Imran Khan Vs The state etc

Judgment Sheet

(Judicial Department)

Cr. A No.358-B of 2023

Imran Khan Vs.

The State etc

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 09.04.2025.

For appellant: Mr. Farooq Khan Sokari, advocate. For the State: Mr. Muhammad Asghar Khan Ahmadzai, Addl: A.G.

For respondent: Mr. Muhammad Sadique Khan, advocate.

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.- The appellant, Imran Khan has impugned the judgment dated 11.09.2023, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bannu, in a criminal case vide FIR No 357 dated 20.05.2019 registered U/Ss. 3021324134 PPC, P.S, Mandan, District Bannu, whereby he was convicted uls 302 (by34 P.P.C for the murder of deceased Iftikhar Ali Shah and Noor ZaliYlhan and sentenced to normal penalty of life imprisonment as Tazir for two counts with further burden of Rs.20,00,000/- (twenty lacs) payable to the legal heirs of the deceased in terms of section 544-ACr.P.C and in default of payment the amount referred to above shall be recoverable as alrears of land revenue. He was also convicted u/s 324 P.P.C for attempting at the life of complainant and sentenced to 05 years RI with a fine of

Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) in default of payment to further 03 months SI, though extending the benefit u/s 382-8 Cr.P.C'

2.Shah Zeb Ali Shah (complainant) while accompanying the dead bodies of his brother Iftildrar Ali Shah and a passerby Noor Zali Khan on 20.05.2019 at about 1l:20 hours at hospital apprised the police with regard to the incident that on the eventful day he along with his deceased brother were going from Bannu Bazar to their village on the motorbike driven by the deceased. On reaching the spot at about 10:30 hours accused Haqdar Khan and his son Imran Khan signaled to stop, thus, his deceased brother stopped the motorbike and alighted from the same. Meanwhile, both the accused pulled out their pistols from their trouser fold and launched a mwderous assault at the complainant party as a result whereof Iftikhar Ali Shah got hit and fell down on the ground, whereas, complainant remained unhurt luckily. The brother of complainant succumbed to his injuries there and then while one passerby motorcyclist Noor Zali Y'han also got hit with the firing of accused and died' Previous blood feud between the parties was disclosed as motive for the crime.

3.After completion of investigation, challan u/s 512 Cr'P'C was submitted for trial, as both the accused were absconding' Thereafter, the arrest of accused/appellant on 10'03'2022, supplementary challan was submitted for his trial' At the trial against the accused/appellant, prosecution in support of its case

examined as many as 12 witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence in the referred case, accused was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, however, neither he opted to be examined as his own witness nor did he wished to produce defence evidence. After hearing arguments, the learned trial Court vide impugrred judgment dated I1.09.2023, the appellant was held guilty for the murders of both the deceased and attempt at the life of complainant Shah Zeb Ali Shah, sentenced him as above. The appellant being aggrieved of the

conviction and sentence, has filed the instant criminal appeal

4.We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and leamed A.A.G for the State at length and scanned the record with their valuable assistance.

5.Though the leamed trial court applied its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, yet this Court is to see as to whether the approach of the learned trial court was correct and in accordance with law; as to whether the leamed Judge appreciated the available record and the statements of the witnesses and as to whether the impugrred judgment is based on the collected material and recorded statements' As in the incident there is the sole eye-witness, i.e, the complainant Shah Zeb Ali charged on Shah (PW-7) of the case and to convict the accused required the strength of the statement of solitary witness much is fromthecourtsoflawandinsuchlikecircumstancesextra- ordinary care and caution is required' True, that it is not the

v' quantrty of wifiresses, but the quality which is the determining factor, hence, in the instant case this Court is to see as to whether the complainant could establish his presence on the spot at the stated time. In order to avoid miscariage of justice, we deem it essential to re-examine and reassess the already appreciated evidence.

