2017 PLP 180 (YLRN)

SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.

Umar Farooq son of Ibrahim, caste Mayo, resident of Kot Hassan Khan, Mashmoola Talvandi, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, Muhammad Aslam son of Bhuray Khan, caste Mayo, resident of Kot Hassan Khan, Mashmoola Talvandi, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, Muhammad Islam son of Bhuray Khan, caste Mayo, resident of Kot Hassan Khan, Mashmoola Talvandi, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur and Abdul Majeed son of Bhuray Khan, caste Mayo, resident of Kot Hassan Khan, Mashmoola Talvandi, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, appellants, along with Nasir (tried and convicted separately being juvenile) and Muhammad Latif, Subhan Khan, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Rehman, Haroon and Muhammad Sharif (all since acquitted) were involved in case FIR No.393/2006, dated 17.08.2006, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Ellah Abad, District Kasur. They were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, under the afore-mentioned offences. The learned trial court after completion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellants vide judgment dated 19.12.2011 in the following terms:- Sr# Name of the appellant/ convict Conviction/Sentence (1) Umar Farooq > Under Section 302(b), P.P.C., sentenced to death as Ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as com-pensation to legal heirs of deceased in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment thereof, to undergo S.I. for six months. (2) Muhammad Aslam > Under sections 302(b)/ 147, P.P.C., sentenced to undergo imprison-ment for life as Ta 'zir with direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as compen-sation to legal heirs of deceased in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. > Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant. (3) Muhammad Islam > Under Sections 302(b)/ 147, P.P.C., sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as Ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. > Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant. (4) Abdul Majeed > Under Section 302(b)/147, P.P.C., sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as Ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of deceased in terms of section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in case of default in payment thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. > Benefit of Sec-tion 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellants have assailed their conviction and sentence through filing Crl. Appeal No.2241/2011 while the learned trial court forwarded Murder Reference No.37 of 2012 for confirmation of sentence of death inflicted upon Umar Farooq/convict in terms of Section 374, Cr.P.C. Mst. Nazia Bibi, widow of deceased, also filed Crl. Revision No.466 of 2012 seeking enhancement in sentence to the extent of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Aslam and Abdul Majeed/respondents and also prayed for enhancement in compensation amount against all the respondents. As all the matters are arising out of one and the same judgment of the learned trial court, therefore, these are being disposed off through consolidated judgment.

3. Prosecution story as portrayed in the FIR (Exh.PB) lodged on the complaint (Exh.PC) of Jumma Khan son of Feroze Khan, caste Mayo Rajput (PW-3) is that the complainant is resident of Kot Hassan Khan Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur and involved in Zamindara. Son of the complainant namely Amjad is married and on the night between 16/17.08.2006 he was sleeping on a cot along with his wife. At about 11:00 am the complainant along with his wife, Batto Bibi and guests namely Muhammad Idrees son of Hurmat Khan, caste Mayo, resident of Ratipindi, Police Station Saddar Raiwind, Taj Din son of Heeray Khan, caste Mayo, resident of Jia Bagga, Police Station City Raiwind, District Lahore and Chhutmal Khan son of Hassan Khan, caste Mayo, resident of Haveli Malka Wali, Police Station Saddar Raiwind District Kasur, were sleeping on different cots. Batto Bibi wife of the complainant suspected that some persons had entered the house of Amjad. At that time Bulb was lit in the courtyard of the house. Wife of the complainant awoke the complainant and PWs on which they saw that accused Farooq son of Ibrahim armed with dagger, Aslam, Islam both sons of Bhooray Khan empty handed, Nasir son of Ibrahim, empty handed, Abdul Majeed son of Bhooray Khan, empty handed, Muhammad Latif son of Sobay Khan, resident of Munawarian Police Station Kanganpur, Subhan Khan son of unknown caste Mayo, resident of Saddar Raiwind, Abdul Shakoor son of Suleman, Abdul Rehman son of Suleman Mayo by caste, and resident of Ratipindi, Haroon son of Hanif caste Mayo, resident of Ratipindi, Sharif son of Chootay Khan alias Goonga, armed with fire arms, were standing around the cot of Amjad. In their eye-view Farooq caught hold Amjad from his neck while Aslam and Islam caught hold him from his arms, whereas, Nasir and Abdul Majeed caught hold from his legs. Farooq slaughtered Amjad with his dagger, however, due to fear his wife concealed herself under the cot. The other accused persons namely Latif, Subhan Khan, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Rehman, Haroon, Sharif remained standing nearby along with their fire-arms. When the complainant and other prosecution witnesses raised hue and cry, the accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. The complainant and other PWs went near Amjad and saw that he had succumbed to the injuries and his neck was cut. Motive behind the occurrence as disclosed in the crime report was that litigation was pending between the complainant and Farooq etc. and due to this grudge all the accused persons in connivance with each other had committed the murder of Amjad. The complainant averred that besides him the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Idrees, Taj Din, Chhutmal, wife of the complainant Batto Bibi and Nazia Bibi wife of Amjad.

4. While leaving Rustam son of Mouj Khan and Sufaid Khan son of Sultan Khan to safeguard the dead body, the complainant went towards Police Station, however, near Bridge Canal Talvandi, he met with Muhammad Nazir, S.I. (PW-9) before whom he made his statement, which was reduced into writing and after endorsing police karvai the same was transmitted to Police Station through Zakir Hussain 1060/C for registration of formal FIR. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report (Exh.PI) and dispatched the dead body to mortuary under the escort of Muhammad Ismaeel 412/C (PW-8). He took into possession blood stained earth (Exh.PD) and prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PH). From the spot, the Investigating Officer also took into possession gadda (P-1) and pillow (P-2) vide recovery memo Exh.PE. After postmortem examination last worn clothes of the deceased shalwar (P-3) was produced before the Investigating Officer, which he took into possession vide recovery memo Exh.PG. He also recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. On 25.08.2006, on the direction of the Investigating Officer and on the pointing out of the PWs, Muhammad Sadiq Qamar, Draftsman (PW-1) took rough notes of the place of occurrence and thereafter prepared scaled site plan (Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1), which was made part of the file. On 25.08.2006, the Investigating Officer arrested Umar Farooq, appellant and obtained his physical remand. During the course of interrogation in pursuance of disclosure on 07.09.2006, the appellant led to the recovery of dagger, which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo (Exh.CW-11A). However, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer found Islam, Aslam and Abdul Majeed, appellants and Muhammad Latif, Subhan Khan, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Rehman, Haroon and Muhammad Sharif, co-accused innocent.

5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. which was sent to the court of Session en-routed through the Illaqa Magistrate as provided under section 190(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial court firstly framed charge against the appellants on 21.03.2009 and subsequently on 26.08.2010 fresh charge was framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case produced as many as ten (10) prosecution witnesses.

6. Occular account in this case consists of the statements of the complainant Jumma Khan (PW-3), Muhammad Idrees (PW-4) and Taj Din (PW-5). On presentation of complaint Niamat Ali, S.I. (PW-2) had chalked out formal FIR while Master Sadiq Ali Qamar, Draftsman (PW-1) had prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence. Investigation in this case was conducted by Muhammad Nazir, S.I. (PW-9). On 17.08.2006, Dr. Muhammad Arif Mahmood (PW-7) had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased and observed following injuries on his person:- "

1. Incised wound size 4 cm x 2 cm. It was vertibra deep on the front of neck, vessels nerves, oseophagous and trachea were cut.

2. Incised wound size 4 cm x 1/4 cm x skin deep on the right shoulder on the frontal part." After conducting postmortem examination, the doctor opined as under:-- "In my opinion, the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries. Injuries were ante mortem, caused with sharp edged weapon. Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time between injury and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was 9 to 12 hours." Statements of rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.

7. Vide statement recorded on 30.11.2010, Muhammad Ashgar, PW, was given up being unnecessary while Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Ali, PWs, were given up being won over. On 07.12.2010 Muhammad Sharif 232/HC was given up being unnecessary while Muhammad Younas, Inspector, was given up on 14.03.2011 again being unnecessary. On 02.05.2011 Chhutmal Khan, Battoo Bibi and Nazia Bibi, PWs, were given up being unnecessary. On 26.06.2011, after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PK and Exh.PL) prosecution evidence was closed.

8. The appellants were also examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.; wherein all of them opted not to appear as their own witnesses in terms of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. in disproof of allegations levelled against them in the prosecution evidence. However, they opted to adduce evidence in their defence. While replying to the question why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him, Umar Farooq/appellant made the following deposition:-- "On 12.05.2004 my father Ibrahim got registered a case FIR No.133/04, at Police Station Ellah Abad, under sections 10/7/79 Hudood Zina Ordinance and 392/ 411 P.P.C., against Muhammad Asghar son of complainant Jamma Khan, Shafqat son of Rafique, Sajid alias Punnun son of Rashid and two unknown persons, in which on 18.11.2009 Muhammad Asghar son of complainant was convicted and sentenced to 14-years R.I. At the time of final arguments in the aforesaid case FIR No. 133/04, the complainant of this case Jamma Khan through Punchait got pardon for his son Asghar from my father Ibrahim but he did not accede their request. Actually, Muhammad Asghar son of complainant had illicit relations with the wife of deceased Amjad and they both murdered the deceased when he was sleeping and involved me, my brother Nasir and other accused persons falsely, who are innocent. The complainant even did not spare the witnesses of above said case FIR No. 133/04 and also involved them in this case falsely in order to retaliate the conviction of his son Asghar. The PWs Idrees and Taj Din along with Jumma Khan complainant and Punchait came to my father Ibrahim, for obtaining pardon from my father, but he did not forgive them. Moreover, PW Idrees is brother-in-Law (Sala) of complainant i.e. his wife's brother while Taj Din is father of Nazia Bibi, wife of deceased Muhammad Amjad, who gave evidence under the pressure of complainant that he will involve his daughter Nazia Bibi wife of deceased in the murder of her husband Muhammad Amjad deceased. We all accused persons are innocent and have falsely been involved in this case due to the above said reason. While replying to this specific question Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Islam and Abdul Majeed/appellants relied upon the statement of Umar Farooq. 9 After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the learned trial court, while evaluating the evidence available on record found version of the prosecution proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, resulting into conviction of the appellants in the above stated terms.

10. At the very outset learned counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned judgment has been recorded by the learned trial court in a slipshod manner without adverting to real facts of the case and material available on record. Contended that as a matter of fact it was an unseen occurrence, which had taken place at odd hours of night, however, the prosecution by concocting a fabricated story lodged the instant FIR. It was vehemently argued that the presence of the prosecution witnesses of the occular account at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. While elaborating learned counsel submitted that Muhammad Idrees (PW-4) and Taj Din (PW-5) were not residents of the same area and they failed to advance any cogent reason for their presence at the place of occurrence on the fateful night. He submitted that even there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to mode and manner of occurrence. It was vehemently argued that Mst. Nazia Bibi, widow of the deceased was most natural witness of the occurrence and according to prosecution version her clothes were smeared with blood, however, she was not produced during the course of trial and her statement was withheld by the prosecution. Submitted that although the occurrence had taken place at odd hours of night and according to prosecution version bulb was lit at that time, however, the same was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. It was further argued that medical evidence contradicts the prosecution version qua number of injuries. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Islam and Abdul Majeed, appellants were found innocent. Moreover, on the same set of evidence five accused were acquitted of the charge and no appeal against their acquittal was filed. Learned counsel finally argued that keeping in view all the facts and circumstances brought forth on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law, which is liable to be set aside.

11. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants. It was argued that the appellants are duly named in the crime report with their specific role and the parties previously known to each other, question of mis-identification does not arise. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the prosecution witnesses of the occular account while appearing in the witness-box fully corroborated the prosecution case. Although they were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, however, nothing adverse to the prosecution version could be brought on record. It was argued that medical evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case on minute details. Contended that motive in this case was established by the prosecution through adducing cogent evidence. Next submitted that during the course of investigation Umar Farooq appellant got recovered dagger, which was transmitted to the office of Chemical Examiner and report of the concerned quarter in respect thereof (Exh.PK) is positive. Learned Law Officer contended that during the course of investigation the appellants were found guilty as such their names were placed in column No.3 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses had no ill-will to falsely substitute the appellants in place of real culprits. Lastly it was argued that the appellants being part of an unlawful assembly had participated in the murder of son of the complainant and the prosecution advanced its case through straight forward, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence, therefore, the learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under the relevant provisions of law.

12. While arguing Crl. Revision No.466/2012, learned counsel for widow of deceased contended that as all the respondents/appellants being part of an unlawful assembly committed the murder of Amjad deceased, therefore, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are liable to be sentenced to death. He also prayed for enhancement in compensation amount against all the accused persons.

13. We have heard the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General.

14. It is cordial principle of law that each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same has to be weighed on the judicial parlance. Undeniably it is very unfortunate occurrence in which son of the complainant was done to death by the assailants, however, the stamp of injuries on the person of deceased can only reflect the cause of death, severity of injuries and weapon used during the occurrence, but the same cannot disclose the name of assailants. According to prosecution version the occurrence in the instant case had taken place on the intervening night of 16/17.08.2006, however, no exact time of occurrence was mentioned in the crime report while the same was reported to the police at 1:30 a.m. (night) whereas inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 7-KMs. Although the appellants are named in the FIR, however, authenticity/plausibility of the same can be determined after evaluating other circumstances floating on the record. In order to substantiate its version the prosecution has led evidence in the shape of occular account, motive, medical evidence, recovery of dagger, as well as, investigation and other pieces of evidence.

15. As far as occular account in this case is concerned, Juma Khan, complainant, appeared as PW-3 while his statement was supplemented by Muhammad Idrees (PW-4) and Taj Din (PW-5). The pivotal point in this case is presence of the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. There is no denial to this fact that the deceased was residing in a separate house adjoining to the house of the complainant, whereas, Muhammad Idrees (PW-4) and Taj Din (PW-5) are not residents of the village where the occurrence had taken place. It has come on record that Muhammad Idrees (PW-4) is resident of Rati-Pindi, Kasur, whereas, Taj Din (PW5) is resident of Jiya Bagga, Lahore. Admittedly both of them are closely related to the complainant but as far as their presence at the relevant time is concerned, they failed to advance any plausible reasoning for their presence at the place of occurrence on the fateful night. Both of them were specifically questioned regarding any special occasion, which led them to be present over there, which they replied otherwise and in categorical terms stated that there was no such occasion for which they had visited the house of the complainant.

16. As far as mode and manner of occurrence is concerned, the prosecution story regarding the presence of number of persons armed with sophisticated weapons encircling the cot and thereafter allegation against the appellants and Nasir co-accused (tried and convicted separately being juvenile) that they caught hold the deceased from arms and legs while Umar Farooq appellant, slaughtered the deceased with dagger. The story of the prosecution on the face of it does not inspire confidence. It is an established principle of law since long that the Court while evaluating the prosecution version has also to take into consideration the number of persons required for the job. In such like situation the august Supreme Court of Pakistan way back in the year 1960 in a reported judgment titled "Niaz's case" (PLD 1960 SC 387), which was revisited by the same August Bench in another judgment in the case of Nazir and others v. The State (PLD 1962 SC 269), while holding as under:-- "Circumstances corroborating the eye-witness may be such as (1) that the number of culprits mentioned was such as would be required for an attack of the kind which is the subject matter of the proceedings; (2) that the persons named as culprits were such as would be expected to join the attack." The judgment handed down in NIAZ's case referred supra was revisited only on the ground that the number of persons required for the job is sine-qua for the authenticity of the prosecution version without independent corroboration. Ordinarily even a single person, who is armed with firearm, was sufficient to secure the ends of desire and assembling of such a number of persons at the relevant time and place does not appeal to prudent mind.

17. Record available on file also reflects that the complainant while making his statement during the course of trial had stated that the accused had remained catching hold the deceased from arms and legs for ten minutes prior to slaughtering by Umar Farooq, appellant. Relevant extract out of his statement is reproduced as under:-- "The accused persons caught hold Amjad from arms and legs for about ten minutes." However, it is astonishing aspect of the case that none of the PWs including the complainant had raised hue and cry and they remained standing there as silent spectators, which otherwise is beyond comprehension of a human being. Hence, this fact alone is suggestive of the fact that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time.

18. The prosecution is consistent that when the assailants entered into the house of Amjad deceased he was sleeping with his wife Nazia Bibi on the same cot, therefore, she was most natural witness of the occurrence particularly when it has come in the evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses of the occular account that her clothes were smeared with blood. However, neither her clothes were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer nor she was produced during the course of trial rather her evidence was withheld by the prosecution. In this background negative inference would be drawn that had she appeared before the learned trial court, she ought not to have supported the prosecution version and prosecution case is squarely hit by Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as is held by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) in the following terms:-- "

Art. 129(g)

Criminal trial withholding natural witness

Presumption

Act of withholding of most natural and a material witness of occurrence would create an impression that had such witness been brought into witness-box, he might not have supported the prosecution

Prosecution, in such eventuality must not be in a position to avoid the consequence".

19. Another important aspect of the case is availability of the source of light at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. This fact becomes of much importance as the occurrence had taken place at odd hours of night. It is claim of the complainant that at the time of occurrence, bulb was lit and in its light he along with other prosecution witnesses had identified the accused. However, neither in the rough site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection nor in the scaled site plan (Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1) prepared on the pointation of the PWs, the same is mentioned. Even the same was not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the prosecution case is squarely hit by the dictates of the superior courts of the country laid down in the cases of Bashir Ahmed alias Mannu v. The State (1996 SCMR 308) and Nazeer Ahmad v. Gehne Khan and others (2011 SCMR 1473). In the case of Bashir Ahmed alias Mannu v. The State (1996 SCMR 308) while dealing the issue it was held as under:-- "

Bulb in the light of which eye-witnesses were shown to have seen the occurrence was not taken into custody by the police and the presence of electricity at that place had been concocted

."

20. As far as medical evidence in this case is concerned, according to contents of the crime report the accused had slaughtered the deceased with dagger on the neck. However, at the time of conducting postmortem examination, Dr. Muhammad Arif Mahmood (PW-7) had observed two injuries on the person of deceased: one on neck while the other on right shoulder. Even otherwise it is the consistent view of the superior courts that the medical evidence only indicates that the deceased had lost his life due to injury but it does nut lead to the culprits. Wisdom in this regard is sought from the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State (2009 SCMR 1410) and Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 53); wherein following principle was laid down:-- "

S. 302/34--Appreciation of evidence

Medical evidence

Significance

Medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of the injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the crime."

21. As far as motive in this case is concerned although it is an admitted fact that both the parties were having previous criminal litigation, however, at the same time it has direct nexus with the ocular account. Moreover, motive is always considered to be a double edged weapon and it could be one of the reasons for false implication and at the same time it could be a reason for commission of the occurrence. In a salutary judgment rendered by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sahib Masih and others v. The State (1982 SCMR 178) following guideline was laid down: - "

S.8

Motive A double-edged weapon

Could prompt false implication and revenge in form of aggression

Mere presence of motive, held, not sufficient in determining intrinsic worth or consistency of the statements of eye-witnesses."

22. Another important aspect of the case is that during the course of investigation, except Umar Farooq appellant, rest of the appellants and other co-accused were found innocent and their names were placed in column No.2 of the report prepared under section 173, Cr.P.C. and such findings of the Investigating Officer were never challenged before any higher forum.

23. Fact also remains that in the crime report besides the appellants Muhammad Lateef, Subhan Khan, Abdul Shakoor, Abdul Rehman, Haroon and Sharif were also arrayed as accused. However, during the course of trial they were acquitted of the charge on the same set of evidence. Admittedly the prosecution had not assailed their acquittal before this Court meaning thereby that it was satisfied regarding the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court to their extent. It is settled principle of law that if evidence of the prosecution is disbelieved qua bulk of accused it cannot be believed qua the other in the absence of very strong corroboration, which is squarely missing in the case in hand. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6, Shera alias Sher Muhammad's case (1999 SCMR 697) and Sher Bahadur 's case (1972 SCMR 651).

24. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are persuaded to hold that the prosecution case is pregnant with major discrepancies creating serious dents in its authenticity and in such like situations it becomes incumbent upon the Court to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Furthermore, to extend the benefit of doubt so many circumstances are not required rather one circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the veracity of the prosecution version is sufficient for the purpose, not as a matter of grace rather as a matter of right. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345); wherein following principle was laid down:-- "

Art. 4

Benefit of doubt, grant of

For giving benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts

If a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused, then he will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right." Similarly in the case titled Arif Hussain and another v. The State (1983 SCMR 428), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had further held as under:

S. 302

Murder

Evidence

Benefit of doubt

Prosecution case not free from doubt

Charges not brought home to accused in manner required under law

Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted". Similar view was affirmed in the case of Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230). Moreover, it is golden principle of law that the Court ought to let off, 100 guilty but should not convict one innocent person on the basis of suspicion. Resultantly while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court in terms of judgment dated 19.12.2011, Crl. Appeal No.2241/2011 filed by the appellants is ACCEPTED IN TOTO as a consequence whereof they are ordered to be acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.393/2006, dated 17.08.2006, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Ellah Abad, District Kasur and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

25. Murder Reference No.37 of 2012 forwarded by the learned trial court in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence inflicted upon Umar Farooq convict is answered in NEGATIVE. Death sentence is NOT CONFIRMED.

26. As far as Crl. Revision No. 466 of 2012 filed by Mst. Nazia Bibi widow of deceased is concerned, for the afore-stated reasons we find no legal justifica-tion in the same, which is accordingly DISMISSED. JK/U-5/L Appeal accepted.