Summary: Limitation to file appeal against acquittal is 30 days ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417(2-A), 374, 342—Benefit of doubt—Appreciation of evidence—Acquittal—Standard of proof in criminal trial Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah and Muhammad Zulqarnain alias Zulli (appellants) were convicted under S. 302(b) PPC—One sentenced to death, the other to life imprisonment—Trial court acquitted co-accused Aamir Shahzad and Mulazim Hussain—On appeal, High Court observed that multiple material discrepancies rendered the prosecution case doubtful: (i) FIR time manipulated and actual time of incident unclear; (ii) complainant did not witness incident but falsely projected as eyewitness; (iii) independent eyewitnesses were chance witnesses from another village and gave no plausible explanation for presence at the scene; (iv) they made material improvements in their testimony not recorded in their earlier police statements; (v) motive remained unsubstantiated and was not directed against the deceased; (vi) medical evidence and recovery did not corroborate ocular version; and (vii) ballistic report excluded possibility of crime empties matching recovered weapons—Held, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt—In criminal law, benefit of doubt must be extended to accused even if there is a single reason creating doubt as per settled principles—Conviction and sentences were set aside, and both appellants acquitted—Murder Reference not confirmed. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 129(g)—Withholding of best evidence—Non-production of injured eyewitness and key witnesses—Adverse inference Despite asserting presence of injured witness (Zia-ur-Rehman), prosecution failed to produce him in court—No explanation offered—High Court drew adverse inference under Art. 129(g) QSO—Non-production of crucial evidence presumed to be detrimental to prosecution. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 417(2-A)—Appeal against acquittal—Limitation—Condonation of delay—Scope and bar under Limitation Act, 1908 Complainant’s Criminal Appeal No. 32181/2023 against acquittal of co-accused was filed after a delay of 19 months and 15 days—Held, S. 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. prescribes a 30-day limitation for such appeals—S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is inapplicable by virtue of S. 29(2) of the Act—No sufficient cause shown for condonation—Appeal and delay application dismissed. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 321—Criminal Revision—Enhancement of sentence—Effect of acquittal In light of acquittal of Muhammad Zulqarnain alias Zulli, Criminal Revision No. 32182/2023 filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence became infructuous and was dismissed accordingly. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa (2017 SCMR 54) • Ghaus Muhammad v. The State (1979 SCMR 579) • Muhammad Ramzan v. The State (2025 SCMR 762) • Naveed Asghar v. The State (PLD 2021 SC 600) • Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2019 SCMR 652) • Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344) • Muhammad Nasir Butt v. The State (2025 SCMR 662) • Umer Hayat v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 526) • Mursal Kazmi v. The State (2009 SCMR 1410) • Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) • Sarfraz v. The State (2023 SCMR 670) • Muhammad Rafique v. The State (PLJ 2011 SC 191) Disposition: – Criminal Appeals No. 57018 & 57020 of 2021 allowed; appellants acquitted. – Murder Reference No. 146 of 2021 answered in the negative; death sentence not confirmed. – Criminal Revision No. 32182 of 2023 dismissed as infructuous. – Criminal Appeal No. 32181 of 2023 dismissed being barred by limitation.