Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 28.11.2016, passed in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2013/BWP and Murder Reference No. 08 of 2013/BWP by the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 02 hours 10 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Occurrence in this case was stated to have taken place on 24.04.2011 at 10:30 a.m. in a Chak situated at a distance of 16 kilometers from the Police Station---However, it was reported by the complainant with a delay of 2 hours and 10 minutes at 12:40 p.m.---No explanation for this delay, much less a plausible or satisfactory one, had been offered by the complainant either in the FIR or in his deposition---According to statements of complainant and eye-witness, one "EB" conveyed information consequent whereupon the police reached the place of occurrence to whom the complainant made a report---Statements of the purported eye-witnesses raised serious doubts regarding their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses---Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---Most significantly the conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses in not shifting the deceased to the hospital or the Police Station immediately after the incident was inconsistent with normal human behavior---In cases of homicidal assault, it was expected that the kith and kin of the injured or deceased would make every effort to shift him to the nearest medical facility, particularly, with the hope that he may still be alive---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inordinate delay in conducting postmortem upon the dead body of deceased---Consequential---Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---As per statement of Medical Officer, he received the dead body of deceased at THQ Hospital at 02:00 p.m., i.e. 01 hour and 30 minutes after the occurrence---Post-mortem was conducted at 04:00 p.m. only after the necessary police documents were provided to him at 03:00 p.m.---Inordinate delay in the preparation and transmission of police papers coupled with the failure to shift the dead body of the deceased promptly to the hospital or police station, created serious doubt about the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the scene at the relevant time---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the prosecution version---Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---In the site plan, the appellant was shown at a distance of 20/22 feet from the deceased at the time of firing---Medical Officer observed blackening around firearm entry wounds No. 1 and No.2 on the body of the deceased, which strongly suggested a close-range between the appellant and the deceased---Such blackening was not possible from a distance of over 20 feet, thereby materially contradicting the prosecution's version---Additionally, no exit wounds were observed and three bullets were recovered from the chest cavity of the deceased and handed over to the police by the Medical Officer---Eye-witnesses claimed that the appellant fired upon the deceased with a 12-bore repeater, which ordinarily discharging pellets and not bullets, which was inherently inconsistent with the recovery of intact bullets from the body of the deceased---Said fundamental inconsistency further weakened the veracity of the ocular account---As per the site plan and the testimony of the eye-witnesses, co-accused was standing adjacent to the deceased at the time of firing---In such circumstances, it was highly improbable and unnatural that the appellant, allegedly using a 12-bore weapon, whose pellets dispersed upon discharge, would fire in a manner that did not cause any injury whatsoever to co-accused---Such improbability weakened the prosecution's narrative even further---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Appellant was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant---According to complainant the appellant was provoked by a slap inflicted by him upon his wife, who happened to be the appellant's sister---If this was the motive then it was beyond the comprehension of a prudent mind that why the deceased, rather than the complainant, became the target of the appellant's anger---Complainant, who allegedly triggered the incident, remained unharmed and was mysteriously spared---No explanation had been provided in that regard by the complainant, thereby rendering his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence highly doubtful---Eye-witness, admittedly hailed from another district, which was admitted by him in his statement---Although eye-witness claimed to be residing in a Chak for the past 5 to 6 years on account of leasing some agricultural land, but he had not produced any documentary evidence in support of alleged residence in the said village---Eye-witness being a chance witness had not plausibly explained the purpose of his presence at the spot, hence, his presence at the crime scene was highly doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of doubt, however slight, must always be extended to the accused---Once the prosecution's version is found to be tainted with doubt, the accused would become entitled to acquittal as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace. Syeda B.H. Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Adil Aziz Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 2025.

Summary: (Against order dated 23.12.2024 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 3450 of 2024). (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 23(i)---Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Cl.2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Consideration for promotion to the posts of Provincial Management Service (PMS) Officers (BS-17) amongst Tehsildars ("Promoted Tehsildars" and "Inducted Tehsildars")---Amendment in the method of recruitment while removing the condition of 5 years' service only for "Promoted Tehsildars"---Process of consideration of cases of promotion of "Promoted Tehsildars" was halted by the Punjab Service Tribunal through its injunctive order---Validity---Promotee Tehsildars' consideration of promotion as PMS Officers could not be indefinitely placed in abeyance---Vacant posts must be filled in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment at the earliest---Process of the promotion could not be halted at the instance of the Inducted Tehsildars for the simple reason that when the Inducted Tehsildars were directly appointed in the year 2022, the notification dated 21.08.2019 had already been issued---Inducted Tehsildars were aware or expected to be aware of their terms and conditions of service to be governed by the Rules of which the amendment made in Sched-I to the Rules through notification dated 21.08.2019 was an integral part---They joined service knowing fully well the adverse effect of the notification on their promotion prospects, thus, unless and until and if at all the amendments brought about in Sched-1 to the Rules through the notification were declared ultra vires by a competent court/tribunal or the said notification was withdrawn on the basis of the Governor reversing the amendment made in the method of promotion of Tehsildars as PMS Officers contained in Sched-I to the Rules, the process of promotion could not be halted---Public sector employment in Pakistan was a significant source of financial stability for many households---Prolonged vacancies not only limit their employment opportunities but also diminish public confidence in government institutions---Practice of routinely leaving posts in public institutions unfilled undermines the very rationale of sanctioned strength---If a post is not needed, it should be abolished through proper procedure; but if it has been duly approved and budgeted, it must be filled without undue delay---Keeping a post vacant hampers the functioning of public institutions and is not conducive to the maintenance of efficiency of administration---Objective of timely promotions of eligible employees in various public institutions can be achieved only by convening of meetings of DPCs---Timely filling of vacant posts is not only an administrative imperative but is essential for maintaining the integrity, efficiency and responsiveness of public institutions---Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed in terms that the process for promotion of Tehsildars as PMS Officers already initiated may continue unless amendment made in the Rules through notification was withdrawn by the Governor. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Hizbullah Khan 2021 SCMR 1281 and Aatika Hina Mushtaq v. Secretary, Special Education, Government of the Punjab C.P.L.A. No. 3116 of 2022 rel. (b) Civil service--- ----Words "Post" and "Vacancy"---Connotation and meaning---"Post" denotes the number of posts in the cadre, whether filled or vacant---"Vacancy" means a vacant post available for appointment, through recruitment/promotion, on the creation of new post(s) or retirement, death or resignation or removal of the incumbent working on the post---In public admi nistration, every post in the organizational hierarchy is created after due deliberation and approval, taking into account the functional requirements of the department, the workload and the efficient delivery of services to the public---Such process ensures that each sanctioned post is essential for the functioning of public institutions---In other words, each sanctioned post reflects a deliberate recognition of a need - whether technical, supervisory, operational, or strategic within the framework of good governance. Importantly, financial allocations are also secured through budgetary processes to ensure that post is funded and resourced. (c) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 23(i)---Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Cl.2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Amendment made in the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, (Rules) made under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (Act)---Scope---Section 23(i) of the Act provides that the Governor, or any person authorized in this behalf, may make such Rules as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the said Act---Rules in question have been made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 23 of the Act, and so has the amendment in Sched-1 to the said Rules through notification dated 21.08.2019---These Rules have the same force as the provisions of the statute under which they framed---Amendments made in Sched-I to the Rules through the said notification issued by S&GAD, Government of the Punjab, whereby the condition of five years of service as Tehsildar for the Promotee Tehsildars for their consideration for promotion as PMS Officers was done away with, were still in the field till date the notification had not been declared ultra vires the provisions of the Act or the Constitution either by any Court or Tribunal. Ahmed Hassaan v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 186 rel. (d) Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004--- ----Cl. 2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Annulment of amendment made in Rules by the Governor through notification---Views of executive authority about such Rules through its executive order---Effect---Views that the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, may have expressed in his order dated 18.11.2024 qua the said notification or the directions that he may have issued to the Secretary, Revenue, Government of the Punjab, would not have the effect of the annulment of the said notification dated 21.08.2019---Notification was based on an amendment made in Sched.-I to the Rules by the Governor in exercise of statutory power and it was he alone who could in the exercise of the very same power undo the amendment. Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Junaid Jabbar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Khalid Masood Ghani, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, Muhammad Tahir Riaz, Superintendent and Muhammad Ishaq, Senior Clerk, Board of Revenue, Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2025.

Summary: (Against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in S.T.R. No. 8 of 2024). Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 2(37), 6,7,8,22,23,26 & 73---Input tax, claim of---Issuance of fake/ flying invoices, allegation of---Proof---Allegation was that the registered person /company did not purchase any coal from the local suppliers but unlawfully claimed input tax on the basis of fake/ flying invoices issued by dubious suppliers, therefore, causing loss to the national exchequer--- Order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in favour of registered person was concurred with by the High Court---Validity---Pertinently, the proceedings in the matter were initiated pursuant to issuance of Show Cause Notice wherein the respondents were not confronted with any invoices, the value of which was above Rs. 50,000/---No material or evidence whatsoever was provided to substantiate the allegation to the effect that the suppliers as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice were blacklisted during the tax period under consideration---In the present case, Show-Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original were passed on vague and frivolous allegations and certain conclusions had been made on mere presumptions only, whereas, no material or evidence had been produced to substantiate the same---Notably, while passing the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeded his jurisdiction while travelling beyond the very premises, whereas the respondents were never confronted with the allegations made in the Show-Cause Notice or entries as reflected in the bank statement which were subsequently furnished by the respondents, showing the details of the total amount and the particulars of suppliers from whom purchases were made---While initiating the proceedings against the respondents, there was no material or evidence available on record to make out a case against the respondents of illegal or inadmissible claim of input tax adjustment, whereas the entire proceedings and the Order-in-Original passed in the present case was based on presumptions, whereas no inquiry or verification was made by the Department in respect of alleged fake/flying invoices---Thus, the Tribunal and the High Court were justified to set aside both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, while recording concurrent findings on facts which did not suffer from any illegality or error---Petition for leave to appeal, filed by Department, was dismissed, in circumstances. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV, Large Taxpayer Unit, Karachi v. Messrs Al-Abid Silk Mills Limited A-39, Manghopir Road, Site Karrachi 2023 SCMR 1797 ref. Malik Itaat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record along with Kamran Ullah, Additional Commissioner along with Yousaf Khan, S.O. for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence--- Delay of 03 hours and 15 minutes in lodging the FIR---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Occurrence in this case took place on 27.08.2019 at 01:00 p.m. whereas FIR was registered at 04:15 p.m.---As per statement of complainant, his elder brother was murdered in this case and complainant himself also received firearm injuries during the occurrence, who was taken to hospital for treatment and on his statement recorded in the hospital by Police Officer; FIR was recorded by Police Official at 04:15 p.m. on 27.08.2019---Natural phenomenon is that generally efforts are made on priority basis to firstly shift injured persons to the hospital in order to save their lives and then to report the matter to the police---In such peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, there was no undue delay in registration of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence--- Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Ocular account in instant case comprised of injured/ complainant, mother and two sisters of deceased---Parties were closely related to each other as appellant was real uncle/chacha of the complainant as well as sisters of the deceased---Complainant and other prosecution witnesses as well as the appellant were residing in one and the same house where that occurrence took place in broad daylight, hence injured/ complainant, mother and two sisters of deceased were natural witnesses of the occurrence---In such scenario, there was no question of misidentification of the appellant; any cogent and plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant by complainant and other eye-witnesses in this case could not come on the record and in such circumstances, substitution of the real culprit was rare phenomenon---Complainant and other eye-witnesses deposed regarding said facts i.e. detail of the occurrence as well as vital aspects of the case of prosecution during trial of the case in straightforward manner and remained consistent during recording of their evidence, neither their credit could be impeached nor evidentiary value of their testimony could be minimized inspite of searching cross-examination by defence rather their evidence had been found as confidence inspiring, truthful and thus reliable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed. Irshad Ahmad and others v. The State and others PLD 1996 SC 138; Sajid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1882; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907 and Nasir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence--- Discrepancies in the statements of witnesses---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Occurrence took place on 27.08.2019 and statements of witnesses of ocular account were recorded in the year 2021---Minor discrepancies do appear with the passage of time, however, no weight could be given to said discrepancies and trivial inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses as the same neither had any adverse effect nor could demolish the case of prosecution--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed. Sajid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1882; Muhammad Ali and others v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 2024 and Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 487 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence--- Delay of about 16 to 26 hours in conducting postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Inconsequential--- Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Medical evidence in this case comprised of Medical Officer, who medically examined injured of the case/ complainant and Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination over dead body of deceased of the case on 28.08.2019 at about 01:55 a.m.---Though Medical Officer mentioned time between injury and death as "6 to 8" hours and between death and postmortem as "16 to 26" hours yet it had been mentioned that cause of death was injuries to major pelvic organs, cavity & major blood vessels---When injuries had been caused to major blood vessels, then it resulted in death without loss of much time---On the one hand, time between injury and death mentioned as "6 to 8" hours was not tallying with said state of affairs i.e. injuries to major blood vessels whereas on the other hand, time between death and postmortem examination mentioned as "16 to 26" hours was not supported by any valid reason hence said opinion was ipse dixit i.e. without any supporting material and thus could not be preferred over ocular account---In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, postmortem examination over dead body of deceased of the case could not be termed as unduly delayed--- Even otherwise, in the case of firearm injuries, photographic view of the occurrence neither could be captured by the human eye nor could be expected from the witness because speed of bullet was more than speed of sound i.e. bullet hit first and its sound was heard subsequently by the witness, therefore, in the pandemonium situation at the time and place of occurrence, when bullets were being fired through firearm weapon at the deceased or injured/ victim, then any discrepancy regarding number and locale of injuries could not be emphasized in stricto-sensu---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed. Majeed Masih v. The State 2022 SCMR 1675; Maskeen Ullah and another v. The State and another 2023 SCMR 1568; Abdur Rauf v. The State and another 2003 SCMR 522; Nasir Ahmed v. The State 2023 SCMR 478 and Ali Taj and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 900 rel. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Ocular account and medical evidence---Confliction---Scope---If ocular account is confidence inspiring, then it cannot be discarded/thrown away by the medical evidence. Sajid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1882; Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1907; Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831; Abdul Wahid v. The State 2023 SCMR 1278 and Muhammad Hanif v. the State 2023 SCMR 2016 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence--- Motive proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Motive behind the occurrence as per fard bian/statement of complainant was that appellant was demanding his share from the house; he started altercation in this regard---House was in the name of paternal grandfather of the complainant---Paternal grandmother of the complainant and the complainant as well as his family had been convincing appellant that after marriage of sisters of the complainant, share would be given to appellant after selling the house and marriage of sister of complainant was fixed after two months, however, appellant was adamant on immediate sale of the house and obtaining his share---Said motive was mentioned in fard bian/ statement of the complainant and all witnesses had categorically stated regarding the same so it had been proved---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court was reduced to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, quantum of---Mitigating circumstances---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant---Complainant stated that on the day of occurrence, prior to the occurrence, he went along with a ccused for his medicine and accused was suffering from respiratory disease--- Complainant also stated before the Court during his statement that accused asked that whether house was to be sold or not and when brother of the complainant replied that after the marriage of the sisters, property would be distributed, accused brought gun from other room and fired straight shots and committed the occurrence---Such state of affairs reflected that it was not premeditated occurrence rather took place under the heat of passion---When all these factors were taken into consideration in totality then they constituted mitigating factor for reduction in quantum of sentence to the extent of offence under S.302(b), P.P.C---Therefore, sentence of death awarded to appellant by the Trial Court under S.302(b), P.P.C., was converted to imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Bakht Munir v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 588; Ghaffar Ali v. The State and another 2021 SCMR 354 and Ali Muhammad v. The State 2020 SCMR 2143 rel. Malik Ishrat Hussain along with Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Muhammad Tariq Sukhera, Advocate/Defence Counsel at State expense for Appellant. Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Jahangir, ASI for the State. Nemo for the Complainant {learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of police official (present in Court) and after herself going through the record apprises that Babar Tariq (complainant of the case) has been duly served with notice regarding pendency of instant appeal for today before this Court however he has not come to the Court}. Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025. Judgment Farooq Haider, J .--- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.39441-J/2022 filed by Muhammad Arif (appellant) against his "convictions and sentences" and Murder Reference No.163/2022 sent by trial court, as both the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated: 31.05.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore/trial court. 2. Muhammad Arif (appellant) was tried in case arising out of FIR No.967/2019 dated: 27.08.2019 registered under Sections: 302, 324 P.P.C (offences under Sections: 337 F(iii), 337 F(vi) P.P.C were added subsequently) at Police Station: Ghaziabad, Lahore; trial court after conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment dated: 31.05.2022 has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: - Convictions Sentences Under Section: 302(b) P.P.C "Death" as Taz'ir (for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Dilawar) with payment of compensation Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section: 544-A Cr.P.C. recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation amount to further undergo S.I. for six months. Under Section: 324 P.P.C "Seven Years' Rigorous Imprisonment" (for an attempt to commit Qatal-e-Amd of Babar Tariq/injured) with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. Under Section: 337 F (iii) P.P.C "Three Years' Rigorous Imprisonment" (for causing hurt on the person of Babar Tariq/injured) with payment of "Daman" amounting to Rs.50,000/-. Under Section: 337 F (vi) P.P.C "Five Years' Rigorous Imprisonment" (for causing hurt on the person of Babar Tariq/injured) with payment of "Daman" amounting to Rs.100,000/-. Appellant/convict was further directed to pay compensation under Section: 544-A Cr.P.C. amounting to Rs.100,000/- to Babar Tariq/injured. It was directed that appellant would be kept in jail till payment of amount of Daman to Babar Tariq (injured of the case); all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section: 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant. 3. Brief facts, as per Fard Bian/statement made by Babar Tariq (complainant/PW-4) to Ruman Iqbal, T/S.I. of Police Station: Ghaziabad, Lahore (PW-9) for registration of the case are that he is resident of House No.34 Street No.64, Mohallah Tanvirabad, Ghaziabad, Lahore and does work of ceiling whereas his elder brother Dilawar, aged about 25-years, does work of electrician and their uncle/chacha Arif son of Badar-ud-Din is residing with them in their house; father of the complainant has passed away six years ago and uncle/chacha Arif is living with them in the same house; uncle/chacha Arif started quarreling since some time with mother of the complainant Farzana Kausar widow of Tariq (deceased) for selling the house and giving him his share; said house was in the name of paternal grandfather of the complainant Badar-ud-Din and after his death, paternal grandmother of the complainant Mukhtaran Bibi, who was yet alive, had been opposing selling of the house till marriage of sisters of the complainant namely Kiran Shahzadi and Iram Shahzadi; complainant and others also have been making uncle/chacha Arif to understand to let them get their sisters married and thereafter his share would be given to him while selling the house; marriage of sister of the complainant Iram Shahzadi was going to be solemnized after two months but uncle/chacha Arif remained adamant for selling the house immediately and giving him his share otherwise to face physical/body loss; on 27.08.2019 at about 01:00 p.m., complainant along with his elder brother Dilawar son of Tariq, mother Farzana Kausar, sisters Kiran Shahzadi and Iram Shahzadi was present in the room in their house; suddenly uncle/chacha Arif armed with pistol entered in their room and raised lalkara to teach them a lesson for not giving share from the house; elder brother of the complainant Dilawar stepped forward and prohibited him from doing so, upon which, uncle/chacha Arif fired straight shots with pistol with intent to kill him, which hit below his umbilicus, who fell down in injured condition; complainant stepped forward to catch hold of uncle/chacha Arif, whereupon he also fired straight shots with pistol at the complainant with intent to kill him, which landed at his left leg and left wrist; on hue and cry of mother of the complainant Farzana Kausar and sisters Kiran Shahzadi and Iram Shahzadi, uncle/chacha Arif fled away from the spot; brother of the complainant succumbed to the injuries at the spot whereas he (complainant) was shifted to Services Hospital for treatment; besides the complainant, occurrence was witnessed by mother of the complainant Farzana Kausar and sisters Kiran Shahzadi and Iram Shahzadi. On the basis of aforementioned Fard Bian/statement (Ex.PA), FIR (Ex.PD) was chalked out by Mian Muhammad Aqeel T/ASI (PW-11). 4. After completion of investigation, challan report under Section: 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court against the appellant by placing his name in column No.3 of the same; appellant was formally charge sheeted, however, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was summoned; after recording of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. but he refuted the allegations levelled against him; he neither opted to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in his defence. Trial court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through the impugned judgment dated: 31.05.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that convictions recorded against and sentences awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' and result of non-reading/ misreading of evidence, therefore, same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 6. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, occurrence in this case took place on 27.08.2019 at 01:00 p.m. whereas FIR (Ex.PD) was registered at 04:15 p.m. As per statement of Babar Tariq (complainant/ PW-4), his elder brother Muhammad Dilawar was murdered in this case and complainant himself also received firearm injuries during the occurrence, who was taken to Services Hospital, Lahore for treatment and on his statement (Ex.PA) recorded in the hospital by Ruman Iqbal, T/S.I. (PW-9), FIR (Ex.PD) was recorded by Mian Muhammad Aqeel, T/ASI (PW-11) at 04:15 p.m. on 27.08.2019. It is natural phenomenon that generally efforts are made on priority basis to firstly shift injured persons to the hospital in order to save their lives and then to report the matter to the police. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case, there is no undue delay in registration of the case. Ocular account in instant case comprises of Babar Tariq (injured of the case/complainant/PW-4), Farzana Kausar (PW-1), Iram Shahzadi (PW-2) and Kiran Shahzadi (PW-3). Parties are closely related to each other as appellant is real uncle/chacha of the complainant as well as of Iram Shahzadi and Kiran Shahzadi. Complainant and other prosecution witnesses (mentioned above) as well as the appellant were residing in one and the same house where this occurrence took place in broad daylight, hence Babar Tariq (injured of the case/complainant/PW-4), Farzana Kausar (PW-1), Iram Shahzadi (PW-2) and Kiran Shahzadi (PW-3) were natural witnesses of the occurrence. In above scenario, there is no question of misidentification of the appellant; any cogent and plausible reason to falsely implicate the appellant by Babar Tariq (complainant/PW-4) and other eye-witnesses in this case could not come on the record and in such circumstances, substitution of the real culprit is rare phenomenon in our society; case of "Irshad Ahmad and others v. The State and others" (PLD 1996 SC 138) can be advantageously referred on the subject, relevant portion from page No.143 of the same is as under:- "Undoubtedly, the substitution is a phenomenon of rare occurrence, because even the interested witnesses would not normally allow the real murderers of their relation to escape by involving innocent persons." Guidance on the subject has also been sought from the cases of "Sajid Mehmood v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1882), "Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others" (2022 SCMR 1907) and "Nasir Ahmed v. The State" (2023 S C M R 478). Babar Tariq (complainant/PW-4), Farzana Kausar (PW-1), and Kiran Shahzadi (PW-3) deposed regarding aforementioned facts i.e. detail of the occurrence as well as vital aspects of the case of prosecution during trial of the case in straightforward manner and remained consistent during recording of their evidence, neither their credit could be impeached nor evidentiary value of their testimony could be minimized inspite of searching cross-examination by defence rather their evidence has been found as confidence inspiring, truthful and thus reliable. Iram Shahzadi while appearing as PW-2 during trial before the court stated that she went to the washroom for taking shower where she heard the fire shots and when she came out of the washroom after sometime, saw the accused fleeing away from the spot while armed with pistol and in this manner, though she did not claim herself as eye-witness yet did not depose against the occurrence. It goes without saying that in this case, occurrence took place on 27.08.2019 and statements of witnesses of ocular account i.e. Babar Tariq (injured of the case/complainant/PW-4), Farzana Kausar (PW-1) and Kiran Shahzadi (PW-3) were recorded in the year 2021; minor discrepancies do appear with the passage of time, however, no weight can be given to said discrepancies and trivial inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses as same neither have any adverse effect nor can demolish the case of prosecution; in this regard, cases of "Sajid Mehmood v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1882), "Muhammad Ali and others v. The State and others" (2022 SCMR 2024) and "Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State" (2023 SCMR 487) can be safely referred. Medical evidence in this case comprises of Dr. Ghulam Yaseen (PW-15), who medically examined Babar Tariq (injured of the case/ complainant/PW-4) and Dr. Muhammad Shazeel Khan (PW-14), who conducted postmortem examination over dead body of Muhammad Dilawar (deceased of the case) on 28.08.2019 at about 01:55 a.m. Though he (PW-14) mentioned time between injury and death as "6 to 8" hours and between death and postmortem as "16 to 26" hours yet it is relevant to mention here that in the opinion, it has been mentioned that cause of death was injuries to major pelvic organs, cavity and major blood vessels and it is worth mentioning here that when injuries have been caused to major blood vessels, then it results death without loss of much time. It goes without saying that doctor (PW-14) did not mention about rigor mortis as well as colour of wound in the postmortem examination report; relevant portion of the statement of Dr. Muhammad Shazeel Khan (PW-14) in this regard is hereby reproduced as under:- "I have not mentioned in my postmortem examination report about the "rigor-mortis". I have not mentioned about the colour of the wound in my PMR." therefore, on the one hand, time between injury and death mentioned as "6 to 8" hours is not tallying with aforementioned state of affairs i.e. injuries to major blood vessels whereas on the other hand, time between death and postmortem examination mentioned as "16 to 26" hours is not supported by any valid reason hence said opinion is ipse dixit i.e. without any supporting material and thus cannot be preferred over ocular account. In above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, postmortem examination over dead body of Muhammad Dilawar (deceased of the case) cannot be termed as unduly delayed; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of "Majeed Masih v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1675) and "Maskeen Ullah and another v. The State and another" (2023 SCMR 1568). Hence ocular account has been supported/ confirmed by the medical evidence. So far as injuries Nos. 5 and 6 observed on the body of Babar Tariq (complainant/injured of the case) by Dr. Ghulam Yaseen (PW-15) are concerned, same may be result of falling of complainant after receiving the injuries. Even otherwise, in the case of firearm injuries, photographic view of the occurrence neither can be captured by the human eye nor can be expected from the witness because speed of bullet is more than speed of sound i.e. bullet hits first and its sound is heard subsequently by the witness, therefore, in the pandemonium situation at the time and place of occurrence, when bullets are being fired through firearm weapon at the deceased or injured/ victim, then any discrepancy regarding number and locale of injuries cannot be emphasized in stricto-sensu; in this regard guidance has been sought from the cases of "Abdur Rauf v. The State and another" (2003 SCMR 522), "Nasir Ahmed v. The State" (2023 SCMR 478) and "Ali Taj and another v. The State" (2023 SCMR 900). By now it is well settled that if ocular account is confidence inspiring, then it cannot be discarded/thrown away by the medical evidence; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the cases of "Sajid Mehmood v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1882), "Azhar Hussain and another v. The State and others" (2022 SCMR 1907), "Aqil v. The State" (2023 SCMR 831), "Abdul Wahid v. The State" (2023 SCMR 1278) and "Muhammad Hanif v. The State" (2023 SCMR 2016). Ocular account has been supported by the medical evidence in the case. So far as defence version is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that appellant during recording of his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. in reply to Question No. 15 "Why this case was registered against you and why the PWs deposed against you?" replied as under: - "All the PWs deposed against me being real sisters and mother of the deceased falsely. The real sisters and mother were not present at the time of occurrence and it is evident that they did not accompany the dead body and injured while shifting them to Hospital. Even after the conduct of post mortem, the dead body was received by Muhammad Javaid and Yousaf Khan. It is an unseen occurrence and nobody knows about the real culprits. The case has been planted and managed on me with mala fide." As far as aforementioned defence version of the appellant is concerned, same is mere bald negation/denial and appellant did not produce any evidence in support of the same; appellant even himself did not appear under Section: 340 (2) Cr.P.C. on oath in support of his version or/and for disproving the allegations levelled against him and even otherwise, any material is not available on the record in support of aforementioned version of the appellant. In such circumstances, when defence version is kept in juxtaposition with prosecution version, which is based upon confidence inspiring ocular account supported/confirmed by the medical evidence, then it has been found that defence version stands nowhere, however, prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt, therefore, appellant has been rightly convicted under Sections: 302 (b), 324, 337-F (iii) and 337-F (vi) P.P.C; resultantly, aforementioned convictions recorded against appellant are upheld and maintained. 9. As far as question of quantum of sentence awarded to Muhammad Arif (appellant) under Sections: 302 (b) P.P.C is concerned, though four cartridge cases secured from the place of occurrence were found as having been fired from the pistol recovered at the pointing out of the appellant as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PW) yet it is relevant to mention here that as per recovery memo (Ex.PK, copy whereof is available at Page No.120 of the Paper-Book), pistol along with four alive bullets was secured through sealed parcel but perusal of aforementioned report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PW) does not reveal that said parcel of pistol was having four alive bullets also, which reflects that safe custody of said parcel of pistol has been compromised and not proved, which has ultimately made report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore as inconclusive and resultantly recovery of pistol as inconsequential as well as of no help to the case of prosecution and in this regard, guidance has been sought from the dictum laid down in the cases of "Muhammad Saleem v. Shabbir Ahmed and others" (2016 SCMR 1605) and "Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State" (2018 SCMR 577). Motive behind the occurrence as per Fard Bian/statement of Babar Tariq (complainant/PW-4) is that appellant was demanding his share from the house, started altercation in this regard, which house was in the name of paternal grandfather of the complainant, paternal grandmother of the complainant and the complainant as well as his family had been convincing Muhammad Arif (appellant) that after marriage of Iram Shahzadi and Kiran Shahzadi (sisters of the complainant), share would be given to him after selling the house and marriage of Iram Shahzadi was fixed after two months, however, appellant was adamant for the immediate sale of the house and obtaining his share; said motive is mentioned in Fard Bian/statement of the complainant (Ex.PA) and all witnesses have categorically stated regarding the same so it has been proved. However, it is important to mention here that appellant was suffering from ailment during days of occurrence; relevant portion from the statement of Farzana Kausar (PW-1) in this regard is hereby reproduced as under:- "The accused was suffering from ailment during the days of occurrence." Babar Tariq (complainant/PW-4) also stated that on the day of occurrence, prior to the occurrence, he went along with accused Arif for his medicine and he (accused Arif) was suffering from respiratory disease and relevant portions of his statement in this regard are hereby reproduced as under:- "On the day of occurrence, prior to the occurrence I went along with accused Arif for his medicine." "I have good relations with Arif prior to the occurrence." "Accused Arif was suffering from respiratory disease (saans lene ki bimari). He (complainant/PW-4) also stated before the Court during his statement that Arif (accused/appellant) asked that whether house is to be sold or not and when brother of the complainant replied that after the marriage of the sisters, property would be distributed, accused brought gun from other room and fired straight shots as well as committed the occurrence; relevant portion of his statement in this regard reads as follows:- "My brother Dilawar, who just came out of the washroom after shower and was combing his hairs when the accused Muhammad Arif came from behind and again asked that whether the house is to be sold or not. My brother replied to him that after the marriage of the sisters the property would be distributed. The accused brought the gun form other room and fired straight shots on me which landed on my left arm while other fire landed on my left leg. The accused then fired four consecutive shots, three of them landed at the front side at the right leg of Dilawar while fourth shot landed below the naval area." Two days prior to the occurrence, Dilawar (deceased of the case) and Arif (appellant) jointly went for medicine for Arif; relevant portion of the statement of Babar Tariq (complainant/PW-4) in his regard is hereby reproduced as under:- "It is correct that two days prior to the occurrence Dilawar and accused Arif jointly went to for medicine for Arif." Aforementioned state of affairs i.e. Muhammad Arif (appellant) was suffering from ailment, two days prior to the occurrence, Dilawar (now deceased of the case) went along with the appellant for his medicine, when appellant asked that when house will be sold and on hearing the reply that after the marriage of the sisters of the complainant, property would be distributed, he went into the room, brought the gun and committed the occurrence, reflects that it was not premeditated occurrence rather took place under the heat of passion. When all these factors are taken into consideration in totality then they constitute mitigating factor for reduction in quantum of sentence to the extent of offence under Section: 302 (b) P.P.C. Therefore, while seeking guidance from the cases of "Bakht Munir v. The State and another" (2020 SCMR 588), "Ghaffar Ali v. The State and another" (2021 SCMR 354) and "Ali Muhammad v. The State" (2020 SCMR 2143) and exercising caution, sentence of "death" awarded to Muhammad Arif (appellant) by the trial Court under Section: 302 (b) P.P.C is converted to "Imprisonment for Life"; however, order passed by trial court regarding payment of com

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of nine hours and twenty minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place at 10.00 am on 12.11.2020, however, application for registration of FIR was filed on 12.11.2020 at 07.20 pm and on the basis of said application, FIR was recorded at 07.20 pm on 12.11.2020---Though it was mentioned in application that after the occurrence, deceased was taken to RHC in unconscious condition where Medical Officer after medical treatment referred him to DHQ Hospital wherefrom after providing first aid he was referred to General Hospital and when complainant was taking his brother to General Hospital, he expired on the way to hospital---Record showed that neither any Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of deceased issued from RHC nor any Emergency Admission Register of RHC was brought on the record by the prosecution so much so any record showing medical treatment of deceased in RHC was also not available on the record; any record to show that deceased was referred from RHC to DHQ Hospital had also not been brought on the record; record about provision of any first aid to deceased in DHQ Hospital had not been produced---Similarly, any referral slip to show that deceased was referred to General Hospital was also not available on the record, therefore, any plausible reason to justify delay in registration of the case had not been brought on the record by the prosecution---Hence, there was unexplained delay in registration of the case which reflected that none of the cited eye-witnesses including the complainant was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of occurrence---First Information Report (crime report), which was cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, could not be termed as promptly recorded and such sort of FIR could not provide any support to the case of prosecution rather superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR was bound to fall---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in recording FIR---When there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version. Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others PLD 2019 SC 64 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 15 hours and 40 minutes in conducting postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased---Consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 13.11.2020 at 01:40 a.m. and it is also relevant to mention here that documents were also received from the police at 1:30 a.m. on 13.11.2020 which fact lead to the conclusion that documents were not ready, time was consumed by the prosecution for preparing the same, therefore postmortem examination conducted over the dead body of the deceased was delayed, which further showed that FIR was even not recorded at the stated time rather with much delay, however, anti-time had been shown in the record which negated presence/availability of cited eye-witnesses including the complainant at the time and place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Haroon Shafique v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 2118; Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068; Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2020 SCMR 192 and Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 16 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer moved an application to Medical Officer, RHC, for having permission to record the statement of victim---Perusal of said application revealed that victim was brought in emergency at RHC at about 11:30 a.m. on 12.11.2020, meaning thereby that police was having the knowledge of occurrence at least at 11:30 a.m. or prior to that but even then case was not registered till then for which any reason appealing to the common prudent mind had not come on the record which reflected deliberation, consultation and procuring as well as inducing the witnesses on part of the prosecution and tailoring story for registration of the case on the one hand whereas negation of presence of cited eye-witnesses including the complainant on the other hand---Any document i.e. Medico-Legal Certificate or referral slip or medical treatment chart or death certificate to show that complainant or any other cited eye-witnesses was accompanying deceased when he was taken in injured condition to hospital was not brought on the record---Case of prosecution that victim was shifted in injured condition to RHC from where to DHQ Hospital and from there he was taken to General Hospital but any cloth of cited eye-witnesses or complainant smeared with blood of victim had not been produced during trial of the case---As per column No. 8 of inquest report, eyes of the deceased were open---Investigating Officer clearly stated before the Court that presence of complainant and other cited eye-witnesses was not verified by residents of the place of occurrence---Furthermore, role alleged against co-accused that he made firearm shot and caused injury to the deceased was not proved during investigation---Co-accused against whom allegation of causing firearm injury to the deceased was levelled on the basis of same set of evidence and same circumstances, he had been acquitted---Thus, ocular account produced by the prosecution in the case was neither confidence inspiring nor reliable, hence same was discarded---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case comprised of complainant and an eye-witness---Both the said witnesses were neither residents of the place of occurrence nor were having any job/business place there, therefore were chance witnesses and it was necessary for them to establish valid reason regarding their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Complainant stated that he along with his deceased brother, his mother and father were resident of a village, situated at a distance of 12-km from the place of occurrence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that it was not mentioned in the application for the registration of FIR that why deceased was called through phone to come at place of occurrence and any motive for the occurrence was also not mentioned in said application---However, dishonest improvement in that regard was made by the very same complainant when he filed complaint regarding the occurrence wherein he mentioned that co-accused made phone call to deceased and summoned him for taking his sister who was abducted by accused along with others and motive was also mentioned in the complaint that accused along with others abducted sister of the complainant on 01.10.2020, deceased uttered abuses to accused on telephone, exchanged of hot words took place and due to said grudge accused persons while deceitfully calling deceased committed his murder---However, neither any phone of co-accused was recovered during investigation of the case nor even produced during trial of the case---Alleged abductee was also not produced during trial of the case---Even allegation levelled by the complainant that co-accused summoned deceased through phone was found false during investigation of the case---Therefore, said aspect could not be proved during trial of the case, hence the very alleged cause regarding going of complainant and other cited eye-witnesses with deceased of the case to the place of occurrence could not be established---Nothing brought on record that in whose presence deceased uttered abuses to accused and in whose presence altercation took place between them, so that claim of prosecution also could not be proved---Thus motive could not be established---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Dishonest improvement made by witness---Scope---Witness who introduces dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, can not be relied. Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 and Khalid Mehmood and another v. The State and others SCMR 810 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not supporting ocular account---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per site plan of place of occurrence, appellant fired shot with pistol 30-bore at deceased from a distance of four feet---If length of his arm and barrel of pistol are deducted from said distance, then from the remaining distance there should have been at least blackening at the wound of the deceased but it was not observed---Any Medico-Legal Certificate, referral slip from RHC, or DHQ Hospital, was not produced by the prosecution and it was mere version of the prosecution---Any document was not produced to show that deceased was provided any first aid in injured condition---As per ocular account accused fired shot which hit at the head of deceased---Similarly, co-accused fired shot at deceased which also hit at his head---In such state of affairs there should have been two firearm entry wounds on the head of the deceased but the Medical Officer stated that he had not mentioned injury No.1 as entry wound and he had also stated that he had not mentioned in the detail of injury No.2 as ante wound and it went without saying that margins of the wounds were irregular---On the one hand medical evidence had not supported the ocular account in stricto sensu whereas on the other hand medical evidence was mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence---Medical evidence could tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it could not tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same neither provided any corroboration nor was of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---consequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Though two cartridge cases secured from the place of occurrence were found as having been fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant---However, as per report of Forensic Science Agency, two cartridge cases were received on 23.11.2020 whereas pistol was received on 07.12.2020---As per case of prosecution pistol was recovered from the appellant on 04.12.2020---As per case of prosecution, accused was arrested on 24.11.2020---Meaning thereby that empties were sent just one day prior to the arrest of the appellant i.e. on 23.11.2020 which made it a suspect circumstance---Furthermore, complainant clearly stated that accused was arrested in this case on the day of registration of case i.e. 12.11.2020---So, on the one hand, version of Investigating Officer regarding arrest of accused on 24.11.2020 had been negated whereas on the other hand it reflected that empties were sent to Forensic Science Agency after arrest of the accused---If accused was arrested on 12.11.2020 then after the statutory period provided under S.61 read with S.167, Cr.P.C., further detention of the appellant with the police was illegal and so pistol was allegedly recovered on 04.12.2020 from the appellant when he was in illegal custody which also raised question mark about legal efficacy of the recovery and all those factors made the report of Forensic Science Agency as non-conclusive and recovery as inconsequential---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Noor Ahmad v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1327 and The State through P.G. Sindh and others v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh and others 2021 SCMR 873 rel. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in the case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal. Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 rel. Ms. Nighat Saeed Mughal for Appellant. Abdul Samad, Additional Prosecutor General along with Abbas Bhatti, S.I. for the State. Ali Haider for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025. Judgment Farooq Haider, J .--- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.36927-J/2022 filed by Muhammad Azam (appellant) through jail authorities against his "conviction and sentence", Murder Reference No.145/2022 sent by trial court for confirmation of death sentence awarded to Muhammad Azam (appellant) and PSLA No.35019/2022 filed by Shahid Hussain (complainant) against order of acquittal of Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi, as all these matters have arisen out of one and same judgment dated: 16.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur/ trial court. 2. Muhammad Azam (appellant) along with his co-accused persons namely Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi was tried in complaint case titled as "Shahid Hussain v. Muhammad Azam, etc." under Sections: 302, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C and trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated: 16.05.2022 while acquitting Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi (aforementioned co-accused persons) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: - Convictions Sentences Under Section: 302(b) P.P.C "Death" as Taz'ir (for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Altaf Hussain) with payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section: 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. Under Section: 440 P.P.C "Five Years' Imprisonment" with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section: 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the appellant/convict. 3. Brief facts, as per application (Ex.PA) made by Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) to Ibrahim Abid, Assistant Sub-Inspector (CW-2) for registration of the case are that on 12.11.2020 at about 7:30 a.m., accused Meraaj Bibi wife of Muhammad Iqbal made phone call to brother of complainant namely Altaf Hussain and asked him to reach at Chah Mian Sana Ullah Chachhar near Kot Sher Khan Road; complainant along with his brother Altaf Hussain, mother Parveen Bibi and father Muhammad Hussain reached at the address given by the accused at 10:00 a.m. on Move Car bearing No.LEA-8765; after sometime accused (1) Muhammad Azam armed with 30-bore pistol whereas accused (2) Muhammad Younis armed with 30-bore pistol suddenly came in front of their vehicle; accused No.1 and 2 bolted their weapons towards the face of Altaf Hussain (brother of the complainant) whereas co-accused namely Iqbal and Mudassar while raising lalkara asked accused Nos.1 and 2 to kill him upon which complainant, his mother and father came out of the vehicle and beseeched the accused persons but accused persons ignored their request; accused Nos.1 while standing in front of the vehicle fired straight shot at Altaf Hussain (brother of the complainant) who was sitting on the driving seat of the vehicle which hit on his head while passing through front screen of vehicle; after that accused No.2 fired shot with his pistol upon brother of complainant which hit at his head while passing through the screen of the vehicle due to which brain came out from the head of his brother and blood started oozing; Altaf Hussain brother of the complainant became unconscious on the seat of car; accused persons Muhammad Azam and Muhammad Younis made firing upon the witnesses who luckily saved but one fire shot hit at tyre of vehicle; upon hue and cry of witnesses, accused persons while making aerial firing and brandishing their weapons fled away from the spot; brother of the complainant was taken to RHC Baseerpur in unconscious condition; the doctor after treatment referred him to DHQ, Hospital Okara where after first aid, he was referred to General Hospital, Lahore and on the way to General Hospital near Manga Mandi, brother of the complainant succumbed to the injuries. It is relevant to mention here that motive is not mentioned in the application for registration of case, however, it is mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PF) that Muhammad Azam (accused, who is cousin of the complainant) along with other co-accused persons abducted sister of the complainant namely Umm-e-Zainab. The complainant party did not take legal action for the sake of honour, however, they used to demand return of their sister through brotherhood, Altaf Hussain (brother of the complainant) uttered abuses to accused Azam on telephone and exchanged hot words and due to that grudge accused persons in connivance with one another has murdered brother of the complainant. On the basis of aforementioned application of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) case was registered vide FIR No.707/2020 (Ex.CW-2/A) dated: 12.11.2020 under Sections: 302, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C at Police Station: Baseerpur, District Okara, however, being dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the local police, complainant filed "complaint" (Ex.PF) against Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassar, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi under Sections: 302, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C. Muhammad Azam (appellant) along with Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassir, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi (since acquitted co-accused) were summoned by the trial court to face the trial, they were formally charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial; complainant produced as many as two witnesses to prove the charge against the accused whereas ten witnesses were examined by the trial court as Court Witnesses; after recording of evidence, appellant was examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. but he refuted the allegations levelled against him; he did not opt to appear as his own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however produced documents in his defence. Trial court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through the impugned judgment dated: 16.05.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that convictions recorded against and sentences awarded to the appellant through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' and result of non-reading/ misreading of evidence, therefore, same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 5. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of instant appeal; learned counsel for the complainant in support of PSLA (mentioned above) against the order of acquittal of Muhammad Younis, Muhammad Mudassir, Muhammad Iqbal and Meraaj Bibi submits that said order of acquittal is against the law and facts of the case and also result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, occurrence in this case took place at 10:00 a.m. on 12.11.2020, however, application for registration of FIR (Ex.PA) was filed on 12.11.2020 at 7:20 p.m. and on the basis of said application, FIR (Ex.CW-2/A) was recorded at 7:20 p.m. on 12.11.2020. Though it is mentioned in application (Ex.PA) that after the occurrence, Altaf Hussain (deceased of the case) was taken to RHC Baseerpur in unconscious condition where Doctor after medical treatment referred him to DHQ Hospital, Okara wherefrom after providing first aid he was referred to Lahore General Hospital and when complainant was taking his brother to Lahore General Hospital, he expired near Manga Mandi but neither any Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of Altaf Hussain issued from RHC Baseerpur nor any Emergency Admission Register of RHC Baseerpur was brought on the record by the prosecution so much so any record showing medical treatment of Altaf Hussain in RHC Baseerpur is also not available on the record; any record to show that Altaf Hussain was referred from RHC Baseerpur to DHQ Hospital, Okara has also not been brought on the record; record about provision of any first aid to Altaf Hussain in DHQ Hospital, Okara has not been produced; similarly, any referral slip to show that Altaf Hussain was referred to General Hospital, Lahore is also not available on the record, therefore, any plausible reason to justify delay in registration of the case has not been brought on the record by the prosecution, hence, there is unexplained delay in registration of the case which reflects that none of the cited eye-witnesses including the complainant was present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of occurrence. First Information Report (crime report), which is cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, cannot be termed as promptly recorded and such sort of FIR cannot provide any support to the case of prosecution rather superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR is bound to fall. It is well settled that when there is delay in reporting the incident to the police, then prosecution is under obligation to explain such delay and failure to do that will badly reflect upon the credibility of prosecution version. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State and others" (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 64); relevant portion from paragraph No.29 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "There is no cavil to the proposition, however, it is to be noted that in absence of any plausible explanation, this Court has always considered the delay in lodging of FIR to be fatal and castes a suspicion on the prosecution story, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. It has been held by this Court that a FIR is always treated as a cornerstone of the prosecution case to establish guilt against those involved in a crime; thus, it has a significant role to play. If there is any delay in lodging of a FIR and commencement of investigation, it gives rise to a doubt, which, of course, cannot be extended to anyone else except to the accused?" Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 13.11.2020 at 01:40 a.m. and it is also relevant to mention here that documents were also received from the police at 1:30 a.m. on 13.11.2020 which fact leads to the conclusion that documents were not ready, time was consumed by the prosecution for preparing the same, therefore, postmortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased with delay, which further shows that FIR was even not recorded at the stated time rather with much delay, however, anti-time has been shown in the record which negates presence/availability of cited eye-witnesses including the complainant at the time and place of occurrence; in this regard, cases of "Haroon Shafique v. The State and others"(2018 SCMR 2118), "Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State" (2019 SCMR 1068), "Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others" (2020 SCMR 192) and "Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 16) can be safely referred. It goes without saying that application was moved by Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (CW-9) of Police Station: Baseerpur to Medical Officer, RHC Baseerpur for having permission to record the statement of Altaf Hussain which is Ex.DB and copy of the same is available at Page No.176 of the Paper Book which is hereby scanned below:- Perusal of aforementioned application reveals that Altaf Hussain was brought to RHC Baseerpur under supervision of Liaqat Ali 1457/C and it was mentioned by the Medical Officer on the said application that victim was brought in emergency at RHC Baseerpur at about 11:30 a.m. on 12.11.2020, meaning thereby that police was having the knowledge of occurrence at least at 11:30 a.m. or prior to that but even then case was not registered till then for which any reason appealing to the common prudent mind has not come on the record which reflects deliberation, consultation and procuring as well as inducing the witnesses on part of the prosecution and tailoring story for registration of the case on the one hand whereas negation of presence of cited eye-witnesses including the complainant on the other hand. Ocular account in this case comprises of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) and Muhammad Hussain (PW-2). They both were neither resident of the place of occurrence nor were having any job/business place there, therefore were chance witnesses and it was necessary for them to establish valid reason regarding their presence at the time and place of occurrence; relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) in this regard is hereby reproduced:- "I along with my brother Altaf Hussain deceased, my mother Perveen and father Muhammad Hussain are resident of village Chak Kamboh. Chak Kamboh is situated at a distance of 12-km from the place of occurrence." It is also important to mention here that it was not mentioned in the application (Ex.PA) that why Meraaj Bibi called Altaf Hussain through phone to come at Chah Mian Sana Ullah Chachhar near Kot Sher Khan Road and any motive for the occurrence was also not mentioned in said application (Ex.PA), however, dishonest improvement in this regard was made by the very same complainant Shahid Hussain (PW-1) when he filed complaint regarding the occurrence (Ex.PF) wherein he mentioned that Meraaj Bibi made phone call to Altaf Hussain and summoned him for taking Umm-e-Zainab (sister of Altaf Hussain) who was abducted by Muhammad Azam (accused) along with others and motive was also mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PF) that Muhammad Azam (accused) along with others abducted Umm-e-Zainab (sister of the complainant) on 01.10.2020, Altaf Hussain uttered abuses to Azam (accused) on telephone, exchange of hot words took place and due to said grudge accused persons while deceitfully calling Altaf Hussain committed his murder. However, it is relevant to mention here that neither any phone of Meraaj Bibi was recovered during investigation of the case nor even produced during trial of the case so much so said Umm-e-Zainab was also not produced during trial of the case; relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (investigating officer/CW-9) is hereby reproduced:- "No mobile phone was effected from Mst. Miraj Bibi" Even allegation levelled by the complainant that Meraaj Bibi summoned Altaf Hussain through phone was found false during investigation of the case; relevant portions of statement of Muhammad Murtaza, Sub-Inspector (investigating officer/CW-9) are hereby reproduced:- "The allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR that Miraj Bibi present in the court summoned Altaf Hussain deceased telephonically found false in my investigation." "During my investigation it was surface of the record that according to CDRs reports that Miraj Bibi did not make any call to Altaf Hussain deceased. " Therefore, said aspect could not be proved during trial of the case, hence the very alleged cause regarding going of complainant and other cited eye-witnesses with Altaf Hussain (deceased of the case) to the place of occurrence could not be established; any document i.e. MLC or referral slip or medical treatment chart or death certificate to show that complainant or any other cited eye-witness was accompanying Altaf Hussain when he was taken in injured condition to hospital was not brought on the record; application for registration of the case was even recorded after thoroughly inspecting the dead body, relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "Firstly I.O. inspected the dead body thoroughly and thereafter I got drafted application Ex.PA. The dead body handed over to us after autopsy at 04:00 a.m. on the following day i.e. 13.11.2020 at Police Station Basirpur but I do not know exactly the time of conducting Post mortem examination by the Doctor." It was case of prosecution that Altaf Hussain was shifted in injured condition to RHC Baseerpur from where to DHQ Hospital, Okara and from there he was taken to General Hospital, Lahore but any cloth of cited eye-witnesses or complainant smeared with blood of Altaf Hussain has not been produced during trial of the case. It is very much important to mention here that version of complainant was not verified by any person who is resident of the vicinity; relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "It is correct that none from the vicinity verified our version put forth by me in the FIR during the course of investigation." Moreover version of complainant party that they went to get custody of Umm-e-Zainab was found as dishonest improvement and in this regard relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "I had got recorded in my application Ex.PA that "to get the custody of my sister Zainab Bibi as she was abducted by accused Muhammad Azam etc. prior to the occurrence" confronted with Ex.DA where it is not so recorded." Furthermore, motive introduced by the prosecution during trial of the case was also found as dishonest improvement and relevant portion of statement of Shahid Hussain (complainant/PW-1) is hereby reproduced:- "I had not got recorded in my application Ex.PA which I got recorded in my examination in chief "motive behind the occurrence is that accused Muhammad Azam had abducted my sister Zainab Bibi some days prior to the occurrence along with his companions and my brother had abused Muhammad Azam due to which they committed the murder of my brother Altaf Hussain." By now it is well settled that witness who introduces dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, cannot be relied; in this regard, case of "Muhammad Arif v. The State" (2019 SCMR 631) and "Khalid Mehmood and another v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 810) can be advantageously referred. It was not brought on the record that in whose presence Altaf Hussain uttered abuses to Muhammad Azam accused (now appellant) and in whose presence altercation took place between them, so this claim of prosecuti

Summary: (Against the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in S.T.R. No. 8 of 2024). Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----Ss. 2(37), 6, 7, 8, 22, 23, 26 & 73---Input tax, claim of---Issuance of fake/ flying invoices, allegation of---Proof---Allegation was that the registered person /company did not purchase any coal from the local suppliers but unlawfully claimed input tax on the basis of fake/ flying invoices issued by dubious suppliers, therefore, causing loss to the national exchequer--- Order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in favour of registered person was concurred with by the High Court---Validity---Pertinently, the proceedings in the matter were initiated pursuant to issuance of Show-Cause Notice wherein the respondents were not confronted with any invoices, the value of which was above Rs. 50,000/---No material or evidence whatsoever was provided to substantiate the allegation to the effect that the suppliers as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice were blacklisted during the tax period under consideration---In the present case, Show-Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original were passed on vague and frivolous allegations and certain conclusions had been made on mere presumptions only, whereas, no material or evidence had been produced to substantiate the same---Notably, while passing the Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue exceeded his jurisdiction while travelling beyond the very premises, whereas the respondents were never confronted with the allegations made in the Show-Cause Notice or entries as reflected in the bank statement which were subsequently furnished by the respondents, showing the details of the total amount and the particulars of suppliers from whom purchases were made---While initiating the proceedings against the respondents, there was no material or evidence available on record to make out a case against the respondents of illegal or inadmissible claim of input tax adjustment, whereas the entire proceedings and the Order-in-Original passed in the present case was based on presumptions, whereas no inquiry or verification was made by the Department in respect of alleged fake/flying invoices---Thus, the Tribunal and the High Court were justified to set aside both the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal, while recording concurrent findings on facts which did not suffer from any illegality or error---Petition for leave to appeal, filed by Department, was dismissed, in circumstances. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV, Large Taxpayer Unit, Karachi v. Messrs Al-Abid Silk Mills Limited A-39, Manghopir Road, Site Karrachi 2023 SCMR 1797 ref. Malik Itaat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record along with Kamran Ullah, Additional Commissioner along with Yousaf Khan, S.O. for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th June, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil procedure – First appellate jurisdiction – Duty to decide all framed issues – CPC, O.XX r.5 – Where an appellate court has itself framed determinative points for decision (six in number here) and has been directed by the Supreme Court to decide the matter on those points, it must render findings on each material issue. Confining adjudication to a single aspect (the “Jirga” paper) amounts to non-compliance with binding directions and abdication of appellate duty. (b) Appellate practice – Compliance with Supreme Court remand directions – Failure to reproduce, analyze, and adjudicate the earlier-framed six points contravenes the Supreme Court’s prior mandate; such omission constitutes material illegality warranting reversal of the appellate judgment. (c) Evidence – Misreading/non-reading – Exhibit status of document – Where the trial record shows the “Jirga decision” dated 18-12-2009 was exhibited (Exh. P.A.) and supported by marginal witnesses, treating it as an unexhibited plain paper is a manifest misreading/non-reading of material evidence, vitiating the judgment. (d) Evidence assessment – Civil standard – Preponderance of probabilities – An appellate court cannot decline to evaluate oral testimony by declaring both sides “equal” without comparative reasoning. Documentary evidence does not automatically trump oral evidence; a qualitative, issue-wise appraisal is required. Failure to undertake such appraisal is a misdirection in law. (e) Specific performance / Registration questions – Specific Relief Act, s.12; Registration Act, 1908, s.17; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, s.53-A; Contract Act, 1872, s.2(e) – Pleas regarding (i) whether the “Jirga decree” constitutes a concluded contract, (ii) whether it required registration, (iii) applicability of part-performance, and (iv) essential contractual elements remain to be determined by the High Court upon comprehensive reconsideration of all six framed issues. (f) Practice & procedure – Finality vs completeness – While a single determinative point can sometimes dispose of a case, that principle is inapplicable where the controversy is a matrix of interrelated questions framed by the court itself; comprehensive adjudication is necessary to secure finality through due process, not through truncation. Disposition: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 13-08-2024 set aside; case remanded to the High Court for fresh decision strictly in conformity with the Supreme Court’s directions and with findings on all six framed issues, within a reasonable time; no order as to costs.