Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: This case involves three appellants who were convicted by the Trial Court for the offenses of murder, robbery, and house trespass under sections 302(b)/34, 449/34, 387/34, and 412/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and additional terms for various charges. The convictions were based on circumstantial evidence, including confessional statements and recoveries. The appellants challenged the validity and legality of the Trial Court's judgment, leading to this appeal in the Federal Shariat Court. The complainant also filed a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to the death penalty. -----Issues: 1- Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the confessional statements, was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the recoveries made on the appellants' pointation were credible and could be linked to the alleged crime. 3- Whether the confessional statements were voluntary, true, and admissible. 4- Whether the Trial Court's decision to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty was justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the confessional statements, was tainted, unreliable, and insufficient to support the conviction. As such, the conviction and sentences of the appellants were set aside. The Court reasoned that the complainant’s supplementary statement implicating the appellants was an afterthought and lacked credibility. The recovery of the alleged stolen items and the confessional statements were found to be unreliable due to procedural flaws and inconsistencies. The confessional statements were not made voluntarily, as the appellants were under illegal detention and subjected to coercion, rendering the confessions inadmissible. The confessions were also inconsistent with other evidence, further undermining their credibility. The Court emphasized that in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form an unbroken chain leading directly to the guilt of the accused, which was not the case here. The appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately. The criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: 2017 SCMR 986 PLD 2019 Peshawar 17 2019 P. Cr. L J 535 Azeem Khan vs. Mujahid Khan and Others (2016 SCMR 274) Hashim Qasim vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Kashif Ali vs. The Judge, Anti-Terrorism, Court No. II, Lahore (PLD 2016 SC 951) Lal Khan vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob vs. The State (1992 SCMR 1983) Muslim Shah vs. The State (PLD 2005 SC 168) Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2018 SCMR 772)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 354, 449, 452 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, assault or use of criminal force to womanwith intent to outrage her modesty, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault orwrongful restraint---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Complainant asprosecution witness had correctly narrated the story as contained in the FIR and nowhere hewas derailed from his previous deposition---Statements of the most important and starwitnesses, the daughter and widow of the deceased, were similar with each other---Saidwitnesses had correctly identified accused in the Trial Court and correctly stated the date,time, the place of occurrence and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place---Saidwitnesses being dwellers of the house where occurrence took place, their presence in thehouse could not be doubted, rather their presence at the relevant time, was natural---Otherprosecution witness, the neighbourer of the deceased, had also identified the accused in thecourt---All prosecution witnesses were reliable, trustworthy and credible---Identity ofaccused, could not be doubted as prior to the incident, accused remained Buzgar ofdeceased's family---Defence had cross-examined the witnesses at sufficient length, but hadfailed to give any dent or damage to their testimony---Some minor discrepancies in theevidence of prosecution witnesses, were not substantive enough to create reasonable doubt inthe case of prosecution about the involvement and guilt of accused---Recovery of crimeweapon i.e. T.T. Pistol, was effected on the pointation of accused---Accused had confessedhis guilt by disclosing the names of absconding accused persons who persuaded him forcommitting the murder of deceased---Case of prosecution, had further been strengthened bythe confessional statement of accused under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Such statement was recordedwithout any coercion, pressure, torture or blackmailing---No reason existed to disagree ordisbelieve such confessional statement---Plea of 'alibi' taken by accused, was not of worthcredence---Prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against accused through direct,circumstantial and medical evidence---No major contradiction or dishonest improvement hadbeen pointed out by the defence---Accused, throughout the proceedings, had not taken anyspecific plea with regard to his false implication, nor he had brought any ill-will or ulteriormotives for his false implication by the witnesses---Trial Court had discussed and dilatedupon each and every aspect of the case and rightly convicted accused.Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 and Hashim Qasim v. The State2017 SCMR 986 ref.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Awarding of capital punishment---Eight accused personsincluding the accused had been booked in the crime and except accused, all accused personswere absconding; their pleas were yet to be brought on record---Accused, his two sons andtwo other absconding accused persons, being armed with Kalashnikov and T.T. pistol hadmade indiscriminate firing upon the deceased, but the fact remained that the deceased hadonly received two bullet injuries and it was not certain that whose bullet hit the deceased---Awarding of capital punishment to accused was unwarranted, in circumstances---Whileupholding the conviction of accused, his sentence of death was converted into rigorousimprisonment for life---Amount of compensation and remaining sentence of accused weremaintained with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 449-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Acquittal of co-accused-Effect of-Petitioner's conviction and sentences under Ss. 302 & 449, P.P.C., challenged-Plea that acquittal of co-accused on basis of same eye-witness account would also react on prosecution case in so far as culpability of petitioner was concerned, repelled-Acquittal of co-accused being an extension of benefit of doubt, could not be of any assistance to petitioner and there was evidence of recovery of crime weapon which had been used as corroboration against him-Leave to appeal refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 449-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal, grant of-Appraisal of evidence-Petition against conviction and sentences under Ss. 302 & 449, P.P.C.-Pleas that lodging of F.I.R. was delayed, there was no motive, recovery of crime weapon was doubtful and that it was sent to Chemical Examiner after some delay, not entertained-Held: Arguments related to appraisal of evidence which, not being against any principle or law, did not justify interference by Supreme Court-Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S. 173-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 18-Narration of facts in report submitted under S. 173, Cr. P. C. disclosing offence falling under S. 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1.979 - Investigating Officer even if, had not mentioned section of said Ordinance in report, trial Court was competent to form charge under S. 18 of said Ordinance-Trial Court, held, not bound by conclusion reached by Investigating Officer in his report under S. 173, Falak Sher v, State P L D 1967 S C 425 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- - S. 235-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 20 (1)-Court of Session, upon disclosure of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, acquires exclusive jurisdiction to try same by virtue of S. 20 (1) of Ordinance-Court of Session, can alongwith offence under Ordinance, 1979, also try offences under any other law committed in same transaction. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- - Ss. 302/34 & 449-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 20(1), fourth proviso & (2), 7, 18 & 19Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 235-Conviction of accused under Ss. 449 & 302/34, P. P. C. and S. 18 read with S. 1.9 of Offence!of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979-Trial by Court 'of Session competent and appeal would lie only before Federal Shariat Court-Reference for confirmation of death sentence to Federal Shariat Court also competent. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- - Ss. 302/34 & 149-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 7, 18 & 19-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 32-Dying declaration-Investigating Officer affirming that he had recorded deceased's statement "without addition of omission"-Dying statement, held, was relevant document in circumstances. Abdul Majid v. The State 197 P Cr. L J 545 and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State P L D 1979 B 142 ref. (e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 203-F (2-B)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss..302/34 & 449-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 7, 18 & 19-Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below when adduced on merits, too, but there was not proper ground for interference-Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 148 & 149 Murder case—Conviction and sentence—Benefit of the doubt—Principles—The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, trespassed into the complainant’s house and attacked his son, causing fatal injuries—The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years with compensation to the legal heirs—The High Court, on appeal, noted that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days despite the presence of police soon after the incident—The complainant’s conduct in not reporting the matter promptly raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case—The investigating officer failed to record statements of medical professionals treating the deceased, and no conclusive forensic evidence was produced to support the prosecution's version—Held, that in criminal cases, the benefit of the doubt must always be given to the accused—Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt—Conviction set aside and accused acquitted. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar and others (2003 SCMR 477) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 342, 340(2) Right of accused to defend—Failure of prosecution to establish guilt—The accused neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence—His statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. asserted false implication due to previous enmity—Prosecution’s failure to present independent evidence and reliance on contradictory witness statements led to acquittal—Held, the accused is not required to prove his innocence; the burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ----Admissibility of delayed FIR and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence Delay in lodging FIR—Contradictions in witness testimonies—Effect—FIR was registered after an unexplained delay despite police presence at the scene—Medical evidence and postmortem reports contradicted witness statements—No proper record of police inquiries or 1122 emergency reports was produced—High Court observed that such inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case—Held, delay in lodging FIR without plausible explanation, coupled with contradictions in evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution’s version and entitles the accused to acquittal. (d) Criminal Law—Acquittal of co-accused ----Double presumption of innocence—Interference by appellate court The complainant sought enhancement of the sentence and conviction of co-accused—Trial court acquitted co-accused due to lack of independent evidence connecting them to the crime—High Court reaffirmed the acquittal, noting that appellate courts should not interfere unless the lower court’s judgment is perverse, illegal, or results in a miscarriage of justice—Held, an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, and in the absence of strong incriminating evidence, the trial court’s decision must be upheld—Appeal against acquittal dismissed. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar and others (2003 SCMR 477) Disposition: Criminal Appeal No. 27878-J of 2022 (filed by accused): Allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and accused acquitted. Criminal Revision No. 27876 of 2022 (filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence): Dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 27874 of 2022 (filed by complainant against acquittal of co-accused): Dismissed.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- Background: This case involves Ali Hassan alias Achoo, who was convicted for the murders of Mehmood-ur-Rasheed and his son Subhan, as well as the attempted murder of Muhammad Mudassar, in connection with a previous sodomy case. Ali Hassan and co-accused were charged under multiple sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), including 302(b), 324, 337A(i), 449, 109, and 34. The trial court sentenced Ali Hassan to death for the murders and acquitted the other accused. Ali Hassan appealed his conviction. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the conviction and death sentence of Ali Hassan for the murder of Mehmood-ur-Rasheed and Subhan are supported by sufficient evidence. ---2) Whether the medical evidence supports the prosecution’s case. ---3) Whether the eye-witness accounts, consisting of related and interested witnesses, are reliable and credible. ---4) Whether the delay in recording the post-mortem and the statement of the injured witness raises doubts about the prosecution's case. ---5) Whether the acquittal of co-accused weakens the case against Ali Hassan. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Conviction: The Lahore High Court upheld Ali Hassan's conviction under Sections 302(b), 324, 337A(i), and 449 PPC. The Court found that the prosecution provided cogent and trustworthy evidence, including eye-witness accounts from family members and medical reports, confirming the injuries and deaths. --- Medical and Ocular Evidence: The medical evidence, although showing a minor discrepancy in the location of the injury, was consistent with the prosecution's account of the murders. The Court ruled that such minor inconsistencies do not discredit the overall prosecution narrative. --- Eyewitness Credibility: Despite being related to the victims, the Court held that the eyewitnesses’ testimonies were reliable, as they were consistent and firmly withstood cross-examination. The injured witness, a child, was also deemed competent and credible. --- Post-Mortem Delay: The delay in the post-mortem and the recording of the injured witness’s statement was justified due to the urgency of saving the injured child. The Court ruled that this delay did not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. --- Acquittal of Co-Accused: The Court maintained that the acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the case against Ali Hassan because the roles attributed to them were different and no direct evidence was presented against them for causing the deaths. --- Death Sentence: The Court confirmed the death sentence, emphasizing that the brutal nature of the crime, involving the murder of a father and his young son, justified the capital punishment. No mitigating circumstances were found to reduce the sentence. ---- Citations/Precedents: Shamsher Ahmad vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1931) Muhammad Asif vs. Mehboob Alam (2020 SCMR 837) Maskeen Ullah vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1568) Amjad Javed vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1247) Muhammad Abbas vs. The State (2023 SCMR 487) Abdur Rauf vs. The State (2003 SCMR 522) Ali Taj vs. The State (2023 SCMR 900) Muhammad Hanif vs. The State (2023 SCMR 2016) Muhammad Yaqoob vs. The State (2021 SCMR 1387)

Summary: Background: Khizer Hayat, along with Muhammad Ikram, was tried for the murder of Muhammad Asghar alias Saddam under sections 302/449/148/149 PPC, as per FIR No. 366/2013 registered at police station Dinga, District Gujrat. The trial concluded with the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, convicting Khizer Hayat and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300,000. Khizer Hayat appealed against his conviction, while Mushtaq Ahmed filed a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence. ----Issues: Whether Khizer Hayat's plea of alibi and the supporting evidence were credible and sufficient to acquit him. Whether the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were reliable and free from doubt. Whether the prosecution proved the motive behind the murder. Whether the trial court correctly assessed the evidence to convict Khizer Hayat. Whether the sentence imposed on Khizer Hayat should be enhanced. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Plea of Alibi: Khizer Hayat claimed he was in Lahore at the time of the incident. The Investigating Officer verified his plea of alibi with call data records and statements from witnesses. The court found the alibi credible, supported by tangible evidence and verified locations from call data records. Prosecution Witnesses: The court found the testimonies of the prosecution's eye-witnesses (Babar Asjad and Mushtaq Ahmad) unreliable as they were considered "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence at the crime scene. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidelines on chance witnesses require a convincing explanation for their presence, which was not provided. Motive: The prosecution alleged a motive based on previous enmity and suspicions against the deceased. However, the court found discrepancies and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the motive. The Investigating Officer also confirmed that no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate the motive. Assessment of Evidence: The court highlighted several doubts in the prosecution's case, including the lack of weapon recovery from the appellant, the unreliable testimonies of the witnesses, and the unproven motive. Given these doubts, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentence Enhancement: The court dismissed the criminal revision for enhancing Khizer Hayat's sentence to death, considering the acquittal based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed and another Vs the State, 2010 SCMR 660) Khalid Mehmood and others Vs The State (2011 SCMR 664) Sajjad Hussain Vs. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1540) Mst. Sughra Begum and another Vs. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142) Muhammad Irshad Vs. Allah Ditta and others (2017 SCMR 142) Muhammad Tasaweer Vs. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) Altaf Hussain Vs. Fakhar Hussain and another (2008 SCMR 1103) Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 1410) Tariq Pervez Vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Akram Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230)