Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: At the time of deciding criminal case particularly when defence has taken specific plea and prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt, then trend of cross-examination conducted by the accused on the prosecution witnesses can also be taken into consideration because approach of court must be inquisitorial, rather than adversarial. 610Misc. Writ 7002/20 EFU General Insurance Limited etc Vs Province of Punjab etc Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 24- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1128 PLJ 2025 Lahore 438, PLD 2025 Lahore 604,2025 CLD 996 (Lahore)

Summary: procedure for summoning individuals as court witnesses; the Court's role while exercising its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the purpose of criminal trials and the rationale behind the incorporation of Sections 94, 244, 265-F, and 540 of the Cr.P.C, as well as Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance (QSO) and Rule 2 of Chapter 1-E, Volume III of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court. 609Jail Appeal 10245/22 Shafqat Ali Vs The State The Chief Justice 24- 03- 2025 2025 LHC 1269 PLJ 2025 Cr.C 386 (Lahore High Court, Lahore), 2025 YLR 1187 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(v), 147, 148 & 149---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah badi'ah, ghair jaifah hashimah, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he committed murder of the uncle of complainant and caused injuries to other persons---Undisputed fact that the role attributed to the present petitioner as well as to the co-accused,etc., to whom bail had already been granted by the Supreme Court was identical---Admitted fact that it was the plea of the present petitioner as well as of the co-accused in earlier round that it was a case of cross version, however, High Court did not appreciate the same in their favor, however, when the same plea was agitated by co-accused, etc., before the Supreme Court, the same was appreciated in their favor and they were granted bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2024---Therefore, when at the time of hearing of the earlier bail petition of the petitioner by this Court on 08.10.2024, the ground for grant of bail on the principle of consistency was not available to the accused/ petitioner and it was much thereafter on 16.12.2024 when the said ground had been made available to the petitioner, therefore, such ground could be considered as a fresh ground for the grant of bail---Thus, it might be reiterated that such ground was always considered as a fresh ground, which was not available to the petitioner in the earlier round---If a ground was available in the earlier round and the same had not been taken in the earlier round, then such ground could not be considered as a fresh ground, however, in the present case, the situation was altogether different as the fresh ground i.e., the principle of consistency, was not available to the present petitioner in the earlier round, therefore, the bail application on the fresh ground was maintainable and thus the ground of principle of consistency could be considered for grant of bail to the accused/ petitioner---When the role of the present petitioner and that of co-accused,etc., was identical besides they were charged in the same FIR and when the instant incident had been held as one of cross version by the Supreme Court while granting bail to co-accused, etc., then the present petitioner was also entitled for the same benefit---In that view of the matter, the petitioner's case could not be treated differently and hence, on the basis of the rule of consistency, it would also be relevant to mention here that one of the co-accused had also approached this Court for grant of bail when by then the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2024 was in field and this Court had granted bail to said accused on the ground, which prevailed with the Supreme Court, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the present accused/ petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. Abid v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 907 rel. Razaullah for Petitioner. Haq Nawaz Khan, A.A.G for the State. Asghar Ali for Respondents Nos. 2 to 10. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025.

Summary: (To review judgment of this Court dated 19.01.2023, passed in Criminal Petitions Nos. 76, 77, 125 and 150 of 2019). (a) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Possessing explosive material---Case property---Seal not belonging to investigating officer---Effect---Seal affixed on parcels of case property and samples is usually with abbreviation of the name of investigating officer---Seal not matching with name of investigating officer supports the claim of accused regarding fake recovery proceedings. (b) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 11-F (2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review of judgment---Grave miscarriage of justice---Overlooking of material evidence---Contradictions in statements of witnesses regarding date and number of parcels deposited before forensic agency---Safe custody and safe transmission of the case property and sample parcels not established---Unqualified explosives inspector---Fake proceedings carried out by police---False implication---Accused persons sought review of the judgment passed by Supreme Court maintaining conviction and sentence awarded to them---Held, that there was nothing on record to show that accused persons belonged to any proscribed / terrorist organization---None of the prosecution witnesses stated that accused persons were members of any proscribed / terrorist organizations---Complainant failed to produce any proof that accused persons belonged to banned organization---Material facts / evidence were overlooked and could not be properly appreciated at the time of pronouncement of judgment under review, which resulted into grave miscarriage of justice to accused persons---Supreme Court could review its judgment for any sufficient reasons and there were many sufficient reasons to review judgment in question---Supreme Court reviewed its judgment and set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons who were acquitted of the charge while giving them benefit of doubt---Review petition was allowed. Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Basharat Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Crl. R.Ps. Nos. 28 and 29 of 2023). Malik Jawwad Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Crl. R.P. No. 14 of 2023). Irfan Zia, Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for the State (in all cases). Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the identification of accused persons---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of the abductee, deposed that she disclosed the names of the accused as AR, AW, KB, and AM, but did not mention the names of AH, GB, or Q---In contrast, the complainant, in her testimony, stated that her daughter (the abductee) disclosed the names of the accused as AR, Q, KB, and GB---Furthermore, another prosecution witness, the brother of the abductee, deposed that his sister named AR, A, KB, AW and AM as the accused---Such glaring inconsistencies raised serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's version---Evidently, abductee did not consistently or correctly identify the accused persons--- Even before the trial Court, abductee failed to make any statement identifying accused A, from whom her alleged Nikah was performed---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Credibility of complainant doubtful---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---Complainant deposed that her daughter had left the house to visit a relative and when a considerable time had passed and she did not return, then they began searching for her---Such version was also affirmed by the abductee herself, who stated that she had set out to meet a relative but was subsequently kidnapped---Prosecution witness disclosed that the name of the said relative was "Z"---However, what raised serious doubt was the surprising fact that when the abductee did not return, the family did not immediately approaching "Z"'s house to confirm her whereabouts, it created a significant gap in the prosecution story and casted doubt on its credibility---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Admission of abductee---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---Admission made by the abductee in her deposition undermined the credibility of the prosecution's case---Abductee categorically admitted that she did not implicate accused persons "KB" and "AR" in the commission of the alleged offence---Furthermore, abductee also admitted that she had filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court against her own father and brother---Said admission not only created doubt on her version but also indicated a false implication or manipulation of facts---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 15-days in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---In this case, there was an unexplained delay of approximately 15 days in the registration of the FIR---Despite the serious nature of the allegation that a young lady was kidnapped by the accused party and one of the accused was allegedly identified by the complainant, no immediate report was made to the police---Such inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR formed serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story---Furthermore, the abductee herself claimed that she managed to escape from the custody of the accused, which in itself raised a significant question that under what circumstances she was able to escape unassisted, if she had indeed been kept under forceful confinement---Adding to that doubt was the fact that although abductee appeared before the police on 17-07-2017 , her judicial statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., was recorded after delay of five days---Said sequence of delays, both in FIR registration and in recording of the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., casted serious doubt upon prosecution case---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. Faiz Muhammad alias Faiz v. The State 2023 PCr.LJ 121; Fida Hussain and others v. The State and others 2023 PCr.LJ 1546 and Ahsan v. The State 2024 YLR 578 ref. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Defective investigation---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant disclosed that he had obtained the mobile numbers of accused "Q", but despite attempts, he could not make contact---Once the mobile numbers came into the knowledge of the police, there was no explanation or record of any concrete steps taken by the Investigating Agency to trace the culprits through geo-location, Call Data Records (CDRs), or by approaching the concerned Mobile Service Providers to determine the location or ownership details of said numbers---Conduct of the police gave the impression that no proactive investigation was undertaken and that they merely waited for the abductee to reappear, rather than making timely and serious efforts to recover her or apprehend the alleged accused---Moreover, the complainant did not make any serious or effective efforts to locate the accused by utilizing modern means of communication and investigation, despite being in possession of the mobile numbers allegedly used by the accused---In the present digital age, where location tracking, call record analysis and mobile surveillance are readily available as investigative tools, the complainant's failure to initiate or request any such steps further weakened the prosecution's stance---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. (f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---According to the FIR, the complainant specifically alleged that one woman, along with accused "MQ" and two unidentified persons, abducted his daughter in a car---However, entire prosecution story thereafter remained silent regarding the presence of any woman among the accused, the abductee herself stated that she was kidnapped by five male accused persons and she did not mention the involvement or presence of any woman during the commission of the alleged offence---Such material contradiction between the FIR and the statement of the abductee struck at the root of the prosecution case and created serious doubt regarding the truthfulness and consistency of the allegations---In his deposition, the brother of the abductee stated that immediately after the incident, his father (the complainant) informed the police within one and a half hours and the police visited the place of occurrence and recorded his statement---Said witness further deposed that his initial statement was recorded by the police on 08-05-2017, the date of the incident and that his further statement was recorded two days later---However, that version was entirely contradictory to the main prosecution case---Firstly, neither the complainant nor the Investigating Officer had corroborated the claim that the police were informed on the day of the incident---In fact, the FIR itself was lodged after a delay of 15 days---Secondly, statement of brother of abductee that his further statement was recorded two days after the incident was belied by the prosecution record---Further statement, as exhibited in Court, bore the date 17-07-2017, which was a delay of more than 52 days from the date of the FIR---Said significant flaw indicated fabrication of evidence and lack of truthful testimony---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 365-B, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Kidnapping, abduction, or inducing of a woman to compel her to marry a person against her will or to engage in illicit intercourse, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of abductee---Accused were charged for abducting the daughter of complainant forcibly---In her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., abductee stated that when she was presented before the Lahore High Court, she was in an unconscious state---Abductee specifically deposed that she was produced and made to appear before the Judge of the High Court in an unconscious condition---However, a bare perusal of the order of the Lahore High Court revealed no such observation or indication that the abductee was unconscious at the time of her appearance---On the contrary, the order clearly recorded that the counsel along with the petitioner (abductee) appeared before the Court, as it directly pertained to the mental and physical capacity of the abductee to appear and be heard---Such inconsistency strongly suggested that the abductee's claim of unconsciousness was an afterthought, seemingly designed to discredit or discard the legal effect of the judicial proceedings and documents recorded in that case---Appeal against the conviction of accused persons was allowed, in circumstances. Shabbir Ali Bozdar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-38 of 2024). Shabbir Ali Bozdar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-39 of 2024). Sajjad Ahmed Khokhar for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. S-40 of 2024). Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-41 of 2024). Munwar Ali Shaikh for the Complainant. Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025. Judgment Ali Haider 'Ada', J .--- The appellants named above through the captioned appeals assailed the judgment Dated 30-04-2024 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge/Gender Based Violence Court Khairpur (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No. 01/2018 Re. (The State v. Ashiq Hussain and others), under Crime No. 54/2017, for offences punishable under section 365-B, 148, 149 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kumb, whereby the appellants named above were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) each to the victim Gul Bano, in case of default in payment whereof, they shall suffer S.I for six months more with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Complainant Khan Muhammad lodged the FIR on 08-05-2017 alleging therein that Gul Bano aged about 27/28 years is his unmarried daughter. On the day of report at about 1500 hours she went in the neighborhood but did not came back, hence complainant along with his son Zahid Hussain and brother Muhammad Hassan went to search Gul Bano by a motorcycle. At about 4-00 pm when they reached near village Jindal Juno situated at link road leading from Nangreja to Ranipur, where they saw that accused Muhammad Qabil son of Moula Bux along with two other male persons and one woman were forcibly restrained Gul Bano and made to sit in the car, but she was crying, but accused persons abducted away Gul Bano in the car. The complainant party was searching of his daughter and also contacted accused Muhammad Qabil through his mobile numbers 0303-2946386 and 0303-3720181 but failed. Ultimately appeared at Police Station and lodged the above said FIR. After recovery of victim her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein she disclosed the names of other culprits as Adloo, Arzoo, Wahidoo, Ghous Bux and Ashiq Hussain. The PW Zahid Hussain recorded his further statement and nominated accused namely Allah Rakhio, Ashiq Hussain, Khuda Bux, Adloo and Arzoo. 3. After completion of usual investigation, the I.O submitted the challan before the Court of law. Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kotdiji, after completing formalities against absconding accused (Exhs. 1 to 3), sent up the case to the Learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur, wherefrom it was entrusted to Trial Court for disposal. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Judicial Magistrate during proceedings against absconding accused, in his order dated 23.10.2017 passed on the statement of process server HC Liaquat Ali, observed and treated the accused Adloo and Wahid are one and same person and his complete name is Abdul Wahid alias Adloo son of Allah Rakhio. 4. After supplying the case papers to accused Ashiq Hussain, Allah Rakhio, Khuda Bux, Adul Wahid alias Adloo and Arz Muhammad alias Arzoo a formal charge against them was framed at Ex.4, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. Thereafter, accused Ghous Bux joined trial, therefore, case papers were supplied to him and then amended charge was framed against accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried vide their pleas recorded at Exs.12 to 17. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW/1 SIP Loung Khan at Exh.18, he produced mashirnama of site inspection and roznamcha entries Nos.14 and 21. PW/2 complainant Khan Muhammad examined at Exh.19, who produced FIR, PW/3 victim Gul Bano at Exh.20, she produced her statement under section 164, Cr.PC. PW/4 Zahid Hussain Juno at Exh.21/A, he produced his further statement, PW/5 ASI Ameer Ali Shar at Exh.22, he produced mashirnama of arrest of accused, PW/6 ASI Dattar Dino Shar at Exh.23, PW/7 Muhammad Hassan Juno at Exh.24, PW/8 Abdul Hakeem Sangi, learned Judicial Magistrate (through video link) at Exh.25, he produced letter of SIO at Exh.25/A. Thereafter, learned ADPP for the State closed the side of prosecution vide his statement at Exh.26. 6. Statements of accused as provided under section 342, Cr.PC were recorded at Ex.27 to 32, wherein they denied the allegations of prosecution and prayed for justice. Accused neither examined themselves on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C nor produced any witness in their defense. Accused took plea that they have not abducted Mst. Gul Bano but she has contracted Nikah with accused Ashiq Hussain with her own wish and will; accused Ashiq during his statement produced some documents at Exhs.27/A to 27/E. They prayed for acquittal. 7. On 21-08-2024 the complainant along with alleged abductee appeared before this Court through their counsel and has sworn their affidavits that they have no objection if the said appeals are hereby allowed. 8. Learned counsel for appellants argued that appellants are falsely implicated while alleged abductee of her own free will performed Nikah with one co-accused namely Ashiq Hussain and they were produced before Learned Lahore High Court Bench at Bahawalpur and alleged abductee filed petition against father who was complainant in this case but later on after returning home she changed her version. They further argued that FIR was lodged after delay of 15 days without any explanation and alleged abductee appeared before police on 17-07-2017 while her 164 statement was recorded after delay of 05 days. The reliance placed by the parties on the case of Faiz Muhammad alias Faiz v. The State, reported in 2023 PCr.LJ. 121, Fida Hussain and others v. The State and others, reported in 2023 PCr.LJ. 1546 and Ahsan v. The State, reported in 2024 YLR 578. Finally, prayed for acquittal. 9. On the other hand Learned State Counsel opposed the appeals and supported the impugned verdict and further contended that statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C is fully supported and abduction is proved against the appellants and she sworn affidavits before Lahore High Court Bench in Bahawalpur under pressure according to her deposition, finally he prays to maintain the conviction of the appellants. 10. Heard Arguments and perused the material available on record. 11. From the very outset, the prosecution case becomes doubtful due to material contradictions in the identification of the accused persons. The Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement of the abductee, deposed that she disclosed the names of the accused as Allah Rakhio, Adloo (Abdul Wahid), Khuda Bux, and Arzoo (Arz Muhammad), but did not mention the names of Ashiq Hussain, Ghous Bux, or Qabil. In contrast, the complainant, in her testimony, stated that her daughter (the abductee) disclosed the names of the accused as Allah Rakhio, Qabil, Khuda Bux, and Ghous Bux. Furthermore, another prosecution witness, the brother of the abductee, deposed that his sister named Allah Rakhio, Ashiq, Khuda Bux, Adloo, and Arzoo as the accused. These glaring inconsistencies raise serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's version. It is evident that the abductee did not consistently or correctly identify the accused persons. Even before the trial court, she failed to make any statement identifying accused Ashiq, from whom her alleged Nikah was performed. 12. The second significant aspect casting doubt on the prosecution case is the statement of the complainant, who deposed that her daughter had left the house to visit a relative. When a considerable time had passed and she did not return, then they began searching for her. This version was also affirmed by the abductee herself, who stated that she had set out to meet a relative but was subsequently kidnapped. A prosecution witness, namely Hassan, disclosed that the name of the said relative was Zahida. However, what raises serious doubt is the surprising fact that when the abductee did not return, the family, did not immediately approaching Zahida's house to confirm her whereabouts, it creates a significant gap in the prosecution story and cast doubt on its credibility. 13. Another serious point that undermines the credibility of the prosecution's case is the admission made by the abductee in her deposition. She categorically admitted that she did not implicate accused persons Khuda Bux and Allah Rakhio in the commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, she also admitted that she had filed a constitutional petition before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, against her own father and brother. This admission not only creates doubt on her version but also indicates a false implication or manipulation of facts. 14. Now, coming to the factual array of the case, there is an unexplained delay of approximately 15 days in the registration of the FIR. Despite the serious nature of the allegation that a young lady was kidnapped by the accused party and one of the accused was allegedly identified by the complainant. Whilst no immediate report was made to the police. This inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR forms serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story. Furthermore, the abductee herself claimed that she managed to escape from the custody of the accused, which in itself raises a significant question that under what circumstances she able to escape unassisted, if she had indeed been kept under forceful confinement. Adding to this doubt is the fact that although she appeared before the police on 17-07-2017, her judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded after delay of five days. This sequence of delays, both in FIR registration and in recording of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C casts serious doubt upon prosecution case. 15. As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant disclosed that he had obtained the mobile numbers of accused Qabil, specifically 0303-3720181 and 0303-2946386, but despite attempts, he could not make contact. A important point of concern arises here, once these mobile numbers came into the knowledge of the police, there is no explanation or record of any concrete steps taken by the investigating agency to trace the culprits through geo-location, Call Data Records (CDRs), or by approaching the concerned Mobile Service Providers to determine the location or ownership details of said numbers. The conduct of the police gives the impression that no proactive investigation was undertaken and that they merely waited for the abductee to reappear, rather than making timely and serious efforts to recover her or apprehend the alleged accused. Moreover, it is also noteworthy that even the complainant did not make any serious or effective efforts to locate the accused by utilizing modern means of communication and investigation, despite being in possession of the mobile numbers allegedly used by the accused. In the present digital age, where location tracking, call record analysis, and mobile surveillance are readily available investigative tools, the complainant's failure to initiate or request any such steps further weakens the prosecution's stance. 16. According to the FIR, the complainant specifically alleged that one woman, along with accused Muhammad Qabil and two unidentified persons, abducted his daughter in a car. However, entire prosecution story thereafter remains silent regarding the presence of any woman among the accused, the abductee herself, stated that she was kidnapped by five male accused persons; and she did not mention the involvement or presence of any woman during the commission of the alleged offence. This material contradiction between the FIR and the statement of the abductee strikes at the root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness and consistency of the allegations. 17. A new fact emerges in the prosecution case from the statement of the abductee recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she stated that when she was presented before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, she was in an unconscious state. She specifically deposed, "I was produced and made to appear before the Honourable Judge of the Court in an unconscious condition." However, a bare perusal of the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench revealed that no such observation or indication that the abductee was unconscious at the time of her appearance. On the contrary, the order clearly records that the learned counsel along with the petitioner (abductee) appeared before the Court, as it directly pertained to the mental and physical capacity of the abductee to appear and be heard. This inconsistency strongly suggests that the abductee's claim of unconsciousness was an afterthought, seemingly designed to discredit or discard the legal effect of the judicial proceedings and documents recorded in that case. 18. The prosecution also relies upon the testimony of Witness Zahid Hussain, the brother of the abductee. In his deposition, he stated that immediately after the incident, his father (the complainant) informed the police within one and a half hours and the police visited the place of occurrence and recorded his statement. He further deposed that his initial statement was recorded by the police on 08-05-2017, the date of the incident, and that his further statement was recorded two days later. However, this version is entirely contradictory to the main prosecution case. Firstly, neither the complainant nor the investigating officer has corroborated the claim that the police were informed on the day of the incident. In fact, the FIR itself was lodged after a delay of 15days, Secondly, Zahid Hussain's statement that his further statement was recorded two days after the incident is belied by the prosecution record. The further statement, as exhibited in court, bears the date 17-07-2017, which is a delay of more than 52 days from the date of the FIR. This significant flaw indicates fabrication of evidence and lack of truthful testimony. 19. During the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., accused Ashiq Hussain produced substantial documentary evidence in his defence, including a free will affidavit executed by the abductee (Mst. Gul Bano), wherein she categorically affirmed that she had contracted marriage with Ashiq Hussain of her own free will and without any pressure or coercion, the Nikah Nama evidencing the said marriage was also produced on record. Furthermore, a Constitutional Petition filed by the abductee before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, titled Mst. Gul Bano v. District Police Officer, Rahim Yar Khan and others, was submitted by the defence. In this petition, the abductee herself had arrayed her father (the complainant), her brother Zahid Hussain, and others as respondents, alleging harassment at their behest. The Hon'ble High Court passed the following order Dated 11-05-2017, which is crucial to reproduce here for its evidentiary and legal value:- Mr. Muhammad Imran Pasha, Advocate for the Petitioner along with Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner, being sui juris, contracted marriage with Ashiq Hussain from her own free will and consent; further submits that respondent No.2 on the behest of respondents Nos.4 to 12 is harassing the petitioner without any reason; further submits that respondent No.2 may kindly be restrained from harassing and humiliating the petitioner and her husband as well. 2. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 not to harass and humiliate the petitioner as well as her husband in any manner whatsoever. However, if any legal proceedings are pending before him, he shall proceed in accordance with law." 20. This order of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court established that at the relevant time, the abductee had not only appeared before the Court consciously and voluntarily, but had also affirmed her marriage with the accused, and sought protection from her own family members. This documented judicial proceeding seriously undermines the prosecution's later narrative and points towards a deliberate attempt to suppress material facts and manipulate the course of justice. 21. It is also worth noting that the abductee herself, as an applicant, filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge / Justice of Peace, Ghotki and seeking protection. This petition was duly filed and an order was passed on 07-07-2017. Upon perusal of the entire judicial record, it clearly transpires that the abductee swore to the contents of the petition voluntarily and without any duress or coercion. If a person is truly under threat or has a genuine fear from the accused side, it is highly improbable that she would approach the court on her own, present her sworn affidavit, and seek relief and if, there had been any real and immediate danger, the court would have certainly granted her protective measures, including the arrest of any person threatening her. This aspect significantly undermines the prosecution's subsequent claim that the abductee acted under threat or was coerced by the accused. It is implausible that an individual who is under fear or pressure from the accused would voluntarily file a legal petition before a competent court. Thus, the filing of such an application for protection, in her own name, and the absence of any claim of coercion in that proceeding, further weakens the prosecution case and lends support to the defense that the case has been falsify at a later stage. 22. In the present case, the charge was framed under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.), which reads as follows: Section 365-B P.P.C.: "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine." 23. The prosecution's narrative appears to rest upon the assumption that the Nikah between the abductee and the accused was forged; and that the accused induced the abductee to believe she was lawfully married to him. However, such an allegation falls within the purview of Section 493-A P.P.C., which is reproduced hereunder for reference: Section 493-A P.P.C.: "Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine." 24. It is crucial to highlight that the prosecution has failed to challenge the validity of the Nikah through proper legal means rendering the application of Section 365-B P.P.C. highly questionable and instead, shifting the discussion, if at all, towards Section 493-A P.P.C., which also lacks proper evidentiary support in this case. 25. In support of the above-mentioned contentions, I am fortified by the judgment rendered in the case of Ahsan v. The State (2024 YLR 578), wherein it was held by this Court that:- 33. In criminal cases, the evidence produced by the prosecution should be in chain and if the chain is not complete or any doubt which occurred in the prosecution's case that is sufficient to demolish the structure of evidence the benefit thereof must go to the accused especially when the accused had taken a stance of his false implication on account of enmity, which cannot be brushed aside in view of contradictions and discrepancies, referred herein above. In appeal against conviction, the Court is under heavy obligation to access by thinking and rethinking, lest an innocent person fall a prey to my ignorance of facts and ignorance of law. The Court must not close its eyes to human conducts and behavior while deciding criminal cases, failing which the result will be drastic and impacts will be far from repair. The cardinal principle of justice always laid emphasis on the quality of evidence which must be first degree and sufficient enough to dispel the apprehension of the Court with regards to the implication of innocent persons along with guilty one by the prosecution, otherwise the golden principle of justice would come into play that even a single doubt if found reasonable would be sufficient to acquit the accused, giving him/them benefit of doubt because bundle of doubts are not required to extend the legal benefit to the accused. In this regard, reliance is placed on a view held by the Hona'ble Supreme Court in the case of Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State (1995 SCMR 1730) and Sardar Ali v. Hameedullah and others (2019 PCr.L] 186). Likewise, it is a well settled principle of law that accused continues with presumption of innocence until found guilty at the end of the trial, for which the prosecution is bound to establish its case against the accused beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt by producing confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence. It is a cardinal principle of administration of justice that in criminal cases the burden to prove its case rests entirely on the prosecution. The prosecution is duty bound to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and this duty does not change or vary in the case in which no defence plea is either taken or established by the accused and no benefit would occur to the prosecution on that account and its duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt would not diminish. The prosecution has not been able to bring on record any convincing evidence against appellant to establish his involvement in the doubt, rather, there are so many circumstances, discussed above creating doubts in the prosecution case and according to golden principle of benefit of doubt one substantial doubt would be enough for acquittal of the accused. The rule of benefit of doubt is essentially a rule of prudence,

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 344, 249-A & 265-K---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 20 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art . 199---Filing of private criminal complaint by the Bank against accused / customer , challenging of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Summoning of accused not being challenged by the customer/ accused---Effect---Alternate remedy, availability of---Petitioners (customers) challenged filing of criminal private complaint by filing constitutional petition on the ground that civil litigation was already pending before the Banking Court on the same subject, thus, proceedings should be stayed till final decision of the civil litigation---Validity---Record (including appended copies of complaint along with order sheet) reflected that the Banking Court had passed order under S.204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ('Cr.P.C') while taking cognizance of the matter and summoning the accused (petitioners) to face trial---But no supplication to challenge said summoning order had been made by the petitioners /accused; whereas such order, being judicial in nature, was assailable, however, none of the petitioners ever challenged the same---Non-assailing of the order whereby cognizance was taken by the Judge Banking Court, would imply that the petitioners had submitted to jurisdiction of the Banking Court in the complaint against them --- After failure of the petitioners to challenge the summoning order, if they wanted stay of criminal proceedings pending civil litigation, they could move an application under S.344 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court with prayer to postpone the commencement of trial or adjourn the trial, if already commenced, pending decision in the respective civil proceedings---Provision under S.344 of the Cr.P.C. denotes that a court may postpone the initiation of any inquiry or trial or may adjourn any inquiry or trial which is already in progress---Postponement of the commencement or adjournment of trial can be made due to the absence of a witness or for any other reasonable cause ---Petitioners could even have approached the Trial Court by moving application under S.265-K of Cr.P.C. seeking their acquittal at any stage---S.265-K of Cr.P.C. provides jurisdiction to Trial Court to discharge/acquit an accused if it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence---In the present case, the petitioners instead of exhausting any of such adequate efficacious remedies available to them, had opted to approach the High Court directly by invoking the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution ---A constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable when a person has an adequate, efficacious alternate remedy--- In light of the availability of an alternate remedy to the petitioners under S.344 or 265-K of the Cr.P.C. and in the absence of any compelling reasons with the petitioners to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court the present petition could not be entertained---Constitutional petition, being non- maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani PLD 2016 SC 55 and Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Lahore v. Yasir Majeed Sheikh 2021 SCMR 624 ref. Messrs Long Grain Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive v. Habib Bank Limited through Senior Manager (CAD) and Senior Manager (Remedial) and another 2016 CLD 551 distinguished. Syed Zeeshan Haider Zaidi for Petitioners. Muhammad Nadeem for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025. Judgment Raheel Kamran, J .-- -The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the ('Constitution') to challenge the filing of private complaint under section 20 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as 'FIO 2001') by the respondent No.2-Bank against the petitioners and proforma respondent No.3 during pendency of civil litigation before the Banking Court on the same subject. 2. The petitioners as well as pro forma respondent No.3 have been arrayed as accused in the private complaint filed by respondent-Bank on the allegation that they removed the hypothecated stocks, etc. It is asserted in the petition that civil suit instituted by the respondent-bank against the petitioners and pro forma respondent No. 3 is pending and during pendency of such civil suit, criminal complaint has been filed. Prayer of the petitioners is that filing of the criminal complaint be declared illegal and proceedings thereof be ordered to be stayed till final decision of the civil litigation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of this petition by contending that adequate alternate remedies are available to the petitioners either to approach the trial court by filing application to seek postponement of the proceedings till determination of the civil liability under section 344 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C.') or to seek acquittal under section 265K of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel while making reference to the case of Sheikh Muhammad Anwar and 4 others v. Judge Banking Court and another (2024 CLD 724) submits that the trial court is empowered to postpone proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that criminal liability is intimately connected with the outcome of civil proceedings. Learned counsel emphasizes that even otherwise, the suit instituted by the respondent-Bank against the petitioners has already been decreed. He finally contends that after filing of the complaint, the order passed by the Banking Court taking cognizance of the matter, which is assailable, was not assailed by the petitioners through appropriate proceedings, as such they are precluded from agitating such grievance by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the dicta laid down in the case of Messrs Long Grain Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive v. Habib Bank Limited through Senior Manager (CAD) and Senior Manager (Remedial) and another (2016 CLD 551) contends that the petition is maintainable. 5. In view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court deems it necessary to first address and resolve the issue of maintainability as a preliminary matter before proceeding to examine the substantive aspects of the petition, so as to ensure that the proceedings are properly before it. 6. The petitioners have challenged the filing of complaint before the Judge Banking Court as is evident from perusal of the prayer clause. No supplication to challenge the summoning order has been made despite the fact that copies of complaint along with order sheet are appended with the petition, perusal whereof reflects that the Banking Court has passed order under section 204 of Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the matter and summoning the accused (petitioners) to face trial. Such order being judicial in nature, is assailable, however, none of the petitioners ever challenged the same. Non-assailing of the order whereby cognizance was taken by the Judge Banking Court, would imply that the petitioners have submitted to jurisdiction of the Banking Court in the complaint against them. After failure of the petitioners to challenge the summoning order, if they wanted stay of criminal proceedings pending civil litigation, they could move an application under section 344 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court with prayer to postpone the commencement of trial or adjourn the trial if already commenced pending decision in the respective civil proceedings. Subsection (1) of section 344 of Cr.P.C. reads: - "344. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings. (1) If, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn any inquiry or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor, from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:" Plain reading of the text of this section denotes that a court may postpone the initiation of any inquiry or trial or may adjourn any inquiry or trial which is already in progress. Postponement of the commencement or adjournment of trial can be made due to the absence of a witness or for any other reasonable cause. 7. The petitioners could even have approached the trial court by moving application under section 265-K of Cr.P.C. seeking their acquittal at any stage. Section 265K of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder for the ready reference. "265K. Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent a Court from acquitting an accused at any stage of the case, if, after hearing the prosecutor and the accused and for reasons to be recorded, it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence." Section 265K ibid provides jurisdiction to trial court to discharge/acquit an accused if it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence. 8. In the instant case, the petitioners instead of exhausting any of such adequate efficacious remedies available to them, have opted to approach this Court directly by invoking the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution. 9. By now it is well-established that a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable when a person has an adequate, efficacious alternate remedy. In light of the availability of an alternate remedy to the petitioners under Section 344 or 265K of the Cr.P.C. and in the absence of any compelling reasons with the petitioners to invoke the writ jurisdiction, the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners side in the case of Messrs Long Grain Rice Mills (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is not maintainable, which is dismissed as such. MQ/A-28/L. Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of four hours and fifty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Not fatal to the prosecution case---Accused were charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 05.03.2021 at 04:00 a.m. in the house of acquitted accused situated in the area of Kand Stop---Distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 10 kilometers---It was duly mentioned in the police proceedings incorporated at the bottom of Fard Bayyan that on the intimation regarding the occurrence of the incident the Investigating Officer reached at Kanda Stop on 05.03.2021 and upon reaching Kanda Stop, the complainant met him and the Investigating Officer recorded that the statement of the complainant based on which the FIR was registered on 05.03.2021 at 08:55 a.m.---Police proceedings revealed that the statement of the complainant was recorded at Kanda Stop---Similarly, eye-witness deposed that the police reached the place of occurrence at 07:30/7:45 a.m.--- Court witness/Police Constable deposed that they reached the place of occurrence at the time of Azan of Fajar---Incident took place on 05.03.2021 at about 04:00 a.m., and the timing of Fajar was between 5:00 a.m. and 06:15 a.m.---Team of the crime scene unit also reached the place of occurrence---Thus, the place of the incident was far from the village, so there was no undue delay in reporting the incident---According to the Investigating Officer, he met the complainant at 07:00/7:30 in the morning and wrote his statement---Time for writing the statement started at 07:00/7:30, and after writing it, it was written at the bottom of the document as 8:50, proving that he took that time to write the statement---Delay, if any, in registration of the FIR in question, had been explained by the defence itself during the cross-examination conducted upon the prosecution witnesses and was, therefore, not fatal to the case of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Place of incident---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Defence plea was that the incident had taken place at a barren house and on the following morning the people of the locality intimated the police about the presence of the dead body, whereupon the police recovered the dead body---Defence itself brought the fact on the record through cross-examination that the complainant was residing next to the house where the incident occurred---Defence itself proved that the place of occurrence was not a barren house, but rather the incident of the murder of deceased took place in the house of co-accused (since acquitted), who was the father of the appellant---In that regard, the draftsman was not questioned---Rather, as per the draftsman, the house was owned by (co-accused since acquitted)--- So, the prosecution proved that the incident had not occurred at the deserted house but rather the place of occurrence shown in the scaled site plan was the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered and witnesses witnessed the incident---Contention of the defence was also untenable as the Investigating Officer secured the blood with the cotton from the room of appellant and the house of acquitted accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Plea of alibi not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Appellant alleged that he was at L-(Lahore) on the day of the incident and did not commit the incident---However, the appellant had not produced any material evidence or witnesses to establish his plea---Rather the complainant specifically deposed during examination-in-chief that on 04.03.2021, he, given up witness and eye-witness visited the house of accused etc.; they remained busy in talking with each other, while sitting in the courtyard of the house of accused etc; they conversed with the appellant to pacify and cool down the situation---Thereafter, the complainant, given up witness and eye-witness left the house of the appellant and went to their houses---On the following morning i.e. 05.03.2021 at about 04:00 a.m. of the same night, the complainant, given up witness and eye-witness were attracted to the house of accused persons on hearing hue and cry, where they witnessed the incident---Defence had not denied these facts---Instead, the defence asked specific questions about the presence of complainant and eye-witness and about the presence of the dead body, to which both witnesses replied---Statements of said witnesses were consistent on that point---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Burden to prove---Accused were charged for committing murder of his wife/daughter of complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Offence took place inside the house of the appellant--- When the inmates of the house were present at the time of incident, it would be obligation of the appellant being husband of the deceased to explain the circumstances leading to her death---In the instant case, the defence had failed to establish that the appellant or his family members reported the incident of the murder of the deceased to police--- Soon after the incident, the appellant did not come forward to report the incident, nor did he claim that he received the dead body of the deceased or that he and his family took part in the last rites/funeral ceremonies---Husband had to explain how the wife received injuries or had to offer acceptable explanation in that regard---From the said circumstances, prosecution succeeded in leading evidence that the crime was committed in the home of the accused and husband could not offer any explanation that how the wife received injuries, which would go against the defence plea---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Rai Muhammad Naeem Kharal for Appellant. Rana Ahsan Aziz, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Basharat, Vice Counsel for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 24th March, 2025. Judgment Aalia Neelum, C.J .--- The appellant-Shafqat Ali son of Mushtaq Ahmad, Caste Bhutta, resident of Kanda Stop 13/KB, Tehsil and District, Pakpattan has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Judge MCTC, Pakpattan vide judgment dated 29.01.2022 in a private complaint filed under sections 302, 34 P.P.C Police Station, Kalyana, District Pakpattan whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant-Shafqat Ali under section 302(b) P.P.C and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with the direction to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A of Cr.P.C and in case of default in payment thereof, to undergo 06-months S.I further. The benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C was also extended in favor of the appellant. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence by filing the instant appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.10245 of 2022. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant also filed Crl. Rev. No.28168/2022 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant and P.S.L.A. No.28166/2022 against acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 4. As all the matters arise from the same judgment of the trial court, these are being disposed of through consolidated judgment. 3. Briefly, the prosecution story as alleged in the private complaint (Ex. PB) of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant is that the accused, Shafqat Ali and Maqsood Ahmad, were real brothers inter-se along with their parents, Mushtaq Ahmad and Shamshad Bibi alias Shado, who were involved in this case. The accused, Shafqat Ali, was the husband of Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) and son-in-law of complainant (PW-1). The accused, Shafqat Ali, was married to Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) in 2016 and out of wedlock, two sons and a daughter were born. About 4/5 months prior to the occurrence, gold ornaments of Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) were stolen, and she suspected her mother-in-law Shamshad alias Shado and Maqsood Ahmad that they had committed said theft, whereupon relations between Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) and her in-laws became strained. The accused, Shafqat Ali and his family members, used to torture Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased), who left the house of her in-laws and came to her parents. About 15 days before the occurrence, the accused, Shafqat Ali, visited the complainant's house and requested Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) to come to his house, whereupon the complainant pacified the situation and sent Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) with the accused, Shafqat Ali. On 04.03.2021, the complainant, along with Shaukat Ali and Mazhar Shahid, PWs, visited the house of the accused, Shafqat Ali, etc., and they remained busy talking with each other while sitting in the courtyard of the house of Shafqat Ali, the accused. On 05.03.2021, at about 04:00 a.m. (morning), the complainant and PWs were attracted to the house of the accused, Shafqat Ali, who was quarreling with Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased). The accused persons were equipped with their respective weapons, and the co-accused, Shamshad Bibi alias Shado, raised a lalkara that Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) should have been taught a lesson for levelling false allegations, upon which, the accused, Mushtaq Ahmad, gave a Toka blow, which landed on the right shoulder near the neck of Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased), Maqsood Ahmad inflicted a hatchet blow, which landed on the left side of the head of Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased), who fell, and then the accused, Shafqat Ali, gave a hatchet blow, which landed in front of the neck of Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased). The complainant (PW-1), Shaukat Ali, and Mazhar Shahid, PWs, witnessed the occurrence in the light of an electric bulb. After the alleged occurrence, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence, whereas Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. 4. The motive behind the occurrence was that gold ornaments of Mst. Humaira Bibi (deceased) was robbed at her in-laws ' house, and she suspected that said gold ornaments were stolen by the accused, Shamshad Bibi alias Shado and Maqsood Ahmad, due to which the incident occurred. 5. The complainant, Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), reported the incident through "Fard bayan" (Ex.PA), whereupon a formal FIR (Ex.CW4/A) was chalked out by Shamas Din 67/H.C (CW-4). After registration of case, the investigation of this case was conducted by Ihsan Ahmad, S.I. (CW-8), who having found the accused/appellant guilty, prepared report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Being dis-satisfied with the result of investigation, as the investigating officer being in league with the accused did not investigate the matter properly and declared co-accused of the appellant innocent, the complainant was constrained to file private complaint (Ex.PB) and after recording the cursory evidence of the complainant and having perused the record, all the accused persons were found connected with the commission of offence, so they all were summoned to face the charge. Thereafter, the learned trial court formally charge sheeted the appellant on 31.07.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its version, the complainant produced as many as eight (08) witnesses. The appellant was also examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.P.C., wherein he did not opt to appear as his own witness in terms of section 340(2) but also refused to adduce any evidence in his defence. In response to a particular question of why this case was against him and why the PWs deposed against him, the appellant, Shafqat Ali, made the following deposition: - "The complainant party got registered this false case against me, my brother, my father and my mother, who were co-accused due to ulterior motive and due to suspicion. The story of the complainant party was disbelieved by the police and my brother, my mother and my father co-accused were declared not involved in this occurrence during the unchallenged investigation. I was married with Humaira Bibi deceased in year 2016, out of the wedlock of Humaira Bibi two sons and one daughter were born. I shifted to Lahore after my marriage along with my family. I used to run a rickshaw in Lahore. Meanwhile my wife Humaira Bibi deceased used to visit the house of her parents in our village and she developed illicit relations with some person of our village and she refused to live with me in Lahore. Six months prior to this occurrence she left my house situated in Lahore and came to the house of her parents after an altercation with me. I do not know who committed her murder, however, I was present in Lahore on the fateful night and it came into my knowledge on the morning of 05.03.2021 that her dead body was found lying in a barren house of our village. The people of the village informed the police upon which I.O, visited the spot and he prepared the site plan of said place in inquest report Ex.CW1/D. Thereafter, the I.O got registered this false case against me, my brother, my father, and my mother, who were co-accused being in league with the complainant party and then prepared another fake site plan Ex.CW8/A while showing the place of occurrence as the house of my father. All the PWs are interested witnesses as they are close relative of each other and at a same time they are inimical against me and my co-accused due to reason that complainant party conceded that I pushed out Humaira Bibi from my residence at Lahore. Due to this reason they have falsely deposed against me and my co-accused persons." 6. After recording evidence and evaluating the evidence available on record considering arguments advanced from both sides, the learned trial court found the prosecution version proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, which resulted in the appellant's conviction and sentence in the afore-stated terms. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record on the file. 8. As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 05.03.2021 at 04:00 a.m in the house of Mushtaq Ahmad (since acquitted), situated in the area of Kanda Stop, 13/K.B, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Kalyana, District Pakpattan, wherein Shamshad Bibi (since acquitted), Mushtaq Ahmad (since acquitted), Maqsood Ahmad (since acquitted), and Shafqat Ali (the appellant) quarreled with Mst. Humaira Bibi, daughter of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), the complainant. After that, Mushtaq Ahmad (since acquitted), Maqsood Ahmad (since acquitted), and Shafqat Ali (the appellant) murdered Mst. Humaira Bibi, daughter of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), the complainant, by inflicting hatchet and toka blows which landed the right shoulder just near the neck, left side of head and on the front of neck of Mst. Humaira Bibi, the deceased, respectively. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 10 kilometers. It has been duly mentioned in the police proceedings incorporated at the bottom of Fard Bayyan (Ex. PA) that on the intimation regarding the occurrence of the incident Ehsan Ahmad S.I (CW-8)-the investigating officer reached at Kanda Stop, 13/K.B, on 05.03.2021 and upon reaching Kanda Stop, 13/K.B, Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant met him (CW-8) and Ehsan Ahmad S.I (CW-8)-the investigating officer recorded the statement (Ex. PA) of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant based on which the FIR (CW-4/A) was registered on 05.03.2021 at 08:55 a.m. The police proceedings reveal the statement of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant was recorded at Kanda Stop, 13/K.B. Ehsan Ahmad S.I (PW-8)-the investigating officer deposed during examination-in-chief that: - "On 05.03.2021, I was posted at Police Station Kalyana. On the same day, I got the information of this occurrence when I was on patrolling duty with other police officials. After receiving the information, I proceeded to the place of occurrence, when I reached near Adda Kanda Stop, complainant of this case met me there and got recorded his statement Ex-PA which was read over to him and he signed the same. I sent the Ex-PA to Police Station through Bashir Ahmad Shakir 81/C for registration of case." Ehsan Ahmad S.I. (CW-8)-the investigating officer also deposed during cross-examination that: - "I received the information at about 07/07:30 AM through telephonic call but I don't know who made call to me. I was on the way to place of occurrence when complainant met me at Kanda Stop which is at a distance of about one KM from the place of occurrence. The complainant met me at about 07:45 AM and I recorded his statement till 08:25 AM. I remained present at Kanda Stop for about 40 minutes along with complainant. I reached the place of occurrence at about 08:30 AM. First of all, I recorded the statements of Bashir Ahmad Shakir 81/C and Muhammad Asif 337/C. The crime scene unit team met me at Karmanwala Chowk when I was proceedings towards the place of occurrence. The crime scene unit team met me before the registration of case and the said team had inspected the place of occurrence before that." Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) deposed during the cross-examination that: - "13/KB village is big village. Volunteered we used to reside at Kanda stop separately near village 13/KB." Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "Police Station Kalyana is at a distance of 10/12 KMs from the place of occurrence. -------------------The police reached the place of occurrence at about 07/07:30 AM. When police came to the place of occurrence I was present there and I immediately got recorded my statement to the police." Similarly, Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) deposed that the police reached the place of occurrence at 07:30/7:45 a.m. Muhammad Asif 337/C (CW-3) deposed that they reached the place of occurrence at the time of Azan of Fajar. The incident took place on 05.03.2021 at about 04:00 a.m., and the timing of Fajar was between 5:00 a.m. and 06:15 a.m. The team of the crime scene unit also reached the place of occurrence. Thus, the place of the incident was far from the village13/K.B., so there was no undue delay in reporting the incident. Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that: - "The police did not interrogate about the occurrence from anyone." According to Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), the complainant, he met the complainant at 07:00/7:30 in the morning and wrote his statement. The time for writing the statement starts at 07:00/7:30, and after writing it, it is written at the bottom of the document as 8:50, proving that he took this time to write the statement. The delay, if any was, in registration of the FIR in question, same has been got explained by the defence itself during the cross-examination conducted upon the prosecution witnesses and is, therefore, not fatal to the case of the deceased. It is only to be proved by the prosecution beyond a preponderance of probabilities as distinguished from beyond a reasonable doubt. 9. So far as the defence plea that the incident had taken place at a barren house and on the following morning the people of the locality intimated the police about the presence of the dead body, whereupon the police recovered the dead body, is concerned, lengthy cross-examination was conducted upon Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant and Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) by the defence. The defence itself brought the fact on the record through cross-examination that Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant resides next to the house where the incident occurred. The relevant portion of the cross-examination upon Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant is as under: - "My house is situated one house next to the house of accused Mushtaq. ------------ Mazhar Shahid PW is my Phoophizad whose sister is my wife. It is incorrect that house of Mazhar Shahid PW is half kilometer from the house of accused Mushtaq. Volunteered stated that his house is third house from the house of accused Mushtaq." Similarly, Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) deposed during cross-examination that:- "My house is situated after 3/4 houses of complainant's house toward west. The intervening houses are owned by Haji Akhter, Mukhtar, Shaukat and Irshad. The house of accused Mushtaq is toward east from my house. The aforesaid neighbourers did not proceed to the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence." The defence itself proved that the place of occurrence was not a barren house, but rather the incident of the murder of Mst. Humaira Bibi took place in the house of co-accused Mushtaq Ahmad (since acquitted), who is the father of the appellant. In this regard, Ghulam Mustafa (CW-2), the draftsman, was not questioned. Rather, as per Ghulam Mustafa (CW-2), the draftsman, the house was owned by Mushtaq (co-accused since acquitted). Ghulam Mustafa (CW-2), the draftsman, deposed during cross-examination that: - "The PWs and complainant have correctly shown their presence at point No.6 and 5 at the time of my visit. The occurrence was taken place at point No.7 which is inside the room. The said place was not visible from point No.6 and 5 where the PWs and complainant were allegedly present at the time of occurrence. ------------- I have shown the houses of people who lived in the surroundings of the place of occurrence." So, the prosecution proved that the incident had not occurred at the deserted house but rather the place of occurrence shown in the scaled site plan (Exh.CW-2/A and Exh.CW-2/B), is the place wherefrom the dead body was recovered and witnesses witnessed the incident. The contention of the learned defence counsel is also untenable as Ehsan Ahmad S.I. (CW-8)-the investigating officer secured the blood with the cotton vide memo. (Ex. PC) from the room of Shafqat Ali and the house of Mushtaq Ahmad (since acquitted). 