Usman Ghani Vs The State etc

Judgment Sheet

(Judicial Department)

Usman Ghani.

Vs.

The State etc.

IUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 09.12.2025.

For appellant: Messrs. Farooq Khan Sokari and Malik Rehman Khattak, advocates.

For the State: Mr. Suleman Muhammad Ghazrravi, State counsel.

For respondent: Mr. Shabeer Hussain Gigyani, advocate. (via Video Link).

ABDUL FAYAZ, J.-

l. The appellantlconvict, Usman Ghani through the instant criminal appeal has impugned the judgment dated 29.01.2024, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Karak, in a \t criminal case vide F.I.R No.41 dated 18.01 .2022 u/ss { 302/324/337 -F(iiy34 P.P.C, Police Station, Latamber, District Karak.

2.Brief facts, as narrated in the contents of the F.I.R, are that on 18.01 .2022 at about 09:45 hours, complainant Danyal, while in injured condition, lodged his report before the police at the Emergency Room of KDA Hospital, Karak. He stated that

v on the fateful day, he along with his father was proceeding towards their house from Ahmad Abad on a motorcycle. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, the accused namely Usman Ghani (appellant) son of Abdul Hassan and Abid (since absconding) son of Awal Sardar, both residents of Warana Mosakan, who were armed with fire-arms, on sighting the complainant party, made a murderous assault upon them by resorting to indiscriminate firing. As a result thereof, the complainant sustained firearm injuries, whereas, his father received fatal injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot.

After the commission of the offence, the accused succeeded in fleeing from the scene. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be previous blood feud between the parties. The statement of the injured complainant was reduced into writing through Murasila (Ex.PA), on the basis whereof the F.I.R, was registered as @x.PA/l ).

2.After completion of investigation, challan was initially submitted r./s 512 Cn.P.C, and after arrest of the appellant 01.11 .2022, supplemerfiary challan against him was submitted for trial. At the trial, prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 16 wifiresses. After completion of prosecution evidence in the case, accused was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, however, neither he opted to be examined as his own witress nor wished to produce defence evidence. After hearing

arguments, the leamed trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 29.01.2024, held the appellant guilty for the commission of the offence was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life (RI) as Ta'azir uls 3025)/34 P.P.C with direction to pay compensation of Rs.1000,000/- (ten laL*rs) to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased uls 544 Cr.P.C, in default whereof to suffer six (06) months SL The appellant was also convicted uls 324134 P.P.C for attempting at the life of complainant and causing injuries to him and sentenced to suffer seven (07) years RI with fine of Rs.200,000/- in default whereof two (02) months SI. The convict was further convicted n/s 337-F(ii/34 P.P.C and sentenced to imprisonment for two

(02)years with payment of Daman amounting to Rs.100,000/- (one laktr) to Danyal injured and that the amount of fine shall be recovered as rears as land revenue, wheres, till payment of Daman, the convict shall remain confined in jail and be dealt with u/s 337Y(2) Cr.P.C. The awarded sentences shall run concurrently while benefit of section 382-8 Cr.P.C was extended to the convict/appellant.

3.The present appellant being aggrieved ofthe convictions and sentences, has filed the instant criminal appeal while Shahzeb son of deceased Nusrat Janan being aggrieved ofthe quantum of sentences, has preferred Cr.R No.07-812024 (Shahzeb v. Usman Ghani etc) for enhancement of the same.

Both the matters being arisen out of one and the same judgment, so we intend its decision through this single j

4.We have heard leamed counsel for the parties alongwith leamed State counsel at length and gone through the record in the light ofarguments so addressed.

