2023 M L D 1972
[Balochistan]
Before Abdullah Baloch and Rozi Kan Barrech, JJ
MUHAMMAD IDREES ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 35 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2022, decided on 29th
August, 2022.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 397 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or
attempting to commit robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention ---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Ocular account not
proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co- accused snatched amount from the
complainant and on resistance, accused made firing upon complainant due to which he sustained injuries ---Meanwhile a property dealer came there, and accused made firing upon
him, due to which he was hit and died ---Record showed that the FIR was lodged by the
complainant against unknown accused persons ---Complainant had not given any description
of the unknown accused persons and no identification parade of the accused had been conducted through the complainant and other witnesses ---Even when witnesses appeared
before the court, they did not implicate the accused with the commission of the alleged offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 397 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or
attempting to commit robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt ---Extra -judicial
confession by accused ---Accused was charged that he along with his co -accused snatched
amount from the complainant and on resistance, accused made firing upon complainant due to which he sustained injuries ---Meanwhile a property dealer came the re, and accused made
firing upon him, due to which he was hit and died ---Record showed that the extra -judicial
confession of the accused was recorded on 29.12.2019 in the presence of Police Officers ---
Police had claimed that the extra -judicial confession was voluntary, but on the other hand,
there were major contradictions in the statements of two Police Officers ---One of the said
Police Officer stated that on 08.12.2019, the accused disclosed about the occurrence ---On the
other hand, other witness stated i n his statement that on 29.12.2019, he arrested the accused
and on the same date, the accused made a disclosure about the commission of the offence ---
After the alleged disclosure, the snatched amount, i.e. Rs.500,000/ - and one helmet were
recovered on pointation of the accused from his house ---One witness stated that the alleged
recovery was effected on the next date after the alleged disclosure, but on the other hand,
other witness stated in his statement that the accused made a disclosure on 29.12.2019 and on the same date on his pointation the snatched amount and one helmet were recovered from his house ---Said material contradictions created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case---
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 397 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or
attempting to commit robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention ---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Recovery of looted
amount and a helmet on the disclosure of the accused---Accused was charged that he along with his co -accused snatched amount from the complainant, and on resistance, accused made
firing upon complainant due to which he sustained injuries ---Meanwhile a property dealer
came there, and accused made firing upon him, due to which he was hit and died---Record showed that the alleged snatched amount was recovered from a residential room of the house of the accused from a closet ---In the said house, the brother and mother of the accused were
also living---Alleged snatched amount and helmet were lying in an open place and it had not come on record that the said closet was locked at the time of alleged recovery ---No
description of the snatched amount had been given by the complainant in his report, which was allegedly recovered from the accused ---Recovery of the cash amount in view of the said
omissions made by Investigation Officer was completely deficient as an incriminatory piece of circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(d) Criminal trial ---
----Confession before police ---Admissibility ---Confession made by an accused person while
in police custody is not admissible.
(e) Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 40 ---Disclosure made by the accused ---Scope ---If something related to the case is
recovered or any fact is discovered in consequence of information conveyed by the accused person, then the information so received would be admissible in evidence to the extent of recovery if corroborated with other pieces of evidence within the purview of Art. 40 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984, because then, the presumption would be towards its truthfulness ---
If nothing in consequence of the disclosure is recovered or discovered, then the information so received by itself would not be admissible.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 397 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or
attempting to commit robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention ---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Recovery of weapon
of offence from the possession of accused---Accused was charged that he along with his co -
accused snatched amount from the complainant, and on resistance, accused made firing upon
complainant due to which he sustained injuries, meanwhile a property dealer came there, accused made firing upon him, due to which he was hit and died---Record showed that one pistol along with six live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused,
which were taken into possession through recovery memo in his presence ---However, it did
not appeal to the prudent mind that the accused who allegedly committed the murder of the
deceased would keep a pistol in his possession and would remain in an open place on the main intersection waiting for the police to come and arrest him and recover the crime weapon ---Such fact created doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story---Appeal
against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 394, 397 & 34---Qatl -i-amd, person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or
attempting to commit robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Delay of twenty four
days in sending the weapon and crime empties for analysis ---Safe custody of crime weapon
not established ---Accused was charged that he along with his co- accused snatched amount
from the complainant, and on resistance, accused made firing upon complainant due to which he sustained injuries ---Meanwhile a property dealer came there, and accused made firing
upon him, due to which he was hit and died--- Occurrence took place on 08.12.2019, and the
accused was arrested on 29.12.2019, and on the same date, the alleged recovery was effected from the accused ---Two bullet empties were taken into possession by the prosecution
through a recovery memo on the day of occurrence, i.e. 08.12.2019---As per Forensic
Science Agency Report two bullet empties were received on 02.01.2020, and one 9mm caliber pistol, was received on 22.01.2020---Empties recovered from the place of occurrence were sent to Forensic Science Agency after a delay of four days after recovery of crime weapon ---Alleged recovery of the crime weapon from the accused was affected on
29.12.2019, but the same was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 22.01.2020 after a delay of twenty- four days ---Delay so caused in sending the allegedly recovered crime
weapon for chemical analysis was unexplained, and also, there was no explanation in respect of safe custody of the crime weapon within the custody of Investigation Authorities ---
Moreover, sending the empties after the recovery of the alleged crime weapon created serious doubt as to why the crime empties were retained by the Investigation Officer till the recovery of the pistol ---Possibility of manipulation could not be ruled out ---Thus, the
Firearms Expert report in that regard was inconsequential to the prosecution case ---Appeal
against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Nazir Ahmed v. The State 2016 SCMR 1628; Ali Sher and others v. The State 2008
SCMR 707; Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 525 and Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel.
(h) Criminal trial ---
----Recovery of crime weapon ---Scope ---Recovery of a crime weapon is a corroboratory
piece of evidence---In the absence of substantive evidence, it is not considered sufficient to
hold the accused person guilty of the offence charged---When substantive evidence fails to connect the accused person with the commission of the offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to the prosecution case.
Dr. Israr- ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz and another 2007 SCMR 1427 rel.
(i) Criminal trial ---
----Benefit of doubt ---Conviction--- Conjectures and probabilities ---Scope ---Mere conjectures
and probabilities could not take the place of proof ---If a case is decided merely on high
probabilities regarding the existence or non- existence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person,
the golden rule of giving benefit of doubt to an accused person, which has been a dominant
feature of the administration of criminal justice with the consistent approval of the
Constitutional Courts, will be reduced to naught.
Jameel Ramzan, Abdul Sattar Sherani and Jameela Panezai for Appellant (in Criminal
Appeal No. 35 of 2022 and for Respondent in connected Criminal Revision Petition No. 16
of 2022).
Ali Durrani for the Complainant (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2022).
Ameer Hamza, A.P.G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2022.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---The appellant Muhammad Idrees, son of Rozi
Muhammad, was involved in case FIR No. 213/2019 registered under sections 302, 394, 397 and 34, P.P.C. with PS Zarghoon Abad Quetta and was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge -IX Quetta ("trial court"). The trial court seized with the matter in terms of the
judgment dated 31.05.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:
"20. …..I convict accused Muhammad Idrees son of Rozi Muhammad and sentence him under sections 302(b), 34, P.P.C. for imprisonment for life (R.I) as Tazir, he is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.200,000/ - (Rupees Two lac) to the legal
heirs of deceased. In case of default in payment of compensation, the accused shall further undergo for the period of six months' SI.
21. I also convict accused Muhammad Idrees son of Rozi Muhammad under sections 394, 34, P.P.C. for imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) years as Tazir (R.I) and fine of Rs.100,000/ - (Rupees One Lac). In default of which, he has to further undergo S.I
for a period of four (04) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C is also extended in favour of the accused Muhammad Idrees."
Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the appellant Muhammad Idrees, son of
Rozi Muhammad, has assailed his conviction and sentenced through Criminal Appeal No. 35
of 2022, while the complainant Muhibullah alias Lalai, son of Abdul Jabbar, has filed
Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2022 for enhancement of the conviction awarded to the appellant by the trial court. As both, the appeal and revision petition are arising out of one and same judgment of the trial court, the same are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The prosecution story, as disclosed in FIR (Ex.P/9- A) recorded on the written report
of the complainant (Ex.P/1 -A), is that he is residing at Kili Shah Alam Quetta and is doing
business on the main road Nawa Killi. He purchased a 4099 sq. ft. property from one Muhammad Hazrat, who is a property dealer and doing property business at Nawa Killi Labor Road, and some amount was outstanding against him (complainant). On the day of occurrence, i.e. 8.10.2019, he was going to the shop of the said property dealer for payment of the outstanding amount; at about 11:30 am he parked his vehicle outside Gulbahar Property Dealer and took the amount of Rs.17,50,000/ - in a black shopper. When he reached
the door of the shop, suddenly two unknown persons came on a motorcycle. The person sitting on the pillion seat took out a pistol and tried to snatch the shopper from the complainant, and upon resistance, he made a fire on him, whereby he received injuries on his leg and fell down. After the firing, Muhammad Hazrat, son of Raza Khan, came out from the
shop and the accused person, having a pistol, also made firing upon him, who received
injuries on his face and fell down. Both the accused persons got on their motorcycle and ran away toward Pashtoonistan Chowk. The people of the area gathered on the spot and took the complainant and Hazrat Ali to the hospital. Later on, Muhammad Hazrat succumbed to the injuries. Hence the crime report.
After completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted before the trial court.
The charge was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution produced nine witnesses in all, thereafter, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C wherein he denied the prosecution's allegations and truthfulness of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. However, the appellant neither recorded his statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C nor produced any witnesses in his defense. On the conclusion of the trial and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above in the opening para, in consequence whereof the criminal appeal and criminal revision petition have been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record
with their able assistance.
4. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution has produced nine witnesses out of
whom Muhibullah (PW -1) is the eye -witness/ injured witness of the occurrence, Akhtar
Muhammad (PW -2), Muhammad Yahya (PW -3), Najeebullah (PW -4), their testimony is
based on circumstantial evidence and after hearing firing, they came out from the shop and saw that the complainant/PW -1 and deceased Muhammad Hazrat were lying in injured
condition. Liaquat Ali SI (PW -5), who is the witness of the recovery of two bullet empties of
9 mm pistol, one USB of CCTV footage, blood -stained clothes of the injured/complainant
Muhibullah and photocopies of the FIRs, which were taken into possession in his presence
by the investigation officer through recovery memos (Ex.P/5- A to Ex.P/5- D). Jameel -ur-
Rehman Kakar (PW- 6) is the witness of disclosure made by the appellant about the
commission of the offence, pointation of the appellant about the place of occurrence and
recovery of snatched amount as well as one helmet, which were taken into possession in his presence through recovery memo by the investigation officer. He produced a disclosure
memo (Ex.P/6 -A), a memo of pointation of the place of occurrence (Ex.P/6- B) and a
recovery memo of snatched amount (Ex.P/6- E). Muhammad Arif ASI (PW -7) who is the
recovery witness of the crime weapon, i.e. pistol alleged recovered from the accused, which
was taken into possession through the recovery memo (ExP/7- C). Dr. Aisha Faiz (PW -8)
examined the injured Muhibullah and deceased Muhammad Hazrat and she produced medical certificates of the deceased and injured (Ex.P/8 -A and Ex.P/8- B) and Samiullah SI (PW -9),
who conducted investigation of the case.
5. Now, let us divert our attention to the ocular account produced by the prosecution.
From the record, the homicidal death of the deceased and injuries received by the complainant Muhibullah have been established from the statement of the lady doctor Aisha Faiz (PW- 8) rather, this fact was not disputed by the defense counsel. The mode and manner
of the occurrence has been narrated by the complainant/PW- 1 to the effect that on the day of
occurrence, i.e. 8.12.2019, at 11:30 am, in front of Gulbahar Property Dealer shop of deceased Muhammad Hazrat, two unknown persons came on a motorcycle. One of them, who was holding a pistol tried to snatch the cash amount from him, and when he resisted one of the accused fired upon him, and he received injuries. After hearing the firing, Muhammad Hazrat (deceased) came out from his shop, and the accused also fired upon him, who later succumbed to his injuries. Akhtar Muhammad (PW -2), Muhammad Yahya (PW -3) and
Najeebullah (PW- 4) after hearing the firing came out from the shop and saw the complainant
and deceased lying in injured condition. The FIR was lodged by the complainant/PW -1
against unknown accused persons. The complainant has not given any description of the unknown accused persons, and no identification parade of the accused has been conducted through the complainant and other witnesses. Even when PW -1 to PW -4 appeared before the
court, they did not implicate the appellant with the commission of the alleged offence. The question before this court is as to whether it was the appellant who committed the murder of the deceased and caused injuries to the complainant/PW- 1 or otherwise. The trial court
convicted the accused/appellant on the basis of disclosure made by the appellant, recovery of the snatched amount, recovery of the crime weapon, i.e. 9 mm pistol and positive report of the firearms expert.
6. The prosecution has mulled upon the above circumstantial evidence; as such, the
circumstantial evidence brought forward needs to be scanned and appreciated on the yardsticks enumerated by the apex Courts through various judgments reported in the cases of Imran alias Dolay v. The State and others (2015 SCMR 155), Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others (2016 SCMR 274) and Naheed Akhtar v. The State (2015 YLR 1279).
7. In view of the reported judgments referred hereinabove, we have derived that the
circumstantial evidence requires to be appreciated on the dictum that in such like matters, while appreciating the evidence and holding an accused guilty of the charge, the facts of the
case must be consistent with guilt of the accused, chain of evidence must be complete in all
respects leaving no reasonable ground about the innocence of the accused. The suspicion, however, strong, cannot be given preference upon the proof. The chain of events shall not break, which must be conclusive beyond any shadow of a doubt.
8. So far as the extra- judicial confession (Ex.P/6- A) of the appellant is concerned,
suffice to observe here that it was recorded on 29.12.2019 in the presence of DSP Abdul Razzaq, SI Samiullah (PW- 9) and Jameel -ur-Rehman Kakar SI (PW- 6). The police have
claimed that the same is voluntary, but on the other hand, there are major contradictions in the statements of Jameel- ur-Rehman Kakar SI (PW- 6) and SI Samiullah (PW -9). When
Jameel -ur-Rehman Kakar SI appeared before the trial court as PW- 6, he stated that on
08.12.2019, the appellant disclosed about the occurrence. On the other hand, SI Samiullah when he appeared before the court as PW- 9, stated in his statement that on 29.12.2019, he
arrested the appellant and on the same date, the accused made a disclosure about the commission of the offence. It is worth mentioning here that after the alleged disclosure, the snatched amount, i.e. Rs.500,000/ - and one helmet, were recovered on pointation of the
appellant from his house. PW -6 stated during cross -examination that
meaning thereby that the alleged recovery was effected on the next date after the alleged disclosure, but on the other hand, PW -9 stated in his statement that the appellant made a
disclosure on 29.12.2019 and on the same date on his pointation the snatched amount and one helmet was recovered from his house. The above are material contradictions also create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. The alleged snatched amount was recovered from a residential room of the house of the appellant from an Almira. It has come on record that in the said house the brother and mother of the appellant are also living. The alleged snatched amount and helmet were lying in an open place and it has not come on record that the said
Almira was locked at the time of alleged recovery.
9. So far, the recovery of the alleged snatched amount is concerned, no description has
been given by the complainant in his report, which was allegedly recovered from the appellant. The recovery of the cash amount in view of the said omissions made by PW -9/
Investigation officer is even completely deficient as an incriminatory piece of circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the alleged offence.
10. Even otherwise, in the absence of any description of the stolen property given in the
FIR or in the statement of the complainant or any witness prior to the alleged recovery, it cannot be stated with certainty that the recovered property is that which was allegedly snatched.
11. It may be stated here that, as provided by Articles 37, 39 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat
Order, 1984, a confession made by an accused person while he is in police custody is not admissible. However, if something related to the case is recovered or any fact is discovered in consequence of information conveyed by the accused person, then the information so received would be admissible in evidence to the extent of recovery if corroborated with other pieces of evidence within the purview of Article 40 of the Qanun -e-Shahadat Order, 1984
because then, the presumption would be towards its truthfulness, but if nothing in consequence of the disclosure is recovered or discovered, then the information so received by
itself would not be admissible; therefore, the alleged disclosure of the appellant before the
police about the commission of alleged offence was not admissible and the same cannot safely be used against the appellant.
12. Now, turning toward the recovery of the alleged crime weapon allegedly recovered
from the personal possession of the appellant. According to Muhammad Arif ASI (PW -7), on
29.12.2019 at 3:40 p.m., SI Samiullah received spy information that the accused wanted in the instant case was standing on the main road of Nawa Kili. On the said information, they reached the place of occurrence and apprehended the accused, and from his one pistol
was recovered along with six live cartridges, which were taken into possession through recovery memo (Ex.P/7 -A) in his presence. It does not appeal to the prudent mind that the
accused who allegedly committed the murder of the deceased would keep a pistol in his
and would remain in an open place on the main chowk of Nawa Kili waiting for the police to come and arrest him and recover the crime weapon.
13. The occurrence took place on 8.12.2019, and the appellant was arrested on
29.12.2019, and on the same date, the alleged recovery was effected from the appellant. Two bullet empties were taken into possession by the prosecution through a recovery memo on the day of occurrence, i.e. 8.12.2019. As per the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) parcel No.1, which contained two bullet empties, was received on 02.01.2020, and parcel No.2 containing one 9 mm caliber pistol, was received on 22.01.2020. The empties recovered from the place of occurrence were sent to PFSA after a delay of four days after recovery of crime weapon. The alleged recovery of the crime weapon from the appellant was affected on 29.12.2019, but the same was sent to FSL on 22.01.2020 after a delay of twenty- four days.
The delay so caused in sending the allegedly recovered crime weapon for chemical analysis
is unexplained, and also, there is no explanation in respect of safe custody of the crime weapon within the custody of investigation authorities.
14. Moreover, sending the empties after the recovery of the alleged crime weapon creates
serious doubt as to why the crime empties were retained by the investigation officer till the recovery of the pistol has created serious doubt when the possibility of manipulation cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the firearms expert report in this regard is inconsequential to the prosecution case. Reliance is placed in the case titled as Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2016 SCMR 1628) wherein it has been held as under:
"..the crime -empty secured from the place of occurrence was sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory after recovery of the gun rendering such recovery to be legally unacceptable--- "
Reliance is also placed on the case of Ali Sher and others v. The State (2008 SCMR
707) and Israr Ali v. The State (2007 SCMR 525). In the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2019 SCMR 652) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"After scrutiny of evidence, it has been observed by us that no such corroboration is available on record because the empties secured from the spot and the .30 bore pistol allegedly recovered from the possession of appellant at the time of his arrest were sent to the office of FSL on the same day i.e. on 21.03.2002 after the arrest of
appellant on 23.01.2002. In these circumstances, the report of FSL cannot be relied
and is legally inconsequential."
15. More so, recovery of a crime weapon is a corroboratory piece of evidence, and in the
absence of substantive evidence, it is not considered sufficient to hold the accused person guilty of the offence charged. When substantive evidence fails to connect the accused person with the commission of the offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to the prosecution case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Dr. Israr -ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz and another (2007
SCMR 1427), wherein it has been observed as under:
"It is also a settled law when ocular evidence is disbelieved in a criminal case then the recovery of an incriminating article in the nature of the weapon of offence does not by itself prove the prosecution case."
16. It is a well- established principle of administration of justice in criminal cases that
finding guilt against an accused person cannot be based merely on the high probabilities inferred from evidence in a given case. The finding as regards his guilt should be rested surely and firmly on the evidence produced in the case and the plain inferences of guilt that may irresistibly be drawn from that evidence. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof. If a case is decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or non- existence of a fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of giving "benefit of the
doubt" to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice in this country with the consistent approval of the Constitutional Courts, will be reduced to naught.
17. The prosecution is under obligation to prove its case against the accused person at the
standard of proof required in criminal cases, namely, beyond reasonable doubt standard. It cannot be said to have discharged this obligation by producing evidence that merely meets the preponderance of probability standard applied in civil cases. Suppose the prosecution fails to discharge its said obligation and there remains a reasonable doubt, not an imaginary or artificial doubt, as to the accused person's guilt. In that case, the benefit of that doubt is to be given to the accused person as of right, not as of concession.
18. The rule of giving the benefit of the doubt to an accused person is essentially a rule of
caution and prudence. It is deep- rooted in our jurisprudence for the safe administration of
criminal justice. Common law is based on the maxim, "It is better that ten guilty persons be
acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted".
The basic principle of Islamic criminal law, is based on evidence beyond any shadow
of doubt. The principle can be deduced from an undisputed Hadith:
"Ayesha reported that the Messenger of Allah said 'Drive off the ordained crimes
from the Muslims as far as you can. If there is any place of refuge for him [accused], let him have his way, because the leader's mistake in pardon is better than his mistake in punishment". Mishkatul Msabili (Eng. Translation by Fazl- ul-Karim) Vol.II, P.544
Law Publishing Company, Lahore.
Because the damage resulting from erroneous sentence is irreversible. The principle
that it is better to acquit a guilty person than to punish an innocent one had been proclaimed
by the Holy Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon Him) fourteen hundred (1400) years ago has now become the guiding principle for the safe administration of justice.
19. Keeping in view the said golden rule of giving the benefit of the doubt to an accused
person for safe administration of criminal justice, we are firm in the opinion that all the circumstantial evidence discussed above is completely unreliable and utterly deficient to prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant conclusively in a manner that can rule out every hypothesis inconsistent with his innocence.
20. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are persuaded to hold that
conviction passed by the trial court against the appellant in the circumstances is against all canons of law recognized for the safe dispensation of criminal justice. Therefore, as dictates of law benefit of every doubt is to be extended in favour of the accused. Resultantly while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in terms of judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed in PPC Case No. 05/2020, the Criminal Appeal No.35/2022 filed by the appellant is allowed as a consequence whereof the appellant Muhammad Idrees son of Rozi Muhammad, is acquitted of the charge in FIR No. 213/2019 dated 08.12.2019 registered under sections 302, 394, 397 and 34, P.P.C. at PS Zarghoonabad District Quetta. The appellant Muhammad Idrees son of Rozi Muhammad, is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 2022 is also dismissed as being meritless.
JK/149/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.