PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 7
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 458 & 392--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--No identification parade was conducted--After registration of case, allegation of rape was, introduced but learned trial Court has not convicted appellant by observing therein that allegation of rape has not been proved by prosecution and appellant has been acquitted--Considering peculiar circumstances of this case, recovery of pistol and Rs. 1,500/- from possession of appellant at time of his arrest is not free from doubt--Held: It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt--If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in prudent mind about guilt of accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right--Appeal accepted.
[Para 3 & 4] A & B
2009 SCMR 230.
Mr. Tayyab Shakoor Rana, Advocate with Appellant (on bail).
Mr. Sana Ullah, DPG with Bilal DPO for State.
Complainant in person.
Date of hearing: 8.3.2022.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 7
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.
SHOAIB--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents.
Crl. A. No. 1915 of 2010, heard on 8.3.2022.
Judgment
Appellant (Shoaib) being juvenile has been tried by learned trial Court in case FIR No. 187 dated 28.06.2008 offences under Sections 458, 380, 376(2), 392, PPC Police Station Wanike Tarrar, District Hafizabad and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 19.06.2010 as under:-
Shoaib (appellant)
U/S. 458, PPC Sentenced to five years S.I. with fine of
Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
U/S. 392, PPC Sentenced to five years R.I. with fine of
Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. Unnecessary facts apart, Fateh Sher complainant P.W.3 on 28.06.2008 got lodged FIR by moving written application stating therein that in between night of 17/18 May, 2008, Hadayat Ullah and Shah Muhammad alongwith unknown accused committed dacoity in his house and looted articles mentioned in the FIR. Appellant has not been nominated in the FIR rather introduced during investigation, formal identification parade for identification of the appellant has not been conducted. Features of unknown accused have also not been given in the FIR. It is important to note here that after registration of case, allegation of rape was, introduced but the learned trial Court has not convicted the appellant by observing therein that allegation of rape has not been proved by the prosecution and the appellant has been acquitted. Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, recovery of pistol and Rs. 1,500/- from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest i.e. 29.06.2008 is not free from doubt.
4. In view of the above discussion, I entertain serious doubt in my mind regarding participation of Shoaib appellant in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right (2009 SCMR 230) “Muhammad Akram vs. The State”.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal appeal filed by Shoaib appellant is accepted, his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment are hereby set aside. Shoaib appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is present on bail. His surety stands discharged.
(A.A.K.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments