ZAINUL ABIDEEN @ JALAL S/O FAZAL KARIM (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

C\

CERTIFICATE OF THE HIGH COURTOF SINDH, KAI{ACI-II

Criminal Jail Appeat NO. 117 ol 2021 confirmation case No. 04 ot 2021.

Zain-ul-Aabidin Vs

The State

FIIGH COURTOF SINDII

Composition of Bench. D. B.

Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date(s) of hearing l0-0s-1022

Decided on : 15-08-t022

W

Judgment approved for Reporting I'es

CERTIFICATE.

Certified that the judgment */Order is based upon or enunciates a principle of las' */decides a question oflaw which is offirst impressio distinguishes,'. Orer-rules' reverses/explains a previous dec ision.

* Strike out whichever is not applicable

NOTE: - (i) This slip is only to be used u'hen some action is to be taken.

(ii)Ifthe slip is used, the Reader must attach it to the top olthe lirst page of the judgment.

(iii)Reader must ask the Judge writing the Judgment whether th,'- Judgment is approved for reporting.

(iv)Those dtections which are not to be used should be deleted.

I

I \a) IN TH E HI GH cou RT

OF SIN DH

AT KA RA CHI

I

Crl. Jail Appeal No. \\ )- i of 2021.

t

Zatn -ul-Aabdin s o / Fazal Karim Mu slim, adult presently confined in C entral Prison, Karachi..........

Appellant in person.

Versus I The state.

Respondent.

F,ii}:T,?Z;No 2446/20ts Sections.376 ppc.

PS. Sae edabad Karachi.

UN DER SECT ION 410

CR. P.c.

Honourable Sir,

Being aggrieved and dis-satislied judgement dated with the impugned 0r,02.2021, passed by Mr. Gada Hussain Abro, Learned X*, Additional sessions Judge Karachi' case number mentiorl west' in sessions s/o Fazalr..i_, Zain-ur-Aabdin u"i.,j'i,,#: ; #:::J:."" Potice station saeeaabla, above , Karachi, ,rd".

Whereby convicting and """tio.,I:;lioJp.j sentencing the ajpellant/ accused by awarding him und[... Section ar6 SENTENCE and to pay DEATH fine ol Rs.500 ,OOO/_,to """ in the victim of section 545 subsect: view ,T"LJil: [: H,ffi Hi :ff;'fi ::: i: " ":,i:"il;i{ The Appellant/accusecl .' in person hav come in before this Honourabre j'"ue appeal ;:; a^':-::"""

with prayer that this Honourable court may be pleased ,court call for t:he R&Ps of aforesaid case, peruse the same,.o Sessions *H.*"**t :i"::,#::::tiili::;i::,,,.,T: tre pleased to accept of the impugned iudge4ent ,nr"u'tt"'tuo"ity appeal and may further consequence to set-asi( be pleasecl as a irnpr:gned judgement conviction awarded ,o 'nt and the Le appellant and this Flonourable Court

I

q( b t

I THE COURT OF ADDITION AL SESSIONS UDC E-\

K4]IACILl^/Eqr No:X/ADl/w/>Ll /z\zt, Ka rach i. 01't F ebruarv 2021 The Honorable Registrar *"'.*","t-!ffi, High Court of Sindh I(arach i ftl;i;r-#;f{#^*altr,] Through tlre Ilonolable District and Sessions [uclge. I(arachi West

FER .37

SENTENCE AWARpED IN SESSTONS CASE NO.24461201s { T}f€

EV

376 PPC. P.S. SAEET)ABAD. I(ARACHI'I

I

Respected Sir

I have thc h onour to submit that vide juclgmenf ,lrrdf O1-02.202t passed by the undersigned in the above noted Sessions l.--iol whereby accrrs^cd Zain-ul-Abdin @ falal S/o Fazal I(arim convicted [3) PPC ancl awalded death sentence as well as pay fine o{ *i SS0,000f- tRupees !\re \\unNed, T\ousan\, $ereiore., )udgment alongwitl.r R&ps of S.C No.2446/2015 are submi trnder section 37 4. Cr.P.C for confi rmation of death sentence as law.

