Summary: The prime question which emanates for the determination of this Court is related to the impleading of a person (subsequent vendee) who purchases the property, subject matter of the suit/proceedings. 374Crl. Revision 1746635.91-

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 372Election Petition 23259/24 Rao Omar Hashim Khan Vs Ahmad Raza Maneka etc Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 18-06- 2025 2025 LHC 4421

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 29 hours and 20 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential--- Accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Perusal of record revealed that regarding the occurrence which took place on 14.01.2013 at about 01.00 p.m., FIR. was got registered on 15.01.2013 at 06.20 p.m.---Fact remained that the distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station was of 03-kilometers---Therefore, immediately after the incident the matter could conveniently be reported to the police by the complainant but no such effort was made in that regard---Even from the date of occurrence i.e. 14.01.2013 to 15.01.2013 neither complainant appeared before the Investigating Officer nor made any application for the registration of FIR--- It was proved from record that Investigating Officer received any information about the occurrence from wireless or any source---Information regarding the incident was imparted to the police by the complainant after a considerable delay and that too after due consultation and deliberation---Thus, a cautious approach ought to be adopted by the Courts for evaluating the evidence---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Jahangir and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1741 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inordinate delay in recording the statements of witnesses---Consequential---Accused- petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that witnesses did not record their statements immediately after the registration of FIR which was registered on 15.01.2013---As per statement of Investigating Officer the witnesses got recorded their statements on 20.01.2013 and prior to that they did not appear before him in proof of allegations levelled by the complainant--- Injured got recorded his first statement on 31.01.2013 i.e. with the further delay of 11 days from the date of recording the statements of witnesses and 15 days after the date of registration of FIR for which no cogent explanation was offered by prosecution---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Confliction---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that medical examination of the injured was conducted by Medical Officer and Medico-Legal Certificate was crystal clear of the fact that injured was produced for his medical examination at 08.10 p.m. and keeping in view the fact that injured allegedly received firearm injury at the hands of accused, who was in critical condition, then why complainant waited for long eight hours in getting the injured for his medical examination to the hospital---Likewise, though in his complaint, complainant alleged that petitioner inflicted a fire shot from his pistol which hit on the right shin of injured and went through and through, however, Medical Officer admitted that in his opinion, many metallic pieces were found in the area of injury---Thus, it might be pieces of many bullets or pellets---Such statement of Medical Officer was further corroborated by the other Medical Officer---Said portion was crystal clear of the fact that the injury was not caused through a .30 bore pistol rather it was caused through a different weapon containing cartridges and the said conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony was so severe that it travelled to the roots of the matter and knocked the bottom of the prosecution's case against the accused--- Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that though four accused were nominated in the occurrence, out of which three accused were acquitted by the Trial Court and their acquittal order was not challenged by the complainant at any forum and only petitioner was convicted on the basis of similar set of witnesses disbelieved to the extent of remaining accused---Under such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold petitioner alone responsible for the commission of offence---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 1731 rel. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Ocular account and medical evidence---Confliction---Scope---Variation in the medical and ocular account totally mars the case of the prosecution. Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State 2019 SCMR 129 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence not seen by the witnesses---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Investigating Officer admitted that on the pointing of the complainant and witnesses, he got prepared un-scaled site plan---If the presence of the accused was considered at point No.2 i.e. haveli, then it was not possible for the witnesses to witness the occurrence of receiving of firearm injury to injured who at the eventful time was shown to be present in the wheat crop---Un-scaled site plan also did not demonstrate the total distance between the accused and complainant's party and if witnesses were present at considerable distance from the place where injured received injuries by the hands of assailants and grown up wheat crop was intervening the places then witnesses' deposition with specification of roles of assailants qua inflicting firearm injuries was not believable because if accused were present in the haveli, then, in the presence of wheat crop, it was not possible for witnesses to see the incident with specification---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-F(vi)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, munaqqilah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-recovery of incriminating material---Accused-petitioners were charged for causing firearm injuries to the son of complainant---Record showed that .30 bore pistol along with two live bullets was allegedly recovered at the time of arrest of the petitioner but there was no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that the weapon had matched with the crime empties because no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence which could be matched with the weapon recovered---Similarly, no blood stained earth was taken into possession to prove the place of occurrence, therefore, there was no incriminating recovery in the case available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and recovery had become inconsequential in circumstances---Criminal revision petition against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Rajab Ali v. The State and others 2025 YLR 493 rel. Muhammad Riaz Chaudhary for Petitioner. Ms. Sumaira Shafi, DDPP for the State. Rai Salah-ud-Din Kharal for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 18th June, 2025. Judgment Abher Gul Khan, J .--- Through this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the vires of judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by learned Magistrate Section.30, Jaranwala whereby he, on culmination of trial in case FIR No. 10/ 2013 of Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad, was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under section 324 P.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months Under section 337F(vi) P.P.C. To undergo five years rigorous imprisonment as Tazir and to pay daman amount of Rs.200,000/- Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 23.04.2014 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 which was finally decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala who vide judgment dated 26.06.2014 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to him. 3. Arguments heard and record perused. 4. Precisely the facts giving rise to the criminal case as narrated in complaint Exh.PA are that Shah Muhammad-complainant got lodged FIR alleging therein that on 14.01.2013 at about 01.00 p.m. he along with his son Falak Sher was on way back to the house from Haveli whereas his brother Bahawal and Sultan were behind them and when they reached near the house of accused they got waylaid along with the wall of their house and Anwar accused raised lalkara and Abdul Rashid accused made straight fire with his pistol which didn't hit to anybody while shot fired by Javed was also missed. Imran made a straight fireshot from his pistol which landed on the right shin of Falak Sher which went through and through. Upon hearing commotions witnesses attracted to the spot while accused decamped therefrom while brandishing their weapons 5. Perusal of record reveals that regarding the occurrence which took place on 14.01.2013 at about 01.00 p.m., FIR was got registered on 15.01.2013 at 06.20 p.m. It is noted that the distance between the place of occurrence and Police Station Landianwala is of 03-kilometers. Therefore, immediately after the incident the matter could conveniently be reported to the police by the complainant but no such effort was made in this regard. Even from the date of occurrence i.e. 14.01.2013 to 15.01.2013 neither complainant appeared before the investigating officer nor made any application for the registration of FIR It is also not proved from record that investigating officer received any information about the occurrence from wireless or any source. I feel no hesitation in holding that the information regarding the incident was imparted to the police by the complainant after a considerable delay and that too after due consultation and deliberation. Thus, a cautious approach ought to be adopted by the Courts for evaluating the evidence. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Jahangir and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1741), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under: - "??..perusal of record reveals that FIR was lodged after an unexplainable delay of 3 hours despite the fact that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 km. The time of occurrence is around 05:00/05:30 pm and the matter is reported at 08:30 p.m. The complainant had a bike that he used to go to the police station. This delay has not been encountered through plausible explanation by the prosecution." Another blatant lacuna in this case noticed is to the effect that witnesses did not record their statements immediately after the registration of FIR which was registered on 15.01.2013 and as per statement of investigating officer the witnesses got recorded their statements on 20.01.2013 and prior to that they did not appear before him in proof of allegations levelled by the complainant. The injured got recorded his first statement on 31.01.2013 i.e. with the further delay of 11 days from the date of recording the statements of PWs and 15 days after the date of registration of FIR for which no cogent explanation was offered by prosecution. 