Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 382-B ---- Murder—Appreciation of evidence—Delay in lodging FIR—Effect—Benefit of doubt. Occurrence took place at 4:30 p.m., but FIR was lodged at 8:30 p.m., despite police presence at the Rural Health Centre where injured deceased was examined at 6:30 p.m. Delay of four hours held unexplained and indicative of deliberation and consultation. Such delay, when the police was available and eyewitnesses admitted informing them earlier, cast serious doubt on the spontaneity and truthfulness of prosecution version. Held, unexplained delay in lodging FIR undermines credibility of ocular account. Cited Cases: • State through Advocate General Sindh v. Farman Hussain and others (PLD 1995 SC 1) • Mehmood Ahmed & others v. The State and another (1995 SCMR 127) • Shaukat Hussain v. The State through PG Punjab and another (2024 SCMR 929) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- S. 302(b) ---- Ocular account—Chance witnesses—Presence at scene of occurrence—Effect. Complainant and alleged eyewitnesses were residents of another village and failed to furnish plausible reason for their presence at the scene situated in different village. Their presence, therefore, held doubtful. Evidence of chance witnesses without independent corroboration not relied upon. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others (2015 SCMR 1142) • Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others (2017 SCMR 142) (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ---- Arts. 71 & 129(g) ---- Contradictions in ocular testimony—Material improvements—Adverse inference for withholding best evidence. Witnesses contradicted the FIR regarding seat of injuries—attributing right leg injury in FIR but left leg injury in deposition—creating inconsistency in prosecution version. Weapon description varied between 12-bore gun, rifle, and pump action, yet no matching empties recovered. Forensic report (PFSA) found insufficient data to link recovered weapons with crime empties. Prosecution also failed to produce best evidence to prove motive, namely, the brother of the deceased and his alleged wife (daughter of accused), or their Nikah-nama. Held, withholding best evidence justified adverse inference under Article 129(g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Cited Cases: • Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) • Riaz Ahmed v. The State (2010 SCMR 846) • Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146) • Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224) (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302(b), 109 & 149 ---- Motive—Failure to prove—Effect. Alleged motive of enmity due to runaway marriage remained unsubstantiated; no complaint was lodged by accused regarding alleged marriage. Failure to produce key witnesses or documentary proof (Nikah-nama) rendered motive unproved. (e) Criminal trial ---- Benefit of doubt ---- Principle—Single circumstance sufficient for acquittal. Where a single circumstance raises doubt, accused entitled to benefit thereof. Instant case rife with multiple inconsistencies, contradictions, and evidentiary lapses creating serious doubts in prosecution story. Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) • Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Judgments of Lahore High Court dated 08.03.2019 and Trial Court dated 24.10.2016 set aside. Petitioners Sardar Khan and Amjad Ali acquitted of the charge and ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: Bail granted ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149 ---- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497 ---- Post-arrest bail—Cross-firing between rival groups—Delay in recording injured witness statement—Scope of inquiry—Further probe. Occurrence arose out of cross-firing between two rival groups in which a minor bystander later died. FIR attributed a joint role of firing to both parties without specifying who caused the injury to Abdul Jabbar (injured). Statement of Abdul Jabbar under S.161, Cr.P.C., attributing the knee injury to the petitioner, was recorded after 1 month and 6 days, without any explanation or medical certification that he was unfit to give statement earlier. Such delayed implication rendered the matter doubtful and required further inquiry. The solitary non-vital injury (on the knee) also weakened the applicability of S.324, P.P.C., as it did not show an intent to commit murder. As for S.302, P.P.C., death of the minor occurred due to firing from the rival group, not the petitioner’s side. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Umer v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477) • Umer Hayat v. The State (2008 SCMR 1621) (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149 ---- Cross-cases—Determination of aggressor—Bail—Principles. Where both parties engage in cross-firing and the question as to who was the aggressor or aggressed upon can only be determined after recording of evidence, such cases fall within the ambit of further inquiry warranting grant of bail. Petitioner was not alleged to have caused any fatal injury, was not involved in any other case, and had a specific, non-vital role. Cited Cases: • Noor Muhammad v. The State (2009 SCMR 324) • Abdul Hameed v. Zahid Hussain (2011 SCMR 606) • Khalid Mehmood v. Muhammad Kashif Rasool (2013 SCMR 1415) Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order of Lahore High Court dated 02.06.2025 set aside. Petitioner Asad Khalil granted post-arrest bail in FIR No.97/2025, P.S. Sabzi Mandi, Gujranwala, subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148, 149, 337-F(iii), 109—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g)—Murder and hurt—Aggressor theory—Benefit of doubt. For one deceased and one injured, twelve persons were implicated. The incident occurred in front of the co-accused’s house; several members of the accused party also sustained firearm injuries, one medically verified and others admitted by the investigating officer. Prosecution suppressed this material fact, undermining its credibility. The admitted presence of injuries on accused persons and the location of occurrence near their house made it probable that the complainant party was the aggressor. Suppression of such evidence rendered the prosecution witnesses untrustworthy. Muhammad Yaqoob v. Manzoor Hussain (2008 SCMR 1549), Ghulam Nabi v. Ikram alias Kama (2020 SCMR 477), Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain (1994 SCMR 1928), Nasrullah v. State (1985 SCMR 1715) and Muhammad Ramzan v. State (2021 SCMR 655) relied upon. (b) Recovery and forensic corroboration—Empties deposited after arrest—Evidentiary value. Recovery of 12-bore gun and PFSA report were disbelieved where empties were recovered on 23-08-2012 but deposited in the forensic laboratory on 28-08-2012, after the appellant’s arrest. Such sequence made the forensic link doubtful. Muhammad Amin v. State (2019 SCMR 2057) and Asad Rehmat v. State (2019 SCMR 1156) followed. (c) Motive—Joint and unproved. Prosecution alleged a quarrel and exchange of abuses two days earlier as common motive against all accused. Ten co-accused had already been acquitted and no specific motive was attributed to the appellant. High Court had also disbelieved motive. Absence of motive further weakened prosecution case. (d) Defence plea—Standard of proof. Where the accused demonstrates reasonable possibility of an alternate version, even by cross-examination or admitted circumstances, benefit of doubt must follow. Defence is not required to prove its plea beyond reasonable doubt; it suffices to create reasonable doubt in prosecution story. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. State (PLD 2009 SC 814), Rashid Ahmad v. State (2001 SCMR 41), and Muhammad Nazir v. Tariq (1992 SCMR 1983) referred. (e) Prosecution witnesses—Unreliability due to suppression of material facts. Prosecution’s failure to disclose injuries on accused side, coupled with inconsistencies in recoveries and motive, demonstrated deliberate suppression, warranting rejection of their testimony. (f) Benefit of doubt—Principle reaffirmed. If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted; here, numerous infirmities rendered the case doubtful. Tariq Pervez v. State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. State (2009 SCMR 230) applied. Disposition: Crl. A. No. 57 of 2021 allowed—Trial Court and High Court judgments dated 27-03-2017 and 19-11-2018 set aside—Iftikhar Ahmed alias Papu acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Crl. A. No. 58 of 2021 (for enhancement/against acquittal) dismissed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — Ss. 497(1) & 497(2) — Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) — Ss. 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-N(2), 148 & 149 — Post-arrest bail — Scope and considerations. Where an injury falling under S. 337-A(iii), P.P.C. (Shajjah-i-Hashimah) was attributed to the accused, the High Court declined bail solely on the ground that the case fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. — Held, that such approach was erroneous. The medical certificate merely reflected “external nasal deformity and bony crepitus,” and under S. 337-N(2), P.P.C., imprisonment by way of Ta’zir may only be imposed if the offender is shown to be a previous convict, habitual, hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, or if the act was committed in the name or on the pretext of honour. — In the absence of such findings by the trial or appellate courts, no lawful imprisonment under Ta’zir could be imposed. — Consequently, the case of the petitioner attracted S. 337-N(2), P.P.C., making his incarceration unjustified at the bail stage. — Reliance placed on Abdul Wahab v. The State (2019 SCMR 516). (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497(2) — Further inquiry — Grant of bail. Held, that the question whether S. 337-A(iii) P.P.C. truly attracted the prohibitory clause required further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C., particularly when the petitioner was in custody since 24-04-2025, no recovery was to be made from him, and trial proceedings were unlikely to conclude soon. The unexplained 14-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. prima facie rendered the prosecution’s version doubtful and susceptible to deliberation or consultation. Background of prior enmity between parties reinforced the requirement of cautious judicial scrutiny. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 497 — Principle of consistency — Co-accused granted bail. Where a co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail, the petitioner was entitled to the same concession on grounds of consistency, there being no distinguishing features. (d) Criminal law — Bail as a rule and refusal as exception. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the gravity or heinousness of an alleged offence alone is not a sufficient ground for refusal of bail if the circumstances otherwise call for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Bail cannot be withheld as a substitute for punishment. Reference made to Husnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914). (e) Delay in lodging F.I.R. — Effect. An unexplained delay of 14 days in registration of F.I.R. undermined the spontaneity of the occurrence, introduced doubt about the prosecution story, and created room for deliberation and fabrication — such delay strengthened the case for bail. (f) Disposition. — Petition converted into appeal and allowed. — Orders of the courts below set aside. — Petitioner admitted to post-arrest bail on furnishing surety bond of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. — Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of misuse. — Observations made were tentative and confined to bail determination. Held: Petition allowed; bail granted.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail Before Arrest --- Pre-Arrest Bail --- Maintainability --- Instant petition has been filed by Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioners) against impugned order dated 23.04.2025, in Crl. Misc. No.14086-B of 2025, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore with prayer to set-aside said order and grant pre-arrest bail to petitioners in case FIR No.160/2025, dated 28.01.2025, offences under Sections 324/337A(iii)/337A(ii)/337F(ii)/148/149 PPC, registered at police station Zafarwal, District Narowal --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- It is evident from perusal of order dated 23.06.2025, of this Court that instant petition has already been partially dismissed to extent of Muhammad Sajid (Muhammad Sajid Iqbal) petitioner No.1, on account of his arrest --- Insofar as case of Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively), is concerned, we have noted that as per contents of FIR, Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), was assigned role of inflicting wooden 'bala' on forehead of Younas PW, whereas Ali Raza petitioner No.3, has been assigned role of inflicting hatchet blow on back side of head of Sufiyan PW --- Injuries attributed to both petitioners were declared by concerned Medical Officer to be punishable under section 337A (ii) PPC --- During investigation, it was concluded by Investigating Officer that Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), was merely present at spot and he did not cause any injury on any member of complainant party --- Said findings of Investigating Officer have made prosecution case as one of further inquiry entitling Muhammad Irshad (petitioner No.2), to relief of pre-arrest bail as observed in judgments