Summary: 1. In view of famous Latin maxims "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" and "commodum ex injuria sua memo habere debet", no one should have an advantage from his own wrong; when possibility cannot be ruled out that accused while seeing his father in injured condition with six injuries on his body and injured brother with 26 injuries on his corpus reacted and made firing which hit and resulted murder of the deceased then it constitutes some mitigating factor to be taken into consideration for awarding lesser sentence i.e. Imprisonment for Life to him. 493Writ Petition- Regulatory Authorities- National Tariff Commission (NEPRA) 1695-24 M/S EJAZ BROTHERS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 06- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3058 2025 PTD 1025 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)] (https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2025LHC3058.p

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Since now offences crossing threshold of value not less than Rs.500 million are being dealt by amended National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, as per Section 5(o), therefore, while seeking guidance from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Agha SIRAJ KHAN DURRANI's case, it would be appropriate if all the matters pertaining to NAB issues are placed before and dealt by the Division Bench of this Court. 491Murder Reference 2560826.134-

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court Hyderabad in Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-130 of 2014 and Confirmation Case No. 28 of 2014). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Confessional statement, recording of---Infirmities---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of his wife, daughter and son by administering poison---Record revealed that though the accused had made a confessional statement on 31.12.2020 before the concerned Magistrate but subsequently retracted from it by stating that the police had arrested his father and other ladies and was maltreating them, so in order to save them from the clutches of the police he made the said confessional statement---According to accused, he was given an assurance by the police that if he made a confessional statement before the concerned Magistrate, the other persons implicated in the case of killing the three persons would be let off by the police---In the accused's statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., recorded by the Trial Court, while answering question No.5, the accused categorically stated that the confessional statement recorded on 31.12.2020 was under duress---Accused further explained, by answering question No.10, that he was present at a village to look after his land, where he was informed that his wife and two children had passed away---Thereafter, accused went to his home where the police arrested him---Deposition of Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the accused's confessional statement, revealed that the column of length of time of the confessional statement was left blank by him and further that he had not obtained the thumb impression of the accused on the first page of the alleged confessional statement---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Medical evidence not supporting the prosecution case---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of his wife, daughter and son by administering poison---Medical Officers had categorically stated that Chemical Examiner's report with regard to intoxication and poisoning of the three deceased persons returned as negative---Record transpired that there was no evidence of strangulation on the bodies of the deceased persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charge. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused-petitioner was charged for committing murder of his wife, daughter and son---Statement of brother of deceased casted doubt on the prosecution case as according to him accused-petitioner told him that he had killed the three persons by way of throttling and strangulation whereas according to the complainant, the deceased were killed by way of poisoning---Brother of deceased also stated that three persons aided accused-petitioner in killing the deceased persons, whereas it was a matter of record that these three persons were found to be innocent and acquitted by the Court---Record showed that neither the complainant nor the brother of deceased or any other person, either of the family/neighbor etc., were eyewitnesses of the occurrence---As per record, there was no previous enmity between the family of the accused and the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, in circumstances, and accused was acquitted of the charge. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---In case of contradictions and doubts, the benefit of the same must be extended to the accused. Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State 2019 SCMR 129 rel. Syed Khawar Ameer Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ms. Rahat Ehsan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- ----S. 63---Anti-circumvention investigation and anti-dumping investigations---Distinction---Anti-dumping investigations and anti-circumvention proceedings are both trade remedies, but they address different issues related to unfair trade practices---Anti-dumping investigations focus on whether a foreign exporter is selling goods in a foreign market at prices below their cost of production or below a comparable price in the exporter's home market, potentially harming domestic industries---Whereas anti-circumvention proceedings, on the other hand, investigate whether measures against dumping or subsidies are being circumvented, meaning thereby the product is being imported in a way that evades the original anti-dumping or countervailing duty---In essence, the anti-dumping investigations are about preventing unfair pricing practices, while anti-circumvention proceedings are about ensuring that existing anti-dumping measures are not bypassed through various methods---The word "anti-circumvention" has been defined in Blacks' Law Dictionary, as "Any act of fraud whereby a person is reduced to a deed by decreet" whereas anti-circumvention measures have been defined under S. 63 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 ('the Act, 2015') which deals with the mechanism for final review of anti-dumping duties and outlines the procedure for handling the termination of anti-dumping duties; object whereof is to empower the National Tariff Commission (NTC) to investigate and address practices where exporters or importers attempt to evade imposed anti-dumping duties and includes actions such as change in pattern of trade, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification e.g. slight modifications of products, misclassification or routing goods through third countries to avoid imposed duties. (b) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- ----S. 63(4)---Anti-circumvention investigation, initiation of---Issuance of notice, assailing of---Petitioners (importers of two side coated bleach board) assailed notices regarding initiation of an anti-circumvention investigation by the National Tariff Commission (NTC/ Respondent) on an application from Paper and Board Mills /Respondents being manufacturers of coated bleached paperboard---Allegation levelled by Paper and Board Mills /Respondents ('domestic industry') was that Chinese exporters were circumventing the anti-dumping duties through product modification, which undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duties in terms of quantities and prices of the domestic like product--- Validity---Contents of the impugned notice made it clear that only the interested parties were invited to make comments known to the NTC and to submit any information or documents and so far NTC had not imposed any anti-dumping duty rather initiated the investigation of circumvention against the exporters on dumped imports of one side coated bleached paper board through slight modification of the product by applying coating of less than 20 grm of any substance such as starch, clay or calcium carbonate etc on the other side and declaring it as two side coated bleached paper board---Through the impugned notice, a chance had been given to the interested parties to appear and produce evidence / material and no adverse order had been passed---Constitutional petition, filed by importers, was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- ----S. 63---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Initiation of anti-circumvention investigation, assailing of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---Scope---Petitioners (importers of two side coated bleach board) filed constitutional petition assailing Notices regarding initiation of an anti-circumvention investigation by the National Tariff Commission (NTC / Respondent) on an application from Paper and Board Mills / Respondents being manufacturers of coated bleached paperboard---Allegation levelled by Paper and Board Mills /Respondents ('domestic industry') was that Chinese exporters were circumventing the anti-dumping duties through product modification, which undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duties in terms of quantities and prices of the domestic like product---Validity---Petitioners had raised disputed question of facts and factual controversy which could not be decided in the constitutional jurisdiction as this/High Court could not enter into factual realm or embark upon an exercise to determine the controvertial questions of facts---The resolution of such like issues was left to be decided by the proper forum prescribed by a law i.e. NTC which had only invited all interested parties to submit their reply/comments or evidence---Indulgence in such exercise would have effect of preempting and enforcing upon jurisdiction lawfully vested in the competent Courts---High Court is not to resolve disputed questions of fact in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Since through the impugned notice, a chance had been given to the interested parties to appear and produce evidence / material and no adverse order had been passed, therefore, constitutional petition, being non-maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances. Raja Tanveer Safdar v. Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others 2024 PLC (C.S.) 957 and Waqar Ahmed and others v. The Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others 2024 SCMR 1877 ref. (d) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- ----Ss. 63 (4) & 70---Anti-Dumping Duties Rules, 2022, R. 30---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Initiation of anti-circumvention investigation, assailing of---Right of appeal, availability of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Petitioners (importers of two side coated bleach board) filed constitutional petition assailing Notices regarding initiation of an anti-circumvention investigation by the National Tariff Commission (NTC/ Respondent) on an application from Paper and Board Mills /Respondents being manufacturers of coated bleached paperboard---Allegation levelled by Paper and Board Mills / Respondents ('domestic industry') was that Chinese exporters were circumventing the anti-dumping duties through product modification, which undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duties in terms of quantities and prices of the domestic like product---Validity---Present investigation was at a preliminary stage and the NTC had only determined on prima facie basis that circumvention was being done---Once the NTC passed the determination, the aggrieved parties would have the remedy to file an appeal before the Tribunal under S. 70 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Rules, 2022 ('the Rules, 2022')---Furthermore, the investigation was under process and the NTC had not reached to any conclusion---If the petitioners think that the Respondents (domestic industry) had mala fide intentions, they may submit their views/comments with evidence before the NTC during the investigation---Since through the impugned notice, a chance had been given to the interested parties to appear and produce evidence / material and no adverse order had been passed, therefore, constitutional petition, being non-maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs Sadiq Poultary (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2025 Lah. 57 ref. (e) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- ----Ss. 63(4)---Anti-Dumping Duties Rules, 2022, Rr. 23 & 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Anti-circumvention investigation---Show-Cause Notice, challenging of---Constitutional petition---Principles regarding challenging of show-cause notices in writ jurisdiction of the High Court stated. i. Show-cause notice is not an adverse order unless it could be clearly shown to the satisfaction of the Court that it has been issued by an authority not vested with jurisdiction or it was issued for mala fide reasons ; ii. The exception relating to want of jurisdiction does not include every jurisdictional error. A wrong exercise of jurisdiction or interpretation of the law cannot be treated as want of jurisdiction; iii. Constitutional jurisdiction is exercised if the Court is satisfied that the person is an 'aggrieved party' within the context of Article 199 of the Constitution and no adequate remedy is provided by law. If adequate statutory remedies are provided under the relevant statute, it is to be taken into consideration while exercising discretion under Art. 199 of the Constitution: iv. By passing or circumventing statutory forums is to be discouraged ; v. The approach should be to advance the object and purpose of a statute and every effort is to be made to uphold the sanctity of the legislative intent rather defeating it. Strategic Plans Division and another v. Punjab Revenue Authority and others PLD 2024 Lah. 545 ref. (f) ----Ss.2(d) & 63 (4)---Anti-Dumping Duties Rules, 2022, Rr. 23 & 25---Anti- circumvention investigation , initiation of---Scope---Domestic industry , rights of---Petitioners (importers of two side coated bleach board) assailed notices regarding initiation of an anti-circumvention investigation by the National Tariff Commission (NTC/ Respondent) on an application from Paper and Board Mills / Respondents being manufacturers of coated bleached paperboard---Allegation levelled by Paper and Board Mills /Respondents ('domestic industry') was that Chinese exporters were circumventing the anti-dumping duties through product modification, which undermined the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duties in terms of quantities and prices of the domestic like product---Validity---Impugned notice was neither issued against the petitioners nor any of the Association rather it was a general notice issued by the NTC under S. 63 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, ('the Act, 2015') for initiation of investigation for the protection of manufacturing industry---Pertinently, the impugned notice issued by the NTC being a 'Regulator' clearly mentioned the initiation of investigation as it was prima facie established that Chinese exporters were evading anti-dumping duties on one-side coated bleached paperboard by making minor changes, i.e. coating both sides and labeling it as a different product and despite this modification the product's core characteristics and use remained the same---Said tactic appeared to undermine the intended impact of the anti-dumping duties, prompting the NTC to launch an anti-circumvention investigation under S. 63 of the Act 2015---The word prima facie used in the impugned notice did not mean that the NTC was pinpointing the Petitioners who were neither a domestic industry in terms of S. 2(d) of the Act, 2015 nor they had locus standi to challenge the same at present stage---Furthermore NTC was only inviting the interested parties to present their views/comments on such anti-dumping circumvention that were known to the NTC---Since through the impugned notice, a chance had been given to the interested parties to appear and produce evidence / material and no adverse order had been passed, therefore, constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan/National Tariff Commission and others 2021 PTD 2126; Tasneem Enterprises (Private) Limited v. National Tariff Commission and 4 others (Constitution Petition No.D-4261 of 2024) and Niaz Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Commerce and Industry, Islamabad and others (W.P.No.3396-P of 2024) ref. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court with Wasi Ullah Surrani for Petitioner. Barrister Zain Mansoor and Naila Rubbab, Assistant Attorney Generals on behalf of Respondent No.1. Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General with Ms. Talat Nisar for the Federation. Waqas Amir and Azfar Naeem for Respondent No.2. Saif Ullah Khan and Rais Mahmood Ali for Respondents Nos.3 and 5. Dates of hearing: 16th January, 11th, 19th, 25th February, 6th, 26th March, 24th, 30th April and 6th May, 2025.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S. 5, Sched.---Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (XX of 2017), Ss. 2(i) & 3---ADR Mediation Accreditation (Eligibility) Rules, 2023---Mediation Practice Direction (Civil) Rules, 2023 (issued by Islamabad High Court)---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Referring dispute for mediation---Object, purpose and scope---Petitioner was aggrieved of enhancement of maintenance allowance of respondents by High Court---Supreme Court referred the matter for mediation through Accredited Mediator---Held: Mediation is not merely an alternative to litigation; it is a paradigm shift in dispute resolution built on principles of collaboration, confidentiality and party autonomy---Mediation offers a non-adversarial framework that empowers parties to shape outcome of their own disputes, guided by a neutral facilitator rather than through judicial determination---Benefits of mediation are manifold, which reduce costs associated with protracted legal battles, alleviates burden on Courts and ensures quicker resolution of disputes---Confidential nature of mediation protects privacy of parties and its informal setting encourages honest communication and problem-solving---Flexibility of process allows parties to explore creative, interest-based solutions that a Court of law may not be empowered to grant---Supreme Court appreciated benefits of mediation which were remarkably evident in the present case; what years of litigation could not resolve, mediation achieved within weeks---This procedure reinforced the principle that the earlier a dispute was channeled through mediation, the greater the potential for cost and time savings, reduced emotional strain, and restored relationships---Supreme Court recommended the Courts to embrace a pro-mediation ethos, particularly at initial stages of litigation---Judges and lawyers must be sensitized to identify cases fit for mediation and facilitate their referral in a timely manner---Litigants, likewise, should be encouraged to consider mediation and other methods of alternative dispute resolution as a first resort, rather than a last recourse---Supreme Court directed Family Court to draw decree in terms of the settlement agreement---Appeal was disposed of. Barrister Haris Azmat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. Zafar Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (via video link (Lahore)) for Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 394---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two hours and twenty minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---As per case of prosecution, occurrence took place on 04.11.2019 at 12.40 a.m. (night) whereas it was reported to the police on 04.11.2019 at 2.40 a.m. (night) in Hospital, through written application submitted by complainant of the case which was sent to Police Station for registration of the case and ultimately crime report, FIR, was registered at 3.00 a.m. (night)---As per application, two unknown accused persons having slim and active body wheatish complexion, height 5 foot 7/8 inches and aged about 24/25 years (who could be identified on appearance) came on motorcycle and on gun point attempted to loot, however, on resistance, one of them, who was armed with pistol, fired straight shots at brother of the complainant, due to which one shot hit on abdomen, second at left thigh and another shot hit at left knee, due to which victim become severely injured who was sent to Hospital through 1122---In application for registration of the case, at one place it was mentioned that accused could be identified on further appearance by the complainant whereas at other place it was mentioned that brother of the complainant and eye-witness could identify the accused---Noteworthy, that it had not been expressly mentioned anywhere in application that complainant was also available at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---As column No.4 of the FIR, place of occurrence was just about 01 K.M. from the concerned Police Station and as per statement of eye-witness, police arrived at the place of occurrence before arrival of 1122---Question does arise that if complainant was present at the relevant time on the place of occurrence and police reached before arrival of Rescue 1122, then why complainant did not make statement regarding occurrence to the police there and why police did not record his statement for registration of the case then and there---However, any plausible reason to explain said factor had not been brought on the record by the prosecution---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 394---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant and eye-witness atthe time and place of occurrence not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---In Medico-Legal Examination Certificate of victim, there was nowhere mentioned that victim was accompanied at that time by the complainant or eye-witness---Perusal of said Medico-Legal Certificate of the deceased revealed that he was well oriented and vitally stable when he was examined in the hospital and he even signed and thumb-marked the Medico-Legal Examination Certificate but name of complainant or eye-witness as the persons accompanying him at the time of occurrence or in hospital had not been got mentioned by victim in the Medico-Legal Certificate---Complainant was brother of the deceased and if he was present at the time of occurrence and tried to manage his brother when he was in injured condition or tried to shift him in the Rescue 1122 van along with eye-witness, then their wearing clothes might have been stained with blood of the deceased but any such clothes had not been produced during investigation of this case---Neither complainant nor eye-witness informed police about occurrence, complainant did not make call to 1122 and even complainant could not tell that whether eye-witness made call to Rescue 1122 or not---Complainant deposed in his statement before Court that he came to know after 4/5 days about the fact of registration of FIR---Similarly, eye-witness also deposed during statement before Court that he came to know about registration of the case after some days of the occurrence---When all the said factors were taken into consideration in totality then ocular account had not been found as confidence inspiring or trustworthy and hence, could not be believed/relied upon---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)& 394---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Identity of the accused persons not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---Availability of any source of light at the time of occurrence had not been mentioned in the application for registration of the case---Though, in site-plan,it had been got mentioned that light was available but any bulb or source of light had not been secured from there during investigation---Though complexion, height and stature of unknown accused persons were mentioned in application for registration of the case yet there might be so many persons having ages 24/25 years, height 5 foot 7/8 inches, wheatish complexion and active/slim body, so on the basis of only those features, identification could not be termed as conclusive---Rather facial features of the unknown accused persons were mandatory to identify him on re-seeing along with other features i.e. height, complexion, age and stature etc.