2018 PLP 173 (YLRN)

MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2015 filed by Mst. Sadaf Abbas against her conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2015 preferred by Muhammad Imran appellant against his conviction and sentence and Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2015 filed by Muhammad Sarwar appellant/complainant for enhancement of the sentence of Mst. Sadaf Abbas and Muhammad Imran convicts from life imprisonment to death sentence. I propose to dispose of all these matters by this single judgment as these have arisen out of the same judgment dated 30.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Piplan, District Mianwali.

2. Mst. Sadaf Abbas and Muhammad Imran appellants were tried in case FIR No. 88/2011 dated 15.05.2011 offences under sections 302/ 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Piplan District Mianwali. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 30.01.2015 has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Under section 302-B, P.P.C., sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded to each appellant, for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Usman (deceased). They both were also ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for four months each. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to them.

3. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Muhammad Sarwar in FIR Exh. PF are that he (complainant) was running a shop of spare parts in Toba Tek Singh City and Muhammad Usman (deceased) was his real son who about three months earlier eloped with Mst. Sadaf Abbas (appellant) and left his house. During the search, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that Muhammad Imran (appellant) had provided accommodation to them in his house situated at Gol Chowk, Piplan, District Mianwali. On 15.05.2011, Muhammad Sarwar complainant along with his son Muhammad Suleman and nephew Muhammad Siddique was going on a car in search of Muhammad Usman (deceased) and when at about 12.30 p.m. they reached near the bridge Nani Wala of Thal canal (within the jurisdiction of Police Station Piplan), they saw that large number of people had gathered there. They stopped and it was told to them that deadbody of a person was floating in the water of the canal and when they came out of the car, they identified that it was the deadbody of Muhammad Usman (deceased). They managed to take the deadbody out of the water with the help of other people. The complainant expressed his strong suspicion against both the appellants that they had murdered Muhammad Usman (deceased) and threw his deadbody in the canal. According to the prosecution story narrated in the FIR Exh. PF, the motive behind the occurrence was that one Iqrar Shah was neighbour of the complainant who was many times insulted by the complainant. Muhammad Imran appellant was brother-in-law of the above mentioned Iqrar Shah. Muhammad Usman deceased and Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant were residing with Muhammad Imran at his house and due to the above mentioned grudge (of insult of Iqrar Shah), the appellants committed the murder of Muhammad Usman deceased.

4. The appellants were arrested in this case by the police and after completion of investigation the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial court. The learned trial court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced eleven witnesses during the trial. Muhammad Sarwar (PW5) is the complainant of this case. He and Muhammad Siddique (PW-6) are the witnesses of the motive part of the prosecution case, whereas, Abdul Aziz (PW7) and Ghulam Muhammad alias Gamaya (PW8) are the eye-witness of the occurrence. Abdul Ghafoor, SI (PW9) is the investigating officer of the case. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Bilal Ayyub Niazi, (PW10). Mst. Zenab Bibi, 638/LC (PW1) is the recovery witness of mobile phone recovered from Mst. Sadaf Abbas deceased. Muhammad Bashir 129/C (PW3) is the recovery witness of motorcycle used by the accused during the occurrence. He is also witness of the recovery of shirt (P2) and mobile (P4) of the deceased from Muhammad Imran (appellant). Muhammad Zubair 1266/C (PW11) is the recovery witness of mobile phone of the appellant, recovered from Muhammad Imran appellant at the time of his arrest. Sher Muhammad 1052/C (PW2) and Muhammad Shafiq draftsman (PW4) are the formal witnesses. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of recovery memo of mobile phone P-2 recovered from the possession of Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant Exh. PA, recovery memo of last worn clothes of the deceased Muhammad Usman Exh. PB, recovery memo of motorcycle Exh. PC, recovery memo of mobile phone of Muhammad Usman deceased Exh. PD, scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Exh. PE, FIR Exh PF, Inquest report Exh. PG, Injury statement of the deceased Exh. PG/1, rough site plan of the place of occurrence Exh. PJ, rough site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone recovered on personal search of Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant Exh. PK, recovery memo of the place of recovery of mobile phone recovered on personal search of Muhammad Imran appellant Exh. PL, rough site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone and shirt of the deceased recovered at the instance of Muhammad Imran appellant Exh. PM, Post mortem report of the deceased Exh. PN, pictorial diagram of the deceased Exh PN/1 and closed the prosecution evidence. The statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them. While answering to a question that 'Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you" the appellants replied as under:-- Muhammad Imran "The complainant party developed an idea that it was 1 who provided shelter to deceased and his wife Mst. Sadaf Abbas after their marriage at Piplan. After the death of Usman deceased, the complainant tried his best to take revenge from Sadaf accused and due to the same, complainant introduced a false motive of illicit relations between me and Sadaf accused. Both the PWs Abdul Aziz and Ghulam Muhammad alias Gamya are stock witnesses. Abdul Aziz is running his business at Fateh Pur and is under the influence of Muhammad Siddique PW who is a big landlord of Fateh Pur. PW Ghulam Muhammad alias Gamay is a history sheeter and a permanent police tout. Both the PWs above said belong to Joeya and Ghayas Mehdi political group of Piplan whereas I belong to Sher Dil Khan Kilia Khel group. Presence of Ghayas Mehdi Khan has been shown even on the place of recovery of deadbody at the time of first visit of I.O. at there. Both the PWs tried their level best to blackmail me and to grab a big amount from me in consideration of resiling from their statements but I was unable to manage their required amount due to which both the witnesses deposed against me ". Sadaf Abbas "Deceased Usman solemnized marriage with me against the wishes of his parents, after the marriage the complainant published an announcement in a local newspaper about desertion of his son, the complainant became inimical with me and in his view the deceased solemnized marriage and left his house on my instigation and motivation. To teach me a lesson and to take revenge the complainant concocted a false story of illicit relation between me and Imran accused and provided stock and false witnesses to the police. PWs Abdul Aziz and Ghulam Muhammad alias Gamaya tried their level best to blackmail me and to grab a big amount from me in consideration of resiling from their statements but I was unable to manage their required amount due to which both the witnesses deposed against me." The appellants opted not to make statements on oath as envisaged under Section 340 (2), Cr.P.C., however, in defence evidence the appellant Muhammad Imran produced proclamation of newspaper Millat Lahore dated 01.02.2011 as Exh. DF. The learned trial court vide its judgments dated 30.01.2015 found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed above.

5. No one is present on behalf of the complainant, despite repeated calls. The name of learned counsel for the complainant is duly reflected in the cause list issued for today but there is no intimation regarding any reason of his absence, therefore, I proceed to decide these cases after hearing learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State, as well as, after perusal of the record.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt; that the name of any eye-witness was not mentioned in the FIR which was lodged merely on the basis of suspicion and guess work; that the alleged eye-witnesses of occurrence namely Abdul Aziz (PW7) and Ghulam Muhammad (PW8) claimed that they had seen the occurrence on 12.05.2011 but they did not report the matter to the police for a period of three days without any plausible explanation, therefore, their evidence is not worthy of reliance; that even otherwise the conduct of the above mentioned eye-witnesses is highly unnatural because they had seen the appellants while committing the offence of murder but they did not try to apprehend the appellants in spite of the fact that both the appellants were empty handed and one of them is a female and the above mentioned witnesses claimed that they had seen the occurrence from a distance of only 15/16 Karams; that there are material weaknesses and inherent defects in the statements of above mentioned eye-witnesses because there were three injuries on the body of the deceased but the eye-witnesses had given no explanation in respect of the aforementioned injuries which shows that in fact the occurrence was unseen and the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence; that the prosecution eye-witnesses admitted that Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant was earlier not known to them but no identification parade of the said appellant was conducted in this case; that the prosecution alleged a specific motive but miserably failed to prove the same; that the complainant made dishonest improvements in his statement in respect of the motive part of the case and he was confronted with his previous statement and the improvements made by him were duly brought on the record; that the other witness namely Muhammad Siddique (PW6) produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged motive has frankly admitted during his cross-examination that he had no personal knowledge about the motive and the same was told to him by the complainant, thus, his statement which is based on hearsay evidence is of no avail to the prosecution; that only a cell mobile phone has been recovered from the possession of Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant which admittedly belonged to the said appellant and as such the aforementioned recovery of mobile phone is inconsequential for the prosecution; that insofar as the recovery of motorcycle from Muhammad Imran appellant is concerned, it was the case of prosecution that Muhammad Imran appellant took the said motorcycle on rent from one Gull Hameed and used the same in occurrence in order to transport the deceased to the place of occurrence but the above said Gul Hameed was never produced in the witness box; that there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from the possession of Muhammad Imran appellant was owned by Muhammad Usman deceased; that Qamiz P-3 of the deceased allegedly recovered from Muhammad Imran appellant was never got identified by Muhammad Sarwar complainant, in order to establish that the said shirt belonged to the deceased; that the alleged recovery of I.D. Card of the deceased was planted against Muhammad Imran appellant and even otherwise it does not appeal to the common sense that as to why Muhammad Imran appellant would keep the I.D. Card of the deceased with him for a period of 15 days after the occurrence because the said I.D. Card was of no use for the above mentioned appellant; that the impugned judgment is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, the same may be set aside and the appellants may be acquitted from the charges.