6. Similarly, it is also observed from record that medical examination of the injured was conducted by Dr. Qurban Ali (PW.8) and MLC is crystal clear of the fact that injured was produced for his medical examination at 08.10 p.m. and keeping in view the fact that Falak Sher (injured) allegedly received firearm injury at the hands of accused, who was in critical condition, then why complainant waited for long eight hours in getting the injured for his medical examination to the hospital. It is also crystal clear from record that though four accused were nominated in the occurrence, out of which accused namely Anwar, Abdul Rasheed and Javed were acquitted by the trial court and their acquittal order was not challenged by the complainant at any forum and only Imran (petitioner) was convicted on the basis of similar set of witnesses disbelieved to the extent of remaining accused. Under such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold him alone responsible for the commission of offence. Reference in this respect can be made to the case law reported as Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1731), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under ;- It was a fact that except the petitioner, rest of the accused were acquitted of the charge by the High Court and one of them by the Trial Court on the same set of evidence. Complainant has ascribed injuries jointly to all the accused and did not single out the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it would not be safe to hold him alone responsible for causing death of the deceased Likewise, though in his complaint (Exh.PA) Shah Murad (complainant) alleged that Imran (petitioner) inflicted a fire shot from his pistol which hit on the right shin of Falak Sher and went through and through, however, Dr. Asher while appearing as PW.4 admitted it as correct that "in his opinion, many metallic pieces were found in the area of injury. It may be a pieces of many bullets or pellets". The aforementioned statement of Dr. Asher (PW.4) was further corroborated by Dr. Qurban (PW.8). The relevant portion from his cross-examination is reproduced below for reference sake:- It is correct that entry wound was in round shape. It is correct that there is a big difference in bullets and pallets. It is correct that pallets were of round shape and bullets are of lengthy shape. The above-mentioned portion is crystal clear of the fact that the injury was not caused through a .30 bore pistol rather it would be caused through a different weapon containing cartridges and the aforementioned conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony was so severe that it travelled to the roots of the matter and knocked the bottom of the prosecution's case against the accused. It is now a settled principle of law that variation in the medical and ocular account totally mars the case of the prosecution and if any reference is needed that can be made to the case reported as Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan while dilating upon inconsistency between medical ocular evidence observed as under:- "It is the settled principle of law that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution much less glaring conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or for that matter where presence of eye-witnesses is not free from doubt, the benefit of such loophole/ lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused." 7. There was admission on the part of Ramzan, S.I. (PW.7) that on the pointing of the complainant and witnesses, he got prepared unscaled site plan Exh.PE. If the presence of the accused is considered at point No.2 i.e. haveli, then it was not possible for the witnesses to witness the occurrence of receiving of firearm injury to Falak Sher (injured) who at the eventful time was shown to be present in the wheat crop. Un-scaled site plan also did not demonstrate the total distance between the accused and complainant's party and if witnesses were present at considerable distance from the place where injured received injuries by the hands of assailants and grown up wheat crop was intervening the places then witnesses' deposition with specification of roles of assailants qua inflicting firearm injuries was not believable because if accused were present in the haveli, then, in the presence of wheat crop, it was not possible for witnesses to see the incident with specification. 8. So far as recovery of .30 bore pistol is concerned, no doubt .30 bore pistol along with two live bullets was allegedly recovered at the time of arrest of the petitioner but there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, that the weapon had matched with the crime empties because no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence which could be matched with the weapon recovered. Similarly, no blood stained earth was taken into possession to prove the place of occurrence, therefore, there was no incriminating recovery in the case available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and recovery has become inconsequential in circumstances. Reference in this regard is made to the case law cited as Rajab Ali v. The State and others (2025 YLR 493) wherein this Court held as under;- I observe that recovery of weapon of offence is always considered to be the corroboratory evidence and no conviction could be sustained on the evidence of recovery alone, and while observing earlier, the ocular account, furnished by the prosecution has been doubted and disbelieved, so, the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence, hardly advances the case of the prosecution in any manner. 9. The epitome of above discussion is to the effect that the case in hand is arising out of a crime report which was registered with unexplained delay, the ocular account was disbelieved to the extent of similarly placed co-accused and there is a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence. From such aspects, a reasonable doubt emerges, the benefit of which cannot be withheld from the petitioner. In these circumstances, it does not appear safe to uphold the conviction of petitioner. Resultantly, while allowing Criminal Revision No.91 of 2015, the conviction and sentence of Muhammad Imran (petitioners) awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 Jaranwala and further affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala vide judgment dated 26.06.2014 is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and his surety stands discharged from liability. M-132/L Revision allowed.

Summary: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 9(1), Sr. No. 3(a)---Possession of narcotic substances---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Prosecution case was that 270-gram charas was recovered from the possession of accused/appellant---Record showed that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and had successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence---In this way, the impugned judgment, resulting into conviction of the appellant for offence under S.9(1)3(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not open to any exception---Consequently, the conviction of the appellant recorded through the impugned judgment was maintained---According to S.9(1)3(a) of the Act ibid, the punishment provided for up to 499 grams of charas, was imprisonment which might extend to five years but shall not be less than ten months along with fine which might be up to forty thousand rupees---Appellant was a first time offender---According to jail report, he had already undergone the major portion of his sentence---Further, the appellant had expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future---Appellant should be given an opportunity to mend his ways, hence, the sentence of the appellant was reduced to 10 months R.I, which would meet the ends of justice---With the said modification in sentence of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed. Khuda Bakhsh v. The State 2015 SCMR 735; The State through Deputy Director (Law) Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi PLD 2017 Sc 671 and Mst. Sughran and another v. The State 2021 SCMR 109 rel. Rana Inzamam-ul-Hassan Joiya, for Appellant. Ijaz Ahmad Pannun, DDPP for the State. Date of hearing: 18th June, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J .--- Khurram Shahzad, appellant was tried by the learned trial Court in case FIR No. 1028 dated 16-10-2022 offence under section 9(1)3(a) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the charge of possessing charas weighing 270 grams registered at Police Station Dhulley Gujranwala and at the conclusion of trial, he has been convicted and sentence vide judgment dated 20-01-2025 as under:- "Under section 9 (1)3(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. 1 year and 03 months R.I. with fine of Rs.40000/- and in default of payment thereof the appellant was to further undergo S.I. for 03 months. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to the convict. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not dispute the conviction of appellant under Section 9 (1)3(a) of the Act ibid, however, he requested for reduction of the sentence as the appellant is first offender and he has expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future. 3. Conversely, the learned Law Officer submits that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant and he does not deserve any further leniency. 4. Heard Record perused. 5. It has been observed by us that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and has successfully discharged its burden through consistent and confidence inspiring evidence. In this way, the impugned judgment, resulting into conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 9 (1)3(a) of the Act ibid of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, is not open to any exception. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant recorded through the impugned judgment is maintained. As far as quantum of sentence of the appellant is concerned, according to section 9 (1)3(a) of the Act ibid, the punishment provided up to 499 grams of charas, imprisonment which may extend to five years but shall not be less than ten months along with fine which may be up to forty thousand rupees. We have noted that the appellant is the first offender. According to jail report, he has already undergone the major portion of his sentence. Further, the appellant has expressed remorse and repentance with an assurance not to deal with narcotics in future. He should be given an opportunity to mend his ways, hence, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to 10 months R.I, which would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is also reduced from Rs.40000/ to Rs.20000/-. However, the sentence in default thereof shall remain intact. Reliance is placed upon the cases titled as "Khuda Bakhsh v. The State" (2015 SCMR 735) and "The State through Deputy Director (Law) Regional Directorate, Anti-Narcotics Force v. Mujahid Naseem Lodhi" (PLD 2017 SC 671) and "Mst. Sughran and another v. The State" (2021 SCMR 109). 6. With the above mentioned modification in sentence of the appellant, the appeal in hand is dismissed. The disposal of the case property shall be as ordered by the learned Trial Court. K-16/L Appeal disissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 377 & 367-A---Rape, sodomy---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence not in line with the ocular account---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the victim was medically examined on 08.02.2015 by Medical Officer, eight days after the occurrence---On going through testimony of victim, it was noticed that he had observed no marks of violence on elbow and knee of the victim, no marks of violence were seen around anal region of the victim, no tenderness, no swelling was observed---Three anal swabs were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for detection of semen and DNA analysis and final opinion was reserved till receiving of the reports---However, no seminal material was found present on the item sent to Forensic Science Agency, vide report of Forensic Science Agency---Medical Officer had himself admitted that no seminal material was identified according to the report of Forensic Science Agency and that he could not tell anything whether sodomy was committed with the victim or not, meaning thereby that the medical evidence was not in line with the prosecution case rather it contradicted the same---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 377 & 367-A---Rape, sodomy---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Video recording of incident not sent for forensic analysis---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that there was video recording CD which was exhibited before Trial Court---Said film was watched by Presiding Officer in the Court showing that the appellant was committing sodomy with victim and co-accused (since dead) was present at the spot while making video of the incident, so, Trial Court, while relying upon the said piece of evidence, convicted the appellant and his co-accused, who later on died during the pendency of his appeal and the appeal filed by him had been abated---However, that video film exhibited and relied upon by Trial Court was of no help for the prosecution as the same had not been forensically tested---Prosecution candidly admitted that the said video film taken into possession by the police during the course of investigation was never sent for forensic analysis, so the conclusion inescapable was that video in question was not aboveboard especially in the backdrop when the prosecution case had been totally belied by the medical evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 377 & 367-A---Rape, sodomy---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the alleged occurrence took place on 31.01.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged with a noticeable delay of eight days on 08.02.2015---Said inordinate delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained on the part of the prosecution---Such factum alone created serious doubt not only about the veracity of the prosecution case but also suggested that consultation and due deliberation was made before lodging the FIR---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 377 & 367-A---Rape, sodomy---Appreciation of evidence---Doubts in prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the minor son of complainant---Record showed that the victim and his mother/complainant were present before the Court and submitted that they had nominated the present accused/appellant on account of some confusion and they had got no objection, if, the appellant was acquitted from the charge---So, the conclusion was irresistible that the prosecution failed to prove its case 'beyond reasonable shadow' of doubt---Prosecution case was replete with number of doubts, such as conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence, there was no forensic report qua the authenticity of video film, so, the benefit of such loopholes/lacunas in the prosecution case would go in favour of the accused---Prosecution was supposed to prove its case against the accused beyond 'reasonable shadow of doubt' and if any reasonable doubt arises from the prosecution story, the same shall be resolved in favour of the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652; Munir Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 79; Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 rel. Mian Riaz Hussain Jammu for Appellant. Ms. Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Abu Bakar Ajmal and Khawaja Muhammad Ajmal for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 18th June, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Waheed Khan, J .--- Through this appeal, Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi (appellant), has challenged his convictions and sentences awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif, vide judgment dated 18.07.2017, in case FIR No.60 dated 08.02.2015, registered under sections 377, 367-A P.P.C at Police Station Qabula Sharif, Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under the above-said offences for rigorous imprisonment for five years, each with fine of Rs.10,000/-, each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case are that on 31.01.2015 at about 2:00 P.M. Mohammad Shafique alias Pheeqi (appellant) along with his co-accused, namely, Mohammad Waqas, Ghulam Hassan alias Goga and Akhtar Rasool, persuaded son of the complainant, namely, Asif Shahzad, for sodomy and on his refusal, they took him in the 'Beithak' of Waqas, co-accused where, Muhammad Shafique alias Pheeqi (appellant), forcibly committed sodomy with him, while Ghulam Hassan alias Goga and Akhtar, co-accused were guarding the incident with their weapons. On hue and cry raised by the victim Asif Shahzad, PWs Mubashar and Aslam attracted at the place of occurrence, witnessed the same and tried to catch hold the accused persons but they fled away, hence, this case. 3. After registration of formal FIR (Ex.P-A/1), investigation was carried out and challan was submitted to the Court concerned. Thereafter, formal charge was framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as seven witnesses. Complainant Mst. Salma Bibi appeared as PW-1; Muhammad Asif Shahzad (victim) appeared as PW.2; Mohammad Aslam, eye-witness appeared as PW.3; Ahsan Haider, ASI/Investigating Officer of the case appeared as PW-4; and besides other witnesses, Dr. Asif Jalees appeared as PW.7. The prosecution after producing certain documents closed its evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegation levelled against him by the prosecution. He neither opted to appear as his own witness under section 340 (2) Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence in his defence. After evaluating prosecution evidence available on record, learned trial Court found the prosecution version correct "beyond any shadow of doubt", which resulted into conviction and sentence of the appellant in the afore stated terms. 4. In support of the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution story is inherently flawed and failed to inspire confidence as there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures as material evidence available on record in favour of the appellant has been mis-read; that the medical evidence is contradictory to the prosecution evidence and lastly prayed that by accepting the instant appeal the appellant may be acquitted of the charge. 5. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has faithfully defended the impugned judgment by controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and has contended that the prosecution has ably proved its case against the appellant "beyond reasonable shadow of doubt"; that to substantiate the case of the prosecution apart from other evidence, the prosecution has adduced PW.3 who is an independent witnesses and also produced the victim and their evidence fully supports the prosecution case, so, in presence of voluminous evidence, the appellant had rightly been adjudged guilty by the learned trial Court, hence, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for parties, perused the record with their assistance and noticed that Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi (appellant), was booked in the above-said criminal case on the charge of committing sodomy with one Muhammad Asif Shahzad, aged about 13-years (at the time of incident) on 31.01.2015 at about 2:00 p.m. in the area of Timber Market, Qabula Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan. As per contents of the FIR, Muhammad Waqas (since died), Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi (present appellant), Akhtar Rasool and Ghulam Hassan alias Goma had committed unnatural offence/sodomy with the son of complainant and also filmed the incident on mobile phone which later on, was up-loaded on the social media. Although, a serious allegation of committing sodomy has been levelled against the present appellant but on going through the record, it is noticed that the victim Muhammad Asif Shahzad (PW.2) was medically examined on 08.02.2015, eight days after the occurrence by Dr. Asif Jalees. On going through his testimony, it is noticed that he has observed no marks of violence on elbow and knee of the victim; no marks of violence were seen around anal region of the victim; no tenderness, no swelling was observed. Three anal swabs were taken and sent to the Chemical Examiner for detection of semens and DNA analysis and final opinion was reserved till receiving of the reports. However, no seminal material was found present on the item sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency, vide report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency Ex.PH. While responding to the query put by learned defence counsel, he himself admitted that no seminal material was identified according to the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency and that he cannot tell anything whether sodomy was committed with the victim or not, meaning thereby that the medical evidence is not in line with the prosecution case rather it contradicts the same. Muhammad Asif Shahzad, victim of the case also deposed before learned trial Court as PW.2 but as stated above, the stance taken by the prosecution was not supported by the medical evidence. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and noticed that learned trial Court in Paragraph No.14 had mainly relied upon the video recording CD which was exhibited before learned trial Court as Ex.P-1. This film was watched by learned Presiding Officer in the Court showing that the appellant was committing sodomy with PW.2, and Muhammad Waqas, co-accused (since died) was present at the spot while making video of the incident, so, learned trial Court, while relying upon the said piece of evidence, convicted the appellant and his co-accused Muhammad Waqas, who, later on died during the pendency of his appeal and the appeal filed by him (Crl. Appeal No.58004/2017) stands abated by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025. Crux of arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that video film exhibited and relied upon by learned trial Court was of no help for the prosecution as the same has not been forensically tested. When confronted, learned Law Officer, assisted by learned counsel for complainant, candidly admitted that the said video film taken into possession by the police during the course of investigation, was never sent for forensic analysis, so the conclusion is inescapable that video in question, is not aboveboard especially in the backdrop when the prosecution case has been totally belied by the medical evidence. The other aspect of the case is that the alleged occurrence took place on 31.01.2015, whereas the FIR was lodged with a noticeable delay of eight days on 08.02.2015 and this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained on the part of the prosecution. This factum alone creates serious doubt not only about the veracity of the prosecution case but also suggests that consultation and due deliberation was made before lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for appellant submits that during the pendency of pre-arrest bail of the appellant, both, complainant Mst. Salma Bibi (PW.1) and victim Muhammad Asif Shahzad (PW.2), tendered their duly sworn affidavits before learned trial Court wherein they had denied happening of the alleged occurrence with the assertion that appellant was not their accused. Today, both, the victim and his mother/ complainant are present before this Court and submit that they have nominated the present accused/appellant on account of some confusion and they have got no objection, if, the appellant is acquitted from the charge. So in the light of supra discussion, the conclusion is irresistible that the prosecution remained fail to prove its case 'beyond reasonable shadow' of doubt. As discussed earlier, the prosecution case is replete with number of doubts, such as conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence, there was no forensic report qua the authenticity of video film, so, the benefit of such loopholes/ lacunas in the prosecution case must go in favour of the accused. 8. The prosecution is supposed to prove its case against the accused beyond 'reasonable shadow of doubt' and if any reasonable doubt arises from the prosecution story, the same shall be resolved in favour of the accused, so while relying upon the judgments passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases of "Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State (2019 SCMR 652), "Munir Ahmad and another v. The State and others" (2019 SCMR 79), "Muhammad Akram v. The State" (2009 SCMR 230), "Ayub Masih v. The State" (PLD 2002 SC 1048) and "Tariq Pervez v. The State" (1995 SCMR 1345), I have reached to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the appellant according to the dictates of law. 9. In sequel to the above discussion, the convictions and sentences arded by the learned trial Court should not be allowed to stand. herefore, the instant appeal is allowed and convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant Muhammad Shafiq alias Pheeqi (appellant) through the impugned judgment are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, so, his surety stands discharged from the liability of bail bond. JK/M-108/L Appeal allowed.

Summary: (a) Family law – Maintenance of wife and child – Family Courts Act, 1993 (AJK) Ss. 13(4), 17 – Execution of decree – Nature and scope – Family Court decrees are to be executed in a summary manner; Order XXI CPC expressly excluded – Family Courts possess inherent power and continuing jurisdiction to ensure enforcement of their own judgments. Execution is not a mechanical stage but an integral extension of the Court’s duty to secure justice in family matters. (b) Family law – Execution of maintenance decrees – Delay and judicial responsibility – Family Courts are duty-bound to proactively ensure timely enforcement of maintenance, dower, custody and dowry decrees without waiting for formal applications – Summary procedure under S. 13(4) designed to protect vulnerable litigants, particularly women and children, from hardship and delay – Doctrine of functus officio not applicable to deprive Family Courts of their enforcement jurisdiction. (c) Judicial directions – Mode and schedule of payments – Importance of clarity in family decrees – Family Courts must, while determining quantum of maintenance or financial obligation, also specify the precise mode, schedule and manner of payment – Ambiguity regarding enforceability or payment mechanism causes unnecessary delay and hardship, defeating the legislative intent of speedy relief. (d) Constitutional and Islamic perspective – Maintenance as enforceable duty – Husband’s obligation to maintain wife and children is both a legal and moral imperative recognized under Islamic law and statutory framework; failure to fulfill such obligation constitutes violation of rights protected under the AJK Constitution, 1974. (e) Case law discussed – Scope of Family Court’s powers reaffirmed in light of consistent jurisprudence emphasizing expeditious enforcement of maintenance decrees and protection of dependents’ rights. Disposition: – Appeal dismissed. – Judgment of the High Court dated 12.11.2024 upheld. – Family Court directed to execute decree for Rs. 500,000 within sixty days and ensure full compliance with the High Court’s judgment. – Registrar, High Court of AJK directed to circulate this judgment to all Family Courts for uniform adherence to these principles.

Summary: a) West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 (Act IX of 1948) – Applicability – Devolution of inheritance – Determination of law governing mutation attested post-promulgation – Custom vs. Shariat. Where a person died prior to the promulgation of the Shariat Act (i.e., before 15th March 1948), but mutation of inheritance was sanctioned thereafter, the devolution of property must be governed by Islamic law rather than customary law. In the present case, mutation No. 01 dated 30.10.1952, though concerning the estate of Abdul Ghafoor who died in 1947, was sanctioned after the cutoff date. Relying on the Supreme Court’s larger bench decision in Ghulam Haider v. Murad (PLD 2012 SC 501), the Court held that such rights are deemed to have been acquired under Muslim Personal Law. Therefore, the exclusion of Abdul Ghafoor’s sister, Mst. Ghafooran Bibi, was not sustainable. However, her widow (Mst. Sifta) having received a share in the mutation further indicated that customary law was not applicable. Held, inheritance was to be governed by Islamic law and not by custom – Findings of both lower courts on this issue upheld. Cited Case: • Ghulam Haider v. Murad (PLD 2012 SC 501) (b) Civil Courts Jurisdiction – Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958) – Ss. 25, 13, 18 – Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 – Rehabilitation Manual – Settlement laws – Mutation sanctioned by ARC – Exclusive jurisdiction – Bar of suit. Civil court jurisdiction is barred in matters governed by settlement laws and where special forums under such laws are prescribed. Mutation No. 01 dated 30.10.1952 was sanctioned under authority of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner pursuant to the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948. The Court held that the suit filed before the Civil Court was barred under Section 25 of the Settlement Act, 1958. The bar on civil jurisdiction continues despite repeal of the Settlement Acts via the Repeal Act of 1975, in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Plaintiffs were bound to pursue their remedy, if any, before the relevant Settlement Authorities. Cited Cases: • Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1971 SC 762) • Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji (PLD 1960 SC 229) • Muhammad Saleem v. Sardar Ali (2004 SCMR 1640) • Faizuddin Ahmad v. Muhammad Yousaf (1988 SCMR 1289) • Nazeer Ahmad v. Ghulam Mehdi (1988 SCMR 824) • Administrator Thal Development v. Ali Muhammad (2012 SCMR 730) Held, civil court jurisdiction is barred under settlement law – Findings of lower courts on this issue were erroneous and reversed. (c) Limitation – Limitation Act, 1908 – Ss. 18, 120, Art. 95 – Mutation of inheritance – Delay in challenge – Waiver and acquiescence – Inheritance claim – Cognizable delay by legal heirs. Suit was filed by legal heirs of Mst. Ghafooran Bibi in 2009 challenging mutation sanctioned in 1952, despite the fact that she had passed away in 1988 after living for 36 years with full knowledge of the mutation without laying any challenge. The Court held that both she and her legal heirs had acquiesced to the mutation. No reliable evidence was led regarding continued payments or any acknowledgment of her inheritance rights by beneficiaries. The claim was barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs failed to establish exception under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Rustam v. Mst. Makhan Jan (2013 SCMR 299) • Mst. Grana v. Sahib Kamala Bibi (PLD 2014 SC 167) • Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh (2007 SCMR 1446) • Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) • Syed Kausar Ali Shah v. Syed Farhat Hussain Shah (2022 SCMR 1558) • Saadat Khan v. Shahid-ur-Rehman (PLD 2023 SC 362) • Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872) • Mst. Shabla v. Jahan Afroz (2020 SCMR 352) distinguished Held, suit was hopelessly barred by time – Inheritance claims must still conform to statutory limitation and cannot be indefinitely revived through LRs of inactive predecessors. (d) Second Appeal – Scope – Reversal of lower appellate court – Interference justified where findings contrary to evidence or law. The first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court’s dismissal without properly addressing the jurisdictional bar and limitation. It misread material evidence and failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents. Interference in second appeal under Section 100 CPC was warranted. Cited Cases: • Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari (PLD 1969 SC 617) • Sheikh Akhtar Aziz v. Mst. Shabnam Begum (2019 SCMR 524) (e) Disposition – Appeal allowed – Appellate court judgment set aside – Suit dismissed. Regular Second Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment dated 22.02.2020 of the first appellate court set aside. Suit filed by Respondents/Plaintiffs was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----S. 204---- Private complaint---Dismissal at preliminary stage---Consideration of extraneous facts---Scope---Petitioner/complainant filed private complaint alleging occurrence dated 24-04-2023, supported by her statement, statement of injured witness, statement of another witness, medico-legal examination certificate, post-mortem report, and application to SHO for registration of FIR---Trial Court dismissed complaint on ground that FIR No. 756/23 under Ss. 302, 324 & 34 PPC was already registered against complainant’s husband, and that complaint was an attempt to create a counter-case---Trial Court relied on facts from connected proceedings and presence of complainant in other case without such facts being brought on record in due course of law---Held, Court could not consider facts of connected cases not forming part of record---Allowing respondent No. 3 to contest complaint at preliminary stage without formal summoning also irregular---At preliminary stage, only evidence produced in complaint proceedings could be considered---Statements of witnesses and documentary evidence prima facie disclosed sufficient grounds for issuance of process---Trial Court had travelled beyond jurisdiction; dismissal order not sustainable. (b) Issuance of process Under S. 204 Cr.P.C., once complaint is supported by statements of witnesses and corroborative documents disclosing prima facie offence, Court is bound to issue process against proposed accused and proceed with trial; consideration of merits of defence or unrelated facts is beyond scope at this stage. Disposition: Criminal Revision allowed---Impugned order set aside---Trial Court directed to issue process against respondents No. 2 to 6 and proceed with trial in accordance with law.