Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 337-F(v), 34

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 173, 342, 340(2), 439

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 129(g)

 Summary The Islamabad High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted the petitioner (Shoaib Ahmed) by setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and Appellate Court. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 337-F(v) PPC beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, deficiencies in medical evidence, unexplained delay in medical examination, and non-production of a material eyewitness. The Court reiterated that even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused and exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to prevent miscarriage of justice. Tagline Benefit of Doubt – Contradictory Evidence, Defective Medical Proof, and Withholding of Material Witness Render Conviction Unsustainable. ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- Through the instant revision, the petitioner has challenged judgment dated 13.11.2023, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, West-Islamabad (“Appellate Court”), whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, West-Islamabad (“Trial Court”), was dismissed. Vide the judgment dated 18.03.2023, the petitioner was convicted in case FIR No.27/17, dated 06.03.2017, u/s 337-F(v) and 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Shams Colony, Islamabad and sentenced u/s 337-F(v) PPC to pay Daman of Rs.200,000/- to the injured complainant within a period of one year in 12 equal installments. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant revision are that on 11.02.2017, at 11:00 am, the petitioner Shoaib Ahmed along with his father co-accused Aurangzeb started fighting with the complainant due to their previous enmity. The petitioner armed with Danda, hit the same on the hand of the complainant due to which he sustained injury. On this incident, the above said FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. After registration of the FIR, the petitioner and his co-accused were arrested. During the investigation, they were found involved in the commission of the alleged offence,…