5.Though the leamed trial court applied its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, yet this Coun is to see as to whether the approach of tJre leamed tial 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 impugned judgment is based on

I

the collected material and recorded statements. Since, there is the sole eye-witness, i.e, Complainant Danyal (PW-ll) of the case and to convict the accused charged on the strength ofthe statement of solitary witness extra-ordinary care and caution is required. Undoubtedly, it is not the quantity of witnesses, but the quality which is the factor and so in the instant case this Court is to see that whether the complainant could establish his presence on the spot at the stated time' In order to

avoid miscarriage ofjustice, we deem it necessary to revisit and

reappraise the already appreciated evidence'

6.The arguable questions for determination before this Court are, no doubt, the was present with the

deceased at the stated time and also have stamps of injuries; but as to whether the complainant could convince the judicial mind of the court regarding the mode and manner of the incident; as to whether the complainant was deposing against the appellant with malice in mind and whether the incident occurred in the mode and manner and at the stated time as alleged. In order to appreciate the material aspect of the case, we deem it necessary to go through the statement of the complainant which he recorded before the leamed frial court.

7.In this case two accused namely Usman Ghani (convict/appellant) and Abid are charged. After arrest, the appellant has faced the trial and have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

$ 8. A closer examination of the deposition of PW-l1 Danyal, when read in juxta-position with the statement of the Investigating Officer PW-Shafi Muhammad, reveals significant inconsistencies as to the exact manner, relative position and distances of the parties at t}te time of occurrence. PW-l I stated that he was driving the motorcycle with his father as pillion rider and tlnt, on reaching the place of occurrence, both accused, armed with 9mm pistols, opened fire on them;

according to him they were "proceeding from east to west'' while the accused were positioned "towards north" of them. He further deposed that they were at a distance of "9/10 feet from

the accused when we were fired at", and then elaborated that absconding accused Abid was 9/10 feet away from him whereas accused Usman Ghani was at a further distance of "02 to 03 feet from absconding accused towards north"' He asserted that the firing was made "from the right side of the road while we were on the left side of the road', tJtat about "9/10 shots" were fired within a span of five seconds, and that as a result "our motorcycle was fallen at a distance of 02 to 03 feet from us"' He also described the spot as a plain, busy road having houses nearby, wilh"sarkanda I Kanna / bushes at spot but there were having no height'', yet simultaneously stated that there were "Spelmalra I Aal;h plants" near the place of blood and that the

spot was visible from 300/400 feet while coming from Ahmad Abad side.

g. In contrast, the Investigating Officer deposed that when he first reached the place of occurrence at about l l:40 a'm.'

after receiving the FIR at I l:10 a.m, he found the motorcycle in

standing position "at kacha place near the edge of road" and

that there were no damage marks on the motorcycle' for which

reason he did not get it examined by a mechanic' He stated that

at the spot "there was complete blood at one place while on the

other place there were slight drops of blood" and that the

empties of 9mm pistol were tying in a scattered condition around about seven feet, all shown collectively as point "C" in

the site plan rather than being individually located. He furttrer explained that the place of blood was near an Aakh (Speelmaka) plant having a height of 4 to 5 feet, with another similar plant at a distance of I 0 to 12 feel, and that the place of occurrence was visible "from four comers at the distance of round about 500 feet" with no obstruction to visibility' The Investigating Officer candidly admitted that no statement of any independent or disinterested witness was recorded despite the road being busy and a police post of Ahmad Abad being nearby and those additions in the site plan were subsequently made on 20.01.2022 on the pointation of PW-l l.

10.When the two versions are placed side by side, material discrepancies become evident. Acconding to PW-l I the motorcycle immediately fell after the firing and lay 2-3 feet away from them, whereas the Investigating Officer's at observation of the motorcycle found upright and undamaged the scene several hours later is inconsistent with that account' PW-ll's description of lowJying bushes "having no height'' also does not sit easily with the Investigating Officer's place of description of Aaktr plants 4-5 feet high near the blood; nor is there any clear explanation as to how' within a

claimedvolleyofg-l0shotsfiredfromcloserange(9/10feet) from the right side of the road towards the left' only the

particular pattem ofblood spots and scattered empties shown in

the site plan came into existence. These divergences regarding the positioning of the accused and victims, the fall and location ofthe motorcycle, the surrounding topography and vegetation, and the distribution of physical exhibits at the spot, collectively cast a serious cloud over the accuracy ofthe ocular account and make it unsafe to rely upon the solitary testimony of PW-ll without strong, independent corroboration.

