Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Law: --- Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 376, 380 --- Abduction, rape, and theft --- Burden of proof --- Benefit of doubt --- The appellant was convicted for abducting a minor girl (13/14 years old), committing rape, and theft under Sections 365-B, 376, and 380 PPC. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and 25 years R.I. for rape, which was upheld by the High Court, except for the theft charge. Held, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to serious gaps in evidence, contradictions in witness testimonies, delayed reporting, and absence of crucial witnesses. Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not concession. Conviction set aside. (b) Criminal Procedure: --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 342 --- Investigation flaws --- Non-production of material witnesses --- Effect on prosecution's case --- The mother and brothers of the victim, who were allegedly drugged and present during the incident, were neither cited as witnesses nor their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. The prosecution also failed to produce the old lady who allegedly provided information about the victim’s location. Held, withholding of material witnesses creates serious doubts under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as the court must presume that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. (c) Forensic & Medical Evidence: --- Rape allegations --- Delay in medical examination --- Evidentiary value --- The vaginal swabs of the victim were sent to the Chemical Examiner three weeks after recovery, with no explanation for the delay. The victim’s medical report showed old, healed hymenal tears, and no semen analysis of the accused was conducted. Held, forensic evidence was inconclusive and could not establish rape beyond doubt, making reliance solely on the victim’s testimony unsafe. (d) Delay in FIR & Recovery of Victim: --- Unexplained delay in lodging FIR --- Independent recovery of the victim --- Effect on prosecution case --- The FIR was registered seven days after the alleged abduction, with no plausible explanation for the delay. Additionally, the victim was recovered by her father, not law enforcement, without police involvement. Held, these factors cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version and weaken the credibility of the case. (e) Benefit of Doubt & Acquittal: --- Standard for acquittal --- Maxim “Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent suffer” --- The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and where doubt exists, it must favor the accused. Held, applying the principles in Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772), and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736), the accused was entitled to acquittal due to multiple contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence. (f) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted. Released if not required in any other case.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Mala fide and delay in lodging FIR---Further inquiry---Petitioner accused of trespassing into complainant’s office, stealing valuables, and demolishing the building---FIR lodged with a delay of 1.5 years, raising doubts about the veracity of allegations---Petitioner claimed to have been falsely implicated to extort money---Investigating Officer admitted that no theft was committed and that the petitioner had not concealed his identity while entering the premises---Held, such circumstances rendered the case one of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., justifying confirmation of pre-arrest bail. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 454---Lurking house-trespass---Essential ingredients---Complainant’s own version in the FIR stated that the accused entered the office in the presence of a servant---Held, as the accused had not concealed his identity, S. 454, PPC, was prima facie not attracted, and at best, the allegation could fall under S. 451, PPC, which is a bailable offense. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 380---Theft---Investigation report negated the allegation of theft---Police admitted that no stolen items were recovered and that the petitioner did not enter the office to commit theft---Held, whether S. 380, PPC, applied was yet to be determined at trial, making the case one of further inquiry. ----Disposition: Petition allowed; interim pre-arrest bail confirmed upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount.