Summary: Facts:The respondent, General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, imposed an emergency in 2007, suspending the Constitution. This action was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Sindh High Court Bar Association case. Subsequently, under Article 6 of the Constitution and relevant laws, a Special Court was established to try Musharraf for high treason. The Lahore High Court, however, in its judgment dated 13.01.2020, declared the initiation of proceedings against Musharraf as unconstitutional and void, leading to the current appeals.-----Issue(s):Whether the Lahore High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed against the acts and proceedings of the Special Court in Islamabad.Whether an alternate adequate remedy was available, rendering the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution inappropriate.The validity of the High Court's decisions on the merits of the case and its authority to grant reliefs not sought in the original petition.The constitutionality of Section 9 of the Special Court Act.The application of the Mustafa Impex decision to the constitution and actions of the Special Court.The High Court's adherence to the directions and judgments of the Supreme Court.Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the Lahore High Court's judgment, holding it unsustainable.----Reasoning:Territorial Jurisdiction: The Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the acts and proceedings challenged were done by the Special Court in Islamabad, hence only the Islamabad High Court could entertain such a challenge.Alternate Remedy: An adequate remedy was available through an appeal against the Special Court's judgment directly to the Supreme Court, as provided by the Special Court Act.Merits and Unasked Relief: The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by discussing the case's merits and granting relief not sought by the petitioner, usurping the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.Section 9 of the Special Court Act: The High Court improperly declared Section 9 as ultra vires in its entirety, though only a portion was challenged.Mustafa Impex Misapplication: The Lahore High Court failed to recognize that the principle established in Mustafa Impex had no retrospective effect and that the constitution of the Special Court complied with this principle post its pronouncement.Violation of Supreme Court Directions: The Lahore High Court acted in violation of the Supreme Court's directions and judgments, undermining the judicial system's integrity.Disposition: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court was set aside.-----Key Precedents Relied On:Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2009 SC 789Abdul Hameed Dogar v. Federal Government, PLD 2016 SC 454Lahore High Court Bar Association v. General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, 2019 SCMR 1029Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2016 SC 808PMDC v. Muhammad Fahad Malik, 2018 SCMR 1956

Summary: (a) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss.60(2)(b) & 63---Rejection of nomination papers---Inclusion of candidate's name in 4th Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Effect---Subsequent freezing of moveable or immoveable property---Opening of a dedicated account for election expenses---Requirement---Frozen bank account under 4th Sched.---Consequences---Mandatory election expense account inoperative---Effect on candidature---Inability to operate dedicated account constitutes a bar to candidature---Concealment of a criminal case in affidavit---Brief facts were that the appellant filed an appeal under S. 63 of the Elections Act, 2017 challenging the Returning Officer's order rejecting his nomination papers on grounds of concealment of facts---The record showed that an FIR existed against him; that he obtained pre-arrest bail after learning of the case; that his name was placed in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and his CNIC and bank accounts were consequently frozen; that under S. 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, maintaining an active bank account for election expenses was mandatory, but due to the freezing order the appellant could not operate his account; and that he had also been declared a proclaimed offender in criminal proceedings which he did not disclose in his nomination papers---Pivotal question requiring determination in the present election appeal was as to "whether the Returning Officer rightly rejected the appellant's nomination papers on the basis of concealment of material facts, specifically the pending criminal cases; his status as a proclaimed offender; and his inclusion in the 4th Schedule which resulted in frozen bank accounts, and whether these circumstances legally disqualified him from contesting the election due to failure to meet mandatory requirements under the Elections Act, 2017"?---Held: Appellant's name had been included in the list of 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, firstly, in the year 2018, secondly in 2021 when it was excluded, however, keeping in view appellant's activities his name had again been included in the said list in 2023---Consequently, according to the order passed against the appellant, movables or any other property owned or controlled wholly or partly, directly or indirectly stood frozen---According to S. 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, opening of a dedicated account for the purpose of election expenses was essential for every candidate---Since, during the existence of aforesaid order, appellant's account remained frozen and he was unable to utilize the same for the purpose of election expenses, therefore, this fact alone was sufficient to preclude him from contesting the forthcoming elections---Moreover, a criminal case was pending against the appellant in which he was a proclaimed offender and same was not disclosed by him in his affidavit---Furthermore, it was revealed that appellant was also a proclaimed offender in another criminal case for the last many years in which admittedly the appellant had not surrendered before the court of law---Appellant had also concealed that case in his affidavit which amounted to concealment of facts, rendering the appellant ineligible to contest the elections---Impugned order passed by the returning officer being within four corners of law needed to intervention in appeal before the High Court---Present appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Muzafar Abbas v. Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi and 31 others PLD 2017 Lah. 394 ref. (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss.60(2) & 62---Rejection of nomination papers---Candidate declared proclaimed offender---Candidate claiming ignorance of registration of a criminal case---Relevance---Subsequent securing of pre-arrest bail after objections of the objectors, plea of---Legality---Effect on candidature---In case the candidate has been declared proclaimed offender after adopting proper procedure of law, he cannot claim he is not aware of any case pending against him---Moreover, securing pre-arrest bail in a case after objections of the objectors does not change his status of proclaimed offender. Hussain Bux and another v. District and Sessions Judge/District Returning Officer and Appellate Authority, Sanghar and others 2002 CLC 281 ref. Allah Bakhash Laghari for Appellant. Usman Nasir Awan for Respondent No. 3. Muhammad Abu Bakar, Returning Officer NA-109, Jhang-II and Muhammad Hssain, S.I. for Respondents.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The sole ground which prevailed upon the Returning Officer for disqualification of the nomination paper of the appellant is that he is having British citizenship as per information furnished by Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and he did not provide any evidence for renunciation of his British citizenship. In order to examine the validity of the impugned order, it would be advantageous to first go through the relevant provisions of the "Constitution" prescribing qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament). Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution. Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 would further elaborate the proposition as it places an embargo on dual citizenship. Admittedly the appellant is holding dual nationality and process for renunciation of such citizenship has not been initiated by him. In this view of the matter, the appellant, in view of Article 63 (1) (c) of the "Constitution" was not qualified to be elected or chosen as a Member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament).

Summary: (a) Elections Act ( XXXIII of 2017 ) --- ----S.60(2)(b) --- Nomination papers, rejection of ---Name of candidate listed in 4th Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 --- Bank accounts frozen---Effect---Appellant (candidate) assailed order passed by the Returning Officer whereby he, by over-ruling the objections raised by appellant, accepted the nomination papers of respondent (candidate from the same constituency)---Assertion of the appellant was that respondent's name had been listed in 4th Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; that CNIC and account of such a person were blocked under the law; that an active account was mandatory requirement for a candidate, which requirement had not been fulfilled by the respondent --- Validity --- It was a matter of record that respondent's name had been included in the list of 4th Sched. of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by the Government of the Punjab, Home Department, vide relevant order --- According to the said order , money or any other property owned or controlled wholly or partly, directly or indirectly shall stand frozen--- According to S.60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, opening of a dedicated account for the purpose of election expenses was essential for every candidate --- Since, during the existence of said order, respondent's account remained frozen and he was unable to utilize the same for the purpose of election expenses , therefore, said fact alone was sufficient to preclude him from contesting the elections ---Returning Officer had failed to take into consideration valid objections of the appellant and wrongly proceeded to accept the nomination papers in a hasty manner---Elections Appellate Tribunal rejected the nomination papers of the respondent from the constituency---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Elections Act ( XXXIII of 2017 ) --- ---S. 60---Nomination papers, rejection of---Criminal case, registration of---Proclaimed offender--- Concealment of fact(s)---Effect---Appellant (candidate) assailed order passed by the Returning Officer whereby he, by over-ruling the objections raised by the appellant, accepted the nomination papers of respondent (candidate from the same constituency)---Assertion of the appellant was that the respondent was proclaimed offender in two criminal cases but he intentionally avoided to disclose the same in the nomination papers, which tantamount to concealment of facts, as such nomination papers of the respondent were liable be rejected --- Validity --- Admittedly, the respondent was a proclaimed offender in a criminal case (FIR ) and challan against him under S.512 Cr.P.C. was already submitted in the Trial Court, but said case (FIR) was not disclosed by him in his affidavit---Although the respondent claimed ignorance of registration of any such case against him and also secured pre-arrest bail in the said case but the explanation qua non-awareness of said case did not appeal to reasons--- Respondent was declared proclaimed offender after adopting proper procedure of law, as such he could not claim that he was not aware of said case --- Further, the respondent was fugitive from law in the said criminal case for the last more than eight years, therefore, securing pre-arrest bail in the said case, after objections of the objectors did not change his status of proclaimed offender--- Furthermore, Police Officer, in attendance, had disclosed that the respondent was also a proclaimed offender in yet another criminal case (FIR) for the last more than one decade and in said case ,admittedly , the respondent had not surrendered before the Court of law--- Respondent had also concealed said /second case in his affidavit which tantamount to concealment of facts, rendering the respondent ineligible to contest the elections--- Thus, the Returning Officer had failed to take into consideration valid objections of the appellant and wrongly proceeded to accept the nomination papers in a hasty manner--- Elections Appellate Tribunal rejected the nomination papers of the respondent from the constituency --- Appeal was allowed. Hussain Bux and another v. District and Sessions Judge/District Returning Officer and Appellate Authority, Sanghar and others 2002 CLC 281 and Muzafar Abbas v. Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi and 31 others PLD 2017 Lahore 394 ref. Usman Nasir Awan, Ahmar Waseem Malik and Faizan Ahmad for the Appellant. Allah Bakhash Laghari for Respondent No. 1. Ansar Sagheer Khan, R.O. PP-127, Jhang-III and Muhammad Hussain, S.I. Order Asjad Javaid Ghural, J .--- Through this appeal under Section 63 of the Election Act, 2017, appellant Muhammad Israr has called in question validity of order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Returning Officer PP-127, Jhang-III, whereby he by over-ruling the objections raised by the appellant upon the nomination papers of respondent No.1 (respondent) accepted the same from the aforesaid constituency. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Returning Officer erred in law while accepting nomination papers of the respondent; that respondent's name has been listed in 4th Schedule of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 vide order dated 26.12.2023; that CNIC and account of such a person has been blocked under the law; that active account is mandatory requirement for a candidate, which could not be fulfilled by the respondent; that the respondent was proclaimed offender in two criminal cases but he intentionally avoided to disclose the same in the nomination papers, which tantamounts to concealment of facts, as such nomination papers of the respondent are liable to be rejected. 3. On the converse, learned counsel for the respondent submits that inclusion of the name of a candidate in the 4th Schedule does not debar him to contest the elections; that registration of criminal cases bearing FIR No.302/14 was not in his knowledge, however, on coming to know about this case, respondent has availed pre-arrest bail which is effective; that the explanation offered by the respondent for not disclosing criminal case has rightly been accepted by the Returning Officer and no exception can be drawn therefrom. 4. Heard. It is a matter of record that respondent's name has been included in the list of 4th Schedule of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 by the Government of the Punjab, Home Department, vide order dated 26.12.2023. According to the said order money or any other property owned or controlled wholly or partly, directly or indirectly shall stand frozen. According to Section 60(2)(b) of the Elections Act, 2017, opening of a dedicated account for the purpose of election expenses is essential for every candidate. Since, during the existence of aforesaid order, respondent's account remained frozen and he is unable to utilize the same for the purpose of election expenses, therefore, this fact alone is sufficient to preclude him from contesting the forthcoming elections. 5. Moreover, admittedly, the respondent is proclaimed offender in case FIR No.302/14 since 29.09.2015 and challan against him under section 512 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Trial Court on 15.12.2015 but this case was not disclosed by him in his affidavit. Although the respondent claimed ignorance of registration of any such case against him and also secured pre-arrest bail in the aforesaid case but the explanation qua non-awareness of said case does not appeal to reasons. Respondent was declared proclaimed offender after adopting proper procedure of law, as such he cannot claim that he was not aware of said case. Further, he is fugitive from law in the aforesaid criminal case for the last more than eight years, therefore, securing him pre-arrest bail in the said case, after objections of the objectors does not change his status of proclaimed offender. Reliance is placed on case reported as "Hussain Bux and another v. District and Sessions Judge/District Returning Officer and Appellate Authority, Sanghar and others (2002 CLC 281)" wherein it has been laid down as under;- "The proclamation was issued under section 87, Cr.P.C. by the trial Court which was followed by the order of the attachment of property under section 88, Cr.P.C. However, after the nomination forms were rejected on this ground, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained protective bail. The conduct and behavior that the petitioner No.1 demonstrates that petitioner No.1 has thwarted the process of the Court and is fugitive from law. Merely because the petitioner No.1 had sought protective bail, therefore, it cannot be said that the absconsion order and proclamation orders have been undone by the grant of protective bail which was granted for a limited period." 6. Furthermore, Police Officer, in attendance, has disclosed that the respondent is also a proclaimed offender in case FIR No.222/11 dated 08.04.2011 for the last more than one decade and in this case admittedly the respondent has not surrendered before the Court of law. Respondent has also concealed this case in his affidavit which amounts to concealment of facts, rendering the respondent ineligible to contest the elections. Reliance is placed on case reported as "Muzafar Abbas v. Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi and 31 others (PLD 2017 Lahore 394)." 7. Returning Officer has failed to take into consideration valid objections of the appellant and proceeded to accept the nomination papers in hasty manner, which cannot be allowed to hold the field. Resultantly, instant appeal is allowed as a result whereof nomination papers of the respondent from constituency No.PP-127, Jhang-III, stands rejected. MQ/M-50/L Appeal allowed.

Summary: (a) Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012)--- ----Ss.2(h), 16, 17, 18 & 39---Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss.6 & 117---Trade Marks (Amendment) Act (LVIII of 2023)---Trademark suits---Scope and adjudicating forum---Intellectual Property Tribunal---Jurisdiction---Pendency of cases at High Court filed before and after enactment of Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012---Transfer of cases from High Court to Intellectual Property Tribunal---Exception---High Court's jurisdiction in revocation / rectification cases---The subject-matter of the present nine suits and one misc. application concerned the judicial determination of future proceedings of trademark matters, which had been filed between the years 2005 and 2020, pending hearing at various stages before the High Court---Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan ("IPOP") Act, 2012 was enacted on 06.12.2012, S. 2(h) of which defined "Intellectual Property Laws" as the laws specified in the schedule to the Act which include (i) The Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, (ii) The Copyright Ordinance, 1962; (iii) The Patents Ordinance, 2000, (iv) The Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000, (v) The Registered Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000 and Ss. 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488 and 489 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---Question for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether, after the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 (the "Act, 2012") and the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023, the High Court could still hear trademark suits, including infringement, passing off, or cancellation cases filed before or after 29.12.2015, or if all such cases had to be sent to the Intellectual Property Tribunal"?---Held: According to S. 17(1) of the Act, 2012, matters pertaining to Intellectual Property Laws pending in any Court were to be transferred to the Intellectual Property Tribunal under S.16 of the Act, 2012---However, the IP Tribunal in Sindh was not established until 02.12.2014---Thereafter on 29.12.2015, S. 15 as well as subsections (2), (3), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) of S. 16 and Ss. 17, 18 & 19 of the said Act came into force with immediate effect---Moreover, where a suit included passing off along with trademark infringement, such action also fell within the scope of Act, 2012, and such suit was also to be instituted before the IP Tribunal---The Supreme Court in the case reported as 2022 SCMR 979 clarified that suits combining passing off with infringement were not beyond the IP Tribunal's jurisdiction---The old S. 117 of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 stood duly amended by the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023, and closed the door to any future filing of suits for infringement before the High Court---A suit for infringement and enforcement of all rights attached thereto was to be made before the IP Tribunal---However, there was an option in some instances to apply to the High Court where any suit or proceeding concerning the trademark was pending involving an application for revocation, an application for declaration of invalidity, an application for rectification, etc---In all such instances, an action in the High Court would be maintainable---The six (6) Category "A" suits were transferred to the Tribunal established under S. 16 of the Act, 2012---With regard to Category "B" Suits, the plaints were returned to the plaintiffs to enable them to avail the jurisdiction of the IP Tribunal---As regards Category "C", it was ordered that suit along with J.M 34 of 2020 was to proceed in the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in its normal course as these matters related to revocation/removal/cancellation of trademarks. Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan 2022 SCMR 979 rel. (b) Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012)--- ----Ss.2(h), 16, 17, 18 & 39---Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S.6---Overriding effect of Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012---Scope---It prevails over Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001---Section 6 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 states that the provisions of this Ordinance shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force---Further, S. 39 of Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 ('IPOP, 2012') states that the provisions of IPOP, 2012 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force---Thus the provisions of IPOP, 2012 will trump the provisions of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001. Muhammad Shaikh, Saifullah Sachwani, Amna Salman and Musharaf Asraf for Plaintiff (in Suit No.200 of 2020 and for Respondent in J.M. No.34 of 2020). Hania Haroon, Alizeh Mehak and Hassan Zaman Khan for Applicant (in Suit No.200 of 2020 for Defendant and in J.M. No.34 of 2020) Aitezaz Mansoor for Plaintiff (in Suit No.226 of 2004). Mirza Mehmood Baig for Plaintiff (in Suit No.08 of 2005 and Defendant in J. Misc. No.34 of 2020). Liaquat Hussain Khan for Plaintiff (in Suit No.2232 of 2016). Saleem Khan holding brief for Nadeem Qureshi (in Suit No.584 of 2010). Salman Ahmed Shaikh holding brief for Sultan Ahmed Shaikh for Plaintiff (in Suit No.226 of 2004 for Defendant and in Suit No.763 of 2010). Jehangir holding brie for Abid H. Puri for Defendant (in Suit No.2679 of 2016). Qamaruddin for Plaintiff (in Suit No.2679 of 2016). Ms. Saira Shaikh. Dates of hearing: 5th, 22nd September, 6th, 12th and 13th October, 2023.

Summary: (a) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 60 & 63---Nomination papers of candidate, acceptance of---Scope---Appellant challenged order passed by the Returning Officer, whereby he, by over-ruling the objections of the appellant, accepted the nomination papers of respondent---Objection of the Appellant was that the respondent was defaulter of Irrigation Department---Validity---Demand of the Irrigation Department had already been challenged before the High Court by way of filing constitutional petition, as such the demand was still not finalized, therefore, on such basis respondent could not be precluded from contesting the elections---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 60 & 63---Nomination papers of candidate, acceptance of---Scope---Appellant challenged order passed by the Returning Officer, whereby he, by over-ruling the objections of the appellant, accepted the nomination papers of respondent---Objection of the Appellant was that there were clear discrepancies in the income and expenses of the respondent---Validity---Appellant had failed to bring on record anything in black and white in support of his objection/submission---Even otherwise, question as to whether the declaration/statement of the candidate in the nomination paper was false or incorrect in any material particular, could not be ascertained without carrying out factual probe, which exercise could not be undertaken by the Returning Officer or the Appellate Tribunal in summary proceedings---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. Rai Hassan Nawaz v. The Election Commission of Pakistan and others 2013 CLC 1101 ref. (c) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 60 & 63---Nomination papers of candidate, acceptance of---Scope---Appellant challenged order passed by the Returning Officer, whereby he, by over-ruling the objections of the appellant, accepted the nomination papers of respondent---Objection of the appellant was that the respondent concealed registration of a criminal case (FIR) against him---Validity---There was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the respondent was associated in the said case either at the stage of inquiry or investigation, therefore, it could not be construed that the respondent knowingly furnished false information in said regard---There appeared no other reason to conceal the case, as even disclosure of the FIR would not amount to his disqualification---Non-disclosure of pending case(s) cannot be equated with non-disclosure of a criminal case in which a person has been convicted and one which may entail his disqualification---Appeal , being merit-less, was dismissed. Sheikh Muhammad Akram v. Abdul Ghafoor and 19 others 2010 SCMR 733 ref. (d) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)--- ----Ss. 60 & 63---Nomination papers of candidate, acceptance of---Scope---Appellant challenged order passed by the Returning Officer, whereby he, by over-ruling the objections of the appellant, accepted the nomination papers of respondent---Objection of the Appellant was that the respondent had furnished forged and fictitious report of Tehsildar qua clearance of any dues---Held, that said objection was not taken by the appellant before the Returning Officer, therefore, the same could not be allowed to be agitated at present stage---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed. Usman Nasir Awan, Ahmar Wasim Malik and Faizan Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Jawad Zafar for Respondent No. 1. Khizar Razaq, Returning Officer, PP-131.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ----S. 316 (qatl by rash/culpable conduct)—Custodial death—Standard of proof on circumstantial evidence—Deceased was brought to Police Station City Mastung and remained in the custody of the appellant (then SHO); PW-6 (santri) and PW-7 (gunman) placed the deceased in the appellant’s control shortly before he was found unconscious; PW-1 (father) and PW-2 heard the deceased’s cries from inside the station; medical evidence (multiple widespread bruises and scalp hematomas) was incompatible with a mere fall while scaling a wall—Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt—Conviction under S.316 maintained; benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. noted. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 122—Fact especially within knowledge—Where death occurs in police custody, the officer-in-charge bears a special burden to furnish a plausible explanation; a false or absent explanation can furnish an additional incriminating link—Appellant’s plea that the deceased fell while attempting escape was found absurd and unconvincing in light of medical findings; burden not discharged. (c) Criminal trial—Circumstantial evidence—Caution and tests ----Principles restated—Each link must form an unbroken chain from the dead body to the accused; where links are proven (custody, cries, immediate collapse in SHO’s room, medical injuries, and subsequent conduct), conviction can safely rest on circumstantial evidence. (d) Parity with co-accused—Effect ----Discharge/acquittal of other police officials and co-accused on same occurrence does not ipso facto entitle the SHO to acquittal—Distinct role and exclusive custody furnish differentiating circumstances; “cherry-picking” argument repelled on appraisal of record. (e) Sentencing ----S. 316, P.P.C.—Where motive is not proved and case rests on circumstantial evidence (albeit strong), sentence of 20 years R.I. held harsh—Sentence reduced to 10 years R.I.; direction to pay diyat and other components of the trial court’s judgment maintained; S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to apply. Disposition --- Criminal Appeal partly allowed to the extent of reduction of sentence (20 → 10 years R.I. under S.316, with diyat maintained and S.382-B benefit intact). Criminal Revision for enhancement to death penalty dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending