Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380/411/457--- Offences Against Property(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 14---Theft in dwellinghouse, dishonestly receiving stolen property, lurking house-trespass or house-breakingby night, theft liable to Tazir---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, recalling of---Accused wasnamed in FIR and allegation of commission of theft of different articles from the houseof complainant had been levelled against the accused---Statements of two prosecutionwitnesses had been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., according to which accusedhad confessed his guilt regarding commission of theft in the house of the complainant---Articles stolen were yet to be recovered from the accused and he could not establishany mala fide on the part of the complainant for his false involvement in the case, whichwas a condition precedent for the grant of bail before arrest---Bail petition ofaccused was dismissed and ad interim pre arrest-bail granted to him was recalled

Summary: Acquittal --- Article 117 Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Appreciation of evidence of chance witnesses---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------Ss. 380 & 457---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117---Theft in dwelling house,lurking house trespass or house breaking by night---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit ofdoubt---Accused contended that glaring contradictions in prosecution witnesses were notconsidered by the courts below---Trial Court instead of considering the evidence produced byprosecution, made assessment on the basis of statement of the accused which was neitherproper nor legal---Apart from any plea taken by the other side, the defence, prosecution hadto prove the case beyond doubt and such burden did not shift from the prosecution to theother side even in a case where accused had failed to establish a specific plea in his defence---Initial burden lay on the prosecution to establish its case from all doubts---Prosecution had toestablish the act of commission of theft by the accused---Prosecution witness was merelychance witness; his evidence had to be assessed with caution and care as his presence at theplace of occurrence could not be explained---Complainant reported the matter afterapprehension of the accused---Possibility of involvement of both the complainant and thewitness in the alleged offence could not be ruled out---Witnesses failed to corroborate thestatements of each other---Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts ofthe case and exercise jurisdiction vested in them by not giving benefit of doubt to theaccused---Impugned orders were set aside and accused was acquitted of the offence.

Summary: Acquittal ---- Offence U/s 376/380/411 PPC ---- (a) Criminal law—Circumstantial evidence—Benefit of doubt—Appreciation of evidence—Failure to produce material witnesses—Held, conviction and death sentence based on weak and contradictory circumstantial evidence not sustainable—Prosecution withheld primary witnesses, namely the deceased’s mother, sister and neighbour, who first discovered the scene—Adverse inference drawn under Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Recovery of handkerchief allegedly containing forensic traces found unreliable as court witness disowned the recovery—Medical evidence inconsistent with alleged mode of death by strangulation—Chain of circumstances incomplete, contradictory and failing to unerringly point to guilt—Benefit of doubt extended; conviction and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted. Cited: Muhammad Nasir Butt v. State (2025 SCMR 662); Fayyaz Ahmed v. State (2017 SCMR 2026). (b) Criminal procedure—Duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt—Prosecution required to present unimpeachable, consistent and complete chain of circumstances—Where direct evidence absent, each link must be firmly established and all circumstances must point exclusively to guilt—When key link missing or contradicted, entire chain breaks—Conviction cannot stand. (c) Evidence—Withholding of material witnesses—Adverse presumption under Art.129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Failure of prosecution to examine eye-witnesses or first discoverers of occurrence constitutes fatal omission. (d) Medical jurisprudence—Post-mortem opinion—Inconsistencies between alleged cause of death (strangulation) and physical signs on body render opinion doubtful—When medical evidence contradicts ocular or circumstantial narrative, benefit of doubt must go to accused. (e) Sentencing—Capital punishment—Requirement of unimpeachable proof—Where evidence shaky or circumstantial chain incomplete, imposition of death sentence unsafe and contrary to settled law. (g) Disposition — Appeals allowed; conviction and death sentences set aside; appellants Syed Hammad Naqvi, Shah Sawar and Muhammad Khursheed acquitted of charges under Ss. 376, 411, 302, 380 & 34 PPC and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case; murder reference answered in negative.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, challenged the acquittal of Malik Waris Khan, Malik Zafar, Malik Abid, and others (respondents) by the Senior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar, in connection with FIR No. 692/2003. The FIR was lodged on August 25, 2003, alleging offenses under Sections 506, 457, 448, 148, 149, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegations pertained to an illegal occupation of the appellant's house and theft of valuables. The trial court acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), prompting the appellant to appeal the decision. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents by invoking Section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. 2- Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to present evidence, particularly witnesses, during the trial. 3- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the respondents. 4- Whether the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 249-A of the Cr.P.C. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Trial Court's Exercise of Section 249-A Cr.P.C.: The Federal Shariat Court upheld the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents under Section 249-A Cr.P.C., which allows a Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage of the case if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of a conviction. The court emphasized that the trial court's decision was well within its jurisdiction and based on the lack of evidence. --Fair Opportunity to Present Evidence: The court found that the appellant was not deprived of a fair opportunity to present evidence. The witnesses and documents that the appellant sought to introduce were related to civil and criminal litigation concerning the title and possession of the disputed property, not to the alleged criminal acts of the respondents. --Insufficiency of Evidence: The court concluded that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the respondents' guilt. The key prosecution witnesses, including the appellant and complainant Arbab Akbar Hayat, failed to directly link the respondents to the alleged offenses. Notably, the appellant was not present at the crime scene, and the complainant did not witness the respondents committing any criminal acts. The court also noted the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses, such as the appellant's servants, which further weakened the case. --Nature of the Case: The court observed that the thrust of the appellant's case was more focused on establishing ownership and possession of the disputed property rather than proving the criminal charges. The court reiterated that the matter of property ownership should be resolved through civil litigation, not through criminal proceedings. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents. The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order and concluded that there was no probability of conviction based on the available and forthcoming evidence. The court emphasized that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, which was not appropriate.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background: This case involves an appeal filed by two appellants, Rahib Ali and Mst. Ruqayya Bibi, against a judgment that convicted them under Section 10(2) of The Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The trial court had sentenced both appellants to five years rigorous imprisonment, with additional punishments, while acquitting them of charges under Section 380 of The Pakistan Penal Code. The charges stemmed from allegations by Bilal Ahmad, the respondent, who claimed that the appellants had committed theft and engaged in illicit sexual relations. ----Issues: 1- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the subsequent filing of the private complaint casts doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case. 2- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, is reliable and sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellants based on the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appellate court overturned the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellants. --Delay in Reporting: The court found the delay in filing the FIR (from September 2, 2004, to September 12, 2004) and the subsequent delay in filing the private complaint (on April 26, 2006) to be significant. The court noted that the complainant and the primary witness (Iqbal Hussain) were aware of the alleged incident and the police's distortion of facts early on, yet they failed to take prompt action, casting serious doubt on the veracity of their claims. --Witness Credibility: The court scrutinized the testimonies of the respondent (P.W.1) and Iqbal Hussain (P.W.2), noting material contradictions and dishonest improvements in their statements. The court observed that the story presented by the witnesses was not credible, especially given the circumstances of the alleged incident, such as the open doors during the commission of the crime, which seemed implausible. --Lack of Corroboration: The court emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence to support the allegations of Zina and theft. The only evidence against the appellants was the testimony of the complainant and the primary witness, which was found to be unreliable. The court also highlighted that no credible explanation was provided for the delay in filing the complaint and that the complainant failed to pursue the matter promptly, further weakening the case. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was overturned, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. ----Citations/Precedents: Zafar and others v. Umer Hayat and others (2010 SCMR 1816) Muhammad Salim and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and another (2001 SCMR 1738) Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 others (PLD 2003 SC 14) Qutab-ud-Din v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 101) Allah Ditta v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 52) Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2009 SCMR 916) Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Akhtar Ali and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 6) Allah Bachaya and another v. The State (PLD 2008 SC 349)

Summary: Background: Muhammad Shahzad, the appellant, was tried for the murder of Sakina Kareem under Sections 380, 411, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in F.I.R. No.82 of 2016, registered at P.S. Sabzazar, Lahore. The Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, convicted him and sentenced him to death under Section 302(b) PPC and imprisonment under Sections 380 and 411 PPC. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.6256 of 2019 against his conviction, while the trial court referred Murder Reference No.20 of 2019 for confirmation of the death sentence. ----Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad Shahzad committed the murder of Sakina Kareem. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient and credible. Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to the appellant. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Evidence and Investigation: The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, particularly the supplementary statement of the complainant, Amir Kareem (PW-1), who named the appellant based on suspicion. There was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The initial FIR mentioned an unidentified woman knocking on the victim's door, not the appellant. The Call Data Records (CDRs) and the recovery of stolen items were critical pieces of evidence, but they were not sufficiently corroborated. The CDRs did not contain ownership information, and the recovery process had significant procedural flaws. Testimonies and Cross-examinations: The prosecution witnesses, including police officials and the complainant, admitted several inconsistencies and procedural lapses during cross-examination. The complainant did not provide crucial details about the stolen items in his initial statements, and there were no efforts made to trace the unidentified woman mentioned in the FIR. ---Legal Principles: The court emphasized the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. The court referred to established legal precedents, highlighting that the benefit of the doubt is a fundamental right of the accused. ----Outcome: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against Muhammad Shahzad beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was insufficient, inconsistent, and failed to conclusively link the appellant to the crime. The appeal (Crl. Appeal No.6256 of 2019) was accepted, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. Muhammad Shahzad was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case. The death sentence in Murder Reference No.20 of 2019 was not confirmed. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) The State v. Mushtaq Ahmed (PLD 1973 SC 418)

Summary: Criminal Revision --- under sections 457, 380 and 411 PPC (criminal revision application is dismissed .) --- sufficient evidence on record.