6.In this case, the deceased met unnatural death on account of fire-arm injuries and is allegedly witnessed by the Shah Zeb Ali shah complainant/PW-7, the brother of deceased. The debatable questions for determination before this Court are, as to whether the complainant was present with the deceased at the eventful time; as to whether the complainant could convince the judicial mind of the court regarding the mode and manner in which the incident happened; as to whether the complainant was deposing against the appellant with malice in mind and as to whether the incident occurred in the mode and manner as alleged. In order to appreciate the material aspect of the case, we deem it necessary to go through the statement of the complainant.

7.In this case, the star witress of the incident is Shah Zeb Ali shah/complainant PW-7, who in his statement before the trial court has narrated the incident which we would like to reproduce as under:-

"P.W-7 Statement of Shah Zeb Ali Shah s/o Noor Zali Khan r/o Dalo Khel Mandan, District Bannu on oath:' On the day of occurrence I alongwith my deceased brother lftikhar Ali Shahwere proceedingfrom

V Bannu city to our village when we reached Faiz Talab Abbas Mandan (place of occurrence), then both accused namely, hnran (facing trial) and Haqdad Khan s/o Shah Na,vaz were present on the spot as soon we reached theretn, both the accused signaled us and my brother stopped the motorbike. We deboarded from motorbike and the accused opened firing at us with their respective pistols. As a result of which my brother sustained injuries, fell on the ground and succumbed to his iniurtes on the spot, while I escoped unhurt and could do nothing being empty handed. The accused afier the commission of the offence lefi the motorbilce and bolted autay. Later on I came to know that one passerby was also hit from the firing of the accused and was died on the spot. I took my brother to the hospital. I reported the matter to the local police already present in the hospital. It was l1:20 a.rn, when I lodged my report, afier admitting it to be correct, I signed the same as a token of its correctness. The report is already En.PW 5/1. I was called by the investigating fficer from the spot and I proceeded to the spot from hospital. The LO collected blood through iotton from the place of deceased lfiikhar Ali Shah' Similarly, the I.O also secured 04 empties from the places of accused. Thereafier, the I.O also took into 'possession -deceased blood stained garments belonging to both the along with one phial containing one bullet recovered from body of deceased Noor Zali sent by the doctor through constable Rahim Diyoz No.98. The site' plan was also prepared on my pointation. All the above -referued memos ore h'PW 7/I to Ex.PW 7/5 rispectively. Motive for the offence was blood feud enmity. I charge the accused for the commission of the offenLe. My supplementary statement as also recorded by the I.O.

)A(" W'e were four brothers, deceased lftikhar Ali Shah and deceased Gohar Ali Shah. h is h ts incorrect to suggest that we harc other enmity in the area' am I triing in Live Stock Department since three (03) years' At thittme of occurrence my deceased brother lfiipahar Ali Shah rrtiding in separate house. Self stated that after his marriage, he started separate residing' It is correct that afier ihe death of my deceased brother Gohar Ali Shah an F.I.R wos lodged against us in respect of forcibly -that taHng accused Imran. The witness again stated w-e have not forcibly taken the accused facing trial. It is incorrect to suggest that my uncle Pir Aslam Khan stated us to release- the accused Imran being paralyzed' It is incorrect to suggest that ther was allegations against lfiikahr ,lh {hah deceased for the murder of cinstabli Sowdod Khan s/o Mir Kabat Khan' The witness added that we have nothing to do with the constable sowdad Khan. It is incorrect to suggest that Ifiikhar Ali Shahwas murdered by the brother of Sawdad "Xhon.

