Summary: Sindh Civil Court Rules- -R. 44-Sindh Local Government Act (XLII of 2013), S. 126-Legal Advisors and Government Pleaders-Memo of appearance, filing of-Non-filing of Vakalatnama-Petitioner/Karachi Metropolitan Corporation was aggrieved of the order passed by Lower Appellate Court returning Memo of Appearance and giving directions to file proper Vakalatnama- -Validity-Advocates who appear for a private party file Vakalatnama and, in contrast, Advocates appearing on behalf of Government put in a Memo of Appearance-Such practice of Government Pleader filing Memo of Appearance instead of Vakalatnama is also consistent with the provisions of R. 44 of Sindh Civil Court Rules-Order of petitioner Corporation was in line with the statutory requirements for issuing such orders as laid down in S. 126 of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013-There was no lacuna in the order of petitioner Corporation-Once the Court had assessed that a Memo of Appearance submitted by petitioner Corporation was in line with the provisions of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, the Court should have accepted the same-High Court directed Lower Appellate Court to accept Memo of Appearance from the empaneled Advocate of petitioner Corporation subject to scrutiny as per law-Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Pakistan through General Manager, Pakistan Railways v. Messrs O.M.R. Expert Consultants PLD 1990 SC 800; Javaid Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66; Raja Rab Nawaz v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Defence and others 2013 SCMR 1629; Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and another v. Ghulam Habib Rana and others 1997 SCMR 1; M.Q.M. (Pakistan) and others v. Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2022 SC 439; (1979) 4 SCC 701 and Rasheed Ahmad v. Federal of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and others PLD 2017 SC 121 rel. Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, D.A.G. on Notice.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions and improvements made by witnesses in their statements---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---In the initial report, no motive was advanced by the complainant qua the murder of his deceased brother--- On 23.10.2013 i.e. after four days of the occurrence when the complainant-party recorded their statements under S.164, Cr.P.C, they charged the accused/ respondents for the murder of the deceased, by citing a specific motive which was disclosed to be that his deceased brother had suspicion in his mind that his sister-in-law had developed illicit relations with the accused/ respondent---Complainant, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he almost reiterated the same facts as advanced in his initial report followed by his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.---No doubt, in initial report of complainant, in the form of 'Murasila' followed by the FIR nobody was charged by the appellant/complainant for committing the murder of his brother, however, in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, complainant implicated the accused-respondents---In his cross-examination, complainant not only resiled from his statement recorded before the police but he also negated his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C in terms that he had not stated therein thataccused had developed illicit relations with his sister-in-law---Complainant also contradicted the alleged telephonic contacts made between the accused and said lady---Complainant also stated that when he reached to the spot, his deceased brother was lying on the ground and at the venue of crime there were around 200/300 persons---Very initial report of the appellant/complainant followed by his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, as well as his testimony before the Court were full of contradictions and improvements which cut the very roots of the prosecution's case---Same was the case with the statement of eye-witness---Testimony of said witness too was also of no use for the prosecution qua the guilt or otherwise of the accused/respondents--- Both the said witnesses had not been able to specify the role of each and every accused in the commission of the alleged offence, as it was not appealable to a prudent mind that how the complainant-party or for that matter the alleged witnesses of the occurrence identified and specified the accused/respondents, for their alleged role of firing at the deceased, amongst the set of five accused who were allegedly boarded in the motorcar, therefore, the very story advanced by the prosecution was not appealable---Even if the accounts of these material witnesses were put in juxtaposition with their improvements, then the same made the case of prosecution a case of no evidence---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 and Nadeem and others v. The State and others 2014 PCr.LJ 374 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapons of offence and crime empties---Inconsequential---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Record showed that weapon of offence i.e. a 30 bore pisto, was allegedly recovered on the pointation of the accused/respondent vide recovery memo---Marginal witness to the recovery memo. had stated in his examination-in-cross that the place wherefromthe alleged recovery of pistol had been made was commonly used by the inmates of the house of one “AK”, therefore, when the place of recovery of weapon of offence was admittedly neither an abandoned place nor a hidden one rather an open place then how for such long period it remained unnoticed and not spotted by anyone, as such, this element alone made the very recovery of weapon of offence doubtful--- Same was the case with another alleged weapon of offence i.e. a 30 bore pistol, allegedly used by the other accused---First of all, said pistol was not recovered on the pointation of the said accused/respondent, rather it was produced to the police by son of the accused/respondent---It was evident from the recovery memo that during the course of spot inspection, the Investigation Officer had recovered two empty shells from the venue of crime---Forensic Science Laboratory Report was also not in line with the version of the prosecution qua the recovery of weapon of offence, whereby, it was reported that the two crimeempties, allegedly recovered from the motorcar vide the recovery memo, were fired from pistol and not from the pistol in question, therefore, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report was of no use to the prosecution qua the guilt of the accused/respondent, which had rightly been disbelieved and discarded by the Trial Court through the impugned order/judgment of acquittal---Even otherwise, when substantive evidence failed to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or was disbelieved, corroborative evidence was of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence could not by itself prove the prosecution's case---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Afzal alias Abdullah and others v. The State and others 2009 SCMR 639; Imran Ashraf and 7 others v. The State 2001 SCMR 424 and 2007 SCMR 1427 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence confirms the direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to the set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence and at least the nature of injuries---However, medical evidence qua the guilt of the accused/ respondents as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence could not be given much weight. Abdul Rashid v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1456 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence in conflict with recovered crime empties---Accused-respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---In the present case, the medical evidence had been furnished by Medical Officer, who, in his examination-in-cross, stated that he could not specify the distance qua the six injuries/wounds received by the deceased--- Medical Officer also stated that the injuries received by the deceased could be caused due to a pistol or revolver or rifle--- Thus, prima facie, the medical evidence was not in line with the crime empties recovered from the spot coupled with the changing stances of the complainant-party, therefore, the same had rightly been discarded by the Trial Court qua the guilt of the accused/ respondents---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Even a single worth reliable doubt is sufficient enough to extend its benefit to an accused person as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but one innocent person should not be convicted. Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Daniel boyd (Muslim name Saifullah) v. The State 1992 SCMR 196; Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State 2008 SCMR 1221 and Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749 rel. Naeem-ud-Din for Appellant/ Complainant. Hafiz Ashfaq Ahmad, Astt. A.G. for the State. Muhammad Nabi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2023.

Summary: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)--- ----S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition--- Preventive detention---Necessary material---Petitioners were detained by authorities on the plea that they were notorious members of Qabza Mafia and threatened the local community including a sitting Senator---Validity---Record transpired that the Deputy Commissioner had issued the impugned orders under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance) against the petitioners on the request of District Police Officer, Assistant Commissioner and Naib Tehsildar, however, sufficient material had neither been collected nor brought before him against the petitioners nor their cases had been considered prior to the issuance of the impugned orders---As such, the authority issuing the impugned orders under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance) had not exercised its mandate in accordance with law on subject---Impugned orders had been issued in a mechanical manner without application of the judicial and independent mind to cases of the petitioners---Sufficient material had neither been collected nor presented before the Deputy Commissioner and without applying an impartial and judicial mind, the impugned orders had been issued mechanically---Impugned orders were prima facie omnibus in its kind and type and cases of the petitioners had not been individually and specifically discussed nor valid and genuine reasons had been highlighted therein to convince---Moreover, it also appeared that such orders had been issued under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance), whereby, liberty of a person was curtailed and in the petition in hand, some of the petitioners had been restrained and restricted---In such like circumstances, issuance of the impugned orders under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance) did not fulfil the jurisdictional requirements of its issuance under the ibid provision of the law on subject---Petition was allowed, in circumstances. Fazal Malik for Petitioners (via video link). Khwaja Salahuddin, A.A.G for the Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Ocular account of the incident was narrated by two witnesses---One of the deceased persons was the brother of the eye-witness and paternal uncle of the other eye-witness---Said witnesses were also admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---According to eye-witnesses, both of them had their residence at a distance of about two kilometers from the place of occurrence---In this manner, both the said witnesses could be termed as chance witnesses and therefore were under a bounden duty to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the place and time of occurrence and were also under a duty to prove their presence by producing some physical proof of the same---However, the witnesses failed miserably to provide any consistent evidence as to the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their presence at the place of occurrence when the same was taking place---Being conscious of the fact that the occurrence had taken place on a road which was at a distance of about two kilometers from their residence, both the witnesses stated that the reason for their arrival at the place of occurrence was that they had proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers and when they were returning to their house from the mosque situated within the area of "BS", they happened to arrive at the place of occurrence and saw the assailants attack both the deceased who were at that time travelling on a separate motorcycle---Statements of said witnesses revealed that the reason given by them for having proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers was a sham---Both the said witnesses admitted that there were several mosques within the area of their residence where Juma prayers were also offered, however, could not explain their choice of not offering the Juma prayers in the said mosques on the day of occurrence and proceeding to the area of "BS", which mosque was at a distance of as much as four kilometers from their house---In this manner, it was abundantly clear that the prosecution witnesses had no reason to have proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers and the said reason was invented to provide justification for their subsequent arrival at the place of occurrence---Admitted fact that not even a single person joined the investigation of the case to verify the fact that prior to the occurrence, the prosecution witnesses had indeed offered Juma prayers in a Mosque situated within the area of "BS"---Failure of the witnesses to prove the reason for them to have proceeded to the area of "BS" to offer Juma prayers, proved that the very inception of the prosecution case was shrouded in doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assem bly---Appreciation of evidence---Non production of motorcycle used by the witnesses---Consequential--- Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Eye-witnesses claimed that they had gone to the place of occurrence on a motorcycle whereas the two deceased were riding a separate motorcycle, however, during the course of the investigation as well as before the Trial Court, the said motorcycle, allegedly used by the prosecution witnesses to arrive at the place of occurrence, was not produced---Said motorcycle, which was allegedly used by the said witnesses to arrive at the place of occurrence, was not even produced during the entire period of investigation nor was produced before the Trial Court---Non-production of the motorcycle led to only one conclusion that no such motorcycle was available---Had a motorcycle been used by the prosecution witnesses to arrive at the place of occurrence, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer---In this manner, the prosecution witnesses failed to prove that they had indeed arrived at the place of occurrence, at the time when the same was happening---Both the eye-witnesses failed miserably to establish the reason for their presence at the place and time of occurrence and the mode through which they arrived at the place of occurrence---Prosecution was under a bounden duty to establish not only that the prosecution witnesses had a reason to proceed to the place of occurrence but also to prove the mode through which the said witnesses arrived at the place of occurrence---Failure of the said witnesses to prove said fact had vitiated the trust on said witnesses as being truthful witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ali v. The State 2015 SCMR 137; Muhammad Rafiq v. State 2014 SCMR 1698; Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622 and Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State 2017 SCMR 724 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Unnatural conduct of assailants in sparing a witness---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---According to the prosecution witnesses one of the deceased persons used to help the complainant party of the case FIR No.324 of 2014 with regard to qatl-i-amd of the brother of given up prosecution witness and as the appellant was an accused in the said case, therefore, the incident took place---In these circumstances, the given up witness should have been the prime target of the assailants---Furthermore, according to the prosecution witnesses the given up witness was in clear view, at a meagre distance, from the assailants and unarmed, whereas the accused were allegedly armed with various firearm and other weapons---In this situation, it was hard to believe that the given up witness would have been shown the courtesy of being not fired at all when he should have been the prime target of the assailants---In the midst of the firing by the accused persons, the given up witness did not receive even a single scratch on his body during the whole occurrence nor was even targeted at all---If the given up witness had been present in view of the assailants, then he would not have been spared---Blessing the given up witness with such incredible consideration and showing him such favour, when he was the only person with whom the assailants had a direct dispute with, was implausible and opposed to natural behaviour of any accused---It was more illogical that being perceptive of the fact that if the witnesses were left alive, they would depose against the accused, even then the appellant and his co-accused did not cause any injury to them---Such behaviour, on the part of the accused ran counter to natural human conduct and behavior---Article 129 of the Qanun-Shahadat Order, 1984, allowed the Courts to presume the existence of any fact, which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct in relation to the facts of the particular case---Thus, by virtue of Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, O., 1984, the conduct of the assailants was opposed to the common course of natural events and human conduct---Hence, it was held that the prosecution witnesses did not witness the occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Tariq Mehmood v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1170; Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566; Muhammad Farooq and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1707 and Mst. Rukhsana Begum and others v. Sajjad and others 2017 SCMR 596 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Non-production of residents/witnesses of the locality--- Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---According to the eye-witnesses, the place of occurrence was situated in a thickly populated area and was surrounded by many shops---According to the rough site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared bythe Investigating Officer of the case, and the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence as prepared by draftsman, near and around the place of occurrence, there were many shops---None of those who had their shops around the place of occurrence joined the investigation of the case and also did not appear before the Trial Court to support the prosecution case---Prosecution was under a bounden duty to produce the witnesses who were the residents of the place of occurrence---Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided that if any evidence available with the parties was not produced then it would be presumed that had that evidence been produced the same would have gone against the party producing the same---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State 2010 SCMR 949 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---According to the eye-witnesses, one of the deceased had been fired at when he was riding a motorcycle, which motorcycle was being driven by the other deceased and after being hit by bullets, one of the deceased fell from the motorcycle on the road, whereas the other deceased kept on driving the motorcycle as far as a distance of about 487 feet---Had the occurrence taken place in the manner as described by the eye-witnesses, then,the deceased must have suffered injuries due to his fall from the moving motorcycle, however, Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of said deceased did not observe any injuries present on his dead body which had been caused due to the fall from the motorcycle---Medical Officer opined that all the nine injuries observed by him to be present on the dead body of said deceased had been caused by the use of a firearm weapon---In this manner, the narrative of the incident as given by the eye-witnesses did not conform with the opinion and observations of Medical Officer, denuding the flaw in the statements of eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses revealed that they made contradictory statements with regard to the writing and the submission of written application---According to one of the eye-witnesses, he himself never even submitted the written application at the Police Station rather the said written application was taken to the Police Station by his nephew, who himself was a Police Officer---Contradicting the statement of said witness that he had sent the written application to the Police Station through his nephew, other eye-witness stated that eye-witness had submitted the written application at the police station himself---Reply of eye-witness that the written application was submitted to the Police Station after the shifting of the dead bodies to the hospital also proved that the said written application was submitted after the Investigating Officer of the case had already visited the place of occurrence and had also conducted a detailed inquiry---According to one of the eye-witnesses, he had named as many as eight accused in his written application, however, all the said accused persons were found to have been falsely involved during the course of investigation---Scrutiny of the statements of the said witnesses revealed that the written application as submitted by one of the eye-witnesses was neither prompt nor spontaneous nor natural, rather was a contrived, manufactured and a compromised document---No corroboration of the prosecution evidence could be made from the written application as submitted by one of the eye-witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in conducting post mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Record showed that the postmortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted with much delay---According to the statement of Medical Officer, the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by him on 20.03.2015 at 09.45 p.m, whereas the post mortem examination of the dead body of the other deceased was conducted by him on 20.03.2015 at 08.30 p.m.---Furthermore, according to the Post Mortem Examination Reports as well as the statement of Medical Officer, the police papers were received at 08.00 p.m. on 20.03.2015 and thereafter the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased were conducted---Perusal of the Post Mortem Examination Reports as well as the statement of Medical Officer clearly established the fact that the post mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the deceased were delayed and the delay was due to the late submission of police papers---No explanation was offered to justify the said delay in conducting the post mortem examinations---Said fact clearly established that the witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence were not present at the time of occurrence and the delay in the post mortem examinations was used to procure their attendance and formulate a false narrative after consultation---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State 2012 SCMR 327; Mian Sohail Ahmed and others v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 956 and Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Safe custody and safe transmission of recovered weapons to the Police Station not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Regarding the recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle from one of the accused, it was observed that the said recovery was made on 12.08.2015 at the time of arrest of the said appellant during the investigation of the case FIR No.556 of 2015 and the said Kalashnikov rifle was obtained by SI/witness from the Malkhana of Police Station on 11.09.2015 and was handed over to Head Constable for keeping it in safe custody---Investigating Officer stated that he formally arrested the appellantin the present case on 31.08.2015---Prosecution had not produced any witness in whose custody the said Kalashnikov rifle remained from the date of its recovery on 12.08.2015 till its handing over to SI on 11.09.2015---Therefore, it was proved on record that the safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered Kalashnikov rifle from the place of its recovery to the police station was not proved and the possibility of manipulating the said recovered Kalashnikov rifle to procure a favourable report of the Forensic Science Agency, was obvious---Consequently, the recovery of the Kalashnikov rifle from the appellant could not be proved and could not be considered as a relevant fact for proving any fact in issue---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party by firing---Motive of the occurrence as stated by eye-witnesses was that one of the deceased used to help the complainant party of case FIR No.324 of 2014 with regard to the qatl-i-amd of the brother of given up witness and as the appellant was an accused in the said case, therefore, the occurrence took place---Throughout the course of the trial, the fact which was admitted by both the eye-witnesses was that neither said deceased was related to the deceased brother of given up witness nor said deceased was a witness in case FIR No.324 of 2014 with regard to the qatl-i-amd of the brother of given up witness---More significantly, it was also admitted by the eye-witnesses that the other deceased had no relationship with the deceased brother of given up witness---Had the motive of occurrence been as was stated by the witnesses then the given up witness would have been the prime target, however, he was not targeted at all, clearly proving the fact that the motive as stated by the witnesses was not the motivation of the assailants---Prosecution witnesses failed to provide evidence to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged---Said witnesses failed to prove the fact that the said motive was so compelling that it could have led the appellant to have committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased---No independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the motive as alleged---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Motive is only a corroborative piece of evidence and if the ocular account is found to be unreliable then motive alone cannot be made basis of conviction. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence, corroboration of---Principle---One tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece of evidence. Muhammad Javed v. The State 2016 SCMR 2021 rel. (l) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Motive is a double-edged weapon, which can cut either way; if it is the reason for the accused to murder the deceased, it is equally a ground for the complainant to falsely implicate them in the case. Muhammad Ashraf Alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 and Liaqat Ali and 11 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 372 rel. (m) Criminal trial--- ----Abscondence of accused---Scope---Abscondence of an accused can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read along with the substantive pieces of evidence. Asadullah v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1971 SC 541; Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad 1995 SCMR 1373; Muhammad Sadiq v. Najeeb Ali 1995 SCMR 1632; Muhammad Khan v. State 1999 SCMR 1220; Gul Khan v. State 1999 SCMR 304; Muhammad Arshad v. Qasim Ali 1992 SCMR 814; Pir Badshah v. State 1985 SCMR 2070; Amir Gul v. State 1981 SCMR 182; Muhammad Farooq and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1707; Nizam Khan and 2 others v. The State 1984 SCMR 1092; Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566; Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 and Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 rel. (n) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person, then its benefit is to be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State" 2021 SCMR 736 rel. James Joseph for Appellant. Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Sardar Shehryar Mehboob for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2023. Judgment Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.--- Ejaz Ahmed son of Nazar Hussain (convict) was tried along with Muhammad Khan, Shabbir Ahmad, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Azeem, Mujahid Hussain, Mudassar and Faraz (since acquitted), the co-accused of the convict by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan in case FIR No. 97 of 2015 dated 20.03.2015 registered in respect of offences under sections 302, 148,149 and 114 P.P.C. at the Police Station Budhla Sant, District Multan for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Ch. Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) and Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) (The FIR was initially registered in respect of offence made punishable under section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 also however the said offence was deleted and the accused were not charged for the said offence.) . The learned trial court vide judgment dated 11.02.2019, convicted Ejaz Ahmed son of Nazar Hussain (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Ejaz Ahmed son of Nazar Hussain : Death on two counts under section 302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Ch. Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) and Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.200,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of each deceased and in case of default whereof the convict was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead. Muhammad Khan, Shabbir Ahmad, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Azeem, Mujahid Hussain, Mudassar and Faraz, the co-accused of the convict, were however acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Ejaz Ahmed son of Nazar Hussain (convict) lodged Criminal Appeal No.788-J of 2019 assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.22 of 2019 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Ejaz Ahmed son of Nazar Hussain. The complainant of the case namely Abdul Razzaq filed Criminal Appeal No.588 of 2019 against the acquittal of the accused namely Muhammad Khan ,Shabbir Ahmad, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Azeem, Mujahid Hussain, Mudassar and Faraz by the learned trial court. We intend to decide the Criminal Appeal No. 788-J of 2019, the Criminal Appeal No.588 of 2019 and Murder Reference No.22 of 2019 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Abdul Razzaq (PW-1), the eye-witness of the case, are as under:- "Stated that on 20.03.2015, 1 along with my sons Saif ur Rehman, Muhammad Rizwan, while riding on motor cycle, My brother Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim, Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam, riding on other motor cycle bearing registration No.MNP-2919 going ahead of us were returning after saying Jumma Prayer, when we reached near godown of wheat, where 08 persons were already standing they were Muhammad Khan, Shabbir, Iqbal, Faraz, Mudassar, Azeem, Ijaz and Mujahid son of Shabbir, accused persons, all present in the court. Shabbir and Muhammad Khan raised lalkara that the complainant party should not go from there safely, Ijaz was armed with Kalashnikov while Mujahid was armed with .30 bore pistol. Both the said accused persons fired burst on the back side of Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam, who was sitting on rear seat of the motor cycle. Due to which he sustained injuries and fell down on the ground. The said both accused persons fired on him which ruptured his brain. My brother Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim in order to save his life did speed up the motor cycle. While accused persons Iqbal, Faraz, Azeem and Mudassar all armed with Kalashnikov chased my brother who was riding on motor cycle. During the said course the said accused persons kept on continuous firing) After a short distance Muhammad Iqbal accused made a burst on the person of my brother Asgher due to which he sustained injuries and fell on the ground. Accused Faraz while going near to my fallen brother made a burst on his head due to which his brain was ruptured, where after accused Azeem and Mudasar inflicted fire arms injuries on different parts of the body of my brother. Later on, all the accused persons raised alarm if anyone would come near the dead bodies he will be done to death. Thereafter the accused persons took out wallet of my deceased brother, the said wallet was containing 20 thousand rupees, I.D card and driving license along with other necessary documents. We did not go near them due to fear/terror caused by the said accused persons. This occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Rizwan son of Abdul Razaq and Saif ur Rehman son of Fazal Mehmood besides me. The accused persons had already committed near about 13 other murders. Muhammad Khan and Shabbir had used to give shelter to Ijaz previously and had also provided him weapons, while had committed murder of Muhammad Afzal son of Fazal Mehmmod for which occurrence FIR No.324/15 P.S Budhla Sant was registered. The deceased Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam was the eye-witness of said occurrence and my said brother used to support complainant party of said case. That was the grudge of this occurrence. They wanted to get finished the support of my brother towards complainant of the above said occurrence so they committed the murder of my brother. I presented application Ex.P.A, the accused persons be punished in accordance with law." 4. After the formal investigation of the case report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was submitted before the learned trial court and the accused were sent to face trial. The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 04.01.2017, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, got statements of as many as seventeen witnesses recorded. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Abdul Razzaq (PW-1) and Muhammad Rizwan (PW-2) . Riaz Ali 1774/HC (PW4) stated that on 02.06.2015, he was posted as Moharrir of the Police Station and at that time, the parcels said to contain empty shells of the bullets and blood stained earth recovered from the place of occurrence were already present in the Malkhana of the Police Station and on 11.09.2015 Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-15) handed over to him a sealed parcel said to contain a rifle and on 30.09.2015, he handed over the said sealed parcel said to contain a rifle to Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-15) for its onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore. Abdul Rasheed 285/C (PW-5) stated that on 20.03.2015 he escorted the dead body of the deceased namely Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased . Amjad Ali 1452/C (PW-7) stated that on 20.03.2015 he escorted the dead body of the deceased namely Ch. Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim to the hospital and received the last worn clothes of the deceased from the Medical Officer after the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. Zia Ullah 2432/HC (PW-8) stated that on 20.03.2015, he recorded the formal FIR (Exh.PA/1). Muhammad Akram (PW-9) stated that after the occurrence, the Investigating Officer of the case collected empty shells of the bullets, the motorcycle (P-10) and the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence. Muhammad Anwar, ASI (PW-10) and Abdul Sattar 1667/HC (PW-11) stated that on 12.08.2015, the appellant namely Ejaz Ahmed was arrested and the Kalashnikov rifle (P-11) was recovered from his possession. Muhammad Furqan (PW-12) stated that he identified the dead bodies of both the deceased at the time of their post mortem examinations and the Medical Officer handed over the last worn clothes of both the deceased to the Investigating Officer of the case in his presence. Irfan Hayat, draftsman (PW-13) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PN). Muhammad Akram (PW-14) stated that on 20.03.2015, he identified the dead body of the deceased. Jehanzeb Hayat 3380/HC (PW-17) produced the copies of Rapt No. 17 (Exh.PS), Rapt No.11 (Exh.PT) and FIR No. 556 of 2015 (Exh.PU). Imran Arif, Inspector (PW-16), the Investigating Officer of the case, investigated the case from 20.03.2015 till 24.06.2015 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. Bashir Ahmad, SI (PW-15), the Investigating Officer of the case, investigated the case from 07.07.2015 till 30.09.2015, arrested the appellant Ejaz Ahmed on 31.08.2015 and detailed the facts of the investigation as conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 6. The prosecution also got Dr. Liaquat Ali Ansari (PW-6) examined, who on 20.03.2015 was posted as Medical Officer at RHC, Makhdoom Rasheed and on the same day conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Ch. Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim on the same day. Dr. Liaquat Ali Ansari (PW-6) after conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body of Ch. Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) observed as under:- "INJURIES 1) Multiple lacerated wound (entry wound) with inverted margin, abraded collar on right side of cheek, right eye. Due to blastic affected the skull bone fractured into multiple pieces and muscles, bones and brain matter spilled out, eyes absent. Face left side absent only musculature with right side of mandible right ear, nose musculature and some parts of occipital area present. Beared on right side of face present. 2) Multiple lacerated entry wound in area about 12 cm x 6 cm on the back of left upper arm and multiple lacerated wound having 1/2 x 1/2 cm in measurement and inverted margin. Multiple lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm on antero-lateral aspect in an area of 11 cm x 8 cm with everted margins (exit wound of the same injury). Bullets in its passage broken the humerus bones into multiple pieces and damaged the fascia muscles and blood vessels. 3) A lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm 4 cm medial to left armpit with inverted margins (entry wound). 4) A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on top of left shoulder joint with everted margins (exit wound). 5) A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm (entry wound) with inverted margin present, lateral side of left chest 5 cm below the armpit. 6) A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on back of the chest 4 cm below the injury No.4 at the level of left scapular area with everted margins. This was the exit wound of injury No.5. During the passage of bullet, damaged the left lung vigorously and came out by fracturing the left scapula. 7) A lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm with inverted margins (entry wound) 10 cm above and lateral to right nipple. 8) A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on back of left chest 5 cm lateral to midline, the wound has everted margins (exit wound of injury No.7). On dissection, the bullet injured in its path damaged the right lung crossed the midline damaged the 4th vertebrae and came out by fracturing the 4th rib. 9) A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm on back of left thigh 12 cm above the poplitial fossa with inverted margins (entry wound). 10) A lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm on medial side of left thigh 16 cm from the left inguinal region with everted margins. This was the exit wound of injury No.9. The bullet in its path damaged the muscles and blood vessels but bone intact. ................ OPINION In my opinion, injury No.1 was the cause of death which was injury to brain vital organ associated with all other injuries which accelerate death. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of lift. All these injuries were ante mortem in nature and due to firearm. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death instantaneously and between death and postmortem 6 to 7 hours." On the same day Dr. Liaquat Ali Ansari (PW-6) also conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam. Dr. Liaquat Ali Ansari (PW-6) after conducting the post mortem examination of the dead body of Muhammad Asghar son of Muhammad Aslam (deceased) observed as under:- "INJURIES 1) multiple lacerated wound right side of face with inverted margin and tattooing present (entry wound) 2) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm and left eye ball with inverted margins tattooing present with absent left eye (entry wound). 3) A lacerated wound 3 x 4 cm on forehead going deep. 4) Lacerated wound 3 x 4 cm on right side

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010** .2(h)(ii), Constitution of Pakistan Arts. 25(3), 34, 35, Contract Act, 1872, S. 26 Gender-based discrimination—Mandatory submission of non-marriage certificates by widows employed under Family Assistance Package—Violation of constitutional and legal provisions. The Complainant, a widow employed under the Family Assistance Package 2006 by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), challenged the requirement to submit a non-marriage certificate annually for contract renewal, alleging it violated her fundamental rights. The Federal Ombudsperson held that such a condition constitutes gender-based discrimination under Section 2(h)(ii) of the Act. The practice was further deemed unconstitutional, violating Articles 25(3), 34, and 35 of the Constitution, as well as public policy and Section 26 of the Contract Act, 1872. The CAA was directed to cease requiring non-marriage certificates for contract renewals and to align its policies with constitutional mandates for gender equality and substantive equality. (b) Employment Policies—Arbitrary application—Failure to regularize employment despite official directives. The Complainant, appointed under the Family Assistance Package, was not regularized despite a Prime Ministerial directive for immediate regularization of contractual employees. The CAA’s inconsistent application of government directives was criticized, and the Federal Ombudsperson directed the Establishment Division to reconsider policies that mandate non-marriage certificates, ensuring compliance with constitutional and legal requirements. (c) Affirmative action and substantive equality—Interpretation and application under the Constitution. The judgment emphasized the need for affirmative action to achieve substantive gender equality, criticizing policies that tie women’s employment to their marital status. Reference was made to Pakistan’s Global Gender Gap ranking and progressive international practices, recommending alignment with gender-progressive frameworks like India’s compassionate appointment policy.