Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 376(1), 364, 342 Conviction and sentencing on basis of circumstantial evidence—Admissibility of digital evidence—Murder and sexual assault of deceased female within premises of petitioner’s house—CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and DNA report unerringly linking petitioner to offense—Prosecution established complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence excluding any hypothesis other than guilt of petitioner—Petitioner failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding presence of deceased in his house or her recovery in dead condition—Both courts below found guilt of petitioner fully established—Supreme Court concurred with concurrent findings—Conviction under S. 302(b) PPC maintained; conviction under S. 376(1) PPC maintained but sentence of death converted to life imprisonment; conviction under S. 364 PPC set aside; conviction under S. 342 PPC maintained. (b) Criminal Trial ----Circumstantial evidence—Scope and application—Court held that conviction may be lawfully founded upon circumstantial evidence provided that it is of unimpeachable character and forms a continuous chain connecting the accused with the crime to the exclusion of all other possibilities—Each link must be cogent and complete to reach the only conclusion of guilt—If any link is broken or explanation remains plausible, benefit of doubt must go to accused—Trial and appellate courts found evidence met required standard, Supreme Court upheld conclusion. Reference: State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873. (c) Evidence—Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 46-A, 73 (Explanation 3 & 4), 164 Admissibility and evidentiary value of CCTV footage—Silent Witness theory—Technological evidence admissible as primary evidence when properly authenticated—CCTV footage depicting sequence of crime, including physical assault and later recovery of deceased’s body, considered real-time, unbiased proof—Forensic report confirmed footage was unedited and matched facial identity of accused—Supreme Court reiterated that where digital evidence meets authenticity and relevance requirements, it stands on equal footing with direct eyewitness testimony and requires no corroboration. References: R. v. Gubinas and Radavicius [2017] HCJAC 59; R. v. Atkin [2009] EWCA Crim 1876; R. v. Nikolosvki [1996] 3 SCR 1197; United States v. Taylor 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976); United States v. Rembert 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988). (d) Criminal Law—Sentence ----Capital punishment—Mitigation—Petitioner had gruesomely murdered the deceased by decapitation and inflicted further bodily injuries—Relationship with deceased did not mitigate culpability in light of brutal manner of killing—Supreme Court declined to show any sympathy—However, while maintaining conviction under S. 376(1) PPC, sentence of death converted to life imprisonment—Petitioner’s death sentence under S. 302(b) PPC upheld. (e) Co-accused—Benefit of leniency ----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 342—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B Petitions by co-accused (cook and watchman) allowed in part—While maintaining convictions, Supreme Court took lenient view and reduced sentences to imprisonment already undergone—Co-accused ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (f) Criminal Procedure ----Petitions by complainant—Enhancement of sentence and challenge to acquittal—No ground made out for interference—Supreme Court dismissed petitions and refused leave to appeal. Cited Cases: • State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873 • R. v. Gubinas and Radavicius [2017] HCJAC 59 • R. v. Atkin and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1876 • R. v. Nikolosvki [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 • United States v. Taylor 530 F.2d 639 (5th Cir 1976) • United States v. Rembert 863 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1988)

Summary: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)--- ----Ss. 16, 20 & 21---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109 & 500---Tampering, etc., of communication equipment, malicious code, cyber stalking, abetment, defamation---Appreciation of evidence---Concurrent findings of conviction---Complainant alleged that accused-petitioner had been uploading her obscene and objectionable pictures on Facebook---During the enquiry conducted by the FIA Cyber Crime Circle, the accused was specifically confronted with the Facebook accounts and he voluntarily admitted to have created both profiles---Accused further confessed that he had uploaded, circulated, and transmitted obscene and nude photographs of the complainant through those platforms without her consent---Technical analysis team obtained and examined IP logs and device usage data shared by Facebook, which showed consistent logins to the impugned Facebook IDs from IP addresses associated with an internet connection registered in the name of the brother of the applicant at their shared residence---Moreover, forensic analysis of the mobile device recovered during the raid confirmed that the handset remained in the continuous use of the applicant---Forensic data extracted from the said device included access logs, media files and saved credentials directly correlating with the impugned Facebook accounts and objectionable content---It was further substantiated that the Ufone mobile number, which was used for verification and recovery of said Facebook IDs, was registered in the name of accused-petitioner and remained in his active use during the relevant period---Convergence of testimonial admission, corroborated technical evidence and verified forensic findings left no room for doubt regarding the identity of the perpetrator---Digital trail meticulously traced and authenticated by the forensic team unequivocally confirmed that the applicant was the creator and operator of the Facebook IDs in question and the originator of the illicit online transmission of private and explicit material targeting the complainant being his ex-wife---Complainant was the pivotal witness in the case and her evidence had been thoroughly scrutinized by the Court in juxtaposition with the concurrent findings of the Courts below---Report produced by the Investigating Officer from M/s Connect Communication Authority further confirmed that the internet connection used for uploading the said images was registered in the name of real brother of the applicant---Said Wi-Fi connection was installed at the premises, where the applicant resided along with other family members---Applicant also admitted the same address as his place of residence, corresponding with the IP address used in the commission of the offence---Although the applicant took the plea that the SIM card, albeit registered in his name, was being used by his wife, the complainant in the case was, in fact, his ex-wife, with their marriage having been dissolved through a decree of Khula---During trial, two brothers of applicant appeared as prosecution witnesses---Testimonies of both witnesses, being close relatives of the applicant, not only remained unshaken but also stood in consonance with the prosecution case and the investigative findings, lending corroboration to the fact that the digital devices and associated accounts were operated from within the household of the applicant---Forensic Analysis Report submitted by the FIA Cyber Crime Wing further corroborated that admission---Forensic examination of the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the applicant, confirmed to have remained in his continuous use, revealed login credentials, chat histories and media files directly linking him to the Facebook accounts and the objectionable transmissions in question---Technical report explicitly confirmed that the images were uploaded through devices used exclusively by the applicant and that the Facebook IDs were accessed from IP addresses corresponding to the locations frequented by him---Said findings were supported by the Digital Forensics Expert, who, while observing the prescribed protocols and standard operating procedures for cyber investigation, validated the extraction and preservation of evidence from the device---Integrity of the digital chain of custody, the technical evidence retrieved from the mobile phone, and the explicit forensic linkages between the fake Facebook accounts and the accused established his culpability beyond any shadow of doubt---Criminal revision application, being devoid of merit, was dismissed. Muhammad Shahid Malik for Applicant. Sharafuddin Jamali, Asst; Attorney General for the State. Date of hearing: 7th April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Qatl-i-Amd under Islamic Criminal Law – Qisas and Tazir – Standard of proof – Penal Code (AJK Adaptation) Ss. 302(a), 302(b) & 34 – For conviction in Qisas, prosecution must establish guilt beyond a shadow of doubt through direct, unimpeachable testimony fulfilling Tazkiyah-ul-Shahood – slightest doubt converts liability to Tazir – Held, Muhammad Yaseen alias Sajid proved guilty of intentional homicide; conviction in Qisas maintained – Muhammad Ishfaq’s role doubtful; death sentence set aside and converted to life imprisonment as Tazir under S. 302(b). (b) Criminal trial – Evidence of “chance witness” – credibility – Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 Art. 71 & 17 – Presence of PW-3 (complainant) at locus criminis explained as he was counsel’s driver; not a “chance witness” in law – mere categorisation insufficient to discard testimony if presence satisfactorily explained – followed Ghazanfar Ali v. State (2015 SCR 1042) and Riaz Ahmed v. State (2008 YLR 2754). (c) Evidence – Related witnesses – effect – testimony of son of deceased (PW-4) – credibility – held, relationship per se no ground for rejection absent proof of animus – distinction between “related” and “interested” witnesses reiterated – followed Habib Hussain Shah v. State (2023 SCR 442) and Syed Kamran Hussain Shah v. State (2022 SCR 365). (d) Criminal trial – Ocular testimony vis-à-vis forensic evidence – discrepancy between 30-bore weapon and 9 mm report – effect – held, FSL report is corroborative not decisive where direct evidence is confidence-inspiring; contradiction immaterial – conviction can rest solely on credible ocular evidence – relied Zabir Masood v. State (2013 SCR 642) and Javaid Azam v. Muhammad Saleem (PLJ 1997 SC AJK 226). (e) Penal Code (AJK) S. 34 – Common intention – prerequisites – joint liability arises only where pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds established; participation in furtherance of shared design suffices – discussed Ahtisham Ali v. State (2023 SCMR 975) and Shoukat Ali v. State (PLD 2007 SC 93). Held, common intention proved against Muhammad Yaseen and others; Ishfaq’s liability reduced to Tazir owing to mitigating circumstance. (f) Penal Code S. 109 – Abetment – essentials – instigation, engagement, facilitation – proof of conspiracy rarely direct; inferred from conduct and circumstances – abettors liable as principals – convictions of Suleman Sumroo, Irfan Kiani and Naeem under S. 109 and Arms Act maintained – followed