---In that case, facial features of both unknown accused persons were neither mentioned in application for registration of case nor during investigation or trial of the case---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)& 394---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Not helpful to the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---Judicial Magistrate stated that when police file was perused, specific features of accused were not mentioned therein---Hence, identification of both accused persons during identification parade could not be termed as of conclusive nature or having any judicial efficacy to be relied upon to prove the charge regarding offence which was punishable with death---Complainant conceded during statement before Court that he did not mention features of the accused who was driving motorcycle, features of the accused who was on rear seat and features of the accused who made fire shot---Resultantly, identification of both the appellants through test identification parade was of no helpful to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Noor Islam v. Ghani-ur-Rehman and another 2020 SCMR 310 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)& 394---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---Ocular account in the case comprised of complainantand eye-witness, however, as per case of prosecution, complainant was neither resident of place of occurrence nor was having any business or job over there---Complainant did not offer any valid reason to explain/show his arrival at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence---Similarly, any shop or residential house of eye-witness at or near the place of occurrence had not been mentioned in the scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence---In such scenario, evidence of both the cited witnesses, who could not explain/establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, was "suspect" evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142; Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652; Mst. Mir and another v. The State 2020 SCMR 1850 and Sarfraz and another v. The State 2023 SCMR 670 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)& 394---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---As per application for registration of the case, deceased of the case was closing the shop when two unknown accused persons came to loot him on gun point and on resistance, one accused fired shot with pistol---Thus, as per application victim received fire shot outside of his shop and the same fact had been mentioned in scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence which clearly showed that said place had been mentioned as point "A" and same was outside the shop---Contrary to that, while making statement before Trial Court complainant introduced contradictions in that regard while mentioning that his brother was inside store---Similarly, eye-witness also changed the venue/place of occurrence and introduced contradiction in that regard while making statement during trial of the case and he also introduced that deceased was inside store at the time of occurrence---Investigating Officer also deposed during his statement before Court that injured got fire shot outside the shop---Hence, place of occurrence where the deceased received injuries was get changed from outside the shop to inside the shop and thus exact place of occurrence also could not be got established by the prosecution---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)& 394---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and motorcycle---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing during robbery---So far as recovery of pistol from appellant was concerned, suffice it to say that empties secured from the place of occurrence were found as not having been fired from said pistol as per report of Forensic Science Agency---Therefore, said recovery was inconsequential and was of no helpful to the case of prosecution---Likewise, so far as recovery of motorcycle from the place of occurrence was concerned, suffice it to say that in the application for registration of the case, leaving of motorcycle by accused persons at the place of occurrence was not mentioned and even said motorcycle was not having been found as registered in the name of any of the appellants---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (h) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is a type of supporting nature evidence which can tell about nature, locale, size and duration of the injury but can not tell about identity of the assailant. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State 2025 SCMR 762 rel. Babar Hussain Warraich for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 39118 of 2021). Ali Hussain and Barrister Aiyan Tariq Bhutta for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 40003 of 2021). Rana Muhammad Imran Anjum, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Asghar Nadeem for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025. Judgment Farooq Haider, J.--- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.39118/2021 filed by Yasir Shaban (appellant) as well as Crl. Appeal No.40003-J/2021 filed through jail authorities by Ali Raza and Yasir Shaban (appellants) against their "conviction and sentences", Murder Reference No.152/2022 sent by trial court under Section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence awarded to both appellants as all the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated: 12.06.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore/trial court. 2. Yasir Shaban and Ali Raza (appellants) were tried in case arising out of FIR No.2087, dated 04.11.2019, registered under Sections 394, 302, P.P.C at Police Station: Sabzazaar, Lahore and trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 12.06.2021, has convicted and sentenced both the appellants as under: - i) Under Section 302(b), P.P.C: 'Death' to each appellant as Ta'zir for committing Qatl-e-amd of Muhammad Rafique with payment of compensation Rs.7,00,000/- each under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased and in default thereof to further suffer S.I. for six months each. ii) Under Section 394, P.P.C: 'life imprisonment' to each appellant for voluntarily causing hurt to Muhammad Rafique (deceased) during commission of robbery and fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default thereof to further suffer S.I. for six months each. Since appellant Yasir Shaban in Crl.A.No.40003-J/2021 has also filed Crl.Appeal No.39118/2021 through his privately engaged counsel, therefore, Crl.Appeal No.40003-J/21 filed through jail authorities to the extent of appellant Shaban has become superfluous/redundant and the same stands disposed of as such to his extent. 3. Primarily, Muhammad Shafiq (complainant/PW-8) set the machinery of law into motion by moving application (Ex.PB) regarding commission of robbery with his brother namely Muhammad Rafiq against two unknown accused to Zaigham Abbas T/SI (PW-1) in Jinnah Hospital, Lahore mentioning therein that he is resident of Dubban Pura, Lahore and has a shop of 'karyana' there; his brother Muhammad Rafiq was residing at 586-N Sabzazar and running 'Karyana' store with name and style of "Usman Super Store" N-block Makkah Chowk; on 04.11.2019 at about 12.40 AM (night) his brother Muhammad Rafique and his neighbourer Abdul Majeed son of Muhammad Anwar (PW-9) were closing shop, in the meantime, two unknown accused persons having slim/active body, wheatish complexion, ages 24/25 years and height 5 feet and 7/8 inches, who can be identified by him on appearance, while boarding on red colour United Motorcycle without number plate, came at store of his brother and attempted to commit robbery on gun point, upon resistance one accused who was armed with pistol fired straight shots upon Muhammad Rafique, out of which one fire shot hit on his belly, second fire shot hit on his left thigh and another fire hit him on his left knee who by receiving severe injuries fell on the ground and was taken to Jinnah Hospital through 1122; further mentioning that Muhammad Rafique and Abdul Majeed can identify the accused persons if they appear before them. On the basis of aforementioned application (Ex.PB), case was registered vide FIR No.2087/2019 (Ex.PH) on 04.11.2019 under Section 394, P.P.C. (subsequently, after death of Muhammad Rafique, offence under Section: 302, P.P.C was also added) at Police Station: Sabzazar, District Lahore. 4. After completion of investigation, challan report under Section: 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted against the appellants; they were formally charge sheeted but they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was summoned; after recording of prosecution evidence, they were examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. but they refuted the allegations levelled against them; they did not appear as their own witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C and also did not opt to produce defence evidence. Trial Court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above through impugned judgment dated: 12.06.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that conviction recorded and sentence awarded to the appellants through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' of the case; ocular account is neither trustworthy nor corroborated by any other independent evidence; prosecution has remained unable to prove its case. Learned counsel for the appellants finally prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against the appellants through cogent and reliable evidence and prayed for dismissal of the both appeals. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, occurrence took place on 04.11.2019 at 12.40 a.m. (night) whereas it was reported to the police on 04.11.2019 at 2.40 a.m. (night) in Jinnah Hospital, Lahore through written application (Exh.PB) submitted by Muhammad Shafiq complainant of the case/PW.8 (brother of Muhammad Rafiq deceased) which was sent to Police Station for registration of the case and ultimately crime report (FIR Exh.PH) was registered at 3.00 a.m. (night); as per application (Exh.PB), two unknown accused persons having slim and active body wheatish complexion, height 5 foot 7/8 inches and ages about 24/25 years (who can be identified on appearance), came on motorcycle, on gun point attempted for looting, however, on resistance, one of them, who was armed with pistol, fired straight shots at Muhammad Rafiq (brother of the complainant), due to which one shot hit on abdomen, second at left thigh and another shot hit at left knee, due to which Muhammad Rafique became severely injured who was sent to Jinnah Hospital through 1122. It is relevant to mention here that in application for registration of the case (Exh.PB) at one place it is mentioned that accused can be identified on further appearance by the complainant whereas at other place it is mentioned that brother of the complainant and Abdul Majeed (eye-witness/PW-9) can identify the accused. It is noteworthy here that it has not been expressly mentioned anywhere in application (Exh.PB) that complainant was also available at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. As column No.4 of the FIR (Exh.PH), place of occurrence was just about 01 K.M. from the concerned Police Station and as per statement of Abdul Majeed (PW-9) police arrived at the place of occurrence before arrival of 1122 and relevant portion of his statement is hereby reproduced:- "Police reached at the spot prior to the 1122. After reaching police, 1122 came there within 5-10 minutes." Now question does arise that if complainant (PW-8) was present at the relevant time on the place of occurrence and police reached before arrival of Rescue 1122, then why he did not make statement regarding occurrence to the police there and why police did not record his statement for registration of the case then and there; however, any plausible reason to explain said factor has not been brought on the record by the prosecution; it has been stated by the complainant in his statement before court that he was having Wagoner car then why he did not shift his brother Muhammad Rafiq (deceased) in injured condition immediately through his aforesaid car to the hospital; furthermore, in Medicolegal Examination Certificate of Muhammad Rafiq (Exh.PQ), there is nowhere mention that Muhammad Rafiq was accompanied at that time by the complainant or Abdul Majeed (eye-witness/PW-9). It goes without saying that perusal of aforementioned MLC of the deceased reveals that he was well oriented and vitally stable when he was examined in the hospital and he even signed and thumb-marked the Medico Legal Examination Certificate but name of complainant (PW-8) or Abdul Majeed (eye-witness/PW-9) as the persons accompanying him at the time of occurrence or in hospital having not been got mentioned by Muhammad Rafiq in the M.L.C. It is also relevant to mention here that complainant is brother of the deceased of the case and if he was present at the time of occurrence and tried to manage Muhammad Rafiq when he was in injured condition or tried to shift him in the Rescue 1122 van along with Abdul Majeed (eye-witness/PW-9) then their wearing clothes might have been stained with blood of the deceased but any such clothes have not been produced during investigation of this case. In this regard relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Shafiq (PW-8) is hereby reproduced:- "I lifted my brother in injured condition. I cannot tell whether Majeed lifted my brother or not. My clothes were smeared in blood while lifting my brother. I did not produce my clothes before local police." Neither complainant nor Abdul Majeed (eye-witness/PW-9) informed police about occurrence, complainant did not make call to 1122 and even complainant could not tell that whether Abdul Majeed (PW-9) made call to Rescue 1122 or not. In this regard, relevant portion of statement of complainant (PW-8) is hereby reproduced:- "I as well as Majeed did not inform local police about the occurrence. I also did not made call on 1122. I cannot tell whether Majeed made a call on 1122 or not". Availability of any source of light at the time of occurrence has not been mentioned in the application for registration of the case (Exh.PB) and though in site-plan (Exh.PJ) it has been got mentioned that light was available but any bulb or source of light has not been secured from there during investigation. Though complexion, height and stature of unknown accused persons was mentioned in application for registration of the case (Exh.PB) yet it is relevant to mention here that there might be so many persons having ages 24/25 years, height 5 foot 7/8 inches, wheatish complexion and active/slim body so on the basis of only these features, identification cannot be termed as conclusive rather it is well established that facial features of the unknown accused persons are mandatory to identify him on re-seeing along with other features i.e. height, complexion, age and stature etc (mentioned above) and in this case, facial features of both unknown accused persons were neither mentioned in application for registration of case (Exh.PB) nor during investigation or trial of the case. In this regard, relevant portion of statement of Mr. Aman Ullah Bhatti, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhawana, District Chiniot (PW-14) is also reproduced as under:- "It is correct that when police file was perused by me, specific features of accused were not mentioned therein." Hence, identification of both accused persons during identification parade cannot be termed as of conclusive nature or having any judicial efficacy to be relied upon to prove the charge regarding offence which is punishable with death. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Noor Islam v. Ghani Ur Rehman and another" (2020 SCMR 310) and relevant portion from paragraph No.4 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "4. In this case, the police arrested several suspects and the only piece of evidence on which the two foras below relied, is the identification parade, conducted in the Central Jail where the appellant was identified however, beside being the weakest piece of evidence it loses its judicial efficacy because the face feature complexion etc. were not given in the report??" (emphasis added) Furthermore, complainant/PW-8 conceded during statement before Court that he did not mention features of the accused who was driving motorcycle and features of the accused who was on rear seat and features of the accused who made fire shot; in this regard relevant portion from his statement is reproduced:- "I did not mention in my application the features of accused who was driving motorcycle and also the features of accused was on the rear seat. I did not mention in my application the features of that accused who made fire shot." "It is correct that at the time of identification parade, I did not tell the Judge that which accused was driving the motorcycle and which was sitting on rear seat." Resultantly, identification of both the appellants through test identification parade is of no helpful to the case of prosecution. Ocular account in this case comprises of Muhammad Shafiq (complainant/eye_-witness/PW-8) and Abdul Majeed (eye-witness/PW-9), however, as per own case of prosecution, Muhammad Shafiq (PW-8) was neither resident of place of occurrence nor was having any business or job over there and he did not offer any valid reason to explain/show his arrival at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. In this regard, relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Shafiq (complainant/PW8) is hereby reproduced:- "I am a shop keeper. My shop is situated at 80 Feet Road, Tall Wali Gali in Dubban Pura, Lahore. My residence is situated in Tall Wali Gali, Dubban Pura, Lahore." "Place of occurrence is at a distance of 1-1/2 to 2 kilometers from my shop." Similarly, any shop or residential house of Abdul Majeed (PW-9) at or near the place of occurrence has not been mentioned in the scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PG/1) and relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Younas Bokhari, draftsman/PW-6 is hereby reproduced:- "It is correct that Abdul Majeed witness also did not tell me about shop owned by him." In above scenario, evidence of both aforementioned cited witnesses, who could not explain/establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, is "suspect" evidence and cannot be accepted without pinch of salt; guidance in this regard has been sought from the case of "Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others" (2015 SCMR 1142) and relevant portion from paragraph No.14 of said case law is hereby reproduced: - "14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was present on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily, is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot. True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occurrence took place otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt." Further guidance on the subject has been sought from the case of "Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State" (2019 SCMR 652), "Mst. Mir and another v. The State" (2020 SCMR 1850) and "Sarfraz and another v. The State" (2023 SCMR 670). It is also relevant to mention here that as per application for registration of the case (Exh.PB), Muhammad Rafiq (deceased of the case) was closing the shop when two unknown accused persons came to loot him on gun point and on resistance, one accused fired shot with pistol, thus, as per application (Exh.PB) Muhammad Rafiq received fire shot outside of his shop and the same fact has been mentioned in scaled site-plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PG/1) which clearly shows that said place has been mentioned as point "A" and same is outside the shop and in this regard relevant portion of statement of Muhammad Younas Bokhari, Draftsman (PW-6) is hereby reproduced as under:- "Where the deceased received fire shot is situated outside the shop." But contrary to that, while making statement before trial court complainant Muhammad Shafiq (PW-8) introduced contradictions in this regard while mentioning that his brother was inside store; relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under:- "My brother was inside the store whereas PW Majeed was outside the store." "At the time of occurrence, my deceased brother was inside the store." Similarly, Abdul Majeed (PW-9) also changed the venue/place of occurrence and introduced contradiction in this regard while making statement during trial of the case and he also introduced that Muhammad Rafique (deceased) was inside store at the time of occurrence; in this regard relevant portion from his statement is hereby reproduced:- "Muhammad Rafique was present inside the store and was closing shutter. One accused having pistol in his hand remained with us outside the store while the other accused went inside the store. Muhammad Rafique made resistance, upon which the accused standing with us opened fires upon Muhammad Rafique, which hit on belly, left thigh and knee of Muhammad Rafique, who fell down after sustaining injuries and accused persons fled away from the spot." Khan Hafeez, SI/Investigating Officer (PW-12) also deposed during his statement before Court that injured got fire shot outside the shop; relevant portion from his statement regarding place of occurrence is hereby reproduced:- "According to site plan, the complainant and PW informed me that injured got fire shot outside the shop. I secured blood from outside the shop." Hence, place of occurrence where the deceased received injuries was got changed from outside the shop to inside the shop and thus exact place of occurrence also could not be got established by the prosecution. It is relevant to mention here that Muhammad Shafiq (complainant/PW-8) deposed in his statement before Court that he came to know after 4/5 days about the fact of registration of FIR; in this regard relevant portion from his statement is reproduced as under:- "After 4/5 days, I became aware of the fact that the FIR has been registered." Similarly, PW-9/eye-witness also deposed during statement before Court that he came to know about registration of the case after some days of the occurrence and relevant portion from his statement is reproduced as under:- "I came to know about registration of FIR about some days of occurrence." When all the aforementioned factors are taken into consideration in totality then ocular account has not been found as confidence inspiring or trustworthy and hence, cannot be believed/relied upon. Though it was not mentioned in application for registration of case (Exh.PB) that one accused caught deceased and other made firing at him, however, during trial of the case, complainant Muhammad Shafiq (PW-8) stated that he identified 2nd accused and told to the judge that said accused caught hold his deceased brother; in this regard, relevant portion from his statement is hereby reproduced:- "It is correct that when I identified the second accused, I told to Judge that said accused caught hold my deceased brother." However, common prudent man does not accept that one accused will catch hold of the deceased and other will make firing upon deceased while taking risk of hitting of fire shots fired by him at his own companion i.e. co-accused who was catching hold the deceased. 9. So far as recovery of pistol from Ali Raza (appellant) is concerned, suffice it to say that empties secured from the place of occurrence were found as not having been fired from said pistol as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Exh.PX), therefore, said recovery is inconsequential and is of no helpful to the case of prosecution. Likewise, so far as recovery of motorcycle from the place of occurrence is concerned, suffice it to say that in the application for registration of the case (Exh.PB), leaving of motorcycle by accused persons at the place of occurrence was not mentioned and even said motorcycle was not having been found as registered in the name of any of the appellants and in this regard relevant portion from the statement of Khan Hafeez SI (PW-12) is hereby reproduced:- "It is correct that motorcycle which was taken into possession from place of occurrence is not registered in the name of both accused." Hence, the said recovery cannot provide any corroboration to the case of the prosecution. 10. As far as, medical evidence is concerned, same is a type of supporting nature evidence which can tell about nature, locale, size and duration of the injury but cannot tell about identity of the assailant and in this regard guidance has been sought from the case of "Muhammad Ramzan v. The State" (2025 SCMR 762), relevant porti

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.8 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 119---Suit for possession, recovery of mesne profit and permanent injunction---Benami transaction, ingredients of---Burden of proof---Second appeal, scope of---Interference in concurrent findings of courts below---Present second appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial court and appellate court, both of which had decreed in favour of respondent No.1 regarding possession and mesne profits of the suit property---Trial Court ordered the appellant to hand over vacant possession and pay mesne profits of Rs. 20,000 per month until delivery of possession which decision was upheld in appeal---It was the case of the appellant/defendant that respondent No.1 was neither the bona fide purchaser nor absolute owner of the suit property; that the suit property was originally purchased by the appellant's deceased father and paternal uncle (respondent No.1's father) in a benami transaction, and was held in trust by the latter for the legal heirs; that no consideration was paid for the transfer of the property to respondent No.1, which was based solely on a registered gift deed---Held: Appellant/defendant had neither sought cancellation of the gift deed nor filed suit for declaration that the subject property was owned by his deceased father---Moreover, paternal uncle of appellant who was stated to be the custodian of the suit property allegedly held in trust for the purpose of administration, did not file any application to be impleaded as party in the suit---Further, there was no evidence on record to reflect that the donor challenged the gift deed---The ingredients of a benami transaction were not even pleaded by the appellant and the courts below had correctly observed that the entire defense of the appellant was based on his oral and unsubstantiated assertions---Burden of proving the benami transaction was correctly placed on the appellant and same was in accordance with Art. 117 & 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---No infirmity was found warranting interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of courts below as jurisdiction under S.100 C.P.C. was restricted as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence on record. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117---Benami declaration---Onus to prove---Scope---Onus to prove in a suit for benami declaration lies upon plaintiff---The reason being that it is the plaintiff who has come to the Court to seek such declaration which is in fact a positive declaration being sought by the plaintiff--- In terms of Art.117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the onus to prove a claim is on the person who asserts such claim---It is not that plaintiff can come to the Court and thereafter, on the basis of defendants evidence try to make out its case---It was the plaintiffs who had sought a declaration of benami transaction and had prayed to give judgment as to their alleged legal right on the basis of facts asserted by them, therefore, it was for them to prove that those facts existed for which the burden laid on them. Manzoor Butt v. Mahmud Sufi 2016 CLC 1284 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.42---Benami transaction---Proof---Necessary ingredients---Two essential elements must exist to establish the benami status of a transaction---The first element is that there must be an agreement express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for purchase of the property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who has to make payment of the consideration; and second element required to be proved is that transaction was actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not a party. Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool PLD 2008 SC 146 rel. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.100---Second appeal---Interference in concurrent findings of courts below---Scope---It is settled law that concurrent findings are not interfered with under S.100 of the C.P.C. unless the lower courts have misread the evidence on record, or may have ignored a material piece of evidence on record through perverse appreciation of evidence. Faqir Syed Anwar-ud-Din v. Syed Raza Haider and others PLD 2025 SC 31 rel. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.100---Second appeal---Reappraisal of evidence---Scope---Reappraisal of evidence on record by the second appellate court is not permissible while exercising jurisdiction under S.100 of C.P.C. Faqir Syd Anwar-ud-Din v. Syed Raza Haider and others PLD 2025 SC 31 rel. Syed Nadeem-ul-Haq for Appellant. Adnan Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025. Judgment Muhammad Jaffer Raza, J .--- Instant 2nd Appeal has been preferred against Impugned judgment and decree dated 09.03.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.75/2021 by the VI-Additional District Judge/Model Civil Appellate Court-Ext., Karachi Central. The said civil appeal emanated from the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021 passed in Suit No.1174/2015 by the XIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central, which was filed by the Respondent No.1. Facts of the case are summarized as follows: - 2. Suit No.1174/2015 was filed by the Respondent No.1, with the following prayers: - a) defendants be directed to hand over vacant the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property bearing plot No.C1-200 admeasuring 120 square Yards, situated in Sector 16-B, North Karachi Industrial Area, Karachi; b) defendants further directed to ensure regular payment of utility bills of the suit property and continue the same till delivery of vacant possession and to submit the paid copies of utility bills before this Hon'ble Court; c) defendant No.2 be directed to pay/deposit regularly the monthly rent for first and 2nd floor of suit property @ of Rs.40,000/- with the Nazir of this Hon'ble Court, in the case the defendant No.2 fails to deposit said monthly rent, then the defendant No.1 be directed to deposit before Nazir of this Hon'ble Court an amount Rs.2000/- as Mesne profit of the suit property w.e.f. 28.09.2014 till final disposal of instant matter; d) perpetual injunction be granted by restraining the defendants their legal heirs, servants, agents, attorney and or any other person and/or persons acting or claiming on their behalf from selling out renting out, mortgaging and/or creating any third party interest and whatsoever in respect of the suit property, i.e. plot No.C1-199, admeasuring 120 square yards, situated in Sector 16-B, North Karachi Industrial Area, Karachi; e) cost of the suit be awarded; f) any other relief deemed fit and proper by this Honorable court under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favor of the plaintiff; 3. After recording of evidence of the respective parties, instant suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021. The suit of the Respondent No.1 was decreed to the extent that the Appellant was directed to handover the vacant physical possession of the suit property within thirty (30) days from the date of judgment and decree and clear all utility bills of the suit property. The Appellant was further directed to pay mesne profit of the suit property to the Respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month till handing over physical possession of the suit property. The said judgment and decree were Impugned in Civil Appeal No.75/2021 and the same was dismissed vide Impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the Appellant through the instant IInd appeal, has Impugned the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Respondent No.1 is neither the bona fide purchaser of the suit property nor the absolute owner of the suit property, which according to learned counsel, was purchased by the father of the Appellant ("deceased") and Respondent No.1, as a benami transaction. The subject property stood in the name of Mashhood Ahmed Siddiqui brother of the deceased. It was asserted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant never paid any consideration to the said Mashhood Ahmed Siddiqui and the said property was transferred in the name of the Respondent No.1 without any sale consideration whatsoever. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the same was done in good faith, in trust for legal heirs of the deceased. He has further stated that considering that the subject property was not purchased by the Respondent No.1 and was only kept in trust for the legal heirs, the Appellant cannot be dispossessed from the property in question. He has also stated that he has invested substantial sums of money in the subject property from his own resources and the subject property in question is in his possession. 5. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has stated that he is the exclusive, lawful and registered owner of the subject property through declaration of oral gift deed dated 12.03.1990. The said gift deed was executed in his favour by his deceased paternal uncle, namely, Mashhood Ahmed Siddiqui and subsequently transfer letter dated 12.04.2005 was issued in favour of the said Respondent. He has further stated that the Appellant has impugned the concurrent findings of the Courts below, and the same require no interference as the same are legally sound and based upon the evidence recorded by the respective parties. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with their able assistance. I have also asked the learned counsel for the Appellant specifically whether he has sought any cancellation of said registered gift deed in favour of the Respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant in this respect has replied in the negative and stated that no such suit has been filed. I have further inquired whether any suit for declaration has been filed claiming or seeking a declaration that the subject property was owned by his deceased father. Expectedly, the answer of this question was no different. Learned counsel has further stated that his paternal uncle namely, Mashhood Ahmed Siddiqui, was the custodian of the said property, which was to be held in trust for the purposes of administration. However, it is noted that the said individual i.e. paternal uncle did not file any application to be impleaded as a party in the above-mentioned suit. Further, there is no evidence on record to reflect that the donor namely Mashood Ahmed Siddiqui challenged the said gift deed. The ingredients of benami were elaborated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Ghulam Rasool v. Nusrat Rasool wherein it was held as under: - "This may be seen that two essential elements must exist to establish the benami status of the transaction. The first element is that there must be an agreement express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for purchase of the property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who has to make payment of the consideration and second element required to be proved is that transaction was actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not party." (Emphasis added) 7. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the case of Manzoor Butt v. Mahmud Sufi wherein the ingredients pertaining to benami were expounded in the following words: - "It is pertinent to observe that this is a Suit for Benami declaration and per settled law the onus lies on the plaintiff in such matters. The reason being that it is the plaintiff who has come to the Court to seek such declaration which is in fact a positive declaration being sought by the plaintiff. In terms of Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the onus to prove a claim is on the person who asserts such claim. It is not that plaintiff can come to the Court and thereafter, on the basis of defendants evidence tries to make out its case. It is the plaintiffs who have sought a declaration of benami transaction and have prayed to give judgment as to their alleged legal right on the basis of facts asserted by them, therefore, it is for them to prove that those facts exist for which the burden lies on them. 9. In a Suit for Benami declaration, the plaintiff has to show that firstly there was a motive and reason to buy such property as Benami, and thereafter once such motive has been shown, the plaintiff must also show that, the subject property was purchased from its resources. If these two things are missing in a positive manner, then perhaps the Court cannot consider any further evidence." (Emphasis added) 8. Admittedly, none of the above ingredients were even pleaded by the Appellant and the courts below have correctly observed that the entire defense of the Appellant was based on his oral and unsubstantiated assertions. It is also observed that the case of the present Appellant is at weaker footing in comparison with the judgement in the case of Manzoor Butt (supra) for the reason that the said Appellant never filed a suit for declaration and cancellation pertaining to the subject property. This for the Appellant, proved to be fatal to his claim. It is held in the same vein, that the learned trial court correctly placed the burden of proving the benami transaction on the Appellant and the same was in accordance with Articles 117 and 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. 8.(sic) Further, certain admissions made by the Appellant during his cross-examination also extinguished his plea pertaining to his claim. Relevant portions of the cross-examination are reproduced below: - "It is correct to suggest that all the title documents of the suit property are in possession of the Plaintiff?. It is correct to suggest that I had first time disclosed in the reply of the legal notice that the suit property was the Benami transaction?.It is correct to suggest that my 02 brothers, 02 sister and mother are still alive? It is correct to suggest that I have not cited any of my brother, sister and mother as my witness in this suit. Voluntarily says that they all are with the Plaintiff. It is in my knowledge that my brother Tariq Maudood Siddiqui has recorded his statement before this Court in favour of the Plaintiff?. It is correct to suggest that I have not produced any documentary proof to show that my father had purchased the suit property in the name of Plaintiff. Voluntarily says that all the record of the suit property are available at the concerned department?..It is correct to suggest that my father has not executed any WILL to disclose that the suit property was the Benami transaction?It is correct to suggest that I have not disclosed entire chain of the suit property in my Written Statement, Affidavit-in-Evidence as well as reply of legal notice? It is correct to suggest that I have not specifically stated in my Written Statement that the documents annexed with the plaint are forged and fabricated documents?. It is correct to suggest that I have not disclosed in Civil Suit No.1744/2019 that the present suit property is also a Benami transaction." (Emphasis added) 9. I have perused the Impugned judgments of the Courts below and find no infirmity to seek interference by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. It is settled principle of law that the jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. is restricted as the same was expounded in the case of Faqir Syed Anwar Ud Din v. Syed Raza Haider and others. Relevant excerpts of the said judgment are reproduced below: - "The defendants had assailed the concurrent findings of two courts by filing a regular second appeal before the High Court under section 100 of the C.P.C. It is settled law that concurrent findings are not interfered with under section 100 of the C.P.C. unless the lower courts have misread the evidence on record, or may have ignored a material piece of evidence on record through perverse appreciation of evidence. It is also settled law that reappraisal of evidence on record by the second appellate court is not permissible while exercising jurisdiction under section 100 of the C.P.C. The High Court had rightly dismissed the regular second appeals filed by the defendants on the touchstone of the aforementioned principles." 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to highlight any misreading and non-reading of evidence by the courts below. For the aforesaid reasons, instant IInd appeal warrants no consideration, therefore, is dismissed with no orders as to cost. UN/I-17/Sindh Appeal dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about eight hours in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Occurrence took place on 11.06.2017 at 3.00 p.m. whereas matter was reported by complainant through application and FIR was recorded on 11.06.2017 at 10.55 p.m.---Since after receiving firearm injuries, deceased of the case was referred to L-(Lahore) after providing first aid to him, who, while being taken to L-(Lahore) hospital, succumbed to the injuries on the way, brought back---Complainant then moved application for registration of the case, therefore, there was no undue delay in registration of the case rather same was well explained with valid reason---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant upto hilt, beyond any shadow of doubt---However, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Alleged that as per application for the registration of case the shot fired by appellant hit at front side of chest of deceased, which was contradicted by medical evidence---As per postmortem examination report of deceased, there was firearm entry wound on middle and upper abdomen and said injury had also been mentioned in pictorial diagram---Complainant and eye-witness both supported case of prosecution against the appellant through their statements in straightforward manner before the Trial Court---Deceased was wearing the clothes, he received the shot fired from pistol at front of his upper abdomen on middle which was very close to the front side of the chest and after receiving said shot, blood oozing, it definitely spread to the adjacent area of wearing shirt---Estimation of witnesses watching the occurrence that injury had been received at front right side of chest was not a big deal because photographic view of the firearm injury received by the victim could not be expected from a human being---Even otherwise, during turmoil when live shots were being fired, witnesses in a momentary glimpse/glance made only tentative assessment of points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it became highly improbable to mention their location with exactitude---Hence, said difference could not be termed as a major contradiction between ocular and medical evidence in the case and thus not fatal---Thus, ocular account had been supported by medical evidence to the extent of the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant up to hilt, beyond any shadow of doubt---However, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed. Abdul Rauf v. The State and another 2004 Cr.LJ 12 and Sajid Mehmood v. The State 2022 SCMR 1882 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Ocular version produced by the complainant as well as by eye-witness qua causing firearm injury by the present appellant to deceased had been strongly corroborated by two independent Court witnesses---Said Court witnesses were not belonging to any party, their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence was quite natural and established beyond shadow of doubt---Evidentiary value of the testimony of said Court witnesses could not be shattered during cross-examination---Rather the testimony of said witnesses had been found as cogent, convincing and truthful, thus, reliable which on the one hand had provided strong and doubtless eye-witness account against the appellant vis-a-vis his role and on the other hand had also provided strong corroboration to the ocular version provided by complainant and eye-witness---Moreover, arrest of the appellant at the time and place of occurrence had been proved beyond shadow of doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant upto hilt, beyond any shadow of doubt---However, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Weapon of offence i.e. pistol used by the appellant for committing occurrence was taken into possession by police at the time of his arrest---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, empties secured from the place of occurrence were found as having been fired from said pistol, therefore, it had provided corroboration to the case of prosecution against the appellant---Circumstances established that theprosecution had proved its case against the appellant upto hilt, beyond any shadow of doubt---However, due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---With said modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed. Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others PLD 1962 SC 502 rel. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Mitigating circumstances---Sentence, quantum of---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---As per case of prosecution appellant was not present in the earlier part of the occurrence which became motive for the commission of present occurrence in which murder of deceased was committed---Complainant stated that after the motive occurrence, police reached at the place of motive occurrence and took father and brother of appellant to Police Station---As per statement of Investigating Officer, brother and father of the appellant were the injured of motive incident and had come to THQ hospital for Medico-Legal Examination---Possibility could not be ruled out that present appellant, while seeing his father and brother in injured condition with six injuries on the body of his father and 20 injuries on the body of his brother in the hospital i.e. at the place of occurrence, reacted and committed the occurrence---When all the said factors were taken into consideration collectively, it constituted mitigating factor for taking leniency in the matter of awarding sentence---Therefore, while exercising caution, sentence of death awarded to appellant by the Trial Court was converted to "Imprisonment for Life" under Section: 302(b),P.P.C---With said modification in sentence, appeal was dismissed. Akhtar Hussain Bhatti for Appellant. Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Tahir, S.I for the State. Rashid Masood Wattoo, along with the Complainant. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2025. Judgment Farooq Haider, J .--- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.15845/2022 filed by Afzaal alias Phali (appellant) against his "conviction and sentence" and Murder Reference No.66/2022 sent by trial court as both the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated: 04.03.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Depalpur/trial court. 2. Afzaal alias Phali (appellant) along with his co-accused persons namely Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Tahir and Ijaz alias Jajji, was tried in complaint case titled as "Abid Mehmood v. Asghar alias Ranjha and others" and trial court after conclusion of the trial, vide impugned judgment dated: 04.03.2022 while acquitting Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Tahir and Ijaz alias Jajji (aforementioned co-accused persons) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: - Conviction Sentence Under Section: 302(b), P.P.C "Death" as ta'zir for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Khalid Mehmood (deceased) along with payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section: 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of said deceased which shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and in default whereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 3. Primarily, Abid Mehmood (complainant/PW-1) set the machinery of law into motion by moving application (Ex.PB) to Station House Officer, Police Station: City Depalpur, mentioning therein that on 11.06.2017 at about 10.00 a.m. Iqbal alias Bali who is paternal cousin of the complainant demolished breaker which was temporarily made at the road by paternal uncle of the complainant namely Ghulam Mustafa, who was refrained by Ghulam Mustafa, due to which quarrel took place between the parties in which Ghulam Mustafa, Khalid Mehmood (now deceased of the case) and Iqbal became injured; complainant party went to Hujra Hospital for getting result from where they were referred to Depalpur Hospital; complainant, Ghulam Mustafa, Farooq Hayat, Khalid Mehmood (brother) came at Depalpur Hospital at about 3.00 p.m.; meanwhile, accused persons namely Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Afzaal alias Phali (present appellant), Tahir, Ejaz alias Jajji came there who were armed with pistols and raised 'lalkara' that today they will give taste of quarrel to Khalid Mehmood who considered himself as a big policeman, Afzaal alias Phali fired shot with pistol which hit on right side of chest at front of Khalid Mehmood, then Asghar alias Ranja fired shot with pistol which hit at right leg of Khalid Mehmood, accused persons while making firing at random in the hospital spread terror meanwhile; police reached at the spot, Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Afzaal alias Phali (present appellant) were arrested at the spot whereas other accused persons fled away. Khalid Mehmood was referred by hospital administration after providing first aid to Lahore hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. On the basis of said application, FIR No.420/2017 (Ex-PB/1), dated: 11.06.2017, was registered under Sections: 302, 7-ATA, 148, 149, P.P.C at Police Station: City Depalpur, District: Okara. Being dissatisfied with the conduct of the police, complainant filed "complaint" (Ex.PA) against Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Afzaal alias Phali, Tahir and Ijaz alias Jajji under Sections: 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that five accused persons, namely, Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Afzaal alias Phali, Tahir and Ijaz alias Jajji {mentioned in the complaint (Ex.PA)}, were formally charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial; complainant produced witnesses, namely, Ghulam Mustafa as PW-2, Dr.Muhammad Umar, Medical Officer as PW-3 and Dr.Adil Rasheed, Medical Officer as PW-4 and the complainant himself appeared as PW-1 to prove the charge against the accused whereas eleven witnesses were examined by the trial court as Court Witnesses; ocular account was furnished by Abid Mehmood (complainant/PW-1), Ghulam Mustafa (uncle of the complainant/PW-2), Muhammad Iqbal Ejaz, Ward Servant (CW-3), Qasim Ali 98/c (CW-6) and Sarwar Sajid 869/C (CW-7), medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Umar, Medical Officer (PW-3) and Dr.Adil Rasheed (PW-4) whereas Dilshad Ahmad, Inspector/ Investigating Officer of the case (CW-10) deposed about investigation of the case. Thereafter statements of the appellant and his co-accused persons were recorded under Section: 342, Cr.P.C. in which they refuted the allegations levelled against them; neither they opted to appear as their own witnesses under Section: 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor they produced any evidence in their defence. Trial Court after conclusion of trial while acquitting co-accused, namely, Asghar alias Ranjha, Iqbal alias Bali, Tahir and Ijaz alias Jajji, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above through impugned judgment dated: 04.03.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment to the extent of appellant is against the 'law and facts' of the case; ocular account is neither trustworthy nor corroborated/supported by any other independent evidence rather same is contradicted by medical evidence; prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant as co-accused have been acquitted; further submits that if case of prosecution is believed against the appellant, even then circumstances show that appellant acted in his self-defence and in said circumstances also, he (appellant) can be convicted under section 302(c), P.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant finally prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 5. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General while supporting the impugned judgment submits that appellant was apprehended red-handed at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and prosecution has proved its case against him beyond any shadow of doubt and finally prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Though learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and the complainant in attendance were asked to argue but they did not opt to argue the case. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. It has been noticed that occurrence took place on 11.06.2017 at 3.00 p.m. whereas matter was reported by complainant Abid Mehmood (PW-1) through application (Exh.PB) and FIR (Exh.PB/1) was recorded on 11.06.2017 at 10.55 p.m. Since after receiving firearm injuries, Khalid Mehmood (now deceased of the case) was referred to Lahore after providing first aid to him, who was being taken to Lahore hospital however succumbed to the injuries on the way, brought back and then complainant moved application for registration of the case, therefore, there was no undue delay in registration of the case rather same is well explained with valid reason and relevant portion of the statement of Abid Mehmood (complainant/PW-1) in this regard is hereby reproduced:- "Thereafter we got medically examined Khalid Mehmood deceased who was alive and Ghulam Mustafa PW from THQ, Depalpur. But the doctor of THQ, Depalpur referred Khalid Mehmood injured to Lahore for batter treatment. When we were taking Khalid Mehmood injured to Lahore, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Thereafter we brought the dead body of Khalid Mehmood deceased to THQ, Depalpur." Ocular account in this case comprises of Abid Mehmood (complainant/PW-1) and Ghulam Mustafa (PW-2), Muhammad Iqbal Ejaz, Ward Servant (CW-3), Qasim Ali 98/c (CW-6) and Sarwar Sajid 869/C (CW-7). Abid Mehmood (complainant/PW-1) and Ghulam Mustafa (PW-2) both supported case of prosecution against Afzaal alias Phali (appellant) through their statements in straightforward manner before trial court. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant that role alleged against the appellant as per application for registration of case (Exh.PB) that shot fired by Afzaal alias Phali (appellant) hit at front of right side of chest is contradicted by medical evidence is concerned, suffice it to say that as per Postmortem Examination Report (Exh.PH) of Khalid Mehmood (deceased), there was fire arm entry wound 1 cm x 1 cm on middle and upper abdomen and said injury has also been mentioned in the pictorial diagram (Exh.PH/1) available at page No.206 of the paper book, the same is hereby scanned below:- It is relevant to mention here that speed of bullet fired from firearm weapon is more than the speed of sound, therefore, shot fired from firearm weapon hits first to the victim whereas its sound is subsequently heard by the person due to difference of their speed as mentioned above; hence, when after hearing report/sound of shot fired from firearm weapon, person looks towards the victim, till then, fire shot already hits the victim and in such circumstances, a person witnessing the occurrence while seeing oozing of the blood makes estimation regarding locale of injury caused by such shot and if shot fired by the firearm weapon has hit at the body which is covered by wearing clothes of the victim, then after hitting of fire shot, blood oozes and spreads on the wearing clothes at and adjacent area of the wound where shot has hit and in such circumstances minor variation regarding estimation by the human being about exact locale of receiving of firearm shot does occur naturally and in this case, deceased was wearing the clothes, he received the shot fired from pistol at front of his upper abdomen on middle which is very close to the front side of the chest and after receiving said shot, blood oozed, it definitely spread to the adjacent area of wearing shirt (Qameez) and estimation of the witnesses watching the occurrence that injury has been received at front right side of chest is not a big deal because photographic view of the firearm injury received by the victim cannot be expected from a human being and in this regard case of "Abdul Rauf v. The State and another" (2004 Cr.LJ 12) can be advantageously referred and relevant portion from the same is hereby reproduced:- "We may observe that the minor discrepancies in the medical evidence relating to the seat of injures would also not negate the direct evidence as the witnesses are not supposed to give photo picture of each detail of injuries in such situation, therefore, the conflict of nature of ocular account with medical evidence as pointed out being not material would have no adverse effect on the prosecution case." Even otherwise, during turmoil when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a momentary glimpse/glance make only tentative assessment of points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to mention their location with exactitude; in this regard, case of "Sajid Mehmood v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1882) can be advantageously referred and relevant portion from the same is hereby reproduced:- "It is settled that casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons. During turmoil when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to