Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellant, was charged with the murder of Zeeshan Ahmed in an alleged robbery attempt. The case was based on FIR No. 1314/2012, registered at Police Station City, Mansehra, under Section 17(2), later altered to Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979. The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Mansehra. Khalid Mehmood appealed the conviction, challenging the validity of the evidence, including a purported dying declaration, confessional statement, and the recovery of the alleged murder weapon. ----Issues: 1- Whether the statement of the deceased, Zeeshan Ahmed, qualifies as a dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. 2- Whether the confessional statement of the appellant was voluntary, true, and consistent with the circumstantial evidence. 3- Whether the recovery of the alleged murder weapon and the related forensic evidence were credible and admissible. 4- Whether the inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence were sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Dying Declaration: The court held that the statement of Zeeshan Ahmed did not qualify as a valid dying declaration. It was not recorded by a Magistrate, lacked medical certification of the deceased's ability to make a lucid statement, and was not corroborated by independent witnesses. Furthermore, the statement lacked credibility as the deceased did not die immediately after the incident but survived for 39 days, raising questions about his ability to make a clear and reliable statement immediately after the incident. --Confessional Statement: The court found the confessional statement of Khalid Mehmood to be untrue, involuntary, and inconsistent with other evidence. The procedure for recording the confession did not follow the mandatory precautions laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The statement also contradicted the prosecution's narrative and the testimonies of key witnesses, which further diminished its credibility. --Recovery of the Murder Weapon: The court ruled that the recovery of the pistols, allegedly used in the murder, was highly questionable. The prosecution failed to explain the discrepancies in the recovery process, including the lack of independent witnesses and the suspicious timing of the discovery. The forensic report linking the recovered weapons to the crime was also considered unreliable due to delays and procedural lapses. --Inconsistencies in Prosecution's Evidence: The court noted significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, particularly between the testimonies of key witnesses and the physical evidence. These discrepancies undermined the prosecution's case and raised reasonable doubts about the appellant's guilt. The Federal Shariat Court allowed the appeal, overturned the conviction, and acquitted Khalid Mehmood of all charges. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented was insufficient and unreliable. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal standards in the collection and presentation of evidence, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. The appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released immediately. ----Citations/Precedents: Imran alias Dully and Another vs. The State and Others (2015 SCMR 155) Azeem Khan and Another vs. Mujahid Khan and Others (2016 SCMR 274) Hashim Qasim and Another vs. The State (2017 SCMR 986) Mst. Zahida Bibi vs. The State (PLD 2006 SC 255) Muhammad Azam vs. The State (PLD 1996 SC 67) Lal Khan vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1846) The case reinforces the principle that in criminal trials, especially those involving the death penalty, the prosecution's evidence must be clear, consistent, and free from doubt. Any significant inconsistency or procedural lapse can be grounds for acquittal.

Summary: s.302,34 PPCCross version (Bail allowed)

Summary: S.302,324,34 PPCProvision of S.265-K Cr.PC can only be invoked in cases wherein no probability of convicting the accused exists.(Remanded)

Summary: S.302(b),324 PPC Appreciation of evidence,Benefit of the doubt,prosecution failed to prove the case (Acquitted)

Summary: The case involved an altercation, where a car with five individuals, including the appellants, confronted the complainant and his brothers. The altercation escalated, leading to the firing of weapons, resulting in the death of one individual and injuries to others. The prosecution presented witnesses, including medical professionals who examined the injured individuals and the deceased. However, no injuries were attributed to the appellants, and they were shown as being empty-handed during the incident. The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' direct involvement in the violence. The judgment ultimately found that the prosecution had not proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlighted the absence of evidence linking the appellants to the violent acts and the lack of any overt actions in furtherance of a common intention. As a result, the appellants' convictions and sentences were set aside, and they were acquitted of the charges.

Summary: Summary pending