Summary: (a) Criminal trial—Identification—Hearsay—Evidence of prior knowledge of accused—Admissibility: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 71 & 140---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Accused were alleged to have been identified by complainant (PW-1) prior to occurrence on basis of inquiries made from unnamed locals---Said witness, despite being cross-examined, failed to disclose the names of persons who informed him of the identities of the assailants---No corroborating evidence brought on record, and investigating officer did not confirm source of such identification---Held, such statements were hearsay and inadmissible in evidence---Failure to establish independent source of identification created material doubt in prosecution’s version. Cited Case: Ata Muhammad and others v. The State 1995 SCMR 599. (b) Criminal trial—Benefit of doubt—Accused acquitted due to contradictions in prosecution evidence and lack of independent corroboration: ----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342 & 544-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 396/149 & 324/149---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Eyewitnesses (PW-2 & PW-3) were shown to be present simultaneously at two distinct locations (hospital and encounter site) during critical time---Presence at both places not explained, creating contradiction and suggesting fabrication---Post-mortem report timing and recovery memos conflicted with eyewitness accounts---Held, prosecution witnesses failed to inspire confidence, and benefit of doubt must go to accused---Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside. (c) Evidence—Failure to prove safe custody of case property—Effect: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 129(g) & 164---Investigating Officer failed to establish where recovered weapons and crime empties were kept from date of recovery to submission to Ballistic Expert---No identification markings made on recovered pistols to link them with specific accused---Prosecution failed to produce official responsible for safekeeping or transport of case property---Held, failure to prove safe custody rendered ballistic evidence unreliable and inconsequential for conviction. (d) Criminal trial—Ocular account—Uncorroborated solitary witness—When not sufficient for conviction: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 17---Testimony of complainant (PW-1), real brother of deceased, remained uncorroborated---No identification parade conducted---Medical evidence indicated close-range firing, contradicting version of indiscriminate firing where other witnesses remained unhurt---Specific attributions of robbery and firing by each accused in a confined space (9x15 ft shop) found improbable---Held, in absence of corroboration from reliable and independent source, conviction could not be sustained. (e) Administration of justice—Duty of investigating officer—Fabrication and manipulation by police—Consequences: ----Police Rules, 1934, R. 25.13---Investigating Officer failed to prepare site sketch of alleged police encounter scene---Presence of PWs at two locations not investigated or explained---Held, fabrications and manipulations by police during investigation could not be condoned or overlooked by Court---Such conduct damaged prosecution case and reinforced doubts as to fairness of investigation. ----Disposition: Appeals allowed---Convictions and sentences set aside---Appellants Parvaiz, Fateh Ali, Abdul Malik alias Matto, and Ghulam Sarwar Bhand acquitted of all charges on benefit of doubt---Murder Reference answered in negative.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 203-D---Federal Shariat Court---Jurisdictional limitation---Claim of declaration regarding policy on distribution of gratuity, pension, and military privileges treated as relief in personam---Held, Federal Shariat Court is not vested with jurisdiction to grant personal relief under Art. 203-D of the Constitution---Petition found to be beyond jurisdiction and dismissed accordingly. (b) Islamic Law---Inheritance (Tarka)---State grants posthumous pensionary benefits---Legal character---Distinction between death gratuity and earned benefits: ----Death gratuity, family pension, and benevolent fund---Held, benefits extended by the State or military authorities to widow or dependents of a deceased officer do not constitute ‘Tarka’ (inheritable estate) of the deceased---Such benefits are ex-gratia grants or bounties by the State and not obligatory rights of the deceased---Hence, not subject to Islamic laws of inheritance---Court reaffirmed view previously expressed in PLD 1991 SC 731 and PLD 1982 FSC 143. (c) Islamic Law---Tarka---Pensionary benefits not part of estate---Employer's discretion in determining beneficiaries: ----Islamic principles of succession---Employer (State or institution) has discretion to define ‘family’ eligible for posthumous benefits---Such benefits not being part of deceased’s estate cannot be claimed by all heirs as a matter of right---Held, entitlement can be restricted to spouse or other nominated family members without violating Islamic injunctions. (d) Precedents cited and reaffirmed: ----PLD 1991 SC 731; PLD 1982 FSC 143; PLD 1989 Lahore 34; Shariat Petition No. 9/I of 2021 (Zartashi Nadia v. Federation of Pakistan); Shariat Petition No. 6/R of 1980 (Mirza Muhammad Amin v. Government of Pakistan)---Held, death gratuity and family pension are grants bestowed by the State posthumously and are not heritable---Pension or benefits earned and accrued during lifetime may form part of ‘Tarka’, whereas those arising only after death do not. ----Disposition: Shariat Petition dismissed---Claim for treating military gratuity, pension, and posthumous privileges as inheritable estate under Islamic law rejected---Court held that such benefits are discretionary grants and not subject to rules of inheritance.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 203-D---Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court---Scope---Relief in personam sought in criminal revision and procedural matters---Petitioners sought setting aside of orders passed by Lahore High Court and Drug Court, Gujranwala, and summoning of prosecution witness under S. 540, Cr.P.C.---Held, such applications did not impugn any provision of law as being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam---Federal Shariat Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate matters of personal grievance or procedural irregularities unless a specific provision of law is challenged for repugnancy to Islam---Petitions held to be misconceived and dismissed accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 540---Prosecution duty to present full evidence---Islamic jurisprudence and principle of fair trial---Court reaffirmed that under Islamic system of justice, prosecutor is obliged to produce all available evidence, and cannot withhold witnesses arbitrarily---Such omissions can be corrected by trial courts under second part of S. 540, Cr.P.C. by summoning witnesses necessary for just decision---However, held, in the present case, relief sought was personal and not within purview of Art. 203-D of the Constitution. Cited Case: Muhammad Waseem alias Kalu v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 364. (c) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 203-D---Shariat petitions---Maintainability---No provision of law impugned as repugnant to Quran and Sunnah---Petitions seeking setting aside of court orders and procedural directions held to be non-maintainable---Court reiterated its jurisdiction is limited to examining laws, not judicial orders unless a law itself is challenged for repugnancy. ----Disposition: Shariat Misc. Applications dated 09.01.2023 dismissed in limine for lack of jurisdiction under Art. 203-D of the Constitution---Instant Shariat Misc. Application No. 01-L of 2023 disposed of, having served its purpose---Office directed to assign application numbers accordingly.

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 420, S. 512, S. 87, S. 342, S. 173---Jail appeal---Procedure for appeal by convict in jail---Appeal initially forwarded to wrong forum (Lahore High Court) instead of Federal Shariat Court---Held, delay in filing was not attributable to the convict and was condoned under proviso to Rule 18(a) of the Federal Shariat Court Procedure Rules, 1981. (b) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: ----Ss. 10 & 11---Rape---Abduction for commission of illicit intercourse---Acquittal---Burden of proof---Prosecution case hinged on weak Waj-takkar evidence, alleged abscondence, and uncorroborated medical report---Held, prosecution failed to produce credible eyewitness or any substantive link between accused and victim---Appeal allowed. (c) Evidence Act / Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 47, Art. 78---Dying declaration---Secondary evidence---Preservation of witness testimony under S. 512 Cr.P.C---Investigating Officer who recorded abductee's statement had died before trial---Prosecution failed to tender his prior testimony or formally request its admissibility under S. 512 Cr.P.C---Held, substituting such evidence with mere handwriting verification under Art. 78 was impermissible---Material evidence unlawfully withheld. (d) Criminal Trial: ----Waj-takkar evidence---Standard of proof---Evidence of last seen based solely on one relative without any plausible reason for presence at the scene---No corroboration, and witness admitted unfamiliarity with accused---Held, witness testimony not trustworthy; conviction based on such evidence unsustainable. (e) Abscondence: ----Proof of abscondence---Prosecution failed to produce non-bailable warrants, proclamation orders, or official documents to establish absconding---No conclusive statement under S. 87(3) Cr.P.C---Held, prosecution failed to prove abscondence as a circumstance against the accused. (f) Medical Evidence: ----Rape---Evidentiary value---Medical opinion suggested sexual intercourse but did not identify accused---Held, medical evidence alone, without supporting ocular or circumstantial evidence, was insufficient for conviction. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2023 set aside. Accused Sultan Ali Khan acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Scope---Principles governing appellate interference---The respondents, previously acquitted by the Anti-Terrorism Court in a case involving dacoity and murder of five police officials, were challenged in appeal by the State---Appellate Court observed that interference in an acquittal is permissible only when the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, speculative, or based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence---Mere possibility of a different conclusion on re-appraisal is insufficient to overturn acquittal---Held, that the trial Court had evaluated the evidence fairly, and no illegality or perversity was shown---Appeal against acquittal dismissed. Cited cases: • Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11 • The State v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 2011 SC 554 • Muhammad Zafar v. Rustam Ali 2017 SCMR 1639 • The State v. Muhammad Sharif 1995 SCMR 635 • Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Raja Fahim Afzal 1998 SCMR 1281 (b) Criminal trial: ----Principles of criminal justice---Benefit of doubt---Doubtful identity---Conviction cannot be based on suspicion, however strong---Eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-8), both injured police officials, failed to conclusively identify the respondents at the scene of the attack due to their limited visibility from within a covered vehicle (Tarpal), and their contradictory statements in cross-examination raised serious doubts---Prosecution failed to prove that respondents were among the assailants or linked to a banned organization---Held, that benefit of doubt must be given as a matter of right---Double presumption of innocence of acquitted accused bars interference without cogent reasons. Cited cases: • Yasin alias Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 2008 SCMR 336 • The State through Mehmood Ahmed Butt v. Sharaf-ud-Din Sheikh 2013 SCMR 565 • Muhammad Zaman v. The State 2014 SCMR 749 (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872): ----S. 3---Credibility of witnesses---Contradictions and lack of corroboration---Injured witnesses provided inconsistent versions regarding their position during the attack and number of assailants---No recovery of weapons, explosive remnants, bloodstained earth, or conduct of post-mortem weakened prosecution case---Trial Court rightly held that prosecution evidence was not credible or corroborated---Held, ocular testimony of interested witnesses, unsupported by independent corroboration, cannot be relied upon in a capital case. Cited case: • Shera Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 643 (d) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997): ----S. 7---Offence of terrorism---Ingredients---Requirement of credible and convincing evidence---Prosecution failed to connect the accused with the alleged terrorist act due to lack of independent evidence, forensic recovery, or established link with any banned outfit---Trial Court’s findings that identity and motive were unproven found to be well-reasoned and supported by record. (e) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979: ----S. 17(4)---Dacoity with murder---Proof---No direct or circumstantial evidence established respondents’ participation in armed robbery resulting in deaths of police officials---Contradictions in FIR, murasila, and eye-witness accounts, along with absence of recovery, rendered prosecution case doubtful---Acquittal affirmed. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed; acquittal of accused upheld.

Summary: “A co-sharer cannot be allowed to alter the nature of the joint land unless it is partitioned.”

Summary: “A co-sharer cannot be allowed to alter the nature of the joint land unless it is partitioned.”

Summary: (Against the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. S-2465 of 2017). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.114---Review jurisdiction---Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application to review the order passed by High Court---Validity---Issue regarding co-ownership of property had already been considered in the order under review and no flaw or error was found in that order so as to allow review application, which had been rightly dismissed as not maintainable---Petitioner failed to point out any justifiable reason warranting interference in the order of High Court---Scope of review is quite limited and only extends to mistakes apparent on the face of record and which are floating on the surface or patent shortcomings in the order which had not been pointed out---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Ashiq and others v. WAPDA Lahore through its Chairman and others 2009 SCMR 749; Government of Punjab and others v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq and others PLD 2016 SC 421; Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others 2007 SCMR 755 and Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others PLD 1998 SC 363 rel. Abdul Abid, Advocate High Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 31 hours in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place on 01.11.2017 at about 2:00 p.m. in a Mauza situated at a distance of 4-kilometers from Police Station---Law regarding that occurrence was set into motion through written application of complainant presented before Police Officer on 02.11.2017 at about 9:30 p.m. in the police station which was transformed into formal FIR---From this aspect, it manifested that the matter was reported to police with the delay of about 31 hours---Nothing was found to explain such an unwarranted delay in the registration of FIR---Prosecution though made an endeavour to cover this delay by portraying that firstly deceased in injured condition was taken to DHQ Hospital, for the purpose of medical treatment from where he was referred to General Hospital, L-(Lahore), thus the delay in reporting the matter to the police was ignorable---However, in this regard, it was noticed that when deceased in injured condition was shifted to DHQ Hospital, he was given medical treatment by Medical Officer and according to Medical Officer, the injured was brought by Head Constable on 01.11.2017 at about 3:20 p.m.---To bring the injured to the hospital by a Police Official showed that the matter had already come in the knowledge of the police within 1-hour and 20-minutes---However, it was not the case of prosecution that the complainant tried to get recorded his statement to police who refused to reduce it into writing to set the criminal law into motion---Apart from the statement of injured who gave the medical history to Medical Officer regarding the criminal assault by two unknown persons till filing of complaint, no version was recorded by the complainant to police while nominating the accused with specification---Claim of the prosecution was that two eye-witnesses saw the incident and they informed it to the complainant---Question in such circumstances arose that what made the eye-witnesses to keep mum for about 31-hours in reporting the crime to the police---Moreover, complainant during cross-examination categorically admitted that he got drafted the application from an individual from district Court/Katchari---Name of the such person was not found on record from whom the complainant got drafted the complaint---Furthermore, neither the scribe of the complaint was produced before the Investigating Officer nor at trial stage to prove that he drafted the complaint at the dictation of the complainant---Admittedly the complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident and whatever he mentioned in the complaint was told to him by the alleged two eye-witnesses---In these circumstances, the delay of 31-hours in chalking out the FIR raised eyebrow regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case---Delay in reporting the matter to the police gave rise to possibility of concoction and fabrication of facts mentioned in the crime report warranting more cautious approach from the Court---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Wajahat Ahmed and others’ case v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 2073 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by eye-witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case was furnished by two eye-witnesses---Statements of the two eye-witnesses showed that while appearing before the Trial Court, both of them made dishonest improvements and omissions in their statements---According to eye-witness, he along with his brother/other eye-witness was standing outside the shop---Said eye-witness further stated that after the occurrence he and his brother informed their father about the incident and all the three escorted deceased in injured condition to hospital---Such stance of eye-witness was confronted with his police statement where it was not so recorded---Contrarily, other eye-witness during cross-examination took the stance that he along with his brother was present at the shop of his brother/deceased---During cross-examination said witness also stated that in his statement, he took the stance that five fire shots hit on left side of abdomen, left wrist, thigh of left leg, left foot and upper side of knee of right leg of deceased---However, when such portion of cross-examination was confronted with his police statement, the specifications of locale and seat of injuries were not found therein---Besides said omissions, the statements of the two eye-witnesses were further found polluted with numerous other improvements and omissions---By doing so, eye-witnesses compromised their integrity thereby leaving a big question mark over their credibility---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ibrar Hussain and others 2007 SCMR 605 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---As per statement of Medical Officer, the injured was brought to hospital by Head Constable, however the name of none of the eye-witness was mentioned in the Medico-Legal Certificate---Said feature made it clear that had any of the eye-witness been present at the place of occurrence his name would have been reflecting in the Medico-Legal Certificate prepared by Medical Officer---Both the eye-witnesses along with the complainant in their examination-in-chief stated that they shifted the injured to hospital in injured condition---However, during the course of cross-examination, all the three witnesses took a somersault by stating that the injured was shifted to hospital through Rescue-1122---Furthermore, neither the driver of ambulance nor that of Rescue-1122 appeared in the witness box during trial---Likewise, no documentary evidence or record from Rescue-1122 was presented during trial---During cross-examination all the said three witnesses miserably failed to address the said shortcoming and did not give any answer, which might have inspired confidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence belying ocular account---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Perusal of the Medico-Legal Certificate unfolded that Medical Officer noted four entry wounds on left side of abdomen, left forearm, right knee joint and left upper leg of deceased---However, said witness in examination-in-chief stated that deceased in injured condition was brought by Head Constable with the "history of fight, firearm injury hit by two persons"---Said witness also stated that the injured was "vitally stable well oriented in time and space"---According to the Medical Officer, the injured received injuries as a result of fight and not due to the criminal assault launched by anybody---Secondly, as per prosecution's own case the complainant had already got registered two FIRs against the appellant who was none other than paternal cousin of the deceased---Thus, there was no question of mistaken identity but the injured did not disclose the name of the appellant before the Medical Officer---Even said Medical Officer during cross-examination admitted that had the injured told the name of any person he would have mentioned the same in brief history---After the incident deceased remained alive for almost 18-days and according to Medical Officer, he was stable but no application was moved by any of the Investigating Officer to record his statement---Such conduct of the Investigating Officer also made the prosecution case highly doubtful---Medical Officer while conducting postmortem examination of the deceased noted four entry wounds in Medico-Legal Certificate, however, during cross-examination he categorically admitted the variation and location of injuries between the Medico-Legal Certificate and Post Mortem Report on the body of the deceased---In such circumstances, the medical evidence was also of no help to the prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence served as a form of corroborative piece of evidence---Medical evidence could validate the version of the prosecution regarding the location and nature of injury, the type of weapon involved in the incident and the time elapsed between death and postmortem examination---However, it did not establish the identity of the perpetrator. Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others PLD 2009 SC 53 rel. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that the motive was canvassed as the registration of two criminal cases i.e. FIR No.116/2014 under Ss.324,109 & 34, P.P.C, and FIR No.297/2017 under S.324, P.P.C, both registered, against the appellant and in both the cases he was proclaimed offender---In that regard, it was observed that in support of projected motive, except oral assertion, no material was placed on record---Registration of previous criminal cases, purportedly registered against the appellant, could easily be proved by tendering in evidence the copies of FIRs---What to talk of placing on record the copies of said FIRs, the witnesses failed to give its particulars while appearing before the Trial Court---Furthermore, complainant during cross-examination admitted that the appellant was not convicted in any of the criminal cases registered against him---Complainant further admitted that while lodging the FIR, he mentioned that he got registered the two FIRs, however one was registered by him and the other was got registered by his son---During the course of cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the sister of the appellant was the wife of son of complainant who kicked her out along with children and she filed a petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., whereby she obtained the custody of her children from Sessions Judge---In such circumstances, the petition under S.491, Cr.P.C., filed against complainant's son could also be considered a factor for the false implication of the appellant in the instant case---Motive on occasions provides corroboration to the case of prosecution and often becomes a root cause for the false implication of an accused and for that reason is always considered as a double-edged weapon---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime empties from the spot doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the appellant which matched with five crime empties secured from the spot---Complainant as well as the two eye-witnesses during their respective cross-examination specifically admitted that on 01.11.2017 police prior to the registration of FIR visited the crime scene, however no crime empty was secured from the spot at the time of first visit of police---According to the first Investigating Officer, he visited the spot on 02.11.2017 and took into possession blood stained cotton and five crime empties of .30 bore pistol through recovery memos---In that regard, Investigating Officer also prepared site plan, the perusal of which unfolded that he collected five crime empties from Point-D which was a thoroughfare situated in front of the shop of the deceased---Admittedly, Investigating Officer visited the spot after more than one and a half day of the incident and the place of recovery of crime empties was a thoroughfare---Hence, it seemed not plausible that the crime empties remained lying at the spot, which were not taken into notice by police on 01.11.2017 and nobody removed the same in spite of free public movement---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Safe custody of weapon of offence, crime empties and blood stained cotton and its safe transmission to the laboratory not established---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Prosecution produced Head Constable who deposed that on 02.11.2017 Investigating Officer handed over to him two sealed parcels said to contain blood stained cotton and crime empties of pistol.30 bore which he kept the same in safe custody in Malkhana and on 08.12.2017 he handed over the said parcel to Police Official for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Agency---However, said Police Official did not utter a single word regarding the fact that on 02.11.2017 he handed over the parcel of crime empties to Head Constable and took the said parcel from him on 08.11.2017 for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Agency---In the wake of this fact, the positive report received from the Forensic Science Agency was of no use to the prosecution because the chain of safe custody was missing, which created serious doubt about the recovery of .30 bore pistol alleged to be used as a weapon at the crime scene---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Kamal Din alias Kamala v. The State 2018 SCMR 577 rel. (i) Criminal trial--- ----Absconsion of accused---Scope---Abscondment of an accused is a corroborative piece of evidence and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail. Rasool Muhammad v. Asal Muhammad and 3 others 1995 SCMR 1373 rel. Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single factor that raises doubt qua the prosecution case is considered sufficient for the acquittal of accused. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Ch. Tariq Mahmood Ghumman and Muhammad Shahzad Saeed, assisted by Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi Defence Counsel at State expenses for Appellant. Fahad-ur-Rehman for the Complainant. Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2025.

Summary: Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964) --- ----S.5, Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition ---Petitioner seeking stay of pending family court proceedings (dower/maintenance) pending decision of civil declaratory suit---Family Courts Act being a special law---Primacy over general law---Scope and effect---Brief facts were that the petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking (i) setting aside of the proceedings pending before the family court to the extent of dower, and/or (ii) stay of the said family court proceedings for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance (instituted by respondents Nos. 2 and 3) till decision of a declaratory suit pending before the civil court---The case before the family court was at the trial stage in which the petitioner had already filed written statement and issues had been framed---Held: The Family Court Act, 1964, being a special law was enacted with a specific purpose to precede expeditious settlement and disposal of dispute regarding marriage and family affairs and also matters connected there to and purpose of special law was advancement of justice and to avoid technicalities which were hindrance in ultimate justice between the parties---The special law always prevailed over provisions of general law to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency between the two---In the present case, the proceedings before the family court could not be stayed only on the ground that petitioner had filed declaratory suit for cancellation of Nikahnama---Present constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others 2017 SCMR 999 ref. The Lahore Polo Club through Secretary v. Additional District Judge and 3 others 2018 CLD 1214 and Tariq Hussain Shah v. Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and another 1996 CLC 672 ref. Muhammd Arshad Khan Fidai for Petitioner.