Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 376(3)

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 376(3)--Offence of rape--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Medical examination--Benefit of doubt--Requirement of medical examination of victim would have lifted veil from actual facts because presence of some mark of violence on her private parts would have supported accusations burdened upon shoulder of appellant--Even torn clothes of victim were neither produced before police nor tendered in evidence before trial Court--Court have no hesitation to hold that ocular account is not synchronized with medical account--There are number of infirmities/loopholes/ lacunas, which create serious doubts in prosecution case--Held: It is a well settled principle of law that for accused to be afforded right of benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, benefit of same must go to petitioner. [Para 10 & 11] A & B PLD 2019 SC 64 ref. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 376(3)--Rape--Offence of--Conviction and sentence--Benefit of doubt--If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about 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 a matter of right. [Para 11] C 2019 SCMR 129. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 376(3)--Rape--Conviction and sentence--Benefit of doubt--The Supreme Court of Pakistan, inter alia, has observed that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by prosecution, such as conflict in ocular account and medical evidence or presence of eye-witnesses being doubtful, benefit of such loophole/lacuna in prosecution’s case automatically goes in favour of an accused--It is also well settled that conviction must be based on unimpeachable and reliable evidence--Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of accused.       [Para 11] D Mian Muhammad Awas Mazhar, Advocate for Appellant. Ms. Asiya Yasin, DPG for State. Nemo for Complainant. Date of hearing: 23.9.2025. Judgment Adil (appellant) was tried in case F.I.R. No.…