04.2024.

4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants/accused were recorded under Section 342 of The Code wherein they denied the incriminating part of the prosecution evidence put to them and professed their innocence. They neither opted to be examined on oath under Section 340(2) of The Code nor produced defence evidence. Thereafter they were convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment dated 28.11.2024. Hence, these appeals.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused Rashid Mehmood contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused and he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court on the basis of misreading and non-reading of evidence. There is no admissible evidence against appellant/accused Rashid Mehmood. He has been nominated without any source at a belated stage after consultation and deliberation. Further contended that the dying declaration in the form of a statement recorded under Section 161 of The Code attributed to Muhammad Zaman deceased is a manipulated statement, not proved on record and violative of all norms of prudence. The prosecution failed to prove on record that Muhammad Zaman was capable to make a statement rather medical evidence suggests that on the very first day he was not well-oriented and he got deteriorated day by day. The prosecution failed to adduce his record of surgical operations/notes prepared by the surgeons nor any surgeon doctor has been produced in evidence. Further contended that the recoveries from Rashid accused are manipulated and bogus were never sealed into parcels, nor the articles have been exhibited in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is not proved against appellant Rashid and the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/accused Asad categorically contended that no features whatsoever were given in the first information report or in the supplementary statements of the PWs and that the identification test parade report is manipulated by the police. The identifying PWs did not assign any role to the appellants. Further contended that the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced without appreciation of evidence and that appellant Javed has been convicted and sentence without any discussion, evaluation or appreciation of evidence. Further contended that the petitions for enhancement of sentence are not well-founded and vehemently opposed the same. Finally contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel on behalf of A.G, KP with the assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellants and supported the impugned judgment advancing that the same is well-founded and that no chain of the evidence has been found disconnected and finally requested for dismissal of the appeals.

8. Whereas learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner contended that the revision petitions filed against the appellants are well-founded and no mitigating circumstance was available to the learned trial Court. Therefore, requested that when the convicts/appellants were found connected with the commission of crime, they were entitled to be given major sentence.

9. Arguments heard. Record Perused.

10. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the following pieces of evidence:- i. Ocular account ii. Dying declaration iii. Identification test parade iv. Medical evidence v. Recoveries vi. Call Data Records

11. The date, time and the place of occurrence has been stated as midnight of 25/26.06.2020 at about 01.30 a.m, the residential house of the two deceased Muhammad Zaman and Amraiza Jan situated in village Bagh Barri Dewal, District Abbottabad, has not been contested by the defence.

The star witnesses of the prosecution are PW.6 Maria Zeb daughter in law and PW.7 Neelum Zaman daughter of the deceased persons, admittedly both residents of the house of occurrence, they advanced the ocular account regarding the commission of this occurrence by three culprits one wearing mask having curly hairs, second with half beard (Buchni Dhari) and the third one having slim body with a normal height. The one wearing the mask was quarrelling with Amraiza Jan deceased whereas the half beard person was quarrelling with Muhammad Zaman. During the commission of occurrence, the culprits fired shots upon Muhammad Zaman and Amraiza Jan, both received injuries, Amraiza Jan succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas Muhammad Zaman was shifted in injured condition to the DHQ hospital, Abbottabad by the people who gathered at the spot after the occurrence. A Nokia mobile 216 of Muhammad Zaman and Nokia 3310 of Amraiza Jan were also taken away by the culprits. The police reached at the spot at about 03:15 a.m. The said PW.6 Maria Zeb stated the occurrence to the police which was reduced into writing in the shape of report Ex.PA/1, the very basis of the FIR against unknown culprits. Thereafter, Maria Zeb the first informer after searching her house found that gold ornaments consisting of two earrings and one locket (pendent) of Amraiza Jan deceased besides Rs.28,000/- were missing.

