Summary: Bail denied ---- ''Femoral artery is the major blood vessel located in thigh starting from groin and going to knee, it supplies oxygen-rich blood to the lower parts of the body and damage to it can cause lower limb ischemia leading to amputation of limb, compartment syndrome as well as death due to blood loss, hence if firearm injury has been caused at thigh, then prima facie section: 324 PPC is attracted.'' ---- (a) Criminal Law – Post-Arrest Bail – Prima Facie Evidence Against Accused---Bail—Post-arrest bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C.—Petitioner accused of attempting to commit murder (Section 324 PPC) and causing firearm injuries (Section 337-F(iii) PPC)—Allegation that accused fired two successive shots at victim’s thighs—Medical evidence corroborates firearm injuries—Weapon recovered from accused matched forensic analysis of empty shells from the crime scene—Abscondence of accused also considered an adverse factor—Held, reasonable grounds exist to connect petitioner with the alleged offense—Bail denied—Reliance placed on Muhammad Khan v. Iqbal Khan (2021 SCMR 2017).(b) Effect of Abscondence on Bail Consideration---Abscondence—Accused declared a proclaimed offender after evading law enforcement following the incident—Held, abscondence alone is not conclusive proof of guilt but is a factor that cannot be ignored in bail consideration—Peculiar facts of each case must be examined to determine the impact of abscondence—Reliance placed on Muhammad Khan v. Iqbal Khan (2021 SCMR 2017).(c) Attempt to Murder (Section 324 PPC) – Applicability of Prohibitory Clause---Attempted murder—Contention raised that injuries inflicted on victim were below the knee, making Section 324 PPC inapplicable—Held, firearm injuries to the thigh involve the femoral artery, a major blood vessel, which, if damaged, can result in amputation, compartment syndrome, or fatal blood loss—Therefore, such injuries fall within the scope of intent to kill, making Section 324 PPC prima facie applicable—Punishment under Section 324 PPC falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.—Bail denied.------- Disposition:Criminal Misc. No. 1584-B/2025 dismissed – Bail denied.Injuries inflicted on the thigh deemed sufficient to attract Section 324 PPC under prima facie assessment.Observations are tentative and shall not affect trial proceedings on merits.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302(b), 34, 109----Qatl-e-amd (Murder)----Benefit of doubt----Acquittal----The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Razia Bibi, while two co-accused were acquitted----The prosecution relied on the statements of two related eyewitnesses, but their presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and postmortem examination----Material contradictions and improvements in witnesses’ statements, absence of independent corroboration, and a failed motive weakened the prosecution’s case----Held, prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to acquittal----Reliance placed on Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1068) and Muhammad Ijaz alias Billa v. The State (2024 SCMR 1507).(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 374----Murder reference----Non-confirmation of death sentence----Delay of over three hours in lodging the FIR despite the police station being nearby created suspicion regarding the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene----Eyewitnesses’ testimony was found unreliable due to contradictions, dishonest improvements, and failure to explain key facts regarding their movements----The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the nature of injuries and the distance of fire shots----Held, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, and the death sentence was not confirmed----Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Evidence Law--------Principles of appreciation of evidence----Interested and related witnesses----Held, testimony of interested witnesses must be scrutinized with care and caution, requiring independent corroboration----Prosecution’s reliance on chance witnesses without a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene rendered their evidence suspect----The complainant failed to provide any independent evidence, and an eyewitness was deliberately withheld, further casting doubt on the prosecution’s case----Reliance placed on Abdul Khaliq v. The State (2021 SCMR 325).(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 342----Examination of accused----Right of defence----Appellant neither produced any witness in his defence nor opted to testify under oath, yet the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt----Held, burden lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere non-production of defence evidence does not weaken the appellant’s right to acquittal if the prosecution evidence is unreliable----Reliance placed on Muhammad Idrees v. The State (2021 SCMR 612).(e) Criminal Law--------Delay in FIR and postmortem----Effect on prosecution case----The unexplained delay of over three hours in lodging the FIR and nine hours in conducting the postmortem examination raised suspicion of afterthought and deliberation by the complainant party----Held, such delays indicate possible fabrication and improvement of prosecution’s case, making the testimony of prosecution witnesses unreliable----Reliance placed on Irshad Ahmed v. The State (2011 SCMR 1190).(f) Criminal Law--------Recovery of weapon of offence----Corroborative evidence----Held, recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused is only corroborative in nature and cannot serve as sole proof of guilt in the absence of reliable direct evidence----Even though the recovered pistol matched the crime empties per PFSA report, the discredited ocular account rendered the recovery ineffective to sustain conviction----Reliance placed on Noor Muhammad v. The State (2010 SCMR 97).(g) Acquittal of Co-Accused----Benefit of doubt----The complainant filed a petition against the acquittal of co-accused for abetment, but no independent evidence supported their involvement----The prosecution failed to establish motive, and the alleged abetment was found to be an afterthought introduced in a private complaint to strengthen the case----Held, the acquittal of co-accused was justified and required no interference----Reliance placed on Tajamal Hussain Shah v. The State (2022 SCMR 1567).----- Disposition:Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2022 allowed – Conviction and death sentence of Shahid alias Shahidi set aside, and he was acquitted.Murder Reference No. 234 of 2021 answered in the negative – Death sentence not confirmed.Criminal PSLA No. 846 of 2022 dismissed – No grounds for interference in the acquittal of co-accused Nazim Hussain and Ibrahim.Criminal Revision No. 847 of 2022 dismissed – No justification for enhancement of compensation amount.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Witness before whom accused makes extra judicial confession, if does not react after hearing the confession, then it raises eyebrows regarding his conduct as well as testimony and in such circumstances story of the prosecution comprising of circumstantial evidence cannot find any buyer; when there is no substantial evidence, then DNA report is of no help being corroboratory piece of evidence, because when there is nothing to be corroborated, then corroboratory piece of evidence loses its efficacy.(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 34—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 173—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-AConviction on circumstantial evidence—Benefit of doubt—Appellants convicted under S. 302(b) PPC based on circumstantial evidence including waj-takkar (last seen), extrajudicial confession, and DNA report—FIR initially registered against unknown persons—Witnesses were closely related to complainant and presented conflicting versions—Alleged extrajudicial confession not acted upon or immediately reported—Waj-takkar account found improbable and inconsistent with medical evidence and eyewitness testimony—DNA analysis conducted after inordinate delay of over 17 months, rendering results unreliable due to disintegration of blood samples—No eyewitnesses or direct evidence produced—Held, prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting accused to crime—Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt.Cited Cases:• Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230• Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345• Ibrahim and others v. The State 2009 SCMR 407• Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2017 CrLJ 1**(b) Evidence—Last seen—Extrajudicial confession—DNA—Admissibility and evidentiary value—Witnesses claiming to have seen appellants exiting house of deceased with weapons contradicted by other PWs and timeline of events—Witnesses were related and omitted crucial details from initial statements—Extrajudicial confession held to be weak type of evidence requiring corroboration, which was absent—No timely reaction or reporting by witness claiming to have heard confession—DNA evidence held inconclusive due to delay of 17 months before analysis and lack of proof that clothes or weapons were blood-stained—Held, none of the circumstantial pieces of evidence independently or collectively pointed to guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.Cited Cases:• Ibrahim and others v. The State 2009 SCMR 407• Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2017 CrLJ 1**(c) Criminal trial—Prosecution failure—Witnesses of doubtful credibility—Medical evidence inconsistent with prosecution timeline—No plausible explanation for delayed identification of accused—Held, prosecution story fabricated to falsely implicate accused due to longstanding animosity—Defence version found reasonable and consistent with record—In criminal jurisprudence, burden rests on prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt—Failure thereof mandates acquittal.

Summary: Acquittal granted ----- (a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Benefit of doubt—Failure to prove identification and arrest at scene—Conviction set aside—S. 7(i)(a), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Ss. 302(b), 449, 324, 353, 186, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 337 PPC—Ss. 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908—S. 13 Arms Ordinance, 1965—Petitioners were convicted and sentenced under multiple provisions including death and life imprisonment—Held, petitioners were not named in FIR or initial police reports, nor identified by any eyewitness including complainant or management of worship place—Star witness (Name withheld) did not appear, and other cited eyewitnesses failed to testify—Claim of arrest at scene contradicted by record—Held, serious doubts in prosecution’s version warranted benefit of doubt—Reliance placed on Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230).(b) Criminal trial—Unreliable ocular testimony—Witness not named in FIR or site plan—Declared hostile by prosecution—PW-13 Inspector (name withheld), claimed to witness arrest and recovery but was not mentioned in FIR, site plan, or police narrative—Prosecution itself sought to declare him hostile—No other witness corroborated his presence or version—Held, evidence of witness not cited in FIR or shown present at scene is not trustworthy—Reliance placed on Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490).(c) Criminal trial—Contradictory recovery evidence—Recovery of suicide vests and ammunition—Doubtful presence of recovery witnesses—PW-12 and PW-16 claimed recoveries but failed to corroborate each other’s presence or involvement—PW-16 admitted rough site plan was made on his pointation despite not witnessing occurrence—Held, inconsistencies in recovery evidence undermine prosecution case—No credible evidence on actual recovery process.(d) Criminal trial—Failure to produce medico-legal report—Injury fabrication—Adverse inference against prosecution—Investigating Officer claimed one petitioner was injured and treated at Jinnah Hospital, but no MLR was produced—Prosecution failed to call Medical Officer—Held, failure to produce best possible evidence warrants adverse inference under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984—Petitioner’s version of illegal detention and torture found plausible—Reliance placed on Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846), Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846), Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146), and Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224).(e) Expert testimony—Lack of qualification—Bomb Disposal witness not a chemical expert—No evidentiary value—Bomb Disposal Commander (PW-7) admitted lacking qualifications in chemical analysis—Held, opinion of non-qualified expert not admissible to support explosive-related charges.(f) Criminal trial—Prosecution failure—Principle of benefit of doubt—Multiple material discrepancies including lack of direct evidence, unreliable recoveries, failure to produce key medical and forensic reports, and unqualified expert testimony—Held, case replete with doubts; conviction not sustainable—Petitioners acquitted while extending benefit of doubt.Disposition: Petitions converted to appeals and allowed—Impugned convictions and sentences set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in any other case.Cited Cases:• Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345)• Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230)• Khial Muhammad v. The State (2024 SCMR 1490)• Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846)• Riaz Ahmad v. The State (2010 SCMR 846)• Abdul Qadeer v. The State (2024 SCMR 1146)• Riasat Ali v. The State (2024 SCMR 1224)

Summary: This case presents an intriguing question of whether the competent authority, which initially disagreed with the recommendation of removal from service proposed by the Inquiry Officer and imposed a lesser penalty (demotion), can later on, upon remand of the matter by the Appellate Authority and after holding de-novo inquiry, inflict a more severe punishment (of removal from service). Held: Once a particular penalty of demotion had been imposed by the Competent Authority, and the petitioner had assailed the said findings before the appellate forum, which remanded the matter for de-novo inquiry, the imposition of harsher punishment by the Competent Authority, during post remand proceedings, on the basis of same set of allegations and charges runs contrary to the principle of fairness. Had the petitioner not preferred an appeal, his punishment would have remained demotion. It is untenable and unjust to penalize an individual for exercising his legal right to prefer an appeal by subjecting him to a harsher penalty, on the same set of allegations.

Summary: Single bid sale is contrary to the concept of public auction ? context being section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The core question that requires adjudication is whether the fact that the vendor-respondent is a villager lady alone can be a ground for upending the sale transaction, when both the marginal witnesses have appeared and corroborated the stance of the purchaser?petitioner, and no connivance of the revenue officials concerned could be established? Held that in presence of overwhelming evidence supporting the validity of the transaction and in absence of any substantiated claim of fraud, the fact that the vendor is a villager lady alone cannot be made a ground for disputing the sale transaction.