PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1044
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302 / 337-A(ii) / 337-A(i) / 337-F(vi)/337-F(i)/148/149--Conviction and sentence--Acquittal of co-accused--Difference in venue of occurrence--Belated recording of FIR--Conflict in between evidence of ocular account--Benefit of doubt--Venue of occurrence as per the contents and even examination of the witness is utterly in contradiction with the contents of scaled and un-scaled site-plan--Belated recording of the FIR would give rise to strong presumption that was drafted after due consultation and deliberations by assigning specific roles to the six accused persons including a woman accused with some ulterior motives and design--PW gave photographic narration of the injuries said to have been caused by each accused and same in ordinary course of nature was not possible--Possibility of narration of sequence of the incident given by complainant being tutored, cannot be ruled out--PW was discharged by the hospital but he did not move any application for registration of case--All three witnesses of ocular account seem to have concealed the facts and happenings--Evidence of witnesses of ocular account cannot be considered as trustworthy and confidence inspiring--Conflict in between evidence of ocular account and medical evidence in fact has caused a serious dent to the prosecution evidence--Motive part has already been disbelieved by the trial court--When ocular account as discussed in preceding paragraphs is not worthy of credit, reliance cannot be placed on recoveries which are only corroborative in nature--Appellants are acquitted. [Pp. 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058 & 1059] A, B, C,
D, E, F, G, H, K & L
2021 SCMR 873; 2015 SCMR 840 ref.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302/337-A(ii)/ 337-A(i)/ 337-F(vi)/ 337-F(i)/148/149--Acquittal of co-accused--Both the acquittal co-accused were attributed specific roles in the occurrence and evidence against them was same but trial court proceeded to acquit them--Such eye-witness could not be relied upon for the purpose of convicting another accused without independent corroboration. [P. 1058] I
2020 SCMR 319; 2015 SCMR 1142; 2008 SCMR 6 ref.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302 / 337-A(ii) / 337-A(i) / 337-F(vi) / 337-F(i) / 148 / 149--Injured witness--Mere injury present on the person of a witness cannot make him a truthful witness. [P. 1058] J
2011 SCMR 323 ref.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302 / 337-A(ii) / 337-A(i) / 337-F(vi) / 337-F(i) / 148 / 149--Injured witness--If the witnesses, even though the injured witnesses, did not come out with the whole truth, their evidence could not be used for convicting some of the accused keeping in view the principle as enshrined in Maxim “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ particularly where truth in the case was mixed very heavily with something which was untrue and both the parties did not disclose true and real facts--If it would become almost impossible to separate the truth from the heap of falsehood, leaving the court with no other option out to acquit the remaining accused persons by extending them benefit of doubt. [P. 1059] M
2019 SCMR 1949 ref.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302 / 337-A(ii) / 337-A(i) / 337-F(vi) / 337-F(i)/148/149--Benefit of doubt--As per saying of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) the mistake in releasing a criminal is better than punishing an innocent person. [P. 1059] N
PLD 2002 SC 1048 ref.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302/337-A(ii) / 337-A(i) / 337-F(vi) / 337-F(i) / 148/149--Benefit of doubt--If a single circumstance that creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person accused would be entitled to get the benefit thereof not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right.
[P. 1060] O
2009 SCMR 230 ref.
M/s. Tariq Mehmood Dogar, Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Nasir Mehmood Balouch. Advocates for Appellants.
Mr. Muhammad Javaid Iqbal, Advocate for Complainant.
Malik Riaz Ahmed Saghla, Additional Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 2.3.2022.
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1044
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Shakil Ahmad, J.
MUHAMMAD IMRAN and another--Appellants
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. Nos. 1435, 1361 & Crl. Rev. No. 479 of 2019,
heard on 2.3.2022.
Judgment
Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Sohail through Criminal Appeal No. 1435 of 2019, whereas Khadi Hussain and Muhammad Shoaib through Criminal Appeal No. 1361 of 2019 have challenged their conviction and sentences. They along with Abid Hussain and Kaneez Mai were indicted and tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on the charge under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i)5 337-F(vi), 148, 149, PPC in case FIR No. 344 of 2018 dated 05.09.2018 registered at Police Station Saddar, Multan. Learned trial Court, on conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 09.12.2019 (impugned judgment) acquitted co-accused Kaneez Mai and Abid Hussain by extending them benefit of doubt and proceeded to convict the appellants and sentenced them as under:
(1): Muhammad Imran:
Convicted under Section 302(b) of PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as Ta'zir and was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 544-A of Cr.PC or in default, to further undergo six months SI.
(2): Muhammad Sohail:
Convicted under Section 302(b) of PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as Ta 'zir and was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 544-A of Cr.PC or in default, to further undergo six months SI.
(3) Khadim Hussain:
Convicted under Section 337-A(ii) of PPC and sentenced to pay Arsh of Rs. 1,02,797/- to injured Muhammad Siddique and tor undergo imprisonment for three years.
(4): Muhammad Shoaib:
Convicted under Section 337-A(ii) of PPC and sentenced to pay Arsh of Rs. 1,02,797/- to injured Muhammad Suleman and to undergo imprisonment for three years.
Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to all appellants, complainant Muhammad Siddique Ahmad has filed Criminal Revision No. 479 of 2019 seeking enhancement of sentence of appellants. Since all these matters have originated from the impugned judgment dated 9.12.2019, the same are being decided through this single consolidated judgment.
2. Muhammad Siddique Ahmad, the complainant moved an application (Exh:PH) before SHO Police Station Sarddar Multan, stating therein that he and his brothers namely Muhammad Usman & Suleman had a General Store in Usmania Bazaar and his brother Muhammad Farooq had a crockery shop there; on 03.09.2018 at about 01:00 P.M, when complainant along with his brothers Usman and Salman was present at General Store and Muhammad Farooq was also present on his shop, Khadim Hussain armed with sota, Sohail Ahmad armed with sota, Muhammad Imran armed with Rifle 7-MM, Shoaib armed with iron rod, Abid Husain and Kaneez Bibi armed with bricks came at the shop of Farooq; Imran gave blow of rifle batt on left side of head of complainant's brother and Sohail gave sota blow hitting on back side of head of Farooq, who became unconscious and fell down; When Usman and Salman came at the spot for rescue, Shoaib gave iron rod blow hitting on back side of head and Sohail gave sota blow hitting on left arm of Usman; Sdhail gave another sota blow hitting on left leg of Usman. Shahab-ud-Din, cousin of the complainant when tried to rescue, Khadim Hussain gave sota blow hitting on left side of head of Shahab-ud-Din; Shoaib gave iron rod blow hitting on back side of head of Salman; Abid hit a brick on left cheek of Shahab-ud-Din and Kaneez Bibi hit brick on his forehead on right side; Abid hit brickbat on backside of head of Salman; Khadim Hussain gave sota blow hitting on head of the complainant and Shoaib gave iron rod blow hitting on right side of head of the complainant; Khadim Hussain gave sota blow hitting on right side of head of the complainant; Kaneez Bibi gave brickbat blow hitting on right cheek of the complainant; Khadim Hussain gave sota blow hitting on belly of the complainant. Upon hearing hue & cry, Muhammad Mujahid, Muhammad Habib Ahmad and others came at the spot and due to their intervention, accused persons left the spot along with weapons. Motive, as described in Exh:PH, was that the accused persons were forbidden to park coat before the shops and exchange of hot words took place and due to this grievance they with their common intention caused injuries to the complainant side.
