Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302, 307, 323, 452, 148 & 149-Appreciation of evidence-Presence of two eye-witnesses at the spot at time of occurrence was found doubtful and their evidence was excluded from consideration-Presence of lady eye-witness at relevant time was established who was a natural witness and had received firearm injuries-Statement of said eye-witness with regard to two accused who had fired at her and her son could not be disbelieved and participation of these two accused in occurrence was established beyond any doubt, one of whom had not filed appeal before Supreme Court-Convictions and sentences of accused who was found guilty under Ss.302, 307/34 & 452, P.P.C. were accordingly upheld-Convictions of accused under 5.307, P.P.C. on other count and S.148, P.P.C. were, however, set aside having not been proved. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302, 307, 323, 452, 148 & 149-Appreciation of. evidence-Motive for the occurrence suggested by prosecution had not been, established and defence case that present occurrence was result of local party faction could not be ruled out-In any event motive indicated by prosecution did not appear to be strong enough for a large body of persons to arm themselves with guns and invade house of complainant-Testimony of eye-witnesses to the extent of remaining four accused therefore could not safely be relied upon who were acquitted giving benefit of doubt as their participation in occurrence appeared to be doubtful.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302, 307, 304, Part 1, 300, Exception 4 & 308-Appreciation of evidence-Occurrence started suddenly without any premeditation and encounter led to an affray which attracted eye-witnesses and accused who all lived in same neighbourhood-Both parties had firearms and due to tension already prevailing between them they started throwing stones and firing at each other in heat of moment-Case against accused, held, was covered by Exception 4 to S.300,, P:P.C.-Convictions and sentences of accused under Ss.302 & 307, P.P.C. were accordingly set aside and instead they were convicted under Ss.304, Part 1 & 308, P.P.C. read with S.34, P.P.C. and awarded lesser sentences thereunder. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 300, Exception 4-For the purpose of Exception 4 to S. 300, P.P.C. it is immaterial to determine which of the parties had offered provocation or committed first assault.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 307/34-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Death sentence-Convict acting under influence of co-accused who was awarded lesser punishment-Effect of-Leave to appeal granted to examine question of sentence on the ground that petitioner was under the influence of co-convict and acted at his behest who had been given lesser punishment. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 307-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B-Death sentence-Appeal against-Compromise-Effect of-Appellant convicted under Ss. 302 & 307, P.P.C. sentenced to death and also 7 years' R.I. with fine on both charges-Husband of deceased, the only surviving heir, entered into compromise with appellant and received compensation-Appeal accepted and death sentence converted into imprisonment for life-Sentences ordered to run concurrently and benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. allowed.-[Compromise-Sentence]. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.382-B-Penal Code (XLV of l8W), Ss. 302 & 307-Sentence-Awarding of-Benefit under S. 382-B, Cr.P.C.-Principle of consistency and equality-Two convicted under S. 302/307/3-1, P.P.C.-One awarded imprisonment for life and other death under S. 302, P.P.C.-Both sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine under S. 307, P.P.C. and sentences ordered to run consecutively-Leave to appeal granted on question of capital sentence only-Death sentence converted into imprisonment for life, sentences ordered to run concurrently and benefit under S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. also allowed-On basis of consistency and equality, with consent of State Counsel, benefit in the matter of sentence also granted to other convict who deserved this benefit and of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. although his appeal was not formally before Supreme Court at that stage.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S.302/307-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Sentence-Tender age-Effect of conviction under S.302/307, P.P.C. and sentence of death-Petitioner stated to be aged 13 years at time of incident-Question of age was not probed thoroughly at trial stage-Leave to appeal granted to consider if petitioner was indeed of tender age at relevant time, and if so, what was the appropriate sentence which should have been awarded to him to meet ends of justice.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-. -Ss.84, 302 & 307-Criminal, Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.471-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Lunacy-Petitioner's conviction under Ss. 302 & 307, P.P. C. set aside on ground of lunacy-Order impugned-Plea raised that Appellate Court had not considered as to whether respondent had really been successful in discharging the onus on him of insanity as contemplated by S.84, P.P.C.-Evidence on record showing that respondent had remained under treatment for insanity in hospital even before, during days of occurrence and also after occurrence-Relying on testimony of experts and basing its decision on the principle laid down in an earlier case, Appellate Court arrived at conclusion that there was a preponderance of probabilities that at the time of occurrence the respondent had acted under a fit of insanity and he was not in full control of his senses-Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal refused. Abdullah v. State 1972 P Cr. L J 1041 rel.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 325, 149, 307, 354-A & 452 read with S.148-Rioting-Housetrespass-Assault, use of criminal force to woman and striping her of clothes-Accused armed with sticks entering complainant's house, causing as many as 27 injuries on her person, after removing her clothes and making her naked, dragging her out of her house, throwing her in pond, tying her hands behind after taking her out of pond and making her to sit on the public path-Guilt of accused for causing injuries and insult to complainant proved beyond reasonable doubt-Trial Judge, held, had properly appreciated evidence on record and his findings about guilt of accused did not warrant any interference-Charge under S.307/149, P.P.C. however, not found to be attracted to case of accused-Evidence on record showing that accused had no intention to kill complainant but to beat and disgrace her-Complainant, according to medical evidence, receiving fractures of her left patella and left fibula which were grievous in nature-Provision of S.325/149, P.P.C., held, would be attracted to accused and not S.307/149-Section 325/149, P.P. C. substituted for S.307/149, P.P. C. and accused sentenced to three years' R.I. each. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.148, 354-A & 452 read with S.149-Assault, use of criminal force to woman and striping her of clothes-Complainant stating in F. I. R. that accused was empty-handed at time of occurrence-Allegation that complainant was tied to a tree and was given beating with Danda by accused also not finding mention in F.I.R. which cast doubt that accused took any part in occurrence-Accused given benefit of doubt and conviction set aside.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1), 3rd and 4th proviso-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Under-trial prisoner-Interpretation of S.497(1), provisos 3 & 4-Hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal, how to determine-Bail-Refusal of-Dangerous and desperate persons-Contention raised that under S.497(1), Cr.P.C. bail can be refused when it is established by the prosecution that applicant is a dangerous, desperate or hardened criminal and such conclusion cannot be based merely on the allegations which are subject-matter of the trial which is yet to be concluded, cardinal rule of criminal justice being that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till such time as his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt-Contention raised being of first impression and word "criminal"having not been defined in. Cr.P. C. an authoritative construction was needed in order to determine whether under-trial prisoner could be held to be a criminal before the determination of his guilt at the trial for the purposes of bail and on what material a Court is supposed to determine the question whether he is desperate or dangerous-Leave to appeal granted to consider the aforesaid contentions raising important question of law. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1), proviso-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)- Leave to appeal, grant of-Important question of law-Contentions of first impression-Interpretation of S.497(1), Cr.P. C. 3rd and 4th provisos-Bail-Grant of-Leave to appeal granted to consider important question of law pertaining to the true interpretation and scope of the 4th proviso to S.497(1), Cr.P.C. empowering the Court to grant bail in case of non-bailable offences and the 3rd proviso of S.497(1), Cr.P. C. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1), Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/3C7/404/l48/149, P.P.C. etc. -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Bail-Grant of-Non-appreciation of evidence-Bail refused on ground that accused petitioners were desperate or dangerous criminals-Leave to appeal granted to consider contention inter alia that High Court had failed to take into consideration material features of prosecution case not supported by its own witness. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1)-Undertrial prisoner-"Criminal"not having been defined in Criminal Procedure Code, needs to be construed authoritatively in order to determine whether undertrial prisoner could be held to be a criminal before the determination of his guilt at the trial for purposes of bail and on what material a Court is supposed to determine the question whether he is desperate or dangerous. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -S.497(1)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/404/148/149, P.P.C. etc. -Presumption of innocence-Cardinal rule of criminal justice-Petitioners charged with offence of murder were refused bail on ground of being dangerous and desperate persons-Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that bail can be refused in such cases only when it is established by prosecution that the applicant is a dangerous, desperate or hardened criminal and such conclusion cannot be based merely on allegations which are subject-matter of trial which is yet to be concluded, cardinal rule of criminal justice being that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till such time as his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.-[Presumption]. (f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- -Art.185(3)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.497(1)-Undertrial prisoner-Leave to appeal-Grant of-Conflict of opinion-Held, there being conflict of opinion on true interpretation of the provisions of S.497 (1), C r. P. C. which needed to be resolved and word"criminal" having not been defined in Cr.P.C., matter needed to be construed authoritatively in order to determine whether undetrial prisoner could be held to be a criminal before the determination of his guilt at the trial for purposes of bail and on what material a Court was supposed to determine the question whether he was desperate or dangerous.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302, 307 & 323-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Petition against conviction-Day light occurrence-No delay in lodging F.I.R.-Eye-witness account given by injured witnesses found consistent and supported by medical evidence-Possibility of false implication ruled out-Since evidence of parties had been properly appraised, Supreme Court declined to interfere and refused leave to appeal. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.302, 307 & 323-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Reduction of sentences by High Court, unchallenged-Accused charged under Ss. 302 & 307, 323, P.P.C.-Sudden affair and occurrence taking place at the spur of the moment-No evidence brought on record to show that it was a pre-planned occurrence-Hot words and abuses exchanged by parties before occurrence-Extreme penalty not being called for, High Court held justified in reducing sentence and after having considered role of co-accused, came to correct conclusion-Leave to appeal refused. Criminal Petition No.244 of 1982 Criminal Petition No.254 of 1982

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss.497 & 498-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/307/148/149 109-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-Bail, grant of-Appreciation of evidence-Petitioners accused under Ss.302/307/148/149 & 109, P.P.C. found innocent by police and placed in column No.2 of challan but were refused bail by High Court-Pleas of erroneous consideration by High Court of statements made by accused petitioners before police, substitution of its own opinion by Court for that of the police and Court being influenced by persons coming forth and making statements on oath in support of complainant's version although none of them was eye-witness-Pleas raised by.accused being substantial and infirmities found in the impugned order, petitions converted into appeals and bail granted.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 307-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185(3)-Witness-Credibility of-Delay in recording statement of eye-witnesses named in F. I. R.-Consequence of-Accused's conviction under Ss. 302 & 307, P.P.C., impugned-Plea that dying statement should not have been relied upon because type of injury suffered by deceased would make it difficult to believe that he was able to speak, not entertained as the argument was carefully attended to by High Court and both doctors who first examined deceased in two different hospitals had said that he was in his senses-Other plea that statements of eye-witnesses were recorded by police after a delay of a month or so and that by itself made them unreliable, repelled-Held, ordinarily, eye-witnesses were named in F.I.R. but investing agency happened to record their statements after lapse of some time, this would not possibly make such eye-witnesses unreliable-Not being a fit case for interference, leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Rafiq and others v State 1974 P Cr. L J 391 and Muhammad Iqbal v. State 1984 S C M R 930 distinguished. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 302 & 307-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Limitation-Petition against conviction under Ss. 302 & 307, P.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life barred by time-Supreme Court refused leave to appeal-Petition dismissed as time-barred and on merits.