Summary: Appeal against convictionHeld: (i) Despite the fact that the complainant was seriously injured having multiple firearm injuries on his person but the scribe did not feel the need to consult the doctor and to request a certificate as to whether the injured by then was capable to talk and oriented in time and space. Neither the pulse nor the blood pressure finds mention in the medico legal report.(ii) Relying blindly and without proper scrutiny on dying declaration would be no less dangerous approach on the part of the Courts of law.(iii) The driver was not examined and even he was not associated with the investigation. The Investigating Officer displayed an abnormal conduct despite the fact that he knew that it was the driver who could tell the truth but he did not take the pains to investigate the case on that lines.(iv) There is conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account.(Appeal was allowed in the circumstances)

Summary: Appeal against convictionHeld: (i) Five real brothers were charged for murder of the deceased but the prosecution remained unsuccessful to convince this Court as to what magnitude of the motive was that put all the real brothers to do away with the deceased.(ii) When the matter was reported at Khalifa Gul Nawaz Hospital then what for the dead bodies were taken to RHC Domel.(iii) The presence of the complainant is further doubted that neither the complainant nor the eye witness Alla Khan were the witnesses of identification before the police at the time of preparation of injury sheet and inquest reports.(iv) The complainant and the shopkeeper went on constant improvements with the sole purpose to bring their statements in line with the prosecution story.(v) The complainant while making the report did not mention the shopkeeper Reheemullah to be the eyewitness of the occurrence.(vi) This is astonishing that Alla Khan was abandoned despite the fact that he happened to be a brother of one of the deceased.(Appeal was allowed in the circumstances)

Summary: Appeal against convictionHeld: (i) 22K.G and 300 gram charas was recovered from CNG Cylinder fixed in trunk of the motorcar and the appellant Akram Khan was arrested on the spot. He also nominated co-accused Shah Naraz. Case against the appellant Akram Khan was proved, as minor contradictions, trivial in nature cannot be made basis for dislodging the prosecution case.(ii) Police officials are as good witnesses as others are, that too when no malafide was either alleged or proved against them.(iii) At the time of initial recovery the seizing officer thoroughly searched the vehicle but no further recovery from the secrete cavities could be made and it was on 06.04.2016, when further recovery was effected, the subsequent recovery could not be proved against the convict/ appellant as the mode and manner in which it was effected is shrouded in mystery and also the appellant was not present.(iv) The only evidence against eh appellant Shah Naraz is the statement of the principal accused ? the prosecution failed to collect evidence on record where the involvement of the appellant Shah Naraz could be established. Only confessional statement of accused Akram Khan could not be made basis for conviction of accused Shah Naraz.(Appeal was allowed to the extent of accused Shah Naraz in the circumstances)

Summary: Appeal against conviction and sentence.Held: (1) Chance witnesses cannot be safely relied upon on a capital charge in the absence of satisfactory explanation regarding their presence near the place of occurrence.(2) No certificate was given by the doctor regarding the condition of the injured and even the report of the injured was not taken down in his presence.(3) to believe or disbelieve a dying declaration thus is left to the ordinary human judgment, however, the Courts always insist strong, independent and reliable corroboratory evidence for the sake of safe dispensation of justice.Appeal was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Summary: Appeal against conviction and sentenceHeld: (I) While reading the confessional statement the questionnaire was a printedproforma with Yes & No replies neither the necessary questions were asked northe Magistrate could explain in the way he was supposed to, so much so he did notidentify to her, himself.(II) The prosecution failed in all respects to tell that who killed the deceased and thisburden was never shifted to the accused, that too when confession was later onretracted.(III) The mode and manner of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery and till end itcould not be ascertained as to how and who was the actual culprit and as such theentire case is the outcome of hypothesis without any legal proof and when this is thesituation then the benefit of doubt if any must be extended to the accused.(Appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted in the circumstances)

Summary: The appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge which had convicted Ali Shahzad under Section 316, PPC (Pakistan Penal Code). The conviction was related to an incident arising from F.I.R. No. 172/14, dated 21.07.2014, registered under Sections 302 and 34 PPC at Police Station Takht Mehal, District Bahawalnagar.The appeal argued that Ali Shahzad had been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution's version of events claimed that Ali Shahzad, along with co-accused Muhammad Ahmad, had a quarrel with the complainant's son, Ahmad Sher, resulting in Ali Shahzad causing fatal injuries to Ahmad Sher. The judgment highlighted several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, including a delay in reporting the incident to the police, discrepancies in witness testimonies, and contradictions in the complainant's statements.The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the complainant and other eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime, casting doubt on the credibility of their testimonies. The medical evidence was considered supportive but not corroborative, and the court noted a lack of blood evidence at the alleged place of occurrence.The judgment emphasized the acquittal of co-accused Muhammad Ahmad by the trial court, stating that the complainant had conceded the prosecution's failure to prove charges against him. Applying the principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything), the court concluded that if a witness's testimony is unreliable on one point, it cannot be trusted on other aspects. Therefore, the court allowed Ali Shahzad's appeal, setting aside his conviction and ordering his immediate release.Furthermore, the court directed the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, to initiate proceedings under Section 194 Cr.P.C. against the complainant for resorting to deliberate falsehood on a material aspect.

Summary: Appeal against conviction and sentence awarded under section 336 PPC.Held: Since the complaint last his one hand, therefore, under section 337-R PPC, he was entitled to Arsh equivalent to one-half of the diyat amount of Rs. 961921.5 prevailing in the year 2015 when the occurrence took place.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Background:Petitioners were convicted under Section 496-A P.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000 each by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha. They were accused of abducting and committing rape on as per FIR No.111, dated 21.05.2011, registered under Sections 365-B/376 PPC at Police Station Phularwan. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed Crl. Appeal No.1215 of 2014 against their conviction.-----Issues:Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the alleged crimes.Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 496-A P.P.C. are sustainable in law given the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.Whether the civil litigation between the parties influenced the criminal charges against the appellants.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt. The contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellants to the alleged crimes, and the potential influence of ongoing civil litigation between the parties led to the conclusion that the conviction and sentences were not sustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Nawaz vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others (PLD 2023 Supreme Court 461)Abdul Latif vs. Additional District Judge, Kasur and 4 others (2016 CLC 1553)Mst. Laila Qayyum vs. Fawad Qayyum and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 449)Salman Akram Raja and another vs. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, and others (2013 SCMR 203)Mst. Safia Bibi and another vs. Muhammad Akbar and others (PLD 2018 Lahore 758)Mst. Rubina Kausar vs. Additional Sessions Judge and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 604)Naseer Ahmed vs. Mst. Azrah and another (PLD 2010 Karachi 61)Mst. Rajo Mai vs. The State (1992 P Cr. LJ 1011)Islamic Law of Paternity and DNA Evidence by Ayman Shabana (June 28, 2021)-----Summary:The Lahore High Court, after reviewing the evidence and hearing the arguments, concluded that the prosecution's case was not substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and the lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants, Muhammad Mumtaz and Ijaz Ahmad, setting them at liberty if not required in any other case. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the case beyond a shadow of a doubt and ensures the protection of the accused's fundamental rights.

Summary: Conviction upheld --- Background: This case involves Ali Hassan alias Achoo, who was convicted for the murders of Mehmood-ur-Rasheed and his son Subhan, as well as the attempted murder of Muhammad Mudassar, in connection with a previous sodomy case. Ali Hassan and co-accused were charged under multiple sections of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), including 302(b), 324, 337A(i), 449, 109, and 34. The trial court sentenced Ali Hassan to death for the murders and acquitted the other accused. Ali Hassan appealed his conviction. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the conviction and death sentence of Ali Hassan for the murder of Mehmood-ur-Rasheed and Subhan are supported by sufficient evidence. ---2) Whether the medical evidence supports the prosecution’s case. ---3) Whether the eye-witness accounts, consisting of related and interested witnesses, are reliable and credible. ---4) Whether the delay in recording the post-mortem and the statement of the injured witness raises doubts about the prosecution's case. ---5) Whether the acquittal of co-accused weakens the case against Ali Hassan. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Conviction: The Lahore High Court upheld Ali Hassan's conviction under Sections 302(b), 324, 337A(i), and 449 PPC. The Court found that the prosecution provided cogent and trustworthy evidence, including eye-witness accounts from family members and medical reports, confirming the injuries and deaths. --- Medical and Ocular Evidence: The medical evidence, although showing a minor discrepancy in the location of the injury, was consistent with the prosecution's account of the murders. The Court ruled that such minor inconsistencies do not discredit the overall prosecution narrative. --- Eyewitness Credibility: Despite being related to the victims, the Court held that the eyewitnesses’ testimonies were reliable, as they were consistent and firmly withstood cross-examination. The injured witness, a child, was also deemed competent and credible. --- Post-Mortem Delay: The delay in the post-mortem and the recording of the injured witness’s statement was justified due to the urgency of saving the injured child. The Court ruled that this delay did not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case. --- Acquittal of Co-Accused: The Court maintained that the acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the case against Ali Hassan because the roles attributed to them were different and no direct evidence was presented against them for causing the deaths. --- Death Sentence: The Court confirmed the death sentence, emphasizing that the brutal nature of the crime, involving the murder of a father and his young son, justified the capital punishment. No mitigating circumstances were found to reduce the sentence. ---- Citations/Precedents: Shamsher Ahmad vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1931) Muhammad Asif vs. Mehboob Alam (2020 SCMR 837) Maskeen Ullah vs. The State (2023 SCMR 1568) Amjad Javed vs. The State (2002 SCMR 1247) Muhammad Abbas vs. The State (2023 SCMR 487) Abdur Rauf vs. The State (2003 SCMR 522) Ali Taj vs. The State (2023 SCMR 900) Muhammad Hanif vs. The State (2023 SCMR 2016) Muhammad Yaqoob vs. The State (2021 SCMR 1387)

Summary: Conviction upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that the complainant promptly got registered FIR against unknown persons, but on the same day when he got knowledge about the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence through eye-witness, he got recorded his supplementary statement, wherein he nominated the accused---According to eye-witness, he had seen the occurrence while coming from bazar to his home on his motorcycle and when he reached near date trees, he saw the accused firing upon deceased with pistol due to which he became scared and ran away to his home on his motorcycle, and when he came to know that victim had succumbed to the injuries he went to the house of deceased and told his brother/complainant about the occurrence and involvement of the accused---Eye-witness of the occurrence was a natural witness and had no enmity for false implication of accused---Complainant had attributed specific role of firing to the accused resulting in death of deceased---Statement of eye-witness was corroborated in material aspects with statement of witness who along with Medical Officer took the deceased to the hospital---Deceased succumbed to the injuries on his way to hospital---Deceased was examined by Medical Officer who issued Medico-Legal Certificate which revealed an oral firearm entrance wound in posterior aspect of left renal angle with no exit wound---Inquest report also supported the firearm injury of the deceased---Statement of eye-witness being natural witness of occurrence corroborated with recovery of crime empties, crime weapon, bloodstained mud and clothes of deceased and Medico-Legal Certificate---Such incriminating evidence was sufficient for maintaining the conviction and sentence of accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Gulistan v. State 1995 SCMR 1789 and Niaz-ud-Din and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 725 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material- -- Reliance--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Statement of recovery witness corroborated the recovery of one empty of pistol from the place of occurrence, recovery of bloodstained mud and bloodstained clothes of deceased and the recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of accused---Positive report of the firearm expert proved that the recovered crime empty had been fired from the recovered crime weapon---Recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of accused from the place which was not in knowledge of anybody was admissible in the circumstances of the case under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Zakir Khan v. State 1995 SCMR 1793 rel