Summary: Acquittal granted ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 417 & 342 — Appeal against acquittal — Scope — Principles restated — Presumption of double innocence reinforced — Interference by appellate court permissible only if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on gross misreading or non-reading of material evidence — Mere formulation of a different opinion is not a ground to disturb acquittal. Rel: PLD 1985 SC 11; 2008 SCMR 336; 2009 SCMR 288; 2011 SCMR 554; 2013 SCMR 565; 2014 SCMR 749; 2017 SCMR 1639; 1995 SCMR 635; 1998 SCMR 1281. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302, 395, 396, 148, 149 — Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, S. 7 — Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S. 17(4) — Murder, robbery, terrorism — Acquittal upheld — Incident involving attack on police vehicle, resulting in deaths and robbery — Contradictions in ocular account regarding presence and identification of accused — Evidence found unworthy of reliance — Doubts arising from inconsistencies in statements of injured eye-witnesses and lack of corroboration — Recovery of weapons or explosives not proved — No forensic or medical evidence collected. (c) Identification — Doubtful identification at night under panic — Eye-witnesses claimed to recognize 18 accused by name, parentage, and residence despite being under attack in a tarpaulin-covered vehicle — Such precise identification held implausible — No source of prior familiarity with accused shown — Identification rejected for want of reliability. (d) Evidence — Corroboration — Rule of caution — Court reiterated that where eye-witnesses are injured or related and contradictions exist, corroboration becomes essential — No recovery or independent corroborative evidence produced in support of prosecution version — Nexus with banned organizations alleged but not substantiated with any admissible material. Rel: PLD 2002 SC 643. (e) Delay and abscondence — Abscondence of respondents for years not held as conclusive of guilt — No recovery during arrest or on pointation — Abscondence alone insufficient to establish criminal liability. (f) Investigation — Serious flaws — No recovery of hand grenade shells, no post-mortem of deceased officials, no blood-stained earth collected — Crime scene processing held incomplete and unprofessional — Failure to conduct basic forensics undermined prosecution case. (g) Equality before law — Co-accused tried earlier and acquitted on same evidence — No appeal filed against their acquittal — Present respondents placed on equal footing — State’s selective challenge unjustified. Disposition: Appeal dismissed — Acquittal upheld — Trial Court’s judgment held well-reasoned and supported by evidence — Interference declined.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mansehra, for their involvement in a bank robbery that occurred on February 17, 2011, at the UBL Sabzi Mandi Branch, Mansehra. Five armed culprits entered the bank, detained the staff and customers, and looted a significant amount of cash, along with mobile phones and a repeater gun. The appellants were arrested on February 27, 2011, and a joint identification parade was conducted. Subsequently, they were sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395/397 PPC and 5 years under Section 412 PPC, along with fines. The appellants challenged the conviction in the Federal Shariat Court, claiming that the identification and evidence were flawed. ----Issues: 1- Was the identification parade conducted in accordance with legal standards, and was it reliable? 2- Did the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to prove the appellants' involvement in the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt? 3- Were the appellants entitled to the benefit of the doubt due to the inconsistencies and irregularities in the investigation and trial process? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification Parade: The court found significant flaws in the identification parade. The magistrate did not verify how long the accused had been in police custody before the parade, and the identification parade was conducted 22 days after the occurrence, which reduced its evidentiary value. Additionally, the parade was conducted jointly for multiple accused, further diminishing its reliability. --Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants. The eyewitnesses did not positively identify the appellants as the culprits, and there were discrepancies in their testimonies. The circumstantial evidence, including the identification parade and recoveries, was not credible enough to sustain the conviction. --Benefit of the Doubt: Given the numerous inconsistencies, including the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Cr.P.C regarding the involvement of independent witnesses in the recovery process, the court ruled that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court observed that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, they should be acquitted as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit of the doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Tang Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25) Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Abdul Rashid v. State (PLD 1975 Kar. 92) Ballia and others v. State (1985 SCMR 854) Nasrullah and another v. State (1977 PCr.LJ 132) Rahmat v. State (PLD 1976 Lah. 1444) Muhammad Shafi and others v. State (PLD 1967 SC 167) Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad (PLD 1975 SC 607) Afzal v. State (1983 SCMR 1) Niaz Muhammad alias Taja and another v. State (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 211) Malik Aman v. State (1986 SCMR 17) Sultan and others v. State (1987 SCMR 1177) Khair Gul v. State (1989 SCMR 491) The State v. Abba Ali Shah (PLD 1988 Kar. 409) These precedents were used to support the court's reasoning regarding the reliability of identification parades, the importance of independent witnesses in recovery processes, and the application of the benefit of the doubt principle.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 109---Dacoity and abetment---Petitionfor cancellation of bail--- Scope--- Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to accusedwho along with his companions was alleged to have alighted the uncle of complainant fromvehicle and took it away---Held; bail granted by court of competent jurisdiction could not berecalled/cancelled until and unless exceptional grounds were established---Petitioner hadfailed to point out that after release on bail, the accused had misused the concession of bail---Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge under Sections 395/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for attempting to commit robbery. He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in case of default. The appellant challenged this conviction, arguing that the prosecution's case was based on contradictory and unreliable evidence and that he was falsely implicated. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution's evidence was credible and sufficient to support the conviction. 2- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions in witness testimonies impacted the integrity of the prosecution's case. 3- Whether the defense's version of events was plausible and supported by the evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's involvement in the alleged robbery. The evidence did not establish that the appellant had attempted to commit robbery, nor was any stolen property recovered from him. The defense's version, suggesting that the appellant was falsely implicated after resisting an assault, was considered more plausible by the court. The unexplained 21-hour delay in lodging the FIR further weakened the prosecution's case. The court observed that the investigation seemed to have been conducted by the complainant and his companions rather than by the appropriate authorities. The "disclosure statement" of the appellant, recorded 14 days after his arrest, was viewed with suspicion and lacked legal sanctity. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court also discharged the appellant's bail bond. ----Citations/Precedents: Farid vs. The State (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 553) Abul Salam and others vs. The State and others (PLD 2005 Quetta 86) Nawaz alias Najee vs. The State and another (2014 PCr.LJ 69)

Summary: Bail granted --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 395 & 34---Dacoity, common intention---Bail,grant of---Further inquiry---Delay of about twenty two hours in lodging the FIR---Accusedwere not nominated in FIR---No incriminating material was recovered from possession ofaccused; no direct evidence was available against the accused and they were implicated on thedisclosure of co-accused---Evidentiary value of alleged disclosure could be seen anddetermined by Trial Court after recording of evidence---Continuous incarceration of accusedwould not serve any useful purpose because challan had been submitted in Trial Court---Inabsence of any exceptional circumstances grant of bail to accused was a right---Present caserequired further inquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Bail was grantedaccordingly. [Para. 6 of the judgment]Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others 2009 SCMR 1488; Riaz Jafar Natiq v.Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others 2011 SCMR 1708 and Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. TheState PLD 1995 SC 34 rel.

Summary: Acquittal allowed---The case involved the appellant, who was charged with offenses under Sections 302/395/148/149/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for his alleged involvement in a murder and robbery incident that occurred. The incident took place in the Tall Lazdan area, near the NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtoon Khawa) border. According to the prosecution's version, Said Muhammad and his co-accused, armed with Kalashnikovs, confronted the victims, accusing them of not repaying a loan and threatening them. A scuffle ensued, during which Said Muhammad allegedly shot and killed Abdul Shakoor, and another accused killed Abdul Ghafoor. There was a delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) after the incident, and the location of the crime scene was called into question, with evidence suggesting that the murders may have occurred elsewhere. Moreover, there were no bullet casings found at the alleged crime scene, and the motive for the crime was not convincingly established. The medical evidence presented did not substantiate the prosecution's case, and the recovery of a rifle had no relevance to the crime, as the victims were allegedly killed with a different weapon. The prosecution also failed to prove the existence of a money dispute or altercation as a motive for the crime. The judgment concluded that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the appellant's conviction is set aside, and he is acquitted of the charges.

Summary: S.395 PPC:Mere recovery of money from accused would not per se connects with commission of offence(Bail allowed)

Summary: Bail granted----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)—Post-Arrest Bail—Grant of Bail in Non-Bailable Offense. (a) Bail—Considerations for Grant—Circumstantial Evidence. ----Accused petitioner was implicated in a case under sections 342/447/448, 395/506(ii) PPC, and 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging armed robbery and extortion. The investigation recovered only a club (Danda) from the petitioner, despite allegations of being armed with a Kalashnikov. The circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient for denying bail at this stage, as its credibility would depend on trial evidence. (b) Parity Principle in Grant of Bail. ----Co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail by the Court, which served as a relevant factor in extending the same relief to the petitioner, ensuring consistency and fairness in judicial discretion. (c) Accused’s Background—Relevant Factors. ----The petitioner was a first-time offender with no prior convictions or criminal record. Additionally, the investigation was concluded, and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. ----Result: Bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds in the amount of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge/Zillah Qazi Malakand at Batkhela for multiple offenses, including dacoity and rape, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 395, 376, and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The charges stemmed from an incident on 22-04-2012, where the appellants, along with four other unidentified individuals, allegedly entered the complainant's home at night, tied up the family members, looted valuables, and raped the complainant's niece, Mst. Neelam. ----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the involvement of the appellants in the offenses of dacoity and rape. 2- Whether the lack of an identification parade, absence of specific role assignment, and non-recovery of stolen articles from one of the appellants could undermine the conviction. 3- Whether the trial court's enhancement of the sentence under Section 457 PPC from 5 to 10 years was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Prosecution's Proof of Involvement: The court held that the prosecution had adequately proven the appellants' involvement in the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The FIR was lodged promptly, and the complainant's testimony, along with the consistent statements of other witnesses, including the victim, Mst. Neelam, corroborated the charges of dacoity and rape. The medical evidence and chemical examiner's report further supported the prosecution's case. --Lack of Identification Parade and Role Assignment: The court dismissed the appellants' arguments regarding the lack of an identification parade, noting that the appellants were named in the FIR, which was filed shortly after the incident. The court also found that the failure to assign specific roles to each accused did not weaken the prosecution's case, as the involvement of the appellants in the offenses was clearly established. --Non-Recovery of Stolen Articles: The court noted that the appellants were arrested three months after the incident, providing them ample time to dispose of the stolen articles. The minimal recovery from Zakirullah and the lack of recovery from Fazal Aziz did not create sufficient doubt to overturn the convictions. --Enhancement of Sentence under Section 457 PPC: The court found that the trial court was justified in enhancing the sentence under Section 457 PPC to 10 years, given the seriousness of the offenses committed during the night. The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences, including the enhanced sentence under Section 457 PPC, were upheld. The court also ordered that all sentences should run concurrently and extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. to the appellants for all sentences. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1967 Dacca 528: The court referred to this precedent to emphasize that the number of culprits involved in the offense is determined by the evidence and not by the number of persons convicted. PLD 2003 Karachi 470: Reinforced that an identification parade is not mandatory if the accused are named in a promptly lodged FIR. The court concluded that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and the affirmation of the trial court's judgments.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-.---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.392/395/397---Robbery, dacoity---Bail, grant of---Bail granted to accused by Sessions Judge had been recalled by Additional Sessions Judge(Trial Court)---Validity---Observations made by Additional Sessions Judge in the impugnedorder were completely based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence on record as wellas the law laid down by the superior courts---Offence against the accused although was notcompoundable, yet Sessions Judge had granted bail to accused on the ground of three daysdelay in lodging of the F.I.R. by the complainant making the case one of further inquiry andthe offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---No doubt SessionsJudge had considered the compromise arrived at between the parties, but the same had not beenmade basis for granting bail to accused---Trial Court undoubtedly was competent to issuenotice to the parties at any stage of trial if it deemed fit and proper in view of the peculiar factsand circumstances of the case, but not in the manner as done in the present case---Prosecutionwas supposed to produce the evidence against the accused and not of the accused---Trial Court,thus, had not rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under the law---Sessions Judge hadrightly granted bail to accused and cancellation thereof by Additional Sessions Judge wasillegal, without jurisdiction and not warranted under law---Impugned order was, therefore, setaside and the accused was admitted to bail accordingly.