2016 P Cr (PLP)

SIKANDAR ZULQARNAIN SALEEM, J.

Through this consolidated single judgment we propose to decide Murder Reference No. 117 of 2010 sent by the learned trial court under section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence awarded to Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant jointly with Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2010 filed by said Ghulam Siddique Ilyas alias Jageera appellant who along with Abdul Majeed co-accused since acquitted) was sent up to face trial in case FIR No. 261 dated 10.10.2008, registered under sections 302/324/460, P.P.C. at Police Station Kala District D.G. Khan and on conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 4.5.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan, he (Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant) was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under section 302(b), P.P.C. sentenced to Death for committing qatl-i-amd of Ghulam Shabbir deceased along with direction to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default of payment thereof to further undergo one year s S.I. Under section 460, P.P.C. imprisonment for life for committing lurking house trespass by night. Under section 324, P.P.C. 10 years R.I. for causing an attempt to commit murder of Dr. Munir Ahmad injured with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo six months S.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, through the same judgment, co-accused namely, Abdul Majeed was acquitted of the charge by the learned trial court while extending benefit of doubt to him.

2. Brief facts of the case, as disclosed by Malik Allah Wassaya complainant (PW-8) in his Fard Biyan Ex.PE, made to Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) at Qasba Kala on 10.10.2008 at about 3.35 a.m., on the basis whereof, formal FIR (Ex. PF/A) was recorded by Abdul Ghaffar, ASI (PW-7), are that he (complainant) was resident of Qasba Kala. On the night of occurrence, as usual after offering ESHA Prayer the complainant slept in his Baithak. At about midnight he woke up on hearing the sound of firing. He was just to awake when he (complainant) further heard the sound of firing. He came in the street. There was hue and cry in the house of his brother, Dr. Munir Ahmad (PW-9). He (complainant) went to the house of his brother where he saw that Munir Ahmad (PW-9) was lying in an injured condition in the courtyard of the house whereas his other brother Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) was lying in an injured condition with Northern wall near small door of the house which opened in the street. When they attended to Ghulam Shabbir (deceased), he was found dead. Munir Ahmad (PW-9) told the complainant that he (PW-9) along with his family members was sleeping in a room. On hearing noise from the kitchen, he woke up, came in the courtyard to verify the situation, he saw in the light of bulb that two unknown persons with open faces, out of whom, one was having body of medium size whitish colour, active body was of the age of 25-30 years whereas second one was with whitish colour, some heavy body with the age of 30 to 35 years, Saraiki speaking, armed with Kalashnikovs were present in front of kitchen. When he (PW-9) tried to catch hold of them the accused persons made firing with their respective Kalashnikovs; first fire hit on his right side of chest; second fire hit on right side on lower portion of his belly whereas third fire hit on his left knee. On the hue and cry raised by Munir Ahmad (PW-9) and also hearing the sound of firing, Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) his brother who was residing in an adjacent house came through a door in between both the houses. The accused persons tried to flee away by climbing over the wall of small door of the main gate. Meanwhile, Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) tried to catch hold the accused persons who also made firing on him and the fire hit on the back of his brother who fell down near the said gate and the accused while making firing succeeded in fleeing away from the spot. It was further maintained that the two unknown accused persons had entered in the house of Munir Ahmad (PW-9) for the purpose of commission of offence but on awaking of the family member, they fled away after murdering Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) and causing injuries to Munir Ahmad (PW-9).

3. On conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted in the Court and at the commencement of the trial the learned trial court after supplying copies of the documents required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. framed a charge against the appellant and the acquitted accused on 24.3.2009 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant and the acquitted accused produced as many as fourteen witnesses. Tanvir Hussain Jaffri, Draftsman (PW-1) on 11.10.2008 on the direction of the police as well as on pointing out of the witnesses prepared scaled site plan Ex.PA, Ex.PA/1 and Ex.PA/2 while Ghulam Siddique C/530 (PW-2) took Dr. Munir Ahmad injured to Shadan Lond Hospital for his medical examination. Khuda Bakhsh, ASI (PW-3) escorted the dead body of Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) to mortuary for autopsy while Muhammad Nawaz, Moharrier (PW-6) handed over parcels containing blood stained earth and one empty to Abu Zar Constable for onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner and Forensic Science Laboratory, respectively. On 30.11.2008, he also kept intact in Malkhana a sealed parcel containing Kalashnikov which was also handed over to Abu Zar Constable for delivery in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. The medical evidence was produced through the statements of Dr. Mehmood Khan Leghari (PW-4) and Dr. Khalil-ur-Rehman (PW-5). Dr. Mehmood Khan Leghari (PW-4) on 10.10.2008 conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) while Dr. Khalil-ur-Rehman (PW-5) on 10.10.2008 medically examined Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) and found seven injuries on his person. Abdul Ghaffar, ASI (PW-7) on the receipt of complaint (Ex. PF) chalked out formal FIR (Ex.PF/A). Allah Wasaya (PW-8) is the complainant of the FIR while the ocular account was furnished by Dr. Munir Ahmad (PW-9) and Muhammad Younis (PW-10) had also claimed to have identified the accused. Abuzar Ali C/981 (PW-11) only stated about the taking of parcel containing blood stained earth for delivery to the office of Chemical Examiner on 17.10.2008. Abdul Hameed C/723 (PW-12) was handed over the warrant of arrest of Zia- ul-Haq accused while Abid Hussain C/623 (PW-14) is recovery witness of pistol and Kalashnikov from Abdul Majeed acquitted accused and Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant, respectively. Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) is the Investigating Officer who deposed about the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation.

5. The statement of the appellant under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded on 2.3.2010. He refuted the allegations levelled against him and professed his innocence. While answering to a question that "Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against You?" Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant replied as under:- "Occurrence is unseen. In this case, many people were joined in the investigation and later on, released after getting money. I was also joined in investigation in this case on suspicion. Amount was demanded from me and on non payment, I have been wrongly challaned. On the day of occurrence, I was present in my house and Usman was also with me there. I am innocent. On non-payment of amount and local dispute, I have been falsely involved in this case. I am innocent." The appellant and his co-accused did not opt to make statements on oath as provided under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in disproof of the allegations levelled against them. However, they produced Muhammad Tahir Sub-Station Officer, (DW-1) and Bashir Ahmad, SSO Rojhan District Rajan Pur (DW-2) in their defence.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial the learned trial court found the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal and the connected Murder Reference before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that prosecution has miserably failed to bring the guilt home against the convict by producing trustworthy and convincing evidence, the appellant was not named in the FIR, no identification parade was held in this case, if Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) and Muhammad Younas (PW-10) knew the appellant and the acquitted accused then they could have easily told such facts to the complainant, who met with them during this process before lodging the FIR, the appellant along with Abdul Majeed co-accused was implicated in this case who was acquitted by the learned trial court but his acquittal has not been challenged any more by the complainant or by the State and as such the evidence which has been disbelieved to the extent of acquitted co-accused cannot be believed to the extent of the appellant unless and until there is strong corroboration which is very much lacking in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt; thus, this appeal be accepted and the appellant may be acquitted from the charge.

8. On the contrary, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing on behalf of the State opposes the appeal on the ground that the learned trial court had rightly relied upon the evidence against the appellant, FIR was lodged promptly as the occurrence in the present case took place during midnight and it was reported to the police through Fard Biyan at 3.35 a.m. on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded at 4.00 a.m. and the distance between the place of occurrence and police station is 2 miles, even the postmortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased has been conducted without any delay, Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) and Muhammad Younas (PW-10) have not only nominated the appellant, but identified them in the Court to be the culprit, the ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence and recovery of weapon, which is sufficient to convict the appellant and the case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General on behalf of the State at a considerable length and with their assistance have scanned evidence available on record.

10. No doubt FIR under section 154, Cr.P.C. is always treated to be a corner stone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against culprits involved in the crime. Thus it has got a very significant role to play. Any doubt in lodging of FIR and commencement of investigation gives rise to a benefit in favour of accused and FIR lodged after conducting an inquiry loses its evidentiary value. The occurrence in the present case according to the prosecution had taken place on 10.10.2008 at about midnight in the house of Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) within the area of Qasba Kala two miles towards South from Police Station Kala District D.G. Khan, whereas, the matter was claimed to be reported by Malik Allah Wassaya complainant (PW-8) through Fard Biyan Ex. PF, recorded by Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) at Qasba Kala on 10.1.0.2008 at about 3.35 a.m., on the basis whereof, formal FIR (Ex. PF/A) was recorded by Abdul Ghaffar, ASI (PW-7) on the same day at 4.00 a.m. under sections 302/460/459, P.P.C. It is doubtful that the FIR was got registered with promptitude as claimed by the prosecution and it does not provide any corroboration to the extent of involvement of the appellant in the present case as names of the accused as well as name of Muhammad Younas (PW-10) who had claimed to have identified the accused while fleeing away from the spot have not been mentioned therein.

11. Fard Biyan (Ex. PF), got recorded by Allah Wasaya complainant (PW-8) was handed over to Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) at the place of occurrence, i.e. Qasba. Kala where Muhammad Younas (PW-10) and Ghulam Farid (not produced) were present. Admittedly, Muhammad Younas (PW-10) claimed himself to have identified the accused while fleeing away from the spot, but he did not inform to the complainant or police that the offence has been committed by appellant along with acquitted accused. In the instant case, despite of alleging availability of Muhammad Younas (PW-10) at the place of occurrence, where Allah Wasaya complainant (PW-8) who is real brother of the deceased Ghulam Shabbir, got recorded his Fard Biyan (Ex. PF) but his name was not mentioned as witness and subsequently, he was introduced to be one of the witnesses along with Ghulam Farid (not produced), therefore, presence of Muhammad Younas (PW-10) at the place of incident seems to be doubtful. Even otherwise, if Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) and Muhammad Younas (PW-10) knew the appellant and the acquitted accused then they could have easily told such facts to the complainant, who met with them during this process before lodging the FIR. In addition to it, facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the statement of Muhammad Younas (PW-10) and Ghulam Farid (not produced) were recorded with a considerable delay by the prosecution, therefore, without explaining the delay in recording such statements, evidence furnished by one of them involving to accused person in the capital charge, is not acceptable as it has been held in the case Saeed Muhammad Shah v. The State (1993 SCMR 550) and Mehmood Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCMR 127).

12. It is equally important to mention here that as far as Ghulam Farid (not produced) who had allegedly seen the accused immediately after the occurrence is concerned, he had signed memo (Ex. PG) of blood stained earth from the place of murder of Ghulam Shabbir deceased, memo (Ex. PG/A), blood stained earth from the place of injury of Dr. Munir Ahmad, memo (Ex. PH) of six crime empties of Kalashnikov and memo of electric bulb (Ex. PJ), prepared at the place of occurrence by Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) and non-production of this witness gave rise to an adverse presumption that if he had appeared in the Court, he would have not supported the prosecution case.

13. It is noteworthy that Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant faced trial under sections 302/324/460, P.P.C. along with Abdul Majeed co-accused. Learned trial Court disbelieved the evidence of eye-witnesses to the extent of Abdul Majeed, as such question arises that if the evidence of witnesses is not worthy of credence, how it can be used against appellant for maintaining conviction of the appellant in a case entailing capital punishment unless there is any corroboration in the statements of the eyewitnesses. Reference may be made to PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11, wherein it has been held as under:- "xxx Expressed in a more direct manner a similar rule in the administration of criminal justice which is half mark of Islamic Jurisprudence, that when a witness has been found false with regard to the implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath the credibility of such witness regarding involvement of the other accused in the same occurrence would be irretrievably shaken. However, as a matter of convenience a rule has been developed in Pakistan since the famous case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown (1) propounded by late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir that where it is final that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to the other accused in the same occurrence. But if the testimony of such a witness is corroborated by very strong and independent circumstances regarding other the reliance might then be placed on the witness for convicting the other accused.