We have spent one and half hours while purchasing vegetabies in Bannu City' On t-he dry of ^orrurr"ni I did not notice the time while I lefi my house' The deceased lfiikihar Ati Shah came to my house' Similarly I did ntot notice his time of arrival in my house'

However, it was sun rise time. We might have left afier 30 minutes for the Bannu City. h is incorrect to suggest that I am gring wrong explanation in respect of timing. It is incorrect to suggest that I arn concealtng real fact from the court. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not present on the spot. I cannot tell the exact time when we lefi the house. We took our brealcfast prior to lefi the house. I cannot tell the time when we brt our house and reached to Bonnu city. The witness volunteered that we took two stops while reaching to Bannu city. also I cannot tell that how much ttme we consumed while stopping at two places before reaching Bannu City. It is incorrect to suggest that deceased lfiiWtar Ali Shah was charged by the loal police in narcotics cases. Before my lodging report, police fficials were not responded to the spot. Self-stated that I was called from hospital. I lodged my report before casualty staff already present therein. I did not notice that how much time was consumed while lodging my report to the reporting fficer. Except 10:30 a.m, time of occurrence and 11:20 a.m, ttme of lodging report, no other timing is noticed by me. It is tncorrect to suggest that betng planted and procured wttness I could not tell the exact timing. I do not tell that how much time I consumed in hospital and when I left from therein. I might consume 15 to 20 minutes on the spot with the I.O. ll'e and the occused are lcnown to eoch other. It is correct that accused party was chargedfor murder of my another brother Gohar AliShah. We noticed the presence ofaccusedfrom the distance of03 or 04 paces when they signaled us to stop. We were empty handed, my brother lftikahr Ali Shah was rtdtng motorbikc when we were stopped. As soon we were parking our motorbilre, the accused opened fire at us. Ifiikhar Ali Shah was ahead of me about one pace. I was also fired by the accused. The witness volunteered that I was lucHly escaped unhurt. It is incorrect to suggest that accused facing trial Imran is paralyzed since 20 years with his legs and hands. It is incorrect to suggest that being previous enmity with the accused family they were charged in the instant case. It is incoruect to suggest that my brother was hire assassin and he was done to death by the brother of deceased constable Sowdad Khan. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not present on the spot. I was besmeared with the blood of my deceased brother Ifiilkar Ali Shah. I was not asked by the I.O in respect of my blood stained garments of mine. The LO told me that there is no need of your blood stained garments. I do not tell the narnes of each vegetables which I purchased and holding at the time of occurrence. I do not tell in respect ofvegetables to the LO. It is incotect to suggest that the legal heirs ofdeceased Noor Zali Khan has not charged the accusedfor the reason being innocent. I do not lqtow that it was which day of Holy tnonth of Ramadon, however, it was the Holy month of Rarnadan. The accused opened fire at deceased lfiikahr Ali Shah from front side. I do not tell that how much lire shots were made by each of the accused. It is incorrect to suggest that being not present on the spot, therefore, I could not

explain the number of Jire shots. While going back from Bannu City to village we were proceeding n our own road side. It is incorrect to suggest that we were proceeding on wrong side of the road. Neither I afirm nor rebut tlwt if the police hos shown us on the wrong side of the road then it would be written wrongly. It is incorrect to suggest that I am gtving wrong explanation in this respect. I do not notice that whether striking bullet marlrs occurred on building nearby the spot. It is incorrect to suggest that the mode and manner of the presence occurrence so narrated by me to the reporting fficer is contrary to my court statement. It is incorrect to suggest that I have tmproved ny statement before the court. It is incorrect to suggest that I am concealing real facts from the court. It is incorrect to suggest that I am not the eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, I cannot answer the questions put by defense counsel. It is tncorrect to suggest that the offence has been comrnitted by one person. It is incorrect to suggest that the offence has been committed by unlmown accused. It is incorrect to suggest that accused facing trial is innocent. It is incorrect to suggest that as the occurrence is act ofone accused, therefore, the empty of point 30 bore recovered from the spot also rnatched with each other being fired from one weapon. I do not lmow whether the legal heirs of the deceased Noor Zai came to hospital for lodging F.LR as I do not htow the legal hetrs of deceased Noor ZalL It is incorrect to suggest that I atn giving wrong explanationin this respect. "

8.The bare reading of the statement of complainant (PW-7), who is the sole eye wihess of the incident and brother of the deceased. This witness when asked as to what is his profession, he stated in his cross-examination that "I am serving in Live Stock Department since 03 years and at the time of occurence my deceased brother Ifiikhar Ali shah was residing in his separate house. He also admitted it cotrect that after the death of my deceased brother Gohar Ali shah, an F.I.R was lodged against us in respect of forcibly taking accused rmran Khan."

