1. AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this Cr. Appeal Appellant Gul Zaman son of Basrio Katyar has impugned judgment dated 12.06.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Thatta in Sessions Case No, 62 of 2012, whereby he has been convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to death and to pay compensation of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default to pay the amount of compensation, the appellant has to undergo S.I. for six months.
2. The death sentence has been made subject to confirmation by this Court.
3. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Ladho Katiyar lodged FIR No,32 of 2012 on 23.09.2012 at 1900 hours stating therein that he is Tractor driver. About three years back, he got married his daughter Mst. Mami aged about 25 years with Gul Zaman Katiyar according to Shariah Muhammadi. Gul Zaman Katiyar used to beat his wife on domestic affairs and such complaints were also made to the Nekmards. It is alleged that on 23.03.2012, complainant was sleeping in the house along with other family members, at 03:00 a.m., he heard hue and cry coming from the house of accused Gul Zaman Katiyar complainant, his son .Yasin and his brother Allah Warrayo went running towards the house of Gul Zaman where they saw that accused Gul Zaman having gun, whereas Iqbal son of Bassario and Ramzan son of Bassario holding lathies in their hands were beating her daughter, while Ismail son of Allah Dino Katiyar was also present there, empty handed. The complainant tried to rescue his daughter Mst. Mami. It is alleged that accused Ismail Katiyar instigated others not to spare and kill her. At the instigation of accused Ismail, accused Ramzan Katiyar and Iqbal Katiyar caught hold of Mst. Mann from arms, while it is alleged that accused Gul Zaman made straight fire from his gun at Mst. Mami which hit her at left leg and back side of thigh, she fell down on sustaining injuries and expired at the spot. However, the complainant brought her daughter to Civil Hospital Thatta for confirming her death where MO confirmed that Mst. Mami had expired. On such information, police came there, completed necessary formalities in the hospital and handed over dead body of Mst. Mami to the complainant / father. The complainant buried the dead body and then lodged the FIR against the accused persons. It was recorded vide crime No,32 of 2012 under sections 302, 114/34, P.P.C. at P.S. Gharo.
4. The accused namely Gul Zaman Katiyar, Ramzan Katiyar and Iqbal Katiyar were arrested on 25.03.2012 and the investigation was carried out by P.W. ASI Muhammad Ramzan Charran, while accused Ismail Katiyar joined the investigation after getting bail.
5. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused persons under sections 302, 114/34, P.P.C.
6. In order to prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined PW-1, Complainant Ladho Katiyar (Ex.07) who produced receipt of handing over dead body and FIR (Ex.07/A & 7/B), PW-02 Yaseen Katiyar (Ex.08), PW-03 Allah Warrayo Katiyar (Ex.09), PW-04 Sikandar Katiyar (Ex.10) who produced memo of inspection of place of occurrence (Ex.10/A), memo of arrest of accused Gul Zaman Katiyar, Ramzan Katiyar and Iqbal Katiyar (Ex.10/B) and memo of recovery of gun (Ex.10/C), PW-05 Noor Mohammad Katiyar (Ex.11), who produced memo of dead body (Ex.11/A), Lash chakas form (Ex.11/B), memo of seizer of clothes (Ex.11/C), PW-06 WMO Dr. Karam-unNisa Jokhio (Ex.12) who produced letter of police (Ex.12/A), lash chakas form (Ex.12/B) and postmortem report of the deceased (Ex.12/C), PW-07 SIO/ASI Mohammad Ramzan Charran (Ex.13), who produced danishnama (Ex.13/A), letter addressed to chemical examiner for sending clothes of deceased (Ex.13/B), report of chemical examiner in respect of clothes of deceased (Ex.13/C), letter addressed to AIG forensic division in respect of sending crime weapon and cartridges for expert report (Ex.13/D), attested copy of forensic report (Ex.13/E) and letter sent to concerned Mukhtiarkar for preparation of site sketch of the place of occurrence (Ex.13/F) and PW-08 Tapedar Noor-ul-l-laq (Ex.14) who produced site sketch of the place of occurrence (Ex.14/A). Learned DDPP filed statement (Ex.16) whereby prosecution side was closed.
7. Statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded at Ex. 17 to 20 wherein they denied the prosecution allegations leveled against them and claimed innocence. They further stated that deceased Mst. Mami was killed by the complainant party on account of her contracting court marriage with accused Gul Zaman. Accused Ismail stated that he had an old dispute with More Katiyar, who filed several civil suits in different courts against him. More Katiyar was close relative of the complainant. He further stated that he was heart patient and at the time of incident he was sleeping in his house. He produced certain documents (Ex.17/A-1 to Ex.17/A-6). Accused Gul Zaman in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that the complainant party was annoyed with him on account of court marriage of deceased Mst. Mami and that she was murdered by the complainant party, but they have falsely implicated him in the case. He produced affidavit of freewill of the deceased and Nikahnama. Statements of accused Iqbal Katiyar and Ramzan Katiyar were also on the same line. The accused did not examine themselves on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however appellant Gul Zaman examined D.W. Afzal in his defence.
8. After formulating the points for determination, recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses and hearing counsel for the parties, learned Sessions Judge, Thatta vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant Gul Zaman as stated above. Co-accused Iqbal Katiar, Ramzan Katiar and Ismail Katiar were acquitted by extending benefit of doubt to them. Against the said judgment the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.P.G. appearing for the State and perused the evidence recorded by the trial Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has been falsely involved in the present case; that there was delay of 16 hours in lodging of FIR for which no plausible explanation was furnished. He argued that dead body was received at 04:00 a.m. in hospital and postmortem examination was started at 07:30 a.m. with a delay of 3-1/2 hours. He submitted that delay in conducting the postmortem report was deliberate for consultation to maneuver and falsely implicate the appellant in this case. He further contended that evidence of the eyewitnesses is unbelievable as they have not disclosed probable cause of their presence at the spot at such odd hours of night. While elaborating his arguments, learned counsel submitted that there are 40 to 50 houses in between the house of the complainant and the house of the appellant and incident allegedly took place outside the house of the accused. It is further contended that I0 who inspected the place of wardat has deposed that there was distance of 1-1/2 furlongs in between the house of the appellant and place of occurrence. It is also contended that as per prosecution two accused persons namely Iqbal and Ramzan had also caused lathi blows to the deceased but no injury caused by hard and blunt substance was found on the body of deceased.
11. Ocular evidence was contradictory to medical evidence. It is argued that evidence of eye- witnesses is unreliable because on the same set of evidence co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. Mr. Metlo submitted that it was 30th of Rabi-us-Sani 1433 and time of incident was 03:00 a.m. night. It was dark night and on the said night there was no moonlight at the time of incident. It is also argued that in the FIR source of identification has not been disclosed. Learned counsel for appellant argued that prosecution witnesses in evidence claimed that they saw the incident and identified the accused on the bulb light, however in the sketch prepared by the Tapedar and the mashimama of place of occurrence there is no mention of any such bulb / electricity. It is further contended that incident took place in a village but no independent person was examined by the prosecution. PW Nazar Muhammad in his evidence has stated that complainant had dispute with accused Ismail over installation of the tower. He has stated that all the accused are closely related to each other. The accused in their statements have produced affidavit of freewill of the deceased, so also Nikahnama, which showed that it was not an arranged marriage but was a love marriage which caused much annoyance to the complainant party.
12. Counsel for the appellant submits that accused Ismail has also produced copies of two civil suits and one civil appeal to show that there was civil litigation between the accused persons and the complainant party. PW-2 has deposed that as soon as he reached the place of occurrence, he saw that deceased was lying injured whereas PWs 1 and 3 have stated that when they reached at the place of occurrence they saw the deceased in standing position. It is also contended that eye- witnesses claiming to be close relatives of the deceased did not come forward to rescue the deceased. It is stated that conduct of the eye-witnesses was highly unnatural. He further argued that motive has not been established by the brother and uncle of the deceased during trial. It is contended that according to the eye-witnesses fires were made to the deceased from a distance of 2/3 paces but the medical evidence reflects that fire was made from a long distance. Learned advocate for appellant further argued that firearm injuries sustained by the deceased were at the thigh and such type of injuries could not cause instant death but as per prosecution case, deceased died instantly. He submitted that no empty cartridge was collected by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence except bloodstained earth. As regards to the recovery of the gun on the pointation of the accused, it is argued that mashir of recovery has stated that accused produced gun from his almirah in which clothes were also lying but on the same point Investigating Officer has deposed that accused produced gun from the Almirah in which there was nothing except the crime weapon. He further contended that Mashir of recovery Sikandar son of Moar resided 5/6 kilometers away in another village. Therefore recovery of gun was in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. It is further argued that father of mashir, PW-4 had litigation with accused Ismail and documentary proof has been filed in evidence to' substantiate such assertion. In support of his contentions he relied upon the following case-law reported as Mohammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCM R 230, Nazeer Ahmed v. Gehne Khan and others 2011 SCM R 1473, lrshad Ahmed v. The State 2011 SCM R 1190 Mohammad Ali v. The State 2015 SCM R 137, Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCM R 1345, Lal Khan v. The State 2006 SCM R 1846, Mohammad Riaz v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 1022, Ayub Masjh v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048, Said Zamin v. Shair Azaim and others 2016 M LD 76, Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003 SCM R 1419 and Zaman Shah v. The State 2015 M LD 795.
13. Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, A.P.G. argued that there was delay in lodging of the FIR because the complainant was busy in the funeral ceremony of the deceased. Regarding omission of source of identification in the FIR he contended that complainant had clarified the position that he had mentioned the source of identification as bulb light to the police but it was not mentioned by the police in the FIR. He further argued that parties were closely related to each other as such witnesses had no difficulty to identify the accused at the time of incident. Learned A.P.G. contended that if it would have been the case of love marriage, it would not have been possible for the couple to reside in the same village keeping in view the custom and tradition of the rural areas, therefore, such plea is not believable. According to him, PWs have deposed that distance between the houses of eyewitnesses and the place of incident was 150 paces. Learned A.P.G. argued that within one hour the dead body of the deceased was dispatched to the doctor and its postmortem was conducted at 7.00 a.m. and not a single question was put by the defence to the doctor about delay in conducting postmortem examination. Learned A.P.G. admitted that Lady doctor in the first postmortem report mentioned that death was caused by bullet injuries but before the commencement of trial correction/change was made that death was caused by pellets.
14. According to APG, the doctor was not an expert to specify the weapon used in the commission of offence. Such question was also not put by the defence during the trial. He argued that substitution of the real culprits was rare phenomena in this case as the daughter of the complainant was murdered. He, however, conceded that there was no mention of bulb in the mashirnama of place of wardat prepared by I.O. as well as in the sketch prepared by Tapedar. He submitted that there were differences between the appellant and his wife. Learned A.P.G. admitted that allegation against acquitted accused Ramzan and Iqbal was that they had caused lathi blows to the deceased but no injury having been caused by hard and blunt substance on the dead body of the deceased was found by the WMO. It is argued that under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 discovery of the gun on the pointation of the accused was admissible in evidence therefore provisions of section 103, Cr. P. C . were not applicable. Ballistic Expert's report was produced before the trial Court by the prosecution which was positive. He contended that defence witness deposed that deceased died leaving behind one child as admitted by DW Afzal and the complainant, who is present in the Court, also confirms that deceased left behind a minor son namely Mujeed, aged about two years at the time of incident. He submitted that the judgment of trial Court awarding death sentence to the appellant was erroneous in view of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as. Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1994 SC 885). Learned A.P.G. submitted that death sentence may be converted into imprisonment for life. In support of his contentions, learned A.P.G. relied upon the cases reported as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat and another 2012 SCM R 1869 [Supreme Court of India], Khalid Saif Ullah v. The State 2008 SCM R 688, Irshad Ahmed v. The State and others PLD 1996 SC 138, Shafqat Ali and others v. The State PLD 2005 SC 288, Ata Mohammad v. The State PLD 1960 [W.P.] Lahore 111, Noor Mohammad v. The State and another 2005 SCM R 1958 and Mir Mohammad v. The State 1995 SCM R 614.
15. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the trial Coourt. P.W Complainant Ladho Katiyar deposed that about three years back, he got married his daughter Mst.
16. Mami aged about 28 years with Gul Zaman Katiyar according to Shariah Muhammadi, whose house is situated near the house of complainant. Gul Zaman Katiyar used to maltreat his wife, Mst.
17. Mami, on domestic affairs and such complaints were also made to the Nekmards. On the day of the incident, he was sleeping in the house when he heard cries of his daughter coming from the house of Gul Zaman Katiyar as such complainant, his son Yasin and his brother Allah Warrayo went running towards the house of Gul Zaman where on the light of electricity bulb they saw that accused Ramzan and Iqbal were giving beatings with dandas to his daughter Mst. Mami. Accused Ismail was standing empty handed whereas accused Gul Zaman was armed with DBBL Gun.
18. Complainant tried to save his daughter when accused Ismail instigated remaining accused persons not to spare Mst. Mami and commit her murder, whereupon accused Ramzan Katiyar and Iqbal Katiyar caught hold of Mst. Mami from arms, while accused Gul Zaman made straight fire from his gun at the back side of her left leg and thigh, she fell down on sustaining injuries whereas accused went away inside their rooms. The complainant took the injured to Civil Hospital Makli where doctor declared death of Mst. Mami. On information, police came there, completed necessary formalities in the hospital and after postmortem dead body of Mst. Mami was handed over to the complainant. The complainant buried the dead body and then lodged FIR against the accused persons.
19. In his cross-examination he stated that people of the village also gathered at the place of incident after their arrival. He admitted that he saw causing two lathi blows by accused Iqbal and Ramzan to deceased. He further stated that when deceased received lathi blows she was in standing position. The accused Gul Zaman fired at Mst. Mami from distance of about three paces. He further stated that they caused fist blows to accused Gul Zaman and others but they immediately went inside their rooms. He further stated that after receiving fire arm injuries Mst. Mami went unconscious. He admitted that night of the incident was dark. He further admitted that cases were pending between Moor Katiyar and accused Ismail over the issue of the installation of tower.
20. P.Ws Yaseen and Allah Warrayo are also eye-witnesses of the incident and are son and brother of the complainant respectively. Their deposition is also on the same line as that of P.W. Ladho.
21. In his cross-examination P.W. Yaseen admitted, "I at the first instance heard cries and then one shot of bullet." He further admitted that the fact that bulb was glowing at the place of the incident it was not mentioned in his statement. He stated that the accused caused 5/8 lathi blows to the deceased. He further admitted that the lathi blows were inflicted on different parts of her body, including both legs, abdomen and back side of her body. He further admitted that when he saw the incident histeceased sister was lying on the ground and the accused persons were causing lathi blows to her. He further admitted that after injuries the deceased became unconscious but was alive and they shifted her to Makli Hospital. He further admitted that in his statement he had mentioned that after receiving injuries his sister died instantly at the spot. He admitted that villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. He further admitted that P.Ws live 5/6 miles away from the place of the incident.
22. P.W. Allah Warryo in his cross-examination admitted that in his statement it is mentioned that after receiving pellet injuries the deceased died instantly.
23. In our considered view there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
24. Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that he saw causing two lathi blows by Iqbal and Ramzan to deceased, whereas P.W. Yaseen stated that the accused caused 5/8 lathi blows to the deceased and that the lathi blows were inflicted on different parts of her body including both legs, abdomen and back side of her body. Complainant stated in his cross-examination that when deceased received lathi blows she was in standing position and she remained stood, whereas P.W.
