Benefit of Doubt

  1. Respondent No.3 is a Girdawar — It is proved from the record that he recorded an inconsistent entry in 1994 in violation of the findings of this Court — It is rightly argued that there is nothing on the record to show that he was aware in 1994 that a decree had been passed by this Court twelve years ago in 1982 — He was given benefit of doubt and his unqualified apology accepted. Muhammad Shafiat Khan v. Bostan Khan and 2 others 2000 SCR 532 (C)
  2. Doctor has said that some of the symptoms noticed could be on account of some disease or medicines carrying some quantity of alcohol — He supported his certificate on account of admission — Held: It is a case whose benefit of doubt should have been extended to the appellant — Appellant acquitted. Muhammad Shabir v. The State 2003 SCR 486 (C)
  3. The benefit of slightest doubt arising in the case goes in favour of accused even at bail stage. Kareem Dad  v. Zaheer and another 2004 SCR 36 (F) 1999 SCR 507  rel.
  4. Prosecution and defence versions — Effect of — Benefit of doubt would go to accused — When two views are possible the one benefiting the accused is to be preferred. Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others v. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau 2005 SCR 109 (P)
  5. It is a settled principle of Criminal law that benefit of smallest doubt goes to the accused. Sagir Ahmed v. Zulfiqar Ahmed & another 2005 SCR 422 (B)
  6. It is settled principle of criminal law that benefit of smallest doubt goes to the accused. Saghir Ahmed v. Zulfiqar Ahmed & another 2006 SCR 228 (B)
  7. The prosecution and the defence versions must be considered side by side — The benefit of slightest doubt shaking the roots of case must be extended to accused party. Nuzhat Bibi v. Shabbir Hussain & 2 others 2006 SCR 58 (B)
  8. The occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution — The version of the prosecution was negated by the statement of Patwari — There is enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused party, therefore, it would not be safe to award the sentence of Qisas or life imprisonment on the basis of statements of such witnesses. Muhammad Yaqub v. The State and another 2007 SCR 332 (C)
  9. The statement of Doctor and medical reports negate the version of the prosecution that occurrence took place at 1.00 PM — The post-mortem report, medical reports and eye-witnesses did not lend any corroboration regarding the time of occurrence. Muhammad Yaqub v. The State and another 2007 SCR 332 (D)
  10. S. 302 A.P.C. — There are contradictions between post-mortem report and the story narrated by the eye-witnesses — No bloodstained clay or blood was recovered from the place of occurrence — These factors create doubt regarding place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence. M. Yousaf v. Tariq Mehmood & another 2008 SCR 1 (A)
  11. An important eye-witness was not produced before the Court — The convict-appellant sustained injuries and was examined by the doctor — These factors create doubt regarding version of prosecution — Even otherwise the version of prosecution is not proved by evidence of prosecution. Muhammad Yousaf v. Tariq Mehmood & another  2008 SCR 1 (F)
  12. In the instant case the deceased who was murdered was Muhammad Yunus son of Muhammad Yousaf, while the post-mortem  report contains the name of Muhammad Yunus son of Atta Muhammad — The learned counsel for complaint stated that such has been mentioned inadvertently — There is nothing like such on the record that it was inadvertently mentioned by the doctor — If at all any mistake was committed by the doctor it was the duty of the prosecution to rectify  it — The story of prosecution is not free of doubt. M.Yousaf v. Tariq Mehmood & another 2008 SCR 1 (G)
  13. The witnesses made a lot of improvements for benefiting prosecution — It creates serious doubt — Every benefit of doubt goes to the accused — The statements of eye-witnesses did not find corroboration from any independent, strong and cogent evidence. Arshad Mahmood v. Raja Muhammad Asghar and another 2008 SCR 345 (R)
  14. Trial Court believed the verbal evidence of witnesses — Whose statements cannot be equated to that of Chemical Examiner — There is no expert opinion available — Doubt is left in the mind of the Court —  The benefit of which will always go to the accused person. Muhammad Banaras v. The State 2008 SCR 552 (B) PLD 1998 S.C. (AJ&K) 31 rel.
