' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment 'dated 21.6.2012 of learned Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Dir Lower, Timergara, whereby accused/respondents 1 to 3, involved in case FIR No. 431 dated 16.7.2011 under section 302/201/ 34/PPC registered at Police Station, Khali, were acquitted of the charge.
2. The allegations against the accused/respondents are that they on 15.7.2011 at unknown time committed the murder of Mst. Islamia by strangulation.
3. After completion of investigation, challan against accused/respondents was submitted. Learned Trial Court after framing of charge, recording statements of prosecution witnesses and that of accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. And defence witnesses produced by the accused, recorded the acquittal of accused/respondents, vide impugned judgment, hence, the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused-respondents without considering the evidence on file. It was argued that statements of Bakht Zameen, Said Zameen, Sherin Zada, Mst. Sakeena, Hujat Khan and Woman Medical Officer, Lubna, coupled with pointation memo and recovery of piece of cloth through which deceased was strangulated fully supported the prosecution case but the trial court due to mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record on its true perspective recorded acquittal the accused/respondents and, as such, judgment of trial Court is liable to be set aside and accused/ respondents may be convicted and sentence in accordance with law.
5. As against that, learned counsel for accused/respondents contended that there is no direct evidence against the accused and the evidence collected by the prosecution and produced before the court is neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring and is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents.
6. We have considered arguments of learned counsel for parties and gone through record of the case.
7. The record reveals that marriage of deceased was contracted with accused/respondent, Sher Azam, three months prior to the occurrence. According to contents of report, recorded vide Mad No. 12 dated 16.7.2011, Ex PW 4/1, the complainant Said Zameen at the time of report was not certain as to whether it was the case of suicide or homicide by hanging, therefore, inquiry 174 Cr.P.C. Was initiated. During inquiry parents of the deceased and complainant recorded their statements wherein they charged, Sher Azam, husband of deceased, Mst. Benazir, mother in law of deceased, and Mst. Nazia, maternal cousin of Sher Azam, for the killing of deceased. Motive as alleged by the prosecution is that Sher Azam accused was having illicit relation with his co-accused Mst. Nazia, who happened to be his maternal cousin, for which the deceased had allegedly complained to her mother, Mst. Sakina, as well as mother in law, Mst. Benazir. Admittedly, it is case of two versions, one taken by the prosecution in the FIR and second put forth the accused during investigation and statements under section 342 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence of the occurrence and case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Bakht Amin, father of deceased, Said Zamin, complainant and Mst. Sakina, mother of the deceased appeared before trial court and recorded their statements but their testimony are on the basis of presumption as they are not A eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Mst. Nazia, accused/respondent, was examined through Medical Officer on the application of Investigation Officer, Ex PW 5/8, and according to report of doctor her hymen was intact, which negates the story of prosecution. The deceased was examined by lady Dr. Lubna Tahir on 16.7.2011 and, though, found strangulation mark on front of neck, semicircular in shape extending from one side to another of neck about 1.5 c.m broad, dark brown in colour, but found no sign of injury or violence all over the body. In Lal Khan's case reported in 2006 SCM R 1846) the apex Court observed that:-- < i >"Hanging is the most common form of suicide whereas homicidal hanging is rare which may occur in very unusual circumstances. In medical jurisprudence, no definite opinion can be given on the basis of ligature mark around neck, whether death was homicidal or suicidal. Causation of an injury found on the person of deceased, may either be homicidal or suicidal and in that prosecution is under heavy burden to prove that the death was homicide and not suicide." < / i >
8. Accused/respondents in their statements under section 342 Cr.P.C. Has taken the plea that the deceased committed suicide and in support of their plea they also produced Bacha Khan and Najib Ullah, who deposed that the deceased has committed suicide. Many circumstances in the case are available which creates doubt in the prosecution story. To convict a person on a capital charge, evidence must come from unimpeachable source, which is lacking in the case. In the system of criminal justice, drawing presumption regarding the guilt of accused without any legal proof have not been recognized by the Courts and to convict and sentence an accused person to death or life imprisonment through a judicial decision, there must be strong and legally acceptable evidence leading the court to a definite conclusion about his guilt otherwise a single doubt if found reasonable is sufficient for acquittal of accused. It is settled by now that in cases of circumstantial evidence every chain should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other end should touch the neck of the accused and if the chain is missing then its benefit must go to the accused.
9. The overall narration given above leaves no hesitation to hold that the findings of the trial Court have been based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after regular trial he is acquitted he earns a double presumption of innocence and heavy onus lies on the prosecution to rebut such presumption.
Wisdom is sought from the case of Muhammad Yaqoob v. Manzoor Hussain and 3 others (2008 SCM R 1549) wherein it has been observed that:- <i>"Law relating to reappraisal of evidence in appeals against acquittal is stringent, because the presumption regarding innocence of accused is doubled and multiplied after accused is found not guilty by a competent court of law and such finding can not be upset, disturbed and reversed except when the impugned judgment is found to be perverse, shocking, alarming, artificial and suffering from jurisdictional error or misreading or non-reading of evidence. Judgment of acquittal under the law shall not be disturbed even though a second opinion may be reasonably possible in the case"</i>
10. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if any single and slightest doubt is created, its benefit has to go to the accused. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused/respondents on valid and cogent reasons by correctly appreciating the evidence on record and their acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.