Muhammad Javed vs The State etc.

.Stereo. H.C. JD A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 (The State Vs. Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida)

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 (Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida Vs. The State and another.)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 22.04.2026.

Appellant by: Mr. Zeeshan Haider, Advocate.

State by: Mr. Muhammad Riaz, Deputy Prosecutor General.

SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.– Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) was tried alongwith Muhammad Sajjad alias Gunna,Muhammad Tariq,Muhammad Asif,Asad Abbas and Zulfiqar (since acquitted), the co-accused of the convict ,by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca in the case F.I.R. No. 140 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021 registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran in respect of offences under sections 302,324,427,337-A (iii),337-A(vi),337-F(i),337- F(iii),337-F(v)337-D, 114, 148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Bilal (deceased),Muhammad Abbas (deceased) ,Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Ghulam Mustafa (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 26.09.2024 convicted Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) and sentenced him as infra:

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh :-

i)Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Ta’zir on three counts for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) ,Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the each of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) ,Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Ghulam Mustafa (deceased); in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment.

ii)Simple imprisonment of five years as Ta’zir under section 319 P.P.C. for committing Qatl-i-Khata of Muhammad Bilal (deceased) and directed to pay Diyat to the legal heirs of the Muhammad Bilal (deceased) iii) Imprisonment of one year as Ta’zir under section 337-F(i) P.P.C. and directed to pay Daman of Rs.50,000 to the injured namely Muhammad Arshad (PW-13).

iv)Imprisonment of three years as Ta’zir under section 337-F(iii) P.P.C. and directed to pay Daman of Rs.50,000 to the injured namely Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) and to pay Daman of Rs.100,000 to the injured namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) .

The sentences awarded under sections 337-F(i) and 337-F(iii) P.P.C. were ordered to run concurrently by the learned trial court.

The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead.

Muhammad Sajjad alias Gunna, Muhammad Tariq, Muhammad Asif,Asad Abbas and Zulfiqar, the co-accused of the convict, were however, acquitted by the learned trial court.

2.Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh (convict) lodged the Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2024, assailing his conviction and sentences. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 under section 374 Cr.P.C., seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentences of death awarded to the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh . We intend to dispose of the Criminal

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

Appeal No.494 of 2024 and the Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 through this single judgment.

3.Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Allah Wasaya (PW-1), the complainant of the case, are as under:- “Stated that earlier my son was arrested in case FIR No.273/2020, u/s302/109/148/149PPC, PS Sadder Kehror Pacca and was in judicial lock up in said case. That on 18.03.2021, my son was produced before court at Kehror Pacca in above said case and my two sons namely Abbas & Riaz and grandson Mustafa also came to Kehror Pacca to see him. After proceedings of said case, we set free at 1:45 P.M and my both sons Abbas, Riaz Riaz and grandson Mustafa while boarding in car Mehran bearing No.BR/608-18 driven by Muhammad Bilal left Kachahri. I alongwith Dost Muhammad s/o Muhammad Ameer and Ijaz s/o Allah Bachaya followed said car on motorcycle 125 bearing No.3498/MNL-17-A. As we had threats of life at the hands of accused due to enmity, we went towards Allah Waraya Chowk. At about 1:55 PM when car of my sons reached at Allah Waraya Chowk, a white colour car crossed our motorcycle. I along with witnesses witnessed that accused persons Mohsin, Javed, Sajjad alias Ghuna were armed with rifles, while accused Tariq was driving the car, the accused persons started firing upon car of my sons. We with the fear of firing parked our motorcycle at side of road. Mehran car in which my sons and grandson were boarded was stopped on wrong side of road due to firing. On our seeing accused Mohsin s/o Ahmed Bukhsh alias Natho while armed with rifle, unboarded from their car and started firing on car of my sons. In the meanwhile, accused Javed, while armed with rifle made firing inside the car. Due to firing of accused two passersbies namely Muhammad Arshad and Abdul Basit sustained injuries and fell down whereas accused Sajjad alias Ghuna was directing the remaining accused persons loudly that they will not leave the place without taking revenge of murder of their brother Musa. On hearing voice of firing people of the locality gathered there, on seeing them accused persons fled away towards Mailsi road. I alongwith witnesses attended my sons, grandson and driver but they succumbed to the injuries. All the accused persons committed murder of my sons, grandson and injured two passerbies (sic) by firing. Motive behind the occurrence is that the accused persons had suspicion that my sons had committed murder of Musa brother of accused persons. I moved an application Ex.PA to police which bears my thumb impression Ex.PA/1. I nominated three other accused persons-through my supplementary statement on 10.06.2021. I do not remember their names but said persons pointed out location of deceased persons to remaining accused persons during the occurrence. ”

4.After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

court and the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 09.12.2021, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5.The prosecution in order to prove its case got statements of as many as twenty-one witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Allah Wasaya (PW-1), Dost Muhammad (PW-2), Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13). Sheikh Siraj ud Din draftsman (PW-3) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PR).

Saeed Ahmad 71/HC (PW-4) stated that on 18.03.2021, he escorted the dead bodies of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased) to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased. Allah Rakha 623/C (PW-5) stated that on 18.03.2021, he escorted the dead bodies of Muhammad Bilal (deceased) and Muhammad Riaz (deceased) to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased and on 21.03.2021, the Investigating Officer of the case took photographs of the dead bodies and on 14.06.2021 Muhammad Asif, Asad Abbas and Zulfiqar ( all since acquitted) were arrested. Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11) investigated the case from 18.03.2021 till 19.06.2021, arrested the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh on 26.04.2021 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court.

6.The prosecution also got Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW-8) examined, who on 18.03.2021 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ, hospital Kehror Pacca

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Mustafa son of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAA) and on 19.03.2021,Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW-8) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Riaz son of Allah Wasaya and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAD) and on 19.03.2021,Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW-

8)also conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Abbas son of Allah Wasaya and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAG). The prosecution also got Dr. Muhammad Sumair Akbar (PW-9) examined, who on 18.03.2021 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ, hospital Kehror Pacca and on the same day conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Bilal son of Sher Muhammad (deceased) and issued the Post Mortem Examination report (Exh.PAK) and Dr. Muhammad Sumair Akbar (PW-9) who on 18.03.2021 medically examined the prosecution witness namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) and issued the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Exh.PAN) and on the same day also medically examined the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) and issued the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Exh.PAQ).The prosecution also got Dr. Noman Ashraf (PW-19) examined who stated that on 18.03.2021, he was posted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had examined Abdul Basit (PW- 12).The prosecution also got Dr. Faisal Ali (PW-20) examined who stated that on 18.03.2021, he was posted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had examined Muhammad Arshad (PW-13).

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

7.On 17.08.2023, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Muhammad Hanif and Hafiz Muhammad Siddique as being collusive with the accused. On 06.04.2024, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor gave up the prosecution witnesses namely Ijaz, Noor Muhammad, Jam Sarwar, Shabir 931/C, Siddique 618/C and Muhammad Ajmal 562/C as being unnecessary and closed the prosecution evidence after tendering in evidence the reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PAX and Exh.PAW) and the documents (Exh.PAY, Exh.PAZ and Exh.PAAA).

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to question why this case against you and why the P.W.s have deposed against you, he replied that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh opted not to get himself examined under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, and did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

9.At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca convicted and sentenced the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh as referred to above.

10.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh precisely was that the

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

whole case was fabricated and false and the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any unimpeachable, admissible, and relevant evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the story of the prosecution mentioned in the statements of the witnesses, on the face of it, was highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worthy of any reliance. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh was full of procedural defects, of no legal worth and value, and was a result of fake proceedings.

The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the appellant had been involved in the occurrence only on suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant finally submitted that the prosecution had totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of a doubt.

11.On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the appellant. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of the eye witnesses. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General further contended that there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

deceased, to substitute the real offender with the innocent in this case.

Lastly, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General prayed for the rejection of the appeal as lodged by the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh.

12.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their assistance carefully perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial.

13.A perusal of the prosecution evidence reveals that the prosecution during the course of trial produced two sets of witnesses who claimed to had seen the incident; one comprising Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and the second set comprising Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13). It is also a fact that both the two sets of witnesses who claimed to had seen the incident made entirely different statements from each other. It is also a fact that the set of witnesses comprising Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) had both the witnesses who were related to the deceased namely Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Abbas and Mustafa, whereas the other set of witnesses comprising Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) had the witnesses who both were admittedly injured during the incident and were also not related to any of the deceased. For the fact that both sets of witnesses who claimed to had seen the incident made entirely different statements from each other, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate their statements separately.

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

14.In the first instance, we have considered the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2). Both the said witnesses were related to the deceased namely Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Abbas and Mustafa as Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Muhammad Abbas (deceased) were the sons of Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and the brothers in-law of Dost Muhammad (PW-2), whereas Mustafa (deceased) was the grand-son of Allah Wasaya (PW-1).

The prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), both of them had their residences at a distance from the place of occurrence. The prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1), during cross-examination stated as under:- “Allah Waraya Chowk is situated at the distance of 25/30 K.M away from my house. Court premises Kehror Pacca is two K.M away from the place of occurrence” (emphasis supplied)

During cross-examination the prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) stated as under:-

“I cannot tell the distance between the place of occurrence and court premises however, it consumed 10 minutes in reaching the place of occurrence on some vehicle.” (emphasis supplied)

During cross-examination, Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of the case, also admitted as under:-

“Place of occurrence is at the distance of 16 to 20 K.M away from the house complainant and PWs. ”

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) can be validly termed as “chance witnesses” and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same. We have noted with grave concern that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place. The prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) stated that the reason for their arrival at the place of the incident was that they were returning from the court premises after meeting one Sajjad, the son of the prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1), after his appearance before the learned trial court in another case, however, Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11) the Investigating Officer of the case, candidly admitted that he did not collect any evidence so as to prove that Sajjad, the son of the prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) had appeared before the learned trial court on the day of the incident and that it was for this reason that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) had firstly proceeded to court premises and secondly were returning from the said premises after meeting Sajjad when the occurrence took place. Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11) stated during cross-examination, as under:-

“ I did not collect any evidence to establish the fact that on the day of alleged occurrence there was any hearing of complainant and Pws in Tehsil courts Kehror Pacca.”

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

Had Sajjad appeared before the learned trial court on the day of the incident then his attendance must have been marked by the learned trial court and the prosecution could have easily proved the order sheet maintained by the learned trial court showing the appearance of the said Sajjad, which then would have provided the strongest proof of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) meeting Sajjad at the court premises however that evidence was not brought on record , denuding the false reason given by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) for their reason of presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence. The proven failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to provide a reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence, has repercussions, proving that there was no reason actually for the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to be visiting the place of occurrence. The very inception of the prosecution case is thus put in doubt due to the said abject failure of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2).

15.We have also noted that though it was claimed by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) that they had gone to the place of occurrence on a motorcycle however, during the course of the investigation as well as before the learned trial court, the said motorcycle, allegedly used by prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), to arrive at the place of occurrence, was not produced. The motorcycle used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

arrive at the place of occurrence was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case. During cross-examination , Allah Wasaya (PW-1) admitted that the motorcycle used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to arrive at the place of occurrence was not handed over to the police and stated as under:- “We never produced the motorcycle which was in our use to the investigating officer. ”

Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) also admitted during cross-examination, as under:-

“I did not produce my motorcycle to the police. ”

Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11) the Investigating Officer of the case stated during cross-examination that no motorcycle under the use of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) was taken into possession and stated as under:-

“The motorcycle which allegedly in the use of complainant and PWs was not taken into possession by me. In inspection notes as well as in rough site plan I did not mention the presence of any motorcycle belonging to complainant and PWs. ” (emphasis supplied)

The non-production and the non-availability of the motorcycle used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to arrive at the place of occurrence and the failure of prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to produce the same before the Investigating Officers of the case, leads to only one conclusion and that being that no such vehicle was available. Had such a

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

vehicle been used by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-

1)and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) to arrive at the place of occurrence, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of the case and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case but it was not and it proves that a false claim was made by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) that they had arrived at the place of occurrence on a motorcycle. In this manner, the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) failed miserably to prove that they had indeed arrived at the place of occurrence, prior to the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of “Muhammad Ali Vs. The State” (2015 SCMR 137) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-

“The Investigating Officer during the cross-examination has admitted that the 'Dala' was not present when he visited the spot and he had not taken into possession the said 'Dala' during investigation. So the story introduced by the eye-witnesses that they were travelling on the 'Dala' when the incident took place is not supported by any connecting material.”

The prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) failed miserably to establish the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence and the mode through which they arrived at the place of occurrence. The prosecution was under a bounden duty to establish not only that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) had a reason to proceed to the place of occurrence but also to prove the mode through which the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

Muhammad (PW-2) arrived at the place of occurrence. The failure of the prosecution to prove the said facts has vitiated our trust in the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) as being truthful witnesses. In this respect, reliance is placed on the cases of “Muhammad Rafiq v. State” (2014 SCMR 1698), “Usman alias Kaloo v.

State” (2017 SCMR 622) and “Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State” (2017

SCMR 724).

16.We have also noted that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) claimed that the motive of the incident was that in an earlier incident, Musa (deceased) , the brother of the appellant was murdered and the appellant had a suspicion that the sons of Allah Wasaya (PW-1) were involved in the murder of Musa (deceased),therefore, the appellant chose to commit the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) , Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased), however, it is also a fact that during the course of cross- examination, the fact which was brought on record by both the prosecution and the defence was that Muhammad Abbas (deceased) , Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased) were not even accused named in the case registered for the murder of Musa (deceased), rather Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness ) were the named accused in the said case. During cross-examination Allah Wasaya (PW-1) stated as under:-

“ Dost Muhammad PW is my son-in-law while PW Dost Muhammad is my maternal nephew. It is correct to suggest that Dost Muhammad and liaz are nominated in case FIR No.273/2020. It is correct to suggest that in the said

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

case FIR, one Muhammad Musa was murdered by my son Sajjad accused. Said Mosa was murdered a year back from this incident. It is correct to suggest that deceased Riaz, Abbas, Mustafa and Muhammad Bilal were not nominated in case FIR No.273/2020. Volunteered that they came to see accused Sajjad.

It is correct to suggest that Dost Muhammad PW had enmity with accused persons for the last 8/9 years. We had no enmity with accused persons of this case. It is correct that that Dost Muhammad got recorded a criminal case about murder of his brother Muhammad Ajmal wherein Musa accused was acquitted. It is correct hat said Musa alongwith his all brothers were nominated in said case. ”(emphasis supplied)

Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) also admitted during cross-examination that he was the named accused in the murder of Musa (deceased), whereas he was pursuing the case registered with regard to the murder of Muhammad Ajmal (deceased), his brother registered against the appellant and others. During cross-examination, Dost Muhammad (PW-2) admitted as under:-

“ It is correct that police challaned me in connection with the murder of Mushtaq alias Musa in the FIR lodged on behalf of accused persons of this case. In case FIR No. 24/14 my brother Muhammad Ajmal was murdered. I am still pursuing the case of murder of Ajmal against accused persons of this case. My criminal litigation with the accused of this case is ongoing since Ijaz PW was also the accused of murder of Musa.” (emphasis supplied)

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

In this manner, the prosecution witnesses Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness) should have been the prime targets of the assailant. Furthermore, according to the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), they were in clear view, at a meagre distance, from the assailant and unarmed. Neither there was any dearth of ammunition, weapon nor that of intent and opportunity on part of the appellant for not doing away with the prosecution witnesses namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness), his main adversaries. In this scenario, it is hard to believe that the prosecution witnesses namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness) would have been shown the courtesy of not being fired at even when they should have been the prime targets of the assailant. During cross- examination, the prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) admitted as under:-

“None of the accused persons tried to inflict any injury either to me or PWs Dost Muhammad and Ijaz. ”

Similarly, the prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) admitted during the cross-examination, as under:-

“ I nor Ijaz or Allah Wasaya PW sustained any scratch during the occurrence of this case.

During the firing none tried to cause any injury to me.”

The prosecution witness namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness), the main adversaries of the appellant, did not

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

receive even a single scratch during the whole occurrence. If the prosecution witnesses namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness) had been present, in the view of the assailant, then they would not have been spared. Blessing the prosecution witnesses namely Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness), with such incredible consideration and showing them such favour is implausible and opposed to the natural behaviour of any accused. Such behaviour, on part of the accused as deposed by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) runs counter to natural human conduct and behaviour. Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 allows the courts to presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case. We thus trust the existence of this fact, by virtue of the Article 129 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, that the conduct of the assailant, as deposed to by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), was opposed to the common course of natural events and human conduct ,hence, we are holding that the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) cannot be relied upon. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its binding judgments has repeatedly held that in a scenario where the motivation was against the complainant or the witnesses but the accused did not cause any harm to them, notwithstanding being within the range of their firing, would reveal that the said witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Tariq Mehmood v. The State and others (2019 SCMR 1170) has observed as under:

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

“First sight cannot escape preponderance of evidence, however on a closer view, emerges a picture incompatible with the events, narrated in the crime report. The accused mounted assault, as per prosecution's own case to settle score with Muhammad Usman, PW for his alleged affair with the lady related to the appellant; it is disgrace that brought the assailants, face to face, with Muhammad Usman, PW, well within their view and reach it is astonishing that while being merciless without restraint upon others they spared prime target of assault. There can be no other inference that either Muhammad Usman was not present at the scene or the occurrence took place in a backdrop other than asserted in the crime report.”

The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Rohtas Khan v. The State (2010 SCMR 566) at page 571 observed as under:

“The alleged motive was against the complainant, but it is noted that the appellant did not cause any injury to the complainant, though he was present within the range of firing, thus it supports the contention of the learned counsel of appellant that P.Ws. were not present at the place of occurrence.”

The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Farooq & another v. The State (2006 SCMR 1707) at page 1712 held as under: - “Had P.W.9 been present on the spot, he was not likely to be spared because the number of injuries on the person of deceased show that at least eighteen rounds were fired. It only shows the degree of venom the killer had for the deceased.”

We are also guided by the binding judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in the case of Mst. Rukhsana Begum & others v. Sajjad & others (2017 SCMR 596) where at page 601 it was observed as under:- “Another intriguing aspect of the matter is that, according to the FIR, all the accused encircled the complainant, the PWs and the two deceased thus, the apparent object was that none could escape alive. The complainant being father of the two deceased and the head of the family was supposed to be the prime target. In fact he has vigorously pursued the case against the accused and also deposed against them as an eye witness. The site plan

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

positions would show that, he and the other PWs were at the mercy of the assailants but being the prime target even no threat was extended to him. Blessing him with unbelievable courtesy and mercy shown to him by the accused knowing well that he and the witnesses would depose against them by leaving them unhurt, is absolutely unbelievable story. Such behavior, on the part of the accused runs counter to natural human conduct and behavior explained in the provision of Article 129 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, Order 1984, therefore, the court is unable to accept such unbelievable proposition.”

In view of the above discussion, we have arrived at an irresistible conclusion that no reliance can be placed upon the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and they are proved not to be truthful witnesses.

17.We have also noted with grave concern that neither in column No.4 of the inquest reports nor at page 4 of the inquest reports prepared by Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of the case, the names of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), were mentioned as being the persons present at the place of occurrence. During cross-examination, Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11) admitted as under:-

“ The eye witnesses mentioned in FIR are not cited in inquest report” This fact also fully denudes the fact that at the time of the preparation of the inquest reports , the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2), were not present and therefore, their names were also not mentioned in the inquest reports .

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

18.The fact which coclusively proves that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) were not present at the place of occurrence and had not seen the occurrence was the reply made by the prosecution witness namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) himself during cross-examination when he stated that the DPO, Lodhran had visited the place of the incident and at that time he had made a statement that the police was making effort to trace the legal heirs of the deceased. During cross- examination , Allah Wasaya (PW-1) admitted as under:-

“ Police came at the spot after 10/15 minutes of the occurrence. DPO Lodhran also visited the place of occurrence. I do not know whether media persons were present when DPO, Lodhran arrived. It is correct that DPO, Lodhran told the media persons that legal heirs of deceased are being traced.

Volunteered that we were also present” (emphasis supplied) The above referred statement of Allah Wasaya (PW-1) exposes the reality of the absence of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) at the place of occurrence, even after the occurrence.

19.We have also noted with grave concern that Allah Wasaya (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination that he submitted the written application (Exh.PA) only after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the four deceased had been completed, meaning thereby that the F.I.R. was registered on 19.03.2021, the night when the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) and Muhammad Riaz (deceased) were conducted by Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW-8). During cross- examination , Allah Wasaya (PW-1) stated as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

“ FIR of this case was registered after postmortem examination of the deceased person. SHO drafted application Ex.PA for registration of case” (emphasis supplied)

The delay in the submission of the written application (Exh.PA) happened only for the fact that the killing of the deceased had not been witnessed by Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and therefore such huge stretch of time was required before the submission of the written application (Exh.PA). More worrying is the fact that according to the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely by Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) ,after the incident had taken place at about 01.30 p.m ,the police arrived at the place of incident within 10/15 minutes of the happening of the same, however, despite the arrival of the police at the place of incident , the written application (Exh.PA) was submitted by Allah Wasaya (PW-1) only after the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the four deceased had been completed. No reason, much less plausible, has been given by Allah Wasaya (PW-1) at any stage for such deferral in submission of the written application (Exh.PA). This aspect of the prosecution case has left no doubt in our minds that the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) had not witnessed the occurrence and the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) were called from their homes to become witnesses. An inference hostile to the claimed presence of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) at the place of the incident, at the time of the incident, has to be drawn.

20.As mentioned above, the prosecution also got Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) examined during the course of the trial and

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

it was admitted by all that both the said witnesses namely Abdul Basit (PW-

12)and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) were injured during the incident and moreover their presence was admitted by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2). It was also admitted that both the said witnesses namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) were independent witnesses, having no relationship with the deceased, the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) or even the accused. On 18.03.2021, Dr.

Muhammad Sumair Akbar (PW-9) medically examined the prosecution witness namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) and issued the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Exh.PAN) and on the same day also medically examined the prosecution witness namely Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) and issued the Medico Legal Examination Certificate (Exh.PAQ).The prosecution also got Dr. Noman Ashraf (PW-19) examined who stated that on 18.03.2021, he was posted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had examined Abdul Basit (PW-12).The prosecution also got Dr. Faisal Ali (PW-20) examined who stated that on 18.03.2021, he was posted at Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur and on the same day had examined Muhammad Arshad (PW-13). In this manner, the statements of both the said witnesses namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) have prime importance, however, both the said witnesses namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) stated in express terms that they had not seen the appellant either present at the place of the incident or firing at the deceased. The prosecution witness namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) made the following statement before the learned trial court:-

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

“ On 18.03.2021 I was present near the Akram Auto Store, Allah Waraya Chowk, meanwhile from western side of Kehror Pacca In Mehran car was coming which was crossed by another Mehran car. Firing begins from the car which has crossed on other car and the same was stopped near the Maa Sha Allah PCO. A person while armed with riffle from the second car came out and started firing. I became afraid and tried to flee away. Two fires from accused were hits (sic) to me. One fire was hitt (sic) on back side of neck and other on the back side of my right shoulder. After making the firing accused flee away from the place of occurrence and I was shifted at THQ hospital Kehror Pacca in urgent condition after that I was referred to BVH, Bahawalpur. The persons made the firing were known to be Mohsina Phull, Jaida Phull, Guna Phull and Tariq Phull. It is also come into my knowledge due to firing Riaz, Abbas etc were killed. Accused had injured me without any cause. Allah saves my life. I.O recorded my statement u/s 161,Cr.P.C in this regard.”

During cross-examination , Abdul Basit (PW-12) stated as under:- “ I have passed intermediate. I run auto spare parts shop at Allah Warya Chowk. I never made any statement before any I.O to nominate accused Sajjad, Javed, Tariq and Mohsin. I am appearing in this court for last many dates of hearing. I have seen the accused persons namely Javed, Sajjad, Tariq, Asif, Asad and Zulfiqar while appearing before this court. None among Javed, Sajjad, Tariq, Asif, Asad and Zulfiqar was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Only one person came out from a car, who was having muffled face and said person made firing at the place of occurrence. The persons who made firing, is not present in the court. I have met with complainant Allah Wasya and his witnesses Dost Muhammad and Ijaz while appearing before this court. Neither Allah Wasaya complainant nor Dost Muhammad and Ijaz were present at the place of firing. I remained admitted in BVH hospital for five days however I remained under treatment for 2-1/2 years.” (emphasis supplied)

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

During cross-examination, Muhammad Arshad (PW-13) stated as under:- “I never nominated accused Sajjad, Moshin, Tariq and Javed as accused of this case. None amongst Sajjad, Mohsin, Tariq, Javed, Asif, Asad and Zulfiqar were present at the place of occurrence ” (emphasis supplied) The above referred statements of both the injured witnesses namely Abdul Basit (PW-12) and Muhammad Arshad (PW-13), irrefutably prove that the appellant was not involved in the incident.

21.The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh offered sufficient corroboration of the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) . Regarding the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh , the same cannot be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case, did not join any witness of the locality during the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh which was in clear violation of section 103 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. During cross-examination, Muhammad Riaz 393/C (PW-6) admitted as under:-

“ It is correct that chairman of U.C Dkhana Gharo resides near said graveyard.

Police did not join any respectable of the locality in recovery proceedings” Abdul Maalik, SI (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of the case, admitted during cross-examination, as under:-

“The place of recovery from Javed is a graveyard which is deserted one. There were several trees in the said graveyard. The place of recovery from Javed

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

accused was open place and accessible for any person. No one person from said vicinity was associated by me for recovery proceeding.” (emphasis supplied)

The provisions of section 103 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, unfortunately, are honoured more in disuse than in compliance. To appreciate it better, section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is being reproduced:-

"103.--(1) Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.”

Therefore, the evidence of the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh cannot be used as incriminating evidence against the appellant, being evidence that was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ismail and others Vs. The State ( 2017 SCMR 898) at page 901 has held as under:-

“For the above mentioned recovery of weapons the prosecution had failed to associate any independent witness of the locality and, thus, the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. had flagrantly been violated in that regard.”

Moreover , according to the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PAW), the rifle (P-29) was never analyzed with regard to the fact as to whether the twenty eight empty shells of the bullets (P-2/1-28) had been fired in the said rifle (P-29) , hence, the evidence of the recovery of the rifle (P-29) from the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh has no consequence.

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

22.The Learned Deputy Prosecutor General also relied upon the evidence of motive and submitted that it corroborated the ocular account. The motive of the occurrence as stated by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) was that in an earlier incident, Musa (deceased) , the brother of the appellant was murdered and the appellant had a suspicion that the sons of Allah Wasaya (PW-1) were involved in the murder of Musa (deceased),therefore, the appellant chose to commit the Qatl- i-Amd of Muhammad Abbas (deceased) , Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased), however, it is also a fact that during the course of cross- examination, the fact which was brought on record by both the prosecution and the defence was that Muhammad Abbas (deceased) , Muhammad Riaz (deceased) and Mustafa (deceased) were not even accused named in the case registered for the murder of Musa (deceased), rather Dost Muhammad (PW-

2)and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness ) were the named accused in the said case and as mentioned above, both Dost Muhammad (PW-2) and Ijaz (given up prosecution witness ) were not even fired at during the incident, denuding the fact that the motive as given by the prosecution witnesses namely Allah Wasaya (PW-1) and Dost Muhammad (PW-2) was not correct.

The prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence enabling us to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged and the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the Qatl-i- Amd of the deceased. There is an evocative muteness in the prosecution case with regard to the minutiae of the motive alleged. No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case of Muhammad Javed v. The State (2016 SCMR 2021) as under:

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

“The said related and chance witnesses had failed to receive any independent corroboration inasmuch as no independent proof of the motive set up by the prosecution had been brought on the record of the case.”

Furthermore, is settled law that motive is a double-edged weapon, which can cut either way; if it was the reason for the appellant to murder the deceased, it equally was a ground for Allah Wasaya (PW-1) to falsely implicate him in this case. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Alias Acchu v. The State (2019 S C M R

652)as under:-

“7. The motive is always a double-edged weapon. The complainant Sultan Ahmad (PW9) has admitted murder enmity between the parties and has also given details of the same in his statement recorded before the trial court. No doubt, previous enmity can be a reason for the appellant to commit the alleged crime, but it can equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the appellant in this case for previous grouse.”

Reliance is also placed on the case of “Liaqat Ali and 11 others v. The State” (1992 S C M R 372) wherein it Haji Saeed Ahmad (PW-1) been held as under:-

“In this behalf, it may be observed that the motive is a double‐edged weapon which could be one of the reasons for false implication as well as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Allah Bakhsh and another v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 171).”

23.The only other piece of evidence left to be considered by us is the medical evidence with regard to the injuries observed on the dead bodies of the deceased by Dr. Khalid Naeem (PW-8) and Dr. Muhammad Sumair Akbar (PW-9) but the same is of no assistance in this case as medical evidence by its nature and character, cannot recognize a culprit in case of an

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

unobserved incidence. As all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case have been disbelieved and discarded by this Court, therefore, the appellant’s conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its binding judgment titled “Hashim Qasim and another Vs. The State” (2017 SCMR

986)has enunciated the following principle of law:

“The medical evidence is only confirmatory or of supporting nature and is never held to be corroboratory evidence, to identify the culprit.”

The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its binding judgment titled “Naveed Asghar and two others Vs. The State” (P L D 2021 Supreme Court 600) has enunciated the following principle of law:

“31. The prosecution has attempted to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence by medical evidence relating to the post mortem examinations of the deceased persons. This evidence proves only the factum that death of the deceased persons was caused by cutting their throats through some sharp edge weapon; it does in no way indicate who had cut their throats and with what particular weapon. Medical evidence is in the nature of supporting, confirmatory or explanatory of the direct or circumstantial evidence, and is not "corroborative evidence" in the sense the term is used in legal parlance for a piece of evidence that itself also has some probative force to connect the accused person with the commission of offence. Medical evidence by itself does not throw any light on the identity of the offender. Such evidence may confirm the available substantive evidence with regard to certain facts including seat of the injury, nature of the injury, cause of the death, kind of the weapon used in the occurrence, duration between the injuries and the death, and presence of an injured witness or the injured accused at the place of occurrence, but it does not connect the accused with the commission of the offence. It cannot constitute corroboration for proving involvement of the accused person in the commission of offence, as it does not establish the identity of the accused person. 32 Therefore, the medical evidence is of little help to the prosecution for bringing home the guilt to the petitioners.”

24.Considering all the above circumstances, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding the involvement of the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh in the present case. It is a settled principle of law that for giving the benefit of the doubt it is not necessary that

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

there should be so many circumstances rather, if only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available, then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Muhammad Mansha Vs. The State" (2018 SCMR 772) has enunciated the following principle:

"Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a matter of right. It is based on the maxim, "it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted". Reliance in this behalf can be made upon the cases of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Akramv.The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Muhammad Zamanv.The State (2014 SCMR 749)."

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan "Najaf Ali Shah Vs. the State" (2021 S C M R 736) in which it has been held as:-

"9. Mere heinousness of the offence if not proved to the hilt is not a ground to avail the majesty of the court to do complete justice. This is an established principle of law and equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person should not suffer. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote, "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the leading figures of early American history, went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer." All the contradictions noted by the learned High Court are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case, which entitles the petitioner to the right of benefit of the doubt. It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be afforded this right of the benefit of the doubt it is not

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024

necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must got to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64) while relying on the the earlier judgments of this Court has categorically held that "if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the apprehension of guilt of an accused, then he/she shall be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession, but as of right. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1998 SCMR 1345) and Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048)." The same view was reiterated in Abdul Jabbar v. State (2010 SCMR 129) when this court observed that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, such as conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or presence of eye-witnesses being doubtful, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution's case automatically goes in favour of an accused."

25.For what has been discussed above, the Criminal Appeal No.494 of 2024 lodged by the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh awarded by the learned trial court through the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2024 are hereby set-aside. The appellant namely Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh is ordered to be acquitted by extending him the benefit of doubt. Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh is in custody and he is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

26.Murder Reference No.31 of 2024 is answered in Negative and the sentences of death awarded to Muhammad Javaid alias Jaida son of Ahmad Bakhsh, are Not Confirmed.

(MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ) (SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM)

JUDGE JUDGE

Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2024 Raheel

Approved for Reporting

JUDGE