Summary: ''The sexual offence mentioned in Section 375 PPC cannot be equated with the consensual consummation of marriage with a legally wedded girl, who has attained puberty, though she has not attained the minimum age provided under the Act of 1929." --- The Court, in effect, held that: 1. The criminal law related to statutory rape under section 375 Pakistan Penal Code has no affect on the under age marriages; ---- 2. Different under age marriages' laws do not affect the validity of marriages; --- 3. The purpose of marriage restraint laws is to only criminalize the conduct of marrying an underage girl and not to affect the legality of the marriages; --- 4. An under age girl can make a statement in court under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure; --- 5. Only an accused has a statutory right to cross examine a statement under 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. --- the judgment discussed the consequences of marrying an underage girl. It emphasized that the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, provided punishment for such marriages but did not declare them void. The judge rejected the petitioner's argument that respondent No. 5 committed rape, stating that consensual consummation of marriage with a girl who has attained puberty does not equate to rape. The judgment also addressed the petitioner's contention that Mst. Yasmin was not competent to have her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge ruled that age alone did not determine competence, referring to the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The judgment emphasized the "rationality test" to determine a child's ability to understand and answer questions.

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sections 147, 148, 324, 34, 337-D, 169, 164, 497 – Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 – Sections 21-L, 6/7 – Bail After Arrest – Rule of Consistency – Further Inquiry —The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) for alleged involvement in an incident of firing and stone-throwing during a procession near Siddiqia Mosque, Gilgit. —The petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and was implicated based on CCTV footage, but no witness identified him from the footage, nor was the location of the CCTV camera disclosed during the investigation. —The alleged extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate despite repeated remands. —No evidence indicated that the stone-throwing by the petitioner resulted in any injury. —During the investigation, co-accused Aitizaz Hussain (who allegedly fired a weapon and had a pistol recovered from him) was granted bail, and the petitioner’s case was found to be on better footing. —The petitioner had been in custody since 06.09.2022 and was no longer required for further investigation. —The rule of consistency applied, entitling the petitioner to post-arrest bail. (b) Bail – Grounds for Grant – Prolonged Detention Without Trial —The trial had not yet commenced despite the petitioner being in custody for over a year. —Prolonged detention without trial violates principles of justice, especially when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the prosecution cannot provide a timeline for completing the trial. (c) Judicial Observations – Tentative Findings —The Court clarified that observations made in the bail order were tentative in nature and would not prejudice either party during the trial. —The admissibility and veracity of the CCTV evidence and extra-judicial confession would be determined during the trial. ----- Disposition: Criminal Appeal accepted. Post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. Petitioner released if not required in any other case.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:This case involves Criminal Petition No. 495 of 2023 heard by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the order dated April 17, 2023, by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which denied post-arrest bail to Fahad. The case arises from FIR No. 11, dated January 20, 2023, registered at Police Station Battagram, District Battagram under sections 302/311/201/202/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), concerning the alleged murder of Mst. Riffat Bibi, purportedly by her husband's brother, Janas, and his son, the petitioner Fahad.----Issues:Whether the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence implicating Fahad in the murder, except for a prior application filed by the deceased, justifies granting bail.Whether further inquiry is required given the available evidence.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that although Janas (the co-accused) had confessed to the murder and led to the recovery of the body, there was no mention of Fahad in any incriminating context within the confession or other statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The only piece of evidence potentially relating to Fahad was an application filed by the deceased days before the incident, the content of which was not deemed sufficiently incriminating on its own. Given the lack of substantial evidence against Fahad, the Court found that his case warranted further inquiry.Resultantly, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. Fahad was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds worth Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.----Citations/Precedents:Sections 302, 311, 201, 202, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.) - These sections pertain to murder, ta'zir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen offender, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) - This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements before Magistrates.Subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. - Discusses conditions under which bail may be granted, emphasizing situations requiring further inquiry into the accused's involvement.

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----Arts. 37 & 38; Ss. 164 & 364—Judicial confession—Mandatory safeguards—Delay—Printed pro forma—Police custody after confession Judicial confession recorded on a computerized printed pro forma containing pre-written questions in English and administered a day after production before the Magistrate, following a three-day post-arrest delay—Such practice does not satisfy the requirements of Ss. 164 & 364, Cr.P.C.; Magistrate must personally and face-to-face communicate warnings and ensure the maker’s conscious understanding of consequences—Handing the accused back to police after recording the confession is against the spirit of law—Confession held unsafe and discarded. Muhammad Azhar Hussain v. State PLD 2019 SC 595; Naqibullah v. State PLD 1978 SC 21; Muhammad Pervez v. State 2007 SCMR 670 followed. (b) Criminal trial—Last-seen evidence ----Standard of proof—Corroboration Testimony placing the deceased last in the company of the appellant and acquitted co-accused is a weak type of evidence and, without reliable corroboration, cannot sustain conviction for murder—Notably, the same last-seen account was disbelieved by the Trial Court while acquitting co-accused; parity considerations further undermine reliance upon it against the appellant. (c) Criminal trial—Investigation lapses ----Non-examination of initial Investigating Officer Initial I.O. not examined on the ground of retirement—Such omission is not a valid excuse and causes serious prejudice to the defence; failure to examine a material witness in the chain of investigation dents the prosecution case. (d) Criminal jurisprudence—Benefit of doubt ----Standard—Single circumstance sufficient If a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as of right, not as concession—Multiple infirmities (tainted confession, weak last-seen, non-examination of I.O., unexplained delays) cumulatively and individually trigger the rule of benefit of doubt. Muhammad Mansha v. State 2018 SCMR 772 applied. (e) Precedent distinguished ----Sulleman v. State 2006 SCMR 366 Relied-upon authority held inapposite; in that case the confession was recorded on the very next day of arrest with safeguards, unlike present facts marked by delay and procedural defects. Cited cases: • Muhammad Azhar Hussain v. The State PLD 2019 SC 595 • Naqibullah v. The State PLD 1978 SC 21 • Muhammad Pervez v. The State 2007 SCMR 670 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Sulleman v. The State 2006 SCMR 366 (distinguished) (g) Disposition — Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence under S. 302(b), P.P.C. set aside—Appellant acquitted; to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: Supplementary statement recorded at belated stage--- unseen occurrence---Further inquiry--- occurrence has taken place at midnight i.e. 01:00 hours--- initially, nobody was directly charged for the death of deceased--- In their statements under section 164 Cr.P.C, the complainants nominated the accused, however, none of them has disclosed the source on the basis of which they got satisfied about the complicity of the accused in the commission of offence--- There is yet a delay of about 16 days in recording the statements under section 164 Cr.P.C which has not been plausibly explained--- The evidentiary value of such statements would be determined during trial and no explicit reliance could be placed on such statements at the bail stage--- The occurrence is unseen one and so far, no witness having seen the accused while committing the alleged offence has come forward before the investigation officer to depose regarding their involvement in the deaths of the deceased--- Accused is allegedly injured in the occurrence---(b) Three different reports in respect of the same alleged occurrence have been lodged and, therefore, it is yet to be proved during trial that which one amongst the three versions is correct and proved through convincing and reliable evidence--- Circumstances have established that case of accused is of further inquiry into his guilt--- Bail was allowed accordingly.(Bail Petition Allowed)

Summary: Background: The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR No.1193/2022, registered at Police Station Fareed Town, District Sahiwal, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was allegedly transporting a large quantity of narcotics. He claims the case against him is false and that the police planted the narcotics. The petitioner requested the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to record his statement, which the Magistrate declined, stating that only confessions could be recorded under that provision. The petitioner challenged this order before the Lahore High Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, allows an accused to have his non-confessional statement recorded. 2- Whether the Magistrate's refusal to record the petitioner's statement under section 164 was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Issue No.1: Recording Non-Confessional Statements The court examined section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which empowers certain Magistrates to record statements and confessions during an investigation. The court noted that the provision does not explicitly prohibit recording non-confessional statements of the accused. The court referenced case law and legal commentaries to support the view that section 164 can be interpreted to allow the recording of non-confessional statements to ensure justice and prevent misuse of the legal process. ---Issue No.2: Justification of Magistrate's Refusal The court found that the Magistrate misinterpreted the law in refusing to record the petitioner's statement. The court emphasized that the Magistrate should act judicially, fairly, and justly when deciding on such matters. The court concluded that the petitioner's request to record his statement under section 164 was valid and should be reconsidered. ----Citations/Precedents: Jogendra Nahak and others v. State of Orissa and others (AIR 1999 SC 2565): The Indian Supreme Court ruled that individuals could not directly approach a Magistrate to record statements under section 164 unless sponsored by the investigating agency. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. The Crown (PLD 1953 Lahore 495): A Division Bench held that a statement under section 164 could be recorded at the request of any aggrieved person or witness. Abdul Sattar and another v. The State and others (2018 YLR 977): The Sindh High Court stated that a Magistrate has the discretion to record a statement under section 164 even if not requested by the police, provided it is done judiciously. Ghulam Hussain v. The King (PLD 1949 PC 326): The Privy Council held that a statement under section 164 not amounting to a confession could be used as an admission under sections 18 to 21 of the Evidence Act.

Summary: (i) Confessional Statement:- Retraction of Judicial or extra-Judicial confession itself is not an infirmity to be considered sufficient to withhold the conviction.(ii) Delay in filling of appeal against conviction by convict appellant confined in prison.(iii) Rule 90. Facilities to Prisoners for filling appeals: it is obligatory upon Superintendent that he shall inform every convict prisoner on first admission to prison, of the period within which an appeal from the order under which he has been committed to prison may be filed.

Summary: 1. Abandoning of a witness mentioned in the calendar of witnesses is, nodoubt, the choice of prosecution but the reason for non-inclusion of awitness duly named in the FIR and associated with the process ofinvestigation should have been explained by prosecution in plausibleterms.2. A fact not disclosed by a witness in his statement u/s 161/164, Cr.P.C orin FIR, if he is complainant, but introduces the same voluntarily for thefirst time during his cross-examination, tantamount to dishonestimprovement on his part if same has probative value, hence, such portionof the statement of a witness can safely be kept out of consideration.3. Status of a witness as mentioned in the FIR cannot be changedafterwards for example if prosecution shows a witness in FIR as lastseen evidence, then his testimony is required to be considered in thesame line and not otherwise.4. In absence of evidence, any conclusion drawn by the trial Court on thebasis of speculation and presumption with regard to existence or non-existence of a particular fact is not sustainable.5. The purpose of sealing the case property in parcels on the spot is toavoid manipulation or tampering thereof by someone else and to ensureits uninterrupted dispatch to Forensic Lab for opinion of the expert.Delayed sealing of case property without plausible reason casts a doubton its genuineness, hence, such recovery is of no avail to prosecution.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The case involves three criminal appeals and a reference concerning the judgment and order dated December 23, 2014, passed by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur. The case pertains to the murder of Ali Muhammad Chacha, an advocate, who was shot dead on March 19, 2008. The prosecution alleged that the murder was the result of a conspiracy orchestrated by Irfan Kiani and others due to enmity with a party supported by the deceased. The trial court convicted several accused individuals, including Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Ashfaq, who were sentenced to death. The trial court also convicted other accused individuals for abetment and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. Some of the accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction and death sentence awarded to Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Ashfaq were justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the trial court properly evaluated the evidence and corroborative material before convicting the accused of abetment and conspiracy. 3- Whether the acquittal of certain accused individuals was justified. 4- Whether the penalties awarded to the abettors should be enhanced. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Conviction and Sentencing of Yaseen and Ashfaq: The court upheld the conviction and death sentences of Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Ashfaq. The court found that the prosecution had presented direct evidence, including eyewitness testimony, that clearly implicated the accused in the murder of Ali Muhammad Chacha. The arrest of the accused at the scene of the crime further strengthened the prosecution's case. The court dismissed the defense's arguments regarding the belated recording of statements and the alleged incapacity of Ashfaq due to poor eyesight, finding no material contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. Evaluation of Evidence Against Abettors: The court upheld the convictions of Irfan Kiani, Suleman Somroo, and Muhammad Naeem for abetment and conspiracy. The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including the statement of Suleman Somroo under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was sufficient to establish the involvement of the accused in the conspiracy to murder Ali Muhammad Chacha. The court dismissed arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence, noting that the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence in light of the circumstances. Acquittal of Certain Accused: The court affirmed the acquittal of several accused individuals, agreeing with the trial court's assessment that there was insufficient evidence to convict them. Enhancement of Penalties: The court declined to enhance the penalties of the abettors, noting that they had already served the penalties awarded to them and had been released from jail. The court found that the prosecution's evidence did not warrant an increase in their sentences. The court dismissed the appeals of the convicted individuals, upholding their convictions and sentences, including the death penalties for Yaseen and Ashfaq. The court affirmed the acquittal of the other accused individuals, finding no reason to overturn the trial court's judgment. The reference for the confirmation of the death sentence was answered affirmatively, confirming the death sentences awarded by the trial court. -----Citations/Precedents: The court referred to relevant legal principles regarding the assessment of eyewitness testimony, the validity of confessional statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the application of penalties for abetment and conspiracy. The court emphasized the importance of direct evidence and the corroboration of witness statements in cases involving capital punishment.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 201, 34 – Qatl-i-amd – Evidence – Interested witness – Burden of proof – Benefit of doubt. The appellants were charged with qatl-i-amd under S. 302(b), PPC, based on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness (PW-12), supported by circumstantial evidence, including weapon recovery and call data records (CDR). The Court observed significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including PW-12 and PW-7 (complainant). PW-12's account was not corroborated by independent witnesses whose names he mentioned, and his credibility was further weakened during cross-examination. The complainant's testimony also revealed inconsistencies regarding the reporting and identification of the deceased. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was not conclusively linked to the accused, as it was made from an abandoned house, and the forensic report could not provide definitive proof. The CDR evidence, presented without transcripts or supporting audio recordings, was deemed inconclusive. ----Cited Cases: Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129) Irfan Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 840) Dr. Israr-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz and another (2007 SCMR 1427) Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram and others (2009 SCMR 120) Abid Ali and 2 others v. The State (2011 SCMR 208) Muhammad Nawaz and others v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 267) (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----Ss. 342, 164, 103 – Confessional statement – Weapon recovery – Credibility of investigation. The prosecution relied heavily on the statement of PW-12, recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., and the recovery of a pistol allegedly used in the commission of the crime. The Court noted that the recovery was not made from the pointation of the accused but rather from an abandoned house with open doors, raising serious doubts about its evidentiary value. Furthermore, the confessional statement of PW-12 lacked corroboration from independent witnesses or forensic evidence. Under S. 103, Cr.P.C., procedural safeguards in conducting searches and recoveries were also found wanting. ----Cited Cases: Tariq Zaman v. Muhammad Shafi Khan and 2 others (2018 MLD 854) Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan (2016 SCMR 274) (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872): ----Testimony of interested witnesses – Credibility and corroboration – Rule of prudence. The Court emphasized that the testimony of witnesses, even if otherwise credible, must be corroborated by independent and reliable evidence in cases carrying capital punishment. PW-12's testimony, being uncorroborated by other witnesses and marred by contradictions, could not form the basis for conviction. Similarly, the complainant’s testimony lacked coherence and failed to align with other pieces of evidence. ----Cited Cases: Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129) Irfan Ali v. The State (2015 SCMR 840) (d) Administration of Justice: ----Benefit of doubt – Principle of criminal justice. The Court reiterated the principle that in criminal trials, the benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused. Given the prosecution's failure to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused through credible evidence, the Court acquitted the appellants. -----Disposition: The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.