12. After two days of the commission of occurrence that is on 28.06.2020, both the said PWs proceeded to the hospital where Muhammad Zaman was admitted in injured condition, he made a statement to the police and disclosed that during the course of scuffle with Amraiza Jan (his wife) the mask of the culprit who was having curly hair got removed for sometimes and at that time they saw the culprit and identified him as Rashid Mehmood (his maternal nephew). The statement of the said Muhammad Zaman was recorded by PW.20 Ghafoor Khan, Officer Incharge Investigation, under Section 161 of The Code exhibited as Ex.PW.20/28, the same has been adduced as dying declaration of said Muhammad Zaman, who died later on, therefore, the said statement is an important piece of evidence in this case and the statement recorded under Section 161 of The Code is relevant under Article 46 of The Qanun e-Shahadat Order, 1984 can be taken as substantive piece of evidence.

13. The onus to prove such statement lies upon the prosecution firstly that Muhammad Zaman was capable to make a statement before the investigating officer with the details of the circumstances causing his death and that of his wife Amraiza Jan and the other relevant facts which occurred at the time of commission of occurrence and whether the investigating officer recorded the statement of Muhammad Zaman correctly without any addition or omission on his part.

Muhammad Zaman was shifted to the hospital on 26.06.2020 at about 02:45 a.m. (night) in injured condition where he was medically examined by PW.14 Dr. Aamir Nawaz Khan in DHQ hospital Abbottabad vide MLC Ex.PW.14/1. The said doctor Aamir Nawaz Khan PW.14 stated in his evidence that Injured was conscious in the hospital however he was not oriented. He could talk however, he was not able to orient himself in space, time and place. It is correct that injured did not charge anybody in my presence before the police. This PW.14 referred Muhammad Zaman in injured condition after medical examination to surgical department of Ayub Teaching Hospital where he was given required treatment including the surgery. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution did not opt to produce any of the such surgeon doctor, any surgical notes or the bed head ticket of Muhammad Zaman deceased regarding his admission, treatment and health conditions in the Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad, therefore, there is nothing in prosecution evidence to evaluate the health condition of Muhammad Zaman on 28.06.2020 that is the day when his statement Ex.PW.20/28 has been claimed to be recorded by the investigating officer.

PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP stated that when he visited Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad on 28.06.2020, it was evening time where Muhammad Zaman was admitted twice or thrice before 28.06.2020 as the condition of the injured was serious, so he did not record the statement on his earlier visits. He categorically stated that he did not obtain any medical certificate from the doctor regarding the conditions of the injured for recording his statement on 28.06.2020.

The medical evidence available on record disclose that the health conditions of Muhammad Zaman from the very first day of his admission in the DHQ hospital till his death on 20.07.2020, remained deteriorated, even PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP stated so in evidence. Therefore, as to whether Muhammad Zaman deceased herein was capable to make a statement lacks the support of medical evidence. However, the prosecution has adduced evidence of PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP, the investigating officer and the evidence of PW.6 Maria Zeb and PW.7 Neelum Zaman, who advanced their account regarding the making of statement by Muhammad Zaman before the PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP and beside that Maria Zeb PW.6 claimed recording of a video clip through her mobile phone regarding the making of a statement by Muhammad Zaman, taken as mark-A by the learned trial Court.

PW.6 Maria Zeb claimed that after two days of the occurrence she went to the hospital to inquire about his injured father-in-law namely Muhammad Zaman where he made a statement to the police and disclosed that during the course of scuffle by the culprits with her mother-in-law Amraiza Jan the mask one of the accused who was having curly hair got removed for sometime and at that time his father-in-law saw that the said accused was his maternal nephew Rashid Mehmood accused/appellant . This PW.6 Maria Zeb also claimed that she recorded a video of said statement and she produced the said video in the shape of USB before the Court, which was taken as mark-A. At that stage the defence raised objection that the said USB containing the video was not produced during the evidence and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence and even the same was not supplied to the accused. The learned trial Court did not decide this objection nor passed any order regarding the taking of said USB as evidence in this case.

Regarding this video PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP the investigating officer stated that no video was prepared by anyone in his presence, he volunteered stated that whether any video was prepared by somebody else or not as it was a general ward, however, no such video was produced during the investigation before him. The learned trial Court did not pass any order regarding admitting the video in evidence nor opted to take the notes of such video in accordance with law in open Court, so as to provide chance of cross-examination to the defence, therefore, in absence thereof the contents of the video could not be read in evidence nor could be used as evidence against the accused/appellant. Therefore, the prosecution even failed to corroborate the making of statement by Muhammad Zaman deceased before the police. It is pertinent to mention here that this lacuna is not only on part of the prosecution, who failed to adduce the evidence contained in the video/the mobile phone of PW.6 Maria Zeb in a proper way as the same was covered under article 164 of The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as a document, beside the prosecution there is contribution of the learned trial Court who failed to exercise its powers as a trial Court for taking evidence of a document which was essential for just decision of the case and could pass a speaking order for taking the said video in evidence, as it was relevant. Admittedly, no note of the video has been taken in open Court so as to provide the right of cross-examination to the defence. Therefore, in our view, the video mark-A is inadmissible in evidence.

14. PW.7 Neelum Zaman daughter of the deceased Muhammad Zaman also claimed that she went to the hospital to inquire about her injured father where he gave statement to the police and disclosed that during the course of scuffle with her mother the mask of the accused who was having curly hair got removed for sometime and at that time they saw that the said accused was his maternal nephew accused Rashid. She could not identify Rashid as he was wearing a mask and that she did not charge accused Rashid in her statement recorded on the day of occurrence. She categorically stated that her statement was recorded once.

15. PW.6 Maria Zeb stated that she did not talk with her father-in-law after he received injures at the spot and nor did he talk to her at that time. She stated that she did not name the accused during investigation till her statement before the Court.

16. It is in evidence that Muhammad Zaman deceased was shifted to the hospital in injured condition forthwith, the eye-witnesses could not interact with him nor he could interact with them and PW.6 Maria Zeb and PW.7 Neelum Zaman the daughter in law and daughter of the deceased came across first time with him on 28.06.2020 when the statement of the deceased Ex.PW.20/28 has been claimed to be recorded. The bare perusal of the said statement disclosed that the same contains the details of the looted amount of Rs.28,000/- besides the gold ornaments. The said daughter in law PW.6 Maria Zeb or PW.7 Neelum Zaman did not say anywhere that they disclosed the details of looted amount or the golden articles to Muhammad Zaman deceased, therefore, in my view, the prosecution has failed to prove on record the statement of Muhammad Zaman Ex.PW.20/28 and mystery remains in field that how he came to know about the details of the stolen articles. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it would not be safe to rely upon the statement of Muhammad Zaman recorded under Section 161 of The Code as Ex.PW.20/28, the dying declaration.

17. The next piece of evidence against Rashid Mehmood accused is in the form of recoveries at the time of his arrest on 05.07.2020 by PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP. A green color mask Ex.P-10 and one small black color Q-mobile Ex.P-11 with a SIM No. 0345-0477547 were taken into possession and then on 07.07.2020, PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP claimed that consequence to the disclosure while in custody Rashid Mehmood accused led him to the recovery of 9mm pistol (without number) loaded with three live rounds, he took the same into possession. He also claimed that the accused produced one necklace and two earrings of gold (the stolen property) from the said room. He took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PW.5/1 and then on 28.09.2020 the articles so recovered were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate PW.22 Hayat Khan for identification where PW.7 Neelum Zaman identified the same as stolen property. The bare perusal of the statement of PW.22 Hayat Khan disclosed that the gold ornaments so produced were not in sealed parcel nor it is mentioned that he himself opened the sealed parcel containing the gold ornaments for the purpose of identification of the stolen property. In this regard, PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP, the investigating officer stated in evidence that the gold ornaments were not sealed into parcel at spot and he did not obtain any certificate from the jeweler that the ornaments were of gold, therefore, no sanctity can be attached to such identification of the property to assume as a stolen property. The conduct of the investigating officer regarding the recovery of gold ornaments and not taking the same into possession as per law give rise to impression of manipulation and doubts.

The Investigating officer PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP claimed that he collected the spent bullet from the place of occurrence and sealed the same into parcel as Ex.P-3 and also took into possession two crime empties of 9mm from the place of unknown accused vide parcel Ex.P-4 and also collected two empties of 30 bore from the place of another unknown accused and sealed the same as Ex.P-5, he also collected electric bulb of 100 Watt and sealed the same as Ex.P-6. PW.8 Sardar Faisal MHC of PS Nara received the articles comprising the empties and the parcel of pistol, he admitted that parcels were sent together and prior to that empties were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for safe custody. The reports of Forensic Science Laboratory are as Ex.PW.20/19 and Ex.PW.20/20 disclosed that the pistol and empties were received there together. The learned counsel for defence during the arguments had vehemently contended that PW.20 Ghafoor Khan DSP had claimed recovery of a 9mm pistol on the instance of Rashid Mehmood accused which was without number and whereas the pistol referred to and contained in the FSL report Ex.PW.20/19 contained pistol No.45207158, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defence carries weight and the clear contradiction is available regarding the weapon of offence attributed to Rashid Mehmood accused. Furthermore, all the empties and the pistol were forwarded to the FSL together although the empties collected from the place of occurrence on the very first day but had not been forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory forthwith. Therefore, the report as to the fact that the empties were found wedded with the pistol losses the evidentiary value due to the contradiction mentioned-above qua the recovery of numberless pistol, therefore, this evidence cannot be used as a corroborative piece.

18. So far as, appellants Asad and Javed are concerned, it is admitted position that the PW.6 Maria Zeb and PW.7 Neelum Zaman the eye-witnesses did not give features of the culprits either in their first information report or in their statements recorded under Section 161 of The Code. The statement of PW.6 Maria Zeb was found confronted with her previous statement when she stated the features of three persons in her examination-in-chief and it was found recorded that they were three jawan ul umer persons . The same is the position of the PW.7 Neelum Zaman but found confronted to her claim that she mentioned in report Ex.PA/1 that one person with mask and had curly hairs, the second was half beard (Buchni Dhari) and the third one having slim body with a normal height the same was found not recorded in the report Ex.PA/1.

19. The next piece of evidence regarding Asad appellant is the identification test parade. The said accused was arrested on 01.10.2021 by PW.18 Gulvaiz Khan SI from Islamabad and then through a transit remand, he was shifted to Abbottabad and on 13.10.2021 PW.19 Mr. Zeeshan Gul, Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate conducted the identification test parade of Asad accused within the premises of district jail Abbottabad where PW.6 Maria Zeb and PW.7 Neelum Zaman participated in the identification test parade and identified Asad accused/appellant as one of the culprits. The perusal of the prosecution evidence disclosed that none of the PWs has assigned any role to Asad accused. The prosecution witnesses did not give any descriptions of the culprits and even at the stage of identification did not assign any role to Asad accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to pass a test appealable to the ordinary prudence.

20. So far as Javed accused is concerned, there is no evidence against him except that he was disclosed by Rashid Mehmood accused before the police as his companion which by itself is inadmissible in evidence. The star witnesses of the prosecution PW.6 Maria Zeb and PW.7 Neelum Zaman only stated that during the course of investigation the accused Javed Tanoli, Ishtaiq, Baber and Nasir were also found involved in the commission of offence, but the prosecution did not produce any evidence as to how the said accused were involved and what was evidence against them nor produced any evidence before the Court.

The evidence of Call Data Record, Ex.PW.20/3 is of no use to the prosecution, the investigating officer has not uttered a word as to what purpose he collected the call data records and how the same is concerned with the accused/appellants or the facts of the case.

21. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the charge against the appellants has not been proved beyond a shadow of doubt. The finding of the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2024 is not sustainable, the learned trial court relied upon evidence of video contained in USB without taking the same into evidence, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellants is not sustainable, the same is hereby set-aside. The appeals stand allowed. The convicts/appellants Rashid Mehmood, Asad and Javed are acquitted from the charge while extending the benefit of doubt. They are in custody, be released forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case.

22. In view of the finding above, the Criminal Revision No.02-P of 2025 titled Maria Zeb v. The State and another and Criminal Revision No.03-P of 2025 titled Maria Zeb v. The State and others seeking enhancement of the sentence stands dismissed as infructuous. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.04-P of 2025 seeking suspension of sentences filed by appellant/petitioner Rashid Mehmood, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.05-P of 2025 for suspension of sentences filed by appellants/petitioners Asad and Javed and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.02-P of 2026, a letter of request for provision of judicial record to the trial Court have also become infructuous.

23. Files of these appeals be consigned to records and the original record of this case be sent back to the learned trial Court.

JK/1/FSC Appeal allowed.