7. On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor on the grounds that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of any doubt; that Muhammad Usman deceased contracted court marriage with Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant without the consent of his parents, therefore, he left his house and he along with his wife stared to reside at the house of Muhammad Imran appellant but in the meanwhile Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant and Muhammad Imran appellant developed illicit relations inter-se and due to this reason they committed the murder of Muhammad Usman deceased; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants through confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence of eye-witnesses namely Abdul Aziz (PW7) and Ghulam Muhammad (PW8) who had absolutely no enmity with the appellants to falsely depose against them; that the aforementioned eye-witnesses of the prosecution stood the test of lengthy cross-examination but their evidence could not be shaken; that the prosecution has also proved the motive part of its case through reliable and convincing evidence of Muhammad Sarwar complainant (PW5) and Muhammad Siddiq (PW6); that prosecution case against the appellants is further corroborated by the recovery of mobile phone of the deceased P-2, shirt of the deceased P-3 and I.D. Card of the deceased P-4 on the pointation of Muhammad Imran appellant which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh. PD; that post mortem report of the deceased has further supported the prosecution evidence against the appellants; that there is no substance in these appeals, therefore, the same may be dismissed.

8. Arguments heard and record perused.

9. The detail of the prosecution case has already been given in para No. 3 of this judgment, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. It is evident from the perusal of record that no eye-witness was mentioned in the FIR Muhammad Sarwar complainant lodged FIR Exh. PF on the basis of suspicion against both the appellants with the allegation that Muhammad Usman deceased eloped with Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant and they both were staying at the house Muhammad Imran appellant at Piplan, therefore, the complainant expressed his suspicion that both the appellants committed the murder of his son Muhammad Usman deceased because one Iqrar Shah who was neighbor of the complainant was insulted many times by the complainant and as the said Iqrar Shah was brother-in-law of Muhammad Imran appellant, therefore, due to this grudge the appellants committed the occurrence. After registration of the FIR on 15.05.2011, on the same day, prosecution introduced two eye-witnesses in this case, namely Abdul Aziz (PW7) and Ghulam Muhammad (PW8). Both the above mentioned eye-witnesses have stated that on 12.05.2011 at 05.30 p.m. they saw Muhammad Imran appellant and Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant along with Muhammad Usman deceased who were standing on the stairs of bridge of Thal canal of Tehsil Piplan and within their view both the appellants pushed Muhammad Usman deceased into the canal who did not know how to swim and drowned in the water. According to their evidence, both the said eye-witnesses saw the occurrence regarding commission of a heinous crime of murder of Muhammad Usman (deceased) at the hands of the appellants on 12.05.2011 at 05.30 p.m. but they did not report the matter to the police for a period of three days and later on they appeared before the police on 15.05.2011 to make their statements against the appellants. Although the above mentioned witnesses gave this explanation that parents of the deceased were not known to them, therefore, they did not report the matter to the police but at the same time both the said witnesses claimed that Muhammad Imran appellant was very well known to them prior to the occurrence. In-spite of the fact that Muhammad Imran appellant was known to them prior to the occurrence and they had seen the said appellant while committing the crime of murder, they did not bother to proceed to the police station to inform the police about the occurrence. Abdul Aziz (PW7) stated during his cross-examination that after the occurrence he straightaway went towards his house as it was very hot season. The explanation given by the above mentioned witness for not proceeding towards the police station to lodge the FIR is highly ridiculous because if it was very hot season on 12.05.2011 then it was the same season after three days, i.e. on 15.05.2011, when he went to the police station and made his statement before the police. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) was pleased to observe that even one or two days unexplained delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses would be fatal and testimony of such witnesses could not be safely relied upon. Similarly in the case of Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh and another (1998 SCMR 570) the apex court of the country held that belated statement of a witness recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. without offering any plausible explanation would reflect adversely on the credibility of such witness and his statement shall be looked with serious suspicion. Moreover, the conduct of both the above mentioned eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence also raises serious questions about their presence at the spot at the relevant time. The appellants were admittedly empty handed and they did not carry any sort of weapon with them at the time of occurrence. Abdul Aziz (PW7) has stated during his cross-examination that he along with Ghulam Muhammad (PW8) saw the appellants while committing the occurrence from a distance of 15/16 Karams. Both the above mentioned eye-witnesses did not try to apprehend the appellants. They could have at least apprehended Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant who is a female but they did not attempt to do so. The unnatural conduct of the above mentioned eye-witnesses has established that they were not present at the time of occurrence and their evidence is not worthy of reliance. In the cases reported as Liaquat Ali v. The State (2008 SCMR 95), Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315) and Irshad Ahmad v. The State (2011 SCMR 1190), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan disbelieved the evidence of eged eye-witnesses of the occurrence on the ground that despite the fact that the accused were not armed with any formidable weapon at the time of occurrence, the said eye-witnesses did not try to over power or apprehend the accused and as such their conduct was highly un-natural, therefore, their evidence was not worthy of reliance.

