Arbelo @ Papoo (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

(f-'= f< Agesrz-f t 4q

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

Before .lr"ti.. Mohammad l(arirn l(trarr Agha' llt. -..

Cr. Jail APPeal No.S-135 of 20 t I

Arbelo alias PaPoo Versus

The State

Arbelo alias Through Mr. Ashfaque Alture cl I.attiar, Appellant Papoo Advocate

Respondent : The State Through Mr Shahicl Al.rrn.ed ljl-lail<h,

A.P.G.

Complainant: Nazeer Through Mr- I I r-tssa ir t l:ltt;i r) () al. g!

Advocate

Datc of hearing 20.o4.2017.

Date of judgment 21.o4.2017

L

JUDGMEI\IT

MOHAMMAD KARI MKHAN AGHA, J.- Ap;'rellatrl Atbelo alias Case Papoo was tried by learned Sessions Judge, Urnerkot' itr Sessions No.lO4of2OOg,arisingoutofcrimelOll20og'r'egistereclal'Police station Kunri, under section 3o2 PPC. Accused / appellarrt was lbund guitty by judgment dated O7.O3.2O11 (the irnpugned juclgmer-rt) ancl was convicted and sentenced to sul'fer: l-igorot-ts itrtpricot.rlrrerrt fot 25 years under section 308 PPC aud also to pay artrottnt ol Diyat six Rs.11,O2,68O/- (Rupees one million, one httnclrecl two Ll-rousand' hundrecl and eighty only)' The amournt of Diyat i[ t'ecovered was

L

orderedtobepaidtotheheirsofthedeceased'T.|teberrefitofsection 382-8 Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellanl-' 2.Brieflythefactsoftheprosecutioncaseal.ettral-|'l.recottrplainanl, NazeersonofLakhmeeron03'Il.2ooglodgedF'I'Ii'atPoliceSta-tion I(unri stating therein that he got his claughtel' uarnely Pashrnau aged about 17 I t8 years married with Arbelo alias Papoo sort ol' Bashir by

caste Oact about 16 months ago iu village Irac;eer Abdullalr' On said, 1 'r I

I

1tl o

day, he was available in village when his cousin Arbel,, srolr r)l'Sai.iarr told him on telephone that Arbelo alias Papoo afl-er- rnaltt'eat-ir-rg his daughter Pashman has killed her by hanging her with ll-re Rircler'. C)n such information he reached at village Fal<ee.r Alrrlrtllalr rvltct.e ,learl body of his daughter Shirimati Pashrnan was lyirrg or-r Lhe t:ot. Flisr cousins Arbelo and Shabir both sons of Saljarr tolcl trirn tha.l- at about 9-30 am husband of his daughter Pashman alter r:otnirtg in arrger has maltreated Mst. Pashman and committed het nn-udcr l.ry hangitrg hel with girder. On receiving such inforrnation cotrrplainauI weul, to Police Station and lodged F.I.R.

3.After completing necessary forrnalities cltarge \vas ltamecl against accused / appettant, to which he pled not gttilty atll cla.ir.ued for trial.

4.In order to substantiate its case the prosecut.iotr exarrtinecl O7 prosecution witnesses (PWs) and thereafter learued DPI-- r:losed its side.

5.Thereafter, statement of accused / appellant ttuclet' Sectiorr 3142 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he deniecl tl-re pl-osecrrt.iorr case claiming his innocence. He neither examined hirnsclf orr oath t.tot' le(l aily L evidence in his defence.

6.The learned trial court after hearing the leaurcrJ cot:rrsel for t.hc parties and on the assessment of the entire evidence cottvictecl artd sentenced the accused / appellant as statecl al:ove through thr: impugned judgment.

7.The facts of this case as well as evidence produced belore l,he trial Court find an elaborate mention irr the irnpr-rgltecl iudgment passed by the trial court therefore the sarrre rray nol lrc lel r',:rrhtce,J here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repelitiorr.

8.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that l-lre sole eye

L

witness PW Arbelo was not reliable ancl thal. lris evicteoce slror-rlcl lre disbelieved; that there was no motive for the appellanl. lo rntrt'der l-he deceased; that there were major con trrrd ictiotr s irr l-lre cvirlenr:e ol the PW's; that all the PW's were interested pirrt.ies; Lhal- rro irrclel,rendcrrl mashirs had been associated with the case; tha.t thc nreclical evidence did not support the prosecutions case and, that tl-re appellarrt has been falsely irnplicated on account of tamily dispute; thal tlrere is tlor-rbl, irr v.)

1q I

the prosecutions case which the appellant is ent.itlerl to the lrr:ttefil. ol' and for all the above reasons the appellant shourld lrs 4.r.:qrtlt-[erl.

9' In support of his contentions, lealnecl ctttrttsel li''t' n;.rPr:llar.rl fras relied upon the cases of Noor Muharnrnad v^ The S{:qte rrnd anotlter: (2O1O SCMR 97), Wali Muhammad and others v. The State and another (2OI5 YLR 26221, Qadeer Hussain v. The State (2Oi'l Y P Cr. u Note 18) u-ahore], Hahib ur Rehrrran rr^ The state *rnd others (2017 YLR 32), Abld and others w. The state (1)(117 Yl.R.'.))67), Arshad Khan v. The state (20i7 scMR 564), UIst- Ilrrkhsarra Begu.rn and others v. saiiad and others (2o17 srlMR i,9C:,), Kltatr zamail w" The State (2000 P Cr. LJ 447), Chakar Jnfllari and,2 others v' The state (2011 MLD 524) and Muhammad Yaqoob w" Allah Rakha and 4 others (2OI2 P Cr. LJ 1942).

io. Learned A.P.G. with the assistance of learilecl cor-tnsel fr.;r' the complainant submitted that the prosecution har,l pt.rrve<l ils case beyond a reasonable doubt; that the imprugnerl .ittt[p]rrerrl r;rra-q urell reasoned and had correctly found the appellant guilty basecl orl l.lle evidence; that the eye witness was confidet-rce ilespiriug arrd that Lhe appellant could be convicled on his eviderlce alprre eslrer:ially as he was a disinterested witness whose account wa.s t:r)r.robot"a l.e cl l-'V ollrer

L

PW's ; that the medical evidence supporLed tlre prosect-tt.iotrs case at:tr.l that for all the above reasons this court should clisrniss the alrPesl^

11.tn support of his contentions, learned A.P.G. r'elied uPon the cases of Naik Muhammad alias Naika and another y" The $tate (2OO7 SCMR 1639) and Muhamrnad Ehsan v- fhe State (200(r SCNIR 1Bs7).

12.I have Considered the argum.ents of leartlcd (.ror-r.tlsel, l,elrrsr:c'l tlte record and the case law cited by them at the bar".

13.It is worth rnentioning at this stage that the defense d.oes not ,l seem to have disputed tl're rough time of the irlcidenl, ltre l]lace o[ incident, and the cause ol death of the deceasecl (Mn Pasltttrall) llanlclY by hanging. The issue before me therelore appears lrr lrc rryhellrer based on the evidence produced at trial the l,rrosecr-ttiolr Itas Lrectl aLrle to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it viras l-he aplrcllanl wbo murdered the deceased by hanging her or u,hethel- she took her own life by hanging herself.

t

'1 9z

14.PW Arbelo was the only eye witness who gave evidenr:e lbr the prosecution. The cleceased was his liece and [e stat-e<l l]ra( lre weut l-t't the house of the appellant and saw him maltrea.ting l.tre cte<:easerl arlcl hanging her with a pink colour cloth in the gat-cler rrl (ltc nt)Pellarrts house and she died. It was'morning time and he knew the appellanL as they were neighbors and workecl together at the Lrrict< kihr. His evidence has largely been corroborated by P\Ai Nazeer wllo was the

Y

complainant and father of lhe deceased ancl PW Shabrr- r,vt.t<.r was th.e brother of the eye witness neither of whom are eyc rvitrtesse s arlcl botlr of whom were informed about the incident by ['\tr/ Ar'trclo. Arlrrritl-cclly this evidence is hearsay but it is still o[ sotnc corrrttrot-a,l irre vrlltre under the circumstances especially as PW Nazeer lodgect t-he Irlli and gave similar evidence at trial. PW Arbelo's eviclen,:e is alsLr corroborated by the medical report and the eviclr:trce o[ l'w [)r.[.eela Pardeep. Although the corroboration of the nredica.l eviclctrr:e Lrased otr the partiCUlar faCtS and circumstances ol ltris case .rccrlr$ itr ltrv vierry to be of lesser value than would normally be t-he case as il aplreat's lo be the admitted position that the deceased died. th[otrgh ]rarrgitrg.

15.It is quite possible to convict all accused based orl tlle evidence of a sole eye witness provided that the eye-witness rrccount is L unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring clra.racter arrtl is corroborated by medical evidence as was l-relcl l-ry l-lre SrtllLcltrc court in the case of Muhammad Ehsan v" 'fhe $tate (!.loot; li(-:M[t 1857) provided that there are no otller circurnstatrces r,vlti,-:lr cr-rttlcl be fatal to the prosecution case or cause a doubl iu a pruclent rnind as to the guilt of the appellant.

16.The question is therefore whether I tincl the evid.cnce o[ PW Arbelo to be confidence inspiring. In nty view I do not f itrrl lr,is errirtelrce to be conficlence inspiring.'Ihis is for a ntu.llbet'of tcast'rts, urlrit:lr I set out below, when read as a whole lead nre to doubt the evidence of PW Arbelo:

L.

(") I Ie was the niece of the deceasecl r;.ncl as sucl:r was c10se1.y relatecl to her and woulcl not r'vatt1. het deat.l-r to be classified as suicide.

(b)Adrnittedly there seems to have been a c|rarrcl Lrel.r,veerL ttrc appellant and the deceasecl during trreakfast at l.he lrri.cl< t<itn and the appellant and tlte deceased wertl horne aloug with the appeliant's father. Howevel., PW Albelo I'lren says that "l-re hearcl comrrrotion" ancl that is r'vhv lre werrt 1cr llre appellaltt's house. lt has corlle (rn lccot'rl [lr;'rl. the appellar1ts house was at pillitnt.trtr 4lili l'eet llrirrr ll.re ^ - ri\

Y'/

I

't q3

noisy brick kiln and potentially a maxinrt-ttrr o[ J alnd | 12, KM's away (PW Nazeer) ar:rcl as sr.rcl r I t.lo rrol. Ijrrrl il believable that PW Arbelo heatrl arly corrlrltotiorr whit:lr caused him to go to the lrouse ol l,tre a.tr1rellant. Furthermore, he is r-rot corrobol-a l-ecl lrlr lr irr I'r'trlller l)\A/ Shabir r'vho in his evidence cloes trol sa.lr l.ltal lrt: l1c4t'l :rtt1' commoLion and that he sent PW Ar.belo lrr lhe lrouse lor tttrexplained reasons.

(c)Furthermore, PW Shabir states thaL his Lrro rer went to the brick kiln and returned after atronl, lr rrrirlrrl.c:r. '['lris r,loes not seem possible bearing in nrincl tLrc clistarlc;t: [ionr ttte brick kiln to the house, time sltettl, a[. I,lre llousc rvitnessiug the rnal treatmbnt and hanging o[ l-Le cle,.:eascrJ arrd l-hett the tirne taken to return to the Lrrick. l<ilrr.

(d)Most importantly, the 30 year old rnale PW At trclcr rxrho vrrits related to the deceased did r-rot intervetre lo sl.oll l.he appellant from hanging his niece' Ar;r..:r-rrditrg l.o [ritrt he watched the appellant mal treat lret' arttl tltetr h'rrtg ltet' ancl did not raise a finger to help her. let:1l(rrle '.:ttlltc lr-r ltel rescue despite being 10 years oltlcr. llra-tr llte altpcll;rtrl' atrrl the appellant not using a weapoll o[ arry st-rtl. agairrst llle deceascd. In my view this does rri,r1- alrpeal l.., reasr-)tr arr(l seems to be completely rtt-rnal_rrr-al ct,rr,l r. l r)n llrc lr:-rt I .r{ PW Arbelo in respect of u,hat Jte r,r'as r'vilttt:ssitrF:' lr:lppe rring to his niece. In this respect reliarrrce is place<1 []ll Muhammad Asif v. The State (2{Jl7li C M lr'lilt') r'vhich founcl as under in respect of suclr irrcirje nl.s 41 l:'2t|rr's '/ artcl L "Para7.........'lhis lady was r'rger1 r'tlrrrt.tl :)()/5 l yeat-'j, while her husband was 70 years of ag-e arrr.l v"ltetr llrc Lurtr elrc- witnesse s not producecl at thr: tr i:rl lt:rtrtel-tr lllihlr:rr ;ttt'l Tajarnrlal, r,t'e re close friepds ol tlre t-le r':c:r:r<:tl lltctt vylr\r :llr' being an agecl lady ancl her I'rusbar-rd, rvlro rn,:,t:; erl llrc atli,irtt,letl age of l-ris life followed thcm. II tlrey rvct'c:rl.)I)r(lherrtiittg something abnormal, tl-rey rvoulcl lr:tve col I ve rric:r r I Itr tnlr I l lre above two friends of the deceasec-l I,l rat Lreirrg lntc rl:,rt.L rrit{l tl tirne, it was uot aclvisable tcl take llrc cl<''' rl;'l:rcr I t't.ll'ri11r' l\s convincing and plausible reason. hns lreerr atlvalte<-'tl lts l.r> why they bottr followed the decensed and his twrr frierrds and what was the object behi[d il:" Thc t:onrl.rret {)f bol'h these alleged eye-witnesses rrrns r:(,rrlr(cl. I() tr.}rltriitr lrrrrlr:rrt behaviour and hahit in the giv. eu. c il.crtttlsl.rttt{:e ri .lrr.l irr l l1<-' absence of plausible explarratiou, tlo pnrclenl nrind urorrltl believe such fantastic story which aPpeafs to bc the lurrtrl- Art of the local police because in a night ()ccul'rcnce of llris L natur:e, remaining un-witnesserl, the ;rolice irlrprurlen'tly indulgesinsuchliketacticstorlri.slen<ll|rcr:<llrfl-rll-law and justice. (bold added)

10.V/e fail to understand that in the prese,rce of the (.wo close friends accompanying the deceasecl an<l patents' hr'rw such tragetly with a sou coulrl hapPcn rvil:horrh intervention o ccrlnc l'(r t''ss<:tre of ^lty their part to the \r'

1/4 Ll

deceased when they were not far aruay as showtr in the sit<-' plan." (bold added)

17.Having not found the evidence o[ the eye wituess ['W Arbelo !.<.r be confidence inspiring or unimpeash6l.rle a.trcl ttr. lact lrighlv ,ltirrl:rl.lirl this in my view puts the corroborative evidence of PW Nazeet wlto vvas the complainant and father of the deceased and PW Shabir who rvas the brother of the eye witness regarding whettrer lhe appellant murdered the deceased in doubt since their evidcrrce is bascd ott tlte hearsay as narrated to them by PW Arbelo tl-re allegcd e-ye wil.ttesrs atlcl if he is disbelieved on this aspect hor,v t:an tlre PW Na7-cel. arrr.l i-lttalrir provide auy corroborative value in this respect as ttreir evirletrr:e is based on what PW Arbelo told them which is being r,lisbeliever,l itr respect of the crucial issue of the appellaut rnurclerirl g l.[rc rlecelsecl.

18.In fact once PW Arbelo's eyewitness eviclettce is rctrtovcr-l l-ltc-te is no evidence that the appellant and the cteceasect evet rvelrl lrar--l- tcr their house or if they did whether after a cp.ralrel t-he n;rpcllrrtrl n;4;ritr left tlee house while the deceased was still alive .

i9. If PW Arbelo is to be believed according to his eviderrce the appellant, the deceased and the father ol'the appellant all wepl lrolre together however the prosecution did not cite Lhe appellat:tl-'s fatltct asr a witness to prove this point or even suggesL Lrirtt as a (iorlrl r'viLtless' Furthermore, when PW Arbelo allegeclly rcached l-lte lurr ts,: ltc r.locs rto( mention seeing the father of the appellant.

20.It is true that PW Arbello appears to have l1o a.ppal'etll. t'caritrtt lct lie and lalsely implicate the appellant aPart frotn pcr]raps s:,tvirtP- lrir; family the shame and dishonor of one of their rela.tives rxrrnrnittitrg suicide or perhaps as mentioned by the appellant irr his [i.l'i.l ',] Staternent lor denying his sister's hand t-o a relative of lris lhrrrily. II'' appears even to a ceftain extellt to be a chance wittless as a prart front him allegedly hearing a cotnmotion he l-rad no reasoll to go L1l l.ttc trorne I of the appellant.

21.With regard to the appellant's motive to tttttt'cler his wile tlris irt my view seems extrernely weak. Admittedly it secttrli Itrat (rireI/ quarreled during break[ast tirne and left for home togetltet"l.'ul. rttr threats from the appellant to the deceased duriug this qtta.l:r'el lravc come in evidence. According to the complainant who was the lhttter- o[ the deceased at lto tirne did the deceasecl corntrllairr to ltiru alxrr.tl tltc appellant. He heard that there existed ill will l-retrveetr l-l tctrt li tttotrtlrs )1i,

l Lts

earlier based on inforrilat.!?1 :!-Giir rln€ sa.[]il) l.ror,v9v61 he was rrot t:allr:cl to give eviclcnce. l,ikerc l= Fari. {rtreio rrr iris evidetrr--c in t:l.rrel, r"ulq,-, v1r43 the allegecl e1'erri t-ness. sa,r-s that prir-lr' to tl.re incir,lerrt llrere ruas r rr-, ill will bettveerl thr appf lla-nt. the deceal:ed atrr,l her irr letvs lrr,urer,..r rrr his crr-rss eranrrnaticn he contradicts himself by sayilg ttrat pr.ior r,o the incident the relationship between the cleceasecl ancl the appellaut $'as not goocl as the deceased complainecl to him l-hal t-he a.pPellarrt

Y

used to beat her. However he did nol- tell this l-tr arryo,tc arrcl he i:r rrol corroborated in this respect by any other witnr:ss. 11. was:rllv,r put, t,r PW Sabair which he denied that 3 days priol t-o l-lte ilrr:irlcnl llr;,r.1 tlrc dcceasecl asked the appellant to allow' .her to go to the ttr.rr,lse r,r[ lret. parents whic}r the appellant clicl nol allow' although this ir; statecl t.o l.rt: the position by PW Nazeer.

22.Such evidence in my vierv cuts both wrlys. (.)rr tlre orre lralrrl il could suggest that the appellant and tlre cleceasecl ha<J 611 r.1yrlra1;p-y tnarriage and jt was on this accourrt lirllowirrg lri:r r;r rnlrcl llr;rt ll-rrr appellrrnt rna.ltreatccl and hung hel-or.it cotrlcl be iJ'ttris cvitlcn.,.e is t_t, be believed (ol'wl-rich there appears to be very little) t-lral. Ihe cleceaiecl was so tniserable in her marriage that she r:onlrnitlcd suir:itJe. Irr rrry vievv thc cvidetrce for such nlotive orr lhe palt of lrotl.r lh,::rlrlrollarrl tnltrdering the cleccased on account of tlrcil' trnha.p;ry lrrarrier.ge arrcl I hc deceased tal<ing her own life on accounl. of ttre rrrrhapyry 1rr;rrr i:rr,.r' seelns extrenrely weal<. This is lnore so in respect ol lhe: alrprllarrl- as no nitness has given any crriderrce that he ever-threal.crrecl tlr<: dec:easecl or her tile in the past or 1;ersonally witrr.essecl t tre apl:cllal r t maltreating or beating the deceased prior to thc irrci<,lent.

23.'lhe rnedical report in my vicw is also sigrrifir:aul irr llrat il.,'pir]c:r that dcath rvars caused by hanging which is suicitlel in rrel.rrr:c.

24.Another aspcct to be cor-rsidcreci is tha1. if the eye r,vitrress t)W t.l Arbelo witnessecl the appellant mal trcating the dcceascrl bef,:rre hr: l'rung her and that he had beaten her irr the past Plesulnahl); llrer',,.

L

ought to have been fresh bruises on her body. l,iherrrisc iI thc;-rgr;r,:ilarrt took olf the deceased's du1:erl-a ancJ rrsctl iL to harrg ber over ltle r-,;ircicr. it would trarre been experrtecl that t.-he dccearscr-l r,v,-rt.il(l lti-rvr: t'crril:lrr, I and u,or:k1 lta'r,e had fresh bruiscs on 1*orrre '1tal'ts ol lrer' l-rorhi. I'l rr. medical reporl. however clocs rrot lcvr,-al any sur:h Ir-cslr or ol.l injuries/bruises or that a,n1, receut acLs of'violent:e lri.rd l.,eerr r:rrlli,:rl out against thc deceased. Elven hr:t hyoitl bouc itr Lret ne,:l< is itrlar;l. ,v

1qk

This in my view again tends to undermine the pt'oset--ul.totts case against the appellant that he mal treated the deceasect and lJretr hung her.

25.Furthermore if the appellant knew that [)W Ar:bekr ltrrrl rvitrter,scrl him beating and hanging his wife with the pinh cloth why <lic-[ he not destroy or hide this pink cloth? Instead it was left behind in tbe trouse -r to be found. IL also seems strange that he ltlln.g his wifc itr tllc presence of PW Arbelo who had told hi6 to st<rp alrd <licl llol crrctr threaten PW Arbelo to keep quiet about the incitj.en[ or else l're u,ortlrl fix him as well. This is because if tW Arbelr: is tellirrg lJrc lnrllr I,l rr' appellant must have known that PW Arbelo woul<-l alert lris olhcr relatives and give evidence against him' It is also in nty rrier'rr r)f srtrle relevance that despite knowing that PW Arbelo |1arl seert hitrl nrr-trdcr' his wife the appellant made no effort to hide l.he clecea-secl's lrctly, l'trttt it or evep flee the area himself. In rny view if the appellarrt t.litl irr fact nrurder his wife the above conduct would nol- seetrr l. a1',-"-^' l(1 llre mind of a reasonable man.

26.With regard to other aspects of the case all the PW's itt one wa.y or another apart from the Dr. and the IO seetrr kr Lre rela.Letl/interestecl witnesses, no independent mushirs were called cleslril-e tlterrr l,,cirrg available, there also appears to be a uur:rber- of prtrccdr-rr-a.l irregularities in Mashirnama's not being signed ot' vr.il-tt esse r,l ir.trt.l st.rttrc contradictions in the evidence of the PW's and a delay ilr lilitrg thc Fllt.

27 . If these other aspects were taken alone or evell together I ,;rr.rltlcl not uecessarily consider them to be fatal l-o Lh.e pt'osecr-rl.iotrls (',rlrc however when they are added to the evidence o[ L)W At'trelo llre orrly eye witness who I do not consider for the [easorls explaitretl a[gve either to be a trustrvorthy, reliable or conliclcrtce in:rl.rilirtg rvilitr:r:r J attt of the view that there is doubt in ttre prosecutior.l case l.hat l.he appellant murdered the deceased as opposecl to ttre r-let:e arrr,:<l -i. committing suicide. In fact if PW Arbelo's evideuce is cliscoutll.ed tlrele would be hardly any evidence whatsoever Lo lrtove tlral. ilrc rrlrl.rellatrl. had murdered the deceased by hanging her.

28.It is a well settled principle o[ crirnir-ral la.w l-hal. il. is l'oI llrc prosecution to prove its case agair-rst the accused [eyotr.d al shaclow of a doubt and if there is any doubt in the prtlsecutiott's case l.he betlelit of such doubt, as set out in the case of Tariq Per-vez l,.- Tho State (1995 SCMR 1345) must go to the appellant as of r:ight, as opposer-l tcr 1rt,

1l

concession. However in considering thiS aspecl. r,rl' l.he t:a,se I :tttr plso guided by the case of Faheem Ahmed Farooqui v state (il(l()ll s'-Mri 1572) where it was held as ullder atP.l!i76 at Irara l-) ,'lt needs no reiteratiOn that for- tlrc llllr'liosc ol riivitrrl lrr;16{;1 of doUbt to an accused person, more ttlall olre inlit'trritf is rtol required, a single infirmity creating reasonable doulrt irr the mind of a reasonable and prudent mind regarding lhc truth of the charge makes the whole case doutrtfrrl- NIe r.ch' because the burder-r is on the accusecl t() ptove [tis itttr,,,,'r'tt,-" it does not absolve the prosecution fro[r il-s cluty l-o ptove its case against the accused beyond atry slraclorn' ol ,lottl,rl "(lxrlrl added)

29.In the recent supreme Court case of l{ashim Qasim v stat'e (Criminal Appeals No.115 and 116 of 2OI3) clated 1'2rtt A?ril 2ot'/ the Hor-r'ble supreme court in respect of the benefit of cloulrt lre lrl as under atPara20:

"Dven a sir-rgle doubt, if founcl rea.sonable, rvot-tlr l etrtitlc tlrc accused pet'son to acq uittal ancl trot a cottrllitl a l.i"l r .'l :crrct':rl doubts is bedrocl< prin ciple of justice- lielet-err(lc rrray lr": rttarJc to the case o[ Riaz Masih @ Mitho o v. '['he Statc (Nl,Il I r)()F}

CrL.6941."

30.In this case for the reasons discussed above prinrarily lleirrg tl.re non confidence inspiring evidence of the sole eye rvittrers f-rW Arhclo L who seems to be the cornerstone of the prosecr-ttiort case allcl l-he lack of any other independent corroborative evide0cc t-trat il ruas the appellant who murderecl the deceased I atn o[ ttte vier'v l.[6t wtrclr llle evidence is read and considered in totality there wottld l--re a reasortabie doubt in a reasonable and prudent person's nrind that l.he rrppellarrt was not guilty of the offense for which he l-ras heetr ccrnvicter.l l.rv lllc trial court.

31.Thus, for the reasons discussed above I linc] llrat lhe prosecution has failed to prove its case beyoncl a. rcasonalrle cft'ntl-'l- against the appellant and that the appellarrt is entit.led to l-tre benelit ol the doubt and as such set aside the impugned judgrnerrt arrd trp trolrl .l. this appeal.

32.As such the appellant is hereby acquitted a.trd tre is c)rclet'etl to Lre immediately released by the concerned -iail authoritics rrtrlcssr lrc is irl custody in respect of some other case'

Hyderabad: 1 ty/ Dated: 2l-O4-2O17 .ltII) (\11)