  15. Bail grant of — It is celebrated principle of law that doubt, if any, which arises in the case shall go in favour of accused even at bail stage. Abdul Khaliq v. State and other 2010 SCR 402 (C)
  16. Benefit of doubt also goes in favour of an accused — Principle of law. State through Adv. General Muzaffarabad v. Talib Hussain and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 192  (A)
  17. It is settled principle of law that a slightest doubt must go to the accused.  Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram & another 2014 SCR 351 (C)
  18.  Single doubt is sufficient to acquit the accused. Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram & another 2014 SCR 351 (B)
  19.  It is settled principle of law that even a slightest doubt must go in favour of the accused.  Abid Hanif v. Muhammad Afzal & 4 others 2014 SCR 983 (B)
  20. According to the celebrated principles of administration of criminal justice, benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Maqsooda Begum v. Junaid 2014 SCR 1428 (A) 2013 SCR 192, 2010 SCMR 49, PLJ 2009 FSC 284, PLJ 2012 SC (AJ&K) 74, 2008 SCR 345 & 2013 PSC (Crl.) 346  ref.
  21. After century’s deliberation, there is a universal unanimity among the Courts administering criminal justice that the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Javed Iqbal v. Fayyaz Ahmed & another 2014 SCR 1441 (A)
  22. According to the universally celebrated principle of administration of criminal justice, it is primary duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt and benefit of doubt must has to be given to the accused. Imran Khan & another v. Sarfraz alias Pallo & 3 others 2014 SCR 1564 (C)
  23. Its applicability at bail stage — Law cannot be stretched in favour of the prosecution, but the benefit of doubt must go to the accused even at bail stage. Zaheer Ahmed v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others 2014 SCR 1667 (F)
  24. Every possible doubt arising out of the prosecution story must go to the accused being a favourite child of law. Raja Zamin Abbas & another v. Sultan Mobashar Saidain & 2 others 2014 SCR 1678 (D) 2010 SCR 402 & 2014 SCR 351 rel.
  25. The benefit of even a smallest doubt always goes in favour of accused. Javaid Akhtar v. Muhammad Zubair & others 2015 SCR 533 (H)
  26. It is the trend of law that the benefit of every possible doubt be extended in favour of the accused. Held: even a slightest doubt is sufficient to acquit the accused. Muhammad Rafique v. Aurangzeb & another 2015 SCR 974 (B)
  27. It is celebrated principle of law that benefit of a slightest doubt must go to the accused. Zaffar Hussain Malik v Abdul Salam & 5 others 2015 SCR 1090 (C)  1995 SCMR 1345 rel.
  28. Conviction — only on evidence beyond shadow of doubt — in absence of as such — benefit of doubt goes to accused — according to the celebrated principle of law, for recording the conviction, it is the basic duty of prosecution to establish commission of offence against the accused through the evidence which fulfils the standard of credibility and links all the chains of the story beyond any shadow of doubt. If from the appreciation of evidence and the circumstances of the case any doubt arises, the benefit of same goes to the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution could not succeed to establish its case beyond shadow of doubt. Raqiba Begum v. Javid Iqbal 2015 SCR 1335 (D) 
  29. The benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Raqiba Begum &  others v. Javid Iqbal & others  2015 SCR 1335 (F) 2008 SCR 1 & 2014 SCR 1441 rel.
  30. Held: if any slightest doubt regarding involvement of the accused in the commission of alleged offence arises, the benefit of such doubt at the bail stage can be extended to the accused. Jahangir Khan v. Tanveer Hussain Shah 2015 SCR 1349 (E) 2013 P.Cr.L.J 66 & 1997 SCR 125 rel.
  31. It is settled principle of law that the doubt if any arising in a case must be extended in favour of the accused even at bail stage. Liaquat Hussain v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1544 (D)
  32. According to the universally settled and accepted principle of law of criminal administration of justice, benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Tasawar Hussain versus The State & 9 others  2016 SCR 373 (E)  2014 SCR 351, 2014 SCR 983, 2008 SCR 1, PLJ 2012 SC (AJ&K) 74 & PLJ 2015 SC 774 rel. 
  33. Contradiction in the prosecution evidence creates a serious doubt upon prosecution story — Benefit of a slightest doubt goes in favour of the accused. Muhammad Jamroze v. Raja Muhammad Sabir & another 2016 SCR 1150 (A) 2014 SCR 351 & 2009 SCR 390 rel.
  34. In criminal cases, the jurists have a different approach regarding the conviction and acquittal of a guilty. It has been settled in some criminal cases that it is better to acquit ten accused persons rather to convict an innocent one. This English maxim basically provides a safeguard to the accused against whom the prosecution story becomes doubtful. Muhammad Jamroze v. Raja Muhammad Sabir & another 2016 SCR 1150 (B)
  35. Murder case — circumstantial evidence — The chain of events as mentioned in the record and deposed by the prosecution witnesses does not appeal to any prudent mind — the investigating agency has committed very serious lapses and faults — un-explained and implausible intervals, different events, tasks and recoveries look to be performed at the same time, which, otherwise could not be performed as such in routine — Held: These discrepancies and flaws, existing in different events and stages of investigation make the whole prosecution story doubtful — The rule of benefit of doubt, which is described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence which cannot be ignored while dispensing justice in accordance with law. It is based on the maxim, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” — Rule of benefit of doubt also occupies a pivotal place in the Islamic jurisprudence and enforced rigorously — the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt — In simple words it means that utmost care should be taken by the Court in convicting an accused. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (H&I) PLD 2002 SC 1048 rel.
  36. The prosecution being obliged to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and if it failed to do so, the convict was entitled to get benefit of doubt as of right. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (J) PLD 1973 SC 418 & 2014 SCR 351 rel.
  37. It is well established principle of law that even a slightest doubt in the prosecution story or evidence always goes in favour of the accused even at the bail stage. Sudheer Shah alias Kala Shah v. The State and another 2016 SCR 1653 (D) 2014 SCR 1667, 2004 SCR 36 & 2005 SCR 109 rel.
  38. — It is settled principle of law that benefit of slightest doubt must be extended to the accused even at bail stage. Farzana Begum & others v. Sohail Umer & another 2017 SCR 420 ( A)  2014 SCR 1667, 2004 SCR 36 & 2005 SCR 507 rel.
  39. — It  is  well established principle  of law that benefit of every possible  doubt  should  be  extended  to  the accused  and  even  a  slightest  doubt  is  sufficient to  acquit  the  accused  of  the  charge. Waseem Hussain & 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique & another  2017 SCR 428 (C) 2015 SCR 974 & PLJ 2009 FSC 284 rel.
  40. —section 302 and 34 APC—at bail stage—eye witness was entered in the case after a long time—Benefit of doubt—prima facie creates a doubt in respect of the authencity of the statement of the said eyewitness and under law benefit of slightest doubt must go in favour of the accused even at bail stage. Muhammad Nazir Mir vs The State & another 2018 SCR 1155  (B)
  41. —murder—it is settled principle of law that benefit of a slightest doubt, shaking the roots of the case, must be extended to the accused and a single doubt is sufficient to acquit him of the charge. The appeal of the convict was accepted and he was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances. Rashid Hussain vs The State & another 2018 SCR 260  (F)
  42. —Commission of offence proved—but nexus of commission of offence with appellant—convict not proved beyond shadow of doubt—evidence not confidence inspiring—The Supreme Court set aside the conviction delivered by the trial Court and maintained by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court by giving benefit of doubt in circumstances. Azkar Hussain Shah vs The State & another 2018 SCR 1056 (C)
  43. —murder case—the benefit of a slightest doubt, shaking the roots of the case must be extended to the accused. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (B)
  44. — section 14, the  Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985—theft of mobile phone— benefit of even a single doubt must be extended in shape of acquittal —contradiction in statements of the witnesses, the delay in lodging FIR, non-production of the print of call summary and the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses create a doubt in the prosecution story and is celebrated principle of law that every possible benefit of slightest doubts must be extended to the accused and a single doubt is sufficient to acquit him of the charge. Javed Iqbal  Nosherwani v. Naveed Ahmed 2019 SCR 577 (B)
  45. — Law is well settled that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt. If there is any room of doubt in the prosecution case, the same is liable to be resolved in favour of the accused and not the prosecution. Asif Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique & another 2019 SCR 632 (B)  2019 SCMR 129 rel
  46. —murder case—circumstantial case—single circumstance of doubt—sufficient for acquittal of accused—There are many other serious contradictions and flaws in the other pieces of evidence collected by the prosecution as after discussing some evidence we have observed hereinabove that the prosecution story is doubtful, hence, we do not intend to discuss all the evidence in detail as under law a single  circumstance available in the case which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused is sufficient to acquit him of the charge. Ammad Asghar v. Tahir Sarwar & 2 others 2019 SCR 886 (D)
  47.  —where any benefit of doubt arises on the basis of record, the same is liable to be resolved in favour of the accused even at the bail stage. Waqas Habib v. Khalid Mehmood & another 2020 SCR 396 (C) PLD 1972 SC 277, PLD 1988 SC (AJK) 14 ref
  48. —It is settled principle of law that a slightest doubt must go in favour of accused. Farrah Ayyub Versus State & another 2021 SCR 516 (G) — In criminal cases, the rule is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, if the Court is of the opinion that two views are reasonably possible, one that the accused is guilty and the other that he is innocent, then the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Farrah Ayyub Versus State & another 2021 SCR 516 (H)  2016 SCR 1653 & 2015 SCR 974 rel.
  49. —Under law a single circumstance, which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused is sufficient to acquit the accused of the charge. Muhammad Javed  v. Muhammad Jamil & another  2022 SCR 705 (E)
  50. —Golden principle of administration of justice—benefit of doubt, must go to the accused, not as mater of grace but as a right, and same is a golden rule of administration of criminal justice. One appellant was acquitted of the charges and sentence of other one’s reduced and converted into already undergone in circumstances. Muhammad Khalil Khan v. State & others 2022 SCR 1462 (C) 2016 SCR 373; 2014 SCR 351; 2014 SCR 983; 2008 SCR 1 & PLJ 2015 SC 774 rel.
  51. —Murder case—extending of benefit of doubt to accused— more than one infirmity is not required—single infirmity creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person, regarding the truth of the charge, makes the whole case doubtful. The Rule of giving benefit of doubt to accused person is essentially a rule of caution and prudence, and is deep rooted in jurisprudence for the safe administration of criminal justice. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (I)
  52. —Murder case—benefit of doubt—extension to accused— principle find place in common law and also in Islamic criminal law. Hadees of the Holly Prophet (PBUH) quoted. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (J)
  53. —Extension of benefit of doubt to accused—principle, defined—Held: For better administration of justice in criminal legal system, the accused person is always extended with benefit of doubt of ‘reasonable’ and not of ‘imaginary’ doubt. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (N)
  54. —Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, which goes in favour of the accused. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (P) 2016 SCR 373 & 2014 SCR 983 rel.
  55. —Benefit of doubt—extension to accused—accused entitled to benefit of the doubt as a right—Held: Criminal Jurisprudence is very clear in this regard whenever any reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution case, the benefit thereof, would be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (Q)
  56. —Principle of benefit of doubt—occupies pivotal position in Islamic law and enforced rigorously. If prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt no matter how slight it may be, must go in favor of the accused. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (V)
  57. —While analyzing evidence the prosecution case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is golden principle of criminal jurisprudence. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (C)
  58. —Conviction is required to be based upon unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—any doubt arisen in prosecution’s case must be resolved in favor of accused Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (X)
  59. —A single doubt entitles the accused of benefit, not as a grace rather as a matter of right. The rule of doubt is described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence which cannot be ignored of doubt entitled accused while dispensing justice in accordance with law. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (Y) 2016 SCR 373; 2014 SCR 351; 2014 SCR 983; 2008 SCR 1, PLJ 2012 SC AJK 74; PLJ 2015 SC 774 rel.
  60. — always goes in favour of accused — the impugned judgments and conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was set-aside. Consequently, while accepting the appeal of the convict and extending the benefit of doubt, he was acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (O) 2016 SCR 373 & 2014 SCR 983 rel
  61. — it is also settled principle of law that every possible doubt arising out of the prosecution story must go to the accused being a favorite child of law. Ehtesab Bureau v. Fareed Ahmed & others2023 SCR 203 (E) 2010 SCR 402 ref.
  62. — it is settled principle of law that a single doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused of the charge. Mohammad Arif v. Liaqat Ali & others 2023 SCR 199 (B)
  63. — rule of caution and prudence — multiple infirmities are not required — a single infirmity can cause doubt — The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. It has already been settled by the Courts time and again that for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to an accused, multiple infirmities are not required, rather, a single infirmity can cast a shadow of reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding the truth of the charge. The rule of giving benefit of doubt to an accused is essentially a rule of caution and prudence, and is deep rooted in criminal jurisprudence for the safe administration of criminal justice.. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (J)
  64. — finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based merely on high probabilities, but solely and firmly on the deep perusal of each and every aspect of the case — rule of benefit occupies a pivotal position in Islamic law — where prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt, no matter how slight it may be, must go to accused. Afzan Ahmed versus The State & 06 others 2023 SCR 1085 (K)
  65. — finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based merely on high probabilities, but solely and firmly on the deep perusal of each and every aspect of the case — rule of benefit of doubt occupies a pivotal position in Islamic Law — if prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt no matter how slight it may be must go to the accused. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (L)
  66. — for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to an accused, more than one infirmity is not required, rather a single infirmity creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding truth of charge, makes the whole case doubtful — the rule of giving benefit of doubt to an accused is essentially a rule of caution and prudence and is deep rooted in jurisprudence for safe administration of criminal justice. Afzan Ahmed versus The State & 06 others 2023 SCR 1085 (G) 2009 SCR 390 ref.
  67. — under celebrated principle of administration of criminal justice, any doubt arising out in the prosecution story must go in favor of accused. Afzan Ahmed versus The State & 06 others 2023 SCR 1085 (H) 2016 SCR 373 & 2014 SCR 983
  68. — for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to an accused, more than one infirmity is not required, rather a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding truth of the charge, makes the whole case doubtful — the rule of giving benefit of doubt is essentially a rule of caution and prudence, and is deep rooted in our jurisprudence for the safe administration of criminal justice — in common law, it is based on the maxim, “it is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted”. Muhammad Saeed versus The State & 12 others 2023 SCR 1006 (G) Sunan Ibn Majah Hadith # 2545 ref
  69. — the well-established legal principles dictate that any shadow of doubt arising in favor of accused must result in acquittal –  Zulfiqar Khan versus The State & others 2023 SCR 649 (A) 2014 SCR 351 ref.
  70. — where the slightest doubt arises in the case, the benefit of the same should go to the accused — Muhammad Asif  versus State & another 2023 SCR 1172 (H)
  71. — benefit of slightest doubt must go to the accused as a matter of right. Muhammad Anwar versus  Abdul Razzaque & others 2023 SCR 694 (A)
  72. — the benefit of slightest doubt arising in the case goes in favor of accused. Imran & others vs The State & others 2024 SCR 155(H)
error: Content is protected !!