Bashir Ahmad and Munir Ahmad (appellants) were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin in case FIR No. 241 dated 16.4.201 1, offence under Sections 302 and 34, PPC regis tered at Police Station Civil Line District Mandi Bahauddin for committing the murder of Mehmood Khan (deceased). Vide judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each, with a further direction to pay Rs. 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand only) each as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased as required under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default whereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellants. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the appeal in hand
2. Initially , the machinery of law was set in motion on the statement of Imran Ahmad (PW.10) who on 16.04.201 1 allegedly saw a dead-body of an unknown person floating in the water of canal on the basis whereof FIR (Exh.P A) was lodged. Thereafter , Jalil Khan (PW. 13) filed an application wherein he implicated Bashir Ahmad and Munir Ahmad (appellants) on the information allegedly imparted to him by Iftikhar Ahmad (PW.6) and Muhammad Afzal (PW.7), who allegedly saw the appellants while throwing the dead-body of Mehmood Khan (deceased) in the canal.
It was also alleged in the application that on 08.04.201 1 Hassan Khan (PW.12) allegedly say the deceased lastly in the company of appellants.
3. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in this case. The appellants were summoned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin to face the trial.
Copies of relevant documents were provided to them, as required under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure and formal charge was framed against them on 9.9.201 1, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure on 25.08.2015, wherein they refuted all the prosecution allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. The appellants did not opt to appear as their own witnesses in disproof of the prosecution allegations as provided under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. However , after conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as detailed above. Hence this appeal.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Undeniably , Mehmood Khan (deceased) was found missing on 8.4.201 1 whereas the matter was reported to the Police by father of deceased namely Jalil Khan (PW.13), through an application on 16.04.201 1 with a delay of about eight days without there being any satisfactory explanation. No plausible explanation qua the above said delay has been brought on record. Even while appearing before the learned trial Court no prosecution witness has stated' even a single word about the above said delay which fact casts serious doubt about the veracity of prosecution story . Moreover , there is no -direct evidence against the appellants. No one had seen the appellants while committing the murder of Mehmoo d Khan (deceased). The tole played by the appellants in the incident in issue had never been mentioned in the FIR or disclosed before the learned trial Court through any solid or convincing evidence. It had also never been disclosed or alleged by the prosecution in the FIR as to under what circumstances the deceased had been done to death. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Iftikhar Ahmad (PW.6) and Muhammad Afzal, who on 08.04.201 1 allegedly saw the appellants while throwing the dead-body of Mehmood Khan (deceased) in the canal. It was also the case of prosecution that on 08.04.201 1 Hassan Khan allegedly saw Mehmood Khan (deceased) lastly in the company of the appellants. The said pieces of evidence are not helpful for the prosecution because the above said PWs allegedly saw the deceased lastly in the company of appellants as well as throwing the dead-body of deceased in the canal on 08.04..201 1 but they informed the complainant on 16.04.201 1 i.e. about eight days after the occurrence. There is nothing on record as to why they remained mum and silent for such a long period. The conduct of these alleged PWs runs counter to normal human behaviour and habit in the given circumstances because in such like cases the first and foremost anxiety of the accused is to conceal their identity but such method was not adopted in this case. Moreover , the dead-body was not recovered at the instance of the appellants and the same was not identifiable because Dr. Mehdi Khan (PW.3), who conducted autopsy of the dead-body of deceased, has stated in his cross-examination that 'the skin of the body was shed off. The skin of the body was white and wrinkled due to immersion in the water .
The identification of such dead body becomes difficult'. Moreover , the alleged recovery of rickshaw at the instance of Bashir Ahmad (appellant) is concerned the same is inconsequential because no registration book of the said rickshaw was produced by the complainant during the trial to prove the fact that the same was belonged to the deceased. As far as alleged recoveries of wrist watch, mobile phone and silver ring of deceased at the instance of Munir Ahmad (appellant) are concerned the same do not advance the case of prosecution because these were ordinary things, easily available in the market. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail to the prosecution because the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed and, thus, the medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards the appellants implicated in this case. Reliance is placed on case law titled as "Muhammad Saleem us. Shabbir Ahmad and others" (2016 SCMR 1605 ). As far as the defence pleas taken by the appellants in their statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, since the prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature, therefore, there is no need to discuss the same which are exculpatory in nature.
6. I have considered all the pros and cons of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. It is, by now well established principle of law that it is the prosecution, which has to prove its case against he accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of the defence. In the instant case, the prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against the appellants. It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the prosecution story . In this regard, reliance may be placed on the case law reported as "Muhammad Akram versus The State" (2009 SCMR 230 ).
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in hand filed by Bashir Ahmad and Munir Ahmad (appellants) is allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to them vide judgment dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them while extending them benefit of doubt. Munir Ahmad and Bashir Ahmad (appellants) are in jail. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.