State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh (2021 SCMR 873) and Haji Arshad Mehmood v. Farrukh Imtiaz Khokhar (LHC 2023). (g) Sentencing – Mitigating circumstances – even single mitigating factor sufficient to commute death penalty to life imprisonment – relied Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. State (2014 SCMR 1034) and Iftikhar Hussain v. Israr Bashir (PLD 2007 SC 111). (h) Criminal procedure – Cross-examination – scope and limits – Court must prevent irrelevant, oppressive or dilatory questioning; cross-examination cannot be abused to exhaust or confuse witness. Disposition: – Appeal of Muhammad Yaseen partly allowed; conviction under S. 302(a)/34 APC maintained; death as Qisas with Rs. 600,000 compensation and 3 years R.I. under Arms Act upheld. – Appeal of Muhammad Ishfaq partly allowed; death sentence set aside; convicted under S. 302(b)/34 APC to life imprisonment as Tazir with same compensation and 3 years R.I. under Arms Act. – Convictions of Suleman Sumroo, Irfan Kiani and Naeem under S. 109 APC maintained. – Appeals otherwise dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 31 hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 01.11.2017 at about 2:00 p.m. in a Mauza situated at a distance of 4-kilometers from Police Station---Law regarding that occurrence was set into motion through written application of complainant presented before Police Officer on 02.11.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. in the police station which was transformed into formal FIR---From this aspect, it manifested that the matter was reported to police with the delay of about 31 hours---Nothing was found to explain such an unwarranted delay in the registration of FIR---Prosecution though made an endeavour to cover this delay by portraying that firstly deceased in injured condition was taken to DHQ Hospital, for the purpose of medical treatment from where he was referred to General Hospital, L-(Lahore), thus the delay in reporting the matter to the police was ignorable---However, in this regard, it was noticed that when deceased in injured condition was shifted to DHQ Hospital, he was given medical treatment by Medical Officer and according to Medical Officer, the injured was brought by Head Constable on 01.11.2017 at about 3:20 p.m.---To bring the injured to the hospital by a Police Official showed that the matter had already come in the knowledge of the police within 1-hour and 20-minutes---However, it was not the case of prosecution that the complainant tried to get recorded his statement to police who refused to reduce it into writing to set the criminal law into motion---Apart from the statement of injured who gave the medical history to Medical Officer regarding the criminal assault by two unknown persons till filing of complaint, no version was recorded by the complainant to police while nominating the accused with specification---Claim of the prosecution was that two eye-witnesses saw the incident and they informed it to the complainant---Question in such circumstances arose that what made the eye-witnesses to keep mum for about 31-hours in reporting the crime to the police---Moreover, complainant during cross-examination categorically admitted that he got drafted the application from an individual from district Court/Katchari---Name of the such person was not found on record from whom the complainant got drafted the complaint---Furthermore, neither the scribe of the complaint was produced before the Investigating Officer nor at trial stage to prove that he drafted the complaint at the dictation of the complainant---Admittedly the complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident and whatever he mentioned in the complaint was told to him by the alleged two eye-witnesses---In these circumstances, the delay of 31-hours in chalking out the FIR raised eyebrow regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case---Delay in reporting the matter to the police gave rise to possibility of concoction and fabrication of facts mentioned in the crime report warranting more cautious approach from the Court---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Wajahat Ahmed and others’ case v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 2073 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case was furnished by two eye-witnesses---Statements of the two eye-witnesses showed that while appearing before the Trial Court, both of them made dishonest improvements and omissions in their statements---According to eye-witness, he along with his brother/other eye-witness was standing outside the shop---Said eye-witness further stated that after the occurrence he and his brother informed their father about the incident and all the three escorted deceased in injured condition to hospital---Such stance of eye-witness was confronted with his police statement where it was not so recorded---Contrarily, other eye-witness during cross-examination took the stance that he along with his brother was present at the shop of his brother/deceased---During cross-examination said witness also stated that in his statement, he took the stance that five fire shots hit on left side of abdomen, left wrist, thigh of left leg, left foot and upper side of knee of right leg of deceased---However, when such portion of cross-examination was confronted with his police statement, the specifications of locale and seat of injuries were not found therein---Besides said omissions, the statements of the two eye-witnesses were further found polluted with numerous other improvements and omissions---By doing so, eye-witnesses compromised their integrity thereby leaving a big question mark over their credibility---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ibrar Hussain and others 2007 SCMR 605 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---As per statement of Medical Officer, the injured was brought to hospital by Head Constable, however the name of none of the eye-witness was mentioned in the Medico-Legal Certificate---Said feature made it clear that had any of the eye-witness been present at the place of occurrence his name would have been reflecting in the Medico-Legal Certificate prepared by Medical Officer---Both the eye-witnesses along with the complainant in their examination-in-chief stated that they shifted the injured to hospital in injured condition---However, during the course of cross-examination, all the three witnesses took a somersault by stating that the injured was shifted to hospital through Rescue-1122---Furthermore, neither the driver of ambulance nor that of Rescue-1122 appeared in the witness box during trial---Likewise, no documentary evidence or record from Rescue-1122 was presented during trial---During cross-examination all the said three witnesses miserably failed to address the said shortcoming and did not give any answer, which might have inspired confidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence belying ocular account---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Perusal of the Medico-Legal Certificate unfolded that Medical Officer noted four entry wounds on left side of abdomen, left forearm, right knee joint and left upper leg of deceased---However, said witness in examination-in-chief stated that deceased in injured condition was brought by Head Constable with the "history of fight, firearm injury hit by two persons"---Said witness also stated that the injured was "vitally stable well oriented in time and space"---According to the Medical Officer, the injured received injuries as a result of fight and not due to the criminal assault launched by anybody---Secondly, as per prosecution's own case the complainant had already got registered two FIRs against the appellant who was none other than paternal cousin of the deceased---Thus, there was no question of mistaken identity but the injured did not disclose the name of the appellant before the Medical Officer---Even said Medical Officer during cross-examination admitted that had the injured told the name of any person he would have mentioned the same in brief history---After the incident deceased remained alive for almost 18-days and according to Medical Officer, he was stable but no application was moved by any of the Investigating Officer to record his statement---Such conduct of the Investigating Officer also made the prosecution case highly doubtful---Medical Officer while conducting postmortem examination of the deceased noted four entry wounds in Medico-Legal Certificate, however, during cross-examination he categorically admitted the variation and location of injuries between the Medico-Legal Certificate and Post Mortem Report on the body of the deceased---In such circumstances, the medical evidence was also of no help to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence served as a form of corroborative piece of evidence---Medical evidence could validate the version of the prosecution regarding the location and nature of injury, the type of weapon involved in the incident and the time elapsed between death and postmortem examination---However, it did not establish the identity of the perpetrator. Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others PLD 2009 SC 53 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that the motive was canvassed as the registration of two criminal cases i.e. FIR No.116/2014 under Ss.324,109 & 34, P.P.C, and FIR No.297/2017 under S.324, P.P.C, both registered, against the appellant and in both the cases he was proclaimed offender---In that regard, it was observed that in support of projected motive, except oral assertion, no material was placed on record---Registration of previous criminal cases, purportedly registered against the appellant, could easily be proved by tendering in evidence the copies of FIRs---What to talk of placing on record the copies of said FIRs, the witnesses failed to give its particulars while appearing before the Trial Court---Furthermore, complainant during cross-examination admitted that the appellant was not convicted in any of the criminal cases registered against him---Complainant further admitted that while lodging the FIR, he mentioned that he got registered the two FIRs, however one was registered by him and the other was got registered by his son---During the course of cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the sister of the appellant was the wife of son of complainant who kicked her out along with children and she filed a petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., whereby she obtained the custody of her children from Sessions Judge---In such circumstances, the petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., filed against complainant's son could also be considered a factor for the false implication of the appellant in the instant case---Motive on occasions provides corroboration to the case of prosecution and often becomes a root cause for the false implication of an accused and for that reason is always considered as a double-edged weapon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime empties from the spot doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the appellant which matched with five crime empties secured from the spot---Complainant as well as the two eye-witnesses during their respective cross-examination specifically admitted that on 01.11.2017 police prior to the registration of FIR visited the crime scene, however no crime empty was secured from the spot at the time of first visit of police---According to the first Investigating Officer, he visited the spot on 02.11.2017 and took into possession blood stained cotton and five crime empties of .30 bore pistol through recovery memos---In that regard, Investigating Officer also prepared site plan, the perusal of which unfolded that he collected five crime empties from Point-D which was a thoroughfare situated in front of the shop of the deceased---Admittedly, Investigating Officer visited the spot after more than one and a half day of the incident and the place of recovery of crime empties was a thoroughfare---Hence, it seemed not plausible that the crime empties remained lying at the spot, which were not taken into notice by police on 01.11.2017 and nobody removed the same in spite of free public movement---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of weapon of offence, crime empties and blood stained cotton and its safe transmission to the laboratory not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Prosecution produced Head Constable who deposed that on 02.11.2017 Investigating Officer handed over to him two sealed parcels said to contain blood stained cotton and crime empties of pistol.30 bore which he kept the same in safe custody in Malkhana and on 08.12.2017 he handed over the said parcel to Police Official for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Agency---However, said Police Official did not utter a single word regarding the fact that on 02.11.2017 he handed over the parcel of crime empties to Head Constable and took the said parcel from him on 08.11.2017 for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Agency---In the wake of this fact, the positive report received from the Forensic Science Agency was of no use to the prosecution because the chain of safe custody was missing, which created serious doubt about the recovery of .30 bore pistol alleged to be used as a weapon at the crime scene---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State 2018 SCMR 577 rel. (i) Criminal trial--- ----Absconsion of accused---Scope---Abscondment of an accused is a corroborative piece of evidence and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail. Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad and 3 others 1995 SCMR 1373 rel. Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single factor that raises doubt qua the prosecution case is considered sufficient for the acquittal of accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Ch. Tariq Mahmood Ghumman and Muhammad Shahzad Saeed, assisted by Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi Defence Counsel at State expenses for Appellant. Fahad-ur-Rehman for the Complainant. Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure----Cancellation of bail---Scope---Principles---Post-arrest bail---Reappraisal of evidence---Test identification parade---Delay---Scope of appellate interference---Respondent No.1 was granted post-arrest bail by the High Court in a murder case registered under Ss. 302/427/109/34, P.P.C., based on the finding that the test identification parade was conducted after a delay of seven months from the occurrence and its evidentiary value would be assessed during trial---Recovery of Kalashnikov was held to be corroborative in nature, not sufficient alone to deny bail---Petitioner sought cancellation of bail on the ground that it was improperly granted---Held, cancellation of bail is permissible where there is: (i) misuse of bail (e.g. intimidation, tampering of evidence, reoffending), or (ii) a perverse or arbitrary bail order passed without proper application of mind or contrary to established principles of bail---Courts do not undertake deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage and only assess whether “reasonable grounds” exist for believing the accused is guilty---No new facts or perverse reasoning identified in the High Court’s order to justify cancellation---Impugned order neither arbitrary nor in disregard of settled principles of bail---No interference warranted.Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal declined.Cited Cases:• Zaro v. State 1974 SCMR 11• Sidra Abbas v. State 2020 SCMR 2089• Farid v. Ghulam Hussan 1968 SCMR 924• Khalid Saigol v. State PLD 1962 SC 495Cited Statutes:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 427, 109, 34

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 34, 109----Qatl-e-amd (Murder)----Benefit of doubt----Acquittal----The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Razia Bibi, while two co-accused were acquitted----The prosecution relied on the statements of two related eyewitnesses, but their presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and postmortem examination----Material contradictions and improvements in witnesses’ statements, absence of independent corroboration, and a failed motive weakened the prosecution’s case----Held, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal----Reliance placed on Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1068) and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State (2024 SCMR 1507).(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 374----Murder reference----Non-confirmation of death sentence----Delay of over three hours in lodging the FIR despite the police station being nearby created suspicion regarding the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene----Eyewitnesses’ testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions, dishonest improvements, and failure to explain key facts regarding their movements----The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the nature of injuries and the distance of fire shots----Held, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, and the death sentence was not confirmed----Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Evidence Law--------Principles of appreciation of evidence----Interested and related witnesses----Held, testimony of interested witnesses must be scrutinized with care and caution, requiring independent corroboration----Prosecution’s reliance on chance witnesses without a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene rendered their evidence suspect----The complainant failed to provide any independent evidence, and an eyewitness was deliberately withheld, further casting doubt on the prosecution’s case----Reliance placed on Abdul Khaliq v. The State (2021 SCMR 325).(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 342----Examination of accused----Right of defence----Appellant neither produced any witness in his defence nor opted to testify under oath, yet the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt----Held, burden lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere non-production of defence evidence does not weaken the appellant’s right to acquittal if the prosecution evidence is unreliable----Reliance placed on Muhammad Idrees v. The State (2021 SCMR 612).(e) Criminal Law--------Delay in FIR and postmortem----Effect on prosecution case----The unexplained delay of over three hours in lodging the FIR and nine hours in conducting the postmortem examination raised suspicion of afterthought and deliberation by the complainant party----Held, such delays indicate possible fabrication and improvement of prosecution’s case, making the testimony of prosecution witnesses unreliable----Reliance placed on Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCMR 1190).(f) Criminal Law--------Recovery of weapon of offence----Corroborative evidence----Held, recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused is only corroborative in nature and cannot serve as sole proof of guilt in the absence of reliable direct evidence----Even though the recovered pistol matched the crime empties per PFSA report, the discredited ocular account rendered the recovery ineffective to sustain conviction----Reliance placed on Noor Muhammad v. The State (2010 SCMR 97).(g) Acquittal of Co-Accused----Benefit of doubt----The complainant filed a petition against the acquittal of co-accused for abetment, but no independent evidence supported their involvement----The prosecution failed to establish motive, and the alleged abetment was found to be an afterthought introduced in a private complaint to strengthen the case----Held, the acquittal of co-accused was justified and required no interference----Reliance placed on Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1567).----- Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2022 allowed – Conviction and death sentence of Shahid alias Shahidi set aside, and he was acquitted.Murder Reference No. 234 of 2021 answered in the negative – Death sentence not confirmed.Criminal PSLA No. 846 of 2022 dismissed – No grounds for interference in the acquittal of co-accused Nazim Hussain and Ibrahim.Criminal Revision No. 847 of 2022 dismissed – No justification for enhancement of compensation amount.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Benefit of doubt—Failure to prove identification and arrest at scene—Conviction set aside—S. 7(i)(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Ss. 302(b), 449, 324, 353, 186, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 337 PPC—Ss. 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908—S. 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965—Petitioners were convicted and sentenced under multiple provisions including death and life imprisonment—Held, petitioners were not named in FIR or initial police reports, nor identified by any eyewitness including complainant or management of worship place—Star witness (Name withheld) did not appear, and other cited eyewitnesses failed to testify—Claim of arrest at scene contradicted by record—Held, serious doubts in prosecution’s version warranted benefit of doubt—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230).(b) Criminal trial—Unreliable ocular testimony—Witness not named in FIR or site plan—Declared hostile by prosecution—PW-13 Inspector (name withheld), claimed to witness arrest and recovery but was not mentioned in FIR, site plan, or police narrative—Prosecution itself sought to declare him hostile—No other witness corroborated his presence or version—Held, evidence of witness not cited in FIR or shown present at scene is not trustworthy—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Criminal trial—Contradictory recovery evidence—Recovery of suicide vests and ammunition—Doubtful presence of recovery witnesses—PW-12 and PW-16 claimed recoveries but failed to corroborate each other’s presence or involvement—PW-16 admitted rough site plan was made on his pointation despite not witnessing occurrence—Held, inconsistencies in recovery evidence undermine prosecution case—No credible evidence on actual recovery process.(d) Criminal trial—Failure to produce medico-legal report—Injury fabrication—Adverse inference against prosecution—Investigating Officer claimed one petitioner was injured and treated at Jinnah Hospital, but no MLR was produced—Prosecution failed to call Medical Officer—Held, failure to produce best possible evidence warrants adverse inference under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984—Petitioner’s version of illegal detention and torture found plausible—Reliance placed on Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846), Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846), Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146), and Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224).(e) Expert testimony—Lack of qualification—Bomb Disposal witness not a chemical expert—No evidentiary value—Bomb Disposal Commander (PW-7) admitted lacking qualifications in chemical analysis—Held, opinion of non-qualified expert not admissible to support explosive-related charges.(f) Criminal trial—Prosecution failure—Principle of benefit of doubt—Multiple material discrepancies including lack of direct evidence, unreliable recoveries, failure to produce key medical and forensic reports, and unqualified expert testimony—Held, case replete with doubts; conviction not sustainable—Petitioners acquitted while extending benefit of doubt.Disposition: Petitions converted to appeals and allowed—Impugned convictions and sentences set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case.Cited Cases:• Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)• Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)• Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490)• Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846)• Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846)• Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146)• Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224)

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b), 109 & 34—Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 265-H(ii), 382-B & 544-A—Murder—Father setting wife on fire—Conviction based on ocular account corroborated by medical and forensic evidence—Death sentence—Scope and justificationAccused, Abid Hussain, was charged with the brutal murder of his wife, Mst. Naziran, by setting her on fire within the matrimonial home in the presence of their children. Conviction was primarily based on the direct testimony of the complainant (son of the deceased) and his sister, both natural witnesses, whose accounts were consistent and without signs of enmity. The prosecution’s version was further corroborated by medical evidence (77% burn injuries and cause of death as cardio-pulmonary arrest), forensic reports confirming the use of kerosene oil, and recovery of the bottle and burnt clothes from the scene. Motive, relating to a dispute over the sale of the family house, stood proved. The manner of the offence—setting a spouse ablaze in the presence of children—was considered heinous and premeditated. Supreme Court held that the case fell within the “rarest of rare” category, meriting the death sentence. Conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court were maintained—Appeal dismissed.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Siddique v. The State PLD 2007 SC 539• Mirza Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil PLD 2005 SC 530(b) Criminal trial—Appreciation of evidence—Ocular account—Related witnesses—Corroboration by medical and forensic evidence—Value of testimonyProsecution relied on testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the children of the deceased and the accused, who were residing in the same house. Their accounts, found to be natural and straightforward, were corroborated by medico-legal documents, death certificate, and FSL reports, confirming the use of kerosene oil. Supreme Court reiterated that close relationship with the deceased or accused does not automatically discredit testimony where evidence remains unshaken and trustworthy. The corroborative evidence ruled out the possibility of accident or suicide, establishing a clear nexus between the appellant and commission of the offence—Testimony of closely related eye-witnesses, found credible, was sufficient for conviction.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)—Acquittal—Benefit of doubt—Alleged instigation not corroborated by evidence—No specific role assigned in FIR—No presence at the scene of occurrence—Presumption of innocenceCo-accused Sabir Hussain, brother of main accused Abid Hussain, was charged under S. 302(b) read with S. 109 PPC on allegations of instigating the murder. However, no eye-witness account established his presence at the scene or any active participation. FIR and prosecution evidence failed to assign him any definitive role in the commission of the offence. Supreme Court held that mere implication in a domestic altercation without substantiated evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under criminal law. Giving benefit of doubt, the Court set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below—Appeal allowed—Accused acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.Cited Cases:• Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048• Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 109---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 6---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, possession of explosive substance---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the petitioner-accused were that he along with his co-accused attempted to commit murder of complainant by opening fires from outside of house of the complainant and one bullet hit the complainant---From perusal of record it transpired that the complainant had nominated the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused on the basis of suspicion claiming that he had old enmity with the co-accused of the present petitioner and the present petitioner and his father were relative of the other accused, therefore, the present petitioner and his co-accused might have opened fire on him---Neither any eye-witness nor the complainant himself witnessed/saw the accused/petitioner and his co-accused at the place of occurrence---No specific role had been attributed to the accused/petitioner in the FIR and no incriminating material/weapon of offence had been recovered from the present petitioner/accused by the police during investigation of the case---Petitioner/accused was confined in judicial custody since the day of his arrest and police had submitted challan against him in the Court of competent jurisdiction, hence, the petitioner was not required for further investigation---Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case against the petitioner/accused required further inquiry as contemplated under subsection.(2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Moreover, three other nominated co-accused of the petitioner/accused had been discharged under S.169, Cr.P.C., by the police---One co-accused had been released on bail by High Court, hence, rule of consistency applied to the case of the present petitioner/accused and he was entitled for concession of post arrest bail---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. 2025 MLD 173; 2017 MLD 386 and 2020 SCMR 1486 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail order---Observations of the Court---Scope---Observations made in thebail order regarding factual aspects of case are tentative in nature---Trial Court should adjudicate the case strictly on its merits based solely on the evidence without being influenced by such observations. Imtiaz Hussain and Zafeer Ahmed for Petitioner. Dy. A.G Malik Sherbaz for the State. Mushtaq Ahmed for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 4th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302(b), 109 & 34—Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), Ss. 544-A & 382-B—Murder of father—Conviction based on testimony of related witnesses—Change of stance and inconsistencies—Unexplained abscondence—Recovery of weapon after delay—Scope of benefit of doubtPetitioner was accused of murdering his father by firing upon him and inflicting stab wounds. The conviction was primarily based on the testimonies of the deceased’s sister (PW-3) and nephew (PW-8), who claimed to have witnessed the incident while returning from a wedding ceremony. Supreme Court held that the credibility of said ocular account was doubtful, as no independent witness was cited despite presence of 100-150 people at the event, and the venue of the marriage was not marked in the site plan. The delay of ten months in recovery of the churi, coupled with absence of evidence regarding its preservation, rendered the forensic report unreliable. The recovery of pistol was returned with a negative FSL report. Court further observed that inflicting both firearm and knife injuries indicated involvement of more than one assailant, but prosecution’s case remained silent on this point. Acquittal of co-accused, previously alleged to be part of a conspiracy, further weakened prosecution’s version. Mere abscondence of accused could not cure defects in the prosecution's case. Supreme Court held that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction and sentence set aside—Petitioner acquitted by extending benefit of doubt.Cited Cases:• Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203• Ali Haider @ Pappu v. Jameel Hussain PLD 2021 SC 362• Basharat & another v. The State 1995 SCMR 1735• Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 566• Muhammad Khan v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220(b) Criminal trial—Ocular evidence—Presence at crime scene not established—Failure to examine independent witnesses—Testimony of related witnesses found unreliableProsecution’s case hinged on testimonies of related witnesses who claimed to have seen the petitioner attacking the deceased. Supreme Court observed that neither the presence of these witnesses at the matrimonial ceremony was proven, nor were independent witnesses examined to corroborate their account. Discrepancies in their statements and contradictions regarding direction of escape of accused created further doubts. The absence of Ahmad Khan, the host of the matrimonial ceremony, or other guests as witnesses, was noted as a serious omission. Court held that when foundational facts are not substantiated, reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is unsafe—Testimonies disbelieved.(c) Forensic evidence—Delayed recovery—Preservation of evidence—Legal and scientific standards—Weight of DNA and serological evidenceCourt reiterated that while forensic reports may have corroborative value, their admissibility and evidentiary weight depend on timely collection and proper preservation. Churi allegedly used in offence was recovered nearly ten months post-incident, with no evidence regarding storage or documentation. Although PFSA returned a positive blood report, Supreme Court held that such belated recovery failed to meet the legal threshold for reliability. Pistol allegedly used was returned with a negative forensic report. The Court placed reliance on precedent highlighting that DNA and forensic tools are only effective if collected and preserved as per proper scientific standards—Evidence deemed untrustworthy due to procedural lapses.Cited Cases:• Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203• Ali Haider @ Pappu v. Jameel Hussain PLD 2021 SC 362• Basharat & another v. The State 1995 SCMR 1735