25. Yaseen stated that deceased was lying on the ground and the accused persons were striking lathi blows on her. The complainant in the FIR stated that after receiving gunshot injury at the hands of accused Gul Zaman deceased Mst. Mami fell down and expired at the spot, whereas during his cross-examination he stated that after receiving fire arm injuries Mst. Mami went unconscious.
26. Likewise, P. W . Yaseen in his cross-examination stated that after injuries the deceased became unconscious but was alive and was shifted to Makli Hospital.
27. P.W. Yaseen in his examination in chief deposed that after hearing crises they rushed to the house of Gul Zaman, saw accused Iqbal and Ramzan beating the deceased, thereafter on the instigation of accused Ismail, accused Gul Zaman made straight fire at the deceased, however in his cross- examination while talking about the gun shot, he stated, "I at the first instance heard cries and then one shot of bullet." meaning thereby on hearing the shot of bullet he rushed to the place of incident. This fact creates serious doubt regarding his presence at the spot at the time of incident because entire episode ended when accused Gul Zaman allegedly made straight fire on the deceased as soon thereafter the accused are said to have gone inside their rooms. This is major coptradiction.
28. It is also pertinent to mention here that it has been admitted by all the eye-witnesses that the incident took place at night time and they saw the incident and identified the accused persons on the light of bulb. Neither in the mashirnama of place of occurrence nor in the evidence of mashir Sikandar there is mention of any bulb at the place of incident, even in the sketch prepared by the Tapedar there is no mention of any such blub. Likewise, the mashir Sikandar deposed that at the time of recovery of crime weapon from the almirah lying in the room of the accused Gul Zaman, clothes and other articles were also lying in the wooden Almirah, whereas the I.O. Mohammad Ramzan in his cross-examination stated, "except the crime weapon nothing was found in the said Almirah."
29. Accused in their statements recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. have claimed that complainant had dispute with accused Ismail over installation of the tower and in support of such assertion they have produced copies of two civil suits and one civil appeal. Besides, the defence taken by the accused is that deceased Mst. Mami contracted court marriage with appellant Gul Zaman on which the complainant party was annoyed, as such they themselves killed the deceased and then falsely implicated the accused in the case. Although the complainant and other prosecution witnesses have denied such fact, but the accused in their statements have produced affidavit of freewill of complainant's deceased daughter, so also Nikahnama, which show that it was not an arranged marriage but was a love marriage which caused much annoyance to the complainant party. It is also strange that the eye-witnesses, who were admittedly close relatives of the deceased, did not come forward to rescue the deceased. The manner in which the eye-witnesses have narrated the incident, so also their conduct appear to be highly unnatural. It is also an admitted position that no empty cartridge was secured by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence except bloodstained earth. It is further argued that father of mashir Sikandar had litigation with accused Ismail and documentary proof has been produced in evidence to substantiate such assertion.
30. Besides above contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there are also other lacunas in the prosecution case. It is contended by the defence counsel that there was delay of 16 hours in lodging of FIR for which no plausible explanation was furnished by the prosecution. The only justification given for such delay was that the complainant was busy in the funeral ceremony of the deceased. In the FIR the complainant has categorically stated that on receiving fire shot injuries, the deceased Mst. Mami died on the spot. If this was the position, then there was no need to take her body to the hospital. Even the delay, counted from the time of handing over of the dead body of deceased to the complainant, comes to eleven hours as, according to the complainant, the dead body was handed over to him at 8.00 a.m. whereas the FIR was lodged at 7.00 p.m. In the case of Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) Honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR coupled with the presence of the elders of the area at the time of recording of FIR leads to the inescapable conclusion that the FIR was recorded after consultation and deliberation. The possibility of fabrication of a story and false implication thus cannot be excluded altogether. Unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR is an intriguing circumstance which tarnishes the authenticity of the FIR, casts a cloud of doubt on the entire prosecution case and is to be taken into consideration while evaluating the prosecution evidence.
