Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 161---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140---Statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. are not admissible except for limited purpose of contradiction under Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Words and phrases--- ----'Discovery' and 'recovery'---Distinction stated. Black's Law Dictionary rel. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 38, 39 & 40---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 162---Disclosure of accused---Custodial discoveries---Admissibility and reliance---Principles---Evidentiary admissibility permitted under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 must not be employed as a device to sidestep overarching protections enshrined in Articles 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and section 162, Cr.P.C.---Where a discovery is made on the basis of such disclosure, resultant recovery must be independently evaluated on the touchstone of credibility, reliability, and corroboration through forensic or circumstantial material---Limited admissibility under Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 does not, by itself, prove guilt but only allows a fact to be brought on record which might, when considered in conjunction with other evidence, contribute to the chain of circumstances---In order for provision of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to be validly invoked, following essential elements must be satisfied: (i) Accused must be in lawful police custody in that particular case at the time of making disclosure. A voluntary disclosure made outside custodial context does not attract operation of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat. (ii) Information must be specific and must distinctly relate to the fact discovered. Generalized or vague statements are not covered; discovery must be directly traceable to information furnished. (iii) There must be tangible discovery of a material fact, such as recovery of an object, article, weapon, or place, which was previously unknown to investigating agency. (iv) There must be clear causal link between disclosure and discovery. The fact must be discovered as direct and immediate consequence of the information provided by accused. (v) Only that portion of statement which relates distinctly to fact discovered is admissible. Remainder of the statement, including any confessional or incriminating parts not tied to the discovery, remains inadmissible. (vi) Recovery must be genuine, verifiable, and documented through credible and preferably independent witnesses. Authenticity of discovery is not presumed and must be established through cogent evidence. (vii) Evidentiary value of discovery must be assessed in conjunction with other corroborative evidence. A discovery alone, even if admissible, is insufficient to sustain conviction unless it fits into an unbroken chain of circumstances. ----These principles form doctrinal boundary of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and serve to preserve delicate balance between probative force of custodial discoveries and fundamental safeguards against compelled self-incrimination and misuse of police authority---Any departure from such safeguards would render resultant discovery legally infirm and inadmissible for the purposes of conviction. Black's Law Dictionary; Zafar Ali Abbasi v. Zafar Ali Abbasi 2024 SCMR 1773; Akhtar v. Khwas Khan 2024 SCMR 476; The State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873; Mufti Kafayat Ullah v. The State 2020 SCMR 1248; Fazal Subhan v. The State 2019 SCMR 1027; Hayatullah v. The State 2018 SCMR 2092; Gul Muhammad v. The State 2011 SCMR 670 and Mst. Askar Jan v. Muhammad Daud 2010 SCMR 160 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 (b) & 377---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.40 & 129, illustration (g)---Qatl-i-amd and sodomy---Re-appraisal of evidence---Disclosure of accused---Withholding of evidence---Presumption---DNA test report, non-producing of---Effect---Both the accused persons were alleged to have committed sodomy with deceased whereafter he was murdered---Trial Court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced one to death while the other was given imprisonment for life---High Court reduced the sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life whereas the other was acquitted of the charge---Validity---Allegation of sodomy lacked corroboration due to absence of DNA report or chemical examiner’s findings, despite the claim of prosecution that anal swabs were submitted for testing---Critical DNA profiling and chemical report that could have supported the charge of unnatural lust were missing---Court could infer under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that unproduced evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it and missing documents would not have supported prosecution’s case---Motive was not established, the last seen evidence was unreliable, recoveries were doubtful and medical and forensic links were either suppressed or infirm---Chain of circumstantial evidence stood fractured---Where prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain was to be proved to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt---Failure to establish any one link was sufficient to vitiate the entire case---There were legal limitations of Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and prosecution had failed to satisfy strict conditions for admissibility and reliability of custodial recoveries---Chain of circumstances necessary for conviction was not satisfactorily established---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and declined to interfere in acquittal of co-accused by the High Court. Yaqub Shah v. The State 1995 SCMR 1293; Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185; Muhammad Abid v. The State PLD 2018 SC 813; Fayyaz Ahmad v. The State 2017 SCMR 2026; Akbar Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR 486; The State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh 2021 SCMR 873; Qaisar Mehmood v. The State 2021 SCMR 662; Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146; Muhammad Shafi alias Kuddoo v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1045; Mst. Asia Bibi v. The State PLD 2019 SC 64; Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048; Abdul Jabbar v. State 2019 SCMR 129 and Muhammad Riaz v. Khurram Shehzad and another 2024 SCMR 51 rel. (e) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A & 14---Criminal administration of justice---Fundamental rights---Pakistan’s judicial system, though empowered to rectify individual injustices through acquittals, remains institutionally ill-equipped to address profound harms, irreversible trauma, reputational erosion, financial ruin, and unjust deprivation of liberty, inflicted on accused individuals during protracted trials, often precipitated by flawed investigations---Such systemic failures stem from entrenched deficiencies, including absence of statutory mechanisms to ensure investigational transparency and lack of professional accountability within law enforcement, which collectively corrode public trust and undermine the integrity of the justice framework---Addressing such gaps transcends procedural reform; it constitutes a Constitutional obligation under Articles 4, 9, 10-A & 14 of the Constitution, which enshrine due process, fair trial, and preservation of human dignity---Justice system’s legitimacy hinges not on punitive severity but on equitable, rigorous processes that safeguard accused individuals’ rights against institutional expediency, thereby reinforcing critical balance between state authority and individual liberty. Ms. Bushra Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Crl. P. No. 532 of 2018). Naveed Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Crl. Ps. Nos. 444-L and 445-L of 2018). Irfan Zia, Addl. P.G., Punjab for the State. Assistance: Muhammad Subhan Malik (Judicial Law Clerk). Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2025.

Summary: Press clipping being explanatory evidence can be considered a relevant material at bail stage.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Press clipping being explanatory evidence can be considered a relevant material at bail stage. 537Crl. Misc. 15581/25 Muhammad Mudasir Syed Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh 21- 04- 2025 2025 LHC 4781 PLJ 2025 Cr.C 481 (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 MLD 1577 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending