33. In view of the above circumstances, the conclusion I arrived at is
that there is no credible evidence to establish that Muhammad Abbas (PW-4),
eye witness, has brought true facts before the court. The prosecution had
badly failed to lead incriminating, corroborative/independent evidence to
bring home guilt of the accused. In this background, the benefit of doubt is to
be extended in favour of the accused. In the case of Muhammad Akram v.
The State (2009 SCMR 230), wherein it has been held as under:-
“----Benefit of doubt---Principles---
For given the benefit of doubt it is
not necessary that there should be
many circumstances creating
doubts---Single circumstance
creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of
accused makes him entitled to its
benefit, not as a matter of grace and
concession, but as a matter right.”
Part of Judgment
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal Appeal1390-14
2016 LHC 4015
0 Comments