(GADA HU

ADDL. SESS

I(ARACHI

Enclosed:

R&Ps ofSC No.2446/Z01S (02.parts) Port I Diary sheet A to Q t,ag Purt-lI Pege No ol *o L(v

D SIIS )GIJ I(A

No.A/w / ZQz 1zozr, I(a la clr i I)irtctl:

J

Submitte(l rvitlr corrrltlirlrt:nts to thr l,c;r t'rr rti Honorable High Cour-t ol Sintlh, I{:rr.achi.

tA8 I)I]I, N rt Iilil I l)istrjLt , t...tt.,tlll ,.

IN THE HIGH C OURT OF SI NDH ,K

ARACHI

Criminal )ail Appeal No'117 of 2021' Conf. Case No'04 of 2021 '

Ptesent:

' '""'"'*r.

lurlic? Llolnnttttad liarit:t l(han Agha Mr. lustke Zi!{iqnt Ali Stngi Zain-ul-Aabclin S/o' Fazal I(arim Appellant:

through Mr. Muhammad Farooq' Advocate.

Respondent:

The St.rte tlrrough Mr' Salecnr tl.htar l]urirc,Additional Prosecutor General Sindh'

Date of hearin6:

Date of Announcement:

C MEi\l'

N{O HAM MAD I(AR I NI I(HAN

AGHA I:- fhe .r ppellant Zain-ul-Aabtlin l S/o Fazal Karim has preferred the instant appeal against the iu e[llrrrcn 5t'ssio:rs ludge-Xth l(trrachi rlntetl 01.02.2021 passed b1 l-earn':cl Additional arising out ol Crirne No 39o o1 Wcst in SPt'cral Case No 2446 of 2015 P S S;reclabacl, I(araciri u'herebv the appellant U /s. 376 PPC legistered at rourt subject to confirmatiou bv this was convictecl ancl sentenced to tte'rth (Rupee s five hunclred thousand only) to the and. to Pay fine of Rs 500,000/- n (a) and (b) Cr.P C lu case oi dcl'rult victim in view of section 545 sub-secticr to unclergo R l for a p('Ii )Ll (rl in pavnent of fine, the accusecl was crdeted six olonths.

cast' as 1'cr Ir'l.R' arc that ()n

2.The brie{ facts of the prosecution 14.10.2015atabout1900hourscoirrplainatrtArt.abAli.S/o.A[iMtrlr.rlrrnratl (170t) Saeec{abad ancl verl.'ally reportt:ci tha' on 13 10 2015 at ap,proacheti P.S.

2130 irours' he receivec{ Lrhone cail o[ his hours, he went to work antl at about r son Waseem wllo disclosecl lrtm that their neighbour's boy uamelv Zain-ul- with his llaugirter i(airLat in a vacant Aabdin aliaS Jaial had comn ttell lape home' u'here his daughter' ptot No.574. Cn such inlotmation he reachcel '1t

Fle enquireci from his Kainat aged about 06/07 years was Present at hotne daughter who affirmed that Zain-ul-Aabclin had committed rape with hcr' It washed the clothes of his is further narrated by complainant that his wile came at P'S' to rePort thq daughter and also gave her bath After that he matter, hence Present FIR.

AJter completion of usual investigatiotr I Ll submittetl charge shct't

against the accused person to rvhich he pleatlecl not guilty ancl claitlretl trial'

08 witnesses 'rnel

4.The prosecution in otder to Prove its case examinecl of accuseti u'as exhibited various documents and other items' The staternent r'lenieti all the allegatiolis recorcled uhder Section 342 Cr'P'C in n'hich he clid not call irnv lcteled agairst hii:r. He dicl not give eviclence ou oath and witness in support of his defence casc' on lcc()r:d tlr('

5.After hearing the parties anei aPPreciating the evidence clt'ath along rvitlr trial court convictecl the aPPellant and sentenct-el l'Lim to I fine, hence, the appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction'

Lrefore thc tri'rl

6.The facts of the case as well '1s t'f idencc proclucccl clated 01 0l l0ll court find an elaborate mention in the impugned iuclgment passed by the trial court anc1, therefore' the same mav not be reprocluce''l

here so as to avoid duPlication and trrrnecessarv repetition

that thele \^ras ttver 'l

7.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended tl-re chance to ctrok days delay in lodging the FIR which gave the complainant with the police; th:rt the stal' uP a false case against the appellant in collusion the rape of the'r-ictim r'licl not eye witness Bilawal who allegedlv witnessecl other so callecl eve w'itness give eviclence without any explanation; that the evitlence w'as basecl tltl Ghulam Akbar was not actually an eye wituess as his hearsay and that they were planteci witnesses; that the meciical eviLlence rlid matching his spcrn'Ls u'ith not implicate the appellant as there was no DNA \\ the sPerm allege.llv found on th(' tip of the vagina of the victim ancl thus for be acquittecl of dre' ), o, all oI the above reasons the appellant sirould charge by extending him tlie benefit of the doubt ln support of Itis the cases of Saleem and others v' The contentions he has placed teliance on State (2021 MLD 1184), Muhammad Afzaal v' The State (2019 Ii{.LD 7707)'t

ct

Muhammad Siddique v. The State (2019 SCN{R 1048), Najeeb Ullah v' The State (2022 YLR 838), Syed Altaf Hussain Shah v. The State (2021 )l'l{ 2107), Muhammad Javed v. The State (2019 SCN'IR 1920) ancl Tanvir v' The State (PLD 2020 Lahote 774).

8.On the other hand le*ned Additional Ptosec.utor Gener'rl Sirrtlh appearing on behalf of the State anll the ;ePlesenting the iuterests of the complainant service upon rt'hom la'as held good t-rv this cot'tt't h'rs [ul]r suppoltecl the impugnecl judgment basetl on the evidence ()n l L'cortl itlld subnitteLl that the appeal is r.,ithout merit,,nrl shoul:l Lre clisrl'.isscel autl tlt,'' conlirmation re{erence answered in the aiiilr-native

9.We have heard the arguments of the learncd counsel for the partics, gone tllr'ough the entire evidence rvhich has been reacl out b1' tl.re le'rrnetl counsel for apPellant, and the irnpugrred iudgmerlt rvith their atrlc assistancc anrl have consicleretl the relevant larv including the case lart'citetl at thr.'Lr.rr.

10.Before proceeding further we .ue acutelv aware that tllis is a verY heinous offence whereby a minor girl has been raped in a most brutal manner which crime offends the very core of society and hurnanity hon'evcr' as Juclges we have to put such aspects asicle ancl decide tl'rc guilt ol' innocence of the appellant by dispassionately assessing the eviclence beforc us and coming to a clccision which is supporter-i by the eviclence on rcctrrtl and the governing law and not bv our etnotions or or"vn Personal feelings- We can only be guided by the eviclence and the larv and rrothing else ln this lespect we refer to the case of Azeem Khan V Mufahid Khan (2Lt1o SCMIT 274) wlrich held at P ,290 Para 32 as under;

"Similarly,, mere heinous or gruesome nalure of crime slwll not derrait the Courr of lcru' it tttt..l' manncr fiom thc luc course to judgc and make thc cryVraisul of evidenta in o kritl down manner and to exlend lhe btncfit ttf reasontrbla douht ltt an accusetl person being indefutsihlc cnd inulienublc right o/' an accused- ln getting influence.fi'om the nqture ol'lhe crimt' and other extraneous considerution might lead thc 'hdgas to Lt patently wrong conclusion. ht that event lhe.iustice would bc . casuahY".

11.This position was reiteratecl in the later case of Naveed Asghar "t v State (PLD 2021P,600) h the follora'ing terms;

r o$

"The ruthless antl ghostll' murder t)l lire Pcr'\ons is et crintt' of heinous nature: hut the .f ighllitl rtttre of crime shrtuld nrtt .blur the eyes ttf iustice. alloti't{ ,notions triggercd ltv thc horrifuing nature of the offencc lo prciwlge the qccustd' ('uses are to be decided on the busis tt/ L'\'i.h'n(e on.l (\'ilancc ulrtttc and nol on the basis of senlimcnls uul emotions. Gruercmc' heinous or bn al nature of the offcncc nruy be rcle|unt 'tt the stage of awarding suitahle punishment ufter c 1\'iclion: htl it is totoll..v irrelevant dt lha st{tg? ofultpruisitg or rt'aitpraisitrg tho et:itlence available ott rect;nl to tlatcrmine guilt d the trccttscd 1rcrsott, as prtttihilitv of tm ituot''t1l pLtl \on lLtritl:i been wrongllt int'olt, in L.t\es ol'sLtch inlura cannol ht ru'tti out. An accused perton i.t prcsumcd l() hL' itnocenl lill tltc' tirtrt' he is proven guitn beyorul rauxntubla Couhl dnd lhis presumption of his ittnocenc'e contitttlc.\ unlil lhc Proseculiotl succeeds in prot'ing the charge .ISQinsl itint ba1'ond reusotubla doubl on the bosis o/ legally qdnisrihlL. conlidencc ittspirittg trush,rorthy ancl reliahle ct'iclencc. tllulter hou' heinous tha crime, the conslitulional ^'o gu.tronlat' l. litit' lrtal uttdcr Arlicla !0A cannot b(l latken at(1.\'\rtnn rht,rtcused. It is lhu'clt'rc duty of thc courl to qss?\t; tht Drobutire toluc (t't'ci(hl) ol every piccc o.l'efidence auiloi'lc on reconl irt ttceordanca wilh the seltled Principles ol upprccitttiott rtl tt'i'lencc in t dispassionalr, .\yslemotiL ttntl slntcttrLd nturutr tilhrnt! being influencett hv the n(tture of the allegutiont. Atl' tendenc.t to strain or slrelch ,'r hap.kuzurll) .q'pt'uLti'tt(' et'idutt" ltt reach tiesired or popi ur iecision in r casa mu';l hc scrupuiousiy avoidcci ,tr' else highl.t tlelelerious restils sertiu.tly affecling proPer odminirtution of crimirul .ir'r'ttit't u,ill .[otlov'. It mat' Lte ])ertinent b tttulerli:rc here tlul ll r principles of ./itir tri(tl huve not' becn guaranleed us tt Fundamental Rigltl u11der Arliclc l(l'1 'tl'the Constitr'rtion triiLl are to be rt'crd u.t an i,li,!r.tl Pqrt ol t'te 4' sub-constitutiondl legislativc it1\tn trcnl that deuls tritlt delerminalion ol ci\)il rights utrl ttbligutions o/ or crininul charge against, Lmy person. ".

72.After our reassessment of the evidence \^'e find that the prosecutitrn has NOT proved beyond.a reasouable cloubt the charge against the appcllar.rt iol which he was ccnvicted for the following reasous;

(u)At the outset u'e do uot find the delav of one dav in loelging the iln to b" fatai to the Prosecution case .rs in oul societv ofterr "n account of honour and rnoc{esty such slight delay does occur itr reporting such crime to the police. In this respect reliance is Pl'lce(l ()11 zin;a v State (2022 SCMR 50).The failttre however to menti()n tht' names of the eye lvitnesses in the FIR aitcf such clelav tloes Prtt us oll caution as to their reliabilitY.

(L-r) In this c.rs.' the victim lultL' ,' as tr/7 r'ears cf 'rgc at the titnu rri ihe offence and rvas 13/14 yeals of age I.''efore tllc Prosecutiorr Llt)s('d its side did not give evidence.rs to rvho rapecl hcr.' This lvas tlrt' L't'sl possible evidence against the appellant ltolvever her statemerrt \\ns not even recorded especially as the alleged rapist was lret neiqhbor and she t'ould easily have been able to lecognize him as she even

r Cq

mentions him by name in tl're FIR dents to a certain cxtellt tl1(' prosecution's caie as to the identity of the rapist ln this resPt'cl ieliance is placed on tl-re case of Saleem (Supra)

(c)Allegedly the victirn had been al'tlttctetl u'hilst she r'r'as r'r'ith [rct' triother-wiriist going to buv sweets. Atcttrdiug to PW 6 Dr'Sumtnaiva Tariq who *"ii"uly examined the victirn alter the lape she st'rteci that ihe victim's younger brother rvas also with her at the time o[ tht' rape as he explained to this witness the act of rape bv making peh'ie tluusting movements who t'as agecl 5 at the time ancl n<rulc'l havt' been ab6ut 11 to 12 years of age prior to the prosecution closiug its side however he was also not calletl as an eye witness to iclentifv tlrt: rapist which again dents to a ccrtain extent tile plosecution's casc as trr the identity of the raPist.

()lr

(d)Bilawal who claimed to be an eye wittrr ss to the raPe-anLl \\'r1\ ihe prosecution list of witnesses hou'cvtL \\'as not calictl tt' sirt' e.,idence and was in effect Siven uL1 by tl.rc prosecution.rs such tlrt' inference may be drawrl uncler Articlc 129 (g) Quannon-e-Slrahelat Ordinance tg8+ ttrat he lvoultl not have suppcrted tlre Ftosecutitr:r case. We find the failure to call this star witness in tlte absence rrt ant' other eye witness to the rape who coulcl have identiJiecl the raFist to be inexplicable.

(e)PW 7 Ghularrr Akhbar rn'hc' is allegedlr. another el'e rvitnt'ss is itr iact , *it ,ess oi irearsay evicleut. onlv. ln his evicir' t-Lcc he stirtcs th'rl:

"Ort '13.10.2015, I n'as Soirrg ort rttoft'rctTclc totntlls filtl( fomt of Roshan lntor .frottr Sector No.12iA, Strcet Ntt'2 lNlrctt 'l presied break, on, ltersrrL nnnLely Bilnirtl canv out tpitlt otrc haby gitl anrl I sazo one person nmnhrg in the sa'ne street *"oi"g red shift atd black petrt. I cnquitetl from .Bilnlvl toho toas lnlding the baby girl as to rllnse gitl uras the sntn4 who disclosed that the baby girt u'as tlrc daughter of ltis neighbour Arlnb, Tlr: clothts o! tlrc baby gil rccre stalneil uith blood- I enqtitcd .fi'om the nufiin{ swalJ accttsed zthose natne l.:e disclosed as Zainul Abideen Bengali. He /utthet disclosed tlmt the saffie accused lrccl coimitted rape toith the baby girl who zuas iust aged about seom years antl her name was disclosed as Kainat. Thereiftet I u'ent au'ay to my u'ork and .in tlrc eoening I cami back an.l met u:ith Afuab and infomrcrl him uhat I saw eatlier",

In his crcss examination h!' states that, "/ had tlot sce tlt( tltct'ttl lltt' acclsedattltetimetphenlltadseenlimrunnitrg,toluntailttsll'15llutll had seen his face at tlrc poLice stntion. . . . . .Bilntanl lntl disclosei to lum tltc name of the accused"

He is clearly NOT an eye witness, his e''idence is hearsav ancl lre cannot even be regarderl as a last seen witness as he did not rec'rgnize or know who the person he saw rumring way was Flis eviclence is ()r rcas()ll also doubtful as it does not aPPeal to logic, corllmonscnsc that after coming to know about such a brutal act on a chilcl he simplv Ieft for work u, ilsual ancl did not even bother to rePort what he hacl

7 \o

seen to the father of the victur until tht'foliorvtng slrgnilg lgf 'llrrrre ttr the police.

(f)As such no PW identitied the appellant as the rapist oI the virtim and neither did the victirn herself who in our vier'r' would havc been quite capable of giving evidence but was rlot even Put to the test in this regard by the learned trial iudge.

(g)Other witnesses who are mentionecl iu the eviclence an.l r'r"ere at't iiiportant part oI the Prosecutiolr rase such as thc r.ntlther of thc vlciim who washecl her clothes ancl his sctn v'htr called the complainant Irom work to in{onn him about the tncident u'erc alstr not ialled to give evidence which makes the chain of evidence sotnr: what broken i{ tl'te case was to be based on circumstantial evicl':ncc alone which in tl're end it is.

The question is what evidence therefore is on record to connect the appellant to the rape of the victim.

(h)In this resPect the medical evidence is of importance' PW t' bi.Sr*-uyu Tariq metlicalli' examined the lictim about a tlar' 'rfter tlre incider*. In hei evirlence she states that, "She lud changtl clotfus o.f incidert, passed urine atl waslrcd her Ttrit'.ttu Parts" Sl.re then collectt'r'l or," from the victim's vagina through tip of her Iittle finger and opined that the victim had been subiect to an act of sexual intelcoursc' Tire chemical report found humau sernen t-rn' the swab lVc' r'e'rv tnuclr doubt this conciusion as the victim's Private Parts hacl been u ashec{ and tl-re swab only came from the tiP of the vagina

(i)Further doubt concerning the semen obtainetl frorr the appell'rrrt's hor"urt is iaised by the er ttlettce of P\\I 3 l)r'Noor Alrmeti r'r'htr examrned the appellant n'ho stated in his cvieience, "Bath \1as t'lkon clothes were not changed (blue ieans u'ith sernen rnarks present) urine passed- When the blue jeans were sent for chcmical examin;tion the chemical report found black pants stainecl with semen which is a maior discrepancv. lf the appellant was guiltl- it does not also aPpeal to logic, cofiunon sense and reason that he woul''l take a bath rr,d il't"t put Lack on his senteu stained trousers if l.re h'rd conxnitted such a serious offetlce rvhich carrieci the cleath penalt\"

(j)It is correct that according to rht' ':r'irlt'nce of P\{ (' Dr'Summar 'r tariq the victim hacl been sublect tc' sexu'rl inteLcourse ancl that on tl-tc (n'hich swab she took sernen was found holvever w'ithout a DNA tcst was not carried out in this case) the L-rest r't'hich can be saiti is that the victim was rapecl but we cannot tell whether it was by the appelLlrrt or some other person especially as there is no eve witness evideuce ol who the rapisi was. In ihis reipect reliance is placed on the cases oI Muhammed Javed (Supra) and Muhammed Siddique (Supra) Signilicantly in answer to question No.6 in the appellarrts S 342 Cr'PC statement he states as uucler;

"Sir the other hpo nccused nnnrcIv Bilmpal and his trpo irothss had cofllntitted zina uith the lictim uhilst I utas at home, Again says I runs coming t'r,'nt ru''rk" ,

Bilaw-al was clro;.rpt'el Ic this Derhaps the reason why the star witncss n-ithsta.t] cross ;tli" il;;[;; ut r.t" *o'i..r u.t have been able to been thc and even by his orvrr evidence hc rt'oulc'i 'have clitl not "i^*i"'"ai"" rvhv t].re victim herself oerson last seen with the victim? Anci trt's* 5.;";,;;.;;tr"-.-irti, ,. ir thc case of thc apPcllant duting :r rutrt* haci falsell- implicater"l him in this c'rse str :;;;;;;i,r'," that he could grab some oI his property? u' ho rras,the [O,oI thc t asc u''

(k)The evidence of PW 8 Aashiq Ali a:i tuch we place trtr rcliattct' find contains material contratlictions an(l he starts tti'"'ia"ntt bv stating that on 1'1 10 2t)15 rt. i"t "" "**pf;, accused aucl memtr of arrest and' recover:\' \\'clc ;;]iR, arrust'"a thc samL' breath tll'rttL'lvas trus\ handed over to him but later says in at ;'botrt 00lll lrorrrs hc .""t.trr,g f"t in" utt""t1 *hn'n" l5 1o'1015 recoverr' clitl uoi J;;"; Prcl..,ared the metno oi 'rtrest ancl ,I1t' f ictlnl Accttrcliug hr th''' attend the meclical examination rrf the v'rgi:r'rl atter she.ol.taiuecl the evid.ence of PW 6 Dr'summaya T'rr:iq to tc'llett it,fronr ht'r t'[[ict' swab she callecl the IO ASI Jlift't'r Kiran was collt'ctc'd on the,s'1n1e Llatc Ir\' but he refused however the sarnple is unknowtr u'hich ;;";;;;,il an illegib.le signntlr" whose itlt'ntitv also brings the chain ot sate custodv of the victims vaginal su 'rL; inttr doubt.

a

the ;rrosecution must lrrovL'its 13, It is a well settled prir.tciple of law that a reasonal'ie ..loubt and that the benetit rrl case against the accused bcvoncl ln rt'ay of right as opposed to concession doubt must go to the accusecl by case oi Tariq Pervez V/s' The State this respect reliance is Placed on the Court has observed as [ollora's:- (1995 SCMR 1345), wherein the Supreme "It is settled lalo thnt it is not necessnnl tlnl lhert shoukl ht ltart is a sirylt' *o,,.,f i'*n"tonits c.ret'tn'g doubts' t'f- citt::Lntstance, n'tiii' '-' ' nt"""nsonah|' '{or.rht in n pndtt.tt tltr''ri tlrc arcused will l'e ntind abottt tne gu''tt o1 ttn ncatsed' oJ' grnce tnd concasstott entitled to the be'neft iot as n matter but as n matter of righl

prosecutittt.t c'lsu "14. For the reasons discussed above we finel tt'ubt in the of doubt to tl.re appellant he is acquittetl and by extending the benefit of the autl is set trside' his appeal is allowecl the chalge, the impugned iuclgment unless rv'rntc-ci in anv othcr custodv ca:'c 'rr'l(l the appellant shall be rcleased in the negative the conlirmation reference is answelecl the ;rbove reference stautl disposed of in

15.The appeal antl confirmation

terms {l}l

JUECE

rf c? L1- rslov,[ :"-"-'