2021 PLP 145 (YLRN)

MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 586-J of 2014 titled 'Muhammad Azam v. The State and another', filed by the appellant, namely, Muhammad Azam, against his conviction and sentence, as well as, Criminal Revision No. 1087 of 2014 titled 'Muhammad Akram v. Muhammad Azam and 3 others' filed by Muhammad Akram complainant for enhancement of the sentence of Muhammad Azam appellant. The appellant along with Muhammad Aslam (co-accused since acquitted) was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sargodha in case FIR No. 363 dated 08.07.2011 registered at Police Station Sillanwali, District Sargodha offences under sections 302/109 of P.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 12.11.2014, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Under section 302(c) of P.P.C. to imprisonment for life on two counts for committing the murders of Muhammad Asif deceased and Mst. Shamim Bibi deceased. The benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. Muhammad Aslam co-accused was however, acquitted of the charges vide the same judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Muhammad Akram (PW-4), in his complaint (Ex.PJ), on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PJ/1) was chalked out, are that on 08.07.2011 at about 02:00 a.m. (night), Muhammad Akram complainant (PW-4) and his paternal cousin, namely, Muhammad Asif (deceased) were irrigating the land situated in Chak No. 147/148/N and emergency light was on. Muhammad Asif (deceased) was lying on a cot in the adjacent field. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Azam (appellant) while armed with 'kassi' came there and raised a 'lalkara' to Muhammad Asif (deceased) that he (appellant) would not let him (Muhammad Asif deceased) alive and thereafter gave 'kassi' blows to Muhammad Asif (deceased) which hit at his neck, face, head and different parts of his body. On hue and cry of the complainant, Sher Muhammad (given-up PW) and Noor Muhammad (PW-3), who were present in nearby area, attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Muhammad Azam (appellant) ran towards his 'Dera'. The complainant and other eye-witnesses attended Muhammad Asif (deceased) who succumbed to the aforementioned injuries at the spot. The complainant along with aforementioned PWs chased Muhammad Azam (appellant) to his 'Dera', where electric lights were on. Mst. Shamim (deceased), who was wife of Muhammad Azam (appellant) and Allah Yar (given up PW) were sleeping in the 'Dera' of Muhammad Azam (appellant). The appellant, on reaching his 'Dera', gave 'kassi' blows to his wife, namely, Mst. Shamim (deceased) which hit at her neck, face, head and different parts of her body. On hue and cry of the complainant party, Umar Hayat (PW-5), who was present in nearby area, attracted to the spot and he also witnessed the occurrence. Muhammad Azam (appellant) raised 'lalkara' that if any body would come forward then he shall be done to death. The appellant thereafter, fled away from the spot. Allah Yar etc attended Mst. Shamim (deceased) but she succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Azam (appellant) had suspicion of illicit relations of Muhammad Asif (deceased) with his wife Mst. Shamim (deceased) and due to this grudge, the appellant committed the occurrence on the abetment of his (appellant's) brother, namely, Muhammad Aslam (co-accused since acquitted).

3. The appellant was arrested in this case by the police on 16.07.2011 and after completion of investigation the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant, as well as, his co-accused, namely, Muhammad Aslam (since acquitted), on 06.04.2012, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced thirteen witnesses. Prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of Ex.PA to Ex.PU. The statements of the appellant and Muhammad Aslam co-accused since acquitted under section 342, Cr.P.C, were recorded, wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence.

4. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.11.2014, found the appellant guilty to the extent of offence under section 302(c) of P.P.C., convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above however, Muhammad Aslam co-accused was acquitted from the charges hence, the abovementioned appeal and revision before this Court.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution eye-witnesses are chance witnesses because their residences were situated at a distance of 3/4 kilometers away from the place of occurrence and they could not justify their presence at the spot at the relevant time; that there is a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR, whereas, there is delay of 8 and 9 hours in conducting the postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of Muhammad Asif deceased and Mst. Shamim deceased respectively, which delay has created serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story; that as per prosecution case, the appellant was armed with 'kassi' which was not a formidable weapon but the prosecution eye-witnesses did not try to apprehend the appellant or to save the lives of the deceased persons and as such, the conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses is highly unnatural which makes their evidence untrustworthy; that occurrence took place on 08.07.2011 at 02:00 a.m. (night) and the prosecution eye-witnesses claimed that they saw the occurrence with the help of emergency light but no such light has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide any recovery memo; that there is conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence of the prosecution because as per prosecution case, the appellant inflicted three specific injuries along with other injuries on the body of Mst. Shamim deceased but according to the postmortem report of Mst. Shamim deceased, there were only two injuries on her body; that likewise, the role attributed to the appellant of inflicting 'kassi' blow on the head of Muhammad Asif deceased apart from other injuries has not been supported by the medical evidence because as per postmortem report, there was no injury on his head; that the prosecution could not prove the motive, as alleged against the appellant, and the learned trial Court rightly disbelieved the motive part of the prosecution case in para No. 24 of the impugned judgment; that the alleged recovery of 'kassi' (P-1) from the possession of the appellant was not stained with blood and there is no report of Chemical Examiner or the Serologist to establish that the abovementioned 'kassi' (P-1) was stained with human blood therefore, the alleged recovery of 'kassi' (P-1) on the pointation of the appellant is inconsequential; that the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court however, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced on the basis of his statement recorded under section 342 of Cr.P.C. and if the said statement is taken in its entirety then no offence is made out against the appellant. In the alternative, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that even otherwise, the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. could not be proved in this case and the sentence of imprisonment for life, awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court under section 302(c) of P.P.C., is quite harsh and the same is liable to be reduced substantially.

6. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the occurrence in this case took place on 08.07.2011 at 02:00 a.m. (night) and the FIR was promptly lodged on 08.07.2011 at 06:35 a.m. which rules out the possibility of any concoction or deliberation; that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 10-1/2 kilometers away from the police station and keeping in view the distance between the place of occurrence and police station, as well as, the time of occurrence, there was no deliberate or conscious delay in reporting the matter to the police; that the prosecution's eye-witnesses have given plausible explanation for their presence at the spot at the relevant time by stating that they were irrigating their land at the time of occurrence therefore, their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was quite natural and probable; that the prosecution's eye-witnesses have given plausible explanation for not apprehending the appellant at the spot by stating that the appellant was armed with 'kassi' and he extended threats of life to them therefore, they (PWs) could not apprehend him at the time of occurrence; that the prosecution's eye-witnesses identified the appellant with the help of emergency light and as the appellant was earlier known to the prosecution eye-witnesses therefore, there was no chance of his mis-identification; that the prosecution eye-witnesses stood the test of lengthy cross-examination but their evidence could not be shaken; that the motive alleged by the prosecution has also been proved in this case through reliable evidence of prosecution witnesses but the same has wrongly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court; that the recovery of 'kassi' (P-1) from the possession of the appellant has further corroborated the prosecution case against the appellant; that there is no substance in the appeal filed by Muhammad Azam (appellant) therefore, the same may be dismissed. Insofar as Crl. Revision No. 1087 of 2014 is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant contends that the appellant committed cold blooded murder of two innocent persons therefore, sentence awarded to the appellant may be enhanced and he may be awarded normal penalty of death on two counts.

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. I have noted that the learned trial Court after disbelieving the prosecution evidence did not award any punishment to the appellant for the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. however, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302(c) of P.P.C. on the basis of his statement recorded under section 342 of Cr.P.C, wherein the appellant stated that on the night of occurrence, he had seen his wife (Mst. Shamim deceased) and Muhammad Asif deceased while committing zina with each other at his 'Dera' when he (appellant) came back with 'kassi' to his 'Dera' after irrigating his land therefore, under sudden and grave provocation, he (appellant) gave them injuries with 'kassi'. Although no specific order has been passed by the learned trial Court regarding the acquittal of the appellant from the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. but non-conviction of the appellant for the said charge means that he has been acquitted from the abovementioned charge. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of 'Muhammad Arshad and others v. The State' (1998 SCMR 2146) and Shera and 6 others v. The Crown' (PLD 1954 Federal Court 141). It is further noteworthy that the complainant has not filed any appeal against the indirect acquittal of the appellant form the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. and he has only filed a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence of the appellant. Acquittal of the appellant from the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. cannot be converted into his conviction under the said charge in revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under section 439(4)(a) of Cr.P.C. It is therefore, evident that acquittal of the appellant from the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. cannot be disturbed by this Court on the basis of Crl. Revision No. 1087 of 2014, filed by the complainant.

