PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Note) 18 Judgment Circumstantial Evidence, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)–S. 302(b)–Anti-Terrorism Act, (XXV of 1997), S. 7(1)(a)–Conviction and sentence–Challenge to–Benefit of doubt–Circumstantial evidence–Prosecution has also failed to produce any circumstantial evidence in support of prosecution case–The appellant was arrested by the I.O. and subjected him to investigation, but it has failed to recover the crime weapon from the possession or on the pointation of the appellant–Thus, the recovery of empties from the place of occurrence is not helpful to the case of prosecution–Besides, the wearing clothes of the deceased and the injured though were taken into possession, but the fact remains that the same were washed and cleaned, while to the contrary it was required to have been taken into possession being stained with blood, but washing of wearing clothes of deceased and the injured have diminished the important circumstantial piece of evidence–Medical evidence in this case has been furnished by PW Medical Officer DHQ Hospital Kalat, yet the fact remains that medical evidence is only used for confirmation of ocular evidence regarding seat of injury, time of occurrence and weapon of offence used, etc. but medical evidence itself does not constitute any corroboration qua the identity of accused person to prove their culpability–In view of the ocular testimony of the related/interested prosecution witnesses, contradictions and dishonest improvements in their testimony, lacking independent corroboration in material aspects, existence of previous criminal litigation as well as eloping of a woman of accused party, the false implication of the appellant by the PWs cannot be ruled out of consideration as the appellant while recording his statement on oath has taken specific plea of his false implication by PWs due to previous dispute–The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the same is suffering from mis-appreciation of material available on record–The above defects in the prosecution case was not considered by trial Court and wrongly the benefit of such doubts was not extended in favour of the appellant–Needless to emphasize that accused were entitled to be extended benefits of doubt as a matter of right–Held: Even an accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt, merely because there is only one circumstance, which creates doubts in the prosecution story, whereas in the case in hand there are series of doubts–Appeal was accepted.