Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 334, 333 & 34—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 382-B—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Model Criminal Trial Court—Conviction for qatl-i-amd and itlaf-e-udw—Scope on appeal. On the same prosecution evidence on which co-accused Juman and Zulfiqar had already been acquitted by the trial court, the appellants were convicted under Ss. 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and S. 334, P.P.C. (read with S. 333) with sentences of life imprisonment and payment of diyat/compensation, along with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. In appeal, the High Court reassessed the entire record and found the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt; convictions were set aside to safeguard the right to fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. (b) Criminal trial ----Delay in FIR—Effect—Inference under the circumstances. The FIR was lodged with a delay of one day. In view of the surrounding facts, such delay assumed significance and could be attributed to consultation/deliberation; thus caution in appraisal of evidence was warranted. Reliance was placed on Mehmood Ahmed and others v. The State (1995 SCMR 127). (c) Criminal trial ----Ocular account—Material contradictions—Interested/chance witnesses not examined—Adverse inference. Prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions about who fired at the deceased, the parts of body hit, and the manner of injuries to the injured witnesses; some independent witnesses were given up. In terms of Art. 129(g), QSO, adverse inference was drawn that the withheld witnesses would not have supported the prosecution. When direct evidence is disbelieved to the extent of one accused assigned an effective role, the same witnesses cannot, without independent corroboration, sustain conviction of others assigned a similar role. Reliance was placed on Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344) and Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram (2009 SCMR 120). (d) Evidence ----Recovery and forensics—Transparency in dispatch—Exclusive possession—Weight. Weapons allegedly recovered on appellants’ pointation were dispatched to the FSL together with empties secured from the scene, instead of separately, undermining transparency; one weapon was recovered from an open place (jungle) and not from exclusive possession; delayed recovery further reduced probative value. Casings tallying with a weapon dispatched after the arrest lost significance. Reliance was placed on Asad Rehmat v. The State (2019 SCMR 1156). (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 39—Confession to police—Inadmissibility—Effect. Alleged admissions made before the Investigating Officer were inadmissible under Art. 39, QSO, and could not be used as substantive evidence against the appellants. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 225—Misjoinder/prejudice—Conviction without charge—Illegality. The appellants were convicted under S. 334, P.P.C. though they had never been charged for that offence. Such conviction, having misled the defence and occasioned failure of justice, was contrary to S. 225, Cr.P.C. and violative of the right to fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. (g) Criminal trial ----Benefit of doubt—Principles restated. Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, not as a matter of concession. Multiple infirmities—material contradictions, doubtful ocular account, unsafe recoveries/forensics, inadmissible confessions, and parity with acquitted co-accused—compelled extension of benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (h) Distinguishing prosecution precedents—Rationale. Cases cited for the State/complainant were distinguishable: in Muhammad Bashir (2023 SCMR 190) FIR was prompt; in Sheeraz Khan (2010 SCMR 1772) evidence was consistent; in Anwar Shamim (2010 SCMR 1791) the issue turned on relationship of witnesses rather than contradictions present here. (g) Disposition— Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences under Ss. 302(b), 334 and 34, P.P.C. set aside; appellants acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: • Mehmood Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 • Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344 • Asad Rehmat v. The State 2019 SCMR 1156 • Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram 2009 SCMR 120 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Muhammad Bashir v. The State 2023 SCMR 190 (dist.) • Sheeraz Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 1772 (dist.) • Anwar Shamim v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791 (dist.).