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was at Lahore on the day of the incident and did not commit the incident. However, the appellant has not produced any material evidence or witnesses to establish his plea. Rather Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant specifically deposed during examination-in-chief that on 04.03.2021, he (PW-1)-the complainant, Shaukat Ali (given up PW), Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) visited the house of Shafqat Ali accused etc.; they remained busy in talks with each other, while sitting in the courtyard of the house of Shafqat Ali accused etc; they conversed with Shafqat Ali (the appellant) to pacify and cool down the situation, thereafter, he (PW-1)-the complainant, Shaukat Ali (given up PW) and Mazhar Shahid (PW-2) left the house of Shafqat Ali (the appellant) and went to their houses; on the following morning i.e. 05.03.2021 at about 04:00 a.m of the same night, Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant, Shaukat Ali (given up PW) and Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) attracted the house of accused persons on hearing hue and cry, where they witnessed the incident. The defence has not denied these facts, even by suggesting any suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, i.e., Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), the complainant, and Mazhar (PW-2). Instead, the defence asked specific questions about the presence of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant and Mazhar (PW-2) and about the presence of the dead body, to which both witnesses replied. Their statements were consistent on this point. Tariq Mehmood (PW-1)-the complainant deposed during cross-examination that: - "The dead body was laying at the place of occurrence till arrival of the police. -------------------the dead body of my deceased daughter was laying inside the residential room when police arrived there. The police conducted all the proceedings while remaining present inside the said room. -------------------------------------- I, Shaukat Ali and Mazhar PW attracted at the house of Mushtaq accused together. I and PWs gathered at the Kacha road of the village. Our village 13/KB is comprising of ten houses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We came forward to rescue my daughter. Volunteered stated that the accused persons extended threat us on the strength of their weapons. The above said fact had got mentioned by me in my statement Ex-PA. We did not touch the dead body of my deceased daughter during the occurrence. We did not touch or carry the dead body prior to the arrival of the police. After arrival of police, the police had carried the dead body. Volunteered stated that some women helped the police in carrying the dead body. The police stayed at the place of occurrence about one hour. After one hour, the police escorted the dead body to the hospital. I reached the hospital subsequently at about 11:45 AM. In the meantime, I remained in my house for attending my children. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted at 12:30 PM." Mazhar Shaid (PW-2) also deposed during the cross-examination that: - "The police remained present at the place of occurrence about 01/1_ hour. The police did not interrogate about the occurrence from any one. When police left the place of occurrence I came back to my home. I did not proceed to hospital. The complainant went to the hospital along with the police. Shaukat PW is my relative whose house is fourth one of my house towards western side. We reached the place of occurrence one after the other however, I don't remember who reached there first and who reached the later from me. --------- Complainant is my brother in law (behnoey) and also son of my maternal uncle." Ehsan Ahmad S.I. (CW-8)-the investigating officer deposed during cross-examination that: - "The dead body was laying in the residence of one Shafqat and I have shown two rooms towards the eastern side of said house and dead body was laying in a room situated towards the eastern side of the house. The trend of cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant indicated that the occurrence occurred similarly to what the prosecution stated. The defence failed to bring to the record any material to infer that it was a case of false implication in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. This court has carefully examined the evidence of Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), the complainant, and Mazhar Shaid (PW-2), the eye-witness of the occurrence. They have given a vivid account of the entire sequence of events and fully proved the prosecution's case. The defence has not been able to make any dent in their deposition during cross-examination. Instead, the defence reaffirmed the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene and the place of occurrence. The statement of the prosecution witnesses is not materially discrepant or contradictory. The detailed cross-examination of the eye-witnesses on behalf of the accused has failed to discredit their testimony in any manner whatsoever. All the witnesses above have also categorically denied the defence version that was put to them in their cross-examination. 11. It is for the defence to prove that if an offence took place inside the house of the appellant, in which they reside, in such circumstances where the inmates of the house were present at that time and in such circumstance, it will be obligation of the appellant being husband of the deceased Humaira Bibi to explain the circumstances leading to her death. The Judge does not preside over the criminal trial merely to see that no innocent person should be punished; the judge also must ensure that a guilty person does not skip. In the instant case, the defence has failed to establish that Shafqat Ali (the appellant) or his family members reported the incident of the murder of Mst. Humaira Bibi (the deceased) to police. Soon after the incident, Shafqat Ali (the appellant) did not come forward to report the incident, nor did he claim that he received the dead body of Mst. Humaira Bibi (the deceased) and he and his family also took part in the last rites/funeral ceremonies. The burden would be comparatively lighter. Given Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, there will be a corresponding explanation of how the crime was committed. The burden to prove lies entirely upon the prosecution. There is no difficulty at all to the accused to offer any explanation especially when the defence put specific questions that whether the outer door of the house was closed from inside and whether they entered the house by scaling over the wall at the time when incident took place, established that except the inmates of the house, no other was present there. Tariq Mehmood (PW-1), the complainant, deposed during cross-examination that no person from the inmates of the house opened the gate. Voluntarily stated that they pushed the gate and entered. It is for the husband to explain how the wife received injuries or offer acceptable explanation in this regard. From the above-said circumstances, prosecution succeeded in leading evidence that the crime was committed in the home of the accused and husband could not offer any explanation that how the wife received injuries, which also goes against the defence plea. In addition, Dr. Farzana Aslam (CW-1) opined that death of deceased was a homicidal act, deceased sustained injury No.2 in which greater vessels of neck (carotid arteries and jugular veins) cut through and hyoid bone broken, trachea also cut through, which caused extreme blood loss and hypovolemic shock and hypoxic brain death, this injury was sufficient to cause death of deceased immediately. Based on evidence adduced in the case, it is not possible for this Court to hold that all the persons in the house, i.e., Maqsood Ahmad, Mushtaq Ahmad, and Shamshad Bibi, are liable for causing injuries to the deceased, however, prosecution has proved its case against Shafqat Ali-the appellant. 12. In these circumstances, the Appeal bearing No.10245 of 2022, filed by the appellant, Shafqat Ali, son of Mushtaq Ahmad, in a private complaint filed under sections 302, 34 P.P.C. P.S. Kalyana, District Pakpattan, is dismissed. 13. So far as Criminal Revision No.28168 of 2022 filed by the complainant, Tariq Mehmood, for enhancement of the sentence of respondent No.2 awarded by the trial court is concerned, for the reasons aforestated, the same is devoid of any legal force and is accordingly dismissed. 14. As far as P.S.L.A No.28166 of 2012 seeking conviction of respondents Nos.2 to 4 is concerned, for what has been discussed above in the light of prosecution evidence, medical evidence and documentary evidence, the acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 4 does not suffer from any illegality to call for interference of this Court with the impugned judgment. This court has also taken note of the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that unless it can be shown that the lower court's judgment is perverse or that it is completely illegal. No other conclusion can be drawn except the guilt of the accused or misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Even otherwise, when a court of competent jurisdiction acquits the accused, double presumption of innocence is attached to his case. The acquittal order cannot be interfered with, whereby an accused earns double presumption of innocence as held in Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Ashgar and others (2003 SCMR 477). In this case the prosecution has not been able to bring on record adequate incriminating evidence against respondents Nos.2 to 4, which connects them with the alleged crime. The learned trial Judge has advanced valid and plausible reasons for recording acquittal in favor of respondents Nos.2 to 4. The judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. Consequently, I find no merit in this P.S.L.A No.28166 of 2020, which is hereby dismissed as being without merit. JK/S-22/L Appeal dismissed.