14. Although Dr. Munir Ahmad is the injured witness but he has improved his statement on material aspects, therefore, his evidence is not confidence inspiring. The presence of the witness at the time of occurrence is established as he had stamp of injuries on his person but the same is not per se tantamount to a stamp of credence on his testimony. The injuries on his person cannot be considered sufficient to hold that he had spoken the whole truth. Injuries on the person of the eye-witness would not raise any presumption that whatever he is telling is truth. Reliance can be made to the cases of Said Ahmad v. Zammured Hussain and 4 others (1981 SCMR 795), The State v. Muhammad Raja and 3 others (PLD 2004 Peshawar 1), Muhammad Hayat and another v. The State (1996 SCMR 1411) and Naseer Ahmad and 5 others v. The State (1984 MLD 1461). Another important aspect of the matter is that, Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW -9) during the cross-examination stated that after receiving injuries by him and Ghulam Shabbir deceased, Allah Wasaya complainant (PW 8) reached there and after about 10 minutes of reaching of Allah Wasaya PW, he realized the presence of Younas and Farid. This is not believable as one person had already died and the second one was seriously injured and if the above-said witnesses were present at the spot why they did not take the injured immediately to the hospital for providing medical treatment to him and they were waiting for arrival of the police for half an hour as perusal of Ex. PE, shows that Munir Ahmad injured was medically examined at 3.35 a.m. at Rural Health Center Shadan Ludan, D.G. Khan through Muhammad Siddique C/530. Similarly, on the one hand, Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) during the cross-examination claimed that the police recorded his statement at the place of occurrence and he also denied the suggestion that he could not identify the culprits at the time of occurrence. It also creates doubt on the truthfulness of this PW, as if he was in the knowledge of the names of the accused, why he did not disclose the same to the complainant who according to his own version came first immediately after the occurrence. He also admitted during the cross-examination that he had got recorded to the police receipt of three fires, as fourth one was recovered later on. Dr. Munir Ahmad injured (PW-9) during the cross-examination stated that after receiving the injuries, he was in his senses whereas Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) during the cross-examination stated that when he reached at the spot, Dr. Munir was not conscious.

15. The other piece of evidence is statement of Muhammad Younas (PW-10) who is witness of Wajtakkar. He did not witness the occurrence and had allegedly seen the appellant along with the acquitted accused while fleeing away from the place of occurrence. We have no hesitation in holding that wajtakkar evidence of Muhammad Younas (PW-10) was nothing but an attempt on the part of the prosecution to bolster up its case against the appellant. Muhammad Younas (PW-10) during the cross-examination claimed that when they reached the house of Dr. Munir Ahmad, no other body was present. However, he was unable to tell as to when Allah Wasaya complainant (PW-8) reached there and he did not witness the presence of Allah Wasaya at the spot. He immediately reached after the occurrence. The Police reached at the spot after half an hour of the occurrence. The Police recorded their statements at the spot, the same day. This stance taken by PW-10 Muhammad Younas is not found in conformity with the statement made by Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13), who during the cross-examination stated that on receiving information about the occurrence through wireless he reached at the place of occurrence at 3.10 a.m. and on his arrival Allah Wasaya was present on the door of house of Dr. Munir Ahmad injured. Younas (PW-10) also met him on the said gate but after 15 to 20 minutes of his arrival. After perusal of statement of Muhammad Younas (PW-10), the same does not inspire confidence. The conduct of Malik Allah Wasaya complainant and Muhammad Younas (PW-10) was also found unnatural as according to Dr. Mehmood Khan Leghari (PW-4) who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Ghulam Shabbir deceased, the probable duration between injuries and death about half an hour and that of death and postmortem about six hours. The above-said eye-witnesses did not take the deceased to any hospital to provide him the first aid to save his life as with naked eye they could imagine about the damage caused to the deceased and the deceased remained alive for half an hour after receiving injuries from assailants. Even it was not case of the defence that they took the deceased in injured condition to hospital but in the way he succumbed to the injuries. Admittedly in the natural course they could not be present at the spot during odd hours of night, who at the most were chance witnesses and we do not find any reasonableness in the version of these PWs for believing them as truthful witnesses. As discussed above, it was a case of delayed postmortem, which usually leads to an inference that the FIR might be recorded after preliminary investigation and as per prosecution version before conducting of postmortem examination, PWs-8, 9 and 10 had appeared before the police, but the said version of ocular account was not even mentioned in the Inquest Report. From the above facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that PWs-8, 9, and 10 had narrated cooked up story and same having found no corroboration from any independent source cannot be believed. So this seems to be a fabricated piece of evidence which cannot be accepted when the ocular account itself has been found doubtful and not reliable.

16. Besides the above discrepancies in the testimonies of Allah Wasaya complainant (PW-8), Dr. Munir Ahmad (PW-9) and Muhammad Younas (PW-10), there is yet another important aspect of the case, regarding the identification of the accused by the said witnesses. Immediately after the commission of the offence appellant Ghulam Siddique @ Jageera was not arrested as according to Shamshair Ali, S.I. (PW-13) he arrested the accused on 26.11.2008. Therefore, for such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have arranged identification parade of appellant through the witnesses to strengthen the prosecution case, i.e. he was the actual culprit involved in the commission of the offence but non‑conducting of the identification parade of the accused person gave rise to serious doubt because humanly it is impossible for a person to identify accused involved in the commission of offence merely for the reason that once or twice, he was seen by the witnesses. Admittedly both the witnesses as per their version had no direct intimacy with the appellant. The appellant was also not duly identified in a proper identification parade which further weakens the case of the prosecution. There is even no evidence that how the appellant had been known as an accused in the present case, who was not previously known to the PWs. Thus, the identification of the appellant in Court by the P.Ws without holding identification test through the P.Ws. is of no value, therefore; it cannot be made the basis for conviction. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2010 SCMR 1706.

17. The alleged recovery of Kalashnikov (Ex. PK) from the appellant is legally inconsequential as although the empties according to the prosecution were recovered from the spot but in the inquest report (Ex. PD/3) in the relevant column No. 23 it has not been shown that any empty was found at the spot near the dead body of the deceased. Moreover, according to the prosecution version the recovery of six crime empties (Ex. PH) and the blood stained earth of the place of death of Ghulam Shabbir deceased was effected from the spot on 10.10.2008 in the presence of Muhammad Younas (PW-10), Ghulam Farid (not produced) and Shamshair Ali, S.I./I.O. (PW-13), but Abuzar Ali C/981 (PW-11) stated that blood stained earth was sent to the office of Chemical Examiner on 17.10.2008 while he stated nothing regarding the dispatch of crime empties in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory. However, perusal of report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PQ) shows that the empties were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 26.12.2008 though the said empties were already recovered on 10.10.2008. The delayed dispatch of the empties to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory after affecting the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant on 30.11.2008 though the appellant was already arrested on 26.11.2008, creates serious doubt about the veracity of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. PQ), which cannot be used as a corroboration to the ocular account.

18. The medical evidence in no way is sufficient to pinpoint the accused, who had caused the said injuries. It can only support the ocular account regarding the nature of the injuries and the weapon used for causing the said injuries. The medical evidence is also not found fully in conformity with the ocular account, which even otherwise has already been disbelieved by us. It is also a known principle of criminal administration of justice that if the ocular testimony suffers from material discrepancies and for the reasons more than one it has lost its intrinsic value then the corroborative evidence namely recovery of crime weapons, medical evidence etc. cannot be used to corroborate the ocular testimony as held in the case of Dhunda v. The Crown (ILR 16 Lahore 995) as under:- We have examined the evidence and we come to the same conclusion as the learned Judge as regards the eye-witnesses. The contradictions and discrepancies are so many and so material that it is almost impossible to believe that these witnesses saw anything of importance. Their evidence is so unreliable as to be worth precisely nothing. It appears to us, therefore, to he impossible in law to corroborate this evidence. Nothing cannot be multiplied or corroborated."

19. It is a known and settled principle of law that prosecution primarily is bound to establish guilt against the accused without shadow of reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence enabling the Court whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing accusation against the accused or otherwise and if it comes to the conclusion that charges so imputed against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then the accused becomes entitled for his release on getting benefit of doubt in the prosecution case. In such situation the Court has no jurisdiction to abridge such right of the accused. To ascertain as to whether accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt the Court can conclude on considering agglomerated effect of the evidence available on record as held in the cases of Safdar Ali v. The Crown" (PLD 1953 FC 93) and "Muhammad Luqman v. The State" (PLD 1970 SC 10). We have considered all the pros and cons of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of 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 give 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 1347, was pleased to observe as under:- '5. ....... 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while reiterating the same principle in the case of 'Muhammad Akram v. The State' (2009 SCMR 230), at page 236, observed as under:- '13. ....... It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."

20. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, we accept Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2010 filed by Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant, set aside his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan vide judgment dated 04.5.2010; and acquit him of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in custody, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

21. Murder Reference No. 117 of 2010 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death passed by the learned trial court against Ghulam Siddique alias Jageera appellant is NOT CONFIRMED. HBT/G-40/L Appeal accepted.