10. It is also noteworthy that as per post-mortem report Exh. PN and evidence of Dr. Bilal Ayyub Khan Niazi (PW10), there were three injuries on the body of Muhammad Usman deceased. The detail of the said injuries as given by Dr. Bilal Ayub Khan Niazi (PW.10) is reproduced as under:--

1. An abrasion 0.5 x 0.3 cm x skin deep on left side of forehead, 1 cm above the left eyebrow.

2. An abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the front of right knee joint.

3. An abrasion 1.3 cm x 0.8 cm on the front of left knee joint. I have noted that both the above mentioned eye-witnesses have not explained the said injuries in their statements recorded by the police or by the learned trial court which further indicates that they were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence because had they been present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time then they must have explained the said three injuries on the body of the deceased, in their statements recorded by the police or by the learned trial court. Under the circumstances, the evidence of above mentioned eye-witnesses is not trustworthy. In the case of Irfan Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 840), at Page 844, the apex court of the country was pleased to observe as under:- "11 .The most striking feature of the case is that in the FIR complete photographic narration of the entire tragedy has been given so much so, Muhammad Khan acquitted accused and the appellant were attributed causing specific injuries with the fire shots of 30 bore pistols at the deceased. With such degree of accuracy each and every detail of the incident was given, however, it was not due to mental disorientation that the dagger blows inflicted on the deceased found during the autopsy on the dead body, could not be noticed by the complainant. This doubt of reasonable nature and substance would strongly suggest that the complainant and the other eye-witnesses were not present at the spot, otherwise, the lodging the report after more than 3 hours and spending 1-1/2 hour at the spot with the dead body, no room was left for this glaring omission. This omission is very fatal to the prosecution case and it is established that crime was an unwitnessed one"

11. Both the above mentioned witnesses have admitted that Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant was not known to them prior to the occurrence. No identification parade of the said appellant has ever taken place in this case.

12. It is true that the defence was unable to establish any enmity of the above mentioned witnesses with the appellants but the evidence of said eye-witness cannot be blindly relied upon merely on the ground that they had no enmity with the appellants, when otherwise their evidence is not worthy of reliance. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another (1995 SCMR 1627) and Ghulam Mustafa alias Ziau v. The State (PLD 1991 SC 718).

13. Insofar as the recovery of mobile phone P-2 through recovery memo Exh. PA from the possession of Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant is concerned, admittedly the said mobile phone is owned by Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant. No mobile data is available on the record that the above mentioned mobile phone was used by the said appellant for the commission of occurrence of this case. Although a motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of one Gul Hameed vide recovery memo (Ex.PC) and the prosecution case in respect of the said motorcycle is that the same was taken on rent from the said Gul Hameed and it was used by the appellants for transporting Muhammad Usman deceased to the place of occurrence. The abovementioned Gul Hameed was never produced in the witness box in support of the above mentioned claim of the prosecution. A mobile phone bearing Sim No. 0301-3129692 has also been recovered from the possession of Muhammad Imran appellant with the allegation that the said mobile phone belonged to Muhammad Usman deceased but there is absolutely no documentary proof to establish that the above mentioned mobile phone was owned by Muhammad Usman deceased. Although shirt of the deceased (P3) has allegedly been recovered on the pointation of Muhammad Imran (appellant) but the said shirt was never got identified by the complainant to prove that the same belonged to the deceased. Insofar as the recovery of I.D. Card of the deceased from the possession of Muhammad Imran appellant is concerned, I have noted that the occurrence in this case took place on 12.05.2011. Muhammad Imran appellant was arrested in this case on 27.05.2011, whereas, the alleged recovery of I.D. Card of the deceased was effected from the possession of Muhammad Imran appellant on 30.05.2011. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that as to why the said appellant would keep the I.D. Card of the deceased with him for a period of more than 15 days after the occurrence so that the same may be used as an evidence against him, when the said I.D. Card was of no use for the above mentioned appellant. In the case of Muhammad Sajjad v. The State (2009 SCMR 1248), at page 1254, the apex court gave the following findings in respect of the prosecution evidence qua the recovery of photo copy of the I.D. card of the complaint from the accused. " ..As far as identity card of the complainant is concerned it was of no use to the accused. Anyone with a head on his shoulders would not keep these articles intact till his arrest so as to produce those to the Investigating Officer " Under the circumstances the aforementioned alleged recoveries from the possession of the appellants are highly doubtful and unreliable.