11.The medical evidence also does not fully support the ocular version. PW-10 Dr. Amjad Esa, who examined the injured PW-ll, categorically admitted that he left the column regarding the nature of injury blank, and that there was no fracture, no neurological deficit, and no charring or blackening on the wounds, thereby ruling out close-range firing' This aspect materially contradicts the claim of PW-l I that the firing

was made from a very close distance' Similarly, PW-3 Dr' the Mujahid Ullah, while detailing multiple firearm injuries on deceased, admitted in on that the injury sheet wounds' initially contained no details ofinjuries except firearm were and that the timings regarding death and post-mortem trvice, giving rise to doubts about precision' Thus' the medical evidence, instead of assurance,

introduces frrther uncertaintY'

t2. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-15 Officer), when read in with the

testimonies of PW-tl (injured complainant), pW-3 (autopsy surgeon) and PW-10 (medical officer of the injured), brings to the front serious lapses in investigation, which materially impair the credibility of the prosecution version. The Investigating Offrcer candidly admitted that the place of occurrence was a busy road, surrounded by residential houses and situated near a police post of Ahmad Abad, yet no independent or disinterested witness from the locality was associated or examined at any stage of investigation. This omission becomes more glaring in view of his admission that police officials were already present at the spot prior to his arrival, but even their statements were not formally recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The failure to examine readily available witnesses, particularly in a case of this magnitude, strikes at the root of fair and transparent investigation and deprives the prosecution of natural corroboration.

13.Another significant aspect ofthe present case is that the injured complainant, Danyal (PW-l l), being the real son of the deceased, stands as an interested witness and, in view of the alleged motive, appears decidedly inimical towards the accused.

Guidance in this regard may be sought from the judgment rendered in "Fateh Khan v. The Stde" [2025 SCMR 14081, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has elucidated the

v governing principles. The relevant excerpt is reproduced as under:-

'33. According to settled principles of law, testimony of an intercsted witness should be scrutinized with cwe and caution and independent corroboration is essential to test the validity and credibility of the testimony of an intercsted witness2.

The testimony of the complainant Khalid Mehmood, pWs Tanveer Aslam and Muhammad Sajid Akhtar, being relatives inter-se, being relatives of all the deceased, being interested, witnesses, being inimical towards the convicts and acquitted co-accused due to previous enmity/blood feud, suffering from dishonest improvements and material connadictions ii lacking independent coruoboration in material aspects and same is notwortlry of credence."

14, The Investigating Officer (PW-15) further admitted that the site plan was not static, but was subsequently modified on 20.01.2022 at the pointation of PW-l I (injured complainant).

This admission assumes critical importance when juxtaposed with the evidence of PW'll, whose testimony, as akeady noted, suffers from material improvements regaxding the mtlnner of occurrence, relative positions of the parties, distances, ffid surrounding features of the spot. The post- occuffence alteration in the site plan, based solely on the version of an interested and injured witness, lends substance to the defence plea that the prosecution case was tailored after deliberation, rather than being recorded without delay and objectively.

15.Equally significant is the Investigating Officer's failure to ensure credibility of recoveries. Though h" claimed recovery of empties, blood-stained earth, garments and other articles, he

conceded that no independent witness was associated with tJrese recoveries, which were effected only in the presence of police personnel and interested witnesses. The empties were shown collectively at one point in the site plan, without specifuing exact locations of each empty, thereby weakening the evidentiary value of such recoveries. This deficiency assumes added sigrificance when read with the medical evidence of PW-3 and PW-10, which does not fully corroborate the prosecution's assertion regarding close-range and marurer of firing. The Investigating Offrcer also admitted that the motorcycle allegedly involved in the occurrence was found in standing position and without damage, yet he neither reconciled this circumstance with the ocular version of PW-l 1 nor subjected the motorcycle to mechanical examination, reflecting a casual and selective approach to investigation'

16.In these circumstances, the investigation appears to be lacking in neutrality, thoroughness and adhererice to settled principles, thereby failing to inspire confidence' It is a settled proposition of law that where investigation is tainted by and post- omissions, non-association of independent witresses' must accrue event modifications, the benefit of such infirmities to the accused. The cumulative effect of these investigative lapses, therefore, renders the prosecution case doubtful and

unsafe for sustaining the conviction'

17.It is by now a well-entrenched principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is under a strict obligation to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that even a single circumstance creating doubt must necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused. Where the prosecution evidence is found to be suffering from material contradictions, unexplained improvements, and absence of independent corroboration, such infirmities cannot be brushed aside as minor or inconsequential, particularly in a case involving a capital charge' The rule of benefit of doubt is not a concession to the accused but a substantive right flowing from the presumption of innocence' which continues to operate throughout the trial and appellate proceedings.

J 18. In the present case, the ocular account fumished by PW- 11, the rnjured complainant, does not inspire the requisite degree of confidence expected of a truthful witness' His

testimony is marred by material improvements relating to the

manner of occurrence, positioning of the parties' distances'

were neither timing, and post-occurrence events, many of which and were disclosed in the FIR nor in his earlier statements introduced for the first time during trial' These improvements' whenexaminedinthelightofsurroundingcircumstances,goto the root of the prosecution case and materially impair the

reliability of his version.

\J

lg. Motive constitutes a significant link in the chain of circumstantial evidence; however, in the present case, the same has not been attributed to the appellant Usman Ghani and, rather, appeils to be confined exclusively to the absconding accused Abid. This aspect stands clearly admiged by the injured complainant Danyal (PW-l1) during his cross- examination, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"We had enmity with absconding accused Abid' The brother of Abid was injured for whtch my brother Shahzeb was charged. It is correct that both the accused of instant case have no relation and belong to dffirint caste and villages. .Ir is conect that brotier of absconding accused Abid was iniured in a Rilrsha'w and the said Rikshow was belonging to absconding accused Abid. We have no issue of womenfold or land dispte with one Usman Ghani' It is cirrect that we hwe enmity with absconding Abid for causing iniuries to his brother and the $ matter is still Pending."

The foregoing admission unequivocally demonstrates that no motive whatsoever has been alleged or established decisive against the present appellant, which omission assumes ocular importance in a case resting primarily upon solitary testimony and fuflfier erodes the credibility of the prosecution

version against him.

20.Similarly, during his cross-exalnination, the injured complainant Danyat (PW-l1) also stated as under:- accused "We were at a distance of 9/10 feet from whenwe were fired at by the accused' I h-tow all the

four directions. At the time of occurrence we were 'proceedings from east to west' At the time of

occurrence accused were towards North of us. It is incorrect to suggest that the occurrence has not talren place in the mode and manner stated by the witness. I hove seen the accused at the spot while they were present over there and I harc not seen their motorcycle or motorcar. There are Sartranda/Kanna/bushes at spot but there were having no height. It is incorrect to suggest that there were no Sarkanda, Kanna trees and bushes. Self stated that there were Spelmaka plants/Aakh towards my lefi side and on the other side of the road. The firing was made from right side of road while we were on left side of road. "

21.A careful examination of the above deposition, when juxtaposed with the site-plan Ex.PB, reveals material inconsistencies. In the site-plan, the appellant and absconding accused Abid have been shown at Points No.3 and 4 respectively, positioned towards the south of the place of occrurence, outside the road, in Baniar Araziyat Sarlmnd* This depiction is clearly at variance with the ocular account of PW- j 11, who categorically asserted that at the time of occturence accused were positioned towards the north of the complainant the

party.Significantly, the site-plan itself was prepared at the his own instance of the complainant (PW-l1), yet it contradicts parties, thereby version regarding the relative positioning of the casting serious doubt on the accuracy of his narration.

22.Furthermore, PW-ll admitted in cross-examination that present there, he saw the accused at the spot while they were come face to which implies that the complainant party had not Had the parties face with the accused party at the time of firing.

confrontedeachotherdirectly,suchfactwouldhavefound

clear reflection in his testimony. This aspect assumes in view of tJre medical evidence, which shows firearm enby wounds on the back side ofboth the injured and the deceased, suggesting that the firing was made from behind.

However, PW-ll maintained that the moment he saw the accused, they started firing, and that tho firing was made from the right side of the road while the complainant parly was on the left.

23.A further perusal of the site-plan demonstrates that the accused have not been shown on the right side of the complainant party; rather, they are depicted towards the left side at Points No.l and 2. Even otherwise, a person travelling

U

on a motorcycle from Ahmad Abad side, as alleged, would not be in a position to see the accused unless the two parties had come across each other on the road' This of the improbability, coupled with the contradictory positioning accused in the site-plan and the medical evidence regarding the

account of direction of injuries, once again renders the ocular both with PW-l I inconsistent and unreliable, being in conflict the site-plan and the medical evidence'

24.A further scrutiny of the medical evidence reveals that person of the deceased almost all the entry wounds found on the

are of identical dimensions' This uniformity strongly suggests

rather than that the injuries were inflicted by a single assailant

\J

by more than one person. In this context, reliance may be placed on the case "Farman Ali and 03 others v. The Slate", [pLD 1980 SC 20U, wherein the Honourable Supreme court, white dealing with a similar situation, observed as under:- "But the type of iniuries suffered by Rashid Khan rather suggest that it was the work of one man. It is common louwledge that .32 bore pistol is an automatic weapon carrying in its charger seven bullets. The foct that the deceased was found to have suffered seven inlet wounds, three of them in his lefi Knee ioint, one on his lefi elbow, two in his abdomen and one in bach,vard direction to his right superior iliac spine, the inlet -size of all of which is titd to be the same, would go a long way to show that this could as well be the work of a single person and not of the three appellants. There' is no evidence on the record to show, however, as to which one of the three had caused him the said injuries, therefore, no option is lefi but to hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home its case against any one of the aPPellants."

25.Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, the medical evidence, far from supporting the d prosecution's version of participation by more than one accused, instead points towards the act of a single individual' In

the absence of any cogent, reliable and independent evidence identiffing the particular role of the present appellant, this case and circumstance creates a serious dent in the prosecution has not been further strengthens the defence plea that the charge proved beYond reasonable doubt'

26.Equallysignificantisthefactthatthemedicalevidence assurance to furnished by Pw-3 and Pw-10, instead of lending prosecution the ocular account, does not fully colroborate the

story in material particulars, particularly with regard to the alleged proximity of firing, the nature of injuries, and the manner in which the occurrence is stated to have taken place.

Reliance is placed on the case Kamat Jalal and 02 others v.

The state and others 12025 P.Cr.L.J (peshawar) 29gJ, wherein it was held:-

u10. The cross-examination of complainant create serious doubt about his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence for the reasons, .firstly, if he was sertting as a Hawaldar in FC and posted in Qilla Balahisar and his duty timingwas from 08.00 AM to 06/07.00 PM then his presence at 02.40 PM (time of occurrence) in the house would not occept a prudent mind. Though he has stated that he was on leave from duty on the eventful day and in this regard also produced a leave certificate bch.PW.9/X-1, but the said certificate on the one hand, is a photocopy, while on the other hand, has not been produced/exhibited by any fficial from Qilla Balahisor. It has also not been pro&rced by him before the Investigating Oficer (.O) dwing investigation of the case. The LO. has also not recorded statement of any official of the FC in this regard. In this view of the matter, the leave certificate on the part of the complainant is an r, abortive attempt to justify his presence at the spot. Secondly, if he was the first target of the accused then his escape or let off by four accused armed with automatic weapons ejecting { numbers of shots in seconds is another strong circumstance which malres his presence at the spot at the time of occwrence highly doubtful. Thirdly, keeping in view the customs and traditions of people of this party of the country, the women folk are strictly observing pardha and in presence of male members in the house, they are not allowed to go out of the house in case of any comrnotion or brawl outside the howe rather male members in such like situation go out of the house to see what is happening. Thrn, coming out of the ldst. Hameeda deceased on the commotion of children is another strong circumstance which convince a prudent mind that complainant wos not present at the spot dt the time of occwrence. Coming oflour accused to the house of the complainant withwhom they had no ill will or enmity rather had cordial relation and then opening Jiring for no reason or motive, is also a disturbing circumstance pinching a prudent mind. No bullets marks hwe been noticed on the gate and walls of the house of the complainott. No spent bullet has been shown recovered from the spot. As per autopsy report the deceosed has sustained a solitaryfirearm entry wound with cotesponding extt, direction of which is .from upward to downward, meaning thereby that the assailant wcat on top position thdn the deceased at the time of firing which is not the case of the prosecution. Only 05 empties of 7.62 and one empty of 30 hate been shown recovered from the spot despite the fact that four accused

v have been assigned the role of indiscrtminate firing. In case of firing by four accused with automatic weapons, ryuch itamagi should harc been caused to the decemed and the complainant and there should have been bullet marl<s on the main gate as well as walls of the house of the complainant but sich is not the case herein. The above discwsed facts and circumstances clearly suggest that the occurrence has not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by th" prosecutiin rather in some other mode best lcnown to the complainant. "

27.Similarly in another case of Dad Muhammad V. The state and another 12023 YLR (Baluchistan) 1595 | it was held that:-

'43. The factum of the benefit of the doubt is very much lucid in iis entirety that if there exists o reasonable ground to believe that the accused/appellant has not participatedinthecommissionoftheallegedcrimeinthe modeantdmannerasadvancedbytheprosecution'then prove the there is io need of numbers of circumstances to innocenceofaccttsedevenasinglecircumstancecreating ,roronoblr"doubtissuficientfortheacquittalofthe accused."

2S.Moreover,theinvestigationconductedinthematter non- suffers from serious procedural deficiencies, including { association of independent witnesses despite availability, failure

present at the spot, post- to record statements of police officials the instance of an occurence modification of the site plan at effected without interested wifiless, and doubtful recoveries disintereste d mashirs. Such lapses strike at the fairness and

transparency of the investigation and detract from the

credibility of the prosecution version'

29.Whentheaboveinfirmities_theunreliableocular corroboration' and testimony, Iack of convincing medical cumulatively rather than defective investigation-are examined

v in isolation, they unmistakably give rise to reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution case. In these circumstances, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction, and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of legal right. Reliance in this respect is placed on the case.

"Muhammad Akram v. The State" [2009 SCMR 2301, wherein it was held thafi-

"13. The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axtomatic prtnciple of law that tn case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue infavour 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 thatfor gvingthe benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reqsonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the bene/it of doubt not os a matter of grace and concession but as a matter ofright.

J 14. In the above noted circumstances, we convert these petitions to appeals which are allowed. The judgments passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges and would be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case."

30.Similarly, in another case "Maqsood Alam and another t). The State and others" 12024 SCMR 156], it was held:- " 9. It ls settled principle of lau, that the conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused and burden of proof is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also an established principle of lavt and equity that it is better that 100 guilty persons should let off but one innocent person should not suffir. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, which entitles the petitioner bene/it of the doubt not as a matter of grace and

concession but as of right. For the accused to be afforded this right of the bene/it of the doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. Reliance is placed on Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64), Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) and Abdul Jabbar v. State (201e scMR 12e).

10.For what has been discussed above, this petition is converted into appeal, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released frorn jail unless detained/required in any other case."

31.For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the cumulative effect of the material contradictions, unexplained improvements in the ocular account, lack of convincing medical corroboration, and serious lapses in investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned { trial Court, while recording conviction and awarding sentence, did not properly appreciate these material infirmities in their true perspective. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 29.01.2024 of the learned trial court is set aside, and the appellant Usman Ghani is acquitted of the charges, extending to him the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Since we have set-aside the impugned judgment, therefore, the connected Cr.R No.07-

Bl2U4 (Shahzeb u Usman Ghani etc) is dismissed being

32.Above are the detailed reasons ofthe short order ofthe even date.

Announced ut-.

-Sd- 09.12.2025. Judge *lnranullah PSr -Sd- Judge G

GE

(D.8t Hon'ble Mn tustice Muhommd Tddq AfiHl & ,lon'ble Mn r,l6itke Abdul FoW