Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular and medical evidence---Corroboration--- Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the nephew ofcomplainant---Complainant reiterated the contents of FIR and narrated the entire story in linewith fard-e-bayan---Evidence of the said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination,but nothing beneficial had come out on record in favour of the accused---Victim had narratedthe whole story with regard to the occurrence---Statement of the victim was in line with hisearlier statement---Said witness was cross-examined at sufficient length but nothing fruitfulhad come out on record in favour of the defence---Both the complainant and victim remainedconsistence and firm in their deposition---Said witnesses accurately uttered the date, time andmanner in which the accused committed sodomy with the victim---Ocular testimonyproduced by the prosecution was direct in nature and the same remained unshaken,consistent, confidence inspiring on all material counts---Medical evidence reflected thatvictim had been sexually assaulted---Medical evidence had remained unshaken andunchallenged---Medical certificate of accused showed that he was potent and able for sexualintercourse---Both the ocular and medical evidence were in line with each other---Admittedly, the victim was a minor, but nothing on record showing that he was tutored byhis elder---Statement of the victim had fully been corroborated by the circumstantialwitnesses and medical evidence---Accused had failed to point out any misreading and nonreading of evidence and major contradictions in the statements of witnesses or any materialillegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference---Appeal beingdevoid of merits was dismissed.Muhammad Shah v. State 1991 MLD 1944 rel.(b) Criminal trial-------Witness--- Related witness--- Statement of related witness---Reliance---Scope---Relatedwitness is as much competent witness, as any other, provided he is not inimical towardsaccused and has no motive to implicate the accused in a false case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Appreciation of evidence---Solitary statement of victim---Scope---In case of sodomy or zina, the solitary statement of victim is sufficient to convict theaccused if, it is confidence inspiring.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 and Mushtaq Ahmedand another v. The State 2007 SCMR 473 rel.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 377 & 34---Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfullyconfine person, unnatural offence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocularaccount corroborated by medical evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused forciblytook away the minor son of complainant on motorcycle and then took him into a room, whereanother unknown person was present, where all of them committed sodomy with the minor---Ocular account of the occurrence was furnished by the complainant and the victim---Recordshowed that complainant of the case appeared as witness and fully reiterated the contents ofFIR and narrated the entire story in line with the fard-e-bayan and the FIR---Complainantnarrated the whole story with regard to non-return of his son from bazaar and his arrival onthe following day and on query, the victim disclosed about the episode---Complainantwithout any loss of time promptly lodged the FIR by specifically nominating the accusedpersons and the act of abduction as well as committing unnatural offence with his son---Evidence of said witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing beneficialhad come out on record in favour of the accused---Victim appeared and narrated the wholestory with regard to his abduction on motorcycle by the accused persons and taking himtowards fisheries pool and committing unnatural offence with him the whole night and settinghim free on the following day---Statement of the victim was in line with his earlier statement---Said witness was cross-examined at sufficient length, but nothing fruitful had come onrecord in favour of defence---Nothing was on record to show that victim was tutored by hiselders---Statement of the victim child had been corroborated by the circumstantial witnessesand medical evidence---Both the complainant as well as the victim remained consistent andfirm in their depositions---Said witnesses accurately uttered the date, time and manner inwhich the accused persons took the victim and committed sodomy with him---Oculartestimony produced by the prosecution was direct in nature and the same remained unshaken,consistent and confidence inspiring on all material counts---Witnesses fully supported thecase of prosecution---Case of prosecution had further been strengthened by the medicalevidence produced by the Medical Officers, who opined, after complete examination ofvictim, that the victim had been sexually assaulted---Medical evidence had remainedunshaken and unchallenged---Record transpired that prosecution had produced corroborativeand confidence inspiring evidence and the defence had failed to cause any dent in the same---Circumstances established that defence had failed to point out any misreading or non-readingof evidence and major contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses or anymaterial illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment, warranting interference---Appealwas dismissed in circumstances. Kamran alias Kami v. The State 2012 PCr.LJ 1200 and Muzammil Shah v. State 1991MLD 1944 rel.