Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Injured witness not produced for evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Prosecution case was that the brother of the deceased was also injured during the occurrence, however, said injured was never examined as a prosecution witness by the complainant of the case during the course of the trial---Complainant sought several adjournments to produce the said injured as a prosecution witness---In this manner, the prosecution case was not supported by the brother of the deceased who was also an injured witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal and another 2011 SCMR 527 and Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Perusal of the evidence recorded by the complainant of the case during the trial revealed that it was admitted by the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence had taken place in the land owned by the appellant---It was admitted by the prosecution witnesses that their residence was at a distance of 20 acres from the place of occurrence, whereas their land was at a distance of 1_ acre from the place of the occurrence---Reason as given by the said witnesses for their presence at the place of occurrence was that the prosecution witness and the deceased had brought an engine to pump out water from the bore dug within the land of the appellant in order to irrigate their lands and the witnesses and deceased had arrived at the place of occurrence at about 07/07.30 am and started to pump out the water and continued to pump out water from the bore using the engine brought by them to the place of occurrence to work the pump, till the occurrence took place---However, both the Investigating Officers of the case admitted during cross-examination that at the time of their visits to the place of occurrence and even during the course of investigation as conducted by them, neither such an engine was taken into possession by them from the place of occurrence nor any such engine was produced before them during the course of the investigation---Non-production of the engine which had been allegedly brought to the place of occurrence by the prosecution witness and the deceased to pump out water from the bore dug within the land of the appellant and which engine was running when the incident took place led to only one conclusion that no such engine was available at the place of occurrence---Had such an engine been brought to the place of occurrence by the prosecution witness and the deceased, then the same must have been available at the place of occurrence, at the time of arrival of the Investigating Officer of the case on the day of occurrence and the same would necessarily have been taken into possession by the Investigating Officers of the case but it was not and it proved that a false claim was made by the prosecution witnesses for their arrival at the place of occurrence and their continued presencethere which place was admittedly the land of the appellant---In this manner, the prosecution witnesses failed miserably to establish the reason for their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Inconsistent---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and a witness---According to the statements of said witnesses, they had seen the appellant inflicting two injuries on the head of deceased with the use of a hatchet, one blow landing on the right side of the head of deceased and the other blow landing on the right ear of the deceased---Contrarily, the Medical Officer, who conducted the medical examination and later the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, observed only one injury, present on the head area of the dead body of the deceased---Said opinion and observations of the Medical Officer was never challenged by the prosecution either during the investigation of the case or during the course of the trial---In this manner, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were in direct contradiction and in conflict with the opinion and observations of the Medical Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddo v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1045; Muhammad Zaman v. The State and others 2014 SCMR 749; Muhammad Ali v. The State 2015 SCMR 137; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2012 SCMR 419; Usman alias Kaloo v. The State 2017 SCMR 622; Muhammad Hussain v. The State 2008 SCMR 345 and Ain Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Blatant improvements made by the witnesses in their evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Record showed that the prosecution witnesses made blatant improvements to their previous statements in order to bring the ocular account, as narrated by them in line with the opinion and observations of Medical Officer, who had conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body---Prosecution witnesses went on to claim that acquitted accused persons and the co-accused of the appellant had also inflicted injuries upon deceased after realizing that Medical Officer had observed the presence of bruise, abrasion and scratch mark on the right hand, right foot and right clavicle of the dead body of the deceased respectively---Infliction of the said injuries by acquitted accused persons to the deceased was not mentioned by prosecution witnesses in their previous statements---Prosecution witnesses also went on to claim that the accused, though armed with hatchets, had used the blunt sides of the hatchets to inflict the injuries upon the deceased though in their previous statements they had not made any such claim that the accused had used the blunt sides of the hatchets to inflict the injuries to the deceased---Prosecution witnesses made a deliberate and dishonest departure from their earlier narrations of the occurrence while deposing before the Trial Court---By improving their previous statements, the witnesses impeached their own credibility---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2012 SCMR 419; Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772; Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 and Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Lodging of FIR with promptitude---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Allegedly, the oral statement of the complainant recorded by the Police Official, on the basis of which FIR was lodged, was made with promptitude---However, during the course of the trial, it remained a consistent theme with the prosecution witnesses that the oral statement of complainant was a sham document---Similarly, a prosecution witness in his statement before the Trial Court claimed that signatures of complainant were obtained on blank papers and subsequently, a false document was prepared and FIR of the case was not read over to them by police officer in charge---Scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses revealed that the oral statement of complainant was declared as a contrived, manufactured and a compromised document by the prosecution witnesses themselves---No corroboration of the prosecution evidence could be made from the said oral statement of complainant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Recovery of hatchet from the accused--- Non-association of private witnesses at the time of recovery of hatchet---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Recovery of hatchet from the accused could not be relied upon as the Investigating Officer of the case did not join any witness of the locality during the recovery of the hatchet from the accused, which was in clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C---Therefore, the evidence of the recovery of the hatchet from the accused was obtained through illegal means and hence hit by the exclusionary rule of evidence---Moreover, the Investigating Officer of the case admitted that the hatchet was recovered from a house which was inhabited by other persons and from a room which was open to access---In this manner, the prosecution could not prove that the hatchet was recovered froma place which was under the exclusive possession of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two months and twenty days in sending the hatchet for analysis---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother--- Another aspect regarding the recovery of the hatchet from the appellant was that the occurrence took place on 07.01.2019, whereas the hatchet was received in the office of Forensic Science Agency on 27.03.2019 and was analyzed on 08.11.2019---During such a long period the blood available on the hatchet, if any, would have disintegrated---Thus, it was not possible to believe that the blood available on the hatchet had not disintegrated by the time the same was analyzed by the Forensic Science Agency, and it was, therefore, scientifically impossible to detect the origin of the blood---Therefore, the recovery of the hatchet from the appellant did not further the case of prosecution in any manner---Thus, the alleged recovery of the hatchet was not proved and the same could not be used circumstances against the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2016 SCMR 2138 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i -amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and causing injuries to his other brother---Motive of the occurrence as stated by the complainant and a witness was that the appellant was named as accused by the deceased in a case registered by the deceased regarding the theft of his goats and the appellant committed the qatl-i-amd of the deceased due to said grudge---Perusal of the statements of said witnesses revealed that they failed to prove the motive of the occurrence as narrated by them in their statements before the Trial Court---Complainant admitted during cross-examination that the case registered by the deceased regarding the theft of his goats had already been settled due to the fact that the deceased had withdrawn from the prosecution of the said case---Other prosecution witness stated that he had no knowledge regarding the details of the case registered by the deceased against the appellant as he was not a witness of the said case---Thus, the said witnesses failed to provide evidence to determine the truthfulness of the motive alleged---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. (i) 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. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---If only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is available, then such 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. Sami ud Din Mazari for Appellant. Shahid Aleem, District Public Prosecutor for the State. Umar Hayat for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th November, 2023. Judgment Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J. --- Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh (convict) was tried along with Khair Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, Rahim Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, Elahi Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh and Faiz Bekhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh(since acquitted), the co-accused of the convict by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rojhan in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled "Muhammad Ramzan v. Khair Bakhsh and 4 others" (relating to FIR No. 08 of 2019 dated 08.01.2019 registered at Police Station Rojhan, District Rajanpur) in respect of offences under sections 302,324, 337 F(i),337 F(v), 337 A(i), 337 L(2), 148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh (deceased). The learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.09.2020 convicted Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh (convict) and sentenced him as infra: Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh:- Death under section 302(b) P.P.C. as Tazir for committing Oatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh (deceased) and directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased; in case of default of payment of compensation amount, the convict was further directed to undergo six months of simple imprisonment. The convict was ordered to be hanged by his neck till dead. Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh (convict) was however acquitted of the charges under sections 324, 337 F(i),337 F(v), 337 A(i), 337 L(2), 148 and 149 P.P.C. by the learned trial court Khair Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, Rahim Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, Elahi Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh and Faiz Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, the co-accused of the convict, were all acquitted by the learned trial court. 2. Feeling aggrieved, Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh (convict) lodged the Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2020, assailing his conviction and sentence. The learned trial court submitted Murder Reference No.31 of 2020 under section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to the appellant namely Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh (convict). The complainant of the case namely case namely Muhammad Ramzan filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 54 of 2020 seeking permission to file an appeal against the acquittal of Khair Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, Rahim Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, Elahi Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh and Faiz Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh, the co-accused of the convict, all since acquitted. We intend to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2020, the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.54 of 2020 and the Murder Reference No.31 of 2020 through this single judgment. 3. Precisely, the necessary facts of the prosecution case, as stated by Muhammad Ramzan (PW-3), the complainant of the case, are as under:- "On 01.07.2019 I along with Muhammad Qasim my brother went to our land along with peter engine for the purpose of operating the tube-well. Maula Bakhsh accused came there. He asked us not to operate the tube-well. Whereas myself and my brother Muhammad Qasim insisted that we would operate the tube-well on the ground that the tube-well is joint ownership including us. Meanwhile Ghulam Sarwar and Ghulam Hussain PWs came there and Maula Bakhsh went to his house. Thereafter we started the tube-well for the purpose of irrigating the land. At about 10:00 am Maula Bakhsh came there along with his brothers. Maula Bakhsh accused present in police custody facing the trial of this case was armed with hatchet, Khair Bakhsh accused was armed with hatchet, Ellahi Bakhsh accused armed with hatchet, Rahim Bakhsh accused armed with hatchet and Faiz Bakhsh accused armed with Sota present on bail facing the trial of this case. Maula Bakhsh accused made a Lalkara that they would teach a lesson to us for starting/operating the tube-well. Maula Bakhsh accused gave a wrong side of hatchet blow on the right side of head of Muhammad Qasim (since deceased). Maula Bakhsh accused repeated the wrong side of hatchet blow over the right ear of Muhammad Qasim. Muhammad Qasim receiving the above said injuries fell down on the ground. Khair Bakhsh accused gave a wrong side of hatchet blow which was landed on the right collar bone of Muhammad Qasim. Ellahi Bakhsh accused made a wrong side of hatchet blow on the right foot of Muhammad Qasim. Faiz Bakhsh accused gave a Sota blow on the right hand of Muhammad Qasim. Rahim Bakhsh accused made a wrong side of hatchet blow on the finger of right hand Ghulam Hussain. Faiz Bakhsh accused made Sota blow on the left forehand of Ghulam Hussain. Khair Bakhsh accused gave a wrong side of hatchet blow on my head. On our hue and cry the neighbors attracted and on the arrival of neighbors the accused persons went to their housed along with their respective weapons. Thereafter I along with Ghulam Sarwar, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Qasim went for police station for reporting the matter. When we were on our way Thanedar met us he prepared the necessary documents and sent us to the hospital with police constable he obtained my thumb impression. Doctor referred Qasim to Rajanpur due to his precarious condition. The hospital of Rajanpur further referred Qasim to D.G Khan hospital. Qasim succumbed to the injuries in the hospital Dera Ghazi Khan, Thereafter his dead body was shifted to Rojhan hospital where Thanedar sent the dead body to hospital for the purpose of post mortem examination along with necessary documents which was escorted by Haq Nawaz constable. I asked the Thanedar that he had not correctly recorded my statement according to my version. Thanedar made a promise that he would correct my statement according to my version. I asked Thanedar to read out my statement to me but my statement was not read over to me by Thanedar. During the investigation of this case, police in league with the accused party illegally declared Faiz Bakhsh accused innocent in this case he is nominated accused of this case. Motive behind this murder was Maula Bakhsh accused committed theft of goats of Muhammad Qasim and criminal case was registered gains (sic) him due to above said reason accused party committed murder of my brother Muhammad Qasim. I engaged my advocate and filed my private complaint Exh.P.C. My private complaint Exh.P.C was read over to me I thumb marked the same as a token of its correctness. After two months and seven days of the occurrence I along with Ghulam Hussain went to police station Rojhan to know the progress of the case. On that day Maula Bakhsh, Ellahi Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh were arrested and they were in police lockup. Thanedar taken out Maula Bakhsh from the police lockup and started interrogation from him. During the interrogation Maula Bakhsh made a disclosure that hatchet used by him during the occurrence is lying at his house. He further offered that he could lead to recovery of that hatchet. Thereafter police taken out Ellahi Bakhsh accused for the purpose of interrogation and Maula Bakhsh accused was once again locked in the police lockup. Ellahi Bakhsh accused voluntarily offered that the hatchet used by him during the occurrence is lying at his house and he could lead to recovery of that Satchel. Thereafter Thanedar taken out Rahim Bakhsh from police lockup and started interrogation from him. Rahim Bakhsh voluntarily offered before me and Ghulam Hussain that the hatchet used by him during the occurrence was lying at his house and he could lead to recovery of hatchet. Police taken Maula Bakhsh, Ellahi Bakhsh and Rahim Bakhsh accused in a police Dala to their respective houses along with myself and Ghulam Hussain for the purpose of recovery, the police Dala was parked in front of house of Maula Bakhsh accused. Maula Bakhsh accused led us and police party to his residential room and taken out blood stained hatchet P-5 and produced it before the police. That hatchet was taken into possession made into sealed parcel by police through recovery memo Exh.P.D. Myself and Ghulam Hussain attested the recovery memo. Maula Bakhsh accused was put in the police Dala and thereafter taken out the Ellahi Bakhsh accused. Ellahi Bakhsh accused taken us and police party to his residential room and taken out bold stained hatchet P-6 and produced that hatchet before police. That hatchet was taken into possession by police made into sealed parcel through recovery memo Exh.P.E. Myself and Ghulam Hussain attested the recovery memo. Ellahi Bakhsh was put in police Dala and police taken out Rahim Bakhsh accused. Rahim Bakhsh accused taken us and police party to his residential room and taken out hatchet P-7 under the cot that hatchet was taken into possession by police through recovery memo Exh.P.F. Myself and Ghulam Hussain attested the recovery memo. After three months and seven days of the occurrence I along with Ghulam Hussain went to police station to know the progress of the case on that day Khair Bakhsh accused was arrested and in police lockup. Khair Bakhsh accused was taken out from the police lockup by Thanedar for the purpose of interrogation. Khair Bakhsh accused offered to police that he could lead to recovery of hatchet which was used by him during the occurrence. Khair Bakhsh accused led us and police party in a police Dala to his house and taken out hatchet P-8 under the cot of his residential room and produced before Thanedar, Thanedar had taken that hatchet into possession through recovery memo Exh.P.G. Myself and Ghulam Hussain attested the recovery memo. Thanedar recorded my statement and statement of Ghulam Hussain about the recovery of above mentioned hatchets." 4. The accused were summoned to face trial in the case instituted upon the private complaint titled "Muhammad Ramzan v. Khair Bakhsh and four others" (relating to FIR No. 08 of 2019 dated 08.01.2019 registered at Police Station Rojhan, District Rajanpur) in respect of offences under sections 302,324, 337 F(i),337 F(v), 337 A(i), 337 L(2), 148 and 149 P.P.C. for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh (deceased). The learned trial court framed the charge against the accused on 14.10.2019, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The complainant of the case in order to prove its case got recorded statements of as many as thirteen witnesses. The ocular account of the case was furnished by Muhammad Ramzan (PW-3) and Ghulam Sarwar (PW-4). Ghulam Mustafa, patwari (PW-1) prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PA). Mumtaz Hussain 1409/C (PW-2) stated that on 17.03.2019 in his presence, Ashiq Hussain received the Call Data Record (comprising four pages P-1,-P-2,P-3 and P-4) of the mobile phone device under the use of the accused Faiz Bakhsh (since acquitted). Pathan (PW-5) stated that on 08.01.2019 he identified the dead body of the deceased and the Medical Officer handed over the last worn clothes of the deceased to the Investigating Officer of the case in his presence. Haq Nawaz 150/C (PW-6) stated that on 08.01.2019, he escorted the dead body of the deceased 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 AN deceased. Iftikhar Ahmad 849/C (PW-7) stated that on 07.01.2019, he took the injured to the hospital. Falak Sher 736/HC (PW-9) stated that on 08.01.2019, Muhammad Nasrullah, SI (PW-12) handed over to him the sealed parcel said to contain the blood stained cotton and the last worn clothes of the deceased and on 13.01.2019, he handed over the sealed parcel said to contain the blood stained cotton to Muhammad Nasrullah, SI (PW-12) for its onward transmission to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore and on 14.03.2019, Ashiq Hussain, SI (PW-13) handed over to him three sealed parcels said to contain hatchets and on 26.03.2019, he handed over two sealed parcels said to contain hatchets to Ashiq Hussain, SI (PW-13) for their onward transmission to the office of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore. Wazir Ahmad, SI (PW-10) stated that on 07.01.2019, he recorded the oral statement (Exh.PQ) of Muhammad Ramzan (PW-3) and also prepared the injury statement of the injured on the said date. Muhammad Nasrullah, SI (PW-12) investigated the case from 08.01.2019 till 20.01.2019 and detailed the facts of the investigation in his statement before the learned trial court. Ashiq Hussain, SI (PW-13) investigated the case from 25.02.2019 till 12.01.2020, arrested the appellant namely Moula Bakhsh on 06.03.2019 and detailed the facts of the investigation conducted by him in his statement before the learned trial court. 6. The complainant also got Dr. Muhammad Sajid Jamil (PW-8) examined, who on 07.01.2019 was posted as Medical Officer at THQ hospital, Rojhan and on the same day, medically examined Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh (then injured later deceased). Dr. Muhammad Sajid Jamil (PW-8), on medically examining Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh (then injured later deceased) "INJURIES 1. Lacerated wound of about 2 x 0.6 cm in size over the right parietal bone region. This wound has distance of 1.5 cm from right forehead. This wound has irregular margins and fresh blood is oozing from the wound. Underlying skull bone was exposed/visible. Advice X-ray skull AP, lat view. RESULT Vide x-ray film No. 04,05/2019 dated 07.01.2019 after x-ray examination, there was fracture of right parietal bone of skull. So injury No.1 was declared as "Shujjah-i-Hashimah". After the death of Muhammad Qasim, Dr. Muhammad Sajid Jamil (PW-8) also conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, namely Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh on 08.01.2019. Dr. Muhammad Sajid Jamil (PW-8) on examining the dead body of the deceased namely Muhammad Qasim son of Dariya Bakhsh, observed as under:- "INJURIES: 1. Lacerated wound of about 2 x 0.6 cm in size over the right parietal bone region. This wound has distance of 1.5 cm from right forehead. This wound has irregular margins and fresh blood is oozing from the wound underlying skull bone was exposed/visible. 2. On examination fresh blood was running from the right ear. 3. Bruise of about 0.8 cm x 0.2 cm in size over posterior aspect of right hand underlying skin was slightly reddish. 4. Abrasion of about 5 cm x 1 cm in size over the dorsal aspect of right foot just superficial skin was peeled off. 5. Scratch mark of about 2 cm x 0.5 cm in size over a right clavicle, ????? Injury No.2 of Muhammad Qasim deceased. Bruise of about 0.8 x 0.2 cm in size over posterior aspect of right hand. Underlying skin was slightly reddish. Movement was normal. So injury No.2 was declared as 337-L(2). Injury No.3 of Muhammad Qasim deceased. On examination, fresh blood was running from the right ear Advised CT Scan brain. Injury No.4 of Muhammad Qasim deceased. Abrasion of about 5 cm x 1 cm in size over dorsal aspect of right foot. Just superficial skin was peeled off. Movement was normal injury No 4 was declared as 337-L(2). ????.. FINAL OPINION: On the basis of above mentioned findings in my opinion, all the injuries are anti mortem and caused by blunt weapon. CT scan report received from DHQ Hospital Rajanpur as below: "Fractures of right temporal and parietal bone with associated subcutaneous edema in bilateral (B/L) parietal regions and intra parenchymal petechial hemorrhages in left cerebellum and bilateral cerebral hemispheres without midline shift" On the basis of CT scan brain finding injuries Nos.1 and 2 were declared as "Shujjah-i-Damighah". Injury No.3 was declared as "337-L(2)". Injury Nos.4 and 5 were declared as "Jurrah-i-Damiyah". Injuries Nos.1 and 2 were dangerous to life in nature as it cause injury to vital organ that is brain which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature." Dr. Muhammad Sajid Jamil (PW-8), on 07.01.2019 also medically examined Muhammad Ramzan (PW-3) and observed as under :- INJURIES 1. There was a laceration (superficial) of about 1 x 0.2 cm in size over right parietal region. This wound has irregular margins with mild blood stained. So, injury No.1 was declared as "Shujjah-i-Khafifah". Injury was caused by blunt weapon. I issued MLC No. 06/19, Exh.P.L. I also signed the injury statement Exh.P.L/1" Dr. Muhammad Sajid Jamil (PW-8), on 07.01.2019 also medically examined Ghulam Hussain (given up prosecution witness) and observed as under :- INJURIES 1. There was a lacerated wound of about 0.8 x 0.2 cm in size over anterior aspect of index finger of right hand. This wound has irregular margins with mild blood stained. This wound was skin deep in nature. Advice, Xray, right hand AP Lat view. 2. An abrasion of about 0.5 x 0.3 cm in size over posterior aspect of left wrist joint. Underlying skin was slightly breeched. Movement of left wrist joint is normal. So, injury No.2 was declared as "Jurrah-i-Damiyah". 7. On 19.11.2019, the Assistant District Public Prosecutor gave up the witness namely Shahzad Sharif 5574/C as being unnecessary. On 08.09.2020, the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PV and Exh. PW) and closed the prosecution evidence. 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the appellant namely Moula Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh (convict) and under section 342 Cr.P.C. and in answer to the question why this case against y

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Land Revenue Act, 1967: ---S. 172(2)(xviii)--- Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities---Bar on Revenue Authorities in resolving questions of title---Referral to Civil Courts--- The Revenue Courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate on complicated questions of title or ownership. Such matters must be resolved by the Civil Courts through proper proceedings involving the framing of issues and recording of evidence. Revenue authorities can only correct entries in the record of rights if errors are due to omission, inadvertence, or misrepresentation and not related to ownership disputes. ----Cited Cases: Jan Muhammad v. Nazir Ahmad (2004 SCMR 612) Muhammad Jameel Asghar v. Improvement Trust Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698) Hafiz Kalu v. Muhammad Bakhsh (2019 YLR 1523) (b) Civil Courts: ---S. 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967--- Plenary jurisdiction of Civil Courts in resolving title disputes--- Where questions of fraud, misrepresentation, or ownership are involved, Civil Courts, being courts of plenary jurisdiction, are the competent forum to decide such disputes. Revenue authorities’ summary proceedings are insufficient to determine the rights of parties in complex title disputes. (c) Principles of Law: ---Determination of disputed title and ownership--- Civil Courts must be approached for a declaratory decree under Section 53 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, when a dispute involves allegations of fraud, conflicting claims of ownership, or legal ambiguities. Reliance was placed on the principle that summary proceedings cannot resolve intricate factual and legal controversies. ----Disposition: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Turbat was set aside. The petitioner was directed to approach the Civil Courts for resolution of the title dispute.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---- S. 302(b) -- Murder trial -- Benefit of doubt -- Prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- Appellant charged with the murder of his sister under the pretext of "Kari" -- Prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of police officials, which was found inconsistent and untrustworthy due to contradictions in ocular and medical evidence -- Independent witnesses present at the scene were not produced by the prosecution, and material evidence was withheld -- Trial Court's reliance on unreliable evidence resulted in miscarriage of justice. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mansha v. The State, 2018 SCMR 772 • Tarique Pervez v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1345 (b) Sindh Arms Act, 2013: ---- S. 24 -- Conviction for possession of an unlicensed firearm -- Safe custody and transmission of weapon not proven -- Prosecution failed to establish that the weapon allegedly recovered from the appellant was the same as used in the murder -- Discrepancies in the description of the weapon further weakened the prosecution's case -- Trial Court's conviction under the Arms Act was set aside for lack of credible evidence. Cited Cases: • Kamaluddin alias Kamala v. The State, 2018 SCMR 577 (c) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872): ---- Credibility of police witnesses -- Judicial caution required when the entire case relies solely on testimony from police officials -- Independent witnesses not produced despite their availability -- Failure to call independent witnesses deemed fatal to the prosecution's case -- Testimony of police officials found contradictory and inconsistent with medical evidence. Cited Cases: • Saifullah v. The State, 1992 MLD 984 (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---- S. 342 -- Statement of accused -- Appellant consistently denied allegations -- No credible evidence produced to substantiate the prosecution's claims of motive or guilt -- Cross-examination of witnesses revealed contradictions that created reasonable doubt. (e) Administration of justice: ---- Burden of proof and benefit of doubt -- Prosecution's failure to prove safe custody and transmission of evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and withholding of material evidence created multiple doubts -- Accused acquitted under the principle that benefit of doubt must favor the accused. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Imran v. The State, 2020 SCMR 857 • Muhammad Akram v. The State, 2009 SCMR 230 ----Disposition: Appeals allowed, convictions and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted in both the main case under S. 302(b), P.P.C., and the connected case under S. 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. Appellant ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199, 3 (Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order, 1983) Jurisdiction of Ombudsman---Maintainability of petition---Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, to entertain complaints regarding delay in gas connection installations---Preamble of the "Order" emphasized rectifying maladministration through administrative channels, rather than judicial processes---Petitioner, being an "Agency" as defined under Art. 2(1) of the "Order," was held amenable to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman---Held, Ombudsman’s role was to address maladministration that was oppressive, unjust, or unreasonable, as outlined under Art. 9 of the "Order"---Court emphasized that the recommendations of the Ombudsman were not judicial decisions but were recommendatory in nature---Petition dismissed for lack of merit. -----Cited Cases: Director General, FIA v. Kamran Iqbal (2016 SCMR 447) The Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas, Co. Ltd. v. Saleem Mustafa Shaikh (PLD 2001 SC 176) Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited v. Wafaqi Mohtasib (PLD 2019 Lahore 169) (b) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002: ----S. 42(2)(e)---Exclusive jurisdiction of OGRA---Petitioner contended that OGRA had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes involving consumers and the licensee under S. 42(2)(e) of the Ordinance---Court held that Respondent No.3 did not qualify as a "licensee" or "consumer" as no gas connection had been installed despite fulfilling requirements before the cutoff date---Petitioner’s argument was rejected since the Respondent accrued substantial rights prior to the imposition of a ban on 03.12.2021. -----Cited Case: Chief Executive, GEPCO v. Asghar Ali Rana (2018 YLR 1391) (c) Administrative Law: ----Maladministration---Role of Ombudsman---Court reiterated that Ombudsman had jurisdiction to address maladministration by Agencies, including unreasonable delays or denial of services without justification---Petitioner’s action in denying the gas connection to Respondent No.3, despite compliance with requirements, was deemed oppressive and unjust, amounting to maladministration under the "Order." (d) Fundamental Rights: ----Right to Public Utilities---Non-provision of gas connection---Held, denial of gas connection, particularly when Respondent complied with procedural requirements before the cutoff date, infringed fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution---Court emphasized that access to essential utilities, such as gas and electricity, constituted a fundamental right. -----Cited Case: Muhammad Yousaf v. Secretary Finance (PLD 2021 Lahore 156) (e) Disposition: ----Petition dismissed---Impugned orders of the Ombudsman and the President Secretariat (Public) were upheld---Court found no legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the orders.

Summary: As already observed that initially respondent moved an application to respondent No.7 which was founded on general and bald allegations and the petitioner was even not named in the said application as perpetrator of the alleged offence. On receipt of petition under Section 22-A/22-B of the "Cr.P.C." Ex-Officio Justice of Peace requisitioned report from the police wherein it is mentioned that the dispute interse petitioner and "respondent" is relatable to land and no such incident as reported by the "respondent" has taken place. It is trite law that functions performed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C are quasi-judicial in nature and it cannot be termed as executive/administrative or ministerial. At the same time powers exercised by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are neither unbridled nor indefinite. While exercising powers under Section 22-A(6) of the Cr.P.C the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not supposed to proceed mechanically and in vacuum. After requisitioning a report from the police, Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is not expected to brush aside such report without assigning any lawful reasoning. In the case of YOUNAS ABBAS and others versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAKWAL and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 581), while examining the scope of sub-section (6) of Section 22-A of the "Cr.P.C." the Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down certain guidelines for the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the reinstatement of a fine by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for alleged non-conforming use of a property. Initially, in 2015, CDA imposed a fine for alleged commercial use of a residential property. This order was set aside in 2017 after a commission inspection confirmed no commercial activity on the premises. However, CDA reviewed and reinstated the fine in 2021 based on new information, citing the property's address listed for a commercial entity. -----Issues: 1- Whether the CDA exceeded its jurisdiction by using review powers to re-evaluate and reinstate the fine based on new factual findings not presented in the original proceedings. -----2- Whether the scope of review under Section 36(3) of the CDA Ordinance, 1960, permits reconsideration of facts or is limited to correcting patent or clerical errors. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Scope of Review: The court held that the review under Section 36(3) of the CDA Ordinance should be limited to correcting clear errors and does not permit reassessment of facts or appellate reconsideration. --Jurisdictional Overreach: The CDA acted beyond its review jurisdiction by introducing new facts (webpage screenshot of the petitioner’s address linked to a commercial entity) that were not part of the original record. The court emphasized that new proceedings, rather than a review, should have been initiated if CDA believed new evidence warranted reconsideration. The petition was allowed, and the 2021 order reinstating the fine was set aside as it constituted an unlawful exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the guise of review. -----Citations/Precedents: Mehmood Hussain Lark v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1036) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR (2010 SCMR 1049) Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi (PLD 1991 SC 905)