Summary: Conviction upheld --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 397, 457, 109, 212 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, lurking house- trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, abetment, harbouring offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant, committing murder of cousin sister of complainant and causing injuries to her four years old baby and also taken away one laptop, mobile phone and Mema watch from the house of complainant---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and an eye-witness---Both the witnesses though related to each other were natural witnesses and had no enmity for false implication of accused persons in the present case---Statements of said witnesses further corroborated in material aspects with other witness/neighbor of complainant, who deposed that he and his relatives were sleeping in the house at about 3:00 am (night)---Complainant came to their house and told them that thieves had entered into his house---Said witness along with other relatives were going towards the place of occurrence---Said witnesses heard fire shots inside the house, when they reached near the house and had seen a man, who after jumping over the wall was running towards his motorbike parked with the wall---Said witness caught hold the accused with pistol in his hands with the help of complainant and other people---Said witnesses entered in the house of complainant and had seen the deceased and baby girl in a pool of blood---Statements of witness/neighbor of the complainant had also not been shaken in the cross-examination---Careful perusal of record revealed that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent throughout and there was no material contradiction and dishonest improvement to discard their testimony---No enmity, ill-will or malice had been shown to believe that the accused persons had falsely been implicated--- Ocular evidence corroborated in all material aspects was trustworthy and reliable and the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 397, 457, 109, 212 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, abetment, harbouring offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the disclosure of accused---Reliance--- Scope--- Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant, committing murder of cousin sister of complainant and causing injuries to her four years old baby and also taken away one laptop, mobile phone and a watch from the house of complainant---In pursuance of disclosure of accused, the Investigating Officer conducted raid on the house of acquitted co-accused, wherefrom he recovered the crime weapon i.e. Kalashnikov from the possession of accused and sealed the crime weapon Kalashnikov which was supported with the positive report of the firearm expert wherein it had been clearly mentioned that the five empties of bullets had been fired from the Kalashnikov---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 397, 457, 109, 212 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, abetment, harbouring offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Vicarious liability--- Scope---Accused were charged for entering into the house of complainant, committing murder of cousin sister of complainant and causing injuries to her four years old baby and also taken away one laptop, mobile phone and Mema watch from the house of complainant--- Accused had shared the common intention with other accused---Though the accused had not taken part in firing upon deceased or injuring baby girl, but the killing had been made during the course of robbery in furtherance of the common intention of the other accused, hence the accused had rightly been held vicariously liable for the murder of deceased by the trial Court and his conviction under S. 302(b), P.P.C., was not open to any exception---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Arshad v. State PLD 1996 SC 122 rel

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material on disclosure of accused---Reliance---Accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom and thereafter killing him---Perusal of record revealed that prior to the disclosure of the accused, it was not known to anybody that the abductee had been murdered and his body had been buried in the sewage pit of the farmhouse, which was recovered in 39 pieces in presence of Judicial Magistrate and Lady Police Surgeon---DNA samples taken from 39 pieces of the dead body and buccal swab of parents of deceased matched in the DNA report of Forensic Science Agency---DNA report had proved that the recovered pieces of human meat were of the late abductee and Forensic Science Laboratory Report of bloodstained tuka and knife, cap, and pair of Sandals (identified by a relative) recovered from the buried place of the abductee lent further corroboration---Farmhouse was in possession of co-accused being tenant and such fact had been proved through the statement of owner of farm supported by the revenue record produced by the patwari--- Disclosure of the accused was further corroborated by medical evidence i.e. postmortem report, which revealed that the death of the late abductee was caused by firearm injury in the skull---Receiving of the ransom amount and paying debts from the same to the creditors by the complainant stood corroborated by the statements of three creditors and by recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- from the accused---Prosecution had succeeded in proving its case through such circumstantial evidence, therefore, appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Summary: Acquittal granted ---- Background: Haq Nawaz, along with Shafique alias Rembo and Shafaqat alias Basharat, was charged with the murder of Muhammad Faryad. The incident took place on 23.12.2019, and an FIR was filed on 24.12.2019 at police station Satiana, District Faisalabad, under sections 302/34 PPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, convicted Haq Nawaz and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000,000, which was to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Haq Nawaz appealed against his conviction. ----Issues: Whether the appellant, Haq Nawaz, was falsely implicated in the murder case. Whether there were inconsistencies and overwriting in the complaint (Ex.PA) and contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence. Whether the dying declaration of the deceased was admissible and reliable. Whether the recovery of the pistol (P-6) at the pointing out of the appellant was valid evidence. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: False Implication: The defense argued that Haq Nawaz was falsely implicated due to enmity and his role as a foot-tracker in tracing the stolen cow. The court noted that Haq Nawaz had no personal enmity with the deceased, and even the trial court had disbelieved the motive part of the prosecution case. Inconsistencies and Overwriting: The court observed overwriting and interpolation in the complaint (Ex.PA), changing the role attributed to Haq Nawaz. Additionally, there was no blackening, burning, or tattooing on the injury, contradicting the claim that the shot was fired at close range. Dying Declaration: The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded without the presence of the relevant Medical Officer who declared the deceased fit to make a statement. The declaration was considered a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., lacking the credibility of a dying declaration, as it was not subjected to cross-examination. Recovery of Pistol: The pistol (P-6) recovered at the pointing out of Haq Nawaz did not match the empties recovered from the crime scene, rendering the recovery evidence ineffective. Prosecution’s Case: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies, unreliable evidence, and lack of corroboration led to serious doubts about the prosecution's story. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Pervez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCMR 230) Mst. Zahida Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 255) Farman Ahmed vs. Muhammad Inayaat and others (2007 SCMR 1825) ----Conclusion: The appeal filed by Haq Nawaz was accepted, his conviction and sentence were set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges by extending the benefit of the doubt. He was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The findings were specific to Haq Nawaz, and the case against the co-accused Liaqat Ali (since P.O) would be decided on its own merits after his arrest.