14. According to the prosecution story narrated in the FIR Exh.PF the motive behind the occurrence was that one Iqrar Shah was a neighbor of the complainant who was many times insulted by the complainant. Muhammad Imran appellant was brother-in-law of the above mentioned Iqrar Shah. Muhammad Imran appellant provided residence to Muhammad Usman deceased and Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant at his house and due to the above mentioned grudge (of insult of Iqrar Shah), the appellants committed the murder of Muhammad Usman deceased. In order to prove the above mentioned motive, the prosecution produced Muhammad Sarwar complainant (PW5) and Muhammad Siddique (PW6). Muhammad Sarwar complainant (PW5) while appearing in the witness box made dishonest improvements in his statement in respect of the motive part of the prosecution case by stating that Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant eloped with Muhammad Usman deceased and they were residing in the house of Muhammad Imran appellant and during the said stay Muhammad Imran appellant and Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant developed illicit relations inter se and wanted to marry each other and due to this reason and insult of Iqrar Shah, they committed the murder of Muhammad Usman deceased. Muhammad Sarwar complainant (PW5) was confronted with his previous statement and dishonest improvements made by him qua the motive part of the case were duly brought on the record. He frankly conceded during his cross-examination that it is correct that he did not get recorded in FIR Exh. PF about illicit relations between Muhammad Imran and Mst. Sadaf Abbas accused persons. The relevant part of his statement in this respect is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-- "It is correct that I did not get record in FIR Exh. PF about illicit relations between Imran Shah and Mst. Sadaf Abbas accused persons" The said witness also admitted during his cross-examination that it is correct that wife of Iqrar Shah is not sister of Imran Shah accused, however, he volunteered that Iqrar Shah is Behnoi of Muhammad Imran accused in relation. Muhammad Siddique (PW6) has categorically stated in his cross-examination that it is correct that motive part was told to him by his Mamoon, i.e. Muhammad Sarwar complainant (PW5) and he had no personal knowledge of the same. The above mentioned Iqrar Shah who was allegedly insulted by the complainant and due to his insult the appellants allegedly committed the murder of Muhammad Usman deceased, was never made an accused in this case by the police. No private complaint was filed by the complainant against said Iqrar Shah. As the motive alleged in the FIR was directly attributed against the above mentioned Iqrar Shah and because the said Iqrar Shah has not been tried and convicted in this case, therefore, the aforementioned motive to the extent of the present appellants cannot be believed. Insofar as the other motive alleged by the prosecution witnesses regarding development of illicit relations inter-se both the appellants is concerned, admittedly the said motive was not mentioned in the FIR. As the said motive is result of dishonest improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses, therefore, the prosecution story qua the above mentioned newly introduced motive which was introduced for the first time at the time of recording of the statements of PWs by the learned trial court, cannot be relied upon. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 06).

15. Keeping in view all the above mentioned facts, I have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt. It is by now well settled that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution evidence. In Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan at page 1347 was pleased to observe as under:-- "5 ..The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep rooted in our country. For giving him benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in 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." The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while reiterating the same principle in the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) at page 236 observed as under:-- "13 ..It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour 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 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."

16. In the light of above discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2015 filed by Mst. Sadaf Abbas appellant and Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2015 filed by Muhammad Imran appellant are allowed, convictions and sentences of both the appellants recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Piplan, District Mianwali vide judgment dated 30.01.2015 are hereby set aside and both the appellants are acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt. Mst. Sadaf Abbas and Muhammad Imran appellants are in custody, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 16(sic) As Mst. Safdar Abbas and Muhammad Imran appellants have been acquitted by this Court today, therefore, Criminal Revision No.314 of 2015 filed by Muhammad Sarwar complainant seeking enhancement of sentence of the said appellants from imprisonment for life to death penalty has become infructuous, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. JK/S-45/L Appeals allowed.