31. It is true that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal by itself and is immaterial when the prosecution evidence is strong enough to' sustain conviction but it becomes significant where the prosecution evidence and other circumstances of the case tend to tilt the balance in favour of the accused."
32. Keeping in view the delay occurred in lodging the FIR in the instant case, more particularly ' in the light of aforesaid contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, possibility of false implication of the accused Gul Zaman cannot be excluded.
33. There are also discrepancies in the medical evidence. Learned A.P.G. during the course of arguments admitted that doctor in the first report mentioned that death was caused by bullet injuries but before the commencement of trial correction / change was made that death was caused by pellets. In her cross-examination Dr. Karam-un-Nisa, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mst. Mami admitted, "I corrected the word pellets from bullets subsequent to postmortem later on a few days ago." In reply to a question as to what did she mean by 'few days', she replied, "I mean 15 to 20 days under a letter of police, I made correction." She further stated that she used the word bullets because she was not an expert and was unable to distinguish between the pellets and bullets. This explanation coming from the mouth of a Lady Medical Officer having a massive responsibility on her shoulder does not appear to be plausible. Moreover, admittedly the dead body was received at 04:00 a.m. and postmortem examination was started at 07:30 a.m. with a delay of 3-1/4 hours which also creates doubts in the prosecution story. In the case of Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCM R 1190) following observations were made by the Honourable Supreme Court:-- "We have further observed that the post-mortem examination of the deadbody of Shehzad Ahmed deceased has been conducted with a noticeable delay and such delay is generally suggestive of a real possibility that time had been consumed by the police in procuring and planting eyewitnesses and in cooking up a story for the prosecution before preparing police papers necessary for getting a postmortem examination of the deadbody conducted."
34. Another important point which goes in favour of appellant Gul Zaman is that the accused Iqbal and Ramzan allegedly caused lathi blows to the deceased and caught hold of the deceased thereby facilitating her murder at the hands of appellant Gul Zaman, however they have been acquitted by the trial Court on the same set of evidence. The learned defence counsel argued that evidence of eyewitnesses is unreliable because on the same set of evidence co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. Rule of consistency demands that if an accused has been acquitted from the charge on the basis of certain evidence and has been extended benefit of material discrepancies/ contradictions in the evidence, other accused charged with similar allegations is also entitled to the' same concession/ treatment.
35. In the case of Mohammad Akram v. The State 2012 SCM R 440 the Honourable Supreme Court while holding that same set of evidence which was disbelieved qua the involvement of co-accused could not be relied upon to convict the accused on a capital charge, acquitted the accused.
36. In the case of Mehboob Sultan and 2 others v. The State and others 2001 SCM R 163 it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court as under:- "Adverting to the case of appellant Mohammad Ashraf, we are of the considered view that his case is at par with that of Mohammad Akram, who was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial Court while taking lenient view as he was aged about 70 years. Similarly appellant Mohammad Ashraf is aged about 75 years and thus, he is entitled to the same benefit as per rule of consistency. Accordingly, his sentence is Reduced from death to imprisonment for life."
37. In the case reported as Umar Farooque v. State 2006 SCM R 1605 the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under: "On exactly the same evidence and in view of the joint charge, it is not comprehendible, as to how, Talat Mehmood could be acquitted and on the same assertions of the witnesses, Umer Farooque could be convicted. "
38. The accumulative effect of all the abovesaid defects/infirmities is that they have put serious dents and doubts in the prosecution case. Needless to emphasize the -- well settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to be extended benefit of doubt as a matter of right. In the present case, there are many circumstances which create doubt in the prosecution case. Even an accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt merely because there is only one circumstance which creates doubt in the prosecution story. In the case reported as Tank? Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCM R 1345 the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:-- "The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in air country. For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance whichcreates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilty 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."
39. There are various discrepancies/defects in the prosecution case which create reasonable doubts in the prosecution case.
40. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ' The confirmation reference is answered in negative.