PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 13
Benefit of doubt--
----It is settled by now that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. [Para 18] D
2009 SCMR 230.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302(b) & 324--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-amd--Benefit of doubt--Occurrence took place in midnight whereas FIR was registered on following morning with unexplained delay of about more than 4 hours--Postmortem was conducted on dead body of deceased with delay of about more than 14 hours from time of occurrence mentioned above, such delay is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and in cooking up a story for prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a postmortem examination of dead body conducted--PW-3 having pallets injuries on his persons received in occurrence could not be discarded, has no substance as merely injuries on person of PW would not stamp him truthful witness--Complainant PW-2 stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that motive of occurrence is previous enmity between parties--Previous enmity is double edged weapon in criminal case as it can cut both ways--In present case, if alleged motive could ropel appellants into aggression against deceased, then at same time, it is equally possible that same background of enmity could prompt above mentioned eye-witnesses to falsely implicate appellants in this case--If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in prudent mind about guilt of accused, then he would be entitled for same not as a matter of grace and concession but as of right--Appeal accepted.
[Para 15, 16, 17 & 18] A, B, C & E
2011 SCMR 1190, 2011 SCMR 323 and 2009 SCMR 230.
Malik Muhammad Aslam and Shagufta Habib Advocate for Muhammad Jahangir appellant who is present on bail.
Saiqa Javed, Advocate for Muhammad Abbas.
Mr. Tariq Javed, DPP for State.
Date of hearing: 25.4.2018.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 13
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Sadaqat Ali Khan and Shehram Sarwar Ch., JJ.
MUHAMMAD ABBAS etc.--Appellants
versus
STATE--Respondent
Crl. A. No. 242 & M.R. No. 65 of 2017, heard on 25.4.2018.
Judgment
Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.--This single judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2017 filed by Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir appellants (against their convictions) and M.R No. 65 of 2017 sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation of death sentence of Muhammad Abbas appellant or otherwise, as both the above stated matters have arisen out of same judgment dated 30.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, according to which appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:
"(i) Muhammad Abbas was convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to Death along with compensation
Rs. 3,00,000/- payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof further undergo six months S.I.
(ii) Muhammad Jahangir was convicted under Section 324, PPC and sentenced to seven years as Tazir along with fine
Rs. 50,000/- and in default thereof further undergo two months S.I.
Whereas their co-accused namely Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Iqbal were acquitted by the learned trial Court in private complaint under Section 302/34, PPC arising out of case FIR No. 417 dated 18.7.2015 under Sections 302, 324/34, PPC Police Station, Hujra Shah Muqeem District Okara.
2. The facts of the case have been stated by Ahmad Din complainant PW-2 in his statement before the trial Court, which is hereby reproduced for narration of the facts:
"On the night between 17/18.7.2005 I along with my son Abdul Sattar deceased, with wife Mst. Rani and children were sleeping in the Courtyard of our Ahata. An electric bulb was on. At about 12:00 mid night, Muhammad Iqbal armed with pistol, Muhammad Abbas armed with .12 bore gun, Abdul Rasheed armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Jahangir accused armed with .12 bore gun. All the accused present in Court entered into my house. My son Abdul Sattar was sleeping on a cart, Muhammad Iqbal accused had caught hold Abdul Sattar deceased on his neck and Abdul Rasheed had caught hold on him from arms, Abdul Sattar raised alarm and I along with my daughter in law Mst. Rani Bibi woke up and saw that Muhammad Abbas accused present in Court made a fire with his .12 bore gun at Abdul Sattar deceased which hit Abdul Sattar on his left shin. And became injured. On hearing the alarm my another son Muhammad Yar and brother Manzoor Ahmad who were sleeping in adjacent Ahata attracted to the place of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. Jahangir accused made fire .12 bore gun at Muhammad Yar my son which hit on his right leg and he also was injured. On our hue and cry the accused fled away from the place of occurrence along with their respective weapons. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Yar, Mst. Rani Bibi and Manzoor Ahmad PWs besides myself. We took Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Yar both in injured conditioned to Hujara Shah Muqeem, where Muhammad Yar was admitted Abdul Sattar deceased was referred to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. I was taken Abdul Sattar deceased to Lahore and when we reached at Chaurasta Hujra Shah Muqeem he succumbed to the injuries and I brought him back to RHC, Hujara. And after that I went to P.S Hujara Shah Muqeem and lodged the FIR against the aforesaid accused persons. During investigation the police connivaned with accused persons and did not investigate the case honestly and had exonerated Muhammad Abbas, Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Jahangir accused without any justification and involved some innocent persons in the case in order to damage to my murder case of my son. Thereafter, I filed this private complaint Ex.PD against the accused persons which was read over to me and I thumb marked the same in token of its correctness. The motive for the occurrence was long standing enmity of the accused with us".
3. After filing of private complaint, learned trial Court recorded the cursory evidence produced by the complainant and thereafter summoned the appellants and their co-accused since acquitted mentioned above to face the trial.
4. Learned trial Court after observing legal formalities provided under the Criminal Procedure Code framed the charge on 13.4.2006 against the appellants and their co-accused since acquitted mentioned above under Sections 302, 324/34, PPC to which they pleaded not guilty and prosecution evidence was summoned.
5. Prosecution produced Dr. Abdul rauf Majid PW-1, Ahmad Din complainant PW-2, Muhammad Yar PW-3, Muhammad Ali SI
CW-1, Muhammad Yasin CW-2, Muhammad Ishaq Nasir Draftsman CW-3, Mushtaq Ahmad CW-4, Walayat CW-5, Muhammad Hussain CW-6, Shafique Akram Inspector/SHO CW-7, Ghulam Mehdi S.I CW-8 whereas PW namely Ghulam Murtaza constable, was given up by the prosecution being unnecessary and after tendering documentary evidence i.e report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PE, report of Serologist Ex.PG, report of FSL Ex.PF, closed the prosecution evidence.
6. Medical evidence has been furnished by Dr. Abdul Rauf Majid PW-1 who stated as under:
Dr. Abdul Rauf Maud M.O. PW-1 stated that on 18.7.2005 at 1.00 am, he medically examined Abdul Sattar (deceased) in injured condition and observed following injured on his person:
1. A fire-arm entry wound 3x2 cm on front and upper part of left leg, 4 cm below the knee joint. Margins inverted burning was also present. Bony crepitus present in the wound. Wound was heavily bleeding.
2. Fire-arm exit wound 6x5 cm on back and upper part of left leg, 4 cm below knee joint, margins everted.
He stated that on the same day (18.7.2015) at 2.00 pm he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Abdul Sattar deceased and observed as under:
Injuries
1. A fire-arm entry wound 3x2 cm on front and upper part of left leg, 4 cm below knee joint.
2. Fire-arm exit wound 6x5 cm on back and upper part of left leg, just below the left knee.
In my opinion, due to fracture of tibia and fibula and the blood vessels of the legs, bleeding was occurring continuously and due to heavy bleeding, patient died within 2/3 hours of injuries.
Time between death and postmortem was 11 to 13 hours".
He further stated that on the same day at 1.00 am, he medically examined Muhammad Yar injured PW-3 and observed following injuries on his person:
1. A fire-arm entry wound 0.3 x 0.3 cm on medial and lower part of right thigh.
2. A fire-arm entry wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm on medial side of right foot, 4 cm below right ankle joint.
Both the injuries were kept under observation. Probable duration of injuries was within 1 to 2 hours and the kind of weapon was fire-arm".
7. On the other hand, statements of the appellants and their co-accused since acquitted were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., who refuted the allegations so leveled against them. The appellants have not opted to appear as witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and produced Qasim Ali DW-1, Muhammad Ashiq DW-2 and Muhammad Abbas alias Ghulam Abbas DW-3 in oral defence evidence and did not produce any documentary defence evidence. In reply to question "why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?" Muhammad Abbas appellant replied as under:
"PWs are closely related interse and also related me and my co-accused. Co-accused Abdul Rashid is my real brother, whereas, Jahangir and Iqbal co-accused are my Bhanjas. Prior to this occurrence there was criminal litigation pending between me and my co-accused but the same was patched up by the intervention of respectable of our brother-hood and after that there was no dispute between me, Jahangir and Abdul Rashid co-accused with Abdul Sattar deceased, Ahmed Din and Muhammad Yar PWs. I, my co-accused Abdul Rashid and Jahangir did not commit this occurrence. Mst. Salma Bibi daughter of complainant was married with my brother Muhammad Ashiq, after the aforesaid compromise between the parties. Wife of Abdul Sattar deceased and wife of Abdul Rashid co-accused are real sisters interse. Real facts are that Iqbal co-accused my Bhanja used to reside oftenly with us. Muhammad Iqbal co-accused developed his illicit relation ship with Mst. Asia Bibi prior to this occurrence. Asia Bibi was residing with her maternal grandmother (Nani) Mst. Sharifan Bibi. Abdul Sattar deceased was Khalo of Asia Bibi and was son in law of said Sharifan Bibi. Prior to this occurrence Muhammad Iqbal co-accused had come to the house of Sharifan Bibi for abduction of Asia Bibi. Abdul Sattar deceased was present in the house of Sharifan Bibi. During the abduction fire shots were made at Abdul Sattar when he resisted the abduction of Asia Bibi but he remained safe. FIR was got registered for the said occurrence against Muhammad Iqbal and Abdul Rashid co-accused alongwith Ahmed Din father of Abdul Rashid co-accused. There was enmity between Abdul Sattar deceased and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused. During investigation of said abduction case, Ahmed Din father of Abdul Rashid co-accused and Abdul Rashid co-accused were found not involved in the occurrence of abduction and that Muhammad Iqbal co-accused was challaned in the said case. The occurrence was challaned in the said case. The occurrence of abduction was compromised by Asia Bibi without the consent of her parents and complainant party. The complainant party bore grudge in their mind apart from the fact of compromise and falsely involved me, my co-accused Abdul Rashid and Jahangir in this case. I did not participate in this occurrence nor made any fire shot at Abdul Sattar deceased. This occurrence was committed by Muhammad Iqbal co-accused alongwith Muhammad Altaf, Muhammad Ashfaq, real brothers of Muhammad Iqbal co-accused, Hakam Ali, Mukhtar Ahmed, Arshad and Mushtaq Ahmed accused, who were found involved in this occurrence during investigation of this case. I myself, co-accused Abdul Rashid and Jahangir were found not involved in this occurrence during the investigation, which was conducted by Ghulam Mehdi SHO. after joining both the arties and no allegation of partial investigation was leveled ever by the complainant party against the said investigating officer. I am innocent. PWs were not present at time and place of occurrence. It was a dark night and unseen occurrence."
Likewise, in reply to question "why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?" Muhammad Jahangir appellant replied as under:
"PWs are closely related interse and also related me and my co-accused. Co-accused Muhammad Abbas is real brother of Abdul Rashid co-accused, whereas, I and Iqbal co-accused are their Bhanjas. Prior to this occurrence there was criminal litigation pending between me and my co-accused but the same was patched up by the intervention of respectable of brother-hood and after that there was no dispute between me, Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Abbas co-accused with Abdul Sattar deceased, Ahmed Din and Muhammad Yar PWs. I, my co-accused Muhammad Abbas and Jahangir did not commit this occurrence. Mst. Salma Bibi daughter of complainant was married with my brother Muhammad Ashiq, after the aforesaid compromise between the parties. Wife of Abdul Sattar deceased and wife of Abdul Rashid co-accused, are real sisters interse. Real facts are that Iqbal co-accused my Bhanja used to reside oftenly with us. Muhammad Iqbal co-accused developed his illicit relation ship with Mst. Asia Bibi prior to this occurrence. Asia Bibi was residing with her maternal grandmother (Nani) Mst. Sharifan Bibi. Abdul Sattar deceased was Khalo of Asia Bibi and was son in law of said Sharifan Bibi. Prior to this occurrence Muhammad Iqbal co-accused had come to the house of Sharifan Bibi for abduction of Asia Bibi. Abdul Sattar deceased was present in the house of Sharifan Bibi During the abduction fire shots were made at Abdul Sattar when he resisted the abduction of Asia Bibi but he remained safe FIR was got registered for the said occurrence against Muhammad Iqbal and Abdul Rashid co-accused alongwith my father Ahmed Din. There was enmity between Abdul Sattar deceased and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused. During investigation of said abduction case, I and Ahmed Din were found not involved in the occurrence of abduction and that Muhammad Iqbal co-accused was challaned in the said case. The occurrence was challaned in the said case. The occurrence of abduction was compromised by Asia Bibi without the consent of her parents and complainant party. The complainant party bore grudge in their mind apart from the fact of compromise and falsely involved me, my co-accused Muhammad Abbas and Abdul Rashid in this case. I did not participate in this occurrence nor made any fire shot at Abdul Sattar deceased. This occurrence was committed by Muhammad Iqbal co-accused alongwith Muhammad Altaf, Muhammad Ashfaq, real brothers of Muhammad Iqbal co-accused, Hakam Ali, Mukhtar Ahmed, Arshad and Mushtaq Ahmed accused, who were found involved in this occurrence during investigation of this case. I myself, co-accused Muhammad Abbas and Abdul Rashid were found not involved in this occurrence during the investigation, which was conducted by Ghulam Mehdi SI/I.O after joining both the parties and no allegation of partial investigation was leveled ever by the complainant party against the said investigating officer. I am innocent. PWs were not present at time and place of occurrence. It was a dark night and unseen occurrence".
8. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court while acquitting Abdul Rashid and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused, convicted the appellants with above said sentences. Hence this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that:-
(i) the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.01.2017 is against law and facts on the file and is liable to be set-aside.
(ii) that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants/convicts as there are many major discrepancies in the statements of the PWs and the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants on the basis of surmises and conjectures;
(iii) it is contended that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is not maintainable in the eyes of law;
(iv) lastly submitted that instant appeal may be accepted and the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.01.2017 may kindly be set aside and appellants/convicts may be acquitted.
10. On the other hand, learned DPP has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that:
(i) The prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellants with solid evidence and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned DPP and perused the record.
12. The detail of prosecution case as given by Ahmad Din complainant PW-2 has already been given in Para 2 of this judgment, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same to avoid the duplication and repetition.
13. It is important to note here that earlier learned trial Court vide consolidated judgment dated 25.5.2011 acquitted accused of state case i.e. Muhammad Iqbal alias Bala, Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Hakam, Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Altaf and convicted the accused of the private complaint Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir (appellants), Abdul Rasheed accused of private complaint and Muhammad Iqbal accused of state case as well as private complaint were also acquitted. This Court vide order dated 19.11.2015 set aside the above said consolidated judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court to proceed separately as accused of the private complaint and state case are different except Muhammad Iqbal accused since acquitted. Impugned judgment is result of post remand proceedings.
14. According to the FIR, occurrence took place in between the night of 17/18 July, 2005 at 12:00 midnight whereas FIR was registered on the following morning on 18.7.2005 at 4.10 a.m. on the statement Ex.CW-1/A made by Ahmad Din complainant PW-2 real father of Abdul Sattar deceased who was murder in his house. Prosecution has introduced following accused in the FIR as well as in the private complaint Ex.PD:
1. Abdul Rasheed | These two accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment. Complainant/state has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. |
2. Muhammad Iqbal | |
3. Muhammad Abbas | Appellants. |
4. Muhammad Jahangir |
15. Ahmad Din PW-2 real father of Abdul Sattar deceased and his son Muhammad Yar injured PW-3 claim themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. They stated in their statements (examination-in-chief) that in between the night of 17/18 July, 2005 at about 12:00 midnight they were sleeping in their 'Ahata', electric bulb was on, meanwhile, Abdul Rasheed accused (since acquitted) armed with .30-bore pistol, accused Muhammad Iqbal (since acquitted) armed with .30-bore pistol, Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir (appellants) armed with .12-bore guns were found present in the 'Ahata', Abdul Rasheed accused (since acquitted) caught hold of Abdul Sattar deceased from his arms and Muhammad Iqbal accused (since acquitted) caught hold of Abdul Sattar deceased from legs, Muhammad Abbas appellant made fire shot with his .12-bore gun at Abdul Sattar deceased which hit on his left leg, Muhammad Yar brother of Abdul Sattar deceased PW-3 tried to step forward when Muhammad Jahangir appellant made fire with his .12-bore gun which hit on his right leg.
The occurrence took place in between the night of 17/18 July, 2005 at 12:00 midnight whereas FIR was registered on the following morning 18.7.2005 at 4:10 a.m. with unexplained delay of about more than 4 hours. Likewise, postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Abdul Satar deceased on 18.7.2005 at 2:00 pm with the delay of about more than 14 hours from the time of occurrence mentioned above, such delay is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and in cooking up a story for the prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a post-mortem examination of the dead body conducted. Reliance is placed on case titled "Irshad Ahmad v. The State" (2011 SCMR 1190).
16. MLR Ex.PA pertaining to Abdul Sattar deceased and MLR Ex.PC pertaining to Muhammad Yar injured PW-3 show that they themselves appeared before the Medical Officer for their medical examination and were not brought in the hospital by the complainant and other PWs mentioned in the FIR as stated by them.
Dr. Abdul Rauf Majid PW-1 who conducted medical examination on the person of Muhammad Yar injured PW-3 observed two pallets injuries on his person. He (Dr. Abdul Rauf Majid PW-i) stated in his cross-examination that Injury No. 1 on the person of Abdul Sattar deceased was caused by putting the mouth of barrel of the weapon used at the seat of injury. He (Dr. Abdul Rauf Majid PW-1) further stated that Muhammad Yar injured PW-3 was not admitted in the hospital, contrary to that Muhammad Yar injured PW-3 stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that he was admitted in the hospital. Both these witnesses (Ahmad Din PW-2 and his son Muhammad Yar injured PW-3) Stated in their statements (examination-in-chief) that Abdul Rasheed accused had caught hold of Abdul Sattar deceased from his arms whereas Muhammad Iqbal accused has caught hold of Abdul Sattar deceased from his legs who have been acquitted by the trial Court by disbelieving the evidence of these two witnesses, complainant/state has not filed any appeal against their acquittal.
Ghulam Mehdi S.I (CW-8) I.O. of this case has specifically stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that during investigation Muhammad Jahangir, Muhammad Abbas appellants and Abdul Rasheed accused (since acquitted) were found not involved in the occurrence and have been declared innocent. He further stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that his investigation was verified by the DSP. He further stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that during investigation Muhammad Iqbal accused nominated in the FIR (since acquitted), Ashfaq, Mukhtar Ahmad, Hakam, Arshad and Altaf accused not nominated in the FIR were found involved in the occurrence against whom report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted but they have been acquitted by the trial Court discussed above.
Learned DPP submits that nothing was recovered from the appellants during interrogation. Both the eye-witnesses stated in their statements (examination-in-chief) that they had identified the appellants in the light of bulb litting at the time of occurrence, on the other hand, learned DPP submits that electric bulb has not been taken into possession by the I.O. to establish that it was litting at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. In such situation, identity of the appellants in the dark hours of the night is not free from doubt.
