Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860):----S. 302(b) & S. 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Conviction and life sentence---Acquittal on appeal---No direct evidence against accused---FIR registered against unknown persons---Accused not named in crime report---No specific role attributed during identification parade---Eye-witnesses failed to mention distinctive features of accused in FIR or statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.---No motive alleged---Held, conviction based on weak and circumstantial evidence cannot sustain in law where standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not met.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486• Noor Muhammad v. The State 2020 SCMR 1049• Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 265-H(2) & S. 544-A---Trial and compensation---Appeal against conviction---Accused acquitted---Identification parade held after delay, without proper procedure---Magistrate failed to match suspects with any description in FIR---Possibility of accused being shown to witnesses prior to parade not ruled out---Held, such proceedings unsafe for conviction---Mere presence in parade and picking by PWs insufficient when FIR is silent on physical description.Cited Cases:• Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State 2019 SCMR 956• Sabir Ali alias Foji v. The State 2011 SCMR 563• Muhammad Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. AIR 1983 SC 367(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984----Art. 129(g)---Presumption against prosecution---Failure to collect credible and independent evidence---No eyewitness from nearby community examined despite proximity of crime scene---No forensic link between recovered weapon and empty shell---Held, prosecution’s failure to produce key corroborative evidence raised adverse presumption against its case.(d) Criminal trial----Benefit of doubt---Principles---Held, where prosecution evidence is marred by inconsistencies, unexplained delays, and procedural irregularities, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt as a matter of right and not as concession---Conviction cannot be maintained on conjecture or suspicion, particularly in capital punishment cases.Cited Cases:• Shamoon v. The State 1995 SCMR 1377• Wazir Muhammad v. The State 1992 SCMR 1134Disposition:Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted of charge under S. 302/34, P.P.C.; released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: 1. Appellant/complainant (PW-2) in his examination-in-crosspointed out that the accused Hizbullah had made a single fire,accused Hizbullah and his deceased brother were face to face atthe time of firing, whereas, the postmortem report of thedeceased shows firearm injury on lower back of chest on leftside. He further stated that as he was injured and was not in fullsenses, therefore, he cannot say that when his brother died aftersustaining injuries. He further stated that he was injured throughthe blows of hatchets and no one has fired at him, however, hismedical report shows the injury sustained by him as blunt. Thedoctor (PW-1) admitted in his examination-in-cross that theinjuries sustained by the injured are possible by falling on earth.2. PW-3 stated that they shifted the deceased and the injured to thehospital in a private Datsun, however, due particulars of thevehicle, as its registration number, the name of driver etc, areneither part & parcel of the investigation nor that of the trial. PW-3further stated that so many people gathered on the spot and took thedead body of his son as well as injured but he was unable todisclose their names.3. One independent witness Muhammad Ayub was allegedlypresent on the spot and his statement was recorded under Section161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW-10/D-2. The name of saidMuhammad Ayub is neither mentioned in the murasila/FIR norhe has been examined in the case as prosecution witness. Hecould have strengthened the case of the prosecution; but his nonproduction as prosecution witness has adversely affected its casein view of the provisions of Article 129, Illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.4. No doubt, appellant/complainant (PW-2) sustained injuries on hisperson during the occurrence but this fact alone cannot beconsidered sufficient to hold that he has spoken the whole truth.5. It appears that the occurrence has not taken place in the manner assuggested by the prosecution and a wide net has been thrown by theprosecution to implicate all the male members of the respondent sfamily.6. The peculiar facts and circumstances are sufficient enough thatstrong presumption can be ruled out that the occurrence has nottaken place in the mode and manner so reported and presented bythe prosecution and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyondshadow of any doubt.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 150 – Hostile Witness vs. Unfavourable Witness – Discretion of Court – Cross-Examination by Calling Party The petitioner sought to declare prosecution witness Abdul Manan (PW-4) hostile on the grounds that his court testimony did not implicate two accused (respondents Nos. 1 and 2), despite implicating them in his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the distinction between a hostile witness and an unfavourable witness: A hostile witness deliberately suppresses the truth, displays bias against the calling party, or actively damages the prosecution’s case. An unfavourable witness provides testimony that does not align with the prosecution's expectations but does not show deliberate suppression or deceit. The term "hostile witness" is not explicitly mentioned in Article 150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, but judicial precedents have clarified its scope. The court may, at its discretion, allow the prosecution to cross-examine its witness if it is established that the witness is acting with hostility, suppressing facts, or deviating materially from their earlier statements. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 161 – Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies – Scope of Cross-Examination Abdul Manan (PW-4) endorsed the occurrence and did not deviate from the primary narrative of the prosecution but only assigned responsibility to one accused (Nazir Ahmed) and not respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The witness's statement was deemed unfavourable, not hostile, as there was no indication of malice, suppression of truth, or deliberate bias. The court reiterated that minor inconsistencies do not automatically warrant declaring a witness hostile. (c) Judicial Discretion – Role of the Court: Under Article 150 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the court's discretion to permit cross-examination of a party's witness must be exercised cautiously and judiciously. It is not an inherent right of the prosecution but a matter of judicial evaluation based on witness demeanor, contradictions, and overall credibility. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Boota v. The State (1984 SCMR 560), which held that a witness cannot be declared hostile merely for failing to fully support the prosecution’s case. (d) Legal Analysis – Hostile vs. Unfavourable Witness: The court found no material evidence to suggest that Abdul Manan (PW-4) deliberately suppressed the truth or altered his statement with malicious intent. While his testimony was partially unfavourable to the prosecution, it did not meet the legal threshold to declare him hostile. ----Disposition: The revision petition was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's order, finding no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error in declining the request to declare Abdul Manan (PW-4) hostile. The court clarified that observations made in this judgment shall not prejudice the trial court's proceedings on the merits of the case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 161---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal--- Delayed supplementary statement---Effect---Complainant assailed the acquittal of accused persons--- Complainant had witnessed the occurrence and had reported the matter promptly against unknown persons, but no description of the accused persons was mentioned in his written report---Supplementary statement was filed by complainant after 62 days wherein he nominated the accused---Supplementary statement had lost its evidentiary value in the eyes of law, as in such period consultation and concoction could not be ruled out, as besides the complainant had initially lodged the FIR against unknown persons---Two of the alleged witnesses of the incident had not appeared despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants---Another alleged eye-witness had got recorded her statement after 26 days of the incident without any explanation and there was nothing on record to show as to why she remained mum for such period---Statement of such witness was not admissible in the eyes of law---Since description of accused persons was not given in the FIR, therefore, there arose no question of identification of accused persons---Appeal was dismissed. Shahid Hussain alias Multani v. The State and others 2011 SCMR 1673 and Rahat Ali v. The State 2010 SCMR 584 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Scope---Law regards the conviction of a single innocent person as infinitely more serious than the acquittal of many guilty persons---Appeal against acquittal is an extraordinary remedy and is restricted to cases of a grave miscarriage of justice---Accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after the regular trial he is acquitted, he earns a double presumption of innocence and there is a heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption---Under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan right to life and liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed to a person, therefore, once an accused, duly tried and acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction, his acquittal cannot be easily interfered with---Moreover, very exceptional and compelling reasons are required to dislodge the double presumption of innocence attached to that person, which he acquires after his acquittal. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---If there is a circumstance, which 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, but as a matter of right---Such principle is based on the maxim; it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted. Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 rel.

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law – Acquittal Due to Doubtful Prosecution Case: ---- Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-B, 336, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—Where prosecution evidence contains glaring contradictions, discrepancies, and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused—Victim's medical report contradicted her own version of how injuries were sustained—Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and did not align with medical findings—Failure to comply with legal requirements, such as framing a proper charge or confronting the accused with all incriminating evidence under S. 342, Cr.P.C., vitiates the trial—Reliance placed on Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730), Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186), Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374). (b) Contradictory Evidence – Impact on Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161, 164 & 342 – Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 336, 365-B, 337-A(iii), 337-F(v), 452 & 34 Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on crucial aspects of the case—Victim claimed injuries were inflicted with an iron rod, while medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with a road traffic accident—Witnesses’ statements during trial were at variance with their statements recorded under S. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C.—Failure to confront the accused with all material evidence in his S. 342 statement violated the principles of a fair trial—Benefit of doubt granted to the accused—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428), Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574). (c) Delay in Lodging FIR – Adverse Presumption Against Prosecution: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) FIR lodged 28 hours after the alleged abduction without any plausible explanation—Unexplained delay in FIR registration raises presumption of afterthought, deliberation, and false implication—Delayed FIRs weaken the prosecution case unless properly justified—Reliance placed on Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428). (d) Independent Witness Requirement – Failure to Associate Neutral Witnesses: ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) Failure to associate independent witnesses despite availability casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version—All witnesses were related and interested, with no neutral corroboration—Prosecution’s failure to secure independent testimony supports inference of manipulation—Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574), The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408). (e) Safe Administration of Justice – Benefit of Doubt to Accused: ---- Islamic and Common Law Principles of Criminal Justice Burden lies on the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt—If contradictions, inconsistencies, or gaps exist in the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused—Islamic principles emphasize that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to punish one innocent—Reliance placed on Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374), Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730). ----Disposition: Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellant acquitted of all charges—Ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. ----Cited Cases: Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730) Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah (2019 PCr.LJ 186) Muhammad Saleem v. The State (2010 SCMR 374) Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State (2012 SCMR 428) Mushtaq Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 574) The State v. Bashir (PLD 1997 SC 408)

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 – S. 9(c) – Conviction based solely on police evidence – Requirement of independent mashirs – Benefit of doubt–––Accused was convicted under S. 9(c) of the CNS Act, 1997 by the trial court and sentenced to 7 years and 6 months with a fine–––Recovery of 5,000 grams of Charas was made from the accused at a public place by a police party without associating any independent witness–––The appellate court observed that while S.103 Cr.P.C. may not mandatorily apply to narcotics cases, the failure to involve private witnesses in recovery proceedings at a populated area like Tarazoo Chowk was a lapse affecting the transparency of the investigation–––Exclusive reliance on official police witnesses, all subordinates of the complainant, without explanation for the omission to include neutral witnesses raised serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings–––Judicial scrutiny must be vigilant in cases hinging solely on police testimony–––Held, in absence of credible independent corroboration, and in presence of contradictions, benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.(b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Ss. 161, 342 – Contradictions and flaws in prosecution evidence – Unexplained delay – Chain of custody–––Discrepancies surfaced in the testimonies of the complainant, mashir, and investigating officer–––Charas was recovered on 06.05.2020 but sent to chemical examiner only on 12.05.2020–––Safe custody during the intervening period was not established–––No explanation was offered for delay nor was the Malkhana incharge examined–––Failure to prove unbroken chain of custody rendered the chemical examiner’s report unreliable–––Held, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered narcotics remained untampered in official custody.(c) Criminal Trial – Standard of proof – Presumption of innocence – Reasonable doubt–––The Court reiterated that even a single credible circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused entitles the accused to acquittal–––Prosecution’s failure to prove safe custody and transparent recovery proceedings created serious doubts–––Conviction based on flawed investigation and compromised evidence could not be sustained.Disposition:Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of charge – Released forthwith unless required in any other case.Cited Cases:Ikramullah v. The State (2015 SCMR 1002)Tariq Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State (2021 SCMR 451)Qaiser Khan v. The State (2021 SCMR 363)Javed v. The State (2019 PCr.LJ Note 112)ANF v. Farhad Khan (2020 YLR 1453)

Summary: [Statement under section 161 if recorded in a case diary prepared under section 172] ----During the hearing, it was revealed that the Investigating Officer (IO) had recorded statements of eight independent witnesses, who stated that the petitioner was present at the scene of the occurrence but was not involved in the commission of the offense and was not carrying any weapon. The learned Additional Prosecutor General argued that these statements were recorded in the case diary (zimni) under section 172 of the Cr.P.C. and not separately under section 161, Cr.P.C., which raised an issue regarding the admissibility of these statements.The Supreme Court clarified that even if the statements were recorded in the case diary, they still retain their character as statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and do not become part of the case diary under section 172, Cr.P.C.Additionally, the Court noted that two co-accused, Mukhtiar Hussain and Ghulam Murtaza, were granted bail based on similar statements from the Police, where it was stated that they were not involved in the offense and were not armed.Considering the statements of the IO and the witnesses, the Court found sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. Therefore, Muhammad Ramzan was granted post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petition was converted into an appeal and allowed accordingly.

Summary: Bail Granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 279, 337-G, 427, 302 & 34---Rashdriving or riding on a public way, hurt by rash or negligent driving, mischiefcausing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, qatl-i-amd and common intention---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Dishonest improvements---Scope---Prosecution case wasthat accused hit the complainant and his friends with his car while they were onmotorcycle as a result of which one of the friends of complainant died on the nextday---Other friend of complainant got recorded his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.wherein he stated that the accused had intentionally the motorcycle thrice atdifferent points, which was done in furtherance of previous enmity---Complainant,injured and the accused hailed from the same vicinity and there could be noimpediment in the way of complainant to identify the accused if he was recognized---Accused had remained unidentified, as a result, FIR was lodged against unknownaccused alleging that he had caused injuries to the driver and riders of themotorcycle through rash and negligent driving---Improvements in the case ofprosecution were for no other purpose except to tighten the screw of the accused---Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was accepted, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Mala fide of prosecution---Scope---Pre-arrest bail isan extraordinary relief, which is to be extended in rareand exceptionalcircumstances to the accused but at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the factthat liberty of a person is one of the paramount and inalienable right guaranteedunder the Constitution, which cannot be abridged lightly---One of the primepurposes of pre-arrest bail is to prevent the mala fide prosecution of innocentpersons---Term "mala fide" is not a uniformly identified term---Being a state ofmind, the term "mala fide" cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and itis often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser v. The State and another PLD 2021 SC 708 rel.Khair Muhammad and another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021SCMR 130 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope---Once the Court reaches at the conclusion thatin case of dismissal of pre-arrest bail the accused would become entitled for his release on post-arrest bail then it would be mere futile exercise to send him toprison.Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380; KhalilAhmed Soomro and others v. The State PLD 2017 SC 730 and Khair Muhammadand another v. The State through P.G. Punjab and another 2021 SCMR 130 ref.Syed Azmat Ali Bukhari for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.Naveed Ahmad Warraich, Deputy District Public Prosecutor with Sohail,Inspector and Kashif S.I/SHO for the State.Sardar Abdul Raziq Khan and M. Bashir Paracha for RespondentNo.2/Complainant.

Summary: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, challenging this order. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order lacked lawful authority, did not consider crucial evidence, and discharged the accused prematurely, hindering the investigation process. The counsel contended that the order was arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Upon hearing the arguments, the court observed that Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. dictates that a person arrested by a police officer cannot be discharged except on their own bond, bail, or under the special order of a Magistrate. The court noted that the Magistrate's power to discharge should be exercised justly and fairly, and the discretion must not be mechanical but applied with independent judgment. The court found that the learned Magistrate discharged the accused on the first day of their arrest without considering crucial evidence and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that such mechanical orders were against the principles of justice and could stifle the investigative process. Therefore, the court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the impugned order.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Statement of witness---Unexplained delay---Effect---Delay of even one or twodays without explanation, in recording statements of witnesses is fatal for prosecution caseand such statements were not worthy of reliance.Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486; Muhammad Sadiq v. The State PLD1960 SC 223; Tariq Gul v. Ziarat Gul 1976 SCMR 236; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984SCMR 930; Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 1627 andMuhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhshah 1998 SCMR 570 rel.(b) Criminal trial-------Evidence---Corroborative evidence---Scope---Where direct evidence fails, thecorroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.Ghulam Akbar and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 1064 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 147, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-Amd,rioting armed with deadly weapons---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defective investigation---Injured prosecution witness, evidence of---Scope---Accusedpersons were alleged to have made indiscriminate firing, set ablaze 6-7 vehicles and shopsresultantly one person was murdered and others were injured---Prosecution failed to establishthat the vehicles and shops belonged to complainant party and Investigation officer also didnot inquire about from any independent witness despite the fact that alleged occurrence hadtaken place at a thickly populated area---Neither statements of owners of vehicles nor ofshops which were set on fire were recorded by investigation officer---Crime empties werenot sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and it could not be determined as to how manyaccused persons made firing---Investigation was not conducted diligently and investigation officer failed to associate any independent person from the locality other than the relativesand tribesmen of the complainant to dig out the truth---Witnesses of ocular account thoughhad a stamp of injuries on their persons yet they failed to prove their truthfulness duringtrial---Complainant took sufficient time in lodging crime report after going through thereports of postmortem examination as well as medico-legal reports of injured witnesses andalso after consultation and deliberation---Dead body and injured witnesses were examinedprior to registration of FIR---Prosecution had managed eye-witnesses as well as prosecutionstory---Prosecution failed to prove charge against accused persons beyond shadow of doubtand benefit of doubt favoured accused persons---High Court set aside conviction andsentence awarded by Trial Court and both the accused persons were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circum-stances.Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Bashir Ahmed v. TheState 2019 SCMR 1417; Munir Ahmed v. The State 2019 SCMR 2006; Allahyar v. The State1990 SCMR 1134; Mahmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127;Imran Hussain v. Amir Arshad and 2 others 1997 SCMR 438; Muhammad Rafique v. TheState 2014 SCMR 1698 and Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274 ref.Shahidullah v. Eid Marjan and 2 others 2014 PCr.LJ 1684 and Amin Ali and anotherv. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 161---Police Rules 1934, R.25.2 (3)---Recording of statements of witnesses---Mode---Investigation officer is not supposed to record statements of prosecution witnesses whileacting as 'stenographer' rather he is obliged, as required under S.161, Cr.P.C., to 'examine'the person whose evidence / statement he is going to record.(e) Criminal trial-------Abscondence--- Relevance--- Scope---Abscondence of accused is a relevant fact and canbe used as corroborative piece of evidence but such fact cannot be read in isolation, as thesame had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.Asad Ullah v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1971 SC 541; Rasool Muhammad v. AsalMuhammad 1995 SCMR 1373; Muhammad Sadiq v. Najeeb Ali 1995 SCMR 1632;Muhammad Khan v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Gul Khan v. State 1999 SCMR 3004;Muhammad Arshad v. Qasim Ali 1992 SCMR 814; Pir Badshah v. State 1985 SCMR 2070and Amir Gul v. State 1981 SCMR 182 rel.(f) Criminal trial-------Court, duty of---Scope---Mere heinous or gruesome nature of crime should not detractCourt of law in any manner from the due course to judge and make appraisal of evidence in alaid down manner and to extend benefit of reasonable doubt to accused person beingindefeasible and inalienable right of an accused. (g) Criminal trial-------Benefit of doubt---Principle---Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt issufficient for acquittal of accused.Sahibzada v. The State and 2 others 2015 PCr.LJ 554 rel.