3. Muhammad Anwar ASI (PW-2), the posted as ASI at Police Station Saddar, Multan, having received information of the occurrence, said to have reached at Nishtar Hospital, Multan and inspected the injured persons and prepared injury statements of Muhammad Usman, Farooq, Suleman, Shahab-ud-Din and Siddique Exh.PA, Exh.PB, Exh.PC, Exh.PD and Exh.PE. The investigation was then entrusted to Muhammad Hanif SI (PW-11), who claimed to have reached at the place of occurrence; interrogated Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Mujahid and Habib Ahmad; inspected place of occurrence and took blood stained cotton through recovery memo. Exh.PM; recorded statement of witness namely Habib Ahmad; prepared rough site-plan of place of occurrence Exh.PN; endorsed cross-version application submitted by Khadim Hussain and sent the same to police station for incorporation of Rapt; on 07.09.2018 recorded statements of witnesses namely Muhammad Mujahid, Habib Ahmad Muhammad Anwar ASI, Muhammad Jaffar 1689/C and Mudassar Zia Control Room Incharge 1122; took into possession clothes of injured persons namely Farooq (i.e Shalwar P/3), Suleman (i.e Shalwar P/4), Usman (i.e Shalwar P/5), Shahab-ud-Din (i.e Shalwar P/6) and Siddique (i.e Shalwar P/7) vide recovery memo. Exh.PO, Exh.PP, Exh.PQ and Exh.PR, respectively; on 08.09.2019, after receiving information regarding the death of Muhammad Farooq, added Section 302 of PPC ana handed over the file of the case to Incharge HIU Circle Saddar, Multan. The investigation was then entrusted to Zahid Hussain SI (PW-16) who claimed to have visited Nishtar Hospital, Multan; inspected dead body of Farooq, prepared injury statement Exh.PT and inquest report Exh.PU; handed over the documents along with the dead body to Mobeen Yousaf 3440/C for post-mortem examination; visited place of occurrence and recorded version of Asad Ikram, Mehboob, Sajjad, Saqib Nawaz, Abid, Junaid, Bilal, Irfan and Amir inspected place of occurrence and prepared rough site-plan Exh.PAA; recommended cancellation of cress-version being false; took into possession last worn clothes of the deceased i.e Shalwar P/1 and secured the same through recovery memo. Exh.PF; after making proceedings at Nishtar Hospital, Multan returned to police station and handed over parcel to Moharrar made notes with red ink on the scaled site-plan Exh.PZ, Exh.PZ/1 and Exh.PZ/2; on 25.09.2018, Mubeen Yousaf, 3440/C handed over to him photographs of deceased which he took into possession through recovery memo. Exh.PG; on 27.09.2018, arrested Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Sohail; on 28.09.2018 obtained physical remand of Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Sohail; on 03.10.2018, on disclosure of Muhammad Sohail recovered sota P/9 lying under the cot in the drawing room of his house and took the same into possession through recovery memo. Exh.PV besides preparing site-plan of place of recovery Exh.PV/1; on disclosure of Muhammad Imran recovered weapon of offence Rifle 7-MM P/10 from Almirah of the room of his house and took the same into possession vide recovery nemo. Exh.PW besides preparing site-plan of place of recovery Exh.PW/1; on 10.11.2018 on disclosure of Khadim recovered sota lying underneath the Iron Petti and took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PX besides preparing site-plan of place of recovery Exh.PX/1; on 11.11.2018 on disclosure of Shoaib recovered Sariya P/12 from his house and took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Exh.PY besides preparing site-plan of place of recovery Exh.PY/1; on 13.11.2018 sent the file to SHO for preparation of report under Section 173 of Cr.PC and the same was duly prepared by SHO concerned on 05.12.2018 by placing the names of four accused persons namely Muhammad Imran, Muhammaa Sohail, Muhammad Shoaib and Khadim Hussain in Column No. 3 of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Appellants were indicted on 25.03.2019. They did not plead guilty and the trial commenced.
4. Muhammad Jaffar (PW-1) stated to have got conducted medical examinations of injured persons at Nishtar Hospital, Multan and handed over MLCs of injured persons to Moharrar of Police Station, Muhammad Anwar ASI (PW-2) claimed to have prepared injury statements of injured persons namely Muhammad Usman, Farooq, Suleman, Shahab-ud-Din and Saddique Exh.PA, Exh.PB, Exh.PC, Exh.PD and Exh. PE respectively and handed over the same to Muhammad Jaffar 1689/C for getting conducted medical examination of above said injured persons. Mobeen Yousaf (PW-3) claimed to have handed over last worn clothes of the deceased i.e Shalwar light pink colour P/1 along with police papers and post-mortem report to Zahid Hussain SI/I.O. after receiving the same from doctor which were taken into possession by the I.O. vide recovery memo. Exh.PF attested by him; handed over photographs of deceased Muhammad Farooq P2/1-4 to I.O. which were taken into possession by the 1.O. vide recovery memo. Exh.PG. Arshad Ali 1119/HC (PW-4) claimed to have attested recovery memo. Exh.PG. Muhammad Siddique (PW-5) is the complainant of the case and has attempted to substantiate the version taken in his application Exh:PH. Muhammad Usman (PW-6) is an injured witness and has deposed accordingly by narrating certain events which took place at the place of occurrence. Muhammad Salman (PW-7) is also injured witness of the case. Dr. Mahmood Ahmad Admin Registrar (PW-8) having received a letter from Incharge, Homicide Investigation Unit Circle Saddar, Multan Exh.PJ prepared ward report Exh.PJ/1 observing as under:
“The said patient was admitted through emergency on 03.09.2018 with head injury. His GCS was 12/15. He was diagnosed as a case of left pariental and right parietal extradural hematoma with fracture of right parietal bone of skull. He was operated on 04.09.2018. He was expired on 03.09.2018.
Dr. Saleem Akhtar Khan has also been shown to have appeared as
PW-8 and he in fact appeared as secondary witness on behalf of
Dr. Mahmood Ahmad and claimed to have been well acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Mahmood Ahmad whose examination-in-chief was already recorded as PW-8. He claimed to have identified the handwriting of Dr. Mahmood Ahmad on documents Exh.PJ/1 to Exh.PJ/17. Muhammad Mudassar, Control Room Incharge (PW-9) claimed to have prepared incident report Exh.PK. Shafqat Nabi 469/HC claimed to have chalked out formal FIR Exh.PL; kept the sealed parcel said to contain blood stained cotton in Maalkhana for safe custody; on 03.09.2018, Muhammad Hanif ASI handed over to him five sealed parcels of clothes of injured persons for keeping in police Maalkhana for safe custody and on 8.9.2018 Zahid Hussain SI/I.O. handed over to him last worn clothes of deceased Farooq for keeping in safe custody; Muhammad Hanif SI (PW-11) claimed to have endorsed the application Exh.PH and sent the name to police station through Muhammad Afzal 3885/C for registration of formal FIR. Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad, Senior Demonstrator (PW-12) claimed to have conducted post-mortem examination on dead body of Muhammad Farooq and observed following injuries:
Injuries:
1) A stitched wound, having four stitches 3.5cm in length with irregular margins on (L) frontal area of head 6cm above (L) eyebrow;
2) A stitched wound having three stitches with irregular margin 3cm in length on left back of head 3cm postero superior to (L) ear.
An operative stitched wound with 29 stretches on lop and (L) side of head U shaped. No ligature mark seen around neck. Hyoid bone intact.
He opined that both the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 2 Individually and Injuries No. 2 and 1 collectively were likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 2 was injury to vital organ i.e. Brain. Probable time between injury and death was 04 to 05 days and probable time between death and post-mortem was 02 to 04 hours.
Dr. Nasir Javaid (PW-13) claimed to have examined Muhammad Farooq on 03.09.2018 in injured condition and observed following injuries on his person:
1) A lacerated wound of 3½ x 1 cm on left side of front of head, 06cm above left eyebrow, scalp-deep (adv: X-ray).
2) A lacerated wound of 03 x 01cm on left back of head, 03cm behind left ear, underlying bone exposed, (adv. X-ray).
Injury No. 1 was declared as Shajja Mudihah and Injury No. 2 was declared as Shajjah Kafifa. Probable duration of injuries was 06-hours.
Both injuries were inflicted with blunt weapon.
On the same day he also examined Muhammad Usman injured and observed following injuries:
1) A lacerated wound of 3-1/2 on right side of head, 08cm from right car 16cm from right eyebrow, scalp-deep.
2) A contused swelling of 15 x 10cm at middle of left forearm with deformity of left forearm. On clinical X-ray fracture of radius and Ulna with displacement.
3) An abrasion of 2 x 1 cm on front of left lower leg, 18cm below left knee joint.
Injury No. 1 was declared as Shajja Khafifa and Injury No. 2 was declared as Jurrah Ghair Jaifa Munaqlah while Injury No. 3 was declared as Jurrah Ghair Jaifa Damiah.
Probable duration of injuries was 06-hours. All injuries inflicted with blunt weapon.
On the same day he also examined Muhammad Siddique and observed following injuries on his person:
1) A lacerated wound of 03 x 1-1/2 cm on right back top of head, 12cm from right ear, 13cm from right eyebrow, underlying bone was exposed (adv: X-ray),
2) A lacerated wound of 07 x 01cm on left side of head, 09 cm, from left ear, 11 cm from left eyebgrow, scalp-deep (adv: X-ray).
3) A lacerated wound of 1-1/4 x 1/3 cm on right cheek prominence with swelling of 03 x 02cm around the wound, skin deep.
4) Multiple contusions and abrasions on left scapular region. Injury No. 1 was declared as Shajja Mudihah, Injuries No. 2
& 3 were declared as Shajjah Kafifa, Injury No. 4 was declared as Jurrah Ghair Damiah.
Probable duration of injuries was 06-hours. All injuries were inflicted with blunt weapon.
On the same day he also examined injured Shahab-ud-Din and observed following injuries on his person:
1) A lacerated wound of 04 x 01 on left front of head, 05cm above left eyebrow, underlying bone exposed, (adv: X-ray).
2) A contused swelling of 03 x 02 cm on left cheek prominence.
Injury No. 1 was declared as Shajja Mudihah, Injury No. 2 was declared as Shajjah Kafifa.
Probable duration of injuries was 06-hours. All injuries inflicted with blunt weapon.
On the same day he also examined injured Muhammad Suleman and observed following injuries on his person:
1) A lacerated wound of 03 x 01 cm on left back top of head, 10cm from left ear, underlying bone exposed, (adv: X-ray).
2) A contused swelling of 05 x 04 cm on right of forehead, above right eyebrow.
3) A lacerated wound of 1 x 1/3 cm on right back of head, 10cm below the right ear, scalp-deep.
4) An abraded area 6 x 4cm on front and inner aspect of left fore-arm, 12cm above left wrist.
5) Multiple contusion with overlying abrasions over area converting almost whole back of chest.
Injury No. 1 was declared as Shajja Mudihah, Injuries No. 2
& 3 were declared as Shajjah Kafifa and Injury No. 4 & 5 were declared as Jurrah Ghair Jaifa Damiah.
Probable duration of injuries was 06-hours. All injuries inflicted with blunt weapon.
Muhammad Mujahid (PW-14) is injured witness and he deposed accordingly. Raja Usman Yousaf (PW-15) claimed to have prepared scaled site-plan Exh.PZ, Exh.PZ/1 and Exh.PZ/2. Zahid Hussain SI (PW-16) is also Investigator of the case.
5. PWs namely Umer Farooq 2085/C, Habib and Shahab-ud-Din were given up by the prosecution being unnecessary. Learned DDPP by tendering in evidence Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis Reports as Exh.PAB and Exh.PAC closed the prosecution evidence.
6. Statements of accused persons under Section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded. All of them professed their innocence. None of them except Muhammad Imran opted to appear as their own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. All of them, however, opted to produce defence evidence and by tendering in defence evidence documents Exh.DA to Mark-DM, closed their defence evidence.
7. Learned counsel for appellants argued that prosecution hopelessly failed to prove its case against appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. To explain the same, it has been argued that evidence of ocular account is replete with contradictions and dishonest improvements and for that reason two accused persons facing trial earned acquittal and in view of dicta laid down in cases “Shaban Akhtar v. The State” (2021 SCMR 395), “Liaqat Ali v. The State” (2021 SCMR 455) and “Muhammad Idrees v. The State” (2021 SCMR 612) remaining accused persons were also entitled to be treated in the same way. Learned counsel concluded that even a single circumstance creating doubt in prosecution case was sufficient for acquittal of accused but learned trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellants merely on the basis of presumptions and surmises.