The argument of the learned DPP that Muhammad Yar PW-3 having pallets injuries on his persons received in the occurrence could not be discarded, has no substance as merely the injuries on the person of PW would not stamp him truthful witness. Reliance is placed on case Amin Ali and another vs. The State (2011 SCMR 323) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at pages 331 & 332 as under:
"Certainly, the presence of the injured witnesses cannot be the place of incident, but the question is as to whether they are truthful witnesses or otherwise, because merely the injuries on the persons of PWs would not stamp them truthful witnesses. It has been held in the case of Said Ahmed supra as under:
"It is correct that the two eye-witnesses are injured and the injuries on their persons do indicate that they were not self- suffered. But that by itself would not show that they had, in view of the afore noted circumstances, told the truth in the Court about the occurrence: particularly, also the role of the deceased and the eye-witnesses. It cannot be ignored that these two witnesses are closely related to the deceased, while the two other eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. namely, Abdur Rashid and Riasat were not examined at the trial. This further shows that the injured eye-witnesses wanted to withhold the material aspects of the case from the Court and the prosecution was apprehensive that if independent witnesses are examined, their depositions might support the plea of the accused.”
In the case of Mehmood Hayat supra at page 1417, it has been observed as under:
"10. There is no cavil with the proposition laid down in the case of Zaab Din and another v. The State (PLD 1986 Peshawar 188) that merely because the P.Ws. had stamp of fire-arm injuries on their person was not per se tantamount to a stamp of credence on their testimony."
In the case of Mehmood Ahmed supra, this Court at page 7 observed as under:
"For an injured witness whose presence at the occurrence is not disputed it can safely be concluded that he had witnessed the incident. But the facts he narrates are not to be implicitly accepted merely because he is an injured witness. His testimony is to be tested and appraised on the principles applied for appreciation of any other prosecution witness."
13. From the above evidence of the P.Ws, they do not appear to be (truthful witnesses; therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on their evidence. It is also important to note that two eye-witnesses Muhammad Naveed and Khadim Hussain were shown eye-witnesses in the F.I.R., but none of them have been examined to support the prosecution case."
17. Ahmad Din complainant PW-2 stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) that motive of the occurrence is previous enmity between the parties. Previous enmity is double edged weapon in criminal case as it can cut both the ways. In the present case, if the alleged motive could propel the appellants (Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir) into aggression against Abdul Sattar deceased, then at the same time, it is equally possible that the same background of enmity could prompt the above mentioned eye-witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. Reliance is placed on case titled Shamsher Ali vs. The State (2005 YLR 1629) in which it is held as under:
"Pitched enmity based upon a longstanding murder feud between the parties to this case is an admitted fact and it is proverbial that motive is double-edged weapon in a criminal case as it can cut both ways. In the present case if the alleged motive could propel the appellant into aggression against Sajjad Hussain deceased then at the same time it was equally possible that the same background of enmity could prompt the above mentioned eye-witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. We have, therefore, found it to be extremely unsafe to reply upon the motive alone to provide corroboration to the ocular account furnished in this case".
18. In view of the above discussion, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding participation of the appellants (Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir) in the present case. It is settled by now that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled for the same not as a matter of grace and concession but as of right. Reliance is placed on case titled Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page 236 as under:
"The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right".
19. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir appellants is accepted, convictions and sentences of the appellants Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir awarded by learned trial Court through impugned judgment are set-aside, they (Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Jahangir) are ordered to be acquitted of the charges. Muhammad Jahangir appellant is present on bail. His surety stands discharged whereas Muhammad Abbas appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Murder Reference is answered in NEGATIVE and death sentence of Muhammad Abbas appellant is NOT CONFIRMED.
(A.A.K.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments