YASEEN BALUCH S/O MANZOOR BALOUCH (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)

o\t a

IN THE HIGH C OURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Present:

Mr. lustice Mohammad Kaim Khan Agha fustice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain

SPL. CRIMINAL A.T APPEAL NO.3O9 OF201.6

Confirmation Case No.01 of.2077

SPL. CRIMINAL A.T APPEAL NO.31O OF 2076

SPL. CRTMINAL A.T APPEAL NO.31,1 OF 2076

Appellant: Yaseen Balouch son of Manzoor Balouch Through Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, Advocate

Respondent: The State through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Date of Hearing: 03.11..2021.

Date of Announcement: 1"1.1"t.2021

I

I

IUDGMENT

Mohammail Karim Khan Agha, /. Appellant Yaseen Balouch son of Manzoor Balouch was convicted by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No.[II, Karachi in Special Case No. 1-17 of 201,4, FIR N0'459/2013 n/ s 302/324/I65/34PPC r/w section 7 of ATA, L997 andSpecial Case No. 120/2014, FIR No.363/201,3 u/s 23(r) (a) of Sindh Arms Act2013 of PS Maripur Karachi and was sentenced as under:

"Accused Yaseen Baloch s/ o Manzoot Baloch was convicted for offences u/s.7(1) (a) of ATA 1,997 r/w Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to death for causing death of Muzalfat Hussain and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and compensation u/s.544/A CrIC Rs.fOO,OOOT- payable to the legal heirs of deceased Muzalfar Hussain and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo S.L for one year;

Accused Yaseen Baloch sf o Maruoor Baloch was convicted for offences u/s. 7(1.) (a) ATA of 7997 r/w Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to death for causing death of Mst' Shazia Begum w/o Muzaffar Hussain and to Pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and compensation u/s.544/ ACT.PC Rs.100,000/ - payable to the legal heirs of deceased Shazia Begum and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo S.l. for one year;

Page l of 11

Tq\ Accused Yaseen Baloch sf o Manzoot Baloch was convicted for offences u/s.7(1) (a)of ATA 1'997 r/w Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to death for causing death of Abdul Samad s/o Mszaflar Baig and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and compensation u/s.544/A C;.PC Rs.i0b,000/- payable to the legal heirs -of deceased Abdul Samad and in default of payment of fine he Y shall further undergo S.L for one year;

Accused Yaseen Baloch s/o Manzoor Baloch was convicted for offences t/s. 7(1) (a) ATA of 1997 r/w Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to death for causing death of Imran step son of Muzaffar Baig and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and compersation ,a/s.544/A C"r.pC ns'i0b,000/- payable to the legal heirs of deceased Imran and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo S.l. for one Year;

Accused Yaseen Baloch s/o Manzoor Baloch was also convicted for offences u/s. 7(1)(c) of ATA 1997 r/w Section 324/34 PPC for attempt to commii murder of Mst' Muneeza and causing injury and sentenced to undergo 10 years R'I' and to Pay fine of Rs.50000/- and in defauli of payment of fine he shall further undergo S.l. for one Yeari Accused was convicted for offence 302/34 PPC to undergo i*prlro.,rr,".,t for life on each count for causing death- of Mizalar Baig, Shazia, Abdul Samad and Imran and to pay fine and fine of of Rs.50,000/- and compensation of u/s'544/ A Cr'PC Rs.100,000/- payabie tothe legal heirs of deceased and in default one year' of payment of tir-t" t-t" shalt suffer R'I' imprisonment for convicted Accused Yaseen Baloch s/o Manzoor Baloch was also for offences u/s' 23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act,, 2013 and sentenced and in to undergo R.t. for 07 yearsarrd to pay fine of Rs'50000/- aufurtt o? paym".tt of fine he shall further undergo S'I' for one year;

and the AIl the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently this court' death sentences were subject to confirmation by Accused was also extended benefit of Section 382'8 Cr 'P 'C The brief facts of the case as Per Prosecution are that on 29'12'2073 at

about0810am ASI Sedar Khattak was duty officer at P.S. MariPur Someone in-formed him that a few dead bodies were lying at Gabo Pat near

Tool Tax Hawksbey Road Maripur' He made entry in daily Roznamcha and

wenttotheplacewherehecametoknowthatdeadbodieswereshiftedto found the dead bodies Civil Hospital. He then reached at Civit Hospital and { Imran' He wrote a letter of Muzaffar Baig, Shazia Begum, Abdul Samad and to MLO Civil Hospital and on identification of relatives of deceased Shujat

and Naheed Begum inspected the dead bodies and prepared Inquest the dead bodies were Reports and after completion of their postmortem was also admitted in the hancled over to their legal heirs' One Iniured Muniza

I

Page 2 of 11

tr Emergency Ward Civil Hospital and was shifted to Abbasi Shaheed Hospitai for further treatment. ASI Sedar Khattak then went to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, gave letter to MLO for recording her statement which was not allowed. He then came back to P.s. Maripur where three children ) namely Iqra aged 13f 14years,Kiran aged 11/12yeats and Sumeer aged about Zf3years were present whom he delivered to their uncle Mushtaque' He also recorded statement u/s'154 Cr.P.C. of Mushtaque who stated that the deceased Muzalfar Baig was his brother-inJaw and on 29.12.2013 he was present at his house when at 8.L5 am, he received information on phone that his brother-in-law Muzaf far Baig and his family members have been expired after firing and their dead bodies have been taken to Civil

Hospital. He reached at hospital and found the dead bodies of his brother-in- lawMuzaffar Baig, sister Shazia Begum, nephews Abdul Samad and Imran' His niece Muniza aged about 18 years was also at the hospital who

was conscious and she told him that at about 02.00 am the family members

were taking meal when (1) Abdul Rasheed alias Chief (2) Mehar Bux s/o

(4)Adil Rasool Bux, (3) Nazeer Baloch alias Mulla s/o Muhammad Yaqoob' I sf o Zaf.arHussain, (5) Yasin Baloch s/o Manzoor Baloch and 3/4 unknown weaPons and on persons arrived and started beating them' Alt were holding the point of weapons they aiso committed raPe uPon her and her mother Sarak near Mst. Shazia. Therealter they took the family members at Thandi Gabo Pat and made fires upon Muzaffar Baig, Shazia Begum' Abdul Samad aged 2lz years and Imran. She along with her younger brother Sumeer and the culprits and sisters Iqrar aged L3 years and Kiran aged 12 years also made fires upon them and one bullet hit to her belly through and Hospital by Chippa through and she fell down and was taken to Civil Ambulance.ThecomplainantthereaftelwenttoAbbasiShaheedHospital the complainant the taking Muniza and got her admitted there' Accotding to said Muniza was Pregnantand on receipt of bullet her pregnancy miscarried' His niece was unconscious after operation' On the basis of

S 154

Cr.P.C. statement of Mushtaque FIR No'459/2013 was registered at P'S' on 30'12'2013 by SIP Maripur, Karachi' Accused Yasin Baloch was arrested .t inJormation that the Ismail who during patrolling with his staff' received at Baba Mazhar Budin nominated accused of crime No'459/2013 were present and found the accused' Road Maripur' He along with his staff reached there to ki1l them' However' two who on seeing police party made fires with intent Baloch slo Manzoor Baloch persons namely Adil s/o Zafar Hussain and Yasin

Page 3 of 11

ffi ?ot were apprehended. From the hand of accused Adil one pistol 30 bore loaded magazine, 04 bullets and one in chamber and one Hand-Grenade recovered from his pocket and one mobile phone Nokia and cash Rs.1900/- recovered. From the accused Yasin one 30 bore pistol loaded magazine 03 , bullets and one in chamber recovered and from his pocket of shirt Rs.700/- also recovered. They disclosed the names of absconding accused as Abdul Rasheed, Mehar Bux, Mulla Nazeer and Mullah Zubait. He called BDU team, prepared mashirnama of arrest and recovery and registered FIRs beingCrime No.460/2013 ro 463/2013 and then handed over the said four FIRs to SIO Ajmal. On2L.4.2074 the accused wajid Ali was arrested in another case of P.S. Maripur and also re-arrested in this case.

3.On completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet before the trial court. The joint charge was framed which was read over to the accused' on26.03.2015 by the learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-VII Karachi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial'

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 PWs and exhibited various items and other documents. The appellant recorded his statement under Section 342 C:.P.C. whereby he claimed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant Mustaque. In support of his defence case the appellant gave evidence on oath whereby he claimed that he had been falsely implicated in this case by Mustaque due to enmity who was unit in charge of MQM and who was residing in the same area and that on 29.12.2013 (the day of the incident) he along with his father

was picked up by the police from his house and falsely implicated in this case'

He called 2DrN,sin support of his defence case that he was taken from his house by the police. He denied his involvement in any encounter with the

policeandStatedthatthepistolwhichwasaltegedlyrecoveredfromhimhad been foisted on him bY the Police.

5.After appreciating the evidence on record' the learned trial court the convicted and sentenced the appellant as set out earlier and hence' appellant has filed this appeal against his convictions and sentences' 6,Thefactsofthecaseaswellasevidenceproducedbeforethetrialcourt trial court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment passed by the Page 4 of 11

jo a)

Z;"

and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the entire prosecution case revolves around the evidence of eye witness PW 6 Mst i Muniza which could not be safely relied upon as she had given her evidence at the instance of her relative complainant Mushtaque who had enmity with the appellant, that her evidence that she had been raped had been disbelieved by the trial court and as such her whole evidence should be discarded; that even if she had been fired upon it could not be proven that the appellant had fired on her or any of her family members; that there were material contradictions in her evidence and the medical evidence and as such her evidence should be disbeiieved on this count as well as it did not ring true; that the pistol was foisted on him and even otherwise he had been acquitted in the encounter case; that there was no other evidence against the appellant and

as such the appellant should be acquitted of all charges by extending him the

benefit of the doubt.

on

8.On the other hand leamed Additional Prosecutor General appearing behalf of the state and also representing the complainant has fully supported the impugned judgment. In particular he has emphasized that the appellant can be convicted based on the evidence of a sole eye witness provided that it is case and as reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring as it was in this and the such the appeals should be dismissed in respect of the appellant heinous nature conJirmation reference answered in the affirmative due to the reliance on the of the offences. In support of his contentions he has placed 1,99), Iiaz Ahmad v cases of Muhammad Mansha v The state (2001 scMR

(2006 SCMR 1857)'

The State (2009 SCMR 99), Muhammad Ehsan v The State Allah Ditta v The State (PLD 2002 SC 52), Farooq Khan v The State (2008

SCMR 1507)'

SCMR 977) and'Zia Ullah and another v The State (2021 g. for the Parties' We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel out by the appellant's gone through the entire evidence which has been read and have

counsel, the impugned judgment with their able assistance bar' considered the relevant law including that cited at the case of

10.Before proceeding further we are fully conscious that this was a aparticularlyseriousandheinousnatulewhichconcerns4brutalmurders of two women however as one of whom was a young child and the gang rape

J

Page 5 of 11

ffi 9-t Judges we cannot be swayed by the brutality of the offences which have been

committed and are obligated to decide these appeals based on the strength of the evidence before us and our reappraisal of such evidence' i 11. At the outset based on our reassessment of the evidence and in particular the medical evidence and the medical rePorts we find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on29.12.2013 at about 02 am Muzafar Baig,shazia Begum, Imran and Abdul sarmad (collectively referred to as the deceased) were all murdered by firearm at Thandi Sarak Gabo Pat.

1.2. The questions before us are essentially (a) who murdered the deceased and injured Ms Muniza at the time., date and place as per the charge and (b)

whether an unlicensed firearm was recovered from the appellant'

13.It is significant to note that vide the impugned judgment the appellant (gang rape)' was acquitted for offences u/s5.353/324/34PPC and3'376 PPC have reached The State has not filed an appeal against such acquittals which finality. The appellants co-accused Wajid was acquitted of the entire charge' 1,4. It is also significant that originally the appellant was to face trial with co-accused Adit and Abdul Basit for the same offences however since the from that of the aforesaid co-accused were minors their trial was seParated Adil and Abdul appellant and based on the same evidence the co-accused judgment dated Basit have been acquitted of all charges by this court vide 10.11..2021in Spl. Criminal AT Appeal No'104 ot2021" 15.Wefindthatwhenweexaminetheevidenceinaholisticmannerbased NOT proved on our reassessment of such evidence the prosecution has the deceased keeping beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered and called defence in view the fact the accused gave evidence under oath witnesses to show that he was arrested from his home by the police and then him u/s'23 (1) (i) of the falsely implicated in this case and the case against -d SAA 2013 for the following reasonsi

evidence of the sole eye

(a)The prosecution case rev olves around the eye wirness who was witness PW 6 Muniza. Yes, she was an injured allegedly raPed but this does not mean that her evidence is has to be analyzed in terms automaticallY to be believed' Her evidence

I

Page 6 of 1l

d9r?1 of its reliability and whether it is conJidence inspiring and whether there is any corroboration.

(b)When taken together the following findings tend to cast doubt on her evidence and the prosecution case;

(i)According to her evidence the accused barged into her house f at2aminthemorningwhenallthedeceasedandherselfwere apparently awake eating dinner which to us seems some what oaatosaythe]east.Atsuchalatehourmostfamilieshaveeaten and have long since gone to bed.

(ii)Apparently she narrated the incident to the complainant iat ttaqu" whiist she was being treated in hospital yet according to the evidence of PW 3 Sedai Khan when he went to take the statementofMsMunizainhospitaltheDr.in{ormedhimthat she was unable to make a statement and stopped him from doing so which tends to caste doubt on the content of the later FIR lodged bY the comPlainant'

(iii)At 1800hrs PW 3 Sedar Khan recorded the statement of the complainant Mustaque at his home who gave a very detailed statement of the incident i e rape and murder which had allegedly been given to him earlier by Ms Muniza at the hospital which even gave the names o[ all tire accused and co-accused' Such detail in the FIR based on the hearsay evidence of an injured women who was not well enough to record her gave statement before the police at about the same time as she the information to the complainant is also some what dubious'

(iv)According to Ms Muniza's evidence aJter the incident she and managed to reach PS Maripur with her younger brother no police sister' However no FIR was lodged at that time and police entry to that ef{ect has been produced' It seems that the women.and called a chippa ambulance for this young injured sent her off unaccompanied to hospital' No member of Chippa on duty was examined as a PW and PW 3 Sedar Khan who was idea that Ms Muniza at 8am that morning at t'S Maripur had no where had reached the PSin the morning' He was only in{ormed the dead bodies were lying anJ when he reached that place This is found that they hacl ul.tudliUu"r' taken to civil Hospital' also very ,,r.piirir,g condt'ct on the part of Ms Muniza and the police and do"s tt"ot particularly- aicord with natural human of the conduct based on the particular facts and circumstances case Ms Shazia in

(v)With regard to her rape and that of her mother her evidence she states that;

"Yasin Baloch (appeltant) and Adil took me in a room and they Rashid'. Mehr Bu,x committed Z'innn'on me forcibly'Thereafter committed Zina witlt took my motlrcr Shazta'in a room and -, lwr".

has already been acquitted The appellant vide the impugned j"tq*"."t her evidence with of the rape of Ms Muniz, ul"a f"it Shazia as such by the trial court regard to this aspect of the case has been disbelieved in respect of this offence and no appeal against the appellants acquittal has been made by til ;#; and as such his acquittal -tu: :u:th:d of the rape of Ms Muniza finality. The trial .or',* ui'o acquitted Adil I Page 7 oI 11

A ?a1 vide judgment dated Judgment dated 28.03.2020- passed by ATC- Court III Karachi. Such findings put Ler entire evidence in doubt based on the case of Notice to Police Constable Khizer Hayat (PLD SC 52n which endorsed the applicability of the principl e of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" in Pakistani law in the following terms at P.562Para2l;

'21. We may obxrue in tle end tlat a iudicial system which permit.s / deliberate falietnod is doomed to fail and a socicty which tolerates .it .k justtce is the destined ti self-destttrct. Truth is the foundation of iustice nnd thus' any cotn7romise.on truth, core and bediock of a ciailized society and, amountstoacompromiseonasocie-ty'sfutureasajust'fairandciailized society. Our judicial system hns suffered'a lot as a consequene of the abotte

mentioned peimissible dez,iation froi the truth and it is about time that such a colossalT rong finy be recttfe'd in all earnestness' Thercfore' in light of the discussion made aboae, we declare that the rule falsus in -uno' falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral pa* 9/ oyr 'iurispruilence in criminal cases inil the same shall be gloefl -efrect to'. joiliwed anil applied by atl the courts in.the country in its letter.and 'spirit, lt is also' directed ihnt a ruitness found by. a court ta hmte resorted to a icliberate falxhood 'be on a matzrial ispect ilwll' without any latitude' inttaiably proceeded agninst for committing periury '" @old added)

(vi)Significantly when PW 3 Sedar Khan went to the house (warda"t for the iape) he stated in his evidence that; "We had seen the house ftom the inside but could not find of anything left by the culpits rohich can be treated as proof their Presence in the house" '

This evidence also tends to caste doubt on the prosecution case-as this according to the prosecution about 10 heavily armed men entered rather small house, beat up and tied up the occupants of whom there then forcibly were about 8, gangraped #o of the female occuPants and been in an took them all from the house yet the house appears to have taking undisturbed state which would not suPPort such an incident eye witness place in the house. It is also significant that Ms Muniza's of 6 dayl 5.161 Cr.PC statement *u, *uI" alter a considerable delay in line with which gave her a chance to improve it,or ensure that it was her hearsay' the ver! detailed FIR lodged by her father based on (vii) Ms Iqra who was the daughter oJ one of the deceased and also in Kiran who was the son of one of th" d"t"uted who were the house at the time of the beatings and rape and were .also of the taken to the plot where they also witnessed the shooting deceased ancl were saved by PW Ms Muniza were about 13 to 14 would and 12 to 13 years of age respectively at that time and at have been about 15 to 16 and t+ to ts years of age respectively at the time of trial but did not give evidence for the prosecution would have trial. We find this to be ratf,er surprising as both been mature enough to suPPort the evidence of Ms Muniza and chose to omit as such it appears ihut the piosecution deliberately some of the best evidence without any reason which tends to .t undermine the Prosecution case' rape the

(viii)According to the evidence of Ms Muniza after the occupants of tl-re house were forcibly removed by the culprits was raped and were taken to a vacant plot where her mother again. She does not *ho raped her mother at the plot' 'uy th; accused all then ' made According to her ""id""t" indiscrimlnate fire on them which lead to the death of the

PageSofll

o6

deceased and her injury. She does not name a single accused who was present at the vacant plot and opened fire on the deceased u.d hut. According to her own evidence thete was no light available at the plot it the time of the shooting of the diceased. The question therefore arises whether it can be safely found that all of the about 10 Persons who entered her house I heavily armed were present at the time when the deceased were shot. (ine or two might halre left the grouP' She does not identify the appellant as biing present by name at the time of the shooti-ng. Furthermore, it n". evidence she states that the culprits"made indiscriminate fire and that the distance of fire was neither from close lange or from a distance' Such evidence is not supported by the medical evidence' Three of the 4 deceased received fire shot injuries to the head where blackening and charring was found by PW 5 Dr'Ahmed who was the tu'tLO *ho .u.r[d out 3 of the 4 post mortems of the deceased which indicates that 3 out of the 4 deceased were shot from a very close range. One deceased received one fire shot to the head, 2 of the deceised received two fire shots each and one of the deceased received three fire shots when considered this was against the close distance of the shots also indicates that n"ot indiscriminate firing but execution style killings which contradicts the evidence Jf PW Munira on this aspect of the case.

The fact that the accused ieft the scene as they all ran out of ammunition and then returned also does not appeal to reason logic or common sense as how could about 10 heavily armed mIn all run out of ammunition when shooting 4 people with this about only 12 bullets from relatively close range? Again armed men and suggests tirat there were fewer than L0 heavily ,rli.n some of the 10 men from the house might not have been if it present at time when the deceased were shot' Furthermore' was dark how it was possibie for Ms Muniza to recognize accusedAbdulBasit*ho*u'accordingtoherallegedlyshe accidentally shot by the other accused? Interestingly that mentions no other accused by name which tends to indicate defence at trial she was trying to negate accused Abdul Basit's of the Lyari that he was not Present as he- was shot by members at the time of the Gang war and wis receiving hospital t':1h""1,t incid"ent. It is also significait and suspicious that despite a long and detailed narration of the incident given to the complainant neglected to Mustaque whilst she was wounded in hospital she being shot' state this aspect of the case i'e regarding Abdul Basit when

(ix)It may be that Ms Muniza was present and was shot thedeceasedweremurderedbutshehasnotproducedany medical evidence of her gunshot injury and we find that she at the time cannot say for certain that"the appellant was Present not present oi the shooting who has given evidence that he was of his case' -( duringthe inci"dent and pioduced DW's in suPPort (x) On the appeliant's arrest after an encounter with the police an has been ,r,tl.u.rrua pistol was recovered from him however he along with acquitted in the encounter case' He was arrested after the encounter who was also acquitted -iito, upp"fiant Adil for carrying in the encounter case and the case under SAA 2013 an unlicensed pistol on the basis that the evidence of the

Page 9 of l1

3e

prosecution witnesses in respect of this asP.Tt of the case had teen disbelieved who are the same PW's in this case as noted by this court in its earlier referred to judgment dated L0'11'2021 in Spl. Criminal AT Appeal No.104 ol 2021" Appellant Afll's acquittal in the case under the SAA 2013 was not appealed by the State and has reached finality and as such we find that we t cannot convict the appellant under the SAA for the reasons mentioned above and-as such he is acquitted of this charge under 5.23(1) (i) of the SAA 2013.

also means that the piace of arrest with resPect (xi) This finding"no* io ,ppetta.,t is in doubt and it cannot be ruled out that he was'arrested Irom his house as per his defence case and the pistol was foisted on him by the police'

(xii)In any event the pistol recovered from him was not sent for wardat u., hSf- report in resPect of the empties recovered at the of the murd"t, ,o ih" recovered pistol story which we have disbelieved cannot link him to the murder scene' (xiii) There was no motive or reason for the appellant to break and into'the house of the deceased and gang raPe two women aim to kill the entire occupants of the house' On the contrary complainant Mustaque nia an enmity with co-accusedAdil the *ni.i gu"u the comptainant a reason to falsely implicate. appellait in this .rr" i.t league with. the police some of whose the has already been d[believed by us when acquitting "iid".r.u which appellant and Adii in the encounter and Arms cases case' castes further doubt on the leliability of the prosecution there is

(xiv)Apart from the evidence of PW eye witness Muniza of the .,o otf,", supportive or corroborative evidence in respect couid link rapes and tire mu.ders against the appellants which there are thim to these offences. Irlfact as we have noted above Muniza's numerous doubts in the evidence of PW eye witness evidenceandwefindthatwecannotrelysalelyrelyon.itto he has been convict the appellant for the offences for which or charged witlhtut some unimpeachable corroborative ,rppl.ti"" evidence which as discussed above there is none' minor co-

(xv)Furthermore, this court has aiready acquitted and )..rrr"a Adil and Abdul Basit of the murder of the deceased appellant in injury to Ms. Muniza who had the same role as the this court and as tti" .r,r.d"., based on the same evidence before unable to such we find that in these circumstances we are and the convict the appellant for the murder of the deceased same based injury to Ms.'Muniza and hereby acquit him of the extended to co- on the benelit of the doubt *itith *us also accusedAdilandAbdulBasitbythiscourtinitsearlierreferredto o12027' pJg*."ia"t. d"10.11.2021, in Spl' Criminal AT Appeal No'104

76.It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution doubt and that must prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable of right as opposed to the benefit of doubt must go to the accused by way case of Tariq PewezYfs' concession. In this respect reliance is placed on the t Page 1O of 1l

oB

The State (1995 SCMR 1345), wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

"It is settled law that it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a single t circumstance, which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."

17.For the reasons discussed above we find numerous doubts in the prosecution case against the appellant and thus by extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant the appellant is acquitted of the charge, the impugned judgment is set aside, his appeals are allowed, the con-firmation reference is answered in the negative and the appellant shall be released from jail unless wanted in any other custodY case'

18 The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms

Ei, l,,lu .\r\/ JU

E

Page 11 of I 1