8. As against that, learned Law Officer duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant argued that prosecution successfully proved its case against appellants at trial. Added that learned trial Court by following the principle of sifting the grain from the chaff, awarded conviction and sentence to appellants on the basis of positive evidence of ocular account that was duly supported by medical evidence. It was further argued that mere relationship of PWs inter se was not sufficient to discard their evidence most particularly where all witnesses of the ocular account themselves sustained injuries in the same incident, as such their presence at the spot cannot be doubted in any manner. It has further been argued that ocular account was also supported by recoveries of weapons of crime from the appellants It was, therefore concluded by learned counsel for complainant that since prosecution case was proved through straightforward and reliable evidence' and there existed no circumstances for awarding lesser sentence, be accepting revision petition filed by complainant, sentence of appellants be enhanced to the maximum.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Additional prosecutor General and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
10. Venue of occurrence as per Exh.PH was shop of Farooq deceased. As per contents of Exh.PH complainant was present along with Salman and Usman on his general store whereas his brother Farooq was sitting in his shop when Khadim Hussain Sohail Ahmad. Muhammad Imran, Shoaib, Abid Hussain and Kaneez Bibi launched attack after arriving at the shop of Farooq and thereafter complainant started giving the details of the injuries caused by each of the accused with their respective weapons not only on the person of Farooq but also injured PWs including himself. When Muhammad Siddique complainant appeared as PW-5, he narrated almost the same story as given in his written complaint Exh.PH Complainant as per his own showing, was present at his shop along with Salman and Usman 
i) Wound No. 1: Wound with sharp edges on scalp about 07cm superior to Glabella (place between two eyebrows on the forehead, just above the nose) going muscle deep but bone not exposed.
ii) Wound No. 2: A 3cm wound with sharp edges on the scalp about 3cm supera posterior to left ear going muscle deep and bone is exposed.
As per the contents of Exh.PJ/7 one injury was shown to be present on the forehead of Farooq and second was on the posterior to the left ear. Both these injuries were having sharp edges excluding the possibility of being caused by blunt weapon, whereas according to MLC Exh.PA both these injuries were shown to be caused by blunt weapon. This glaring contradiction in between Exh.PA and Exh.PJ/7, at one hand creates some doubt about the nature of injuries present on the person of deceased and on the other, evidence of ocular account is in sharp contradiction with the contents of Exh.PJ/7. Injury No. 1 as per witnesses of ocular account was ascribed to appellant Imran in the way that he gave rifle butt blow hitting on the left side of head breaking the head but admittedly no such injury existed on the left side of head of deceased and as per medical evidence Injury No. 1 was between eyebrows on the forehead just above the nose of Farooq deceased. Even as per post mertem report, Injury No. 1 was found on the frontal area of the head above left eyebrow. This injury in fact was not assigned to any of the assailants including Muhammad Imran despite the fact that FIR was lodged after delay of three days. This conflict in-between evidence of ocular account and medical evidence in fact has caused a serious dent to the prosecution case.
15. Motive, as described in application Exh:PH, was that the accused persons were forbidden to park cart before the shops and exchange of hot words took place and due to this grievance they with their common intention caused injuries to the complainant side. Prosecution's evidence qua motive part has already been disbelieved by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and findings recorded by learned trial Court in this respect are supported from the evidence available on record.
doubt which finds support even from the Islamic jurisprudence, accused has only to show existence of a reasonable doubt in prosecution case for getting benefit thereof inasmuch as giving of benefit of doubt to an accused is much more than mere a rule of law and it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances rather if a single circumstance that creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person, accused would be entitled to get the benefit thereof not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Prosecution case from its inception to end remained replete with doubts and its benefit must be given to appellant not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Reliance in this respect may safely be placed on case “Muhammad Akram v. The State” (2009 SCMR 230).
18. On re-appraisal of evidence, I have come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove charge against appellants. Findings of conviction recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment are not sustainable. Therefore, both the appeals are allowed and appellants Muhammad Imran, Muhammad Sohail, Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Shoaib are acquitted of the charge extending benefit of doubt to them. Appellants Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Sohail are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellants Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Shoaib are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
19. As the convicts have been acquitted of the charge, therefore, Criminal Revision No. 479 of 2019 has become infructuous and is filed as such.
(K.Q.B.) Appeal allowed
0 Comments