MUHAMMAD ALAM vs STATE through Prosecutor General Punjab, etc
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 by the High Court in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused based on an implausible motive, delayed FIR, planted related eye-witnesses, doubtful recovery, and co-accused acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions reached by the High Court were unexceptionable, given the significant gaps and infirmities in the prosecution's case. The court laid down that where the prosecution fails to establish a plausible motive through independent evidence, delays the FIR, and relies on related witnesses with suspicious recoveries, the extension of the benefit of doubt leading to acquittal is legally sound and warrants no interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether acquittal based on the benefit of doubt is sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish its motive through independent evidence?
- Does a significant delay in lodging the FIR give rise to an inference of consultation and fabrication?
- Can a recovery made from an open place like a bush near the place of occurrence be attributed to the exclusive custody of an accused?
ORDER
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.--We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the relevant record of the case with his assistance.
2. According to the FIR it was the complainant party of this case which had gone to the place whereat Respondent No, 2 and his co-accused were present. The reason stated by, the complainant party for going to the place of Respondent No, 2 and others was neither plausible nor the same had been established through any independent evidence. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were related/ connected to the deceased and they had failed to bring anything on the record to establish the stated reason for their accompanying the deceased at the relevant time. An FIR in respect of the incident in issue had been lodged with a significant delay and post- mortem examination of the deadbody had been conducted on the next day giving rise to an inference that time had been consumed by the complainant party and the local police in cooking up a story for the prosecution and in procuring and planting eye-witnesses. The alleged recovery of a fire-arm had been affected in this case from a bush near the place of occurrence and not from an exclusive custody of C Respondent No,
2. Nazar co-accused of Respondent No, 2 had been acquitted by the trial Court. For all these reasons the High Court had decided to extend the benefit of doubt to Respondent No, 2 and had, thus, acquitted him of the charge and in such circumstances we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the High Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.