It was for the prosecution to have produced some evidence that on the day of occurence as the same had taken place at 10:30 a.m, on 20.05.2019, at such time the complainant (PW-7) is

supposed to have been at his office of Live Stock Deparhent. In rebuttal, he did not bring anything on record that on the day, date and time of incident he was not in office rather was present at the eventful time with his deceased brother.

9.Moreover, the deceased and the complainant @W-7) were residing in separate houses as admitted in the above narration and it is the stance of complainant in the F.I.R that he on the date of incident were going back to their village after purchase of house hold commodities with his brother when they were stopped by the accused p*ty and no sooner they deboarded from the motorbike the accused and his co-accused started firing at them. Persual of the site-plan Ex.PB shows that accused has been shown at Point No.4, co-accused at Point No.5, the deceased at Point No.l and complainant at Point No2. It is part of record tlat on the day of incident one passerby Noor Zali Khan has also received Fire-arm injuries which led to his death, has been shown at Point No.3 and he after hitting had fallen at Point No.3-A. The site-plan also reveals as has been said by the complainant (PW-7) that he on the day of occurrence after purchasing the house hold articles and commodities from Baruru Bazar, were going towards their house, whereas, the site-plan show Bannu city towards Northem side and the village of complainant towards Southern side, and if it is considered that in this country left hand &ive is allowed so in the F'I.R the deceased and accused alongwith complainant has been shown

towards right side of the road which suggest otherwise that the occurrence has not been taken place in the mode and manner as alteged by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the case Kamal Jalal and 02 others v. The state and others 12025 P.Cr.L.J (Peshawar) 2981, wherein it was held:- u10. The cross-examination of complainarrt create serious doubt about his presence at the spot 4t the time of occurrence for the reasons, .firstly, if he was sertting as a Hav,aldar in FC and posted in Qilla Balahisor and his duty timing was from 08.00 AM to 06/07.00 PM then his presence at 02.40 PM (time of occurrence) in the house would not accept a prudent mind. Tlnugh he has stated that he was on leave from duty on the eventful day and in this regard also pro&rced a learc certificate ExltPW.g/X'1, but the said certificate on the one land, is a photocopy, while on the other hand, lns not been prodtrced/exhibited by any ofictal from Qilla Balahisw. It has also not been produced by him before the Investigoting Oficer (.O) &ting investigation of the case. The I.O. hos also not recorded statement of any ffictol of the FC in this regwd. In this view of the matter, the learc certificate on the part of the complainmtt is an abortive attempt to justily his presence at the spot. Secondly, if he was thefirst target ofthe accused then his escape or let offbyfour aciused mmed with automatic weapons eiecting rumbers of shots in seconds is another strong circumstance which malces his presence at the spot at the time of occttrrence highly doubtful. Thirdly, keeping in view the customs and traditions of people of this porty of the country, the women folk are itrictly observingpardla and.in presence of male members in the hotne, they ue not allowed to go out of the house in case ol any commotion or bravtl outside the lause rather male *"*6rrt in such ltke situation go out of the house to see what is happening. Thus, coming out of the luht. Hameeda deceased on the commotion of children is another strong circumstance which convince a prudent mind that complainant was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Coming of .four 'accused to thehous, of the complainant with whom they hod no ill will or enmity rather had cordial relation and then opening firing for no reason or motive, is also a disturbing ctrcumsiance pinchtng a prudent mind. No bullets morls have been noticed on the gate and walls of the house of the complainant. No spent bullet has been shown recovered from theipot. As per i*opsy report the deceased has sustained a solitary firiarm entry wound with corresponding exit, direction- of which is from upward to downward, meoing thereby thot ttu assailant was on top position than -the deceased at the time of firing which is not the case of tlrc prosecution.

'have Only 05 empties of 7.62 and one empty of 30 been shown recovered from the spot despite the fact that four accused hove been assigned the role of indiscriminate -fuin7.

"*rolonr,In case of firing by Iot, acculed with mttomatic mtrch dimage should have been caused to the deciased and the comploinont and there should hove been bullet marlrs on the miin gate as well as walls of the house of the complainont but strch is not the case herein. T'lte above discussid facts and circumstances clearly suggest that the

F

occuffence has not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecutioi rather in some other mode best ktown to the complainant. "

10.Similarly in another case of Dad Muhammad V. The State and another 12023 YLR @aluchistan) 1595 I it was held that-

'43. Thefactum of the benefit of the doubt is very much lucid in its entirety that if there exists a reasonable ground to believe that the accused/appellant hqs not participated in the commission of the olleged crime in the mode and manner as advanced by the prosecution, then there is no need ofnumbers of circumstances to prove the innocence of accused even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is suffrcientfor the acquittal of the accused."

11.Furthermore, it does not appeal to a prudent mind that complainant (PW-7) has been shown at Point No.2 closed to the Point No.l, the place of the deceased. Now if one see Point No.3 which is also closed to the deceased towards East side of the spot and he has received Fire-arm injuries at the hands of the appellant and absconding co-accused. The bare perusal shows that he, the complainant is absolutely is within the firing range of accused at Point No.4 and 5, the point of the appellant and absconding co-accused, thus, by not receiving even a scratch on his body reflects his absence on the spot. Had the complainant been present at the relevant time he might have not been spared in order to depose against the accused. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case of Mir Mat Khan alias Matokai v. The State 12002 P.Cr.L.J lgl4,wherein it was held:-

" 1 4. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material onfile we are convinced that the claim of complainant Khial Shah Gul and Nishad Gul P.Ws.. having seen the occurrence, stands belied by a host of circumstmtces and they were not present at the spot at relevant time and had not seen the occurrence. Had they been

v present they might not have been spared in order to create evidence. The appellont seems to hove been chtged on suspicion which cannot take the place of the legal proof, Tlu eye-witnesses ore not only closely related to the deceased and inimically disposed towords appellant but ore chutce witnesses. h is dfficult to believe that four assailants duly armed with lwtashnikovs resort to indiscriminate firingfrom a close range and, the firing continues for 4/5 minutes but only one of the members of the complainant pmty a little ahead of his companions namely Ktial ShahGul od Nishad Gul P.Ws. is hit fatally but the remaining sustain no injwy and escape mhurt and they also sumive during the second round offiring on them when they are stated to hove approached the dead body to remove the samefiom the spot."

12.Now turning to another intiguing aspect of the case' no doubt it has been recorded from the mouth of complainant in murastla Ex.PW-5ll that he has received information that from the firing of the accused one passerby has also go injured and he has expired. When such is the state of affair that he allegedly has shown himself at the time of incident with his deceased brother on the spot and when the passerby is shown more close to the tl, deceased then how did he not come to know about the fire-arm tl^{' injuries sustained by the passerby, which otherwise, reflects the non-presence of the complainant at the time of incident on the spot.

