Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against appellant–Prosecution evidence falls short of legal proof required in a case of capital charge to establish guilt of appellant–There is absolutely nothing on file to indicate that appellant had a hand in smuggling/transportation of heroin and it was in his knowledge that bag recovered from his car, contained heroin powder–Possibility of appellant having offered a lift to co-appellant without knowing about real nature of stuff contained in bag, cannot be excluded in the circumstances of case–Mere fact appellant was driving car in question from which contraband had been recovered lying under feet of co-appellant by itself, is not sufficient to connect him with guilt, as rightly urged–Vehicle in question hired by appellant from someone has not been confiscated to the State and same has been discharged of its liabilities–It needs no reiteration that for giving benefit of doubt to an accused, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt–If there is a circumstance which creates a reasonable doubt in prudent mind about the guilt of the accused then accused will be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right–Appeal accepted upto the extent of appellant but there is sufficient material on the file to connect co-appellant with guilt–Appellant is acquitted but co-appellants appeal dismissed.