9. I have also noted that the occurrence in this case took place on 08.07.2011 at 02:00 a.m. (night) and the FIR was lodged on 08.07.2011 at 06:35 a.m. i.e. with the delay of 04 hours and 35 minutes from the occurrence. Postmortem on the dead body of Mst. Shamim Bibi deceased was conducted on 08.07.2011 at 10:00 a.m. and on the dead body of Muhammad Asif deceased on 08.07.2011 at 11:05 a.m., and as such, there is delay of 08 and 09 hours, respectively, in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of the deceased persons. It is further noteworthy that none of the PWs went to the police station to lodge the FIR and they kept on waiting till 05:30 a.m., for the arrival of Muhammad Boota, Sub-Inspector/I.O. (PW-11) at the spot. Statement of Muhammad Akram complainant (PW-4) was recorded by Muhammad Boota S.I/I.O (P W-11) at the spot therefore, a presumption can validly be drawn that FIR was lodged after due deliberation and concoction. Reference in this context may be made to the cases of 'Allah Bachaya and another v. The State' (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 349) and 'Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State' (2009 PCr.LJ 506).

10. It is further noteworthy that prosecution's eye-witnesses were residents of a place situated at a distance of 3/4 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. The occurrence took place at odd hours of night i.e. 02:00 a.m. The prosecution eye-witnesses were therefore, chance witnesses because ordinarily they were not expected to be present at the place of occurrence (agricultural fields and 'Dera' of the appellant), at the relevant time. The abovementioned eye-witnesses in order to justify their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence have stated that they were irrigating their land at that time. No Khasra number, Khatooni number or Khata number of the land, which was owned or cultivated by the prosecution eye-witnesses have been mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of the abovementioned witnesses. Muhammad Boota, Sub-Inspector/I.O. (PW-11) has admitted that the prosecution eye-witnesses did not produce any proof of their ownership or cultivation during the investigation of this case. Noor Muhammad (PW-3) has stated during his cross-examination that they had no 'kassi' with them at the relevant time to justify the reason of irrigation of land, as claimed by the prosecution eye-witnesses. He did not explain that any other tool was with them (PWs) through which they were irrigating the land at the time of occurrence. Umar Hayat (PW-5) has also admitted in his cross-examination that Muhammad Azam appellant had the turn of water from 09:00 p.m., up to 08:00 a.m., on the day of occurrence which has further negated the reason given by the prosecution eye-witnesses for their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. No document of Wara-bandi or any other record to establish the reason of presence of the prosecution eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence, has been produced in the prosecution evidence. It is further noteworthy that Muhammad Akram complainant (PW-4) was specifically asked during cross-examination that Muhammad Azam appellant had the turn of water from 09:30 p.m., up to 08:00 a.m., on the relevant day but he did not answer the same and stated that he did not know about it, whereas, according to his examination-in-chief, he was present at the spot at the relevant night in order to irrigate his land. As the prosecution eye-witnesses were residents of a place situated at a distance of 3/4 kilometers away from the place of occurrence and they could not establish the reason of their presence at the spot at the odd hours of night (02:00 a.m.) when the occurrence took place therefore, they are chance witnesses and their evidence is not worthy of reliance thus, the same has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others" (2015 SCMR 1142) at Para No.14, observed regarding the chance witnesses as under:-- "

14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily, is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot. True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt." Similar view was taken in the case of "Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others" (2017 SCMR 142). Relevant part of the said judgment at Para No.2 reads as under:- " ....Muhammad Irshad comp-lainant (PW-8) and Rab Nawaz (PW-9) were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence............"

11. It is further noteworthy that conduct of the prosecution's eye-witnesses is highly unnatural. According to the prosecution case, Muhammad Azam appellant was alone, whereas, the complainant party was comprising of four persons, namely, Noor Muhammad (PW-3), Muhammad Akram complainant (PW-4), Sher Muhammad (given up PW) and Muhammad Asif deceased at the time of first occurrence of murder of Muhammad Asif (deceased), whereas, the complainant party was comprising of five persons, namely, Allah Yar (given up PW), Umar Hayat (PW-5), Noor Muhammad (PW-3), Muhammad Akram complainant (PW-4) and Sher Muhammad (given up PW) at the time of second occurrence of the murder of Mst. Shamim (deceased). As per postmortem reports, there were four (04) injuries on the body of Muhammad Asif deceased and two (02) injuries on the body of Mst. Shamim deceased. The appellant was not armed with any formidable weapon like pistol or rifle and he was only armed with 'kassi'. Prosecution eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Akram complainant (PW-4) and Noor Muhammad (PW-3) were 'Chachazad' (paternal cousins) of Muhammad Asif deceased, whereas, Sher Muhammad (given up PW) was paternal cousin of the mother of Muhammad Asif (deceased). Likewise, Umar Hayat (PW-5) and Allah Yar (given up PW) were real brother and father of Mst. Shamim (deceased), respectively. The said eye-witnesses saw the occurrence like silent spectators and they did not try to save Muhammad Asif deceased or Mst. Shamim deceased at the time of occurrence. They did not try to apprehend Muhammad Azam appellant at that time. The conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses is highly unnatural which makes their testimony as untrustworthy and unreliable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Liaquat Ali v. The State" (2008 SCMR 95) at Para No.7, observed regarding conduct of the witnesses of ocular account as under:- "

2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on the fateful day at about 8.00 a.m. complainant Shameer (P.W.7) was going to the "Lumberdar" (Revenue Officer) to pay "Abyana" and at that time his cousin namely Fazil deceased was going ahead of him at some distance. Suddenly within his view Liaquat Ali appellant armed with a knife appeared and raised a Lalkara that Fazil would not be spared and thereafter gave him successive knife blows on various parts of his body. On hue and cries raised, Muhammad Siddique (P.W-8), Ranjha and Musa (not produced) were attracted to the spot. They tried to rescue Fazil but on being threatened by Liaquat they were unable to protect Fazil deceased and within their view he succumbed to the injuries and died.................................... 3. .. 4. .. 5. .. 5-A. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, we note that although P. W. 7 who is first cousin and brother-in-law of Fazil deceased claims to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 30 ft. (as given in cross-examination) and two other witnesses namely Musa and Ranjha were also attracted to the spot but none rescued Fazil deceased and appellant had a free hand to inflict as many as 9 injuries on his person. The explanation given by these witnesses that since Liaquat Ali had threatened them, therefore, they could not go near Fazil deceased to rescue him is repellant to common sense as Liaqat Ali was not armed with a firearm which could have scared the witnesses away. He was a single alleged assailant and if the witnesses were there at the spot they could have easily overpowered him. This makes their presence at the spot doubtful ." Likewise, in the case of "Pathan v. The State" (2015 SCMR 315) at Para No.4, the Apex Court of the country was pleased to observe as under:- "................ The appellant was armed only with scissors not a formidable weapon of destruction. The complainant is the son of the deceased while Baradi and the other PW Muhammad Yousaf are also related to the deceased. The causing of such large number of injuries one after another to the deceased with scissors must have consumed reasonable time due to the pause in between the first injury and the last one but all the three PWs including the son with a strong stature and built remain as silent spectators. They did not react or showed any response when the accused was causing the injuries. No man on the earth would believe that a close relative would remain silent spectator in a situation like this because their intervention was very natural to rescue the deceased but they did nothing nor attempted to chase the accused and apprehend him at the spot." Similar view was taken in the case of "Zafar v. The State and others" (2018 SCMR 326).

12. As per prosecution case, the motive behind the occurrence was that the appellant suspected illicit relations between Muhammad Asif deceased and Mst. Shamim deceased. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that they saw the deceased persons in any objectionable condition during their life time. They did not state that they ever heard the appellant while expressing his abovementioned suspicion. No litigation was pending between the appellant and Mst. Shumim deceased during her life time. In the light of above, the motive part of the prosecution has not been proved in this case and the same has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court in para. No.24 of the impugned judgment.

13. Insofar as the recovery of 'kassi' (P-1) from the possession of the appellant is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the recovery memo (Ex.PK), it has not been mentioned that the said 'kassi' was stained with blood. There is no report of Chemical Examiner or the Serologist to establish that the abovementioned 'kaasi' was stained with human blood therefore, the alleged recovery of 'kassi' (P-1) from the possession of the appellant is inconsequential.

14. As per prosecution case, the occurrence was seen and the appellant was identified by the prosecution eye-witnesses with the help of emergency light but no emergency light has been taken into possession in this case by the Investigating Officer. Moreover, there was nothing on record to show that on the night of occurrence, there was light of moon. Under the circumstances, the identification of the appellant in the darkness of night is not free from doubt, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the case of 'Zahir Yousaf and another v. The State and another' (2017 SCMR 2002).

15. I have therefore, come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution evidence is not worthy of reliance and the same has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. It is however, noteworthy that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court on the basis of his statement recorded under section 342 of Cr.P.C, wherein, while answering to a question that have you anything else to say, the appellant replied as under:-- "I am innocent. I had seen my wife and Muhammad Asif deceased committing zina with each other at my dera when I came back with 'kassi' to my dera after irrigating my land and, under sudden and grave provocation, I gave them injuries with 'kassi'." It is by now well settled that if prosecution evidence is disbelieved then statement of the accused is to be accepted or rejected in toto. It is legally not possible to accept the inculpatory part of the statement of accused person and to reject the exculpatory part of the same statement. Reference in this context may be made to the case of 'Muhammad Asghar v. The State' (PLD 2008 SC 513). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment at page 520 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 'It is settled law by now that a statement of an accused recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. is to be read in its entirety, is to be accepted or rejected as a whole and reliance should not be placed on that portion of the statement which goes against the accused person. Reference can be made to the case of 'Shabbir Ahmad v. The State' PLD 1995 SC 343 and 'The State v. Muhammad Hanif and 5 others' 1992 SCMR 2047. It has been held by this Court in the judgment reported as 'Waqar Ahmad v. Shaukat Ali and others' 2006 SCMR 1139, that prosecution is bound to establish its own case independently instead of depending upon the weakness of the defence, and the assertion of the accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. was not sufficient to establish the prosecution case regarding guilt of the accused and such statement of the accused could be accepted in toto in the absence of any other prosecution evidence. In the case in hand, the High Court should have either accepted appellant's statement in its entirety or rejected it altogether, but it had misdirected itself while choosing a portion of the statement, which went against the appellant, and convicting him.' If statement of the accused is accepted in toto then the present case falls within the ambit of section 302(c) of P.P.C. because the appellant has categorically mentioned in his above-referred statement that he saw his wife Mst. Shamim deceased and Muhammad Asif deceased while committing zina with each other whereupon he committed their murder under sudden and grave provocation. I am therefore, of the considered view that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under section 302(c) of P.P.C. instead of the charge under section 302(b) of P.P.C. Reliance in this context may be placed on the cases of Ali Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad and another' (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 274), 'Ali Ahmad and another v. The State and others' (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 201) and 'Raza and another v. The State and 2 others' (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 523).

16. Insofar as the quantum of sentence of the appellant is concerned, I have noted that the appellant has been awarded the maximum punishment by the learned trial Court for the offence under section 302(c) of P.P.C. but there are some mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant. Firstly, the motive alleged by the prosecution could not be proved in this case and the same has already been disbelieved by the learned trial Court, as well as, by this Court due to the reasons mentioned in para No. 12 of this judgment. Secondly, recovery of weapon of offence i.e. 'kassi' (P-1) has also been disbelieved by this Court on the grounds mentioned in para No. 13 of this judgment. Thirdly, the appellant made a fair statement before the learned trial Court that he committed the occurrence under grave and sudden provocation and he did not conceal the real facts from the Court. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, I am of the view that sentence of imprisonment for life on two counts for the offence under section 302(c) of P.P.C., as awarded by the learned trial Court, is quite harsh and the sentence of 14 years Rigorous Imprisonment on two counts would meet the ends of justice therefore, the appeal filed by Muhammad Azam appellant is hereby, dismissed however, quantum of his sentence under section 302(c) of P.P.C. is altered from imprisonment for life on two counts to 14 years R.I. on two counts. The sentences of the appellant shall run concurrently. Findings of the learned trial Court whereby the compensation to the legal heirs of both the deceased under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. was not awarded, are however, upheld and maintained. Benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. is also granted to the appellant.

17. Insofar as Crl. Revision No. 1087 of 2014, filed by Muhammad Akram complainant for enhancement of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to Muhammad Azam (respondent No.1 of the said Crl. Revision) is concerned, I have already concluded in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is quite harsh and the same has been reduced accordingly. Under the circumstances, the instant petition i.e. Criminal Revision No. 1087 of 2014 has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. JK/M-56/L Order accordingly.