SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J. --- The appellant namely Ashfaq son of Mushtaq was tried alongwith his co- accused namely Adnan (since acquitted ) by the learned Additional Session s Judge, Mianchannu, District Khanewal in case F.I.R. No, 361 of 2011, dated 02.09.201 1 registered at Police Station Talomba, Tehsil Mianchannu, District Khanewal, under Sections 302/34, P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-e-Amd of Mazhar Ilyas (deceased). The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2013 convicted Ashfaq (convict) and sentenced him as infra:--- Ashfaq: Death under Section 302(b), P.P.C. as Taair for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mazhar Ilyas (deceased) and pay Rs, 2 Lac as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof, to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead.
2. Feeling, aggrieved, Ashfaq (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No 453 of 2014 against his conviction and sentence. The learned Trial Court submitted Murder Reference No, 95 of 2013 under Section 374, Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant Ashfaq. We intend to dispose of both the, Criminal Appeal No 453 of 2014 and Murder . Reference No 95 of 2013 through this single judgment.
3. Precisely the facts necessary , as divulged in the statement of Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) are as under:- -- "On 02.09.201 1 at about 12/30 midnight lam with Zulfiqar son of Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Irshad sons of Abdul Rahman caste by Ghauri, resident of Tulumba was sitting at Nomi Pan Shop which is, situated in Liaqat Chowk; Tulumba. We were talking with each other . Mazhar Ilyas (deceased) was present at welcome pan shop near the Nomi Pan Shop. Suddenly ,, Ishfaq accused son of Mushtaq Ahmad with Chhuri and Adrian son of Nazir both resident of Chak No, 468/GB, Sumandri, District Faisalabad came there. I knew above-said both accused persons prior to occurrence, because above-said both accused persons used to visit oftenly their relatives in Tulumba. I alongwith PWs Muhammad Zulfiqar and Muhammad Irshad identified above-said accused persons in the light of Bulb. Adnan accused raised Lalkara to teach a lesson for aim disgrace. In the meanwhile, Ishfaq accused inflicted churri blows to Mazhar Ilyas deceased which hit him on abdomen under the belly button/naff.
Ishfaq accused repeated churri blows on Mazhar Ilyas deceased which hit him left rib, left flank, middle of abdomen and front of left side of the chest. Mazhar Ilyas deceased fell down. I alongwtth Zulfiqar and Muhammad Irshad witnessed the above-said occurrence. Mazhar Ilyas deceased succumbed to the injuries.
Motive behind this occurrence is that Mazhar Ilyas deceased was sitting on Tasty Burger point prior to above-said occurrence. In the meanwhile above-said accused persons also came there for purchasing the burger and suddenly harsh words exchanged between Mazhar Ilyas deceased and above-said accused persons. Due to this grudge accused persons in furtherance of common intension committed intentional murder of Mazhar Ilyas brother After the occurrence, I went to the Police Station for registration of case. I gave application Ex. PA for registration of case against above-said accused persons, which is bear my signatures Ex.P A/1.
On 16.09.201 1, I alongwith Zulfigar joined the investigation. During the investigation accused Ishfaq disclosed that he could recovered churri on his pointation which was concealed in the house of Zafar Iqbal uncle after the occurrence. On his disclosure Police Party alongwith I and Zulfiqar reached Zafar Iqbal house. Accused Ishfaq entered in the residential room of Zafar Iqbal alongwith PWs and police officials and got recovered the blood- stained churri P/1 from the drawer of a TV trolley . I.O. of this case look the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PB and attested by me and Zulfiqar PW. I.O sealed the said Churri. I.O. also recorded my statement under Section 161, Cr .P.C. in this regard."
4. The learned Trial Court framed charge against the appellant on 19.7.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and the learned Trial Court proceeded to examine the prosecution witnesses.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got recorded statements of as many as ten witnesses. The ocular account of the occurrence was deposed by Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfigar Ali Ghauri (PW-2), Riaz Hussain, ASI (PW-3) stated that.after receiving written application. (Exh.P A) he registered the F.I.R. (Exh.PE).
Raja Ghulam Farid Janjua, Draftsman (PW-5) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PJ).
Rashid Ahmad 618/C (PW-7) stated that on 14.09.201 1 Muhammad Zafar 430/HC (PW-9) handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain blood-stained earth for its transmission to Chemical Examiner , Lahore, and he was also handed over a sealed parcel said to contain blood-stained churri by Muhammad Zafar 430/HC (PW-9). Qamar Javaid (PW-8) identified the dead-body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem. Naveed Ahmad 1192/C (PW- 10) stated that on 02.09.201 1 he escorted the dead-body of the deceased for conducting die post-mortem examination and he was handed over the last worn clothes of the deceased which were taken into possession through recovery memo. (Exh.PD). Akhtar Nawaz, S.I. (PW-6) investigated the case and stated the details of his investigation before the learned Trial Court.
6. The prosecution also got examined Dr. Nazir Ahmad Haraj (PW-4) who was posted, as Senior Medical Officer at RHC Talumba, Mianchannu on 08.06.201 1. On the said date Dr. Nazir Ahmad Haraj (PW-4) conducted the post- mortem examination of the deceased Mazhar Ilyas and issued the post-mortem report (Exh.PF). He observed as under:-- EXTERNAL INJURIES: Injury No. 1: An incised (stab) wound 2cm x 1 cm' going deep chest cavity on the front of left chest 4 cm medial to left nipple with corresponding cut into last worn clothes.
On dissection: Skin, soft tissues and chest wall were cut through and through.
Left lung and left ventricles cut through and through by sharp and pointed edge weapon.
Injury No. 2: An incised Wound (stab) 2 cm x 1 cm going deep; into the left chest cavity on the front of left chest in lower parts 13'cm below left nipple with corresponding cut into kamees and bunyan.
On dissection,: Skin soft tissues and chest wall cut through and ,through.
Injury No. 3: An incised wound (stab) 2 cm x 1 cm going deep into the left chest cavity on outer side of left chest in lower part,. 4 cm away from injury No,2 with corresponding cut into bunyan and kameez.
Injury No. 4: An incised (stab) wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm going deep into the abdominal cavity on the front of abdomen slightly on right side 10 cm above from Umbilicus with corresponding cut into bunyan and kameez.
Injury No,5 : An incised, (stab) wound 2 cm x 1 cm going deep into the abdomen on frontal surface 2.5 cm below from Umbilicus on right side.
OPINION In my opinion, death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage froth external and internal) which was due to fatal injury of heart and left lung, which was the result of injuries No, 1,2 & 3. So, injury No, 1 individually and injury No, 1 to 5 collectively , were sufficient to cause death in his nature of course of life. Injuries No, I to 5 were ante- mortem in nature and were caused by sharp- edged weapon.
Probable time duration between injury and death was immediate (fifteen to twenty minutes) and between death and post-mortem, it was eight to nine hours,"-
7. On 26.06.2013 the learned ADPP gave up PW Muhammad Irshad as being unnecessary and on 08.07.2013 learned ADPP gave up PW Shahid lmran as being unnecessary . On 21.09.2013 the learned ADPP closed the prosecution evidence after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PN), report of Chemical Examiner relating to blood-stained chhuri (Exh.PM), report of Serologist relating to blood-stained chhuri (Exh.PO) and report of report of Serologist (Exh.PO).
8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned Trial Court examined the appellant under Section 342, Cr.P.C. and in answer to question why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you he gave the following reply:--- "The PWs are closely related with the deceased and few days prior to the occurrence, a scuffle took place between the deceased and my uncle and me. Therefore, due to this revenge, this false case has been registered against me."
Neither the appellant opted to get himself examined under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor adduced any evidence in his defence.
9. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mianchannu, District Khanewal, convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant precisely is that whole case is fallacious and untruthful.
He further submitted that the prosecution remained unable to prove the facts in issue and did not produce any irreproachable, admissible and relevant evidence. He further contended that the statements of Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) are not worthy of any reliance. He also argued that the medical evidence was not supportive of the prosecution case. He also contended that had Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) been present, they would not have let the deceased receive so many injuries at the hands of the assailants. He also argued that the recovery was a result of fake proceedings. He finally submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt as required by law.
11. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General alongwith learne d counsel for the complainant contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing independent witnesses.
They further submitted that there was no untoward delay in lodging the F.I.R. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General alongwith learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the deceased died as a result of injuries suffered at the hand of the appellant. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General alongwith learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the medical evidence also corroborated the statements of Muhammad Tahir Mehmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2). The learned Deputy Prosecutor Gener al alongwith learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the recovery of chhuri (Exh.Pl) from Ashfaq (appellant) also corroborated the ocular account. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General alongwith learned counsel for the complainant contended that the appellant had grudge against the, deceased and there was no occasion for the prosecution witnesses, who were related to the deceased, to substitute the real offender with the innocent in this case. Lastly , they prayed for the rejection of appeal.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Prosecutor General alongwith learned counsel for the complainant and with their assistance perused the record and evidence recorded during the trial carefully .
13. The whole' prosecution case orbits around the statements of Muhammad Tahir Mehmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2). The said witnesses namely Muhammad Tahir Mehmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) were cousins inter se whereas the deceased was the real brother of Muhammad Tahir Mehmood (PW-1). It is also in evidence that the said witnesses Muhammad Tahir Mehmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) and Muhammad Irshad (given up PW) attempted to apprehend Ashfaq (appellant) but he fled away . This points out to only one conclusion that the witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence as this failure to apprehend has no reason behind it. Muhammad Tahir Mehm ood (PW-1). Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) and Muhammad Irshad (given up PW) remained silent spectators and did not react or show any response when this occurrence was taking place. We have also observed that as per the medical evidence the injuries found present on the person of the deceased were five in number and during the causing of said no effort was made to rescue the deceased. No person having ordinary prudence would believe that such closely related witnesses would rema in' watching the proceedings as mere spectators without doing anything to rescue the deceased or to apprehend the assailant. We have also observed, as mentioned above, the witnesses stated that they tried to apprehend the assailant. It is strange that when the witnesses had the desire to apprehend the accused after the occurrence and. were not fearful of the assailant, then why they could not stop him from committing, the occurrence. The allowance of prosecution witnesses to the assailant of causing the death of their- near and dear relative by infliction of injuries speaks loudly that if the two witnesses had been present at the place of occurrence, they would have definitely intervened and prevented, the assailants from murdering their dear one. It proves that the deceased was at the mercy of the assailant and no one was there to save him at the odd hours of night. Such behavior , on part of the witnesses, runs counter to natural human conduct and behavior , Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 allows the courts to presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case. We thus presume the existence of this fact, by virtue of the Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984, that the conduct of the witnesses, as deposed by them, was opposed to common course of natural events, human conduct and that the witnesses were not present at the time of occurrence at the crime scene. We hence are holding that these two witnesses namely Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) were not present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has enunciated binding principles for appreciation or evidence in such circumstances. Reliance is placed on the case of Pathan v. The State (2015 SCMR 315 ) at page 317 wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:--- The causing of such large number of injuries one after another to the deceased with scissors must have consumed reasonable time due to the pause in-between the first injury and the last one, but all the three P. Ws. including the son with a strong stature and built remained as silent spectators, They did not react or showed any response when the accused was causing the injuries. No man on the earth would believe that a close relative would remain silent, spectator in a situation like this because their intervention was very natural to rescue the deceased but they did nothing nor attempted to chase the accused and apprehend him at the spot."
Further reliance is placed on the case of Shahzad Tanveer v. The State (2012 SCMR 172) at page 176 wherein the August Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as infra:-- It is also more strange that none of the P. Ws. dared to physically intervene in order to save the victim or apprehend the accused at the spot."
Reliance is also placed on the case of Liaquat Ali v.The State (2008 SCMR 95) at page 97. wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- He was a single alleged assailant and if the witnesses were there at the spot they could have easily overpowered him. This makes their presence at the spot doubtful."
14. Another aspect of the case, which has cast a Shadow of darkness, on the case of the prosecution, is the lack of proof that an electric source was available at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. We have also observed that, as it is evident, the occurre nce took place at night time and there was no mention of any light source made by Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2), which could have been available at the place of occu rrence at the time of occurrence allowing the witnesses to identify the assailant, during the statement made by him before the learned Trial Court.
Akhtar Nawaz, S.I. (PW-6) during his investigation did not take into possession any article which was available and could have been used as a light source at the place of occurrence so as to prove that sufficient light was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence for the witnesses to make a positive identity of the assailant.
Akhtar Nawaz, S.I. (PW-6) during cross- examination admitted that he had not taken into custody the bulb which allegedly was lighted outside the Nomi Pan Shop. The prosecution failed to establish the fact of such availability of light source and due to their inability to do so we cannot presume the existence of such, a light source. Reliance is placed on the case of Gulfam and another v. The State (2017 SCMR 1189), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under .-- "Courts below had incorrectly presumed that as the occurrence had taken place at a medical store, therefore, some electric light must be available at the spot."
15. We have also noticed that as per fact Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) were not permanent residents at the place of occurrence. During cross-examination, Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) stated that distance between his house and place of occurrence was of about 3-4 minutes. During cross- examination, Muhammad Tahir (PW-1) admitted that Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) was residing at a distance of one furlong from his house. However , we have noted that both the witnesses namely Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) did not mention any reason for their presence at the place of occurrence at such late hours of the night. Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) during cross-examination further admitted that only Welcome Paan Shop was opened at the time and all the remaining shops in front of Nomi Paan Shop had already closed. This statement of the said witness namely Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) is not acceptable in view of the record.
We have carefully perused the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.P J) and the unsealed site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PK). No shop by the name of Welcome Paan Shop has been mentioned in the said scaled site plan of the place of occurre nce (Exh.PJ) and the unsealed site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PK). The situation is compounded further by the statement of Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) who during his cross- examination stated that some other shop s were also open at a distance of 15-20: feet. Akhtar Nawaz, S.I. (PW-6) during his cross-examination stated that when he reached the place of occurrence Nomi Paan Shop was closed.
This contradiction between the statements of the witnesses only reveals that they were not present together at the same place. A chance witness, in legal sense, is the one who claims to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence though his presence there was a sheer chance as in ordinary course of business. Both the witnesses Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW- 1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) are chance witnesses as per this definition because it was not their daily routine to visit Nomi Paan Shop. In this manner they had to be doubly cautious while making their statements before the learne d Trial Court. This omission which they have made, though seems to be slight, however , in the general scenario of the case has attained fundamental importance. The witnesses were under a duty to prove their presence by making consistent and unimpeachable statements. As the witnesses have failed to prove thee reasons for their presence at the scene of occurrence hence we have rejected them as being truthful witnesses. Connected with this aspect of the case is the fact that Ashfaq (appellant) was not the resident of the place of occurrence. Akhtar Nawaz, S.I. (PW-6) stated that Ashfaq (appellant) was resident of Chak No, 468/GB, Tehsil Samundri. Though the witnesses namely Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW- 2) stated that they knew the accused as the accused used to visit their relatives i,e, the relatives of the accused in Talumba, however , during cross-examina tion PW-1 admitted, that the place where the accused allegedly used to visit was 1-1/2 k.m. away from his house. It is impossible that anyone would be acquainted with someone who is an occasional visitor and that too at the place which is at a distance of 1 1/2 k.m .
16. We have also noticed that as per Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) the occurrence took place outside Nomi Paan Shop.. Zulfiqar Ali (P.W-2) admitted during his cross-examination that owner of Nomi Paan Shop namely Tahir was present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. Akhtar Nawaz, (PW-6) during cross-examination initially stated that Tahir, the owner of Nomi Paan Shop was present at the spot, however , later he stated that he did not know who was the owner of the said Nomi Paan Shop. Akhtar Nawaz, S.I. (PW-6) during cross-examination further stated that 6-7 persons were investigated by him at the spot. We, on the perusal of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., find that such persons were not mentioned as, witnesses of the occurrence in the said report. It is further an admitted aspect a the case that no one other than the related witnesses were examined during the investigation or produced during the trial of the case. The Investigating Officer was under a binding duty to collect evidence and his failure has to be taken as a circumstance belying the prosecution case. The sole purpose of trial is the unearthing of truth. The prosecution case suffers from inherent defects which are irreconcilable as it is. The guidance is sought from the binding decisions of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State (2010 SCMR 949) wherein it has been observed as under-- "... further that no independent witness of the locality where the incident took place, a 'Bazar' joined, made case of the prosecution doubtful It is cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that any genuine doubt arising out of the circumstances of the case should be extended to the accu sed as of the right and not as concession. It is dif ficult to say that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt."
17. We have also noted that despite the fact that the matter was reported to the police at 1.00 a.m., when the written application (Exh.P A) of Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1)was registered as F.I.R. (Exh.PE) still the post- mortem examination on the person of the deceased was conducted after a delay of about seven hours from the time of registration of F.I.R. (Exh.PE) at 08.00 a.m. Dr. Nazir Ahmad Haraj (PW-4) has given the probable duration of time between death and post-mortem as eight to nine hours, It has been repeatedly held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that such delay is reflec tive of absence of witnesses and the sole purpose of causing such delay is to procure the presence of witnesses and, to further advance a false narrative to involve any person. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Khalid alias Kkalidi and two others v. The State (2012 SCMR 327) has held as under:--- "The incident in the instant case took place at 2.00 a.m., F.I.R. was recorded at 4/5 a.m., Doctor Muhammad Pervaiz medically examined the injured person at 4.00 a.m. but, conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased at 3.00 p.m. i,e, after about ten hours, which fact dearly shows that the F.I.R. was not lodged at the given time."
18. We have observed that though the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted on 02.09.201 1 at 08.00 a.m. still none of the witnesses namely Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) and Muhammad Irshad (given up PW) identified the dead-body of the deceased at that time. Had the witnesses namely Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) anti Muhammad Irshad (given up PW) accompanied the deceased to the hospital from the place of occurrence, then their presence would have been marked in respect of identification of the deceased. Another irresistible circums tance proving the fact that the witnesses were not present is that the column No, 4 of the inquest report (Exh. PH) mentions the name of two persons namely Shahid Imran and Kanwar Javaid Iqbal as persons who identified the dead-body of the deceased.
We have further noticed that in the column, at page 4 of the inquest report (Exh.PH), relating to the persons who were present near the place of occurrence the names of Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW- 2) and Muhammad Irshad (given up PW) are not mentioned rather the names of Tahir Hamid and Sagheer Ahmad are mentioned. This has further strengthe ned our conclusion that the witnesses Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW- 1) and Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) and. Muhammad Irshad (given up PW) were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.
19. The other piece of evidence left to be considered by us is the evidence of recovery of chhuri (Exh.Pl), from Ashfaq (appellant), taken into possession through recovery memo. (Exh.PB). A perusal of the . statement of Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) reveals that the said chhurri was recovered from the house of one Zafar and the said house of Zafar was situated at Mohallah Rehmania and no independent witness of the locality was called upon to attend and witness the recovery proceedings. Similarly , Akhtar Nawaz, S.L (PW-6) admitted in his cross- examination that the said chhurri was recovered from the house of Zafar lqbal, however , he did not know where Zafar Iqbal was. The prosecution in this manner has failed to prove the exclusive possession of Ashfaq (appellant) over the recovered chhurri (Exh.Pl). This in no manner corroborates the case of the complainant. The said recovery proceedings were conducted in violation of Section 103 of Cr.P.C. and thus are hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence and cannot be considered. As we have disbelieved the ocular account in this case, hence the evidence of recovery would have no consequence even otherwise.
20. We have also observed that the learned Trial Court, after giving reasons, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the motive and there was no evidence in respect of the same. We have also perused the statements of the witnesses and we have found that Zulfiqar Ali (PW-2) in his statement made no reference to the alleged motive. We have also gone through the statement of Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) and the tenor of his statement indicates that at the time of the earlier tight at the Burger Shop he was not present Muhammad Tahir Mahmoud (PW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that the exchange of hot words had taken place between the shopkeeper of the Burger Shop and the accused. He further admitted during cross-examination that he was told of this fact. It proves that Muhammad Tahir Mahmood (PW-1) was not a witness to the earlier altercation at the Burger Shop. It obviously establishes that there is no direct evidence regarding the motive of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
21. The only other piece of evidence left to be considered by us is the medical evidence but the same is of no assistance in this case as medical evidence by its nature and character , cannot recognize a culprit in case of an unobserved occurrence. As all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution m ibis case have been disbelieved and discarded by us, therefore, the appellant's conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its binding judgment titled "Hashint Qasim and another v. The State" (2017 SCMR 986 ) has enunciated the following principle of law:--- The medical evidence is only confirmatory or of supporting nature and is never held to be corroboratory evidence, to identify the culprit."
22. Considering all the above circumstances, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding the involvement of Ashfaq appellant, in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt it is hot necessary that there should be so many circumstances rather if only a single circumstance creating reasonable-doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available then such benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772 ) has enunciated the following principle:--- Needless to mention that while giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is circumstance whic h creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of such doubt, not as a matter of grace and concession out as a matter of right."
23. For what has been discussed above, Criminal Appeal No, 453 of 2014 filed by Ashfaq, appellant, is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the learned Trial Court through the impugned judgment dared 26.10.2013 is hereby set aside. Ashfaq, appellant, is ordered to be acquitted. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
24. Murder Reference is answered in Negative and the death sentence of Ashfaq, appellant, is Not Confirmed .