mention their location with exactitude." Hence, said difference cannot be termed as a major contradiction between ocular and medical account in the case and thus not fatal, therefore, contention of learned defence counsel in this regard is repelled. In view of above, ocular account has been supported by medical evidence to the extent of the appellant. Though co-accused have been acquitted in this case yet while applying principle of sifting grain from chaff if ocular account produced by the prosecution through statements of complainant Abid Mehmood (PW-1) and Ghulam Mustafa (PW-2) is corroborated by other evidence, then same can be used and relied against the appellant and in this regard it is relevant to mention here that ocular version produced by the complainant through his statement got recorded as PW-1 as well as by statement of Ghulam Mustafa (PW-2) qua causing firearm injury by the present appellant to Khalid Mehmood (deceased) is concerned, same has been strongly corroborated by independent witnesses i.e. Qasim Ali (CW-6) and Sarwar Sajid (CW-7), relevant portion of the statement of Qasim Ali (CW-6) is hereby reproduced:- "On 11.06.2017 I and Sarwar Sajid 869/C were present in THQ hospital Depalpur in connection with the post mortem Examination of Muhammad Ahmed deceased of case FIR No.419/17 under sections 363, 302 and 34, P.P.C P.S City Depalpur and were present near the emergency ward of THQ hospital Depalpur. Where we heard the report of firing and saw that accused Afzaal alias Phali who was armed with pistol .30-bore and he made firing with it at Khalid Mehmood deceased which hit him on his leg who ran in injured condition towards the plot of the hospital where a carry daba was parked and he hit a brick on the Carry Daba upon which its mirror was broken and he took out a .44-bore rifle from it. Afzaal alias Phali accused again fired at Khalid Mehmood deceased with pistol .30-bore and one of the fires hit on the chest of Kahlid Mehmood deceased. Who fell down in injured condition. Abid Mehmood complainant brother of Khalid Mehmood deceased snatched the riffle from him from him. Sarwar Sajjid 869/C captured Abdi Mehmood and snatched the rifle from him. I and Sarwar Sajjid went towards the emergency ward and asked Afzaal alias Phali to throw his pistol .30-bore and surrendered for arrest. But Afzaal was threatened to be killed by them. The father of accused, Muhammad Asghar was present in the emergency room along with Iqbal alias Bali for treatment. He came out from emergency room and asked the accused Afzaal to surrender. On such request Afzaal alias Phali accused threw his pistol. I and Sarwar Sajjid 869/C arrested Afzaal alias Phali, Iqbal???". (emphasis added) Similarly, relevant portion of the statement of CW-7 is reproduced:- "On 11.06.2017 I and Qasim Ali 98/C were present in THQ hospital Depalpur in connection with the post mortem examination of Muhammad Ahmed deceased of case FIR No.419/17 under sections 363, 302 and 34, P.P.C P.S. City Depalpur and were present near the emergency ward of THQ hospital Depalpur. Where we heard the report of firing and saw that accused Afzaal alias Phali who was armed with pistol .30-bore and he made firing with it at Khalid Mehmood deceased which hit him on his leg who ran in injured condition towards the plot of the hospital where a carry daba was parked and he hit a brick on the Carry Daba upon which its mirror was broken and he took out a .44-bore rifle from it. Afzaal alias Phali accused again fired at Khalid Mehmood deceased with pistol .30-bore and one of the fires hit on the chest of Khalid Mehmood deceased. Who fell down in injured condition. Abid Mehmood complainant brother of Khalid Mehmood deceased snatched the riffle from him. I captured Abid Mehmood and snatched the rifle from him. I and Qasim Ali 98/C went towards the emergency ward and asked Afzaal alias Phali to throw his pistol 30-bore and surrender for arrest. But Afzaal was threatened to be killed by them. The father of accused, Muhammad Asghar was present in the emergency room along with Iqbal alias Bali for treatment. He came out from emergency room and asked the accused Afzaal to surrender. On such request Afzaal alias Phali accused threw his pistol. I and Qasim Ali 98/C arrested Afzaal alias Phali, Iqbal???". (emphasis added) The said Court witnesses were not belonging to any party, their presence at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence was quite natural and established beyond shadow of doubt, evidentiary value of their testimony could not be shattered during cross-examination rather their testimony has been found as cogent, convincing and truthful, thus, reliable which on the one hand has provided strong and doubtless eye-witness account against the appellant viz-a-viz his aforementioned role and on the other hand, has also provided strong corroboration to the ocular version provided by Abid Mehmood (complainant/PW-1) and Ghulam Mustafa (PW-2). It is further relevant to mention here that arrest of the appellant at the time and place of occurrence has been proved beyond shadow of doubt. Weapon of offence i.e. pistol used by the appellant for committing occurrence was taken into possession by police at the time of his arrest and as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Exh.PK), empties secured from the place of occurrence were found as having been fired from said pistol, therefore, it has also provided corroboration to the case of prosecution against the appellant. Hence, by taking all the aforementioned factors into consideration in totality and while seeking guidance from the case of "Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others" (PLD 1962 SC 502), it can be safely held that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. As far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant that at the most, case against the appellant is of exercising self-defence and thus attracts offence under section: 302(c), P.P.C is concerned, same is also without any force because he himself initiated the occurrence while armed with firearm weapon and fired shot at the deceased, and it is trite law that no one can take advantage of his own wrong and in this regard famous maxims "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" and "commodum ex injuria sua memo. habere debet" can be advantageously referred. Therefore, said contention is repelled. Now coming to the defence version. The appellant during recording of his statement under Section: 342, Cr.P.C. in reply to Question No.18 that "Why this case against you and why the PWs and CWs have deposed against you?", stated as under:- "All the PWs of this case are related inter-se and they were inimical with me. All prosecution version is false, baseless and afterthought. Independent person present at the place of occurrence did not support prosecution version, rather they have negated the false version of the complainant and other alleged PWs has been negated by the CWs. The version of PWs and CWs are contradictory inter-se. During the course of investigation, it was found that it had not been taken in the manner as alleged by the complainant and other PWS. I.O of this case categorically concluded that the version of the complainant was incorrect and false. That in fact, the deceased of this case who was police official absented himself from his duty and with his companion, being armed with firearm weapon, made assault on Iqbal alias Bali, Asghar alias Ranjha and their attendants when they were being medially examined at THQ hospital Depalpur. As result of -ed indiscriminate firing, the deceased sustain injuries on his person. Allegation levelled against me is absolutely incorrect and false. I have been falsely involved in this case by the complainant due to his personal grudge and vendetta while twisting all the real facts. I am innocent." The appellant neither appeared under Section: 340(2), Cr.P.C. in support of his aforementioned version as well as to disprove the allegation levelled against him on oath nor produced any evidence in defence. Aforementioned reply made to question No.18 is mere bald denial which is of no help to the appellant. When aforementioned defence version has been kept in juxtaposition with the prosecution version then defence version has been found as of no avail whereas prosecution version to the extent of appellant has been found as plausible, confidence inspiring, truthful and fully established. In view of what has been discussed above, prosecution has proved its case against the appellant upto hilt, beyond any shadow of doubt; therefore, appellant has been rightly convicted as mentioned above; resultantly, aforementioned conviction recorded against the appellant is upheld and maintained. However, as far as quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, it is important to mention here that as per case of prosecution appellant was not present in the earlier part of the occurrence which became motive for the commission of present occurrence in which murder of Khalid Mehmood (deceased) was committed. Furthermore, it was stated by complainant (PW-1) during his statement before the trial court that after the motive occurrence, the police reached at the place of motive occurrence and took Iqbal alias Bali as well as Asghar alias Ranjha to Police Station, relevant portion of his statement is hereby reproduced:- "After the motive occurrence the police reached at the place of motive occurrence. The police had taken Iqbal alias Bali and Asghar alias Ranjha to the Police Station from the place of motive occurrence in injured condition." and same fact was told by Ghulam Mustafa (PW-2) during his statement before trial court and relevant portion from his statement is reproduced as under:- "It is correct that we gave beating to Iqbal alias Bali and Asghar alias Ranjha accused prior to the murder of the deceased. It is correct that on the information of Asghar and Iqbal the police of Hujra Shah Muqeem arrived at the place of motive occurrence and taken them to Police Station in injured condition." and as per statement of Dilshad Ahmad, Inspector/Investigating Officer (CW-10), they both i.e. Asghar alias Ranjha and Iqbal alias Bali who were injured of the motive incident had come to THQ Hospital, Depalpur for Medico-Legal Examination and relevant portion of his statement is hereby reproduced:- "As per my investigation, Asghar alias Ranjha and Iqbal alias Bali both were found to be empty handed and both were injured of motive incident and both had come to THQ Hospital Depalpur for medico legal examination." It is also relevant to mention here that possibility cannot be ruled out that present appellant, while seeing his father Asghar alias Ranjha and brother Iqbal alias Bali in injured condition with six injuries on the body of his father Asghar and 20 injuries on the body of his brother Iqbal in the hospital i.e. at the place of occurrence, reacted and committed the occurrence and when all the aforementioned factors are taken into consideration collectively, it constitutes mitigating factor for taking leniency in the matter of awarding sentence. Therefore, while exercising caution, sentence of "death" awarded to Afzaal alias Phali (appellant) by the trial Court is converted to "Imprisonment for Life" under Section: 302(b) P.P.C; however, order passed by trial Court regarding payment of compensation by the appellant to the heirs of the deceased and in respect of imprisonment in default thereof, are maintained. Benefit under Section: 382-B, Cr.P.C. will be given to the appellant. 8. In view of above, Criminal Appeal No.15845/2022 is dismissed with partial modification/reduction in sentence of the appellant as mentioned above. Resultantly, death sentence awarded to Afzaal alias Phali (appellant) is NOT CONFIRMED and Murder Reference (M.R. No.66 of 2022) is answered in NEGATIVE. JK/A-37/L Sentence modifie