Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 &34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---As per application for registration of FIR, occurrence took place at 7:55 a.m. on 03.10.2019 at a Chowk, which was situated at a distance of one and half Kilometers from the Police Station as per column No.4 of the FIR---Mentioned in the FIR that deceased of the case succumbed to the injuries at the spot, however, matter was not reported to the police promptly---Even it was not mentioned in the application for registration of the case as well as in the FIR that complainant and cited eye-witnesses shifted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, however, even then as per case of the prosecution, application for registration of the case was written at 11:00 p.m. on 03.10.2019 i.e. after the delay of about three hours and five minutes of the occurrence and FIR was recorded at 12:05 p.m. on 03.10.2019--- Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Sub-Divisional Police Officer was located just at a distance of one and half acres from the place of occurrence---In such circumstances, matter had not been reported to the police promptly rather with considerable delay for which any plausible explanation had not been offered by the prosecution, which led to the conclusion that none of the cited witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence---Time was consumed for procuring, engaging and introducing witnesses, tailoring story for the case of prosecution and then registering the case in its present form---Perusal of postmortem examination report revealed that it had been mentioned in the same that as per police papers, time of death was at 07:45 a.m. on 03.10.2019---Medical Officer stated that on 03.10.2019 at 07:45 a.m. Police Constable brought dead body of deceased in the hospital---Police Constable stated that Investigating Officer escorted dead body of deceased from place of occurrence and reached hospital at 07.45 a.m.---Such state of affairs clearly reflected that when police brought dead body from the place of occurrence at 07:45 a.m., then occurrence was brought in the notice/knowledge of Investigating Officer and Police Constable before 07:45 a.m.---Such fact on the one hand negated that occurrence took place at 7:55 a.m. and on the other hand also reflected that occurrence took place before 07:55 a.m. and it was in the knowledge/notice of the police---Even then case was registered at 12:05 p.m. for which no plausible, convincing and cogent reason could be rendered by the complainant---In such circumstances, FIR, which was cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, could not provide any support to the case of prosecution and superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR was bound to fall---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Haroon Shafique v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 2118; Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068; Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others 2020 SCMR 192 and Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 16 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Confliction---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---As per case of prosecution, deceased received three firearm injuries---Whereas, as per Postmortem Examination Report, the deceasedreceived four firearm wounds and one exit wound---However, fourth injury could not be explained by the complainant as well as eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on same set of evidence---Effect---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Record showed that co-accused who was attributed equally effective role of causing firearm injury to deceased of the case had been acquitted of the charge in the case while disbelieving evidence of the prosecution witnesses through the same impugned judgment---Said acquittal was still holding the field and the same had even not been challenged uptill now---Thus, said evidence could only be relied and used against present appellants if same was strongly corroborated by the independent evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Munir Ahmad and another v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 79; Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274; Muhammad Idrees and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 612; Pervaiz Khan and another v. The State 2022 SCMR 393; Rafaqat Ali v. The State 2022 SCMR 1107 and Sajjad Hussain v. The State and others 2022 SCMR 1540 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---In the crime report, it was mentioned that motive behind the occurrence was murder of "MS", FIR was registered in said regard against brother of the complainant who was confined in jail---Complainant and his brother were pursuing said case and on the day of occurrence, complainant and deceased of the case were going to Katchery on date of hearing in said case whereas brother of the complainant and other were also following them on motorcycle---Complainant mentioned in the FIR that he and his deceased brother were pursuing said case, meaning thereby that if it was grudge of committing that occurrence by the accused persons, then it was also equally attributable to the complainant because he was also pursuing said case along with his brother---As per statement of prosecution witness that deceased of the case and his brothers, complainant and eye-witness were accused of the murder case of "MS" deceased---Such state of affairs further showed that complainant and eye-witness, who had appeared as eye-witnesses in this case along with other persons, were accused in murder case of "MS"---If it was motive for the occurrence, then it was equally alleged against complainant and eye-witness but then why they had been spared and not targeted by the accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant and eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Statement of Police Constable and Medical Officer clearly showed that complainant and other cited eye-witnesses did not bring dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital rather Police Constable along with Investigating Officer of the case brought the same there---Complainant and other cited witnesses did not try to immediately report the matter to the police despite the fact that Police Station was just at a distance of 1_ kilometers from the place of occurrence whereas office of Deputy Superintendent of Police was just at a distance of one and half acres from the place of occurrence---Such fact raised question mark regarding presence of the complainant as well as other cited eye-witnesses at the relevant time at the place of occurrence---Any bloodstained clothes of complainant and other cited witnesses were neither produced during investigation nor during trial of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Ocular account produced by prosecution comprised of statements of complainant and eye-witness---Admittedly, said witnesses were not residents of the place of occurrence rather they were residents of other place---Complainant's residence was at distance of about 02-kilometers from the place of occurrence---Eye-witness stated that he was resident of a village, which was situated at a distance of 2_ kilometers from the place of occurrence---Therefore, said witnesses were chance witnesses and were thus required to establish valid and acceptable reason to prove their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Prosecution case was that both said witnesses were going to Katchery on the date of hearing but any Cause List or any other document to show that on the day of occurrence of instant case, it was the date of hearing fixed in said case, had not been brought on the record---Therefore, reason claimed by the complainant and other cited eye-witnesses regarding their presence/availability at the relevant "time & place" of occurrence could not be established---As per case of prosecution, complainant was sitting behind the deceased of the case on the motorcycle, accused persons came from behind and resorted to firing, fire shots had hit at behind ear and shoulder of the deceased but surprisingly complainant did not receive any firearm injury---Furthermore, it was case of prosecution that complainant and deceased fell from the motorcycle but complainant did not receive even a single scratch due to said falling---In such scenario, evidence of both said 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 the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2014 SCMR 1698; Arshad Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 564; 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. (g) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence---Medical evidence can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same neither can provide any corroboration nor was of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Akbar Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 486; Sajjan Solangi v. The State 2019 SCMR 872 and Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 rel. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapons of offence from accused---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Record showed that 30-bore pistols were recovered from the accused persons---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, pistol allegedly recovered from appellant was only found in working condition and empties secured from the place of occurrence were not found as having been fired from the same---Hence said recovery was of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Liaqat Ali and another v. The State and others 2021 SCMR 780 rel. (i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148, 149 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of the recovered pistols and crime empties not proved---Scope---Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant party, due to which brother of complainant was hit and died---Investigating Officer stated in categorical terms that on 18.11.2019, Moharrar handed over to him the parcels of pistols and live bullets for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency, which were deposited by him in the said office---However, it was strange and alarming to mention here that as per report of Forensic Science Agency, parcels regarding pistols submitted in Forensic Science Agency in this case were not mentioned as having any live bullets in the same---So it was crystal clear that according to case of prosecution, pistol along with two live bullets statedly recovered from the possession of appellant were sealed into parcel and similarly pistol along with two live bullets allegedly recovered from other appellant were sealed into parcel---If said parcels were deposited in the office of Forensic Science Agency, then it must have been mentioned in the report that said parcels were containing live bullets also, however it was not mentioned so in said report---Meaning thereby that said parcels were not those parcels which were prepared at the time of recovery of pistols containing bullets as well---Hence, safe custody of parcels of pistols had been compromised and not proved, which had ultimately made report of Forensic Science Agency as inconclusive as well as inconsequential and of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Muhammad Saleem v. Shabbir Ahmed and others 2016 SCMR 1605 and Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State 2018 SCMR 577 rel. (j) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Scope---Motive is a double-edged weapon, it cuts both the ways, it can also be a reason for false implication---When substantive evidence is discarded, then motive loses its significance and becomes immaterial for conviction. (k) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal. Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2022 SCMR 1527 rel. Muhammad Aslam Bhatti, Vice counsel for the Appellants. Ms. Nuzhat Bashir, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Syed Tahir Abbas for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 5th May, 2025. Judgment Farooq Haider, J .--- This single judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.80490-J/2021 filed by Mazhar Hussain Shah and Tauqeer Haider Shah (appellants) against their "convictions and sentences" and Murder Reference No.03/2022 sent by trial court, as both the matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated: 14.12.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahpur, District Sargodha/trial court. 2. Mazhar Hussain Shah and Tauqeer Haider Shah (appellants) along with their co-accused persons namely Tassadaq Hussain Shah, Muhammad Hussain Shah, Muhammad Ali Shah, Khadim Hussain Shah, Muneer Hussain Shah, Abid Hussain Shah and Ali Naqi Shah were tried in case arising out of FIR No.286/2019 dated: 03.10.2019 registered under Sections: 302, 109, 148, 149 P.P.C (during investigation offences under Sections: 148, 149 P.P.C were deleted whereas offence under Section: 34 P.P.C was added) at Police Station: Shahpur Saddar, District Sargodha and after conclusion of the trial, while acquitting aforementioned co-accused persons namely Tassadaq Hussain Shah, Muhammad Hussain Shah, Muhammad Ali Shah, Khadim Hussain Shah, Muneer Hussain Shah, Abid Hussain Shah and Ali Naqi Shah vide impugned judgment dated:14.12.2021, trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: - Conviction Sentence Under Section: 302 (b) P.P.C read with Section 34 P.P.C "Death" (for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Munawar Abbas) with payment of compensation Rs.2,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section: 544-A Cr.P.C. recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation amount to further undergo S.I. for one year each. 3. Brief facts, as per application (Ex.PL) moved by Tasawar Hussain Shah (complainant/PW-10) to Muhammad Azam, ASI of Police Station: Shahpur Saddar, District Sargodha (PW-4) for registration of the case are that he is resident of Salimabad, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha; on 03.10.2019 at about 7:55 a.m., complainant and his brother Munawar Shah were going to Shahpur Saddar Katchery on motorcycle Honda CD/70 SKG/669 in connection with date of hearing of their brother Qamar Abbas whereas their brother Murtaza Shah and Zameer Shah son of Nazeer Shah were coming behind them on motorcycle; when they reached Kulyan Chowk, accused persons Mazhar Shah son of Sabir Shah armed with pistol .30-bore, Tauqeer Shah son of Tassadaq Shah armed with pistol .30-bore, Muhammad Ali Shah son of Sajjad Shah armed with pistol .30-bore came from behind on motorcycle; Mazhar Shah raised lalkara to teach them a lesson for committing murder of Mowdat Shah; Tauqeer Shah fired straight shot with pistol .30-bore with intent to kill, which hit Munawar Shah, who was driving the motorcycle, below right shoulder, second straight shot with intent to kill was fired by Mazhar Shah with pistol .30-bore, which landed towards right side of Munawar Shah at back of ear and exited from the other side, third straight shot with intent to kill was fired by Muhammad Ali Shah, which landed towards right side below shoulder of Munawar Shah; complainant and his brother fell down from the motorcycle and Munawar Shah (brother of the complainant) succumbed to the injuries; all the accused persons with intent to kill made straight firing at Murtaza Shah and Zameer Shah who had come from behind but they luckily remained safe and fires hit on the wall of the school and tree, they too fell down; Muneer Shah son of Mazhar Shah armed with pistol .30-bore along with two unknown armed with firearms, who could be identified on coming across, remained standing at some distance in order to safeguard aforesaid accused persons and took away the accused with them; chaos spread at thoroughfare due to firing of accused persons. Motive behind the occurrence was that brother of Tauqeer Shah namely Mowdat Shah was murdered and false FIR was registered against brother of the complainant namely Qamar Shah and brother of the complainant is in jail in said case; complainant along with his brother Munawar Shah had been pursuing the case, due to which grudge, instant occurrence was committed at the abetment and conspiracy of accused persons Tassadaq Hussain Shah, Muhammad Hussain Shah, Khadim Hussain Shah; conspiracy hatched by the accused persons was heard by Zulqarnain Shah son of Akbar Shah at about 8:00 p.m. on 02.10.2019 at the dera of Muhammad Hussain Shah; on finalizing the conspiracy, aerial firing was also made by the accused persons. On the basis of application (Ex.PL), FIR (Ex.PE) was chalked out by Muhammad Azam, A.S.I. (PW-4). 4. After completion of investigation, challan report under Section: 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court against the appellants by placing their names in column No.3 of the same; appellants were formally charge sheeted, however, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial whereupon prosecution evidence was summoned; prosecution during trial examined twelve (12) witnesses, out of which, medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Zain Safdar, Medical Officer (PW-1), ocular account was furnished by Tasawar Hussain Shah (complainant/PW-10) and Ghulam Murtaza Shah (PW-11) whereas detail of investigation of the case was deposed by Muhammad Iqbal Shah, Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer (PW-12); prosecution after giving up Zameer Hussain Shah, Sajid Hussain Shah, Haider Ali, 1872/C, Dr. Nasir Iqbal Ranjha and Dr. Ghulam Shabbir (PWs) as being unnecessary and tendering reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Ex.PU and Ex.PV) closed its evidence; after recording of prosecution evidence, appellants were examined under Section: 342 Cr.P.C. but they refuted the allegations levelled against them; they neither opted to appear as their own witnesses under Section: 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in their defence. Trial Court after conclusion of trial has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above through the impugned judgment dated: 14.12.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that convictions recorded against and sentences awarded to the appellants through impugned judgment are against the 'law and facts' and result of non-reading/misreading of evidence, therefore, same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants finally prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 6. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the complainant have supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Arguments heard. Record perused. 8. It is cardinal principle of law that each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and that has to be weighed on the judicial parlance while taking into consideration as it is brought-forth. It has been noticed that as per case of prosecution, machinery of law was brought into motion by Tasawar Hussain Shah (complainant/PW-10) by way of moving application for registration of the case (Ex.PL). It has been mentioned by Muhammad Azam, ASI (PW-4) that case No.286/2019 dated: 03.10.2019 under Sections: 302, 109, 148, 149 P.P.C, Police Station: Shahpur Saddar, has been registered, report is submitted and relevant portion from the same is hereby scanned below:- which prima facie shows that said application was addressed to Station House Officer, Police Station: Shahpur Saddar and submitted in the Police Station, on which case (Ex.PE) was registered because any other proceedings conducted by any other police official to show that same was submitted by complainant to some other police official at any else place i.e. at the place of occurrence or on the way to the hospital and said police official after receipt of application, send the same to the Police Station for registration of the case is not mentioned on said application. It is astonishing to note that FIR No.286/2019 (Exh.PE) was recorded on the basis of aforesaid application and it has been mentioned in karwai police in the FIR that Muhammad Iqbal, Sub-Inspector of Police Station: Shahpur Saddar, after receiving information regarding the occurrence reached at THQ Hospital, Shahpur Saddar, found dead body of Munawar Abbas lying there, after apparent examination of the dead body, applications for postmortem examination and inquest report were prepared, dead body was being sent in the custody of Taqi Haider, 670/C and in these circumstances as well as application of complainant, offence under Sections: 302, 109, 148, 149 P.P.C have been found and application in the form of Istaghasa for registration of the case is being sent through Adnan Ali, 1300/C and relevant portion of proceedings of police is hereby scanned below:- Perusal of said proceedings of police reveals that though it has not been expressly mentioned in the same that application was moved and same was handed over by Tasawar Hussain Shah (complainant) to Muhammad Iqbal, S.I. at THQ Hospital Shahpur yet it has been mentioned therein that said application is being sent through aforementioned constable to the Police Station for registration of the case and providing of number of case, which reflects clouds on the subject i.e. regarding place of filing of application for registration of the case, particularly when karwai police is not written on the original application for registration of the case (Ex.PL); in this regard, relevant portion of the statement of Muhammad Iqbal, S.I. (PW-12) is reproduced as follows:- "It is correct that my endorsement is not available on Exh-PL about receiving the said application." Though said witness volunteered that he has mentioned proceedings on separate page about receipt of application but any such separate page has neither been independently exhibited nor is available on the record as apprised by Additional Registrar (Court) after scrutinizing the record and in this regard, relevant portion of statement of Investigating Officer of the case (PW-12) is reproduced as under:- "Volunteered that I have mentioned proceedings on a separate page about the receipt of the said application due to lack of space on Exh-PL." As per application for registration of FIR (Ex.PL), occurrence took place at 7:55 a.m. on 03.10.2019 at Kulyan Chowk within the area of Police Station: Shahpur Saddar, which is situated at a distance of one and half Kilometers from the Police Station as per column No.4 of the FIR (Ex.PE) and it has been mentioned in the FIR that Munawar Abbas (deceased of the case) succumbed to the injuries at the spot, however, matter was not reported to the police promptly. It is relevant to mention here that even it is not mentioned in the application for registration of the case (Ex.PL) as well as in the FIR (Ex.PE) that complainant and cited eye-witnesses shifted the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, however, even then as per own case of the prosecution, application for registration of the case was written at 11:00 p.m. on 03.10.2019 i.e. after the delay of about three hours and five minutes of the occurrence and FIR was recorded at 12:05 p.m. on 03.10.2019. It is relevant to mention here that office of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Sub-Divisional Police Officer was located just at a distance of one and half acres from the place of occurrence and in this regard, relevant portion of the statement of Muhammad Iqbal, S.I. (Investigating Officer/PW-12) is hereby reproduced as under:- "Office of DSP/SDPO is located at the distance of about 1-_ acer from the place of occurrence." Tasawar Hussain Shah (complainant/PW-10) has conceded that Police Station Shahpur is situated just at a distance of half Kilometer from the place of occurrence and relevant portion of the statement of PW-10 in this regard reads as follows:- "Police Station Shahpur Saddar is situated at the distance of half k.m from the place of occurrence." and in such circumstances, matter has not been reported to the police promptly rather with considerable delay for which any plausible explanation has not been offered by the prosecution, which leads to the conclusion that none of the cited witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence, time was consumed for procuring, engaging and introducing witnesses, tailoring story for the case of prosecution and then registering the case in its present form; furthermore, perusal of Postmortem Examination Report (Ex.PA) reveals that it has been mentioned in the same that as per police papers, time of death is at 07:45 a.m. on 03.10.2019, Dr. Zain Safdar while appearing as PW-1 stated that on 03.10.2019 at 07:45 a.m. Taqi Haider 670/C brought dead body of Munawar Abbas (deceased) in the hospital and in this regard, relevant portion of the statement of PW-1 is hereby reproduced as under:- "On 03.10.2019 I was posted as M.O at THQ hospital, Shahpur Sadar. On the same day at about 7;45 am, Taqi Haider 670/C brought to me dead body of deceased Munawar Abbas son of Nazar Hussain, aged 39 years, for post mortem examination, which was identified by Tahir ul Hassan and Sajid Hussain Shah." Taqi Haider 670/C while appearing as PW-2 stated in his statement before the court during trial of the case that Investigating Officer escorted dead body of deceased from Kulyan Chowk and reached hospital at 07:45 a.m.; relevant portion of the statement of Taqi Haider 670/C (PW-2) is hereby reproduced as follows:- "I.O. escorted the dead body of deceased from Kulyan Chowk and reached hospital at about 7;45 am." which state of affairs clearly reflects that when police brought dead body from the place of occurrence at 07:45 a.m., then occurrence was brought in the notice/knowledge of the police i.e. Muhammad Iqbal, S.I./ Investigating Officer (PW-12) and Taqi Haider, 670/C (PW-2) before 07:45 a.m., which fact on the one hand negates that occurrence took place at 7:55 a.m. and on the other hand also reflects that occurrence took place before 07:55 a.m. and it was in the knowledge/notice of the police but even then case was registered at 12:05 p.m. for which no plausible, convincing and cogent reason could be rendered by the complainant and in such circumstances, First Information Report (crime report), which is cornerstone of the case of the prosecution, cannot provide any support to the case of prosecution and superstructure i.e. case of prosecution raised on the basis of such sort of FIR is bound to fall and in this regard, cases of "Haroon Shafique v. The State and others"(2018 SCMR 2118), "Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State" (2019 SCMR 1068), "Sufyan Nawaz and another v. The State and others" (2020 SCMR 192) and "Muhammad Adnan and another v. The State and others" (2021 SCMR 16) can be safely referred. As per case of prosecution, Munawar Abbas (deceased) received three firearm injuries whereas as per Postmortem Examination Report of the deceased (Ex.PA), he received four firearm wounds and one exit wound whereas fourth injury could not be explained by the complainant as well as eye-witnesses. So far as ocular account in this case is concerned, same consists upon the statements of Tasawar Hussain Shah, complainant (PW-10) and Ghulam Murtaza Shah (PW-11) whereas Zameer Hussain Shah (eye-witness) was given up by the prosecution being unnecessary. As per application for registration of the case (Ex.PL) and FIR (Ex.PE), Mazhar Hussain Shah (appellant) was armed with pistol .30-bore, raised lalkara, fired shot with pistol which hit Munawar Shah (deceased of the case) behind his right ear and made its exit from the other side, Tauqeer Haider Shah (appellant) fired straight shot with pistol .30-bore which hit Munawar Shah (deceased of the case) under his shoulder towards right side whereas Muhammad Ali Shah (since acquitted co-accused) armed with pistol .30-bore fired straight shot hitting Munawar Shah (deceased) under his right shoulder. It is noteworthy here that Muhammad Ali Shah (co-accused) who was attributed equally effective role of causing firearm injury to Munawar Shah (deceased of the case as detailed above) has been acquitted of the charge in the case while disbelieving evidence of the prosecution witnesses through the same impugned judgment dated: 14.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpur, District Sargodha, which acquittal is still holding the field and the same has even not been challenged uptill now as confirmed by learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant, therefore, said evidence now can only be relied and used against pres

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Order passed by the Banking Court, assailing of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Nature of order passed by Banking Court---Application moved by auction-purchaser before the Banking Court for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him, dismissal of---Whether interlocutory order or not---Remedy---Scope---Application under S. 12(2) C.P.C---Ingredients of fraud / mis-representation, missing of---Legal heirs of judgment-debtor (mortgagee /customer of bank) filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C (Applicants) before the High Court against the auction-purchaser (respondent) challenging the order passed, in constitutional petition, which was filed by respondent against dismissal of his application for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him(order under challenge)---Plea of the applicants was that the order under challenge was appealable under S.22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 but the respondent (auction purchaser) challenged the same by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, hence, the constitutional petition was not maintainable---Validity---Record revealed that respondent (auction purchaser) moved an application before the Banking Court for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him through auction but the same was dismissed on account of late filing of statement of accounts---Said dismissal order was assailed in the constitutional petition being interlocutory order as under S. 22 of the Ordinance, 2001, no appeal lies against an interlocutory order--- Thus , the plea of applicants was beyond the scope of S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Provisions of S.12(2) C.P.C. can only be pressed into service when fraud has been practiced upon the Court during the proceedings of case, and order, judgment and decree is obtained on the basis of such fraud and misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Applicants (legal heirs of customer /judgment-debtor) failed to substantiate any allegation of fraud, misrepresentation as per mandate of S. 12(2), C.P.C., to upset or overturn the order/judgment of the High Court having been passed in its constitutional jurisdiction---Application under S. 12(2) C.P.C, being meritless and not maintainable , was dismissed. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---Allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Scope of provisions under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.) is restricted and the applicants are obliged to prove that fraud or misrepresentation is committed by the adversary in connection with the proceedings of the Court and have to prove the following aspects:-- (i) The fraud and mis-presentation was practised during the proceedings in the Court; (ii) Alleged fraud included untrue statements by respondents who did not believe them to be true and had committed active concealment of facts; (iii) Judgment was obtained on the basis of forged documents; (iv) The order, judgment/decree was collusively obtained and (v) The order/judgment/decree suffered from want of jurisdiction. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 15---Auction proceedings, challenging of ---Past and closed transaction---Scope and effect---Application moved by auction-purchaser before the Banking Court for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him was dismissed, however, his prayer (for delivery of possession) was allowed by the High Court by accepting his constitutional petition---Legal heirs of judgment-debtor (mortgagee /customer of bank) filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C (applicants) before the High Court against acceptance of constitutional petition filed by the auction-purchaser (respondent )---Plea of the applicants was that that in view of the law laid down in case reported as National Bank of Pakistan and 117 others v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd and another PLD 2014 SC 283 confirming judgment of the High Court in case reported as Muhammad Umer Rathore v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 CLD 257 (judgments-in-question), S. 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001') had been declared ultra vires; that since possession to the respondent (auction-purchaser) had not been delivered prior to the passing of judgments-in-question, hence, the sale be set-aside as per ratio of the judgments-in-question---Validity---Though under the judgments-in-question S. 15 of the Ordinance 2001 was declared ultra vires but for totally independent reasons and the findings of this/High Court to the extent of past and closed transactions were neither considered nor any observation was made---Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported Muhammad Moizuddin and others v. Mansoor Khalil and another (2017 SCMR 1787), while keeping in view the effect of Art. 10-A of the Constitution, set-aside the sale on account of non-delivery of possession before the cutoff date---Supreme Court of Pakistan while elaborating upon the past and closed transaction allowed the petition with the observations that cases where sale itself had not been challenged, or such challenge had remained unsuccessful, and the sale proceeds stood adjusted towards outstanding liability of the principal debtor, and sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser stood registered under the provisions declared ultra vires the Constitution, would be saved from the effect of such declaration being past and closed transactions---In the present case, the respondent purchased the mortgaged property of customer / judgment-debtor (predecessor of the applicants) for a consideration of Rs.885,000/-.---After deposit of whole auction amount respondent /Bank issued relevant certificate and mutation was also sanctioned in his favour by the Revenue Officer---Said judgment-debtor (predecessor of the applicants) never challenged the auction proceedings during his lifetime, rather he filed an application in the Bank by contending that after auction of his property some amount was lying in his account which may be returned to him while (further contending that) he had no objection to the auction proceedings ; he received the remaining sale proceeds (amounting to Rs.79,405/-) through Credit Cash Voucher by putting his signatures and thumb impressions---In such way, the applicants were estopped from initiating any further proceedings to challenge the auction or subsequent events---Application under S.12(2) C.P.C, filed by legal heirs of customer / judgment-debtor, being meritless and not maintainable, was dismissed. Muhammad Moizuddin and others v. Mansoor Khalil and another 2017 SCMR 1787 ref. National Bank of Pakistan and 117 others v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. and another PLD 2014 SC 283 and Muhammad Umer Rathore v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 CLD 257 distinguished. Malik Ghulam Qasim Rajwana for Applicants. Rao Riasat Ali Khan for Respondent No.1. Muhammad Irfan Wyne for Respondent No.3.

Summary: (a) Qatl-i-Amd (Murder) — Appreciation of evidence — Standard of proof — Corroboration. Prosecution successfully proved that convict-appellants Matloob Hussain and Nazakat Hussain, armed with rifles, fired upon the complainant party, resulting in the death of four persons—Ocular evidence of seven eye-witnesses (including injured witnesses) found consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence, postmortem reports, site plan, and recovery of crime weapons—Minor discrepancies held immaterial where core features of prosecution case remained unshaken—Conviction upheld. Cited: Abdul Wahid v. The State (2003 SCMR 668); Noor Khan v. The State (1996 PCrLJ 790); 2015 SCR 1487; 2022 SCMR 2024. (b) Plea of alibi — Burden of proof — Afterthought. Accused’s plea of alibi taken belatedly after examination under S.342, Cr.P.C., unsupported by convincing evidence or cross-examination of prosecution witnesses on this point—Defense witnesses were contradictory and unconvincing—Held, plea was an afterthought and rightly rejected by trial court. (c) Interested witnesses — Relationship not a disqualification. Relationship of witnesses with deceased is no ground for disbelieving their testimony when it is otherwise credible and corroborated—Test is of intrinsic worth and confidence, not kinship. Cited: 2015 SCR 1487. (d) Common intention and unlawful assembly — S.149, APC. Presence of acquitted co-accused at the place of occurrence not disputed; however, prosecution failed to prove that they shared the common intention or object to commit murder—Mere presence in assembly without proof of participation or prior meeting of minds not sufficient for conviction under S.149, APC—Trial Court rightly acquitted them; acquittal carries double presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with unless found perverse or arbitrary. Cited: Ejaz Ahmed v. The State (PLJ 2009 Sh.C (AJ&K) 147); Asia Bibi v. Ghazanfar Ali (2005 SCR 1); Waseem Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique (2017 SCR 428). (e) Compensation and abatement on death of convict — Scope of S.431, Cr.P.C. On death of convict-appellant during pendency of appeal, proceedings abate to his extent except for sentence of fine; compensation under S.544-A, Cr.P.C. not equivalent to “fine” and cannot survive against legal heirs—Appeal to the extent of deceased appellant abated. Cited: Mukaram Khan v. The State (2021 MLD 176). (f) Shariat—Purgation (Tazkiyah al-Shuhud)—Evidentiary value. Witnesses were duly subjected to Tazkiyah and found ‘Adil’; even otherwise, testimony of non-‘Adil’ witness may be relied upon in Tazir cases if corroborated and presence admitted. Cited: Zahir Hussain Shah v. Shah Nawaz Khan (2000 SCR 123). (g) Criminal appeal against acquittal — Interference by appellate court. Acquittal by trial court based on sound reasoning, supported by evidence; no misreading, non-reading, or perversity shown—Appellate court refused to interfere. Disposition— Appeal No. 53/20 dismissed to the extent of convict-appellants Matloob Hussain and Nazakat Hussain; convictions and death sentences as Qisas maintained. Appeal abated to the extent of deceased convict-appellant Manzoor Hussain. Reference answered in affirmative to the extent of surviving convicts. Appeal No. 17/20 (complainant’s appeal against acquittal) dismissed. Approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (1908) ----S. 12(2); O. V, Rr. 17, 19 & 20—Ex-parte decree—Substituted service—Due service—Audi alteram partem. Ex-parte decree dated 25-09-2012 and order dismissing S.12(2) CPC application set aside—Trial court, without exhausting ordinary modes under O.V, failed to ensure due service and shifted straight to substituted service through a local/regional newspaper having no circulation at defendant’s residence (Karachi)—Mandatory compliance with O.V, Rr.17 & 19 (including examination of process server and recording satisfaction that ordinary service was impracticable or being avoided) not shown—Substituted service is a last-resort mechanism and, absent prior due diligence and a speaking order of satisfaction, is no service in law—Passing an ex-parte decree in such circumstances violates the rule of audi alteram partem. (b) Limitation Act (1908) ----Art. 181, Art. 95 & S. 5—S. 18—S.12(2) CPC application to set aside ex-parte decree on fraud/defective service. Applications under S.12(2) CPC are governed by Art. 181 unless S.18 and Art.95 (fraud/misrepresentation) are attracted; in such cases limitation runs from date of knowledge, with possible condonation under S.5—Limitation does not run against a void order—On facts, plea of knowledge and foundational defects in service brought the matter within time. (c) Process & service of summons ----Substituted service—Pre-conditions—Newspaper publication. Court must first attempt and verify ordinary service; only upon a reasoned satisfaction that defendant is avoiding service or ordinary service is impracticable may O.V, R.20 be invoked—Publication must be in a newspaper with circulation at the defendant’s locale; publication in a local/regional paper without Karachi circulation held a nullity; such “service” cannot sustain ex-parte proceedings. Cited cases: • 2013 SCMR 587 • 2001 CLC 1187 • 2001 SCMR 99 • 1995 MLD 170. Disposition—Appeal allowed; ex-parte judgment & decree dated 25-09-2012 and order dated 09-01-2020 set aside; S.12(2) CPC application allowed; suit restored for de-novo proceedings before trial court in accordance with law. Approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (Interim Constitution, 1974) –– Art. 44(2)(b)(ii) –– Writ of quo warranto –– Nature and scope –– Exercise of discretion by High Court. Petition filed by former Prime Minister sought issuance of writ of quo warranto against the incumbent Prime Minister, challenging his authority to hold office. Court reaffirmed that writ of quo warranto lies to determine whether a person holding a public office is legally authorized to do so. Such proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial; the petitioner acts merely as a relator or “whistle-blower.” Relief under quo warranto is discretionary and not to be issued as a matter of course on technicalities or political motivations. Petitioner must demonstrate bona fides and approach the Court with clean hands. Judicial review, while available, remains subject to prudence and respect for constitutional boundaries governing political questions and internal proceedings of the Assembly. — The Jumma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah (AIR 1962 SC 584); Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. v. Said Rehman (2013 SCMR 642); Dr. Kamal Hussain v. Muhammad Siraj-ul-Islam (PLD 1969 SC 42); Barrister Sardar Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Lahore 343) ref. (b) Doctrine of laches and acquiescence –– Delay in invoking constitutional jurisdiction –– Conduct of petitioner. Petition was filed nearly two years after election of the incumbent Premier. Although there is no estoppel against law, the doctrine of laches applies where petitioner’s conduct indicates acquiescence or undue delay. Extraordinary relief such as setting aside election of a sitting Prime Minister requires timely, clean-handed invocation and qualitative proof. Delay and participation in the earlier election process were material factors to be examined at hearing. — Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani v. Sain Mullah, Advocate (PLD 1993 SC AJK 12); Muhammad Tahir v. Chairman Board of Governors (2022 MLD 1294) ref. (c) Art. 29(6) & (7) –– Office of Speaker –– Vacancy –– Resignation –– Constitutional construction. High Court observed that under Article 29(7) the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant only if (i) the incumbent ceases to be a member of the Assembly or (ii) he is removed through a resolution of the Assembly. No provision exists for vacation of office by resignation, unlike corresponding Articles 53(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan and 94 of the Constitution of India. Legislature’s deliberate omission of “resignation” in Article 29(7) signifies intent; the provision must be harmoniously construed with Article 29(6) to determine whether a resigning Speaker continues until successor’s election. (d) Art. 34(1) & (4) –– Internal proceedings of the Assembly –– Bar of judicial interference –– Maintainability of writ. Question framed whether High Court can intervene in matters constituting “internal proceedings” of the Assembly, given the express constitutional bar in Article 34. Judicial review is permissible only where constitutional provisions are violated or where acts are performed without lawful authority; otherwise, Courts refrain from interfering with internal management of legislative business. (e) Art. 17(2) –– Session of Assembly –– Election of Prime Minister –– Constitutional compliance. Court noted the necessity to determine whether Assembly was lawfully in session at the time of ouster of former Premier and whether President summoned the Assembly within fourteen days as mandated for election of a new Prime Minister. Validity of the election depends upon strict observance of procedural requirements in Article 17(2). (f) Art. 42-B –– Binding effect of Supreme Court decisions –– Limitation for filing constitutional petitions. Reference made to Syed Altaf Hussain Bukhari v. Zeeshan Shaukat (2022 SCR 1088) where Supreme Court emphasized that petitions filed after inordinate delay without explanation are barred by laches. High Court directed that this ratio decidendi must guide all subordinate courts in view of Article 42-B making Supreme Court judgments binding throughout AJ&K. (g) Proceedings –– Admission of petition for regular hearing –– Framing of questions of law. Given constitutional significance, petition admitted for regular hearing. Six law points formulated concerning judicial review, Assembly procedure, Speaker’s resignation, validity of Prime-Ministerial election, and delay. Office directed to array all 48 Members of the Legislative Assembly who voted for the incumbent as necessary respondents to ensure full representation. Respondents ordered to file written statements and supporting documents before next date. Held: Writ petition admitted for regular hearing to determine constitutional questions relating to validity of the election of the Prime Minister, interpretation of Articles 17, 29, 34 and 44, and applicability of doctrines of laches and internal-proceedings bar. Notices issued to all concerned Members of Legislative Assembly for response.

Summary: 1. The court determines that the case involves disputed civil rights and title, specifically regarding inheritance and the validity of a Will deed, which falls outside the scope of “rectification of company register” under Section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017. Given the nature of the claim, which includes inheritance rights to shares in companies and other properties, the court holds that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court concludes that the trial court erred in partially returning the plaint and striking off a defendant`s name, as the Civil Court`s plenary jurisdiction allows it to determine the appellant`s claim to inherit shares and decide on the validity of the Will deed. 2. The court also notes that the impugned order`s partial return of the plaint is not permissible in law. The court references precedents, such as Qadeer Ahmad v. Ejaz Ahmad (2017 YLR 1217) and Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Province of Punjab (2014 YLR 1222), which establish that a plaint cannot be rejected or returned in piecemeal. According to these judgments, a plaint can only be rejected if all reliefs claimed are barred under the law. The court emphasizes that the plaint must be considered in its entirety, and even if a small part of the claim is determinable by the civil court, the plaint cannot be partially returned. Therefore, the trial court's decision to partially return the plaint is deemed erroneous.

Summary: (Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan) 1. Petitioner, an employee of the Cadet College Wana, South Waziristan, challenged the order of his termination from service. Admittedly no inquiry was conducted into the matter and no opportunity of personal audience was afforded to the petitioner. --- held ---- Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules But two fundamental maxims of natural justice are pre-eminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially, objectively and fairly. Described in the form of Latin tags these twin principles are, (1) audi alteram partem and (2) nemo judex in re sua. The purpose of these rules is to prevent miscarriage of justice. This principle when conjoins with the maxim ‘nemo judex in re sua’ these constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing as enshrined in Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, for fair trial and justice which is not the preserve of any particular class of people or institution, but is shared in common by everyone. Petitioner was reinstated into service on the touchstone of the principles of natural justice, and the matter was sent back to the authority to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against petitioner and then decide the case after applying his mind dispassionately to a fair analysis of the charges and defense and pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. 2. Principles of natural justice by the authority would normally depends upon the following: a. There should be proper application of mind and scrutiny of the records before it, by the authority to enable it to record its satisfaction in terms of the law on the subject. b. It should pass a speaking order which would at least prima-facie show that the authority concerned has applied its mind to the various contentions or points of determination raised before it. c. No one should be condemned unheard and Principle of audi alteram partem is read in every statute as its part if right of hearing has not been specifically provided therein. (The writ petition was allowed in the circumstances).

Summary: Ground of reconstruction of rented premises. Section 13(2)(iv). Though the landlord is under an obligation to get permission for reconstruction from the competent authority prior to filing of application but the permission sanctioned during pendency of ejectment application, is sufficient for eviction of the tenant from rented premises being the prerogative of the landlord. Since the terms utility bills is included in the definition of rent thus, non-payment of utility bills during the period within which the rented premises are in possession of tenant is default under second proviso to sub-section 2 of section 13 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----S.5, Sched.---Suit for dower, dowry articles and maintenance allowance--- Scope---Respondent filed a suit for recovery of dower, dowry articles and maintenance allowance---Trial court partially decreed the suit to the extent of 15 tola gold ornaments as dower, Rs.15000/- as maintenance for Iddat period and dowry articles mentioned at serial No.1,3 to 12 or Rs.20,000/- as alternate price, whereas rest of the reliefs as prayed for were turned down---Appeals were dismissed---Validity--- Respondent/plaintiff in her plaint claimed that her dower was fixed as 15 tolas of gold ornaments, which is still outstanding, whereas the petitioner alleged that it was Rs.15,000/- cash, which had already been paid. No documentary evidence, including Nikah Nama, was produced by either party. The Nikah Khawan, Molvi Gul Mir Khan, was stated to be dead. However, the respondent produced supporting witnesses (PW-3, PW-5, and PW-6), who consistently testified that 15 tolas of gold were agreed upon as dower at the time of engagement and solemnization of Nikah. Their depositions remained unshaken in cross-examination. In contrast, the petitioner neither stated the alleged dower amount during his own testimony nor did his supporting witnesses (DW-1, DW-3, and DW-4) provide any cogent evidence on the fixation or payment of Rs.15,000/- as dower. Instead, they focused primarily on the respondent’s character and conduct. The oral testimony led by the respondent stood unchallenged and inspired confidence. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the fixation and payment of Rs.15,000/- as dower. On the contrary, the respondent sufficiently proved that her dower was fixed at 15 tolas of gold ornaments, which remained unpaid. Hence, both the courts below, after properly appraising the evidence, have concurrently held that dower of the respondent was fixed as 15 tola gold ornaments which is unpaid, which needs no interference. No misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect has been pointed out that would justify interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. 9. With regard to stance of the respondent/plaintiff for the recovery of dowry articles, petitioner in his written statement denied the dowry articles but during cross examination, he admitted few articles of the respondent and also stated that he is ready to return the same to her, as such, the petitioner has deviated from his written statement by admitting the claim of respondent regarding dowry articles during cross examination. On perusal of the list/Mad “Jeem” of dowry articles, it appears that the articles at serial No.1 and 3 to 12 consist of articles of daily use which are generally given to brides at the time of their marriages, besides the articles at serial No.1 and 3 to 12 do not show any item which could be beyond the financial resources of the respondent’s family. Hence, the learned courts below have rightly appreciated this aspect of the case, which warrants no interference. 10. So far as the fixation of maintenance allowance is concerned, the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the parties and correctly reached to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled for Rs.5000/- per month total 15000/- for Iddat period.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – Art. 199 – Custody of minor – Welfare principle – Visitation rights. Petitioner/father, serving in Pakistan Army and residing away from home due to service obligations, sought custody of minor daughter on the ground that respondent/mother had remarried. ––– Held: Although father is natural guardian, yet in the peculiar circumstances, welfare of minor was not considered to be with him as he had also contracted second marriage and remained away from home for long intervals. Minor was residing with maternal grandmother, pursuing education, and expressed willingness before the Court to continue living with her. Welfare of minor being paramount, custody was allowed to remain with grandmother. Petitioner/father, however, granted visitation rights at the residence of the grandparents. – Petition dismissed.