(b) Criminal trial-------Witness---Interested/related witness---Testimony of interested/related witness---Scope---Related witness was as much competent witness as any other provided, he was not inimicaltowards accused and had no motive to implicate the accused in a false case.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 377 & 34---Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfullyconfine person, unnatural offence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Solitarystatement of victim---In case of sodomy or zina, the solitary statement of victim wassufficient to convict the accused if it was confidence inspiring.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 and Mushtaq Ahmedand another v. The State 2007 SCMR 473 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 365, 377 & 34---Kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfullyconfine person, unnatural offence, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Delay ofone day in lodging FIR---Defence had objected that FIR was lodged after the delay of oneday which was fatal to the prosecution case---Effect---Delay alone in lodging the FIR was nothelpful for defence to claim acquittal of the accused---In the present case, FIR was lodgedpromptly by the complainant as and when the victim returned to his house and informed hisfather about the incident---In such like cases, the prestige and respect of family was involvedas the child of someone was defamed---People were reluctant in filing report to the police andit was a natural course that the guardian of victim must have consulted his relatives, whetherto file report or not---Delay in filing FIR, in circumstances, was natural and same was notmaterial to the case.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376, 377 & 34---Rape, unnatural offence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Prosecution case wasthat the daughter of complainant and the witness were kidnapped by the accused and acquittedco-accused, in a vehicle and were taken to the abandoned place where accused committed Zinabil-Jabr with her---Ocular account was furnished by the witnesses including complainant andvictim---Complainant of the case appeared as witness and reiterated the contents of her fard-ebayan and confirmed that the accused abducted the victim, took her towards jungle andcommitted Zina-bil-Jabr with her---Victim narrated the story with regard to her abduction, whenshe was accompanied by witness, by the accused persons and accused committed Zina-bil-Jabrwith her---Witness, who at the relevant time had accompanied the victim, had supported thestatement of victim---Statement of said witness to the extent of commission of Zina wascorroborated by the victim---Medical Officer, who examined the victim had opined thatunnatural sex was committed with the victim---Abrasions on different parts of the body of thevictim suggested that Zina was forcibly committed and the victim at the time of Zina maderesistance to rescue herself---Victim being a minor child of about fourteen years failed in herattempt to rescue herself due to which, she received abrasions on different parts of her body---Defence had objected that the case of prosecution lacked independent corroboration---Factsremained that the crime had taken place in the abandoned area, where the presence of generalpublic or third person to witness the crime was not possible---Prosecution had produced directand medical evidence against the accused---Accused had failed to take any specific plearegarding false implication---Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony---Prosecution had produced corroborative and confidence inspiring evidence and the defence hadfailed to cause any dent in the evidence of prosecution---Accused, in the circumstances, hadfailed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment---Trial Courthowever had harshly treated the accused by awarding the sentence of life imprisonment under S.376, P.P.C. instead of S. 377, P.P.C. as S. 377, P.P.C. was attracted in the case of accused whohad committed unnatural offence of sodomy with the victim---High court interfered to the extentof quantum of sentence in the circumstances, and reduced life imprisonment to that of three yearswith reduction in fine---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with the said modifications. Kamran alias Kami v. the State 2012 PCr.LJ 1200 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376 & 34---Rape, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---In presence of directevidence supported by medical evidence, report of serologist was always deemed to becorroborative piece of evidence.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 376 & 34--- Rape, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Slight contradictionsin the statements of witnesses who were minors---Effect---Record showed that accused remainedfugitive from law for a decade---Witnesses, who were minors were not expected at the relevanttime, to give tape-recorded statement after lapse of such a long period---Memories became fadeafter lapse of some time---Minor or slight contradictions in the statements of such witnesses werenot fatal.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377 & 376---Unnatural offence---Solitary statement of victim---Evidentiary value---Incase of sodomy or Zina, the solitary statement of the victim was sufficient to convict the accused.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 and Mushtaq Ahmedand another v. The State 2007 SCMR 473 rel.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciaiton of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Prosecution casewas that accused persons on gun point committed unnatural offence with complainant andthey also made a video and threatened that in case he informed anyone they would show thevideo to others---Complainant of the case appeared as witness and reiterated the contents ofFIR and narrated the entire story in line with complaint---Victim correctly identified all theaccused persons in the Trial Court---Evidence of said witness was subjected to lengthy crossexamination, but nothing benefit or advantageous had come on record---Even otherwise, thedefence had failed to put any suggestion to the victim for false implication of the accusedpersons---Prosecution case had been strengthened by the medical evidence produced by theMedical Officer---Medical Officer opined that the accused persons were mentally andphysically fit to perform the act of sexual intercourse---Medical Officer also opined that thevictim was sexually assaulted by many persons due to which tone of anal splinter was lessand duration was old---Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony---Prosecutionhad produced corroborative and confidence inspiring evidence and the defence had failed tocause any dent in the evidence of prosecution---Circumstances established that accusedpersons failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment---Trial Court had awarded sentence of seven years to accused persons by the impugnedjudgment,being harsh was reduced to three years in circumstances---Appeal againstconviction was dismissed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Unnatural offence, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, defamation, criminalintimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection topublic servant, common intention---Apreciation of evidence---Disclosures of accusedpersons---Admissibility---Prosecution case had been supported by the disclosures of theaccused pesons, who admitted their guilt and narrated the entire story for making plan toblackmail and commit sodomy with the victim---Discloures of the accsused personsdiscovered new facts, whereby the accused persons made plan to compel the victim to bringhis younger brother, the same was admissible under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restrain, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury ot induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Hostile witnesses---Effect---Defence objected that father and uncle of victim, who appearedas witnesses but did not support the case of prosecution and thus were declared hostile, whichhad made the case doubtful---Record showed that father and uncle of victim were not directwitnesses of the case and Investigating Officer unnecessarily associated both the saidwitnesses in the case---Evidence of said witnesses had not made any dent or damage to thecase of prosecution, when the prosecution had produced direct and medical evidence againstthe accused persons.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Unnatural offence---Solitary statement of victim---Evidentiary value---Solitarystatement of the victim was sufficient to convict the accused.Fayyaz alias Fayyazi and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1042 and Mushtaq Ahmedand another v. The State 2007 SCMR 473 rel.(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in lodging---Effect---Mere delay in lodging FIRwas not of any help for defence to claim acquittal of the accused.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 377, 341, 342, 500, 506, 190 & 34---Unnatural offence, wrongful restrain, wrongfulconfinement, defamation, criminal intimidation, threat of injury to induce person to refrainfrom applying for protection to public servant, common intention---Appreciatin of evidence---Delay inlodging FIR---Effect---Allegedly, matter was reported to the police after the delayof 44 days without any plausible explanation-Facts remained that in such like cases, theprestige of family, risk and honour was involved and people were reluctant in filing report tothe police---In the present case, the victim kept mum due to the fear that accused might showthe video---Accused persons, however, started blackmailing the victim and forced him tobring his younger brother for unnatural offence---Said facts compelled the victim to informhis elders and to lodge FIR---In these circumstances, delay in filing FIR was natural. Kamran alias Kami v. The State 2012 PCr.LJ 1200 rel.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) and law relating to circumstantial evidence ----Ss.302, 367, 367-A, 377 & 34---Murder, kidnapping/abduction, unnatural offence and common intention---Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence---Principles for reliance on circumstantial evidence in a capital case---Prosecution alleged that deceased child was subjected to sodomy and then strangulated to death and relied upon retracted confession, last-seen evidence, motive, medical evidence and pointing out of place of occurrence---Held, that in cases involving capital punishment, all incriminating circumstances must be so inter-linked as to form one complete and unbroken chain, one end whereof touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---Any missing link destroys the entire chain and renders such evidence unsafe for sustaining conviction---Circumstantial evidence is to be examined with extra care and caution because chances of procuring and fabricating such evidence are always present---Where the investigation shows indications of manipulation, false inference cannot be drawn against the accused---Prosecution having failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances, conviction could not be maintained. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Aslam v. The State PLD 1992 SC 254 • Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia 1992 SCMR 1047 • Fazal Elahi v. Crown PLD 1953 FC 214 • Lejzor v. The Queen PLD 1952 PC 109 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Ss.164 & 364, Cr.P.C.---Retracted confession---Evidentiary value---Juvenile accused---Requirement of voluntariness, truthfulness and strict procedural safeguards---Accused juvenile remained in police custody for several days and confession was later recorded by Magistrate---Confession was retracted and was found to be highly suspicious---Held, that for acceptance of confession it must be voluntary, based on a true account of facts and duly proved at trial---Where the confessional statement was recorded without providing sufficient time for reflection and without extending, in the case of a juvenile, the desirable protection of consultation/counselling through a natural guardian or close mature blood relative having no conflict of interest, the confession lost its sanctity---Confession was further contradicted by established facts on record and clashed with other prosecution evidence---Subsequent insertion/manipulation regarding name of co-accused in the original record also struck at the root of the confessional statement---Magistrate stated that confession was made in Hindko dialect and translated by him into Urdu, but neither certified nor proved that he was fully acquainted with Hindko and had translated it word by word---In such circumstances, retracted confession was devoid of legal worth and could not safely be made basis of conviction on a capital charge. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Art. 164 and general principles of admissibility---Tracking by sniffer dogs---No express or implied admissibility---Investigating Officer arrested accused after one dog, out of many, entered house of accused’s father and sat on a cot---No pointation memo of said proceedings was prepared, no evidence was available regarding training standard of dogs, and dog exercise was privately arranged by complainant party---Held, that no provision of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order endorsed such process as substantive incriminating evidence---Mere conduct of one dog, particularly in absence of legally recognized procedure and proper documentation, could not form lawful basis for implicating an accused---Such material was of no evidentiary value. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss.161 & 164---Last seen evidence---Chance witness---Identification not conducted---Reliability---Prosecution produced witness who stated that he had, by chance, seen deceased in company of one co-accused and two unknown persons---No identification parade was arranged for identification of the two unknown persons---Witness remained silent despite knowing of disappearance of child and circumstances of his introduction into investigation were doubtful---Statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded at belated stage---Held, that such witness was a chance witness and his evidence was cryptic and infirm in nature and substance---Absence of identification parade and unexplained silence of witness materially impaired his credibility---Where time of death itself was uncertain and distances between relevant places were not established, last-seen evidence was of no help to the prosecution and deserved outright rejection. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss.302, 367, 367-A, 377 & 34---Motive---Belatedly introduced motive---Value---Prosecution alleged that accused committed offence to avenge beating given by complainant to them for plucking fruits from his orchard---Said motive was neither mentioned in the FIR nor disclosed before discovery of dead body and arrest of accused---Investigating Officer admitted that motive first surfaced through persons earlier arrested as suspects and later released---Held, that if motive had genuinely existed, it would normally have been disclosed at the earliest opportunity, particularly by complainant who was himself a practicing lawyer---Belated introduction of motive after arrest of accused rendered it doubtful and artificial---Such motive appeared to be a self-manufactured cosmetic baseline prepared with police connivance and remained wholly unestablished. (f) Medical jurisprudence and evidentiary value of medical evidence ----Medical evidence---Confirmatory nature---Not corroboratory for identification of culprit---Autopsy established that deceased child had been subjected to sodomy and then strangulated to death---Only one swab was found stained with human semen but no semen samples of accused were obtained and sent for cross-matching---Held, that though medical evidence confirmed cause and manner of death, it could not by itself identify the perpetrators---Where necessary scientific steps for cross-matching were not taken, medical evidence remained merely confirmatory/supportive and could not furnish corroboration connecting accused individually with commission of offence. Cited Cases: • Mst. Ehsan Begum v. The State PLD 1983 FSC 204 • Ghulam Abbas v. SHO Police Station City Chiniot Jhang 1996 P Cr. LJ 1661 • Waqar-ul-Islam v. State PLJ 1998 FSC 13 (g) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984) ----Art. 40 / law relating to discovery and conduct---Pointing out of place of occurrence---No fresh discovery---Crime spot already known to police---Accused allegedly pointed out school premises where offence had been committed---School was surrounded by boundary wall, had a gate and chowkidar, and was closed due to winter vacations---Police already knew the crime spot and no fresh fact was discovered in consequence of disclosure---Held, that where place of occurrence was already in police knowledge and no new incriminating article or fact was discovered as a result of alleged pointing out, such evidence had no legal worth---Even otherwise, if place was accessible, it could not necessarily indicate exclusive knowledge or involvement of accused. (h) Criminal jurisprudence ----Benefit of doubt---Single reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal---Case marked by suspicious confession, inadmissible dog-tracking exercise, unreliable last-seen evidence, unproved motive, inconclusive medical linkage and valueless pointing out evidence---Held, that even one reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as of right and not of grace---Where prosecution miserably failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction could not stand. Cited Cases: • Riaz Masih @ Mithoo v. The State NLR 1995 Crl. 694 (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Appellate jurisdiction ----Non-appealing co-accused---Extension of benefit of doubt---Complainant had sought enhancement of sentence against non-appealing co-accused, but case against him was not distinguishable on factual or legal grounds from that of appellants---Held, that where evidence against non-appealing accused is inseparable from and indistinguishable to that against appealing accused, the same benefit of doubt and acquittal can be extended to him as well. Cited Cases: • Haji Syed Rafi Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1992 SC 251 • Muhabbat Ali v. The State 1985 SCMR 662 Disposition: Criminal Appeals No.115 and 116 of 2013 were allowed; convictions and sentences of Hashim Qasim and Khayam Khurshid were set aside and both were acquitted of all charges. Benefit of doubt was also extended to non-appealing accused Shoaib Ahmed, who too was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Criminal Petition No.161 of 2013 seeking enhancement of sentence was held to have become infructuous and was dismissed. Hashim Qasim v. The State and Khayam Khurshid v. The State, Criminal Appeals No.115 & 116 of 2013, decided on 12.04.2017 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: S. 377---Sodomy---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account did not corroborate the medical evidence ---Medical opinion was not in line with the procedure contemplated in the medical jurisprudence---No positive report was on record with regard to semen stained clothes of the victim and the accused-appellant---Mere tenderness of the anal region was not a conclusive proof of sodomy.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- -Ss. 31, 439(3), 439-A & 561-A-Enhancement of sentence of imprisonment and compensation by revisional court beyond sentencing powers of Trial Court-Scope-Trial court, convicting the accused of the charge under S. 377, P.P.C. sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years along with payment of compensation, but the revisional court enhanced the sentence of imprisonment to 10 years and also enhanced the compensation awarded by the Trial Court-Question before the High Court was whether under revisional jurisdiction, the sentence exceeding to the competency of Trial Court could be awarded-Under S. 439-A, Cr.P.C, Sessions Judge, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, would exercise the same powers and jurisdiction as provided under S. 439, Cr.P.C-Section 439, Cr.P.C provided that under revisional jurisdiction, a sentence greater than the competency of Trial Court could not be awarded-Assistant Sessions Judge was a judicial officer, who for all purposes, exercised powers which were vested in Magistrate of Section 30, which meant that the latter could rightly be termed as an Assistant Sessions Judge-Trial Court/Magistrate Section-30 was not competent to impose sentence to an accused beyond 7 years imprisonment; accordingly, as provided under S. 439 (3), Cr.P.C, the revisional court was not competent to enhance the sentence beyond the jurisdiction of the Trial Court-Enhancement of sentence to 10 years by the revisional court was therefore illegal ab initio and abuse of process of the court, which could be looked into under inherent powers of S. 561-A, Cr.P.C-High Court, setting aside the impugned order of the revisional court as to enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment, maintained the same regarding enhancement of compensation-Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C was partially allowed accordingly. Mst. Sarwar Jan v. Ayub and another 1995 SCMR 1679 rel. Dr. Muhammad Anwar Khan Gondal, Addl. Prosecutor-General for the State.

Summary: Background: The appellant was charged under section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for murder, section 377 PPC for committing sodomy, and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The case revolved around the murder and alleged sexual assault of a minor, Muhammad Tariq, aged 14-15 years, who was found dead after being seen with the accused, Fayyaz Rasool. The trial court convicted the appellant, awarding him the death penalty under section 302-B PPC and ten years of rigorous imprisonment under section 377 PPC, while acquitting him of the charge under section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance. The case was subsequently brought before the Federal Shariat Court on appeal and a murder reference. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction and death sentence under section 302-B PPC were appropriate given the circumstances. 2- Whether the conviction under section 377 PPC for sodomy was supported by sufficient evidence. 3- Whether the acquittal under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Conviction under Section 302-B PPC: The court acknowledged that the occurrence took place in daylight and was witnessed by multiple individuals, including the complainant and another witness. The medical evidence corroborated the injuries reported by the witnesses. The accused was seen with the deceased before the incident, and the murder weapon (churri) was recovered on the accused’s pointation. Despite these findings, the court observed that the motive for the murder remained unclear and suggested that there could have been multiple reasons for the crime. This uncertainty warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment, providing the benefit of the doubt regarding the unclear motive. --Conviction under Section 377 PPC: The court upheld the conviction for sodomy based on medical evidence, which indicated the presence of semen in the anal swabs of the deceased. The court referred to precedent where the Supreme Court maintained a conviction based on medical evidence alone in cases of sodomy. The court affirmed the conviction under section 377 PPC and maintained the sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment. --Acquittal under Section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance: The court found that there was no evidence to support the charge of abduction under section 12, as the deceased had willingly accompanied the accused. Outcome: The court upheld the acquittal under section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance. ----Citations/Precedents: 2007 SCMR 698 (Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction): The Supreme Court of Pakistan maintained a conviction based on medico-legal reports for sodomy, which was cited to support the conviction under section 377 PPC. Munsab Ali vs. Riasat, 1988 SCMR 1614: This precedent was referred to in the context of evaluating the presumption of the victim being a willing partner, which did not alter the conviction but impacted the sentencing.

Summary: Ss. 377 & 34 PPC---Sodomy, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant and victim, had made dishonest improvements in respect of the alleged offence of sodomy.

Summary: Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jamshoro, for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction arose from FIR No. 377/2010, which alleged that Asad and two others killed Qaim Ali Gadahi and injured Sajidullah during a robbery on November 25, 2010. The appellant was also implicated under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Asad appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence against him was insufficient and unreliable. ----Issues: 1- Whether the identification of the appellant during the identification parade was reliable and conducted according to legal standards. 2- Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's involvement in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 3- Whether the recovery of the weapon and other evidence corroborated the prosecution's case against the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification Parade and Eyewitness Testimony: The court found significant inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies. While Zulfiquar Ali (P.W.1) and Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.2) stated that three individuals grappled with the deceased, Sajidullah (P.W.6) claimed that one person stayed with a motorcycle while two entered the shop. The court noted that the identification parade was flawed, as three witnesses simultaneously identified the appellant instead of individually. Additionally, the prosecution failed to provide a description of the assailants prior to the identification parade, further diminishing its credibility. The court also emphasized that the identification of the appellant by Sajidullah in court for the first time was unreliable and unsafe to base a conviction on. --Delay in FIR and Doubtful Presence of Witnesses: The FIR was lodged 24 hours after the incident, which, while not necessarily fatal, raised concerns about potential manipulation. The postmortem report indicated that the eyes and mouth of the deceased were half-open, suggesting that the witnesses might not have been present at the scene as claimed. This raised doubts about the authenticity of their testimonies. --Recovery of the Weapon: The court noted that the prosecution failed to send the recovered weapon and bullets for forensic analysis. Without a forensic link between the weapon and the crime, the recovery could not be used as corroborative evidence against the appellant. The court referenced similar cases, such as Usman alias Kaloo v. The State (2017 SCMR 622), where the absence of a forensic report rendered the recovery irrelevant. --Prosecution's Failure to Prove the Case: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The contradictions in witness testimonies, the flawed identification parade, and the lack of forensic evidence all contributed to the decision to overturn the appellant's conviction. -----Citations/Precedents: Zahir Yousaf and Another v. The State and Another (2017 SCMR 2002): Questioning the presence of witnesses based on postmortem findings. Azhar Mehmood and Others v. The State (2017 SCMR 135): Highlighting the importance of securing the source of light mentioned in identification cases. Usman alias Kaloo v. The State (2017 SCMR 622): Holding that the recovery of a crime weapon is inconsequential without a forensic report. Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant, Asad alias Diloo, was acquitted of all charges due to the prosecution's failure to provide sufficient and reliable evidence for conviction.