13.yet another significant aspect of the case is that it has not been disclosed by the complainant, but the investigating officer while preparing the site-plan the place of the hitting of passerby Noor zali Y'han has been shown at Point No.3, as per the foot notes, who fall and succumbed to his injuries at Point-3A which

speaks otherwise to the testimony of the complainant (PW-7), as

there is no trail of blood in between Points No.3 and 34 and that have he did not record such a version in his report. Moreover, we

also noticed from the F.I.R wherein the alleged occurrence has taken place at 10:30 a.m while the same was reported at 11:30 a.m. If we see and peruse the PM report of the deceased Noor Zali Khan the same clear cut reveals that the dead body was examined by the doctor at the hospital on the same day at 10:30 a.m, while that of deceased Iftikhar Ali Shah at 10:35 a.m, thus, it has been confirmed that on one hand as per murasila the complainant (PW-7) has recorded his report of the occurrence at ll.20 a.m while on the other hand the doctor had examined the dead bodies of both the deceased at 10:30 a.m and 10:35 a.m respectively, 50 minutes before lodging of the report which eliminates the presence of the complainarfi atthe relevant time of incident with the deceased. Reliance in this regard is made on the case of Asghar v. The state 11999 P.Cr.L.J 201, the relevant portion is as under:-

n 22. In thefinal analysis of the evidence, I am of the view thd in this case the prosecution has failed to Prove the case against the appellants beyond doubt. The oculm evtdence of tltree witnesses does not inspire confidence betng contradictory and belied by medical evidence, it is also doubtful whether they had seen the incident. No doubt the tmfortunate incident has taken place and as a result Muhammad Moosa lost his life but not in the manner asserted by the prosecution."

14.Similarly in another case Muhamnud Ali v. The State [2015 SCMR 1371, it has been held by his lordship:- " S.According to the prosecution the F'I'R has been registered on 10-30 a.m. on the same day for the incident *hi"h hos tatcen place at 9-15 a.m. According to P'W'i Amiad Ali and P.W.4 Manzoor Ahmed, who allegedly had seen the occurrence, the incident las taken place at an open place which was not surrounded by the houses. Admittedly both the P.Ws. are not residents of the locality where the occurrence took place cmd they we chance witnesses. The role ascribed to Nooi Muhammad and Riaz is in contradiction with the

medical evidence, as the complainant in hts supplementary statement has mentioned tlnt Noor Muhammad g(Ne 4 hatchet blow on the head of the deceosedlrom the shrp side whereas the said Wury wcs declred by the doctor as caused by a bltmt weapon. The medical evidence also does not support tLe ocular accotmt qua the number of injuries as according to the Doctor P.W.6 the deceased had received as many as 8 injuries. Injuries Nos. 6 and 8 were incised wounds, iniuries Nos. 1, 2 and 7 were caused by blmt weolnn while iniwies Nos 3, 4 od 5 were caused by fireatms. Only one iniury on thigh has been attrib*ed to the appellant. The doctor has also lomd blackcning on the iniuries which means that the tniwies could hsve been causedfrom a distance ofthree feet or less. But according to site plan, the distance between the assailants and the deceosed was about 2 lcarams which is equol to 11 feet. In such circumstances, the presmce of the eye-witnesses at the spot is doubtful.- -'-----"

15.Another intriguing aspect of the instant case is thaty'wo accused have been charged by the complainant for the commission of the offence. The investigating officer when visited the spot, collected 04 crime empties of .30 bore near from the places of both the accused on the spot. The F.S.L report Ex.PKlZ shows that the same were fired from one and the same .30 bore weapon which suggests the commission of offence by a single accused. Reliance in this respect is made on the case Zain- ud-Din v. Noor Muhammad and others {2022 P.Cr.L.J Note

26)[Peshawar @.I.Khan Bench)1, wherein it was held:- "12. The investigating officer visited the spot and during spot inspection recovered 06 empties of 'j0 bore- alon{ with two spent bullets, a bicycle and blood stained earth from the place of deceased. The empties were sent-to the Forensic Siience Laboratory to ascertain as to whether these were firedfiom one or more weapon* The report was received iitn oi opinion that these empties were fired from one weapon. The Iaboratory report confirms that it was the doing of one person.

in case titled "The State through A'G Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Subhan Ali and another" (2020 MLD 1901), wherein it is held that:

'i12. The Investigating Officer recovered three etnpties of 7.62 bore from tie spit, intn were sent to the ffice of ihemical examiner with a request to tender its opinton, as to whether these were lired from one or different weopons' the report has been exhibited as Ex: PW 10/6, where these emptiZs were shown fired from one and the same weapon' Tie deceased has three'inlet wounds and three empties were recovered from the spot with opinion from the

Forensic Sciences Laboratory as having been fired lrom one and the same weapon belies the stance of the complainant regarding the involvement of two accused in commission of the offence."

16.The motive advanced was stated to be the previous blood feud, but the Officer did not bring on record copies of the criminal cases between the parties. If we admit that it was the blood feud between the parties which led to the death of the deceased, in that the

complainant would have also been the prime target if he was present on the spot. There is no cavil to the proposition that once the prosecution alleges a motive then it is under the bounden duty to prove the same, failing which it is the prosecution to suffer and the present case is no exception' as rs held in case titled "Muhamrnad Ashraf alias Acchu v' The Staten (2019 SCMR 652 Pora'7). Though the motive is always a double-edged weapon' The complainant (PW7) has admitted vL/ blood feud between the parties 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 tlris case for previous grouse' t7. There is no substantial evidence that could reasonably link theappellantwiththeallegedoffence.Inthesecircumstances,it cansafelybeconcludedthattheprosecutionfailedtoprovethe charge against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt' It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of

every doubt, which pricks the judicial mind, must be resolved in favour of the accused, and the burden of proof always rests on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Moreover, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt about the guilt of the accused, rather a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for the acquittal of the accused. As the prosecution has badty failed to establish the presence of the complainant at the time of incident as well as also remained unsuccessful proving its case beyond shadow of doubt and in such circumstances, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. In the case Ahmed Ati v. The state 12023 SCMR (supreme court of Pakistan) 7811, titled it was laid that:- '12. Even otherutise, it is well settled that for the purposes of extending the benefit ofdoubt to an occused, it 'is iot nrirrrory that there be multiple infirmities iy tle prosecution case or several circumstances creating doubt'

'A

single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the proseiution case would be sfficient to entitle the accused io its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.---- "

18.Similarly, in the case of Mst. Haiira Bibi alias Seema and others v. Ahdal Qaseem and another, [2023 SCMR (Supteme Court of Pakistan) S70J it was held:- n8-------- The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case ane sfficient to cast a shadow of doubt- on the irosecution 'ofbene/it ,^r, ihi"h entitles the appellants to the right ofthe doubt. For the accused to be afforded tlis iignt iJ thi benefit of the doubt, it is not necessary that tiere ihould be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the bene/it of the same must go to the accused.----- "

w 19. Yet in the case of Sarfraz and another V. The State, 12023 SCMR (Supreme Court of Pakistan) 670J wherein it was

held:-

11.------ The same view was reiterated in Abdul Jabbar v. State (2019 SCMR 129) when this Court observed that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosiution, such as conflict in the oculm account and medical evidence or presence of eye witnesses being doubtful, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosicution's -accused.

case automatically goes in favour of an The conviction must be based on tmimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evtdence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolied infavour ofthe accused' 'However, as discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove its ccwe beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. "

20.For the above stated reasons, we are confident in holding that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and thereby erred in handing down the impugned judgment, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. We would, judgment, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugled and acquit the appellant of the charges by extending him the benefit of doubt. The appellant being in custody be set at liber{y if not required to be detained in any other case'

21.The foregoing are the reasons for our short order of even date.

Announced 09,04.2025. uu *Imrorullah PS* -Sd- JUDGE Judge

-Sd- Judge

b{

JUDGE

(D'B)

qc f .Hon,bleMr.tustlceMuhomnadTodqA|ridi&Hon,bleMr.tustlceAbdulFoyaz

I 5