reported as 'Ehsan Ullah v. The State" (2012 SCMR 70) and 'Muhammad Ishaq v. The State and others' (2012 SCMR 1137) --- So far as Ali Raza (petitioner No.3), is concerned, we have noted that in medico legal report of Sufiyan PW, Medical Officer has mentioned injury on his head as skin deep --- Section 337A(ii) PPC, is attracted when bone under injury is exposed but it is evident from perusal of medico legal report of Sufiyan PW that no such finding regarding exposing bone of head of Sufiyan PW was mentioned in report rather it was categorically mentioned that injury on head of Sufiyan PW was skin deep, hence offence under section 337A(i) PPC, which is bailable offence, is attracted instead of section 337A(ii) PPC, to extent of abovementioned injury entitling Ali Raza (petitioner No.3), to grant of pre-arrest bail --- Reference in this context may be made to judgment reported as "Muhammad Qasim and another v. The State and others" (PLD 2014 Lahore 555) --- We have also noted that sixteen (16) named and 4/5 unknown accused persons total 20/21 accused persons have been implicated in this case by complainant, therefore, possibility of malafide involvement of petitioners in this case by complainant while using wider-net cannot be ruled out at this stage --- In light of above discussion, this petition is converted into appeal and same is partly allowed --- Consequently, impugned order is set-aside to extent of Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively) --- Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to Muhammad Irshad and Ali Raza (petitioner Nos.2 & 3, respectively), vide order dated 23.06.2025, is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing of fresh bail bonds in sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Bail granted --- (a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---- Ss. 302, 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- S. 497 --- Bail After Arrest --- Post-Arrest Bail --- Maintainability --- This Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal is filed by Binyameen against impugned order dated 28.08.2025 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby his application for post-arrest bail was dismissed --- Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. 123 dated 15.03.2025 under Sections 302, 324, 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337F(ii), 148 & 149 PPC registered at police station Mardan City, District Mardan --- Arguments heard --- Record perused --- As per contents of FIR, occurrence took place on 15.03.2025 at about 8.00 p.m in area of Mardan City where petitioner along with other co-accused persons allegedly committed murder of deceased and caused injuries to complainant party --- Petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody --- Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case --- He further argued that there are material contradictions in prosecution evidence and case against petitioner is based on weak evidence --- He also submitted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name surfaced during investigation --- Learned counsel further argued that petitioner has been in custody for more than five months and trial is not likely to conclude in near future --- He also submitted that petitioner is not a flight risk and will not tamper with prosecution evidence --- Learned Additional Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa opposed bail application and argued that petitioner is involved in heinous offence of murder --- He further argued that there is sufficient evidence against petitioner to connect him with commission of offence --- He also submitted that if released on bail, petitioner may abscond or tamper with prosecution evidence --- After perusal of record and hearing arguments, we find that petitioner is facing trial for serious offences including murder --- However, we have noted that petitioner has been in custody for more than five months and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial --- We have also noted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name surfaced during investigation --- There are also some contradictions in prosecution evidence which need to be tested during trial --- In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of opinion that petitioner deserves relief of post-arrest bail --- Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed --- Impugned order is set aside --- Petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in like amount to satisfaction of learned Trial Court --- Petitioner shall also appear before Trial Court on each date of hearing and shall not leave jurisdiction of Trial Court without prior permission --- Petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –– Ss. 4(k), 154, 156(3), 157, 173, 190, 200–204, 265-K, 342 –– Cognizable offence –– Entry in daily diary instead of FIR –– Scope and effect of Magistrate’s power under S.156(3) –– Legality of arrest prior to registration of FIR. Information given by complainant regarding disappearance and suspected abduction of two young men clearly disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, yet the officer incharge did not register an FIR under S.154 Cr.P.C. and only made an entry in the daily diary while seeking “inquiry” under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. –– Held, “such an investigation” in S.156(3) refers to investigation under S.156(1) which presupposes registration of a case under S.154 –– S.156(3) cannot be invoked to order an “inquiry” and Magistrate has no authority to direct such inquiry; to read such power into S.156(3) would amount to adding words not intended by the legislature –– The duty to register and investigate cognizable offences rests exclusively with the officer incharge of the police station; entry in the roznamcha/daily diary does not convert information into a cognizable case nor authorize investigation under Chapter XIV –– An arrest prior to registration of FIR, save in exceptional circumstances expressly covered by Ss.54, 55, 57 or 151 Cr.P.C., is illegal and without lawful authority –– In the present case, the appellants were arrested on the basis of a diary entry before registration of the crime report; such arrest was held illegal and the purported “inquiry” under S.156(3) without an FIR was without lawful sanction, having direct bearing on the reliability of subsequent proceedings including judicial confession. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 –– Arts. 38 & 40 –– Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) –– Ss. 164, 364 –– Judicial confession –– Requirements of voluntariness and safeguards –– Delay and custody in police control –– Evidentiary value. Under Art.38 of the Order of 1984, confession made to or in presence of a police officer is inadmissible; confession in custody is admissible only if recorded by a Magistrate under S.164 Cr.P.C. or where it leads to discovery of a fact within Art.40 –– S.364 Cr.P.C. and Ch.13 of High Court Rules & Orders impose mandatory safeguards: Magistrate must explain to accused that he is not bound to confess, that the confession may be used against him, and must not record the statement unless he has “reasons to believe” it is voluntary, which requires objective satisfaction based on his own observations –– Judicial confession may form basis of conviction if true, voluntary and corroborated, but delay in recording, especially when accused remains in police influence, casts serious doubt on voluntariness and calls for heightened scrutiny –– In the present case, appellants were illegally arrested on 17.02.2016 and their judicial confessions recorded on 23.02.2016, six days later; there were material contradictions between the Magistrate and investigating officer regarding custody and handing over of the accused after recording of confession –– Confessions were not corroborated by independent evidence and even conflicted with prosecution’s own narrative –– Held, in such circumstances, the alleged judicial confessions were surrounded by serious doubts regarding voluntariness and safety, and could not be relied upon as a basis for conviction. (c) Criminal trial –– Evidence –– Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report –– Chain of custody –– Delay in dispatch –– Recovery of incriminating articles –– Effect. Prosecution relied on recovery at instance of appellant of a Kalashnikov rifle, blood-stained axe, churri (knife), a portion of blood-stained chitae (mat) and blood-stained stones, as well as positive FSL reports –– Evidence showed that alleged recoveries were made earlier but ballistic and serological exhibits were dispatched to FSL almost four weeks after the occurrence, impairing sanctity of chain of custody –– Firearm and spent crime-empties were sent together, further compromising evidentiary integrity –– Medical evidence indicated injuries that would cause profuse bleeding, yet there was no evidence of extensive blood at the alleged crime scene, nor was it the prosecution case that blood had been washed to remove traces –– Investigating officer did not corroborate complainant’s assertion that personal effects of the deceased were recovered during a joint police/Chitral Scouts raid on accused’s house –– Held, in view of unexplained delays, contradictions, scant physical traces in a case involving decapitation and dismemberment, and compromised chain of custody, reliance on FSL reports and alleged recoveries to sustain a capital conviction was unsafe. (d) Criminal trial –– Circumstantial evidence –– Standard of proof –– Absence of “last seen” and direct ocular account –– Benefit of doubt. Entire case rested on circumstantial evidence: there was no direct ocular testimony placing the appellants in the company or proximity of the deceased at the relevant time, nor any credible “last seen” evidence beyond generalized statements regarding crossing of a bridge –– Human remains in two sacks were not recovered at the instance of the appellants –– Crucial evidence regarding movement of the victims across a bridge controlled by Chitral Scouts, with a maintained register and temporary retention of identity cards, was not properly collected –– Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material particulars, including search and recovery –– In such circumstances of illegal arrest, doubtful confessional statements, compromised recoveries, weak forensic support and incomplete investigation, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt –– Held, appellants were entitled to benefit of doubt, capital convictions under Ss.302(b) and 34 PPC, as well as convictions under Ss.201 and 15(AA) PPC, could not be sustained; acquittal was warranted. (e) Criminal justice system –– Investigation and prosecution –– Judicial censure. The case was described by the Supreme Court as a classic illustration of the abysmal state of the criminal justice system, reflecting lack of integrity, competence and professionalism in investigation and prosecution, and inability of investigation officers to discharge statutory duties –– Failure to promptly register FIR, resort to an impermissible “inquiry” under S.156(3) Cr.P.C., illegal arrest, poor collection and preservation of physical and forensic evidence, and contradictions in prosecution case collectively undermined the search for truth and risked miscarriage of justice in a double-murder case involving decapitation and dismemberment of two young men –– Court reiterated that Cr.P.C. structure, including judicial supervision of police powers, exists to protect both accused and victims from abuse of coercive authority, and disregard of these safeguards vitiates the worth of resulting evidence. (f) Result. Criminal Petition No.1674 of 2021 was converted into appeal and allowed; convictions and sentences recorded by trial court on 08.01.2020 and upheld by High Court on 09.06.2021 were set aside and appellants, Said-ur-Rehman and Noor Rehmat, were acquitted by extending benefit of doubt and ordered to be released if not required in any other case –– Criminal Petitions Nos.135-P and 136-P of 2021 filed by complainant against acquittal of co-accused were dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 10-hours and 20-minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the unfortunate occurrence, whereby the deceased lost his life and two persons were injured, took place at or about 08:30 am on 01.08.2020 while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 06:50 pm, with an inordinate delay of about 10 hours and 20 minutes despite the police station being merely 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence---In column No. 3 of the inquest report, the date and time when police got information about the death was scribed as 01.08.2020 at 08:30 a.m.---Such belated lodging of the crime report shattered the sanctity of the same and reflected that the time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story---No plausible justification or adequate explanation was furnished by the prosecution for that delay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of 13 hours and 45 minutes in conducting the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---It was evinced from the perusal of the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased, that the dead body was received in the dead house at 10:00 am on 01.08.2020, whereas complete documents from Police were also received at 10:00 pm on 01.08.2020---Medical Officer conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 10:15 p.m., after a lapse of 13 hours and 45 minutes---Medical Officer admitted in his cross-examination that he received the written application to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased by the police at 10.00 pm---Prosecutor and complainant were unable to point any justifiable reason for the said delay from the entire record---Such unexplained delay in the Post-Mortem Examination of a deceased would surely put a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously access and scrutinize the prosecution's evidence---In such circumstances, the most natural inference would be that the delay so caused was for preliminary investigation and prior consultation to nominate the accused persons and plant eye-witnesses of the crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Discrepancies in the prosecution case---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---As per record, acquitted co-accused "W" fired with his Kalashnikov at the already fallen deceased, striking him on the left side of his back, on the middle of his back, and on the backside of his left shoulder and the right side of his back---All those injuries inflicted by said acquitted co-accused were declared fatal shots by Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy of the deceased---Said acquitted co-accused repeatedly fired his rifle at one of the injured persons, hitting him near the umbilicus and on his right ribs---Said injured in his examination-in-chief had not assigned any role to said acquitted co-accused "W" of causing any firearm injury to the deceased and consequently the Trial Court acquitted him of the charge---Likewise to the extent of acquitted co-accused "W", whose attribution of injuries was substituted by the complainant in paragraph No. 4 of the private complaint, such discrepancies were detrimental to the prosecution's case, primarily affecting the credibility of the evidence presented---Appellants' case was grounded on the same evidence and the roles assigned to them were similar to those of the co-accused who were acquitted---Sudden shift in the Court's findings, based on essentially the same facts, coupled with the modifications in the verdict, compelled to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution to the extent of present appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the statement of the injured witnesses were recorded by First Investigating Officer on 03.08.2020, two days after the lodging of FIR and on 04.08.2020, three days after the lodging of FIR, respectively---Said material aspect of the prosecution's case regarding the delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., not only diminished the evidentiary value of their statements but also raised a reasonable doubt concerning the mode of injuries they received, especially when their Medico Legal Examination Certificate showed that they were conscious at the time of admission in the THQ Hospital---Unexplained delay of one or two days in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would be detrimental and testimony of such witnesses should be taken with a pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of three months and 29 days in filing the complaint---Consequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the complainant of the case being dissatisfied with the police investigation, while changing the prosecution version, filed a private complaint on 30.11.2020 with the delay of almost 03 months and 29 days of the occurrence---Complainant had not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning that the private complaint had been filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others PLD 2003 SC 14 rel. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Ipse dixit of police---Scope---Ipse dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts, yet it can be considered if it is found on some cogent and convincing evidence. Khalid Mehmood and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 664 and Sajjad Hussain v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1540 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of complainant at the spot not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---According to the prosecution's account, the complainant of the case, along with his companions, allegedly escorted the deceased and the injured persons to the Civil Hospital---However, complainant was not listed as a witness of the identification of the dead body in the inquest report---Furthermore, if complainant was present at the hospital, the question aroseas to why he did not identify deceased's dead body at the time of the Post-Mortem Examination---Such inconsistency led to conclude that the complainant was not present at the time and place of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recoveries of crime weapons on the disclosure of accused---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Record showed that the appellants were arrested on 26.08.2020, who led to the recoveries on the basis of disclosures made by them on 07.09.2020---As per record, from one appellant, a 223-bore rifle along with four live bullets was recovered from another appellant, 222-bore rifle along with two live bullets was recovered from another appellant, rifle along with three live bullets was recovered; and a rifle along with five live bullets were recovered from acquitted accused, which were deposited to the office of Forensic Science Agency on 14.09.2020 for comparison with the crime empties already secured from the place of occurrence---Firearm and Toolmarks Examination Report in that regard was negative---Consequently, the evidentiary value of those recoveries remained inconclusive and could not be regarded as substantive proof---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, causing grievous hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries---Prosecution specifically alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was a previous enmity between the parties---Alleged motive rested solely on the oral assertion of the complainant as no corroborative evidence was presented by the prosecution to substantiate its claim---Prosecution is not obligated to prove motive in every murder case but it is equally established that once the prosecution sets up a specific motive, it assums the burden of proving it---Failure to discharge that burden operates to the detriment of the prosecution, not the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal of accused persons against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single or slightest doubt, if found reasonable, in the prosecution case would be sufficient to entitle the accused to its benefit, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Muhammad Mushtaq Chaudhry, Iftikhar Ahmad Bittu, Irfan Riaz Gondal, Ch. Zulfiqar Abrar, Mustansar Nazar Ghagh and Mohsin Raza Bhatti for Appellants. Ijaz Ahmad Pannu, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Barrister Salaman Safdar, Barrister Hamza Shehram Sarwar and Asad Zaman Tarrar for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 14th May, 2025. judgment Muhammad Jawad Zafar, J .--- Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 80283 of 2022 filed by Khitab Ullah, Muhammad Azhar, Muhammad Asif, Shahzad Mehmood and Muhammad Amir against their convictions and sentences, Criminal P.S.L.A. No. 80831 of 2022 filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case (PW-3) and Criminal Revision No. 80810 of 2022 filed by Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case (PW-3) for enhancement of sentence, whereas Murder Reference No. 321 of 2022 has also been transmitted by learned Trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentences of Khitab Ullah and Muhammad Azhar, appellants under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Code" or "Cr.P.C"), all the matters being originated from the same judgment dated 12.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala ("Trial Court") in the private complaint (Exh.PC) under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148 and 149 P.P.C emanated from case FIR No.664 dated 01.08.2020, under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149 P.P.C registered at Police Station Tatlay Aali, Gujranwala whereby, at the conclusion of the trial in the said case, the learned Trial Court, while acquitting the co-accused persons Muhammad Waris and Waseem Nasar, convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Khitab Ullah son of Muhammad Waris:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to death as ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced to ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Azhar son of Mehmood Ahmad:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to death as ta'zir with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000 in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Asif son of Riasat Ali: ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/-as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Shahzad Mehmood son of Mehmood Ahmad:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Muhammad Amir son of Amanat Ali:- ? Under Section 302(b), P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as ta'zir and with direction to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation to legal heirs of the deceased in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in case of default in payment thereof, to further undergo S.I for six months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Nadeem and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months. ? Under Section 324 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for ten years for attempt to commit qatl-i-amd of Muhammad Hashim and with the fine of Rs.50,000/- in default whereof, the convict shall undergo S.I for two months ? Under Section 336 P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for seven years causing injury No.3 on the person of Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 337-F(vi) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay Rs.200,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Hashim. ? Under Section 337-F(iii) P.P.C read with Section 149 P.P.C (for jurh-ghayr-jaifah and mutalahimah) and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as daman to injured Muhammad Nadeem. ? Under Section 148 P.P.C and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for two years. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is extended in favour of the accused persons. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the Trial Court reads as under: "On 01.08.2020 at 07:00 am, the complainant (Pw.3) along with Muhammad Arshad brother (since given up), Muhammad Hashim son of Muhammad Arshad (injured Pw.4), Muhammad Amir (deceased), Muhammad (injured Pw.5) both sons of Qamar, Hamza Mukhtar (Pw.6) son of complainant, went to Eid-Gaah situated on the north-western side of the village to offer Eid-Prayer. People from the village including Muhammad Waris (accused) along with his relatives were also present there for Eid-Prayer. After Eid-Prayer, at about 07:45 am, Muhammad Waris along with his relatives went to the village, whereas, the complainant party went to the graveyard, adjacent to the Eid-Gaah, to offer Fateh-Khawani for their deceased persons. After Fatch-Khawant, the complainant party left the graveyard and were going towards the village. Muhammad Nadeem (injured Pw.5) was boarded on his motorcycle GAL-8550, Honda 125, Model 2020 (PS), Muhammad Hashim (injured Pw.4) and Muhammad Amir (deceased) were boarded on motorcycle Metro 70-CC (P-6) Model 2020, Applied for. Amir was driving the motorcycle, while Hashim sitting on its rear seat, were going slowly towards the village, ahead of the complainant, Arshad and Hamza Mukhtar who were following them on foot. When, at about 08:30 am, the complainant party reached near the house of Kashif son of Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Waris armed with kalashnikov, Muhammad Asif armed with kalashnikov, Khitabullah armed with kalashnikov, Azhar Mehmood armed with rifle, Shahzad armed with rifle, Amir armed with rifle and Waseem armed with rifle, all present in court with their mutual consultation, already present at the old DERA of Muhammad Waris, suddenly, emerged from there on the mettled road and blocked their passage. Accused Muhammad Waris raised a lalkara not to let Muhammad Amir and others alive. On this, Khitabullah made a straight burst with his kalashnikov to Amir which hit him on left side of his neck, on the different parts of his chest and on the left side of his face. Amir fell down from his motorcycle. Muhammad Waris made a burst with his kalashnikov on the person of Muhammad Amir who was already fallen on the ground which hit on left side of Amir's back, on the middle of his back, on the back side of his left shoulder and on the right side of his back. Azhar son of Mehmood made repeated fire shots with his rifle which hit on the right side of abdomen of Amir and on his left flank. Shahzad son of Mehmood made a fire shot with his rifle which hit on the front of right thigh of Hashim. Muhammad Amir son of Amanat made a fire shot with his rifle which hit on the-front of Hashim's left thigh. Waseem son of Nasar made repeated fire shots with his rifle on the person of Muhammad Nadeem which hit on his belly near his hila and on his right ribs. Accused Muhammad Asif son of Riasat Ali made fires with his firearm weapon on the person of Muhammad Nadeem which hit on his left arm, right thigh and left leg. Accused persons while making firing and raising lalkaras fled away from the spot. The complainant along with his companions took Muhammad Nadeem, Hashim and Amir to the civil hospital Nowshera Virkan on two private vehicles. Muhammad Amir succumbed to the injuries on the way. Besides the complainant, the occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Nadeem (injured/PW.5), Hashim (injured/PW.6). Hamza Mukhtar (Pw.6) and Muhammad Arshad. The complainant along with Hamza Mukhtar and Muhammad Arshad witnessed the occurrence while taking shelter of the street and saved their lives. Motive behind the occurrence is their previous enmity with accused Muhammad Waris and others due to which they omitted the occurrence. While leaving Abdul Aziz and Mehboob am with the dead body of Amir, the complainant went to P.S Tat lay Aali, for registration of FIR......" 3. After recording cursory statements of the complainant and PWs, the appellants and acquitted co-accused were summoned to face trial. Learned trial court, after observing all the pre-trial codal formalities, framed charge under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F3, 337-F6, 148 and 149 P.P.C against the appellants along with their acquitted co-accused on 18.06.2021, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as 16 PWs and 03 witnesses were examined as CWs. Mukhtar Ahmad, complainant of the case, testified as PW-3; Muhammad Hashim, injured witness, appeared as PW-4; Muhammad Nadeem, injured witness, deposed as PW-5; Hamza Mukhtar, eye-witness of the occurrence, testified as PW-6; Naveed Akhtar ASI who registered the FIR (Exh.PA/1) through computer operator on the basis of written complaint (Exh.PA) submitted by the complainant (PW-3) appeared as PW-1; Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema, medical officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of Muhammad Amir, deceased, at THQ hospital Nowshera Virkan and issued his postmortem report (Exh.PP) with pictorial diagrams comprising of two pages (Exh.PQ/1-2) appeared as PW-8; Adeel Ahmad 1929/C, recovery witness of 223-bore rifle (P.10) along with four live rounds (P.11/1-4) which were taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PV), appeared as PW-9; Ibrar Ahmad JFS, who collected eighteen cartridge cases and three deformed bullets from the place of occurrence, appeared as PW-10; Zahid 128/C, being witness of recovery proceedings, attested recovery memos (Exh.PD and Exh.PE) containing blood stained clothes of injured PWs (P1-P4) and attested the recovery memo (Exh.PL) containing lead bullet along with last worn clothes of the deceased (P7-P9), appeared as PW-11; Muhammad Awais 2754/C, the recovery witness of rifle 222-bore (P.12) along with two live bullets (P.13/1-2) taken into possession vide recovery memo (Exh.PW) appeared as PW-12; Muhammad Khalid SI, who collected 13 crime empties of kalashnikov and one crime empty of rifle 222-bore from the crime scene and presented the same to Javed Chaudhary SI, first investigating officer of the case (CW-2), appeared as PW-13; Ahsanullah 2762/C, witness of recovery proceedings, who attested the recovery memo (Exh.PX) regarding the recovery of rifle (P.14) along with three live rounds (P.15/1-3) from the possession of accused Shahzad by the I.O appeared as PW-15; Ikramullah 3899/C, being witness of recovery proceedings, he attested the recovery memo (Exh.PY) regarding the recovery of rifle 223-bore (P.16) along with five live bullets (P.17/1-5) from the possession of the accused Waseem Nasar by the I.O, appeared as PW-16; Tariq Mehmood SI, second investigation officer, appeared as CW-1; Javed Chaudhary, first investigation officer, appeared as CW-2 and Akhlaq Ahmad ASI who prepared injury statements (Exh.PS and Exh.PU) regarding the injuries on the persons of injured PWs Muhammad Nadeem (PW-5) and Muhammad Hashim (PW-4) appeared as CW-3. The remaining witnesses produced by the prosecution were formal in nature. The prosecution gave up Zufiqar Ali 69/C PW and Ijaz Ahmad 291/C PW being unnecessary and after tendering the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore ("PFSA") (Forensic DNA and Serology Analysis Report (Exh.PAA), Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PBB) and Firearms and Toolmarks Examination Report (Exh.PCC)) closed its evidence. 4. Thereafter the statements of the appellants and their co-accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. The appellants neither opted to appear as their own witnesses on oath as provided under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in disproof of the allegation levelled against them, nor produced any defence evidence except accused Muhammad Waris, who tendered attested copy of FIR No.50/04, dated 18.02.2004, under section 302 P.P.C, P.S Tatlay Aali, District Gujranwala (Exh.DJ) and attested copy of FIR No.335/05, under sections 302, 429, 148 and 149 P.P.C read with sections 6 and 7 ATA, dated 04.05.2005, P.S Satellite Town, Gujranwala (Exh.DK) as his defence evidence. 5. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.11.2022 found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, however, acquitted their co-accused namely Muhammad Waris and Waseem Nasar through the same judgment by extending them the benefit of doubt, hence, the Criminal Appeal, Criminal P.S.L.A., Criminal Revision and connected Murder Reference before us. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant meticulously and also scanned the record minutely with their able assistance. 7. It emerges from wade through the record that the unfortunate occurrence, whereby the deceased namely Amir lost his life, Muhammad Hashim (PW-4) and Muhammad Nadeem (PW-5) were injured, took place at or about 08:30 am on 01.08.2020 while the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 06:50 pm, with an inordinate delay of about 10 hours and 20 minutes despite the police station being merely 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. According to column No. 3 of the inquest report (Exh.PN), the date and time when police got information about the death is scribed as 01.08.2020 at 08:30 am. Such belated lodging of the Crime Report (Exh.PA/1) shatters the sanctity of the same and reflects that the time was consumed in fabricating, deliberating, consulting and concocting a false story, as no plausible justification or adequate explanation is furnished by the prosecution for this delay. 8. Along the same lines, it evinces from the perusal of the Post-Mortem Examination Report of the deceased (Exh.PP), the dead body was received in the dead house at 10:00 am on 01.08.2020, whereas complete documents from Police were also received at 10:00 pm on 01.08.2020. Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Cheema (PW-8) conducted the autopsy of the deceased at 10:15 p.m., after a lapse of 13 hours and 45 minutes. He admitted in his cross-examination that he received the written application (Exh.PO) to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased by the police at 10.00 pm. The relevant excerpt of his cross-examination is infra: "I conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Amir on the written application (Ex.PO) su

Summary: Conviction maintained ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149 — Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S.13 — Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A & 382-B Conviction for murder — Role of accused established through consistent and credible ocular and medical evidence — Appellant was convicted for committing murder by burst fire from a Kalashnikov, resulting in multiple firearm injuries to the deceased — Eyewitnesses, including complainant (brother of the deceased), an injured witness, and an independent witness (in front of whose house the occurrence took place), provided corroborated testimony — Presence of electric bulb at the site supported possibility of accurate identification at night — Medical evidence confirmed ten firearm injuries with extensive internal damage — Appellant’s specific role distinguished from that of co-accused Manzoor Hussain (acquitted), whose conviction failed due to lack of ballistic recovery or conclusive attribution — Acquittal of co-accused did not undermine case against appellant, whose involvement was independently and reliably established — Conviction under S. 302(b), PPC upheld. Cited Cases: • Asfandyar v. The State 2021 SCMR 2009 • Muhammad Abbas & another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 • Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 • Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 • Sher Afzal v. The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 & 230/2021, judgment dated 25.02.2025) • Khadim Hussain v. The State 2010 SCMR 1090 • Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2017 SCMR 1645 • Munir Ahmad v. The State 2019 SCMR 79 • Muhammad Kakki v. The State 2021 SCMR 1672 • Sadaruddin case (Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-26 of 2019) (b) Criminal Trial — Appreciation of Evidence — Relationship of Witnesses with Deceased Testimony of related witnesses — Admissibility and reliability — Merely being relatives of the deceased does not render eyewitnesses unreliable — No evidence of animus, mala fide intent, or false implication found — Principle of substitution considered improbable where the deceased was killed in presence of close relatives — Consistent jurisprudence upholds credibility of such testimony where no motive for false implication is shown. Cited Cases: • Asfandyar v. The State 2021 SCMR 2009 • Muhammad Abbas & another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 • Aman Ullah v. The State 2023 SCMR 723 • Imran Mehmood v. The State 2023 SCMR 795 (c) Criminal Trial — Sifting Grain from Chaff — Principle of "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" Application of evidentiary principles — The acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically nullify the conviction of another where the evidence against them is separable and individually sufficient — Principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” not strictly applicable in Pakistan — Courts must assess whether contradictions relate to material facts and must sift credible evidence from doubtful portions — Appellant’s role, being separately established, not affected by co-accused’s acquittal. Cited Cases: • Sher Afzal v. The State (Criminal Appeals Nos. 229 & 230/2021) • Khadim Hussain v. The State 2010 SCMR 1090 • Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2017 SCMR 1645 • Munir Ahmad v. The State 2019 SCMR 79 • Muhammad Kakki v. The State 2021 SCMR 1672 • Sadaruddin case (Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-26 of 2019) (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324 — Conviction Unsustainable — Role Attributed to Absconding Co-Accused Appellant was initially convicted under S. 324, PPC for causing injury to another victim — However, specific role of firing at injured witness was attributed to absconding co-accused Sajid Ali — As no evidence supported appellant’s participation in that specific act, his conviction under S. 324, PPC was set aside by the Supreme Court. Disposition: Appeal partly allowed — Conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), PPC maintained — Conviction and sentence under S. 324, PPC set aside.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 221---Quashing of order---Amendment of charge---Scope---Complainant lodged FIR against the petitioner for offences under Ss.382, 506, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Trial Court framed the charge for offences under Ss.382 & 506, P.P.C against the petitioners---Complainant instituted a criminal revision petition against the said order, which was accepted and Trial Court was directed to frame charge for offences under Sections 395, 455, 148 & 149, P.P.C---Validity---According to FIR on 17.04.2024 at about 09:00 A.M. petitioners (accused) along with 22/25 unknown culprits, all armed with rifles/pistols, emerged at the petrol pump of complainant---Said accused persons took staff members of the petrol pump as hostages on arm's point and removed CCTV cameras as well as cash amount of Rs.950,000/- and account books forcibly---Said accused persons also snatched arms held by security guards, cheque book and other valuable documents and fled away from the scene---Charge always has to be framed on the prima facie averments of allegations levelled in the FIR, statement of the witnesses under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C.---Offence under S.382, P.P.C and under S.395, P.P.C relate to the same family of the offences, as such from the prima facie averments of contents of the FIR, statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, of Cr.P.C. and report under S.173, of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court was supposed to frame the charge for more graver and serious offence---In the case in hand offences under Ss.395/455/148/149, P.P.C were prima facie made out, as such this fact was rightly observed and taken into consideration by the Revisional Court, while passing the impugned order, which was found to be fully in consonance with the facts and law---Petition was dismissed, in limine. Ghulam Haider Buriro v. The State 2018 MLD 469 rel. Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal for Petitioners. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Nasir Hussain, S.I. for the State. Muhammad Fayyaz Mansab for the Complainant. Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J .--- The order dated 30.04.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jahanian was assailed through the present petition, whereby a criminal revision moved by respondent No.2/complainant against an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Magistrate framing the formal charge, was accepted and order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.11.2024, was set aside and request for amendment in the charge was allowed.