Summary: Co-accused Niaz-ur-Rehman has confessed his guilt by recording his statement under Section 164/364 Cr.P.C. Though the evidentiary value of the confessional statement of accused Niaz-ur-Rehman is yet to be determined at trial, however, tentative assessment of the same reveals that he has exonerated the present petitioner and claimed that he alone was involved in the murder of deceased. Moreover, the complainant in his report, charged accused/petitioners along with co-accused for preplanned murder of the deceased, however, no specific role towards commission of offence was attributed to the present petitioners. The case against the present petitioners thus squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling them to the concession of bail.

Summary: The victim twice left her house on 25th & 26th November, 2019, but the present accused-petitioner was not charged by the complainant in his initial report rather he was charged by the abductee vide her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC, on 04.02.2019, when she was brought from Dar-ul-Aman at Punjab. Medical examination of the victim was also conducted on the same day, wherein no sign of recent intercourse was found on the private parts of the body of the victim.

Summary: It was an unseen occurrence and initially nobody was charged for the commission of offence. It so happened, when the complainant recorded his 164 Cr.PC statement before the learned Judicial magistrate on 22.08.2019, after a considerable delay of 13 days and without disclosing his source of information in this regard.Being an unseen occurrence, there is no direct evidence to prima facie connect the present accused petitioner with the commission of offence. Be that as it may, suffice it to say that the evidence in shapeof CDR data regarding presence of accused in village, without any corroborative evidence is a weak type of evidence, and refusal of bail by the learned trial Court on the said sole ground could not bejustified, especially when it has not been mentioned in the FIR or statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC that at what time deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 410---Qatl-i-Amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delayed confession---Forensic report, non-production of---Effect---Complainant was mother of deceased and lodged FIR against accused for committing Qatli-Amd of her son---Sole eye-witness of occurrence contradicted case of prosecution andappellant was kept in illegal confinement of more than 21 days instead of 14 days---On 17thday of the occurrence, not only his extra-judicial confession was recorded but he was alsoproduced before the Magistrate and his confessional statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. wasrecorded---After recording confessional statement, accused was further detained byinvestigating officer for further 4 days instead of his immediate shifting to judicial custody---No implicit reliance could be placed on confessional statement of accused---Prosecutionfailed to establish the death of deceased and despite recovery of crime weapon neither crimeweapon was produced in court nor Forensic Science Laboratory report was obtained to affirmthat same was in running condition---Prosecution failed to establish charge against accusedthrough confidence inspiring evidence beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Trial Courtfailed to extend benefit of doubt to the appellant---Judgment of Trial Court suffered frommisreading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and dishonestimprovements in testimonies of interested witnesses existed and independent corroborationlacked in material aspects---False implication of accused could not be ruled out---High Courtset aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted him ofcharge---Appeal was allowed

Summary: Acquittal ---- (a) Criminal Trial –– Circumstantial Evidence –– Legal standard –– Chain of links must be unbroken and complete- The conviction of the appellants was based solely on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated that in such cases, the prosecution must establish each link in the chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, with interconnectivity and consistency. –––Held, prosecution failed to present a coherent and reliable chain of evidence; major links were either missing or doubtful, rendering the conviction unsustainable. [Cited: 2016 SCR 1467; 2018 SCMR 772] (b) Criminal Procedure –– Statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. –– Omission to confront accused with incriminating evidence –– Effect- It was contended that the trial court failed to put all incriminating material to the appellants during their statements under Section 342, Cr.P.C. –––Held, failure to comply with this mandatory requirement vitiates the trial. Conviction cannot be based on evidence not confronted to the accused. [Cited: 1995 SCMR 1373; 2018 SCR 260] (c) Evidence –– Delay in lodging FIR –– Material contradictions –– Shifting motives –– Effect on prosecution story- Initial report was made days after the alleged disappearance, and the FIR was lodged after recovery of one dead body. The complainant's statement contained contradictory motives (political rivalry, monetary greed, and revenge), while witnesses gave inconsistent versions. –––Held, such shifting motives and delayed reporting created serious doubt; motive being unproved weakened the prosecution’s case substantially. (d) Evidence –– Recovery of dead bodies –– Not exclusive to pointation by accused –– Presence of public persons at site –– Benefit of doubt- Although the prosecution claimed recovery of the deceased's body on the accused’s pointation, multiple prosecution witnesses confirmed that hundreds of persons were already present at the location. –––Held, recovery was not exclusively linked to the accused and thus did not qualify as valid corroborative evidence. The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (e) Confessional Evidence –– S. 164, Cr.P.C. statements –– Retraction in court –– Police pressure –– Requirement of corroboration Two witnesses whose confessional statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. formed the foundation of the prosecution's case retracted their statements during trial, alleging police coercion. The Magistrate failed to confirm their status as being in police or judicial custody. –––Held, retracted confessions made under coercion require strong corroboration, which was absent. Courts erred in relying on such statements. [Cited: Falak Sher v. The State [2016 SCR 1467]] (f) Investigation –– Malpractice, suppression of evidence, and contradictions –– Judicial observation on flawed investigation- The Court found deliberate suppression of evidence, selective witness examination, and dishonest improvements by prosecution witnesses. –––Held, investigation was dishonest and prejudiced. The Supreme Court directed disciplinary action against the responsible officers and mandated an independent inquiry under the supervision of the IGP. Disposition: Appeal accepted. Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellants acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Release ordered if not required in any other case. Chief Secretary and IGP directed to initiate inquiry against delinquent police officials and report within 3 months.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 497(2)----Bail----Further inquiry----Benefit of doubt at bail stage----Accused booked under Ss. 302, 341, 147, 148, 149, 337 & 34, APC, for alleged involvement in a murder case----Specific role not attributed to the accused during investigation----Witnesses recanted statements recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., claiming coercion and torture----Medical/postmortem report inconclusive regarding the cause of death, suggesting injury could have resulted from falling on a hard surface----No direct evidence connecting the accused to the offence----Repeated reinvestigations ordered at the complainant's request indicated uncertainty regarding the accused's involvement----Held, matter falls under the ambit of "further inquiry" as per S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.----Keeping the accused behind bars indefinitely without trial amounts to punishment without conviction----Benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused even at the bail stage. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Ghalib v. The State [1993 SCR 122] Mst. Jamila Begum v. Ghulam Hussain [1994 SCR 104] Farzana Begum & others v. Sohail Umer & another [2017 SCR 420] Zaheer Ahmed & another v. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others [2014 SCR 1667] Kareem Dad v. Zaheer & another [2004 SCR 36] ----Disposition: Revision petition accepted. Accused granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500,000 each with two sureties and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497 & 164---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), S. 21---Offencesagainst modesty of a natural person and minor---Bail, refusal of---Crime against society---Scope---Prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Complainant, a lady alleged thatthe petitioner, through Facebook messenger, demanded money bythreatening/blackmailing her to upload her private objectionable pictures which wouldcause her character assassination and damage to her reputation---Petitioner contended thatoffence with which he had been charged did not fall within prohibitory clause of 497,Cr.P.C.---Complainant contended that two mobile phones had been recovered from thepetitioner through which he made number of messages---Validity---Record revealed thatmessages in question suggested that the petitioner had threatened the complainant toupload her objectionable pictures on the website in case she would fail to pay certainamount to him---Apart from conversation made in between the parties regarding demandof money, said messages also carried the request on the part of complainant for deletingsaid pictures---Such dissolute act had put a young lady, being a mother and wife, intoperennial embarrassment and ridicule within and outside family fold---Investigationrevealed that not only the petitioner had recorded his disclosure admitting his guilt ofcapturing objectionable pictures of the complainant without her knowledge, but also hadrecorded his confessional statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. before the concernedMagistrate, whereby once again he had confessed his guilt---Offence with which thepetitioner was charged though did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but the fact remained that merely on the basis of said ground the petitionercould not claim his release on bail as a matter of right---Charged offence being not onlyheinous in nature, but also dangerous and harmful for society coupled with the fact thatthe same would give courage to others to play with the modesty of public-at-large---Boththe Courts below had rightly restrained themselves in enlarging the petitioner on bail---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Summary: (a) Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR: The petitioner, Mst. Rabia, stated under oath and through affidavit that she willingly married Sanaullah, and no abduction had occurred. Continuing criminal proceedings under Sections 363, 365-B, 109, and 34 PPC based on the FIR would constitute an abuse of the court’s process. Held: FIR No. 29/2017 and all related proceedings were quashed. (b) Statements Under Section 164 CrPC – Validity: The petitioner's statement under Section 164 CrPC, recorded before the Magistrate, affirmed her free will in contracting the marriage. Such statements, corroborated by an affidavit, hold significant evidentiary value and override claims of coercion or abduction in the absence of contrary evidence. Held: A statement affirming free will in marriage suffices to nullify allegations of abduction if no contrary evidence exists. (c) Abuse of Court Process: When the facts of a case demonstrate that criminal proceedings lack merit or are based on misrepresentations, continuing such proceedings is an unnecessary burden on judicial resources. Held: Criminal proceedings initiated without substantive evidence are liable to be quashed. ----Cited Law: Pakistan Penal Code (Sections 363, 365-B, 109, and 34) – Related to kidnapping, abduction, and common intention. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 561-A) – Inherent powers of the court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process. ----Disposition: The appeal was allowed. The impugned order of the Chief Court was set aside, and FIR No. 29/2017 along with related proceedings were quashed.

Summary: S. 436, 427, 147, 149 PPC.Delay in recording statement Under section 164 Cr.P.C by prosecution. (bail allowed)

Summary: Non compliance of section 203 (c) and 164 (B) CrPC bring the case of petitioner in ambit of further inquiry.