Golden Rule. Finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case. Finding of the guilt should rest surely and firmly on the evidence produced. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof, otherwise the golden rule of benefit of doubt will be reduced to naught. (SC) PLD 1970 SC 10 Muhammad Luqman.
To be reflected in conviction or acquittal. Measure of sentence is not to be affected by the rule. (DB) PLD 1975 Kar. 120 Nindo.
Accused is only to create doubt in prosecution case. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 1992 SCMR 1134, Wazir Muhammad.
Benefit of doubt in every case must go to the accused. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 17 (2) Sikandar.
Benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to the accused. 1992 SCMR 196, Danial Boy.
Benefit of doubt arising on any material point must be given to the accused. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 385 Bashir Ahmed etc.
Reasonable doubt. If an accused is able to raise reasonable doubt he is entitled to acquittal. (FC) PLD 1953 FC 93 Safdar Ali v. Crown.
Case not free from reasonable doubt. Murder case against the accused not free from reasonable doubt. Benefit of doubt however slight must go to the accused. (DB) PLD 1968 Lah. 981 Feroz Khan. etc.
Slightest doubt about the presence of the accused entitles him to benefit. (DB) PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 74 Haji Mir Aftab.
Single infirmity in prosecution case would entitle accused to benefit of doubt. NLR 1991 Cr. 415. Murad Shah.
Where evidence against the appellant is effected by measure of doubt, leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court. (SC) PLD 1967 SC 307 Alim.
Matters doubtful. Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court where a number of matters casting doubt on truth of prosecution case were not given appropriate weight by Courts below. (SC) PLD 1967 SC 326 Mumtaz Ahmad Khan.
Injuries on the deceased may be result of one shot. Ocular evidence could not and should not be believed unless substantially corroborated by independent evidence. Since occurrence took place at night, possibility of involvement on account of suspicion cannot be ruled out, held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PLJ 1995 S.C. 576, Umar Hayat.
Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt about. (i) place of occurrence; (ii) manner in which deceased was injured; (iii) dying declaration of victim. P.Ws. not disinterested. Interested evidence not corroborated. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (SC) 1973 SCMR 263 Azam Khan. etc.
Doubt and sentence. Where the guilt of the accused is doubtful. He should be acquitted and not sentenced to short-term of imprisonment. PLD 1963 Lah. 451 Mukhtar Ahmad.
Doubt must lead to acquittal and not short sentence. 333/4 tolas of gold recovered. Short sentence of one year passed by Magistrate reduced to six months by Sessions Judge in appeal, themselves raise doubts as to the satisfactory nature of evidence about the recovery. Accused acquitted. Stolen property ordered to be restored to the complainant. PLD 1963 Lah. 451 Mukhtar Ahmad (DB) 44 Cr.LJ 826; AIR 1946 Lah. 298 Rattu v. Emp.
Suspicion cannot form the basis of conviction for a major charge such as murder. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 71 Muhammad Alam.
Suspicion or moral certainty cannot take place of legal proof. (DB) PLD 1964 Pesh. 59 Nisar Ahmad.
Suspicion and conjectures cannot take place of legal testimony (DB) PLD 1958 Lah. 242 Rang Ali.
Conflict of medical evidence and ocular evidence. Medical Evidence inconsistent with eye-witness account. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. (SC) 1972 SCMR 74 Saindad.
Benefit of doubt: Where evidence creates doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story, its benefit has to be given to the accused without any reservation. 1997 S.C.M.R. 25, Muhammad Ilyas.
Whole story doubtful from outset. Out of the two aspects of matter the Court should accept the one favourable to the accused. (SC) PLD 1958 SC (Pak. ) 12 Abdul Jamil.
Origin of fight remaining undisclosed, and the fact that the deceased himself might have opened the attack probable. Possibilities of false implication and false recoveries not ruled out. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 55 Siraj Din etc.
Doubtful circumstances. Bus driver beaten to death on bus stop in broad daylight in presence of conductor and large number of passengers but none caring to capture the murderers, nor noting down the number of their car in which they escaped, nor any of them trying to report matter to the police. Evidence of eye-witnesses unreliable. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 1261 Mahfooz Ali.
Doubtful circumstances. Prosecution version bristling with doubtful circumstances as regards place, time and manner of commission of offence. Statements of P.Ws. discrepant and FIR delayed. Guilt not fully brought home to the accused. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. (DB) 1970 P.Cr. LJ 1104 Bahadur and another.
Even single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to entitle the accused to acquittal. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar) 2076, Riaz.
For benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If a simple circumstance creates reasonable doubt, then the accused will be entitled to such benefit not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right. 1995 SCMR 1345, Tariq Pervaiz.
Benefit of doubt as of right, is to be given to the accused when there is equal possibility of the accused being guilty or not guilty. PLJ 1984 SC 61 Muhammad Ramzan.
Every doubt to be resolved in favour of the accused. Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 1994 SCMR 1614, Muhammad Nawaz etc.
Where on hearing both, prosecution and defence versions it is not possible for the Court to hold that the version given by the accused was not absolutely false, the benefit of reasonable doubt would go to accused. 1993 SCMR 208, Noor Muhammad.
Two views possible and the view taken by High Court also possible, held, order of acquittal cannot be set aside. 1989 SCMR 1944. Muhammad Ashraf. v. Ghulam Safdar etc.
When both the versions are equally plausible and reasonable the defence version is to be accepted as burden of proof lies on prosecution. (DB) PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) Abdul Majeed.
Two possibilities. Doubtful whether one of the two possibilities represents the truth. One possibility in favour of one accused. Other possibility in favour of the other accused. Supreme Court gave benefit of doubt to the other accused and altered the sentence from death to transportation. (SC) PLD 1959 SC 480 (484) Sher Hussain.
Two explanations possible One favouring the accused is to be accepted (DB) PLD 1972 Lah. 153 Ghulam Hussain. PLD 1964 Kar. 69 D.B. Cayford v. Masood and others. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 1289 (Kar.) M.Yaqub.
If both versions plausible, that is, the prosecution as well as defence version, the version favourable to the accused is to be accepted. 1988 SCMR 857. Muhammad Sultan v. Muhammad Aslam etc.
When two conflicting views are before the Court, one version by the prosecution and the other by the accused; and both the versions are probable, held, the version favouring the defence is to be preferred, more so when it gets corroboration from the circumstantial evidence available. PLD 1994 S.C. 31, Ghulam Hussain etc.
Two versions of incident before the Court. One in favour of the appellant ought to be accepted. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Kar.) 316. Furqan Haider. PLD 1959 SC 480 ref.
Two versions of the prosecution case: Benefit of doubt arising out of the prosecution case given to the accused. Bail allowed for offence u/S. 302/34 PPC. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Kar.) 507, Janib Chandio.
Two possibilities open upon evidence. The possibility favouring the accused must be accepted (SC) 1971 SCMR 357 Khushal etc. PLD 1972 Lah. 153 Ghulam Hussain.
Two possibilities open in the case, one in favour of the accused has to be accepted. 1984 SCMR 914. Wali Muhammad v. Nawab.
Two explanations equally possible. One favouring the accused should be accepted. PLD 1963 Kar. 684 Allah Bakhsh etc. PLD 1964 Kar. 264 Dhani Bakhsh.
Two theories: theory compatible with defence story preferable. (DB) PLD 1959 Pesh. 1 Bashir Ahmed Khan. (SC) PLD 1958 SC 12 Abdul Jamil.
Two theories before the Court, appellant's defence getting full support from a PW; possibility of defence version being true existing. Appeal accepted. PLJ 1994 FSC, Muhammad Aslam.
Case of two versions and appreciation of evidence: The Court to discuss the prosecution case first and then defence version, in order to come to an independent finding with regard to the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses. If the Court disbelieves the prosecution version, then the Court must accept the statement of the accused as a whole without scrutiny. The Court is not to reject the defence plea being as false but will consider whether the defence plea is reasonably possible and could be true. If the Court considers that the defence plea is reasonably possible the Court must accept the defence plea and acquit the accused. PLD 1994 S.C. 879, Ashiq Hussain. PLJ 1994 S.C. 560.
In case of two versions of occurrence both the versions are to be kept in juxtaposition and the version of favourable to the accused is to be preferred provided it gets some support from the admitted facts and appeals to common sense. 1992 SCMR 1592, Muhammad Younas.
Two versions of the incident, both versions to be kept in juxtaposition and the version favourable to the accused is to be preferred if it gets support from admitted facts and circumstances. PLJ 1996 Kar 267, Noor Khan.
Case of two versions: The Court has to put prosecution as well as the defence version in juxtaposition and has to see which version is more probable. However, onus of proof always remains on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PLD 1997 Lah, State v. Muhammad Abid etc.
Which of the two accused caused fatal injury; both armed with sotas and causing one blow each; not known, both the accused given benefit of doubt. Held, the accused had common intention of causing grievous injury with blunt weapon. Conviction altered from section 302/3, PPC to 325/34, PPC. (SC) NLR 1983 Cr.651. Muhammad Latif etc.
Not possible to determine who caused the fatal injury out of the two accused. Sentence of death altered to life imprisonment. (DB) PLD 1994 Pesh. 126, Habib-ur-Rehman and another.
Who accused the grievous hurt? Not known. Benefit given to all accused. Convictions set aside. (DB) NLR 1984 Cr. 321. Naseer Ahmed.
Person who caused fatal blow not discoverable. Each accused given benefit of doubt. Conviction altered from Sec. 302 to 325, PPC and sentence from life imprisonment to 7 years R.I. each. 1984 SCMR 284. Muhammad Latif.
Two inferences available in the case. Inference in favour of the accused to be preferred. (FB) PLD 1969 Kar. 286 Muhammad Nawaz PLJ 1979 Cr. C. (Kar.) 62.
Equally probable theory put up by the accused as that of the prosecution version. Theory of the accused should be accepted. Benefit of doubt must go to the accused. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 664 State v. Manzoor Ahmed.
Case of convicted accused at par with acquitted accused. Prosecution case also at par with defence version, i.e., both versions equally plausible. As a rule the version favouring the accused is to be adopted. Granting benefit of doubt the accused was acquitted. 1991 SCMR 2270. Mushtaq Ahmed.
Various interpretations possible. Action of the accused capable of various interpretations; possibility of the action not being criminal not completely ruled out. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. PLD 1963 BJ 10 Nazir-ud-Din Ahmed.
Legal provision open to two interpretations in a criminal trial, the interpretation favourable to the accused is to be adopted. 1995 S.C.-1, State v. Farman Hussain etc.
Possibility of occurrence being unseen. Delay of 24 hours in FIR important witnesses withheld; prosecution story not confidence inspiring possibility that the occurrence was unseen existing; the accused given benefit of doubt acquitted. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 781 Muhammad Khan etc.
Possibility of occurrence being unseen, deceased done to death in dark hours of the night and the accused implicated on suspicion after consultation and deliberation existing, held prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 945 Abdul Majid. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 956 Bagga etc. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1005 Salim etc.
Possibility of occurrence being unseen. P.Ws. resiling from statements made before the committing magistrate; no independent corroboration of the statement transferred under section 288, Cr.P.C. Possibility that the occurrence was unseen not ruled out. Accused given benefit of doubt. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 808 Salahoon etc.,
Remote possibility of private defence. Probability or even remote possibility of murder being committed in right of private defence. Reasonable doubt arising from such factors. Benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (DB) PLJ 1974 Kar. 106 Shaukat Ali.
Defence version reasonably possible of being true, held, accused is entitled to benefit. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1244, Haji Ayub.
Act or omission of co-accused, when being jointly tried cannot deprive the other accused of benefit of bail u/S. 497(1) 3rd proviso Cr.P.C. Court is required to examine the case of each accused individually. Even adjournment sought by defence counsel reprenting the accused on account of his engagement in professional work cannot be made a ground to refuse bail to him on statutory ground. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1713, Muhammad Sadiq etc.
Injuries on accused suppressed. Only one injury attributed to the accused could not be expected to weigh his assault in golden scale. Possibility that the defence put up by the accused may be true could not be ruled out. Benefit of doubt as of right given to the accused. (DB) PLD 1989 Pesh. 149 State v. Jumma.
One shot and two implicated. Prosecution story that each of the two accused fired a shot hitting the deceased. Medical evidence showing one bullet entry and one exit wound only. Benefit of doubt given to the accused and acquitted. (SC) 1972 SCMR 578 Darya Khan etc.
Who injured the deceased. Only one of the two accused possibly inflicting injuries to deceased but which of the two accused responsible for injuries shrouded in mystery. No evidence on record to show whether both accused had common intention to kill. Both accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (DB) 1978 P.Cr.LJ 380 Paryal etc.
Possibility of accused party being attacked by complainant party not excluded. Held, prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 1270 Talib Hussain etc.
Both parties fighting each other and inflicting injuries, one murdered. Not known who initiated the attack. Held, prosecution failed to prove its case. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 10. Abdul Razzaq.
Lalkara at night before occurrence is not plausible, if appellant had elected night time for occurrence, he would not have done anything which would have woken up or attracted the P.Ws. He could have fired at the deceased when everybody was asleep. Circumstances make the prosecution case highly doubtful. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 48 Adalat Hussain.
Possibility of pistol going off accidentally. Possibility that the P.W. sustained pistol shot injuries during struggle with accused. Question whether accused really fired pistol shots for purpose of private defence or if pistol accidentally went off remaining doubtful. Benefit of doubt given to the accused and acquitted. 1974 P.Cr.LJ 320 Abdul Nabi. (DB) PLD 1974 Kar. 179 Shaukat Ali etc.
One incident not believed. Evidence not acceptable with regard to an incident alleged to have arisen out of the main occurrence. Testimony of such witnesses could not be safely relied upon unless corroborated by other independent reliable evidence. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. (SC) 1971 SCMR 357 Khushal.
Possibility of false implication. Accused implicated for a single pellet injury. No overt act ascribed to six accused. Possibility of all or any of the accused, being falsely implicated not excluded. Accused acquitted. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 901 Muhammad etc. (DB) 1978 P.Cr.LJ 498 Amjad.
Possibility of false implication not ruled out.Benefit of doubt given to the accused and acquitted. PLJ 1981 SC 355 Azmat.
Accused failing to prove that his case was covered by a general exception but creating doubt is entitled to acquittal. (FB) 43 Cr.LJ 177 Parboo v. Emperor.
Large number of accused named by the complainant; motive present to include as many persons as accused as possible. One accused at least admittedly falsely implicated. Held a suspicious circumstance. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 25 Wasi Ullah v. Mirza Ali. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 250 Muhammad.
No definite case by the accused. It is not necessary for the accused to set up any definite case. It is sufficient for him to manage to cast doubt on prosecution case. (SC) 1975 SCMR 337 Miran Bakhsh v. Niaz etc.
Doubtful who are guilty. Ocular testimony highly interested and inimical. Nothing definite which of the accused persons are actually guilty, and how many falsely roped in. Benefit of doubt given to all. (DB) 1979 P.Cr.LJ 615 Rasab etc. 1979 P.Cr.LJ 625 Darya Khan etc.
Which one innocent, Five persons involved for the dacoity of one bullock. Possibility of three or four persons innocent existing. Which one innocent out of five accused not certain; benefit of doubt given to all the accused and acquitted. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 28 Shamman etc. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 40 Abbas Shah etc.
Six co-accused acquitted. Greater part of prosecution evidence not relied on and 6 accused acquitted while one convicted. Contention that 7th accused should also be acquitted, held, no such rule of law exists. Matter depends on facts and circumstances of each case. (FC) 1969 SCMR 875 Jahangir v. Crown.
Co-accused acquitted. Innocent persons found to have been dishonestly, implicated in crime. Court entitled to acquit even those accused not proved to have been falsely implicated. PLD 1971 Kar. 156 Aftab Anwar Jalil. PLD 1958 Lah. 242 Rang Ali etc. (DB) Contra (DB) PLD 1951 Lah. 66 Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown. (FC) 1969 SCMR 875 Jahangir v. Crown.
When acquittal on benefit of doubt of some accused as matter of abundant caution, it does not affect the case of convicted accused. 1980 SCMR 328 Shahzado etc.
Benefit of doubt can be extended to some of the accused as a matter of abundant caution without affecting the case of the other accused. 1992 SCMR 2276, Shahadat etc.
Erroneous reasoning. Charge fully brought home to accused appellants but some co-accused acquitted by lower appellate Court by erroneous reasoning. No benefit can be given to the appellants. (FC) 1971 SCMR 239 Masal and another v. The Crown.
Some accused acquitted because of benefit of doubt does not mean that oral evidence against rest of the accused cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. (FB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 957 Muhammad Khan.
When some accused are acquitted on benefit of doubt, corroboration is required against the remaining accused. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 230 State v. Salehon.
Innocent persons roped in. Ocular evidence belied by medical evidence. P.Ws. aggravating account and found falsely roping in innocent persons. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (DB) 1970 P.Cr.LJ 402 Muhammad Arif.
Active part not taken by five co-accused related to the other accused and possibility of roping in more persons cannot be ruled out. Benefit of doubt given and inactive accused acquitted. (SC) 1974 SCMR 263 Muhammad Shafi etc.
Production of looted property by the accused only evidence against him. Recovery not proved by witnesses. Benefit of doubt given to the accused. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 435 Sultan.
Fatal shot. Doubt about accused's liability regarding fatal shot, benefit of doubt given to the accused. (FC) 1969 SCMR 625 = 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1213 Akram Khan v. Crown.
Japha One accused caught hold of the deceased and the other stabbed him. The accused alleged to have caught hold of the deceased given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Only one person could have caused the injury. (SC) 1974 SCMR 376 Zarin Shah.
If culprits not previously known as for instance where dacoity and murder have been committed by unknown persons or where strangers have been hired as assassins by the opposite-party, it is quite possible that the names of the members of the opposite-party may be substituted or added to the list of unknown criminals. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 86 (89) Ashraf v. Crown.
Identity. It is not probable that the accused belonging to the same village where dacoity was committed without taking the least precaution to conceal their identity should take part in it. PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 79 (80).
Identity of persons giving fatal injury doubtful. Doubtful circumstances. Murder trial. A,B, and C, jointly charged for murder. FIR by deceased treated as dying declaration and made sole basis of conviction. B and C acquitted by trial Court. Held, A should also get benefit of doubt and acquitted. (SC) 1972 SCMR 209 Zaman Khan.
Parties inimical, making exaggerations and improvements of FIR. Deceased given fatal blow in a sudden fight. Author of fatal injury not known. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 906 Ali Gohar etc.
Presence of eye-witnesses and identification in moon light highly doubtful. Possibility that the deceased was done to death by unknown persons existing. Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. 1976 P. Cr.LJ 1078 Munir Ahmed etc. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1103 Muhammad Durez etc. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1134 Ghulam Farid.
No, incised injuries on the deceased: When the accused are alleged to have been armed with the hatchets. Prosecution also not assigning any part to such accused. Benefit of doubt given. (SC) 1976 SCMR 20 Haji etc.
Inquest report: Additions, alterations and interpolations made in the report apparently to change time of occurrence. Benefit given to the accused. 1980 SCMR 231 Muhammad Sharif.