2026 P Cr. L J 176

2026 P Cr. L J 176

[Balochistan]

Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Muhammad

Najam-ud-Din Mengal, JJ

SAIF-UR-REHMAN---Appellant

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. (L) 03 of 2024, decided on 28th August, 2025.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of

doubt---Contradictory statements of witnesses---Accused was

charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant--

-Record reflected that the prosecution in order to substantiate the

charge had produced the evidence of nine witnesses---Minute

security of all the said witnesses transpired that the crime was not

directly witnessed by them rather all the witnesses were present

either in their houses or at the work place, hence the statements of

said witnesses were hearsay evidence, which otherwise was not

helpful to the case of prosecution---Victim though described the

whole story by stating that on 25th October 2023 he was sitting in

front of his house, in the meanwhile, at about 08:45 a.m. accused

came there and asked him to watch his house, as he intended to

attend a funeral ceremony, then took him to his house, where the

accused committed unnatural offence with him---While contrary to

the same, the complainant deposed in his Court statement that on

the day of incident at about 08:45 a.m. he was present at his field, as

such, received a telephone call, whereby he was informed about the

occurrence---During the course of cross-examination, the victim

deposed that his father was a rickshaw driver on those days,

whereas the complainant stated that he was working in his

cultivated land on the day of incident---Victim stated that on the said

date another person namely A came to his house along with his

father, while said witness A negated narration of victim in his Court

statement, whereby he deposed that he was present in his house, on

listening of hue and cry, he promptly reached to the house of

complainant, where on his query, the victim disclosed to him that

accused committed sodomy with him and he was bleeding and his

shalwar was also blood stained---Thus, such contradictory statement

of a star witness created serious dents in the case of prosecution---

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of

doubt---Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account---

Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of

complainant---Chief Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, conducted the

examination of victim and observed that blood was oozing from the

external anal region and both buttocks were wet with blood, though

he also took samples of anal swab, however, the statement of said

witness was silent with regard to the specific performance of

intercourse---Besides, said witness deposed in his Court statement

that asurgeon was called for expert opinion, but the perusal of

record revealed that prosecution had failed to produce the said

surgeon---Even otherwise, the opinion of the referred Medical

Officer was also not available on record---However, after

examination of anal swabs, the Forensic Science Agency issued

report of DNA and serology analysis, which transpired that the anal

swabs of the victim were not found to be stained with semen, which

even otherwise negated the ocular testimony---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Azizullah v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ 1623 rel.

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of

doubt---Delay of six hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused

was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of

complainant---Occurrence took place on 25th October 2022 at about

08.45 a.m., whereas the distance between the Police Station and the

house of complainant was about 02 kilometers, hence it was expected

that the FIR should have been lodged promptly without any delay, but

perusal of FIR revealed that the same was lodged on 25th October 2025

at about 02:15 p.m. i.e. after delay of about six hours and the

prosecution had failed to give any plausible explanation with regard to

inordinate delay in prompt lodging of FIR---Main purpose of lodging

FIR was to set criminal law in motion and to bring on record first-hand

information about the occurrence of a crime---Besides, it provided a

sound basis for carrying out investigation in the right direction

excluding the possibility of fabrication of any false story---In view of

the circumstances of present case, delay in lodging FIR could not be

taken lightly and it casted serious doubts in the case of the prosecution---

Delay in lodging the FIR could only be condoned, when such delay had

been adequately explained but in the instant case, there was no

explanation for inordinate delay in lodging FIR---Appeal against

conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Abdul Wali and 2 others v. The State 2020 YLR 256 and Muhammad

Hassan and another v. The State 2024 SCMR 1427 rel.

(d) Criminal trial---

----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Accused cannot be deprived of

benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one circumstance,

which created doubts in the prosecution story.

Khial Muhammad v. The State 2024 SCMR 1490 rel.

Aftab Ahmed Lone for Appellant.

Younas Mengal, Additional P.G. for the State.

Ayub Khan Sherani for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 31st July, 2025.

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UD-DIN MENGAL, J.---This judgment disposes

of Criminal Appeal No.(L)03 of 2024 filed by the appellant Saif ur

Rehman Son of Abdul Razzaq, against the judgment dated 31st August

2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Loralai ( the trial Court Court ),

whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 P.P.C and

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Life with fine of Rs.500,000/-,

and in default thereof to further suffer Six (06) months S.I., he was

further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to

the victim boy Shahid Khan under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. for mental

anguish and psychological damage cost to him which shall be

recovered as an arear of land revenue.

2. Essential facts of the case are that on 25th October 2022 at about

02:15 p.m., the complainant Wazeer Khan son of Tajuddin, lodged FIR

No.216 of 2022 at Police Station Saddar Loralai, district Loralai, under

Section 376 P.P.C, with the averments that he was busy in his cultivated

land, in the meanwhile, at about 05:45 a.m. was informed through

telephonic conversation that his 9 years old son Shahid Khan, returned

home in tears and reported that their neighbor Saif ur Rehman son of

Abdul Razzaq had deceitfully taken him to his house, undressed him

against his will and committed sodomy with him.

3. After registration of FIR, the appellant was arrested, investigated

and on completion thereof, he was challaned in the trial Court, which

initially indicted the charge under Section 376 P.P.C, but subsequently,

the charge was altered to Section 377 P.P.C and after denial by the

appellant, the prosecution produced Nine witnesses. The appellant

was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. However, he recorded his

statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. and also intended to produce one Haji Saddar Muhammad son of Abdul Hakeem in his

defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the trial

Court, vide impugned judgment dated 31st August 2024 convicted and

sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove in para-1.

Whereafter instant appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence

produced by the prosecution suffers from material contradictions and

dishonest improvements; that the impugned judgement suffers from

misreading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence available

on record; that the prosecution version is lacking independent

corroboration as only interested witnesses were produced; that the

DNA and serology analysis report issued by the Punjab Forensic

Science Agency Ex.P/9-D shows that semen does not match with the

appellant; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and the

learned trial Court while awarding conviction and sentence to the

appellant has badly erred in appreciating the evidence available on

record.

5. Learned Additional Prosecutor General and learned counsel for

complainant strongly opposed the arguments so advanced by the

learned counsel for appellant, while supporting the impugned

judgment contended that the judgment of Court below is based on

cogent and concrete evidence and the appellant has failed to rebut the

allegations of sodomy; that the prosecution version was duly

supported by the witnesses at the trial and the conviction awarded to

the appellants is based upon proper appreciation of evidence by the

Court below, finally they urged for maintaining the convict of the

appellant and dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

available record minutely, which reflects that the prosecution in

order to substantiate the charge has produced the evidence of Nine

(09) witnesses, but they are not consistent confidence inspiring and

even all the witnesses have narrated different stories with regard to

the incident. The complainant of the case Wazir Khan appeared as

PW-1, who though brought the criminal law into motion, but

however, the fact remains that he himself did not witness the crime

rather his statement is based upon hearsay evidence whatever

disclosed to him by his minor son. During the course of cross-

examination in reply of question No.34 he deposed that after

submission of application with police, the accused (appellant) was

arrested in his presence. PW-3 in response to cross No.39 deposed

that on the day of occurrence in the evening time the police came to

the house of accused (appellant) and taken into possession the clothes of accused in presence of complainant. The complainant also

admitted that he is not eye-witness of the occurrence. This witness

also disclosed that when the accused was arrested, the police

personnel did not commit any documentary proceedings in his

presence. While contrary to the above depositions, PW-7

(Hameedullah Constable) in his cross-No.14 replied that at time of

arrest of accused neither the complainant nor any other private

individual was accompanying them. PW-7 further negated the reply

of complainant in his question No.21 of cross-examination that when

they taken into possession the Shalwar of accused, in lieu thereof

they gave a shawl to the accused to hide his body. Whereas, the I.O.

in his examination in chief deposed that the accused was arrested on

the pointation of spy, when he was sitting at the corner of Zangiwal

bridge and after making arrangements of veil, while taking into

possession the Shalwar of accused. Besides, the I.O./PW-9 in reply of

cross-examination Nos.26 and 27 admitted that at the time of arrest

of accused, he taken into possession his shalwar and in lieu thereof

another shalwar was given to him, which was brought by the

Hameedullah Constable (PW-7) from an adjacent house. PW-3 denied

the suggestion that there is a dispute over a house between him and

the accused family and with mala fide intentions implicated the

accused in the instant crime.

7. PW-5 Abdul Rahim, is the circumstantial witness, who narrated

altogether different story in examination in chief. According to this

witness on the day of occurrence, when he listened hue and cry from

the house of complainant, as such, he rushed there and found Asghar

(PW-6) outside the house, who was holding the blood stained Shalwar

of victim Shahid Khan and on query, he disclosed to the PW-5 about

the incident, subsequently, Wazir Khan and Asghar Khan proceeded

towards bazar on their motorcycles. In reply of question No.14 he

deposed that thereafter he did not meet them (complainant and PW-6),

while contrary to the same, PW-3 in response to cross No.43 stated that

he again met Abdul Rahim and Muhammad Asghar at night in the

dinner time. PW-5 further deposed in reply of question No.9 that time

Wazir Khan was not present in his house rather he was called, such

deposition does not appeal to a prudent mind that according to PW-5,

when he listened hue and cry, as such, he reached to the house of

complainant, then how he came to know that the complainant was

informed and called.

8. PW-6 Muhammad Asghar in his Court statement deposed that on

the day of occurrence, when he listened hue and cry from the house

of complainant, as such, he reached there and on query, the victim

Shahid Khan disclosed to him that Saif ur Rehman committed

unnatural offence with him and now he is in trouble, while the victim was bleeding and his shalwar was blood stained. Meaning thereby he

is also not eye-witness of the occurrence. He further said that in the

meantime, the door/gate was knocked, when he went outside found

PW-5 Abdul Rahim, whereas PW-5 stated in his Court statement that

when he reached at the house of complainant, PW-6 was holding the

blood stained Shalwar of victim. PW-6 further deposed in his court

statement that he was accompanying the complainant, when they

proceeded towards police station and hospital, but in rebuttal

complainant during the course of cross-examination stated that he

proceeded towards police station and hospital alone. This witness

denied the suggestion that being a relative of complainant he got

recorded wrong statement in favour of complainant.

9. The minute scrutiny of all the above witnesses transpire that the

crime was not directly witnessed by them rather all the witnesses

were present either in their houses or at the work place, hence we

have hesitation to hold that the statements of said witnesses are

hearsay evidence, which otherwise is not helpful to the case of

prosecution.

10. Now adverting to the star witness of prosecution is PW-8

Shahid Khan (victim). This witness though described the whole story

by stating that on 25th October 2023 he was sitting in front of his

house, in the meanwhile, at about 08:45 a.m. Saif ur Rehman

(accused) came there and asked him to watch his house, as he is

intended to attend the funeral ceremony of Saadullah s mother, then

took him to his house, where the accused committed unnatural

offence with him, while contrary to the same, the complainant

deposed in his Court statement that on the day of incident at about

08:45 a.m. he was present at his field, as such, received a telephone

call, whereby he was informed about the occurrence. During the

course of cross-examination in reply of cross No.10, the victim

deposed that his father was a rikshaw driver on these days, whereas

the complainant stated that he was working in his cultivated land on

the day of incident. He in response to question No.11 stated that on

the said date one another person namely Asghar came to his house

along with his father, while PW-6 Muhammad Ashgar negated the

narration of victim in his Court statement, whereby he deposed that

he was present in his house on listening of hue and cry, he promptly

reached to the house of complainant, where on his query, the victim

disclosed to him that accused Saif ur Rehman committed sodomy

with him and he was bleeding and his shalwar was also blood

stained. PW-9 Ibrar Hussain, SI is the Investigating Officer of the case,

who counted the steps taken by him during the course of

investigation. Thus, such contradictory statement of a star witness

created serious dents in the case of prosecution. 11. So far as medical evidence is concerned, suffice to observe here

that PW-1 Dr. Amjad Pervez, Chief Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital,

Loralai conducted the examination of victim (PW-8) and observed

that blood was oozing from the external anal region and both

buttocks were wet with blood, though he also took samples of anal

swab, but however, the statement of PW-1 is silent with regard to the

specific performance of intercourse. Besides, he deposed in his Court

statement that Doctor Bahadur, Surgeon was called for expert

opinion, but the perusal of record reveals that prosecution has failed

to produce the said Dr. Bahadur. Even otherwise, the opinion of the

referred doctor is also not available on record. However, after

examination of Anal swab by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency,

issued report of DNA and serology analysis, which transpires that the

anal swabs of the victim were not found to be stained with semen,

which even otherwise, negates the ocular testimony. Reliance in this

regard is placed on the reported judgment of this Court in case titled

as Azizullah v. The State, (2017 PCr.LJ 1623), for convenience the

relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

11. The afore referred provision provides that the offences will be

completed when the carnal intercourse is taken place while the

law on the subject provides that for constituting an offence in

afore referred section and to establish the carnal intercourse,

the penetration is a condition precedent, therefore, explanation

provided in section 377, P.P.C. states that "penetration is

sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the

offence described in this section". But, since the victim is silent

about penetration, while the opinion rendered by the medical

witness is not conclusive in nature. The medical jurisprudence

provides a complete procedure for examining the victim of

sodomy. The medical opinion rendered by medical witness is

not in line with the procedure contemplated in the medical

jurisprudence, therefore, it is instructed to produce the

relevant procedure for medical examination of the victim of

sodomy as provided in the "Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology" authored by 'Mr. N.J. Modi' in Chapter XVI, page

334 and 335 with caption of sexual offences, which elaborates

the examination of passive agent in the following manner:- As

in rape, consent must be obtained before commencing a

medical examination. The following signs may be discovered if

the body (passive agent) is not accustomed to sodomy:- 1.

Abrasions on the skin near the anus with pain in walking and

on defaecation, as well as during examination. These injuries

are extensive and well-defined in cases where there is great

disproportion in size between the anal orifice of the victim and

the virile member of the accused. Hence lesions will be most marked in children, while they may be almost absent in adults,

when there is no resistance to the anal coitus. These injuries, if

slight, heal very rapidly in two or three days in most of the

cases brought before Modi, he had seen superficial abrasions,

varying from 1/6" to 1" x 1/6" to 1/4", external to the sphincter

ani. In some cases there may be bruising of the parts round

about the anus, and the abrasions may extend into the anus

beyond its sphincter.

2. Owing to the strong contraction of the sphincter ani, the penis

rarely penetrates beyond an inch, and consequently the

laceration produced on the mucous membrane within the anus

with more or less effusion of blood is usually triangular in

nature, having its base at the anus and the sides extending

horizontally in wards into the rectum, Modi had found

lacerations internal to the sphincter ani in several cases, but a

typical triangular wound only in a few cases. These signs may

not be perceptible in cases where the active agent has

introduced his penis slowly and carefully without using force

into the anus of the passive agent who is a consenting party.

3. Blood may be found in or at the anus, on the perineum or thighs,

and also on the clothes.

4. Semen may be found in or at the anus, on the perineum or on the

garments of the boy too young to have seminal emissions.

5. Signs of a struggle, such as bruises, scratches, etc, on his person, if

he is not a consenting party.

6. Prolapse of the anus.

7. Gonorrheal discharge, or the presence of a syphilitic chancre.

8. The presence of fecal matter around the anus is a corroborative

sign.

12. Alfred Swaine Taylor, (1806-1880) a renowned scholar in the

field of Medical Jurisprudence discusses "Essentials in the

medical examination of the passive partner" and also laid

down certain instruction for medical witness, he states that it

is essential for medical examination that a medical

witness/medico-legal officer must take a general medical

history of the victim and in case of very young or minor child,

the doctor should take medical history from parents or

guardian. Thus, this may be taken either at the commencement

of the examination or after the physical examination has been

completed. Special attention must be given to questions

relating to the victim bowel habits, including previous constipation, the regular use of laxative, enemata

suppositories. In the most general terms, the younger the

passive partner the most likely are the chances of serious

injury to the anal verge, therefore, acute abrasions may

frequently be seen and these are very superficial and may be

present at any part of the circumference of the anal verge. In

certain cases haematomata are very frequently seen and these

may take the form of an 'all over' swelling over the anal verge.

Tearing of the sphincter muscle is rare in the case of adult and

older children and can take place in the case of young

children, and in cases where this has taken place there will be

considerable laxity of the anal orifice and some time with

frank gapping. The anal fissure has also been observed in

certain cases, but it cannot be deducted without proctoscopy of

the anal canal, thus in case of young child who has been

subjected to sodomy the presence of localised injury to the skin

of the anal margin is of greatest significance, therefore, the

presence of fresh, moist, pink coloured anal fissure may

support the allegation of penile penetration. It is worthwhile to

mention here that in case of child, victim of sodomy, chances of

severe injury are always possible and abrasion on the skin

near the anus with pain in walking and on defaecation as well

as during 'examination shall necessarily be observed. (Chapter-

5, "Medico-legal examination of the living" Taylor's Principles

and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Thirteenth Edition 1984

Edited by A. Keith Mant)." In the instant case the medico legal

report states about the tenderness of anal region which under

the medical jurisprudence can be caused due to constipation or

in case of irregular bowel habits. The medical doctor has also

failed to use the proctoscopy instrument in order to obtain the

anal swab and did not notice any sort of abrasion or injury on

the anal region of the alleged victim. While the statement of

victim/PW-2 is silent about penetration, thus without obtaining

the anal swab of the victim and in absence of positive report

with regard to semen stained clothes of the victim and the

accused and without obtaining blood group of accused in order

to match the semen stains found on the victim clothes, on mere

tenderness of the anal region, no conclusive opinion can be

rendered whether a sodomy has been committed or not.

[EMPHASIS ADDED]

12. Another important aspect of the case is that the occurrence

took place on 25th October 2022 at about 08.45 a.m., whereas the

distance in between the Police Station and the house of complainant

is about 02 kilometers, hence it is expected that the FIR should have been lodged promptly without any delay, but perusal of FIR reveals

that the same was lodged on 25th October 2025 at about 02:15 p.m.

i.e. after delay of about six hours and the prosecution has failed to

give any plausible explanation with regard to inordinate delay in

prompt lodging of FIR. The main purpose of lodging FIR is to set

criminal law in motion and to bring on record firsthand information

about the occurrence of a crime. Besides, it provides a sound basis

for carrying out investigation in the right direction excluding the

possibility of fabrication of any false story. In view of the

circumstances of present case, delay in lodging FIR cannot be taken

lightly and it casts serious doubts in the case of the prosecution. It is

a settled principle of law that delay in lodging the FIR can only be

condoned, when such delay has been adequately explained but in the

instant case, there is no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging

FIR. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled as Abdul Wali

and 2 others v. The State, (2020 YLR 256), the relevant portion

whereof is reproduced as under:

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

APG and have gone through the record of the case with their

able assistance. The prosecution case rest upon three ocular

accounts, i.e. recovery of alleged snatched motorcycle,

identification parade and disclosure memo, allegedly disclosed

by the convict/appellant Abdul Wali. Perusal of the record

reveals that the occurrence took place on 09.08.2017 at 5:00

p.m., while the FIR was lodged on 10.08.2017 at 6:30 pm after

delay of twenty four hours, despite the fact that the distance of

the police station was about 13 to 14 kilometers from the place

of occurrence. No reasons whatsoever have been mentioned in

the FIR by the complainant for such delay in reporting the

crime to the police. Even before the learned trial court no

plausible reason has been assigned by the complainant, which

shows that no sincere effort was made by the complainant's

side to report the matter to the police with due promptitude, as

such there is every possibility that the intervening period was

consumed in concocting a story, which is giving rise to many

doubts regarding the correctness of the story narrated in the

crime report.

13. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court

of Pakistan in the case titled Muhammad Hassan and another v. The

State, (2024 SCMR 1427) wherein it has been held as under:

6. The incident in this case (as per the contents of the FIR and the

Private Complaint) took place on 17.04.2008 at 4:00 p.m.

However, the matter was reported to the police by the complainant, Muhammad Ibrahim (PW-1), through a written

complaint (Ex. PA) on 18.04.2008. Consequently, the formal FIR

(Ex.PA/1) was registered at 8:10 a.m., approximately more than

sixteen hours after the incident, despite the police station

being only 16 km away from the scene of the occurrence.

Nowhere in the entire evidence, the prosecution has explained

the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to the Police

with such a delay. The delayed FIR shows dishonesty on the

part of the complainant and that it was lodged with

deliberation and consultation. Reference in this regard may be

made to the case of Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2023

SCMR 566) wherein a delay of only five hours and ten minutes

in reporting the matter to and lodging the FIR by the police

was considered indicative of dishonesty on the part of the

complainant.

14. The reappraisal of statements of prosecution witnesses would

divulge the fact that not only the same are contradictory with each

other, but in order to cover up the lacunas certain dishonest

improvements have also been made. Thus, the prosecution has

miserably failed to substantiate the charge against the appellant

beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The perusal of impugned

judgment reveals that the same is suffering from misreading, non-

reading and mis-appreciation of material available on record. The

above defects in the prosecution case were not considered by the

learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. It is well

settled principle of law that a wrongful conviction results into

injustice, the first tragedy is to the innocent person; the second is to

the victim of the offence and to society, because the real offender is

not brought to justice, wrong conviction undermine the credibility of

the legal system, whenever witnesses are mistaken, it is rarely

because they lie or misrepresent the facts. Needless to emphasize

that accused were entitled to be extended benefits of doubt as a

matter of right, but the same was withheld. Even an accused cannot

be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one

circumstance, which creates doubts in the prosecution story,

whereas in the case in hand there are series of doubts apparent from

the statements of witnesses. Reliance in this regard is placed on the

case of Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490), whereby the

Hon ble apex Court has held as under:

It is a well settled principle of law that for the accused to be

afforded this right of benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that

there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if

there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the

accused. In the case reported as Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State (PLD 2019 SC 64) this Court has held that if a single circumstance

creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the

apprehension of guilt of an accused, then he/she shall be entitled

to such benefit not as a matter of grace and concession, but as of

right. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases

reported as Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)

and Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048). The same view was

reiterated in the case reported as Abdul Jabbar v. State (2019

SCMR 129) wherein it was held that once a single loophole is

observed in a case presented by the prosecution, such as conflict

in the ocular account and medical evidence or presence of eye-

witnesses being doubtful, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in

the prosecution's case automatically goes in favour of an

accused. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable,

trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in

prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused.

However, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove

its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

15. The discrepancies so pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellant cannot be taken lightly. It is a well settled principle of law

that an accused is entitled to get the benefit of a slightest doubt,

whereas in the instant case there are certain legal defects and

discrepancies apparent on the face of record, which rendered the

entire case as doubtful, but the trial Court while delivering the

impugned judgment has failed to extend the benefits of such doubts in

favour of the appellant.

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeal is accepted, the

impugned judgment dated 31st August 2024 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Loralai is set aside and while extending the benefit of

doubts, the appellant Saif ur Rehman Son of Abdul Razzaq, is acquitted

of the charge. The appellant being in custody, is ordered to be released

forthwith, if not required in any other case.

JK/122/Bal. Appeal allowed.